J Edgar Hoover admitted Army recovered downed UFO

Originally posted by atlasastro
As much as it pains me to support the "grumpy sceptic", you actually should read the OP's source. It is clear what J. Edgar is talking about, and as the people in Sri Lanka will tell you, its Los Angeles, the Battle of.

You don't know what you're talking about. Whoever wrote the article made the same assumption as the debunker, that the "LA case" referred to in the memo is the Battle of LA.

I suggested Los Alamos as an alternative explanation. I'm trying to question people's assumptions.

But if you want to know everything, read Dr. Maccabee's book on the UFO FBI connection, Hoover is referring to Louisiana. Amazing how "sure of themselves" debunkers can be, when they usually they don't have the first clue.

Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman
It appears J Edgar Hoover had previously admitted that the Army had recovered a downed UFO:

"We must insist upon full access to disks recovered. For instance, in the LA case the Army grabbed it and would not let us have it for cursory examination."

According to member Frank Warren and moderator Gazrok the above comment by Hoover referred to the Louisiana case which was a hoax..

Thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

FOIA doc here:

foia.fbi.gov...

Check page 4.

Originally posted by SchadenBut if you want to know everything, read Dr. Maccabee's book on the UFO FBI connection, Hoover is referring to Louisiana.

Agreed. My bad.

Amazing how "sure of themselves" debunkers can be, when they usually they don't have the first clue.

The basic issue hasn't changed, however. Note Schaden's post that the "LA" disk in question was a hoax.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Sorry, but it's just another case of wishful thinking. The Battle of L.A. has been studied and debunk many times over.

You want to mention any of this debunking in WitnessFromAfar's detailed thread about the subject?

He's neither for nor against what happened there being extraterrestrial or otherwise - he just wants to know what happened and has compiled the best information about it I've seen anywhere.

So your "Many time over" is as silly sounding to me as "Aliens are real!"*

-m0r

*In case sardonic intention is overlooked by some of our simpler members - I don't believe in aliens visiting the earth in any shape or form and don't take idiocy from others who believe as I do.

reply to post by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman
"We must insist upon full access to disks recovered. For instance, in the LA case the Army grabbed it and would not let us have it for cursory examination."


The Army didn't let them have it because they never recovered it. The Battle of Los Angeles is simply a case of war nerves.

Compare Hoover's quote, exact words with what you said, exact words. Understand that from his statement your answer cannot be derived.

reply to post by m0r1arty


The Battle of L.A. was a joke. Even Stephen Spielberg knows this.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The Battle of L.A. was a joke. Even Stephen Spielberg knows this.

With reasoning like that, who needs fools?

-m0r

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The basic issue hasn't changed, however. Note Schaden's post that the "LA" disk in question was a hoax.

The value of the memo lies in the fact that it shows the FBI, at the highest levels, was interested in collecting intelligence on discs, flying saucers, UFOs, whatever you want to call them.

Once you get into the research, you'll see it's a common theme. Govt agencies officially say it's a bunch of BS. While secretly, they are concerned and take it very seriously.

Originally posted by SchadenThe value of the memo lies in the fact that it shows the FBI, at the highest levels, was interested in collecting intelligence on discs, flying saucers, UFOs, whatever you want to call them.

If they're a possible national security issue, naturally the FBI would be interested in information. Note that the operative word is "If".

Once you get into the research, you'll see it's a common theme. Govt agencies officially say it's a bunch of BS. While secretly, they are concerned and take it very seriously.

I've been doing the research since 1964, thank you. I don't believe in "aliend vistors" BECAUSE I've done the research.

Why do all "true believers" think they're the only ones who've ever read any of this material?

Originally posted by kcfusion

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Nice regurgitation of almost 70 year old govt talking points.
Have you seen this analysis ?
brumac.8k.com...

Sorry, but it's just another case of wishful thinking. The Battle of L.A. has been studied and debunk many times over.


Oh knowledgeable one! May I request some links to where exactly this has been debunked over and over again.

It really does nothing for your arguement just stating that its been debunked!



Are you guys falling for Gawdzilla's trap again ? - I suspect this entire thread will be de-railed in no time, eventually you will forget what you were discussing as you'll be too busy arguing over completely un-related matters. The guy is good, I'll give him that :p

Well in support of this quote from Hoover I'd like to add two from the same page, the first is one of my favorites, the last shows the level of secrecy.
www.paradigmresearchgroup.org...

"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
...







"I wrote to the Department of Defense, laying out these allegations and asking them if someone could come over with the file and brief me on it. My intent was to simply release this back to whomever inquired, which is very routine in Congress.


The response I got was not routine. The response I got was a very brief letter from the Air Force saying that my request had been referred to the National Archives, without any further comment... and without any offer of any kind of assistance in retrieving it... So I went to the National Archives and the National Archives wrote a letter back to me saying they didn't have anything in their files on the Roswell incident... I just have to say this much: the way the Dept. of Defense has responded has not been routine.


Having been given a "runaround" in his search, he instigated an inquiry by the GAO (General Accounting Office) in 1994 into the handling of Air Force files relating to this matter.


I did not ask the General Accounting Office to try once and for all to resolve this matter... What I asked the GAO to do was to assist me in locating whatever Air Force and Defense Department files would have existed on the subject, or an accounting of what happened to them.


