Col. Richard French USAF says "My primary job was to debunk them [UFOs]"

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 1 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shino
What he doesn't make clear, crucially, is whether his fabricated explanations were his own doing or whether he was encouraged to dismiss UFO reports by making absurd claims.

Neither does he state whether or not there was a conspiracy to cover something up. So really we can't come to much of a conclusion with his comments
edit on 1-5-2013 by Shino because: (no reason given)


The tone I got was that he was encouraged to make up lies about it. I say this because he goes on to talk about seeing them [UFOs] himself.

A 2 minute video clip of a guy isn't enough to know all the details you're looking for though.




posted on May, 1 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
This is all well and good, and I WILL review all testimony eventually, but I do not expect much to come of this and neither should anyone else. Disclosure Project Part 2. Next thing to happen is start paying and or threatwning a few of these witnesses and give them orders to behave like total lunatics. Thereby diacrediting them all as a whole.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by cconn487
Either we have crazy people running our armed forces.

Or we have liars running our armed forces.

I feel bad for anyone who joins up to serve a country that couldn't care less about the majority of its people. Let alone the population of the planet if it were true.
edit on 30-4-2013 by cconn487 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-4-2013 by cconn487 because: (no reason given)


Slackers will always find a self-serving excuse to avoid inconveniencing or risking themselves in national service. I feel sorry for any serviceman who would have had to stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of you in a crisis.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by Imurxtacy247
Hello All;

Not sure if this is where I am suppose to post. I have never posted anything......I searched and found no mention of the following Apollo 12 Images. Can someone review an tell me what you think these images captured.


Thanks and sorry if im doing this wrong...

AS12-48-7163HR-www.hq.nasa.gov...
AS12-48-7166HR-www.hq.nasa.gov...
AS12-48-7167HR-www.hq.nasa.gov...
AS12-48-7168HR-www.hq.nasa.gov...


PS..I have a bunch of other images that nobody is talking about.....if your interesed...
edit on 30-4-2013 by Imurxtacy247 because: (no reason given)


Hi Imurxtacy247.
Very interested!

Please share your images. Thanks.
And welcome on ATS



And what is supposed to be fake about these images? Have you checked the crew EVAs timelines for Apollo-12 over at ALSJ? I still don't understand what you're so excited about.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun
 


Well, It seems pretty genuine to me. More and more folks with great credibility stepping up and spilling their guts. Good on em!



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Aside from the comic relief, the only time I ever saw 'swamp gas' used as a proposal was in the Michigan dormitory case [1966?]. And Hynek always ruefully maintained that for the story he was investigating -- night-time glows in the swamp near the dorm -- it was not an unreasonable hypothesis.

Of course, it blew up in his face and embarrassed him and the AF enormously, and has been a joke ever since.

But logical argumentation doesn't rest on mockery, only those who avoid reasoning resort to a 'laughter curtain' on either side of the debate.

What goes around comes around, and look at the bitter harvest for serious ufology.

So -- is the testimony accurate? Did they use 'swamp gas' deceptively and repeatedly to debunk any UFO stories?

A single other example where they did, please. Just one more.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I dont know of any other cases with the swamp gas explanation.

But that doesnt mean other explanations werent equally as abaurd.
The DC flap comes to mind. Official explanation? Temperature inversion and mirage effects. Silliness. These objects had radar return. And one would expect to see this sort of thing often if this were true at all.

It was a sweep under the rug type deal and this is exactly what the OPs witness is describing.

Also, you are putting words in the witnesses mouth a little here. Never did he say swamp gas was used repeatedly. He was saying 'swamp gas...anything really that would satisfy the public's curiosity in the matter'
edit on 1-5-2013 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Well, this has been known since the end of project blue book, a study of UFOs sponsored by the USAF. One of the leading researchers, Dr. Hynek, (a physicist) was hired specifically to debunk any and all UFO cases that could not be easily explained as natural or man made phenomena, he admitted to this in a 1970's on a television interview

Dr. Hynek had a change of heart when he realized that the USAF was keeping certain cases from him, he stated that the best cases of actual non-human-intelligently controlled UFOs were sent somewhere else. It appears that the USAF removed the best cases and/or the most sensitive cases from project blue book. Even with the best and/or most sensitive cases removed the researchers at project blue book STILL where able to in a rigorous, scientific manner able to show that at least 22% of 3200 cases could could not be categorized as natural or man made phenomena:

en.wikipedia.org...

They also found that the higher quality of the case the MORE likely it was to be classified as unknown. This was about 1952, before the research protocols at Project Blue Book were completely compromised.

The skeptics do have one point, simply because it doesn't appear natural or man made it does not logically follow that it must be ET. Yet, when you start putting all the evidence together, you will see that there are intelligently controlled craft with performance parameters far outside what is achievable with publicly known science and engineering. They seem to fly wherever they want, whenever they want, they have been flying around since at least WW2 and before. In 1952 UFOs flew over the White House so many times that the USAF sent out a report to shoot them down and to put anti aircraft guns around U.S. airports, indicating that the USAF most likely were not operating the craft.

Since SOME of these objects do not behave as if they are under ballistic motion, have performance parameters far outside what is achievable with publicly known science and engineering, sometimes exhibit intelligence (they sometimes play around with pilots), fly wherever and whenever they want (often at odds with how most secret test craft are flown most of the time), leads us to believe that they aren't constructed nor operated by humans
edit on 1-5-2013 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-5-2013 by deloprator20000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by deloprator20000
 


I read a story once about the Michigan incident that was interesting. According to the story Hynek went to the farm this all took place with the local county sheriff for some on site investigation. After they had concluded their investigation they returned to the PD where Hynek confided to the sheriff he didnt know what the witnesses had seen, when just then, he got a call from Washington. Once he got off the phone he told the sheriff it was swamp gas. If true that means DC had the sheriff's office bugged and interjected the swamp gas explanation when he said he was stumped.

