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.

 

Grand foul-up vs. Conspiracy cover-up

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ridhya
Personally I think aliens are something to take peoples minds off of important issues in the world and to keep distracted from real moves that bring about control... and though I hate to use the term each day I am more convinced the end is a one world government. Aliens are a convenient way to keep people busy, and what better way to make people believe, than to show proof and then deny proof.
Its like, tell someone you have something important to announce! And then refuse to tell them. They go mad and actually get angry with you because of the mystery. If you really want to piss someone off do this


I've heard this argument before and I can't entirely rule it out. What's particularly telling is that most prestigious UFO cases are military in nature.

However there are a number of other mass sightings that are entirely civilian in nature (Hudson valley, Phoenix lights, Fatima, etc). Also UFOs are reported globally not just inside the continental United States. So while I'm sure this may explain one aspect of UFO secrecy. There's still clearly something being observed that's of a highly strange and unknown nature.




posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
The Estimate of the Situation, according to Blue Book Dir. Ruppelt, stated that some UFOs very likely represent extra-terrestrial crafts.


In intelligence, if you have something to say about some vital problem you write a report that is known as an "Estimate of the Situation." A few days after the DC-3 was buzzed, the people at ATIC decided that the time had arrived to make an Estimate of the Situation. The situation was the UFO's; the estimate was that they were interplanetary!

www.ufologie.net...


I'm pretty well versed in UFOlogy and I know about Project Sign's alleged Estimate. The trouble is, Project Sign/Saucer was originally classified and this alleged Estimate was never given to the public. The only reason we've heard about it is due to an unofficial statement inside a book published by somebody who worked on the various Air Force UFO studies.

This is not an official admission and denial. If its even real, its simply more official secrecy and it plays against any idea that our governments are pretending aliens are real to screw with the public.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Frith
 


I've read Ruppelt's entire book and I believe him. I believe that President Truman had high regard for his work.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frith
I'm pretty well versed in UFOlogy and I know about Project Sign's alleged Estimate. The trouble is, Project Sign/Saucer was originally classified and this alleged Estimate was never given to the public. The only reason we've heard about it is due to an unofficial statement inside a book published by somebody who worked on the various Air Force UFO studies.

This is not an official admission and denial. If its even real, its simply more official secrecy and it plays against any idea that our governments are pretending aliens are real to screw with the public.


I'd like to think that's the case. It would be disconcerting to think people hired to investigate the subject would create a phony document for the purpose of confusing the public, especially when you consider it might have the same effect on the USAF's brass many years later if the document was rediscovered.

I'm fairly certain we can say EOTS did exist. Hynek, Ruppelt, and several others attested to its existence (I can find the sources for this if you like).

What makes me think Ridhya's scenario is plausible is that there were two versions of the Robertson Panel's Durant Report, the SECRET version and the readily available unclassified copy.

What really muddies the water is there's very clear evidence the AFOSI intentionally used counter-intelligence against US private citizens (i.e. P. Bennewitz through OSI Agent R. Doty). Knowing this, the only thing I can say with 100% clarity is there's no good ways to fake huge 1000 foot "crafts" over Phoenix sighted by hundreds of people.

So even though I know some USAF data has been intentionally poisoned, I think it's quite another to say it's all a plant (i.e. See 1000 foot aircraft over Phoenix noted above
).

It's just very difficult to distinguish truth from fantasies and lies.

It's even harder to understand the motivations behind the lies.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
It's even harder to understand the motivations behind the lies.


In the late 40s, I don't think it's hard at all. They didn't know exactly what they were dealing with and didn't want to admit it. I think the record bears that out. The debate is over what they did know and when they knew it.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
Yes, that is quite similar to my theory, but it seems he just thinks it covers up atrocities (which it does), but as you've seen with recent wars, it is FAR simpler to convince people wrong actions are right, than to convince them they're not happening at all.

Every time I hear people see a UFO it is in some place I have never been to (usually) by someone Ive never met and dont even know EXIST, so yeah I am a little skeptical. Besides, they see lights in the sky, it could just be more of a military distraction. Black triangles - put a couple stealth fighter-type thing in the sky and boom aliens. Convincing.


