FEMA Admits to UFO's

Is the second coming of christ described in the book?
No, why not? I mean you are preparing for the unknown. I think but that is my opinion for now that they are preparing for the resonable things to happen. And in their opinion arrival of ET is more probable then arrival of Christ or Mahdi etc.

reply to post by UFOexisist


Yes you make an excellent point.

The discussion of protocols for ET based events shows just how reasonable and likely they consider such ET/UFO scenarios to be compared to the many other "possible" scenarios, which don't get a mention.


[edit on 20-4-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Malcram
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.

I asked Bill Kramer about that, and this was his reply:

No FEMA influence; this was purely a personal initiative by Chuck Bahme and myself. The National Fire Academy adopted the book after it was written.

So, they thought of writing the book, they did it, then the National Fire Academy adopted the book.

If it was because of the famous Chapter 13 or despite that chapter, the fact is that they adopted it.

Now we have to find out who was responsible for the adoption of the book.

I have to look for some more e-mail addresses.

PS: have we scared the "believers" away?
From the most active posters from the "believers" side, you are the only still posting.

reply to post by ArMaP


More great work. Scared the 'believers' away? I don't think so, after all this thread, and your work, has done more to establish that this manual is rightly called "FEMAs Fire Officer's Guide...." - as FEMA instructor Peter Blaich himself called it - than any previous thread. So I imagine most 'believers' are quite pleased. I know I am. I imagine they simply saw enough to satisfy themselves of the basic truth and moved on. It's just you and I who are interested in the fine details.

But I also want to point that you seem to be taking Kramer's word on this as gospel, which I find a bit strange. You have no skepticism regarding Kramer's comments, seeing as this was obviously a sensitive issue when the media got involved? Sensitive enough - apparently - for the chapter to be changed or removed after it received media attention. You don't think that it might be possible that FEMA may since have had words with the authors and asked them to keep their name out of it by denying or minimizing FEMA's connections to it? That's a distinct possibility, you must agree, and has to be factored in when considering the credibility of Kramer's comments, surely?

I'm allowed to be skeptical about this, right?

[edit on 20-4-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


Sure, you can be as sceptic as you want, it doesn't hurt.

And no, I am not accepting what he says "as gospel", I never do, but this is the closest to a witness as I can get (at least for now), so, for those that say that we should accept the witnesses accounts, they should accept it as being closer to the truth than the word of someone that did not wrote the book.

And, as you could see by my previous post, I do not consider this a closed case (I think I have never considered a case as closed), we just have more information to use, and if we get more information we can compare it with this and see what we get.

And this was why I talked about the "believers", if they are satisfied then they should not be, unless they take the opinion of TV channels or the other guy that works with FEMA as gospel. They should keep on looking for more data to know if this was really chosen by FEMA as manual because they accepted the chapter about UFOs, and if they did then they should try to know who was responsible for that and why, to know if someone above that person in the hierarchy was also responsible (or even aware) of that chapter on the manual.

In the worst (for the "believers") case things were not directly linked to FEMA, in the best they could get a real confirmation that someone on the government at the time considered it important to have a chapter about UFOs on firemen manual.

This is another thing that I think is wrong in the way most "believers" act, when things look like what they said they were they stop investigating, and that is one of the reasons I think Ufology has not advanced more in all these years, people are more interested in proving that their point of view is right than in understanding what is happening.

Now I will try to see if I can find who and how those courses are created, who is the responsible for them, for the books used, things like that.

PS: I also talked about the believers because I am still waiting for platosallegory to answer my question of how can he prove he is not an undercover CIA agent.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Sure, you can be as sceptic as you want, it doesn't hurt.

LOL

so, for those that say that we should accept the witnesses accounts, they should accept it as being closer to the truth than the word of someone that did not wrote the book.

Hmm, not exactly. Kramer has possible motive to be deceptive, Blaich's unguarded comments, for instance, do not. That too needs to be factored in.

and this was why I talked about the "believers", if they are satisfied then they should not be, unless they take the opinion of TV channels or the other guy that works with FEMA as gospel. They should keep on looking for more data to know if this was really chosen by FEMA as manual because they accepted the chapter about UFOs

I'm not sure I agree, because that was never claimed. People are satisfied that the core claim of Blaich, ABC, Cometa, and the History channel is essentially true, that it is rightly called a "FEMA Officer's Guide" and was used by FEMA in the Training Academy as a course text. No one has claimed it was chosen specifically because of the chapter on UFO's (I note despite your claims about not taking his word as Gospel, you are fully accepting his word that a book on disaster protocols was written independently and then just happened to be 'chosen' for use by FEMA's agencies, and are arguing from that position as if it was a fact. I'm not convinced. To me, that is rather like someone 'independently' designing and building a hospital - just for the fell of it, because they used to be surgeons - and then, what do you know, it just happens to be 'chosen' to be used as a functioning hospital. LOL. Hyperbole, but you get the point. As I said, this was not their memoirs they wrote. It's a highly technical manual suitable be be a training course text).

