FEMA Admits to UFO's

reply to post by Kandinsky


Thanks, Kandinsky, you explained it better than all my previous attempts.

Sometimes I have some troubles trying to make my thoughts (in Portuguese) fit the words (in English) that I write, and sometimes I can not even remember the words (it took some 10 seconds to remember that the word I wanted on the first sentence was attempt, for example).

reply to post by Malcram


Exactly,

It seems that some people are just get desperate when they see the word UFO.

If you say it's not connected to FEMA because of the publisher it's just speculation.

It's been on ABC News, History Channel and a guy that works for FEMA called it the FEMA guide.

I would just like a skeptic to provide some evidence for once. All you get from them is their speculation and then they want to act as if their speculation equates to evidence.

Again, this story has been around for years and on the History Channel and ABC News. Please provide evidence that says that it's not from FEMA. It should be easy to find this because this story has been around for years.

I repeat:

A Skeptics opinion or speculation does not equate to evidence.

On one side you have ABC News, History Channel, A guy from FEMA, The guide listing FEMA offices in the Appendix and more.

On the other side:

You have nothing but speculation.

Will the skeptics please bring some evidence to the table.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by platosallegory]

Originally posted by platosallegory
My point is, there's no reason or logic being used here because no evidence has been presented that it's not from FEMA.

My point is that if someone says that you are an undercover CIA agent that does not make you an undercover CIA agent.

If someone else ears it and tells another person that you are an undercover CIA agent it does not become more true just because more people have said it.

If that last person happens to work with the CIA, organising congresses, for example (I do not know if CIA has congresses, but I hope you understand what I mean), and that person writes on ATS that you are an undercover agent that does not make it the truth.

The fact that there is not evidence that you are not an undercover CIA agent does not mean that you are an undercover CIA agent.

If that was the case, I would doubt that you were really an undercover CIA agent because the source of the information was not close enough to you or to CIA (I do not consider someone that works for CIA organising congresses as a good source for knowledge about undercover agents).

PS: Are you an undercover CIA agent? How can you prove you are not an undercover CIA agent? With papers and videos.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by platosallegory
My point is, there's no reason or logic being used here because no evidence has been presented that it's not from FEMA.

My point is that if someone says that you are an undercover CIA agent that does not make you an undercover CIA agent.

If someone else ears it and tells another person that you are an undercover CIA agent it does not become more true just because more people have said it.

If that last person happens to work with the CIA, organising congresses, for example (I do not know if CIA has congresses, but I hope you understand what I mean), and that person writes on ATS that you are an undercover agent that does not make it the truth.

The fact that there is not evidence that you are not an undercover CIA agent does not mean that you are an undercover CIA agent.

If that was the case, I would doubt that you were really an undercover CIA agent because the source of the information was not close enough to you or to CIA (I do not consider someone that works for CIA organising congresses as a good source for knowledge about undercover agents).

PS: Are you an undercover CIA agent? How can you prove you are not an undercover CIA agent? With papers and videos.

If this is your idea of skepticism it makes ZERO sense because you exclude reason and logic.

We are not talking about CIA agents, were talking about wether a guide is connected with FEMA or not.

All it takes is a little thing called reason.

If it has been on ABC news, the history channel and a guy from FEMA called it the FEMA guide and there's NOTHING that says it's not from FEMA all you have to do is use reason and logic.

Like I said the story has been around for years so there's nothing top secret about it. If it's not from FEMA you and others should be able to find a simple press release or statement that says this.

Your speculation and opinion doesn't equate to evidence. It's meaningless against actual evidence.

What you and others fail to do is ask where is the evidence that it's not connected to FEMA. You keep giving us your opinion and speculation but ZERO EVIDENCE.

Originally posted by platosallegory
If this is your idea of skepticism it makes ZERO sense because you exclude reason and logic.

No, I don't exclude them, but they may not be the same that you use, my reason and my logic may work in a different way from yours, because we are not clones and each one of us has his own way of thinking

We are not talking about CIA agents, were talking about wether a guide is connected with FEMA or not.

Why are my analogies always misunderstood? Do I write so bad English that it is that much incomprehensible?

If it has been on ABC news

Not related to FEMA

, the history channel

Not related to FEMA

and a guy from FEMA called it the FEMA guide

That guy is from FEMA (or he works with FEMA, I did not look at that relation too deeply), but I don't think he has the capability of saying that the book was endorsed by FEMA or not, that is why I wanted information closer to the source.

and there's NOTHING that says it's not from FEMA all you have to do is use reason and logic.

OK, explain how can we proof that something is not something else.

As I tried to say on my previous post, how can you prove that you are not an undercover agent for the CIA? With papers and videos?

You keep giving us your opinion and speculation but ZERO EVIDENCE.

My opinion is the only thing I can give while I do not have more real data.

To me, this discussion ends with my next post.

reply to post by ArMaP


Armap, then your just not using basic common sense.

I'm not an astronomer so I don't have to follow every astronomical observation from my balcony. At some point I have to use my reason and logic that the astronomer saw what they said they saw.

The FEMA guide didn't come out yesterday. It's been around for awhile. You and others have not provided any evidence that says it's not from FEMA.

You just keep giving us your speculation and opinions without any evidence.

The fact that it was on ABC and the History channel is evidence vs your speculation.

The fact that a guy that works for FEMA called it the FEMA guide is evidence vs. your speculation.

Armap, your opinion is meaningless in this matter unless you provide evidence that backs your assertion.