Originally posted by Xtraeme
disconcerting to think people hired to investigate the subject would create a phony document for the purpose of confusing the public,

But they do this all the time, and for far simpler things! Consider this: when a CIA agent is 'created', they have to create a phony persona, phony backstory, phony origins, etc etc. So they will fake birth certificates, childhood photos, some people will spend weeks memorising their fake history. It is all an elaborate deception to confuse the public, because it is a matter of national security, they need people with 'clean slates'. No different than making a fake passport so they can go overseas missions.
I and my comrades were trained by people who only use an alias or 'dont exist', so it quickly became clear to me how easy it is to fabricate history.


there's no good ways to fake huge 1000 foot "crafts" over Phoenix sighted by hundreds of people.

Of course, but if you notice the giant things are more recent affair, and well it is cited often HAARP could make a hallucination, it makes sense, also consider that the eyewitness accounts differ!! So possibly the hallucination doesnt work perfectly for everyone.


It's even harder to understand the motivations behind the lies.

Yes but if it is a one world government, it is simply power, domination...



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ridhya
reply to post by Xtraeme
Yes, that is quite similar to my theory, but it seems he just thinks it covers up atrocities (which it does), but as you've seen with recent wars, it is FAR simpler to convince people wrong actions are right, than to convince them they're not happening at all.


I wouldn't say it's "far simpler." Think about how much time and effort has been spent defending torture allegations. It's become a s**t-storm.


Every time I hear people see a UFO it is in some place I have never been to (usually) by someone Ive never met and dont even know EXIST, so yeah I am a little skeptical.


Just to clarify on your usage of UFO you're using UFO to mean alien spacecraft, right?

My willingness to suspend disbelief is tied to the degrees of removal of the people involved and the amount of physical data verifying the case. When I research R/V ground / air cases, and I find numerous corroborating accounts from different people, it's at that point I know there's something more than simple misidentification at work.


Besides, they see lights in the sky, it could just be more of a military distraction. Black triangles - put a couple stealth fighter-type thing in the sky and boom aliens. Convincing.


Not all cases are black triangles. This is one of the reasons why people who earnestly study the subject carefully screen for any-and-all characteristics describing shape, size, types of movement, speed, etc.

The '42 Battle of LA, Fatima (1917), Dennison TX (1878), Montana crash (1864), Swedenborg (1714), James Everell of Boston (1638 - 1639), St. Anthony (30 A.D.), etc. predate any sort of notion of flying triangle designs.


But they do this all the time, and for far simpler things! Consider this: when a CIA agent is 'created', they have to create a phony persona, phony backstory, phony origins, etc etc. So they will fake birth certificates, childhood photos, some people will spend weeks memorising their fake history. It is all an elaborate deception to confuse the public,


The deception is usually to mislead the target. The public is taken for a ride as an unintended bystander.


because it is a matter of national security, they need people with 'clean slates'. No different than making a fake passport so they can go overseas missions.
I and my comrades were trained by people who only use an alias or 'dont exist', so it quickly became clear to me how easy it is to fabricate history.


Humans deceive each other, and themselves, all the time. This is why it's common to screen out single-sighting events.



there's no good ways to fake huge 1000 foot "crafts" over Phoenix sighted by hundreds of people.


Of course, but if you notice the giant things are more recent affair, and well it is cited often HAARP could make a hallucination, it makes sense, also consider that the eyewitness accounts differ!! So possibly the hallucination doesnt work perfectly for everyone.


While there is some evidence to suggest the military has capabilities to create illusionary objects mid-air, it's quite another to assume some branch has been employing this sort of system continually since the 80's over populated areas.

Democracies are notoriously bad at keeping secrets, something of this magnitude would have leaked, and it hasn't.

On the other hand what has leaked is quite a bit of discussion about very bizarre craft-like objects mid-air.



It's even harder to understand the motivations behind the lies.

Yes but if it is a one world government, it is simply power, domination...


Humans make mistakes. I've worked at Microsoft and Electronic Arts with exceptionally smart people. We made mistakes all the time. There's no way something of this magnitude would slip through the cracks and I'm fairly resistant to accepting conspiracy theories unless there's some form of evidence to support the concept.

Of all the "out there things" I've investigated UFOs have the most real-world data tied to them, which suggests that some sightings represent truly extraordinary phenomena and they're simply hidden in plain sight.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
Think about how much time and effort has been spent defending torture allegations.

