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.

 

Nick Pope on Fox News

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Nick Pope was just interviewed via satellite from London by Fox News Bill Hemmer and Megan Kelley. They were both incredulous to Pope stating Royal AF planes had engaged UFOs in dogfights. Kelley repeated but he is a govt official, Hemmer told Pope they're just helium balloons. Pope told him yeah some are, but the military only cares about the 5% that are something specials and he also mentioned the F-4's weapons computer being shut down by the UFO in Iran.

And now when I type this Hemmer brought it up again after the segment was already over with. He just blurted out, "But what if they're friendly ? Why shoot them down ? "And it finally occurred to him, why shooting down UFOs might not be a good policy.




posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Schaden
 



Hemmer told Pope they're just helium balloons.


I'm sure he did, typical media programmed response


Thankfully Nick Pope is quite a conservative in the UFO arena. He never mentions anything that may seem absurd or cause eyes to roll.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Schaden
 


Nick Pope is a knowledgable chap-here he is on the BBC

As for Fox news,theres a good presentation here about media manipulation,bias and suppression when dealing with the UFO subject:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Yeah he handled them well. Although I probably would have been defensive when Hemmer asked Pope if he was "one of those believers". Pope told him on balance he though he leaned towards us not being alone.

The sad thing is how uninformed both interviewers were. They really had no idea what Mr. Pope was talking about, when he asserted that the UK and indeed all countries have chased UFOs because of territorial concerns and how it's a matter of natl security.They were really caught off guard. And Pope said UFOs have an image problem.

Pope wasn't selling a book or anything. I have no idea why they even had him on. I was just laying in bed half asleep when I heard them say coming up is a former ministry of defense official who claims the British govt chases UFOs.
And then after break they interviewed him for 2-3 minutes. But 5 minutes after the interview was over, Hemmer brought it up again. Maybe Pope got into their heads. Even the overseers are learning they've been deceived.


[edit on 27-1-2009 by Schaden]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden
"But what if they're friendly ? Why shoot them down ? "


Maybe that is precisely the reason why they are trying to shoot them down?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I wonder how long it took from the point of the Governments saying "What are these UFO things" to "If they arnt the Russian or the Chinese they must be aliens from outer space" then to "lets shoot them down to see if they are hostile".



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Yeah,Mr Pope is our very own (Uk)Phil Schnieder without all the fantasy.

Just another step closer to the truth,I guess.


Lewtra



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden
Nick Pope was just interviewed via satellite from London by Fox News Bill Hemmer and Megan Kelley. They were both incredulous to Pope stating Royal AF planes had engaged UFOs in dogfights. Kelley repeated but he is a govt official, Hemmer told Pope they're just helium balloons. Pope told him yeah some are, but the military only cares about the 5% that are something specials and he also mentioned the F-4's weapons computer being shut down by the UFO in Iran.


Due to my job, I have access to almost every news-broadcast in the United States. I found the segment in question, and found that you have mischaracterized it a bit.

Here is a rough transcript of Hemmer's questions and comments:

Hemmer: In the meantime, from overseas today, Britain's Ministry of Defense is today refusing to comment on a report that their pilots spent years trying to shoot down UFOs. It alledgedly happened a number of times dating back to the 1980s. Nick Pope is our guest; he made this information public. He is also the head of the Ministry of Defense's UFO project. So we think if anybody knows, we think it's you, Nick. So welcome to our program from the Thames River in London. Now, you say they've been trying to do this for 30 years; how do we know that?

Hemmer: (in response to Pope listing off a series of incidents between jet-fighters and UFOs) Now I find this fascinating. Let's go through it a step at a time. You are quoted as saying, "We want to shoot down a UFO, that will resolve the issue once and for all." To your knowledge have they ever been successful?

Hemmer: You have said the Royal Air Force would only engage when they percieved a threat. How do you define a percieved threat? Is that the pilot's call?

Hemmer: (In response to Pope saying there have been "virtual dog-fights between UFOs and military jets). You're kidding me. Dog fights.

Hemmer: But Nick, pardon the interruption, but if there was a dogfight over England, we'd know about it by now, right?

Hemmer: (In response to Pope discussing the MoD releasing it's UFO archives). And when will that happen?

Hemmer: Okay, specifically the orange and yellows spheres. We've had that back in our own country. What they have concluded in some of these cases, is that neighbors are filling up helium balloons, putting a flare on the bottom, and letting it go up in the air. It looks like it is floating in a certain pattern or in a certain area. But it's not a UFO, just someone pulling a prank.

Hemmer: Nick, are you a believer?

Hemmer: Alright. Looking forward to more disclassification. Won't that be interesting. And a headline soon. Nick Pope, thank you for your time.

Kelley: Incredible.

Hemmer: Yeah.

Kelly: He's a former government official? The head of the Ministry of Defense UFO project. Who know they even had one?

