Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Col. John Alexander, Robert Bigelow and the real goal of NIDS?

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
In the early 1990s, I had a chance to visit a Col. John Alexander at his office in Las Vegas.
Apparently he had just moved in to that office there.

He was quite cordial.

We asked him some questions about non-lethal weapons systems and their applications.

I even asked him a couple of questions about "thanatology".
(since, at that time I was a full-time licensed funeral director in Los Angeles).
It was quite interesting.

However, towards the end of the interview we asked him a question about "UFOs".
As soon as he heard us mention "UFOs", his attitude suddenly changed and he became totally upset.
He then scolded us and told us never to bring up that topic again.
He said that he had absolutely no interest in "UFOs".

Anyway, upon leaving his office (after we apologized to him), he led us the way out of his office.
As soon as he started walking towards the hallway to lead us out of his office, I instantly went behind his desk and had a quick look at his computer screen.
To my amazement, his computer screen showed a partial list of UFO organizations and names of UFO researchers.
To this day, I have no idea what to think of him and this experience there in his office.

This is why I still have a difficult time trusting the ultimate goal of organizations such as the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS), financed and headed by Robert Bigelow of Las Vegas.
Col. John Alexander, I believe, was under the payroll of Robert Bigelow in the 1990s.
(He still my be, even today).
My fear is that the goal of NIDS is to dominate and control the flow of UFO information and to infiltrate organizations such as MUFON, through their vast financial resources.
I may be wrong on this.
I am not sure.

Norio Hayakawa
www.myspace.com...




posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Norio Hayakawa
 



My fear is that the goal of NIDS is to dominate and control the flow of UFO information and to infiltrate organizations such as MUFON, through their vast financial resources.
I may be wrong on this.
I am not sure.


I don't understand how a bright mind such as yours could conceive of any one organization having any kind of control over a worldwide phenomenon. I also don't understand how you could think that even if a hostile organization did infiltrate MUFON it could mean anything to the average Joe on the street. There is no doubt that MUFON has made a name for itself in UFOLOGY but they are really a paper tiger. They do not influence anyone to do anything. They have "investigators" who now use computers instead of notepads but the end result is always the same: the info they gather go into files, whether in cyberspace or in an actual file. Their investigators are just average people with a little more knowledge about UFOlogy than most but some have proven themselves (in a meeting I attended years ago) to be not the sharpest tack in the box.

I've never seen nor heard of any effect of NIDS activity and there's nothing anyone in UFOlogy could do to bring forth anything new, anything revealing. IOW, everyone is still floundering in UFOlogy for no one knows any more than the next person for it is still an individual experience that is not subject to any control.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
The NIDS folk were discontinued in 2004. They'd charted a bright trail of subjects including Bob White's debris, Black Triangles, Bigfoot and the Skinwalker Ranch.

Bigelow's motivations for making the comment of people being directly/indirectly killed by ET has prompted all the interest. Was it a slip of the tongue or clever statement to attract attention?

Not many seem to have noticed that he doesn't refer to the Skinwalker property...subsequent commentators added that association. For all we know he meant the Mantell Case or was seeking to be provocative.

Agendas? Who ever knows in the murky cesspool of Ufology? If someone wanted to gain credibility in the UFO research field...NIDS was a great way to go about it. If the Institute was reformed, it could gain credibility and attract attention to Bigelow's aerospace ventures. Certainly, it would glamorise his media persona.

If he's the friendly face of the alleged UFO cover-up and had respect in the UFO field...would he be placed to flag any documents or new evidence? Some people don't trust him at all.

I've asked a lot of questions here because we don't know the answers. Sit back and watch...as usual!



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Bigelow's motivations for making the comment of people being directly/indirectly killed by ET has prompted all the interest. Was it a slip of the tongue or clever statement to attract attention?


I do not think Bigelow was talking about UFOs intentionally harming people. Rather, I think he meant it in an indirect fashion, such as the Thomas Mantell case.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Norio Hayakawa
This is why I still have a difficult time trusting the ultimate goal of organizations such as the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS), financed and headed by Robert Bigelow of Las Vegas.
Col. John Alexander, I believe, was under the payroll of Robert Bigelow in the 1990s.
(He still my be, even today).
My fear is that the goal of NIDS is to dominate and control the flow of UFO information and to infiltrate organizations such as MUFON, through their vast financial resources.
I may be wrong on this.
I am not sure.


What lead you to any of these suspicions? I don't see the connection.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 



I do not think Bigelow was talking about UFOs intentionally harming people. Rather, I think he meant it in an indirect fashion, such as the Thomas Mantell case.


That's what I said if you read on to the next paragraph.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Bigelow's motivations for making the comment of people being directly/indirectly killed by ET has prompted all the interest. Was it a slip of the tongue or clever statement to attract attention?