Ah, but you just proved me right! How much time indeed! Dont you remember? "The United States does NOT torture!" How long did that last? So they change direction and say, look, these are the evilest of evil, so its okay. Look, they want to eat your children, its okay. Its national security, its okay. Its only waterboarding, psshhh... they knew denial would only get them so far, so they tried to change your opinion of it.


Just to clarify on your usage of UFO you're using UFO to mean alien spacecraft, right?

I dont see the difference anymore, no ones goes OMG I just saw lights it was probably a 747!!!
Everyone assumes it is aliens because they want it to be, and no one gets excited if they imply it is something natural.
I know you cite history, but look how easy it is to alter history... you have read 1984 probably? It is based on Stalin. Whatever the party want you to believe, they make you. It would be easy to write an account of 15th century eyewitness, in one book, and you can list all the fake names you want who saw it, there is literally no way to confirm what they saw or they even exist! unless you have a time machine. And then who even knows if the people of the past tell you the truth
but Im just getting philosophical.

Im not assuming the government induces hallucination, I think it is ridiculous to think you 'know' something or 'assume' something, because there is no such thing as truth, only what comes through your narrow perspective and filters through your bias.


Democracies are notoriously bad at keeping secrets

And you still think you live in a democracy
it ceases to be one when companies can buy the candidates. Like Matthew Good says, Your vote doesn't count, we've already bought the candidates

I understand why aliens is such an attractive proposition, it explains everything neatly, angels, demons, fairies, trolls, dragons, nagas, gods, sasquatch, lake serpents, etc etc, I just am not ready to commit to the idea, because like you said, there is not enough real world evidence. Even if I saw an alien I would be skeptikal, what is more likely, a being travels 900 lightyears in a disc to speak words to me I dont understand, or someone trying to scare the # outta me? Thats my general take



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Most People Who Have Witnessed & Investigated The Issue Properly Know That A Lot Of "UFO" Or "Alien Activity" Is Real, Not Special Military Aircraft or a defect of the mind.

The Is Most Likely Man Made "Special" Military Aircraft To, but there are millions of people, including me that have witnessed something Unique & Not Man Made A lot OF People Have Witnessed/Experienced Non-Human Technology/Activity/intelligence.

Does There Have To Be "Official Disclosure", by our Governments For People To Believe In Certain Things? No, I don't think so.

There has been for EONS & still NOW enough evidence lying around to support some non-human Intelligence Experiences.

Just Say Only "one story" In History is 100% True, What Does That Implicate?

Cheers

[edit on 1-7-2009 by Skyline666]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ridhya

Originally posted by Xtraeme
Think about how much time and effort has been spent defending torture allegations.

Ah, but you just proved me right! How much time indeed! Dont you remember? "The United States does NOT torture!" How long did that last?


I get the impression you're not a US citizen.
The torture debate has practically gutted the Republican party. Cheney has continually appeared in the news media defending himself. It's clear he's fearful that he's going to be tried as a war criminal and, as such, he's looking to mitigate / side-step the charges.



Just to clarify on your usage of UFO you're using UFO to mean alien spacecraft, right?

I dont see the difference anymore, no ones goes OMG I just saw lights it was probably a 747!!!
Everyone assumes it is aliens because they want it to be, and no one gets excited if they imply it is something natural.


I can't speak for everyone, but the people I associate with are less gullible than what you just described.

It really chafes when people in the UFO community are dismissive of events that look like they might be an altogether new atmospheric / astronomic phenomena. New scientific leads, wherever they come from, are important to our ability as a species to understand the world around us.


I know you cite history, but look how easy it is to alter history... you have read 1984 probably? It is based on Stalin. Whatever the party want you to believe, they make you. It would be easy to write an account of 15th century eyewitness, in one book, and you can list all the fake names you want who saw it, there is literally no way to confirm what they saw or they even exist! unless you have a time machine.


The concepts presented in 1984 only work in a closed society. Note we still have the ability to order books from other countries; the internet is truly borderless & decentralized; and thankfully historians / librarians are usually available to discuss older accounts, their context, & validity.

To put forward this sort of theory is overly paranoid.


