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.
From the creation of the post until 1997, the Chief of the Defence Staff was appointed to the highest rank in the branch of the British armed forces to which he belonged, being an Admiral of the Fleet, a Field Marshal or Marshal of the Royal Air Force, (NATO rank code OF-10)
Originally posted by demongoat
Originally posted by chunder
Seriously, come on.
There are a multitude of reasons why the opinion of someone with those credentials is to be taken more seriously than the majority of others.
i'd say naval battles would be one of the first, also battle strategy on the seas
Just as a quick example the logic and judgement of someone in control of an aircraft carrier is going to be taken a bit differently to that of your average pole dancer.
what does commanding an aircraft carrier have to do with knowledge about ETs?
believing a pole dancer or him is about on the same level
Yet in your view they are equal as opinions - doesn't work that way.
yes, yes it does, sorry but nether a stripper or a commander of an aircraft carrier is more of an expert, if they both have the same amount of knowledge.
no one is an expert on aliens, maybe if they made real contact and stopped probing people and killing cattle, we could learn something.
OK, can you enumerate some of those reasons that made his opinion more important in this particular subject?
Originally posted by chunder
There are a multitude of reasons why the opinion of someone with those credentials is to be taken more seriously than the majority of others.
And that may be a mistake, just because someone is a pole dancer it doesn't mean that that person has a better or worse logic or judgement, those are things that may be only indirectly related to the person's work but that are directly related to the person as a living creature.
Just as a quick example the logic and judgement of someone in control of an aircraft carrier is going to be taken a bit differently to that of your average pole dancer.
To me it does, being an admiral only means that he had a successful military career, it means nothing when dealing with other, unrelated, subjects.
Yet in your view they are equal as opinions - doesn't work that way.
Yes, and that's because we don't have any reference what he really knew that I consider the things he said as just his opinions and not facts.
And that is without taking into account the information that he definitely was, and maybe also was, privy too.
Usually I trust my own opinion first (after all I am the best specialist when the subject is "me" ), then I search the medical literature available on the Internet, only if all that fails do I go to a doctor (the last time was some 20 years ago), but that is because the doctor is a medicine specialist, I don't go to an admiral to ask him about my health.
If you have a medical issue do you go to your doctor or a pole dancer (hmm - depends what it is I guess !) ? Experience and qualifications count when it comes to the weight of an opinion.
Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Kryties
Why would an admiral be more credible than any other person? Just because he chose a military career instead of being a civilian for all his life? Or because it was a career somewhat connected with the government?
What he said was just his opinion, and although I would love to talk with someone like him, it was just that, an opinion.
PS: I think the best reason for not having a disclosure is not having anything to disclose.
Originally posted by jimmyx
Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Kryties
Why would an admiral be more credible than any other person? Just because he chose a military career instead of being a civilian for all his life? Or because it was a career somewhat connected with the government?
What he said was just his opinion, and although I would love to talk with someone like him, it was just that, an opinion.
PS: I think the best reason for not having a disclosure is not having anything to disclose.
uhmm...because if he was known to make rash statements, he never would have been trusted to reach the position of admiral. admirals tend to be pretty grounded people. he's going to be alittle more credible than a truck driver that claims he saw a UFO and is trying to sell a book.
What are they debunking exactly? His opinion! It is his belief. As there is nothing else to go on, why is there a need for debunking.
Originally posted by kingmonkey
reply to post by atlasastro
Are there any interviews with 'Military Brass' on a par with the commander of the Navy's Flagship in which they debunk anything that Lord Hill-Norton has suggested?
I agree that it is comical to draw parallels between the Admiral Hill-Norton and Pole Dancers, but they are both entertaining in their own right.
To suggest that the opinion of such a high ranking member of the armed forces is equal to that of a pole dancer is comical. And to suggest that such a high ranking and well respected naval commander is not privy to classified or sensitive information (regarding ufo's or otherwise) is also foolish!