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.

 

J Edgar Hoover admitted Army recovered downed UFO

page: 3
37
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
all you need is logic, If aliens don't exist then why are there documents hidden by the government, that doesn't make sense, why hide something that is apparently non-existant, so the government has secret documents about the tooth fairy and santa clause then?

to sum it up you don't hide something that isn't real unless you're lieing

[edit on 13-5-2009 by steven barnes]




posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by steven barnes
all you need is logic, If aliens don't exist then why are there documents hidden by the government, that doesn't make sense, why hide something that is apparently non-existant, so the government has secret documents about the tooth fairy and santa clause then?

to sum it up you don't hide something that isn't real unless you're lieing

[edit on 13-5-2009 by steven barnes]


First off, government people LOVE to classify things. The Great Downgrading was ordered because people were classifying the number of meals they'd served in a month.

Second, you're proving your premise by your conclusion. Is "aliens" the only reason something would be classified? Obviously not.

And, finally, there's the old magician trick: Get them to look HERE while you do something THERE. I find it very amusing that some people have built their life around a cover story designed to throw spooks off the scent.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


if the first thing that was reported was a flying disk of unknown origin, then the next day a complete fabrication and direct reversal of eye witness accounts, don't you have to wonder about the validity of day two? Or is it the job of every sceptic to ignore any data that does not fall within the realm of basic understanding? The first response is usally the true one. Like when someone accidntly puts their foot in their mouth. they spoke what they were really thinking and later decided it was not pollitically correct. If your goal is to continue life with the blinders and a big cup of Kool Aid, by all means drink and be merry, but I actually read the reaserch I did, and came to the conclusion that there might be a few descrpencies to the official story. Drink up sport. Drink up.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
of course i am aware that it can easily be to divert peoples attention to classify the idea of aliens but generally think about it, if the government claim it doesnt exist and go through alot of effort to deny it and always have denied it then whats the point in having secured infomation about it thats basically admitting that they exist by hiding something they are completely denying.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


if the first thing that was reported was a flying disk of unknown origin, then the next day a complete fabrication and direct reversal of eye witness accounts, don't you have to wonder about the validity of day two?

The press release was hastily produced, probably so the people involved could say, "I found it" and get bragging rights. The wreckage supported no "disk", just trash in a field.


Or is it the job of every sceptic to ignore any data that does not fall within the realm of basic understanding? The first response is usally the true one. Like when someone accidntly puts their foot in their mouth. they spoke what they were really thinking and later decided it was not pollitically correct. If your goal is to continue life with the blinders and a big cup of Kool Aid, by all means drink and be merry, but I actually read the reaserch I did, and came to the conclusion that there might be a few descrpencies to the official story. Drink up sport. Drink up.



"First reports are always wrong." Just because you want to believe it doesn't make it true.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
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.

What's really sad is that when a Brig. General who was there and personally took the call from General McMullen ordering the cover story speaks out, he is ignored because his testimony is highly inconvenient to say the least.


Gen. Dubose was the highest ranking Air Force officer with direct knowledge of the Roswell case who went on record about the weather balloon cover-up plus other important details about what was really happening in Gen. Roger Ramey's inner circle. He was Gen. Ramey's Chief of Staff in July 1947 and had a great deal to say about what happened in recorded interviews and in his affidavit.


roswellproof.homestead.com...


[edit on 13/5/09 by Fastwalker81]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Fastwalker81
 


As I said, the story keeps changing as flaws are pointed out. "Tell the truth, there's less to remember."



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fastwalker81
What's really sad is that when a Brig. General who was there and personally took the call from General McMullen ordering the cover story speaks out and is ignored because his testimony is highly inconvenient to say the least.


I brought that up on the last page. Predictably, he chose to cast aspertions on the witnesses. His debunking is some of the poorest I've witnessed.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SchadenI brought that up on the last page. Predictably, he chose to cast aspertions on the witnesses. His debunking is some of the poorest I've witnessed.


Defensive, aren't we? The "witnesses" are few and far between, their stories don't match, and in one case, completely fabricating their stories. (The "nurse" that never was.)



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla



"First reports are always wrong." Just because you want to believe it doesn't make it true.



I sure am glad you said that. Now I don't have to worry about reading anything you say as most of it would be "first reports"


To make sweeping statements like that will make you look quite foolish if you are not carefull. You spilled some kool aid on your shirt.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Gawdzooky,

I'm not sure if you've got me on ignore or are just conveniently ignoring my asking so could someone quote me please to bring this up in either case.

You stated that the "Battle for L.A." case had been thoroughly debunked and as yet have provided no proof for it, despite my repeated attempts to better ascertain how and when they were debunked.

Could you enlighten us all with this knowledge or are you going to remain cryptically silent on issues which don't fit with your model of the universe?

