It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1958 major keyhoe interview

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
A very interesting interview between Mike Wallace and Major keyhoe. When I found this on youtube I didn’t think it was possible to find such an old clip.

Mike Wallace seems to keep pointing out faults in major keyhoe’s ufo beliefs. Both Keep on the ball as the interview gets heated after speculated authenticity over documents.

Mike’s main point is that even though some military pilots may have seen ufo’s, they aren’t professional trained observers - which can also be applied to modern day pilot sightings.







posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
very interesting video, i really enjoyed watching.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Awesome, thanks for that. Very interesting and nostalgic. One thing worries me though. It seems as though we haven't really progressed that much in terms of really exposing what is happening, or having "disclosure". It seems stuck. Here we have an interview from 1958 which is by the media of the day and probably at that time, people thought that this was a step closer to exposure. But it seems, everything is still the same in that regard.

Seeing Mike Wallace all those years ago was weird in a way, so much time has elapsed since then he was about 40 when that interview took place, I wonder what his view is now?

Thanks again.


Just to add: one thing was chilling and eerie. When Kehoe quoted General MacArthur, talking about who the world would have to unite against in an interplanetary war, that sounded so similar to what Ronald Regan said years later to the United Nations.





[edit on 13-1-2009 by talisman]



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
thanks for that great old footage! bravo!



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Good vids, and interesting watch. If only more ufologists could be as concise and unflappable nowdays, we might actually get somewhere. Well, I guess we have Stanton Freidman.


Or like a mystic who has never seen a ghost.


An awful lot of Christians have never seen god either. It's interesting how thinking has progressed so little in so long.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Nice too see folks revisting Keyhoe and other 1st Gen. UFO/Military phenom witnesses and Guys in the know(supposedly).
I honestly trust a lot of those 40's,50's and 60's accounts from Military personnel.
If a Military Pilot isnt a trained visual observer I dont know who is.
I always thought the Movie/book Keyhoe wrote Earth vs. The Flying Saucers had some radical ideas within its story lines that today seem ever more reasonable and or possible. Coincidence?
Just something to think about anyways.
Excellent Find OP and Thanks.



posted on Jan, 12 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I wonder what Mike Wallace would say about his trusting nature towards government statements during that interview, in the light of all that has gone before in the realm of government scandal and coverup.

How times have changed, but I wonder how many believe in UFO's because they are skeptical of the government, and how many are skeptical about UFO's because of those who believe.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by PammyK
 


No problem, always looking for more stuff that could hopefully contribute to disclosure



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   
This is one of my favorite videos thanks for posting it.


I bet Mike probably sings a new song nowadays



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Awesome thanks for this I'm finishing up with Doolans UFO's in the National Security State and Keyhoe is a major player in the book so its nice to put a face and voice with the name.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   
wow i didnt no ufos were talked about back like that back then

thanks for video



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
The "skeptical" argument that Military Pilots aren't trained observers is one of the biggest loads of bullsnap I have ever heard!

Military pilots are chosen for having above average eye-sight, quick judgement and uncanny reflexes... Above all of that, they ARE trained in observation. Almost all military personnel that participate in battle are.

I put skeptical in quotations because, in reality, it is a debunking technique, not a rational objection. This argument is just another drop in the cover-up bucket.

I don't have much to add other than this. It infuriates me to hear such claims, as I am a military vet myself and I KNOW how these people are trained.

Police Officers are trained observers, also. Any time you are trained to evaluate a potential threat and act accordingly, you are being trained to observe! These types of people are better than ANYONE when it comes to these things.

What do these debunkers give as an example of "trained observer?" What is their criteria? Hogwash!



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Jay-in-AR your post was pretty close to what I was going to say
I agree that trying to claim Military Pilots aren't trained observers is laughable
As you said they have great eyesight not to mention they spend quite a bit of in training learning how to identify aircraft with those silhouette cards and other means. Pilots especially military ones spend a lot of time in the air observing things so I would imagine they are more "trained" than just about anyone else going!


[edit on 13-1-2009 by warpboost]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
What I find most interesting is the way Mike Wallace conducts the interview. Watching it, you can almost see a government official reaching into the back of the ventriloquial figure (Mike's head) and putting on a very convincing show.

It's fun to watch how in it's early days, brainwashing programs were far more transparent than today.

From Wiki:


Carl Jung argued that Keyhoe's first two books were "based on official material and studiously avoid the wild speculations, naivete or prejudice of other [UFO] publications." (Jung, xiii)

WIKI



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
God bless Keyhoe. That guy knew what he was saying, and was bold about it. He wasn't shy about what he knew was the truth. I like to hope that some in the younger generations will step forward and be able to pick up where people like Keyhoe left off. I think the UFO community is growing, so we're doing OK.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
It is a fantastic interview, thanks for posting it. It's amazing Keyhoe had the courage to pursue UFO disclosure in the face of obvious ridicule.

I wish more people knew the history of people like Keyhoe and Rupelt to understand that the UFO disclosure movement originated at the highest levels of military and intelligence, not from country bumpkins.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
On the new year's eve I played fireworks
on top of our roof with 5 members of my family
we saw the sky glowing with lights
but I see 3 lights red light appears to be a star buut red,
and it flew in a triangle slowly but steadylly untill it dissappear.

I was stun of the sight.....is that UFo I did saw,
or just a local witch doctor playing with transal projections?


Tengkorak - Depok, WEST JAVA



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   

What do these debunkers give as an example of "trained observer?" What is their criteria? Hogwash!


I suppose the example of a trained observer Mike Wallace was referring to are the scientists who know more about odd phenomena in the skies then pilots - like astronomers, it's scientists who determine what is and isn't a ufo.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Sorry, but I'm not going to wait around for some blowhard's definition of trained observer...

Scientists? Hell, you have to get them to take the subject seriously, first and foremost. These same scientists are the ones whose egos are so overinflated that they will offer up the most ridiculous explainations for observed phenomena. Example, from the same era... The UFOs over DC. Some "scientist" told us that was swamp gas.

Really?! In Washington D.C.?

I'll take the word of the countless OTHER trained observers in lieu of the Swamp Gas crowd.

In my opinion, there is nobody more suited to identify an atmospheric anomaly than a pilot. 1) They are trained to identify craft, first and foremost 2) They also have to undergo meterological training.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
Here we have an interview from 1958 which is by the media of the day and probably at that time, people thought that this was a step closer to exposure. But it seems, everything is still the same in that regard.


About the only thing that's really changed is that for the most part, people accept that there are real UFOs flying around. Back then, most people felt that it could all be accounted for as misidentification of either natural phenomena like meteors or ball lightning, ordinary or top secret aircraft, hoaxes, or crazy delusions.

If nothing else, over the past 50 years and tens of thousands of sightings by all kinds of people and the other evidence, most people now generally agree that once in a rare while something odd shows up in the sky and nobody has a clue as to what it is, where it comes from, or where it goes.

We're still not one iota closer to figuring out what these things are, that's true. But at least we generally agree that they exist. That's something, I guess.


[edit on 14-1-2009 by Nohup]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join