Im not assuming the government induces hallucination, I think it is ridiculous to think you 'know' something or 'assume' something, because there is no such thing as truth, only what comes through your narrow perspective and filters through your bias.


So you're a nihilist.

I'm a computer scientist. The way we learn or "know" things is through reproducing another persons results. I think you could benefit from reading this post.



Democracies are notoriously bad at keeping secrets

And you still think you live in a democracy
it ceases to be one when companies can buy the candidates. Like Matthew Good says, Your vote doesn't count, we've already bought the candidates


To be utterly precise the United States is a constitutional republic and the electoral college ultimately makes the final decision on our executive officer (i.e. see Bush vs. Gore). Thankfully the electoral college has historically followed the popular vote. It doesn't take a "true democracy" for a government to be fairly open. Even in the instances where there's voter fraud or elements that don't allow complete mob rule, that does not imply the sort of Stalinist regime you seem to imagine.

The US is exceptionally open about it's activities. Just look at the X-projects discussed through-out the last several decades or the US declassification of information related to nuclear processes. The Freedom of Information Act has helped bring about a great deal of accountability, but it's done so at the cost of secrecy.

The amount of information one can find through various reading-rooms / archives as it relates to the Iran-contra scandal, the invasion of Panama and the unseating of Noreaga is truly staggering. All of this is courtesy of the freedom of information act.

Which is "a good thing (tm)".


I understand why aliens is such an attractive proposition, it explains everything neatly, angels, demons, fairies, trolls, dragons, nagas, gods, sasquatch, lake serpents, etc etc, I just am not ready to commit to the idea, because like you said, there is not enough real world evidence. Even if I saw an alien I would be skeptikal, what is more likely, a being travels 900 lightyears in a disc to speak words to me I dont understand, or someone trying to scare the # outta me? Thats my general take


It's not my goal to convince anyone of my particular UFO position. It is however my goal to convince people that some true UFOs do represent a genuine new phenomenon, and that there's ample evidence to support this.

Later today I'll post details one of the R-V cases I investigated awhile back. It gives an objective argument, making the case for something highly strange being in the air with an RB-47. To dismiss it would be akin to a creationist dismissing evolution.

[edit on 1-7-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 

Haha, not to sound rude, but I hope the giant Flag and location gave it away

*okay # this site it just deleted my entire #ing post...

[edit on 1-7-2009 by Ridhya]



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Okay I have the patience to rewrite everything now.

I agree, I think new phenomena (is that a word?) are MORE important than aliens because they allow us to understand more about our universe!
I think you are a physicist, so I can imagine how much you value scientifically explainable new things too.

I am not paranoid, merely stating a fact. It is a fact that in order to learn history, learn anything really, we have to assume the teachers and researchers are telling the truth, and we take their research for granted.
Example, you maybe thought lemmings commit mass suicide over cliff to reduce population? I did. I saw video of it. But it turned out the film crew thought they were boring animals and chased them over so they could make more money on the film!
In medieval times people thought uprooting a Mandrake would make the plant scream and the soundwould kill anyone who hears. Why? Because of information someone started that was false. I am in no way saying all facts are this but history is full of examples.

I am not a nihilist.

I never said the US is a Stalinist regime. I just realise that when you can buy candidates, it ceases to be representative. The simple fact you have lobbyists is repulsive.

The US is not exceptionally open. They release document 10, 30, and sometimes 60 years after the fact, making them quite worthless, because that is the amount of time they deemed that people will forget about it by then or stop caring. Every country does this or similar, when national security secrets become irrelevent they are made public.

I know you are not trying to convince anyone, you are a scientist, you word with tests and evidence and math and rules to explain the universe.
I am more of the philosopher, I think qualitative analysis only matters if you can first prove the thing you are analysing is not something tangible!

No matter what you say there is literally no evidence of aliens, if there actually are things being seen in the skies, they could easily be manmade, or illusions, or who knows beings who live underground who like to get around in style, I just mean until you get some proof I think it is rather wasteful to study it. You study lizards because you can go out in the woods and watch it in its habitat, see what it eats, bring it to the lab and test it. UFOs you cant do anything other than talk to people who make claims. But I do like your more scientific approach than most people.



posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by fls13
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


I completely agree with you that cover up isn't always bad. I think with UFOs, what we have are situational cover-ups and when these individual incidents get covered up, they stay that way.