Hemmer: He's the guy.

Yes, both Kelley and Hemmer did sound incredulous about the "virtual dog-fight," and I do think that Pope was being a bit sensationalistic in characterizing some of these incidents as "dog-fights."


Originally posted by Schaden
And now when I type this Hemmer brought it up again after the segment was already over with. He just blurted out, "But what if they're friendly ? Why shoot them down ? "And it finally occurred to him, why shooting down UFOs might not be a good policy.


This part you have grossly mischaracterized and twisted. Hemmer did not blurt out anything; he was talking about a viewer email. Again, a rough transcript...

Hemmer: By the way, a viewer says, "What if they are friendly?"

Kelley: The UFOs?

Hemmer: The UFOs.

Kelley: Apparently they are not, if there was a dogfight.

Hemmer: "Why fire on them if they are friendly?" they say. Point taken.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
As for Fox news,theres a good presentation here about media manipulation,bias and suppression when dealing with the UFO subject...



Originally posted by Majorion
I'm sure he did, typical media programmed response


I find this a bit humorous. Where one side sees "preparation for disclosure" in every single mention of the words "aliens" or "UFOs," the other sees "media cover-up" and "typical media response."



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Yes, both Kelley and Hemmer did sound incredulous about the "virtual dog-fight," and I do think that Pope was being a bit sensationalistic in characterizing some of these incidents as "dog-fights."


Sensationalistic are you kidding ? What about the 1976 Tehran UFO incident. The big UFO deployed a smaller UFO which chased the fighters. If that's not a dog fight, I don't know what is.


Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Schaden
And now when I type this Hemmer brought it up again after the segment was already over with. He just blurted out, "But what if they're friendly ? Why shoot them down ? "And it finally occurred to him, why shooting down UFOs might not be a good policy.


This part you have grossly mischaracterized and twisted. Hemmer did not blurt out anything; he was talking about a viewer email. Again, a rough transcript...


I did my best to describe the TV interview from memory, a minute after I'd woken up. I think I did an okay job. I didn't realize Hemmer was responding to a letter. But his expression was the same. Thanks for your partial transcript but I think I characterized the tone of the interview accurately. Can you host the whole thing on youtube or something ?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden
Sensationalistic are you kidding ? What about the 1976 Tehran UFO incident. The big UFO deployed a smaller UFO which chased the fighters. If that's not a dog fight, I don't know what is.


While as described it would be accurate to characterize the '76 Tehran Incident as air-to-air combat, the term "dog fight" invokes certain images, one that reminds people of WWII footage or something like Top Gun.

As for posting it on YouTube, I'm sorry I won't be able to do that.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Front page of FOX News web site:

www.foxnews.com...

www.foxnews.com...

Kudos to Nick Pope for talking straight about UFOs.


[edit on 27-1-2009 by ufo reality]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearPaul

Originally posted by Schaden
"But what if they're friendly ? Why shoot them down ? "


Maybe that is precisely the reason why they are trying to shoot them down?


Theres some interesting quotes here about the subject:


"We have stacks of reports about flying saucers. We take them seriously when you consider we have lost many men and planes trying to intercept them."
GENERAL BENJAMIN CHIDLAW
Air Defense Command


"At this time the reports of incidents convince us that there is something going on that must have immediate attention. Sightings of unexplained objects at high altitudes and traveling at high speeds in the vicinity of major U.S. defense installations are of such nature that they are not attributable to natural phenomena or known types of vehicles."
H. MARSHALL CHADWELL
Assistant Director of Scientific Intelligence, CIA
December 2, 1952


"No agency in this country or Russia is able to duplicate at this time the speeds and accelerations which radars and observers indicate these flying objects are able to achieve... there are objects coming into our atmosphere at very high speeds."
ADMIRAL DELMER S. FAHMEY
Former Head U.S. Navy Guided-Missile Program
New York Times, Page 31, January 17, 1957


"UFO sightings are now so common, the military doesn't have time to worry about them. . .when a UFO appears, they simply ignore it. . .Unconventional targets are ignored because apparently we are only interested in Russian targets, possibly enemy targets. Something that hovers in the air, then shoots off at 5,000 miles per hour, doesn't interest us, because it can't be the enemy. UFOs are picked up by ground and air radar, and they have been photographed by gun camera all along. There are so many UFOs in the sky that the Air Force has had to employ special radar networks to screen them out."
LEE KATCHEN
NASA atmospheric physicist
June 7, 1968



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Good info. The one maybe alluding to a wave of pilot crashes in the late 1940s/early 1950s.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
I find this a bit humorous. Where one side sees "preparation for disclosure" in every single mention of the words "aliens" or "UFOs," the other sees "media cover-up" and "typical media response."


And I find your avatar to be sickly humorous, the point being?

