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.

 

Disclosure and Air France 447: A Shot Across The Bow?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by skibtz
 

Oh come on.....
It would dam near start world war 3 if it was found out to be true.
It's so utterly improbable that it's really not possible to support a discussion about it.
Anyway, that is my not so humble opinion, for what it is worth.






posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Incite a riot, commit a blatant act of terrorism (AF 447 wouldn't count; it is still a mystery. I am talking about something very public, very high profile, that leaves no doubt), shut down their power grid. And so forth...


So 447 would not count as it is still a mystery?

The question here is would it really matter whether the mystery was removed and it was declared an accident or an act of terrorism?

The fact is that public perception would not be a factor in this scenario as it would be a communication between two governments.

Government A just let government B know it is not messing about.

In this hypothetical scenario of course...



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I think if the U.S. Gov. told the French Gov. not to disclose info, they would probably listen,
I mean heck, they let the Nazis walk all over them.


then the allies freed them.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Sam60
 




Thanks for sharing your opinion


In fact the point you raised about an incident like this starting WW3 is an excellent one. I am not sure that it means that any discussion is unwarranted though.

In fact, what it does do in this hypothetical scenario is ask the question:

Is preventing disclosure more important than starting WW3?

[edit on 7/6/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by skibtz
 

Now there's a potentially interesting topic for a thread....
"If disclosure led to WW3, should we have disclosure?"
.......or something like that.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Seriously, I think if most of us are forced to read more "disclosure" thread we'll puke. You guys are whipping yourselves up to some sort of frenzy over nothing.
[edit on 7-6-2009 by IgnoreTheFacts]


You should read the COMETA Report . . . released in 1999.


In 1999 an important document was published in France entitled, UFOs and Defense: What must we be prepared for? ("Les Ovni Et La Defense: A quoi doit-on se préparer?"). This ninety-page report is the result of an in-depth study of UFOs, covering many aspects of the subject, especially questions of national defense. The study was carried out over several years by an independent group of former "auditors" at the Institute of Advanced Studies for National Defense, or IHEDN, and by qualified experts from various fields. Before its public release, it has been sent to French President Jacques Chirac and to Prime Minister Lionel Jospin. The report is prefaced by General Bernard Norlain of the Air Force, former Director of IHEDN, and it begins with a preamble by André Lebeau, former President of the National Center for Space Studies (Centre National D’études Spatiales), or CNES, the French equivalent of NASA. The group itself, collective author of the report, is an association of experts, many of whom are or have been auditors of IHEDN, and it is presided over by General Denis Letty of the Air Force, former auditor (FA) of IHEDN.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by finishr1
 




Im not too hot on politics but I do not get the impression that the US and French governments are totally aligned.

Different approaches to public health systems, different attitudes to a person's right to protest and a different approach to military involvement in world issues are just a few ways the two governments differ. IMO.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sam60
reply to post by skibtz
 

Now there's a potentially interesting topic for a thread....
"If disclosure led to WW3, should we have disclosure?"
.......or something like that.




Good call


Will search to see if there are any up and running already.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by skibtz
 


Yeah Skibtz, start a fresh one if there is an old one. That is a discussion I think would be neat. I know I sure have some thoughts on it, and bet others do as well.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
 


Done a search and couldn't find any recent topics so I have started one here.

It would be great to get your thoughts on it



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
My theory is: The us navy is mobilized due to iran and korean invented problems. the us navy has been retrofitted with lasercannons and railcannons. The lasercannon has very long range target lock feature.
Iran uses airbus planes. I think maybe the navy shot it down with laserfire or microwave burst. the US-NAVY was maybe testing automatic proximity defense with auto-fire, along comes flight-a447 the navy or the attackcomputer doesnt detect transponder-signal or hail-response and open fire shooting down the rouge airbus.


[edit on 8-6-2009 by Torben]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
It makes no logical sense.