I have to say this is probably the closest thing I've read to the truth about the cover-up scenario yet.

It also nicely highlights the nuance of how people, by default, view cover-up as systemic not situational.

I've spoken with some of the biggest names in ufology and many of them seem to have barely considered the possibility that that we're seeing situational cover-ups. It's a very fine, but-important line because it suggests overwhelmingly that what we're dealing with is a grand foul-up, compounded by the occasional insider obfuscating data perhaps because of personal bias, due to lack of knowledge, for counter-intelligence, et cetera, causing the data to become so muddied as to be potentially unusable.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


AF ROSWELL STUDY CONTRIBUTOR ADMITS "IT WAS ET!"

Well, it ain't over until it's over.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bananasam
this is an excellent question OP. I really have no idea how it could be covered up, but it is simply not general knowledge of the government. The government is not organized enough to shut every single person up..the fact is they just do not know. The big question is how a small group of people could deal with such a complex matter without screwing the whole operation up. Moreover, are they the same people that are related to the Air Force's official statements(mostly lies) whenever something comes up? Are we confusing people who research UFOs and people who work on secret projects(possibly the reason for the Air Force's behavior)? They may not even be the same department.



plus if you have evidence or knowledge of something of that nature and will put it out there...you or your whole family disappears or the govt gives you records that you worked as janitor when you were actually a scientist..the govt has total control of your life and can do anything it wants to you so they control people in that fashion



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by fls13
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


AF ROSWELL STUDY CONTRIBUTOR ADMITS "IT WAS ET!"

Well, it ain't over until it's over.


One thing I never liked about Roswell is that all the information about it comes from second hand sources. While I agree it's odd that the USAF would feel the need to further debunk the Roswell incident after the first report and even more strange that they would try to account for "small alien bodies" by attributing it to 6' tall dummies.

I'm still left asking where are the first hand accounts?

It makes me sympathetic to the idea that the military is intentionally doing a mediocre job not fully debunking Roswell because it lends credence to the idea that we possess amazing technology that our foes can't possibly rival. While at the same time providing plausible deniability, so as to not waste the time of our own scientists / engineers / etc.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by primetime2123
plus if you have evidence or knowledge of something of that nature and will put it out there...you or your whole family disappears or the govt gives you records that you worked as janitor when you were actually a scientist..the govt has total control of your life and can do anything it wants to you so they control people in that fashion


Many people made the claim that the government sanitized Bob Lazar's background to discredit him. However it's very difficult to imagine counter-intelligence agents removing pictures from all year books and getting MIT professors to agree that they didn't remember Lazar as a student, et cetera. If this had been attempted it would create even more of a trail and have a snowball affect. The additional lies and evidential tampering would eventually be the undoing of the cover-up.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
I'm copying over my reply to Hastobemoretolife from the "NASA Astrobiologists Debunk Aliens and UFOs In One Paragraph = Unscientific" thread because it's highly relevant to this discussion ...

 



Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


The fact is that we are not being told the truth about anything.


While there are certainly examples of manipulation of data to say we're not being told the truth about anything is a stretch.

Sure it can be said we're not being told "the truth" because "the truth" of what people are experiencing, with regards to UFOs, is largely unknown.


Look at the economy, Berneke, all the evidence of back room deals, the suppression of information, that has nothing to do with national security, but is just embarrassing. Unemployment numbers. The government is manipulating things right in front of our faces.


Sure we're not being told "the truth" about the economy because the people trying to plug the holes and evaluate the damage are still largely clueless about the severity of the situation. They simply have no idea whether or not the proposed fixes will suture the wound.

Imagine if Obama were to stand in front of the Washington Press Corp and say, "We don't know if we can fix the economy, the whole system may be broken, but we're doing our best to patch it up to get it off life-support." It would be utterly irresponsible and cause mass panic.

Is it a true statement? Very likely, yes. However since Obama's in a role of great responsibility it's his job as the President to not be divisive and reduce emotional responses from the public.


The proof of the foul-up or conspiracy cover up, is the same thing in my mind. Because if it was covered up properly then we wouldn't know nothing from nothing. The reason to believe it was a cover-up is because the fouled up to begin with. Whether it was intentional or not.


