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: 6
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


"Col. Philip J. Corso's book 'Day After Roswell' delineates this clearly. He was Army, and he describes how fiercly protective the other Branches were with their 'toys'...they didn't like to share. Greedy little self-serving career-focused children, if you ask me!"

You realize Corso was a bald-faced liar, don't you? He takes credit for a lot of hard work done by real scientists.




posted on May, 13 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
How can you know he is a lier?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeautifulLife
How can you know he is a lier?


The history of night vision devices, lasers, etc., is well documented. It didn't come from some "secret" project, the developmental steps are well known and the people that did the actual work are credited with that work. Corso lied.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Only one time, and no more:

Col. Corso was not a scientist. He was military. He was tasked with disseminating certain 'hints' in dribs and drabs to the industrial complex, laboratories and scientists. He was not the only one, but we owe him gratitude for having the guts to come forward. Of course, he knew he would die soon of old age, so he was not worried about repurcussions.

IF anyone wished to call him a "liar" I would point a finger at the operatus that keeps a clamp of secrecy and misdirection on this entire subject.

J Edgar Hoover was a loose cannon. A vindictive, nasty little troll who only held onto his 'status' as director by diggng for dirt and blackmailing his way through life. I am glad they didn't let his grubby little hands on anything...kept him in the dark.

What would HE have done with the stuff anyway?? Given it to the Navy? They already had their own toys. Everybody played their cards close to the chest. Truman likely had a good grasp, but Eisenhower let the control of the thing (Majestic) slip through his fingers. Remember, Ike was military...but I think he was looked down upon as a 'civilian' once he became POTUS and wasn't trusted by the Brass. Plus, he wasn't an adept politician. Black and white, no shades of 'grey' (pun intended
)

Back to Corso, and 'back-engineering'. Simply having advanced off-world technology doesn't mean you immediately adapt it for Human use. What it does is stimulate ideas...as in, "Ah hah! It IS possible!!". Then, the humans get to work on figuring out how to do it, once they see that it can be done. So, it does NOT diminsh the skill or intellect of the Human scientists.

Look around you, today. A simple thing like a Science Fiction TV fantasy (Star Trek) has resulted in oodles of things that, in 1966 were truly 'fictional', yet, we take them for granted now.

Still, as to the point of the OP, what would that munchkin Hoover do with the debris? Nothing...he was just jealous that he wasn't in on it.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla


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.



They never shot anything down during the Battle of L.A., though they tried, and tried pretty damn hard. War nerves? Come on. One of the worst explanations I've heard to date. Makes our military commanders look like a bunch of idiots and fools.

The respondent after mentioned that it wasn't necessarily the Battle of L.A. that he was referring to here. That's correct. He wasn't referring to the Battle of L.A., but to a separate incident. I think that much is obvious.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
How does a giant alien spaceship you think is in the photo resemble a group of planes?


It doesn't obviously. The point is the "higher ups" didn't think it was just war nerves. The general in charge of the area told the President it was "probably planes", but not US Army or Navy. He had to make some explanation because something was flying around. I doubt it was a single UFO. From witness accounts, it was likely a squadron of them.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elepheagle

Originally posted by Gawdzilla


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.



They never shot anything down during the Battle of L.A., though they tried, and tried pretty damn hard. War nerves? Come on. One of the worst explanations I've heard to date. Makes our military commanders look like a bunch of idiots and fools.


I'm a military historian, I know that soldiers are only human. They were afraid of an invasion of West Coast. They overreacted. Nothing more. Remember, during Operation Husky we would shoot down a bunch of "enemy" C-47s.



The respondent after mentioned that it wasn't necessarily the Battle of L.A. that he was referring to here. That's correct. He wasn't referring to the Battle of L.A., but to a separate incident. I think that much is obvious.


You're late to the party on that one, so I'll let it go.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
National polls by media, and others suggest a majority believe. Means nothing until an objective study is done. Your data is also inadmissible and in the same category too you understand.


Also there is a positive correlation between education and the ET hypothesis for UFOs.

As a percentage, more people with advanced degrees believe in aliens, than people with only high school or lower.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SchadenAs a percentage, more people with advanced degrees believe in aliens, than people with only high school or lower.

And what percentage believe aliens are running around South Dakota, please?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
But there is no proof that UFOs are off-worldly in origin. It may look like it, and we may be made to think so...but like one poster said "Show me the money!"

Have we ever seen a full analysis of that 'enhanced' LA raid photo? If so, I'd sure like to see it.


There is ample evidence to conclude some UFOs have an alien origin.
I suggest you read Friedman's book, Flying Saucers and Science.

BTW the guy who did the Battle of LA photo analysis, is one of the preeminent UFO photographic experts, a PhD Navy physicist with a speciality in optics and lasers. It's not just some amateur screwing around in photoshop.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Thanks for that, it does indeed put the original quote in context. Interestingly they mention that a great bulkof these discs found turned out to be pranks, and not allof them found turned out to be pranks.


Yeah...the subtlety wasn't lost on me either.

Sorry for the one liner.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SchadenThere is ample evidence to conclude some UFOs have an alien origin.
I suggest you read Friedman's book, Flying Saucers and Science.

