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.

 

FEMA Admits to UFO's

page: 9
47
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Thank god for Damod,this is one of the rarer moments on ATS,you expressed a completely humanitarian perspective when you said you would treat a survivor "like a human being".

Under pressure and faced with the immediate need to render assistance I believe that the majority of humanity would want to do the same,the only question is wether or not they could overcome their brainwashing and express free will beyond the current status quo.

I also would protect the survivors if I felt they would be harmed by something or someone.




posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Malcram
 


Yeah, I saw that. I thought there was supposed to be one, giant, slow moving UFO. Seems he is contributing yet another conflicting eyewitness report of the Battle of Los Angeles. They also got the date wrong, BTW.


From what I remember, the 'Battle of LA' was one large slow moving UFO, looking like a submarine, and over a dozen small balls of light, protecting it (by the looks of it), you can still find pictures around the net if you look, they're black and white, but you can clearly see three or four 'white balls' in the sky (although these could be shrapnel explosions, can't deny that.)


Whether or not FEMA approved the book (not sure Paranormal Net is an authority) is not really germane to this being an "admission" of the existence of aliens. As I said, there is a lot more to the book than this single chapter. Why throw out the bathwater with the baby?


I think the point getting missed, is that:

1/ Yes, this was not written or published by FEMA, but it was approved to be disseminated to firestations across the US, by FEMA. *That is where FEMA is involved, question answered.
2/ One of the two guys who wrote it actually witnessed the 'Battle of LA'. He was a fire man and I'm pretty sure that he may have been not only confused and awed, but scared aswell. He (and his Firefighters) were the ones who where supposed to know what to do in the event of a 'crisis' like this, I'm guessing he didn't have a clue, ergo..this book (A while later, lol, when did they first try and get this included?)
3/ The minute this started getting noticed, it was immediately removed from future publications.
4/ It may not be an admission that aliens exist, but it is most definietely an admission that they accept that it could be a possibility.
5/ There is alot more in that book, but the only new chapter which was included in the 'new' (back then) publication was the one in question, as well as some revisions I'm guessing.

Also, if this is a 'Just in Case' scenario, I'd like to see chapters in there about Magnetic reversals, Solar flares, Asteroids, Planet X, Earths core stopping, Sun dying out... as these are all just as likely and should obviously have a contingency plan, just in case.

EMM

Sorry if any of this has been raised.

Edit to add:




No.
The point I was trying to make that in a high stress situation, at night, under blackout conditions and the threat of Japanese attack eyewitness reports are not reliable. As demonstrated by the various and often conflicting reports from that incident.


I can accept that eye witness testimonials are sketchy at best, but what exactly would be conclusive proof? Or at least moderate evidence?

Hundreds of people saw this event, maybe thousands and true, some are conflicting reports, but the concensus is that something happened in the skys that night. There are pictures around the web from Newspapers showing the largest UFO (Looked like a submarine), the others are harder to see.
We have an eye witness account from a fire fighter, which inspired him to right this chapter.

What more do you want?! honestly, I'm beginning to think you won't accept it until one parks on your lawn and makes you breakfast in bed.

There's being skeptical and there's out right disbelief, its getting ridiculous.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by oliuk
 


Are you bothering to look at the evidence presented? Are you saying that Cometa, the History Channel, ABC news and independent articles written about the fireservice's disaster protocols (not in any way related to the UFO debate), linked in my posts above, are all "fraudulent" in directly linking FEMA to this manual and calling it "The FEMA manual"?

And just to be perfectly clear - the credentials of the man who wrote the article linked above and who explicitly calls the manual in question:

"FEMA's "Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control",

Are as follows:

"Peter W. Blaich, a fourth generation firefighter with the FDNY, is assigned to Ladder 123 in Crown Heights Brooklyn. He is accredited by the United States Department of Defense as a Fire Protection Specialist as well as a Community Emergency Response Team Instructor for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). He is an American Heart Association Instructor Trainer, and an Emergency Medical Technician. He has a Bachelor's Degree in Fire Administration from the State University of New York and is a Graduate Student in Fire Protection Management at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Blaich received the World Trade Center Survivor Medal in 2001."

In short, he knows whereof he speaks. Do you?


[edit on 15-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


People try to debate the silliest things.

They desperately want to say it wasn't from FEMA because it talks about U.F.O.'s.

If this manuel didn't have a chapter on U.F.O.'s it would be called a well respected guide. But some have to try to belittle and minimize the evidence when they can't debate it.

Even ABC News did a segment on this.

A recent ABC newscast focuses on how a widely-used firefighters’ manual from the Federal Emergency Management Agency has an entire chapter devoted to UFO preparedness.

theparanormaldimension.wordpress.com...

I saw a video on you tube as well.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I have talked to Chiefs, battalion chiefs, and an instructor at our academy and no one has ever been able to verify this is any where near legit and sanctioned my FEMA or the Fire training board.