I do not think Bigelow was talking about UFOs intentionally harming people. Rather, I think he meant it in an indirect fashion, such as the Thomas Mantell case.


I don't see why Mantell has to be brought into conversations about UFOs. The facts do not support the fantasy. He died 'cause he was a hot dogger, ignored the need for oxygen at high altitudes and his foolishness 'caused his death because he didn't know what a Skyhook balloon was. He disobeyed and paid the ultimate price.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
you posted this same exact thread last year... why are you reposting?



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky

Bigelow's motivations for making the comment of people being directly/indirectly killed by ET has prompted all the interest. Was it a slip of the tongue or clever statement to attract attention?


the most recent agrument made from the bigelow spin camp is that he was reffering to "Brazil UFO Invasion OF 1977" which reported deaths and injuries to humans from ufos.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Bigelow's motivations for making the comment of people being directly/indirectly killed by ET has prompted all the interest. Was it a slip of the tongue or clever statement to attract attention?


I do not think Bigelow was talking about UFOs intentionally harming people. Rather, I think he meant it in an indirect fashion, such as the Thomas Mantell case.


I don't see why Mantell has to be brought into conversations about UFOs. The facts do not support the fantasy. He died 'cause he was a hot dogger, ignored the need for oxygen at high altitudes and his foolishness 'caused his death because he didn't know what a Skyhook balloon was. He disobeyed and paid the ultimate price.


Are you serious? Just because some debunker suggested this is the case, it does not make it so! Mantell was not the only pilot witness and radar was tracking the object as well. Just a question, what kind of balloon can outrun an airplane, even a slow one?



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by The Shrike
 
You're certainty is admirable, however some people believe or suspect the crash was UFO related. In this light, despite your personal certainty, it's possible Bigelow was referring to the Mantell Incident.

Until and unless Bigelow adds some detail to the statement...we're guessing.

reply to post by hiii_98
 


the most recent argument made from the bigelow spin camp is that he was referring to "Brazil UFO Invasion OF 1977" which reported deaths and injuries to humans from ufos.


Not a bad idea. Colares '77 did result in deaths and injuries. Whether the deaths were directly related to the UFO sightings or indirectly related to the hysteria that followed is a matter of interpretation. Personally, the Colares incidents and the wealth of documents, testimonies and images related to them makes it one of the most compelling.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hongkongphooey

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Bigelow's motivations for making the comment of people being directly/indirectly killed by ET has prompted all the interest. Was it a slip of the tongue or clever statement to attract attention?


I do not think Bigelow was talking about UFOs intentionally harming people. Rather, I think he meant it in an indirect fashion, such as the Thomas Mantell case.


I don't see why Mantell has to be brought into conversations about UFOs. The facts do not support the fantasy. He died 'cause he was a hot dogger, ignored the need for oxygen at high altitudes and his foolishness 'caused his death because he didn't know what a Skyhook balloon was. He disobeyed and paid the ultimate price.


Are you serious? Just because some debunker suggested this is the case, it does not make it so! Mantell was not the only pilot witness and radar was tracking the object as well. Just a question, what kind of balloon can outrun an airplane, even a slow one?


Is it true that ignorance is bliss?

Skyhook Balloon Explanation (Wikipedia, natch!)
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, a professor of astronomy and a scientific consultant to Project Sign, suggested Mantell had misidentified a US Navy Skyhook weather balloon. Others disputed this idea, noting that no particular Skyhook balloon could be conclusively identified as being in the area in question during Mantell's pursuit. Despite its shortcomings, others thought the Skyhook solution was plausible: the balloons were a secret Navy project at the time of Mantell's crash, were made of reflective aluminum, and were about 100 feet (30 m) in diameter, perhaps consistent with Mantell's description of a large metallic object, and may furthermore be consistent with the motions reported by the other UFO witnesses. Since the Skyhook balloons were secret at the time, neither Mantell nor the other observers in the air control tower would have been able to identify the UFO as a Skyhook. Furthermore, later research by Project Sign and UFO skeptics would show that multiple Skyhook balloons had been launched on 7 January 1948 in Clinton County, Ohio, approximately 150 miles (240 km) northeast of Fort Knox. UFO skeptic Philip Klass would argue that wind currents at that time would have blown the balloons close to the area of the Mantell Incident.

If a Skyhook balloon was involved in the crash of Mantell's aircraft, the Air Force would have been loath to admit the presence of the balloon for more than mere reasons of security since it would have also meant admitting that a DoD program caused the dispatch of a Kentucky Air National Guard aircraft with fatal consequences for its pilot.






top topics



 
4

log in

join