In international politics, when country A does not want country B to perform a certain action it is because that will hurt the interests of country A. In the scenario you present, the United States does not want France to disclose an alien presence on Earth. The United States tries to intimidate France by way of downing AF 447. But would this be intimidation or provocation? What better way for France to get back at the United States (ie; hurt the US) but by doing exactly what the United States did not want to happen?

See how the logic breaks down?


I think its called Plausible deniability.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz
The question I am posing is whether it is plausible that a US government would down a French asset in order to silence a French government that was teetering on the brink of disclosure?


I doubt it simply for the reason that debris is being hauled out of the sea.

If the jet had been shot down or blown up then I expect that explosives residue would be found. If the plane was shot down by a missle then there is a risk that the tell tale signs of a weapons strike would become evident and that would open a whole new can or worms that any perpertrators would rather was kept out of the public domain.

When I think of threats being made over something so huge, I think such threats would be much more subtle than blowing an airliner out of the sky.

An interesting theory though and one that did cross my mind for a few minuets.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I think if the US were not wanting France to disclose anything related to UFO's they would come up with a bigger distraction then taking down a plane. I mean really, all the things going on with N Korea and the middle east, they could certainly come up with something.

Then again, I think the whole thing stinks. I do not believe a storm took the plane down and discounted terrorism by the end of the next day when no one tried to take credit for it, not even some group of nutjobs that would have liked to take responsibility for it. This is one we'll never know the truth about and when they do find out what happened, most likely we'll get the version TPTB want us to hear.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
This is the most outlandish thread I've read in a while. First there is zero proof anything happened other than to start a topic just for the sake of whimsy. The US has sent equipment to "help" the French/Brazil find the black boxes...so the US shoots down a plane, then says lets help you find evidence to incriminate ourselves?

Mystery=UFO or mystery=conspiracy thought process is passe, does Zeus still throw lightening bolts from the sky too? Maybe Zeus really exists and threw a lightening bolt at the plane because he doesn't want France to reveal aliens?

The alien world is behind the scenes, everything is subtle--if the US doesn't want France or anyone to talk then you would make them realize there will be a greater penalty than loss of life--people die all the time, making the living suffer is far more manipulative. IMO the revelation of aliens is a non-issue to most people anymore--the simpletons will follow along with whatever most charismatic group/character tells them to believe.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by reugen
I think its called Plausible deniability.
en.wikipedia.org...


I think you are just using buzzwords. Can you tell us how plausible deniability applies?



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by skibtz
 



The question I am posing is whether it is plausible that a US government would down a French asset in order to silence a French government that was teetering on the brink of disclosure?


Yes, it absolutely is and I would not doubt it for a second. The shadow government is ruthless and will stop at nothing to prevent disclosure and their demise. BUT if that is what downed the plane is unlikely until more mundane explanations have been totally spent.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
Yes, it absolutely is and I would not doubt it for a second. The shadow government is ruthless and will stop at nothing to prevent disclosure and their demise. BUT if that is what downed the plane is unlikely until more mundane explanations have been totally spent.


Which is why, if you buy in to such things, this conspiracy theory does not make any sense. If they wanted to protect their power, they would not commit an act of provocation, which is exactly what downing an airliner would be.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Which is why, if you buy in to such things, this conspiracy theory does not make any sense. If they wanted to protect their power, they would not commit an act of provocation, which is exactly what downing an airliner would be.


No one would take credit for such an accident but the powers know who and why, its pure intimidation. But it was an accident, havent you read all the reports, severe turbulence and possible lightning plus malfunction of the airspeed instruments. At least two planes in the same airspace separated by only 30 minutes made it through the severe storms and one of them confirm a very bright white light, possibly the AF447 being zapped out of the sky by unknown.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by reugen
No one would take credit for such an accident but the powers know who and why, its pure intimidation.


Why, again, is why it would not work. The powers would know who was behind it and what better way to hurt those responsible than to do they very thing they were trying to intimidate you in to not doing?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join