Not one of my multitude of firefighters friends no one. Not one.

So go ask a Firefighter, I am a firefighter with Indecent command 700 training and have never seen it in the real world outside of TV and the Internet. I have the authority to deem any scene a disaster and can close any road in my county and the only one that can override it is the Governor of Michigan.

You have two fanatics driving this thread because it is like a religion to them and they just cant let it go. To these two people that wont let it go why don't you order it from Amazon and see for yourself. Or send Peter W. Blaich an email and ask him what the deal is.

I cannot find any official endorsements of this guideline. I cannot even find this particular guideline in the station or the fore academy.

Why is that when state and federal law states we have to have all current SOP's and guidelines?

This is a strawman thread.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Of course it's from FEMA even ABC news looked into it and saw it was from FEMA.

The new York Fire Department used it in 2004.

I think it's silly of people who are trying to oppose this because U.F.O.'s are mentioned. Without the U.F.O. part this book would be praised by the same people.

This shows they can't accept the fact that people can look at the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion about UFO's and who may be behind them.

They look desperate because they can't accept this simple thing.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by LoneGunMan
 


What on earth are you talking about?

You have acknowledged the manual as "FEMA guidelines".

You have said you had to study it.

You have seen that a highly experienced member of the Fire Service with FEMA connections calls it "FEMA's "Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control", as do Cometa and the History channel.

So what on earth is your point?

The evidence is staring your in the face!

Are you now claiming you and fellow firefighters have never heard of the "Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control"?

Your only valid claim seems to be that the UFO chapter was there but has since been removed. Fine. lets see some proof. It doesn't change anything regarding what was said above.


[edit on 15-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Look at the contents of the book.

• Disaster planning
• Historical lessons
• Organizational structure & incident command
• Resource management & augmentation
• Training & preparation
• Communications & information management
• Catastrophic fires
• Civil disorders & riots
• Weather-related natural disasters
• Terrain-based natural disasters
• Transportation disasters
• Hazardous materials incidents
• Enemy attack & UFO potential
• Mass casualties and mass evacuation
• Aftermath and recovery
• Glossary
• Appendices

This shows how desperate they are. If this guide didn't contain a chapter on UFO's it would be easily accepted.

They see the word UFO and lose their grip on reality.

UFO's are an OBSERVED FACT. That's UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS.

In our vast universe where we don't even know what constitutes 96% of the universe or we could be a parallel universe or a hologram, we can't exclude what these UFO's may be.

These things are comining from Professors from M.I.T. to Oxford.

The book actually explains these things very well.

With no intention of trying to prove or disprove the authenticity of the numerous UFO encounters often related by very credible witnesses including airline and military pilots, astronauts, police officers, fire fighters, members of Congress, and even a U.S. President, the balance of this chapter will present a brief history and nature of UFOs and their alleged occupants; their widespread sightings over the globe since ancient times; their appearance, propulsion origin, and possible motives for continuing reconnaissance.

www.stevequayle.com...

It's just common sense.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Seany
 


If you included me on the sceptics that allegedly "turned tail and ran", I was just sleeping (I am in Portugal, as you can see on my mini-profile at the left) and after it I had to go to work (I read the posts that were made while I was sleeping in my lunch break, and I had still two pages to read, that I read just before making this post).

In fact, I am posting this from work, just before I go back home for the day, because I would like to say some things.

- I was (and still am) expecting to see (but I am not only expecting, I have been looking for it also) a FEMA link to this manual from FEMA itself, not just what other people say. The fact that many people call it "the FEMA Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control" it does not mean that it is an official FEMA manual (if those things exist).

-I would consider it a FEMA manual if:
a) - it was written by FEMA
b) - FEMA had asked to someone to write it
c) - FEMA officially endorsed it

- The status of the writers (retired or not) is irrelevant for this to be an official FEMA manual or not.

- The writers' credentials are irrelevant for this to be an official FEMA manual or not.

- If this is an official (in any way) FEMA manual, and they wanted it to be known, why was that chapter removed? If it's not a FEMA manual, why was the chapter removed?

PS: my "name" is ArMaP, not Artmap.


PPS: Malcram, could you please remove the underlining on your signature, it looks strange, making your posts look "dense". Thanks.

PPPS: I will never run away from a thread.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Well if you don't want to accept that it's from FEMA after all the evidence that has been presented then that's your problem.

Nobody can make you accept something if you look at the evidence, then reject it and still ask for more evidence.

I'm sure this wouldn't occur if it didn't have a chapter in it about UFO's.

My point is, you keep asking for evidence when evidence has been presented over and over again.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
do they say anything about FEMA in the video...if so i must have missed it...



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
What kind of company would Fema be if something ET related happened and Fema was completely unprepared? They just completely refused to knowledge the possibility. What kind of hell would people give them?