-m0r



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
i think bickering about what happened at certain events has gone on far to long, surely we must acknowledge that other life exists and really believe it instead of argueing about cases of fact or fiction that just diverts away from the fact that these things are occuring. Look up into the sky and see millions of rocks just like the one we're one, abundant with life surely from a logical view you'd look up and knowing that these arent just lights in the sky, you'd think surely there is life there i think a child would come to that conclusion. Its like looking into a field and looking at one blade of grass and saying yeah theres one but theres definatly not any other blades oh no definatly not just that one, yeah all these other things that look like blades but there not nah just 1 blade of grass, thats a nice box of beer but theres only 1 one of them no more at all.

instead of fighting over if something happened to PROOVE that this is occuring is just wasting your time because nobody on television or government is gonna come out and say it until there is definatly a reason and thats the another thing why do we all need these people to give the green light before people believe even if you do believe there is still something there holding you back from just totally believing because you want to see it, well if you just have full belief then it will come its the yin and yang, look how well full denial works.

we can see that there is a massive ammount of space to think there is nothing in it is just not our way of thinking at all and not logic, why would be aware of what we are if all's the universe was, is us and we live, work and die - we wouldnt need to be concious if that is our purpose infact we'd work alot better if we werent aware and our purpose was to just live and die and not really do anything else.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The "witnesses" are few and far between, their stories don't match, and in one case, completely fabricating their stories. (The "nurse" that never was.)


Few and far between ? It happened 70+ years ago. It was highly classified.

The one whose story doesn't match is the counter intelligence officer Sheridan Cavitt. But I'm sure a learned debunker such as yourself is already aware of the discrepancies in his recollection of events ?

The "nurse story" is suspect but irrelevant to the validity of the Roswell UFO. It comes from the mortician, Glenn Dennis, who reported what the "nurse" told him second hand. In other words, heresay.

The witnesses I've mentioned are of an entirely higher caliber - Active duty Army officers, stationed at Roswell and its chain of command. They testified about their direct hands on involvement in the coverup.


EDIT: We're still waiting for that debunking of the Battle of LA.


[edit on 13-5-2009 by Schaden]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Schaden
 


"Highly classified"? It was IGNORED for decades. Because it was just a gaff that embarrassed the people involved. This sow's ear won't being turning into a silk purse.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The Army didn't let them have it because they never recovered it.


The FBI director's note clearly says otherwise. Also don't assume LA refers to the Battle of LA. It could be referring to Los Alamos.


It states his ASSUMPTION of the situation. Note the difference.

Nice quibble on the "LA", btw. People in Sri Lanka will tell you that "LA" means "Los Angeles". [/free clue]



Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The Battle of Los Angeles is simply a case of war nerves.


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.


since we are having a dialogue about this, I have to ask, are you going to let us in on the massive "debunking effort" of the battle of L.A.? Or did you not really mean to say that either?

The way you are going about this discussion is much like taking a knife to a gun fight. You certainly didn't bring any bullets. To just say it is not true won't quite cut it here. You kind of have to let your ass cash the checks your mouth writes.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


"since we are having a dialogue about this, I have to ask, are you going to let us in on the massive "debunking effort" of the battle of L.A.? Or did you not really mean to say that either?"

I pointed out the objections to the UFO scenario in another thread. Additional evidence was presented there. You should check it out, if you can find it. If you can't, it goes in the "I care" file.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Since this is an entirely different thread altogether, maybe you could do us the courtesy of pointing us in the right direction?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
It goes in the "I care" file.


Cool, thanks for getting that Network Dude.

Sadly I can't deny ignorance completely, but I can put this dumb trolling, and rather inarticulate, Gawdzilla into ignore.

I'm glad that's sorted out.

Now, let's get the rest sorted out.

-m0r



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Schaden
 


on the BOLA, the photographer never claimed to have captured an object in the picture he was there and saw nothing. But 40 years later after everyone is dead some guy starts manipulating the photo claining theres a solid object there? I'll go with the primamry witness testimony.

In fact most poeple saw nothing in the sky that night. Other witnesses report seeing 15 planes in a v shape formation. A police station reported a downed aircraft in the area when the army got there they found nothing. The commander of the artillary thought he saw a group of planes but then realised it was just smoke. We have a few witnesses who reported a ballon or blimp.

sounds like war nerves and the power of suggestion at work to me.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Yea, I figured out the meaning of life and how to make millions on the internet. I wrote about it once........

Oh, you mean just saying you did isn't enough?

From the move Jerry McGuire, "show me the money Jerry!"

Now hows about you either show us where the paticular event was debunked and there will be no further discussion of this, or you might have to walk away with the old tail between the leggs.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join