To me the issue is government accountability. I think that people who want to see government records are entitled to see government records or to get an explanation of what happened to them, regardless of their reason, regardless of the subject matter. It was my intention simply to make that information public if I could... unless there is a present security reason why not - and I have to add real fast if the matter is classified 'military secret,' we members of Congress can't just go monkeying around in there anytime we want. There are procedures for us too and that's fine with me.


I was not told that we have a file that's classified. I was simply referred to an agency which I have to believe - now that I know the prominence of the Roswell incident - I have to believe the Dept. of Defense knew very well that I wasn't going to find anything in the National Archives when they sent me there twice.


It's difficult for me to understand even if there was a legitimate security concern in 1947, that it would be a present security concern these many years later. Frankly I am baffled by the lack of responsiveness on the part of the Defense Dept. on this one issue, I simply can't explain it."

CONGRESSMAN STEVEN SCHIFF
CBS Radio
Gil Gross Show
February 1994

Originally posted by Schaden Whoever wrote the article made the same assumption as the debunker, that the "LA case" referred to in the memo is the Battle of LA. I suggested Los Alamos as an alternative explanation. I'm trying to question people's assumptions.

If you look at what is purported to be the original memo:
dubroom.blogspot.com...,

it says 'La.' That, my friends, means Louisiana.

Context really is everything, and thanks to fastwalker for pointing us to those who already cleared this quote up.

[edit on 13-5-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

reply to post by mystiq


The Schiff quote is really funny. "I asked the USAF the same question that has been asked dozens of times and they gave me the same answer. That proves there's a cover-up!"

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by mystiq

 

The Schiff quote is really funny. "I asked the USAF the same question that has been asked dozens of times and they gave me the same answer. That proves there's a cover-up!"

since you put "quotes" around yor comment, could you please point to where Schiff said "That proves there's a cover-up!"? I mean, if you are going to act like you actually did any real reaserch, at least pretend to be credible. that way people will actually listen to you insted of lable you a gomer and ignore you.


edit to add a bunch of these

[edit on 13-5-2009 by network dude]

Originally posted by network dude
since you put "quotes" around yor comment, could you please point to where Schiff said "That proves there's a cover-up!"? I mean, if you are going to act like you actually did any real reaserch, at least pretend to be credible. that way people will actually listen to you insted of lable you a gomer and ignore you.

edit to add a bunch of these

[edit on 13-5-2009 by network dude]

Should have put "paraphrased" there. It seems I have to be very, very, very explicit to avoid misunderstanding here. Not surprising.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
It seems I have to be very, very, very explicit to avoid misunderstanding here.

So where is that consistently debunked "Battle for L.A." info?

Either you are talking nonsense or you don't understand what "very, very, very explicit to avoid misunderstanding here" means.


Either or both. It's all the same to me.

I'd have more fun if you could jump fence though as you're making sceptics look bad (OMFG!! Maibee hesa disinform ajent 5 beeleavers!?!)

-m0r

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The Schiff quote is really funny. "I asked the USAF the same question that has been asked dozens of times and they gave me the same answer. That proves there's a cover-up!"

Governor Bill Richardson doesn't believe the govt has come clean on Roswell either.

Don't know why they'd think that ?

I mean the Air Force has only come up with 4-5 different official explanations. Also the GAO did an investigation, all of the outgoing message traffic from the Roswell Base during that time period is missing.

Not convinced yet ? Brigadier General Thomas J. Dubose, who at the time of the Roswell crash, was a colonel and chief of staff to General Roger Ramey, Commanding Officer of the 8th Army Air Core based out of Ft Worth, stated on the record, and on videotape, that he was ordered by Maj. Gen. Clements McMullen, Deputy Commander Strategic Air Command, to invent the balloon story to get the press off their backs.

The material from Roswell was sent to Texas, flown to DC, and finally ended up at Air Material Command.

www.ufologie.net...

Lt. Haut, who released the infamous press release "RAAF Captures Flying Saucer on Ranch in Roswell Region", posthumously released a notarized confession swearing he personally witnessed the alien ship inside a hangar at Roswell and that he'd been sworn to secrecy. Too bad he didn't talk when he was still alive, but I still have to thank him for his bravery.

www.ufologie.net...

I guess they're just lying ? It's really the only thing a debunker can say.

[edit on 13-5-2009 by Schaden]

reply to post by Schaden


The supposed "witnesses" have come up with an ever-changing story as well. They "polish" their stories as flaws are pointed out. The original report of debris reported stick, string, rubber and aluminum-foil backed with paper. Now, it's all kinds of junk, plus a few extra saucers. Sad, really sad.

since we are talking about sticks and tin foil at Roswell, how about you tell me your thoughts on the original press release? Sinice you did a bunch of reaserch, I am sure you know the one of which I speak so I won't have to link it.

Just your opinion of what the press officer was thinking.

I eagerly await you incredibly well thought out response.

Originally posted by network dude
since we are talking about sticks and tin foil at Roswell, how about you tell me your thoughts on the original press release? Sinice you did a bunch of reaserch, I am sure you know the one of which I speak so I won't have to link it.

Just your opinion of what the press officer was thinking.

I eagerly await you incredibly well thought out response.

I've held a copy of the Roswell paper for that date, so yes, I've seen it. I think it was highly premature and badly thought-out. I use it as an example of going off half-cocked. It happens when you start agreeing with something when you're excited, a common problem with human beings. In part, Roswell was responsible for the current policy of making statements only through the Public Affairs Office, the PAO. (And yes, that policy is bent and/or broken frequently. It usually brings down the wrath of TPTB when you violate protocol.)