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
Well if you don't want to accept that it's from FEMA after all the evidence that has been presented then that's your problem.
The only things I have see presented as evidence were links to pages where other people or organisations used the same name, "FEMA's Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control", and considering FEMA exists and publishes manuals, I think that we can have more than just evidence that the book is from FEMA, we can have confirmation.


Nobody can make you accept something if you look at the evidence, then reject it and still ask for more evidence.
I ask for more evidence because I have not seen any official reference to the book as being from FEMA.

If 20 people tell me that you are blue with green hair I would ask for some confirmation, but as you are present in this thread I would expect a confirmation from you, not from the same people that told me you were blue with green hair.


I'm sure this wouldn't occur if it didn't have a chapter in it about UFO's.
You are wrong, this would happen (and has happened) in any circumstance in which I see something (in this case the book) presented as something else (the book being from FEMA) without any evidence on that on the something itself (it does not say it in the book that it is from FEMA or endorsed by FEMA).


My point is, you keep asking for evidence when evidence has been presented over and over again.
My point is that the evidence that has been presented is just one piece of evidence, that other people (neither the authors or FEMA) call it "FEMA's Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control", and as FEMA exists it should be possible to find the book in a list of FEMA books or FEMA endorsed or approved publications.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
A UFO could be a commercial airliner or a piece of paper in the wind. It is not identified. Now if FEMA had guidelines for an alien spacecraft, that would be news.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Just to back all this up; When a good friend of mine became a CHP about 20 years ago, he
told me that there was a section in their manual that has instructions etc. on the very subject
of an Alien (from space) invasion.

They know.... It wouldn't be in there otherwise.


MS



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthman4
A UFO could be a commercial airliner or a piece of paper in the wind. It is not identified. Now if FEMA had guidelines for an alien spacecraft, that would be news.



Like this? : "In addition, if the apparent visits by alien beings and their space vehicles should pose any type of threat, it will, as always, be the fire service that is called upon to provide the first line of life-saving defense and disaster mitigation."





posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

The fact that many people call it "the FEMA Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control" it does not mean that it is an official FEMA manual (if those things exist).


When you have highly qualified writers who are senior members of the Fire Service and who also actually work directly for FEMA calling the manual in question "FEMAs Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control", then you can be consider that pretty good evidence. Why would you doubt it? Especially as you also have the researchers of the Cometa report and of the History channel and of ABC news all coming to exactly he same conclusion and all calling it exactly the same thing?


-I would consider it a FEMA manual if....


With all due respect, seeing as far more qualified and knowledgeable people - with regard to this specific issue - definitely consider it a "FEMA manual", then it doesn't really matter what criteria you claim would satisfy you, if any. The evidence is there. There is no real reason for you to dispute it.


- If this is an official (in any way) FEMA manual, and they wanted it to be known, why was that chapter removed? If it's not a FEMA manual, why was the chapter removed?


I already answered these questions earlier in this thread. It would be in there because it was a real scenario firefighters might have to face, according to the author. If it was removed (I haven't seen evidence of this, as yet, I'm still looking) it was likely because it garnered too much media attention.


PPS: Malcram, could you please remove the underlining on your signature, it looks strange, making your posts look "dense". Thanks.


I like it as it is, I'm afraid. It's eye catching. It caught your eye anyway



[edit on 15-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


What do you mean just one piece of evidence?

You or anyone else has not presented any evidence. You have not done anything but ask questions.

Anyone can ask questions ad infinitum if you remove reason and logic.

You or nobody else on this thread has presented evidence that says anything different.

People don't have to bend over backwards to try to find more evidence so that you and others can keep asking for evidence.

ABC news did a segment on the book and there wouldn't be a segment if FEMA would have said the book is not connected to us and it's just 2 firefighters.

People have presented evidence and you and others have presented nothing.

You think if you ask questions that's being skeptical.

It's not being skeptical if you exclude reason and logic.

People have presented evidence in this thread and now it's time for you and others to present counter evidence.

If you don't accept the evidence that's presented then again, that's your problem.

Give me some evidence that it's not from F.E.M.A.

I don't want your speculation, I want links and videos.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightchild

Originally posted by earthman4
A UFO could be a commercial airliner or a piece of paper in the wind. It is not identified. Now if FEMA had guidelines for an alien spacecraft, that would be news.



Like this? : "In addition, if the apparent visits by alien beings and their space vehicles should pose any type of threat, it will, as always, be the fire service that is called upon to provide the first line of life-saving defense and disaster mitigation."




So somebody had a great imagination. I am amazed they published it. I wonder if they have plans for ghost attacks or the staypuff marshmellow man attack? This thread should have been titled " FEMA is prepared for aliens".

[edit on 15-4-2009 by earthman4]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by earthman4
 


Hang on, you just said that if they had devised protocols for dealing with ETs and UFOs then "that would be news". Then when presented with evidence that this is exactly what they have done, suddenly it's not "news", you're not interested, and you just resort to mockery? Check my signature.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Malcram]




top topics



 
47
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join