I don't see media covering up anything; as you suggested Mr. "go save yourself first". What I suggested was; journalist ignorance originating from the elitist hierarchy. Twisting my words again are you? .. another act of discrediting the opinionated?



Due to my job, I have access to almost every news-broadcast in the United States. I found the segment in question, and found that you have mischaracterized it a bit.


I know you're not talking to me here(with this particular quote) but; You have not simply slightly mischaracterized the segment as an innocent poster did earlier, with his observations being VALID. You only posted the media's quotes(Hemmer and Kelley), a clear sign of bias.




the term "dog fight" invokes certain images

And as a researched poster suggested earlier, the term is quite appropriate for some UFO cases of like Tehran 76.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majorion
And I find your avatar to be sickly humorous, the point being?


There is no need for personal attacks.


Originally posted by Majorion
I don't see media covering up anything; as you suggested Mr. "go save yourself first"...Twisting my words again are you? .. another act of discrediting the opinionated?


Speaking of twisting words, I didn't say you did. In fact, I posted quotes from two people; funny how you left that out. It is very clear who said what and I did not try to pin those words on you. I was contrasting two groups of believers; one who sees disclosure in every broadcast and one that sees either a cover-up or typical media mockery.


Originally posted by Majorion
You only posted the media's quotes(Hemmer and Kelley), a clear sign of bias.


How is that showing bias? I felt the post mischaracterized the anchor's questions and comments, so I posted them in full for everyone to see. The issue was not what Nick Pope said, nor did I believe his comments were mischaracterized, so I did not feel it necessary to post what he said.


Originally posted by Majorion
And as a researched poster suggested earlier, the term is quite appropriate for some UFO cases of like Tehran 76.


As I said before, the term "dog-fight" invokes certain images, like that of WWII air combat. So yes, the use of the term is sensationalistic. But you will notice, since you ignored it (in a lame effort to twist my words) that I said the term air-to-air combat would be appropriate, and less sensationalistic.


[edit on 28-1-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Here's Nick on Fox News from January 27th:




posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Nick Pope is not UK Government. He used to work for the Ministry Of Defence as part of a division that collated all reported UFO sightings by the public and Military. He was a Senior Officer and recorded first hand accounts of incidents. He left the job when his secondment expired in 1994. He makes no claims to being privy to all information and data.

He's not given to hyperbole or extraordinary claims. If he says that UK airforces fired on UFOs, it's probably factual.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden
Sensationalistic are you kidding ? What about the 1976 Tehran UFO incident. The big UFO deployed a smaller UFO which chased the fighters. If that's not a dog fight, I don't know what is.



Originally posted by Majorion
And as a researched poster suggested earlier, the term is quite appropriate for some UFO cases of like Tehran 76.


But is it appropriate for what Pope was talking about?

Pope: No...yes! Under some circumstances, it has to be, if the pilot believes that they're being fired on. We've had some cases in England where there have been virtual dog-fights between UFOs and military jets.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
There is no need for personal attacks.


Maybe you should've thought of that before delivering pot shots yourself.



Speaking of twisting words, I didn't say you did. In fact, I posted quotes from two people; funny how you left that out.


And I was one of those people, correct?



It is very clear who said what and I did not try to pin those words on you.


You didn't try to pin those words on me? really? .. should I quote you?



I find this a bit humorous. Where one side sees "preparation for disclosure" in every single mention of the words "aliens" or "UFOs," the other sees "media cover-up" and "typical media response."


The part in bold; was evidently your reference to me. Don't I have the right to respond to this atypical classification of "either you're a believer or a skeptic"? and the subsequent judgment you made about me?

The "other" is me, correct? .. you said the other sees "media cover-up", right?

Funny how the one thing you left out in your last post; was the part where I actually responded to this judgement, and I'll quote that part from myself again;

"journalist ignorance originating from the elitist hierarchy."



I was contrasting two groups of believers; one who sees disclosure in every broadcast and one that sees either a cover-up or typical media mockery.


And that's you referencing me again in the same light, even though I had just responded to this allegation.




The issue was not what Nick Pope said, so I did not feel it necessary to post what he said.


For the purpose of staying on-topic, I think you need to be reminded what issue this thread is about. This thread is called "Nick Pope on Fox News", how is that NOT the issue?



As I said before, the term "dog-fight" invokes certain images, like that of WWII air combat. So yes, the use of the term is sensationalistic.


WWII you say? .. Ever heard of foo fighters? .. No, you're wrong, the term dog fights is arguably NOT sensationalistic. But since you're so insistent on using another term, fine.. "air to air combat" it is.



But you will notice, since you ignored it (in a lame effort to twist my words) that I said the term air-to-air combat would be appropriate, and less sensationalistic.


So in essence, you acknowledge the reality of what Nick Pope was talking about, yet you still insist on providing rhetorical input rather than discussing the issue at hand. What kind of "believer" are you (in contrast to me and karl12)?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join