I think there may be a semantic difference in our concept of "foul-up." It sounds like you're interpreting "foul-up" to mean "screwed-up cover-up."

Whereas when I say "foul-up" I mean the subject of UFOs is not given proper attention, time, funds, analysis because people are simply misinformed, disbelieving due to dogma, confused by ambiguous terminology (i.e. UFO has far too many definitions) and / or unaware of the quality of the better cases.

Even the anecdotal accounts are astounding. I challenge any diehard skeptibunker to sit down with some of the more sincere people who have reported seeing something highly bizarre. It's very common for these people who report UFOs to have good jobs / backgrounds that demonstrate integrity and reliability. What's more so many of these people seem genuinely confused by their observation and often want closure on what it is they witnessed. I've found because of this many are willing to consider alternate explanations so long as it fits the facts of the observation.

But that's besides the point. It's useful to distinguish "unintentional foul-up" from "screwed-up cover-up foul-up."

Though your point about "screwed-up cover-up" indicating not only "foul up" but also "conspiracy cover-up" is an interesting point. Awhile back someone said to me,


The incompetence of government is our only real chance at safety. These people are the reason I don't believe the government has covered up UFO's or [conducted] a massive 9/11 conspiracy. They aren't competent. They can't find their own ass using both hands, much less scratch it without getting caught. The fixed ratio of stupidity to malice being constant means the damage these people can do will be short term. (Short term being years though.) Much the same way the malice/stupidity ratio lead to the Nazi's being responsible for the very mistakes that lead to their defeat.


I countered saying,


"So let me get this straight, you state as a fact that the US government is incompetent and that because of this incompetence they can't maintain a conspiracy worth dirt. If this is your theory what's to make you say that Roswell incident wasn't a royal US screw-up?"


I then went on to enumerate a number of cases where there appear to be questionable foul-ups. What's interesting is this information can be used as evidence in favor of "conspiracy cover-up" and the fact that the "cover-up" was "fouled up". Somewhat paradoxically it can also be used as evidence that it's all an "unintentional foul-up."

For instance lets consider the Roswell case. If the Roswell case was a "screwed-up cover-up foul-up" then many people would have expected that once the lid was blown by Moore / Berlitz / Friedman it would have resulted in disclosure of the alien space-ship. However this never happened despite investigations by the Office of the President and many other committees.

This is what lends credence to the idea that it's an "unintentional foul-up" or a "screwed-up cover-up foul-up" of something other than alien visitation. In the case of Roswell I think it's fairly explicit that it was a counter-intelligence project to provide cover for Mogul balloons.

The same pattern of argumentation can be used for other "screwed-up cover-up foul-ups."

So I think it's fair to say we're seeing many "unintentional foul-ups" and perhaps an occasional "screwed-up cover-up foul-up." Unfortunately using logic we can't infer specifically what is being covered-up. Rather we can only infer a set of things that might be covered-up.


We are not being told the truth, to think other wise is completely dismissing all the empirical evidence that is plaster in front of our faces everyday.

Now I'm not saying that the conspiracy theories are correct or wrong, because we simply don't know. For all we know they could be botching cover-up's to distract people from something else they are doing.

One thing we do know, we are not being told the truth about a lot of things.


Absolutely there are examples where the American public has been outright lied to by military intelligence. This is why submitting FOIA requests, visiting reading rooms, and the archives is useful to the study of UFOs. It helps dispel myths and puts more of the puzzle pieces in the right place.

However it's imminently possible there is no cover-up of "true UFOs" (unknown phenomena) or of "alien spacecrafts" but rather a cover-up of clandestine operations where the military branches of the government are using UFOs as a cover for TS flights and our illegal incursions in to friendly & enemy airspace.

Personally I doubt the government is covering up alien spacecrafts, at least not in the traditional sense. More likely the groups originally studying the subject had preconceived notions about what the objects weren't and it clouded their judgment. Resulting in conclusions more based on authority than on observation and reason (ie/ the Condon Report, Hynek's take on Quintanilla, Gen. Vanderberg's take on 'The Estimate of the Situation').

There's a lot of data supporting this argument.

[edit on 24-7-2009 by Xtraeme]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join