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

Originally posted by reugen

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...

france would have to be certain the US did it to be intimidated at all. your argument breaks down there.

reply to post by JScytale


No it doesnt, France know that they have good material for disclosure and that it is also damaging to the US. Some people from Brazil are on their way to France to attend some disclosure meeting in paris, the plane is downed under mysterious circumstances and the evidence is lost. The US president is not in the know, plausible deniability.


[edit on 2009/6/9 by reugen]

If Sarkozy and most of the French government are not in the know, how are they going to disclose anything then ?

it's just a wild hypothesis manouche but i am quite certain a lot of operations are being carried out without the congress or president knowledge. Perhaps you remember the black planes all over the globe after 9/11 collecting people? Can the citizens of the US hold Cheney or Bush accountable for that clandestine operation or didnt they know about the planes? So who do you blame for those actions then Manouche, who was responsible ? This is a conspiracy site, or ?

I edited my above post for clarity.


[edit on 2009/6/9 by reugen]

reply to post by reugen


I subscribe to the idea there should be a place to discuss even the wildest hypothesis. As long as everyone keeps in mind it's a guesswork in order to explore every lead and dismiss them. I am happy to read your eyesight.

All of this is based on the assumption that the French government was about to disclose information on UFOs against the USA will. There is no evidence. French Ufologists might be pushing for a disclosure, I see no indication France is in the verge of a straight disclosure other than declassifying a few reports.

Sarkozy could well be much closer to the USA than you may think. His mother-in-law (his father's 2nd spouse) Christine de Ganay married Frank G. Wisner II who was Deputy Executive Secretary of the Department of State at the time. Since, he was a US ambassador, a Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and until late february Vice-Chairman of AIG. He is also a CFR member (Bio).
Frank G. Wisner I, his father, was a OSS and CIA high-rank officer. You will easily find information about him. He was allegedly NATO's stay-behind operations head in the 50's. Interestingly, his Wikipedia page has a long paragraph about the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Hungary, where Sarkozy's father, Pal Sarkozy, was born.
Olivier Sarkozy, Nicolas half-brother, son of Christine de Ganay and Pal Sarkozy, was raised by Wisner II. He is a director of the Carlyle Group.
Nicolas Sarkozy is very pro-USA. I will spare you the bold theory he was put into power by the CIA. I think you got the idea. I am not convinced he would do anything strongly opposed to the US will.

I doubt anyone will run with this topic let alone this post....

But I think some people discount one key element of serious disclosure issues...that being that there are very few people truly in the know.

High profile people are likely NOT in "the know". But how do high profile people get in the know? Information by low profile people who are in the know.

What if the small group of "rouges" in the know where getting ready to give a receptive high profile person in France hard "proof" that would be disclosed. This is not the kind of stuff you email or fax right? Its person to person because such info would be the most sensitive info in the world. THE MOST.

In order to deliver it, the person would have to travel...fly most likely in fact. What if someone was on that plane with serious information and someone not only wanted to stop that information, but stop the information holder. Not to mention you send a message to all the people in "the know" who knew that person was on the plane. As well as the person waiting on the other end for that information if it had been previously arranged. Sometimes a scared person is more useful than a dead person.

And before you discount all of this too much...there have been a few high profile crashes in the past 15-20 years that all have one thing in common. Charles De Gaulle Airport in France.

TWA Flight 800's destination was Charles De Gaulle France.
Same as the this latest crash.
And of course the Concorde departed out of Charles De Gaulle.

Its definitely on the fringes of serious scenarios...but in many ways its so big that it would only be accepted by the most fringe oriented and as such is the safest lie to perpetrate. Who would believe that someone would blow up airplanes in one way shape or form to kill one person holding information about ET intelligence? Its such a multi layered issue its too mammoth to even get discussion about it...as perfectly demonstrated in this thread. Let alone uncover it.

I dont know...its not my top scenario as to what happened in this latest crash...but I have a hard time discounting anything these days.

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'm no longer young enough to know everything so... I won't diss your theory.

That being said, however... I think France is going to offer up disclosure revelation like I think Mr. Clean is going to scrub away my bathtub ring and leave a quarter on the back of the commode.

Of course, I have been wrong before too... anything's possible, no?

...

I think it is possibly redundant to use public government people in this thought. The problem is that the action postulated in the OP would likely be the result of a shadow government.

I don't believe for a minute that muppet celebrities such as Brown, Obama and Sarkozy make the wheels go round. They are a nice front for the people to focus on but I doubt they make the difficult decisions at the end of the day. They would certainly rise or fall based on the decisions made though. That is the job as far as I can see

[edit on 12/6/2009 by skibtz]

Seeing that the Black boxes were recently discovered....it reminded me of this thread.

I'll be interested to see what the black boxes have to say.