The peripheral details we are dealing with now don't really change much, despite some perhaps wishing they would. And do you really think that FEMA would admit to this anyway, or the authors for that matter, now that the media has put the spotlight on it and the chapter has - apparently - but removed or changed (unconfirmed)? All you will get is denials. Which is why I think Kramer's words have to be weighed in that context.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by MalcramAnd do you really think that FEMA would admit to this anyway, or the authors for that matter, now that the media has put the spotlight on it and the chapter has - apparently - but removed or changed (unconfirmed)?

If they were behind any removal of the "offending" chapter then they will deny it, but, and I think I said this in a previous post, if they accepted it from the start then there should be, somewhere, some reference to that fact, that is why I think we should look for older data, from the time the manual was accepted, and not now, that the manual is not used (apparently) or was even restructured.

And yes, I tend to give more "weight" to someone that wrote the book and was directly involved in this whole case than the word of someone that we do not even know if he had any real reason to call it a FEMA manual or if he called it that because that was what all people called it at the time, true or not.

Which is why I think Kramer's words have to be weighed in that context.

See, now you are doubting the word of the witness, thinking that he may have had any reason for lying.

Do you see how easy it is to doubt other people's word?

reply to post by ArMaP


It's easy to doubt peoples word if they have very real reasons to lie. I always acknowledged that. That is exactly what we are talking about here.

That is what you need to factor in. And you still aren't, it seems. Blaich is an expert who made an unrelated comment and had no reason to lie.

What reason did the Cometa researchers have to lie?

Or the History Channel researchers?

Why were they never corrected, if they were wrong?

Kramer is a co-author whose book received prestige, promotion and dissemination (= $) from being used within FEMA, then caused unwanted media attention. You don't want to bite the hand that feeds you. If FEMA now says "Bill, keep our name out of the issue", I suspect he will, because it is in his interests to do so.

After all, "someone" apparently said "change or remove the UFO chapters", after the media got wind of it, and they apparently did, despite clearly believing that it should be in there in the first place.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Malcram
That is what you need to factor in. And you still aren't.

I am, I just haven't said so with all the letters.

Blaich is an expert who made an unrelated comment and had no reason to lie.

What reason did the Cometa researchers have to lie?

Or the History Channel researchers?

Why were they never corrected, if they were wrong?

Haven't you seen any TV program where they said incorrect things? How many times have you seen corrections to that?

I know that I have seen several of the first and not one of the second, and even here in Portugal, where we have something that is called "right to answer", when someone says something on TV about someone else, and that someone asks for his/her right to answer and the TV station has to read what he/she had to say, they are usually read at a different time and without the "fanfare" of the piece to which they are answering.

And if you read all my posts, I never said they were lying.

After all, "someone" apparently said "change or remove the UFO chapters", after the media got wind of it, and they apparently did, despite clearly believing that it should be in there in the first place.

The problem is the "apparently", that is another thing that we should find out, if the chapter was really removed from the most recent printings.

Originally posted by ArMaP

I am, I just haven't said so with all the letters.

LOL.

Haven't you seen any TV program where they said incorrect things? How many times have you seen corrections to that?

I think if FEMA had denied this there would be trace of it on the Internet. And that still doesn't explain Blaich and Cometa. Cometa should be considered pretty credible too, IMO.

The problem is the "apparently", that is another thing that we should find out, if the chapter was really removed from the most recent printings.

Agreed. It should be one of the easier details to confirm but I've had trouble with it. I am reluctant to part with the money to buy the latest copy

And can I just say, you are my favourite "skeptic" to deal with right now LOL. If only all of them were like you

(of course, you're still evil and will be exterminated when the aliens come to save all us 'believers' in 2012 and take us to their great disco ball in the sky )

[edit on 20-4-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Malcram
And can I just say, you are my favourite "skeptic" to deal with right now LOL. If only all of them were like you

Thanks.

(of course, you're still evil and will be exterminated when the aliens come to save all us 'believers' in 2012 and take us to their great disco ball in the sky

)

I will tell them that I had to look at your signature and they will forgive me.

huh

fema.
is what. federal emergency. management. agency.
ist that it?
ok so yeah, ufo is an unidentified object. that could mena any kind of plane from any coubntry like mexico , private plane etc, but they dont say a crashes plane with survovors or a plane or helicopter in trouble. they says a ufo. well a ufo is basicaly known as an alien or unknown weird type flying thing, not a "plane or a crashed plane or helicopter or an adventure baloon" so , whatever thats kind of like tehy are saying that they want the ufo preserved and the aliens to people to call in so they can get the ufo with the aliens fast and first , so whatever , its like they want it. but then again, thats like their job they may put into their book whatever they want to say in case of emergencies, so they just got creative with their book. but i dont know the governemnt doesnt get that creative with manuals and books. i think they know and tehy want it discovered fast and they want possession and control. and ownership, those a--holes.

There are people inside.
Ask Walton he saw them.
But won't say so.
Saucer crashes are covered by a special squad and others
better stand back.
I can just see all the sheets going up to hide the crash victims
being hauled out on stretchers.
Then you see a small alien go by and then the abducted human
are given just a glance to the cameras.

Year the little green guy is an actor made up for the part.
The human was the pilot.

Abducted human is the pilot.
The green aliens are the actors.

Yeah firefighters and FEMA need to be prepared to get
out of the way for the next big CIA act to go on at
UFO crash sights.