BTW the guy who did the Battle of LA photo analysis, is one of the preeminent UFO photographic experts, a PhD Navy physicist with a speciality in optics and lasers. It's not just some amateur screwing around in photoshop.


I've read enough Friedman to last me a lifetime, thank you.

Got a source on that? Hard copy is fine, St. Loser has many good libraries.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I am helping produce a book on photographic evidence methods. The book is not out yet, but will be in the coming months.

In the material are articles and quotes from various events where photographic evidence has been gained.

In reference to the Los Angeles incident, witnesses clearly could hear the distinctive "pings" and impacts from the AA on the object. Photographic evidence suggest a clear object, not a cloud or balloon. But that is not for this specific threads reference we found.

As far as Corso's book, I think it is one of the best in ufology due to the context of the author and the official venue of the story, but that being said, Corso himself, according to his daughter also, said many facts in the book where not as he had written them, citing changes not authorized. But he still stood by the general facts he knew to be true from his direct experience, that these technologies where helped or initialized from recovered alien technologies.

IBM, Hughes Aircraft, Bell Labs, and Dow Corning all received visits from Corso. Many where already doing research on the technologies as we might imagine, like night vision, microprocessing, etc. Each area of research already had a person at the top, a head researcher or scientist that when showed these artifacts from government recovered UFOs, Roswell's in specific, they where able to advance their research to breakthroughs.

So, the names of the people responsible for these post Roswell breakthroughs are not evidence that the Roswell technology is untrue. In fact, it might be prudent to talk to these scientists who might have the humility to eventually let us know they had a little help. They still did the work, so deserving of the patents and subsequent industry advantage, but the breakthroughs where due to a large part from the direct knowledge of working devices, materials and technologies.

ZG



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroGhost
 


"In reference to the Los Angeles incident, witnesses clearly could hear the distinctive "pings" and impacts from the AA on the object. Photographic evidence suggest a clear object, not a cloud or balloon. But that is not for this specific threads reference we found."



From what distance would they be hearing those "pings". Were the aliens flying "gongs"?

A "clear object"? Really? As in "you can't see it, but I know it's there, so trust me"?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

I'm a military historian, I know that soldiers are only human. They were afraid of an invasion of West Coast. They overreacted. Nothing more. Remember, during Operation Husky we would shoot down a bunch of "enemy" C-47s.




Sorry for the irrelevant 2nd half of my first response to your post. Now for the second line, where's your source on the info above? Soldiers are human, but they're are equipped with skills and mindsets that are quite different than the average non-military civilian, no? These are the folks that we're entrusting our national security to. To claim that they'd be popping guns at ghosts in the dark is not a terribly comforting thought.

The alternative would be that they were quite prepared for what they encountered. Or maybe they were all on drugs and/or hallucinating like those sorry blokes in Rendlesham, also not a very comforting thought.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
National polls by media, and others suggest a majority believe. Means nothing until an objective study is done. Your data is also inadmissible and in the same category too you understand.


Also there is a positive correlation between education and the ET hypothesis for UFOs.

As a percentage, more people with advanced degrees believe in aliens, than people with only high school or lower.


Good point. I agree, and have read those facts too. I can't produce a source at the moment, but there is good statistical data that is sufficiently objective that most people (educated or not) believe. We know this is not proof of aliens or robots from Mars, but if we take into consideration collective intuition, composite awareness and more specific analogs of the study as you suggest, it becomes fairly clear people in general do believe.

Again, hard to say these things here without direct reference as the info-vulture culture picks the bones clean. I like to have some meat and chewy factoids before I venture into the territory of those raptors.

ZG



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Elepheagle
 


You can check the Army Green Books if you wish. Or you can do all the research you wish.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by ZeroGhost
 


"In reference to the Los Angeles incident, witnesses clearly could hear the distinctive "pings" and impacts from the AA on the object. Photographic evidence suggest a clear object, not a cloud or balloon. But that is not for this specific threads reference we found."



From what distance would they be hearing those "pings". Were the aliens flying "gongs"?

A "clear object"? Really? As in "you can't see it, but I know it's there, so trust me"?


One, a woman that lived directly under the stationary object gave testimony of such. Again, it will be in the book "In Focus" due when we get it to press. Including of course the photographic forensic.

BTW, your Noonien Soong Laugh chip malfunctioned.


ZG



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
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.

that could be gawdzilla.

but if you're something of a historian in this area, can you cite another such example? i'm not referring to a single triple-A battery or two opening up, but a specific wartime example of a multiple batteries firing on a single mistaken target, for what, an hour or so, and dumping thousands of rounds on it.

also preferably with some degree of radar detection involved as well.

so we need:

multiple batteries
extended engagement period
large volume of rounds fired
at a single defined target

i'm not what i'd call a historian, but i'm not aware of any similar event in any wartime city. london, berlin, tokyo, leningrad . . . dresden, polesti, frankfurt . . . where is the similar occurrence? all of those cities had as much, if not more, reason than coastal california to be edgy.

this seems fairly unique, which would make it harder to simply dismiss.



[edit on 13-5-2009 by SecretGoldfish]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SecretGoldfish
 


We shot down a bunch of our own planes when we invaded Sicily. I've been to that beach, near Gela. Lots of "blue on blue" that day.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join