This is why I keep asking you and others to present evidence. This is not a new story. You should be able to find something besides your opinion and speculation that says this is not connected to FEMA.

That's all I'm asking for. Just a little reason, logic and common sense. If you have some evidence lets see it.

reply to post by platosallegory


Please answer this question, can you prove that you are not an undercover CIA agent? With papers and videos, preferably?



Now, I said that I was looking for information closer to the source, and I really was, and I found the e-mail address of one of the authors, Bill Kramer, so I asked him what did he had to say about this.

This was his answer, with personal data deleted.

Hello XXXXX and thanks for your inquiry. I am a co-author of the Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control. The only connection to FEMA is indirect. The U.S.National Fire Academy is a part of FEMA and the book was a required text in the National Fire Academy's "Degrees at a Distance Program," taught through seven colleges and universities throughout the USA.
The book was required reading for the course "Disaster and Fire Defense Planning." A successor book is due for publication by Pennwell this year called "Disaster Planning and Control" and this will be the new required text. Sincere regards, Bill Kramer

This is why I said that, to me, the discussion ends here.

Now I have confirmation from one of the people involved that the book was a required text on a course from the National Fire Academy, that is part of FEMA.

With this information my conclusion is that it may have been really endorsed by FEMA, but it was undoubtedly endorsed by the National Fire Academy.

So, even if I do not have a real confirmation that FEMA endorsed the book, I think it's as close as that as it is possible, so I now consider it as endorsed.

If it was endorsed because of Chapter 13 or despite Chapter 13 is a different story.

Setting the stage aren't they?

I remember during my years in the Marine Corps that the guidebook came out once with a picture of a sentry looking at a UFO on the page that had the 9th General Order listed.

"To call the corporal of the guard in any case not covered by instructions."

Sounds like the bilderburgers are getting ready to jump.

reply to post by akalepos


Are you saying , the Marines had a official stance on UFO's?

Or was that just joking around ?

9 letters to go

reply to post by ArMaP


Nice work. I was trying to reach Peter Blaich, who called it "FEMAs Officer's Guide..." as it appears from his resume that he actually is an instructor in the FEMA Academy training programs. But the email address I had is no longer functioning. I have contacted Disaster Response.com, where some of his articles are posted, and hopefully they will get back to me with some more info.

reply to post by Malcram


It looks like I have luck with the e-mail addresses I find, it's the third out of four times that I find an e-mail address, write them and get an answer.

Maybe it's my Portuguese luck.

reply to post by ArMaP


LOL Could be.

I was thinking that I could try to find out who is responsible for determining the syllabus of the Fire Academy courses for which this manual was a required course text. Meaning, does FEMA, which oversees the USFA, determine the syllabus and the course texts, or is this done completely independently of FEMA (which I actually doubt very much).

I'd also be interested to know if this text is used for other courses beyond those for the USFA.

Further, I really doubt that anyone would sit down and write a huge manual like this without knowing exactly what it would be used for beforehand. It's not like writing ones memoirs. What I mean is, the authors must have known that the book was to be used by FEMA and the USFA. They must have been asked to write it as an "official" text IMO. More digging to do.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Malcram]

I think there will be aliens, however the aliens will just be genetically engineered from human stock (in Area 51 and similar facilities) - they will probably be taught from birth that they are 'aliens', and actually think that they are.

Just a nice way to introduce a global shock that will hopefully combine all the world under NWO.

Oh - I forgot - they'll nuke the crap out of everyone first to soften people up to the idea that the aliens really are attacking.

Don't be so naive... This book has been around since the 50's I believe. This is old news...

Trying to drum it up like this was a new addition to protocol is ridiculous...

Every possibility is taken into account for the sake of "what if"...

I'm sure there's a protocol for a Rampaging Monster Control and Response measure also somewhere...

Sigh...

reply to post by Brainiac


That's a false accusation. No one is trying to make out this is new, in fact, if you had read all of the posts, you would have seen that we have repeatedly stated that this was "old news", in the context that, had the manual not been FEMA approved (which it has been established categorically, it was), then FEMA long ago would have responded to media attention and the direct statements that it was a "FEMA manual" by denying this - which they never have, because they did approve it.

Also, it's pure speculation on your part that they have protocols for "monsters" etc. Perhaps they do. However, they have no such protocols in the manual in question, but they do have protocols for dealing with crashed UFOs and injured Aliens, etc.


[edit on 17-4-2009 by Malcram]

This is an interesting development in the gradual education and disclosure to the mains stream of the reality of UFOs and EBEs.

Originally posted by Seany
reply to post by akalepos

 

Are you saying , the Marines had a official stance on UFO's?

Or was that just joking around ?

9 letters to go

No. Not above board.
But that sketch was in a guidebook in the 80's. I just thought it was weird when it showed up like that.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


What chapter has the proper protocol for the recovery of Santa Claus if or when he crashes?
How would you even begin to know how to handle the wreckage of a UFO, if in fact they did not exsist?
The only way you would know, is if there was previous contact and you learned from your mistakes.

reply to post by Republican08


Firstly UFO exist everywhere... any flying object that can't be indentified as a known object is called UFO.

So the manual might be referring to that and not to extraterrestrial UFOs

reply to post by vigusa


No that's absolutely not the case. You need to view the video at the beginning of the thread and do some more research on the contents of the manual. The book has pictures of various ET races, such as "greys' and "nordics' and it describes assisting injured ET occupants etc. It's very specific that it is talking about craft and non-human occupants from planets other than earth.


[edit on 20-4-2009 by Malcram]