It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by FireMoon
I hold no candle for the Sun newspaper. Politically, it couldn't be further from my own values.
That said, in this case I have come to some sort of defense of them. Yes, it's mainly a sensationalist rag, but hen again virtually all newspapers are today. Even the so called heavy weights have made some completely bs stories up and all of the so called intellectual papers, pretty much world wide, fell for the biggest scam of the last century. Namely, the "Red Mercury" debacle.
In the Sun and its' sister Sunday paper The News of the World defense, i have to say, for some unknown reason, they have both printed UFO stories for over 50 years, on a pretty consistent basis, when other new papers have just refused to.
That is, in the days when both newspapers were far less "prurient" in their content, and the standard of English, far higher, in their journalistic writing.. They were still printing stories about UFOs.
One reason, that comes to mind, for this being so could be simply that. it was a , rag to a bull, vis a vie the British government when, those newspapers felt they were being left "out of the loop" over some current issue. That is; "You won't tell us what's happening with xyz, we are going to print a few more UFO stories that will see people contacting you and generally being a pain".
Childish yes, but that's the way of the world, i can easily see that sort of thinking behind some of their reporting.
On the other hand and from my own experience. I suspect there is a sizable cadre of high ranking military and a few politicians, Brinsley Le Poer trench 8th Earl of Clancarty and member of the House of Lords, being a classic example. Who, had enough credibility and friends at the Sun and News of the World, to keep the subject in the public eye, when the establishment, as a whole, wanted it buried.
The likes of the late Lord Hill Norton, certainly believed that they were being stonewalled by the MOD over the subject of UFOs. Now, let's put this into context. We are talking about people, who were the folk with their fingers on the nuclear button claiming they were met with a wall of silence, by the very institutions they were meant to *press the button for*, over the subject.
If they were kept out of the loop and told, "it was of no consequence". Just who the chuff was suitable in the "need to know category?".
Remember, we are talking about people who ,at times went behind the government's back, in order to contact their Russian equivalents, in order to prevent a nuclear war breaking out because of UFOs or false radar contacts.
Now, as much of a "rag" the Sun/News of the World might be. If guys like Hill Norton tell them; "Actually, the subject of UFOs is far from simple hysteria, I don't know what they are, but there are sufficient qualified and high ranking members of the military who would like to know, themselves, but are just rebuffed by the Ministry of defense time after time." The editors of those newspapers are going to listen to them and take note.?
Lord Charwell, wrote to Winston Churchill ,dismissing the whole subject, when Churchill, as PM, sent a memo wishing to know; "What was going on with these UFOs, is there anything real in the subject".
You can imagine how , someone like Hill Norton found that eternally frustrating and might well have had a quiet word with newspaper editors, "off the record", in order to see if they could force more information into the public domain, or at least get he subject , discussed openly in high ranking military circles, on more than a ; "It's all just hoo hah basis".
Let's make it plain here. When you hear all this cant about how; "Oh well, leading edge technology etc etc mis-identified sightings". The truth is, we are talking about people, with a far far higher security ratings than those who claim it was all just * secret technology*, saying, they were kept out of the loop over UFOs. People who, if the mistook some secret project for a Russian attack, could have ended the world with a press of a button.
It isn't hard to see why, a newspaper like the Sun would be wiling, to take on the mantel, of the "truth seekers" For their own political ends, as often as not? oh yes, I have little doubt that would be a factor.
However, as much as that might be the case. I suspect they, at editorial level, have been primed by enough people with sufficient gravitas, to want to know what is being hidden by the our and other governments about the whole subject. No newspaper, no matter how crap it might be, likes the idea that. There is a whole area they are simply not allowed to talk about or make inquiries about.
Ergo, sensationalist?; oh yes, in spades. However, no matter how much i find the paper an anathema, on a personal level on so many subjects. on this one, I am of a mind to give then a little slack. For over 50 years, they have printed stories, neither the MOD or other newspapers wanted to touch.
[edit on 10-4-2010 by FireMoon]
Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by the secret web
It is obvious Those are clearly models not intended for close ups. Kids playing around.
I saw the video, everything that appears in the video is digital. The textures are very clean. The trucks, the tree, the UFO, the jets.
Not mine, but it is very good, and is CGI.
Is what I think.
Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by IsaacKoi
Thanks for taking the time to debunk this garbage
Have you emailed the creator about your findings?
Originally posted by Discotech
Another thing to notice which noone has mentioned is the type of jets.
If it was over UK airspace then surely they would scramble Typhoons out to intercept seeing as though the Typhoon (eurofighter) is now the RAF's main fighter jet and the jets in the video don't look like a Typhoon
Originally posted by bladebosq
reply to post by IsaacKoi
thank you very for much finding this! i hope this gets moved into the hoax forum now. although it should have been moved there a long time ago.
your evidence undeniably debunks this.
once again thank you!