No wonder he became disgruntled. They wouldnt let him do his job and was all obviously propaganda.

As he later said.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I dont know of any other cases with the swamp gas explanation.

But that doesnt mean other explanations werent equally as abaurd.
The DC flap comes to mind. Official explanation? Temperature inversion and mirage effects. Silliness. These objects had radar return. And one would expect to see this sort of thing often if this were true at all.

It was a sweep under the rug type deal and this is exactly what the OPs witness is describing.

Also, you are putting words in the witnesses mouth a little here. Never did he say swamp gas was used repeatedly. He was saying 'swamp gas...anything really that would satisfy the public's curiosity in the matter'
edit on 1-5-2013 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)


Thanks, fair reply.

Didn't Hynek and Hendry do a 're-review' a few years after Blue Book, and conclude that the original explanations were for the most part pretty sensible?



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I would like to see that for myself. The initial number of unknowns in the project is like 1,600 or some odd cases, but I have seen estimates as high as 4,000 in followups by other researchers. I am unaware of Hynek and Hendry ever doing a review. If they did I would like to see it honestly, because what you just said doesnt seem to jive with statements Hynek made years later.



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I would like to see that for myself. The initial number of unknowns in the project is like 1,600 or some odd cases, but I have seen estimates as high as 4,000 in followups by other researchers. I am unaware of Hynek and Hendry ever doing a review. If they did I would like to see it honestly, because what you just said doesnt seem to jive with statements Hynek made years later.


Let me go look!



posted on May, 1 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by deloprator20000

They also found that the higher quality of the case the MORE likely it was to be classified as unknown. This was about 1952, before the research protocols at Project Blue Book were completely compromised.

The skeptics do have one point, simply because it doesn't appear natural or man made it does not logically follow that it must be ET. Yet, when you start putting all the evidence together, you will see that there are intelligently controlled craft with performance parameters far outside what is achievable with publicly known science and engineering.

I'm not so sure that a conclusion can be reached that these are intelligently controlled craft. Individually these cases may "appear" to be of intelligently controlled things but none can be concluded to be such. So when you put all of these cases together, it doesn't make it so either. When you add 5 zeros together you get zero, not 5.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by Imurxtacy247
Hello All;

Not sure if this is where I am suppose to post. I have never posted anything......I searched and found no mention of the following Apollo 12 Images. Can someone review an tell me what you think these images captured.


Thanks and sorry if im doing this wrong...

AS12-48-7163HR-www.hq.nasa.gov...
AS12-48-7166HR-www.hq.nasa.gov...
AS12-48-7167HR-www.hq.nasa.gov...
AS12-48-7168HR-www.hq.nasa.gov...


PS..I have a bunch of other images that nobody is talking about.....if your interesed...
edit on 30-4-2013 by Imurxtacy247 because: (no reason given)


Hi Imurxtacy247.
Very interested!

Please share your images. Thanks.
And welcome on ATS



And what is supposed to be fake about these images? Have you checked the crew EVAs timelines for Apollo-12 over at ALSJ? I still don't understand what you're so excited about.


I really don't understand what is your point and what are your argumentation. As usual.

However, Your presence is meaningful.
I really don't know why.... but every time you came into a thread about UFOs, this mean that there is enough "meat".



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I would like to see that for myself. The initial number of unknowns in the project is like 1,600 or some odd cases, but I have seen estimates as high as 4,000 in followups by other researchers. I am unaware of Hynek and Hendry ever doing a review. If they did I would like to see it honestly, because what you just said doesnt seem to jive with statements Hynek made years later.


Thanks to an associate of mine I offer you this documentation:

Page 245, The UFO Handbook by Allan Handry, Doubleday & Co; 1979


"Dr. Hynek had the Center for UFO Studies workers re-examine all of the 13,000
cases collected by the Air Force throughout the summer of 1976. The Center wound
up confirming what the Air Force had alreadyh established: only about 5 per cent of the
cases in Project Blue Book are worthy of being considered genuine UFOs."



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Cool. Thanks for that.


But he didn't review the cases himself then? As I said, it would have seemed at odds with what he had said later.
Also, as I had mentioned before, other researchers came to much different conclusions upon their own reviews of the cases. I will pull that info when I get a chance later today. I am getting ready for work at the moment.

Again, thanks for the dilligence.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I would like to see that for myself. The initial number of unknowns in the project is like 1,600 or some odd cases, but I have seen estimates as high as 4,000 in followups by other researchers. I am unaware of Hynek and Hendry ever doing a review. If they did I would like to see it honestly, because what you just said doesnt seem to jive with statements Hynek made years later.


Thanks to an associate of mine I offer you this documentation:

Page 245, The UFO Handbook by Allan Handry, Doubleday & Co; 1979




"Dr. Hynek had the Center for UFO Studies workers re-examine all of the 13,000
cases collected by the Air Force throughout the summer of 1976. The Center wound
up confirming what the Air Force had alreadyh established: only about 5 per cent of the
cases in Project Blue Book are worthy of being considered genuine UFOs."


Of course the late and much respected Dr James E McDonald who investigated a number of blue books UFO cases or the explanations offered by blue books consultants came to very different conclusions.He has clearly shown that unacceptable or inadequate scientific investigation methods where being used on a number of cases.
His paper entitled " 20 years of inadequate scientific methods of UFOs" clearly shows some very dubious explanations and conclusions reached for a number of UFO cases, those cases containing "high strangeness"data seem targeted for the "force fitting debunking" agenda that was being employed by the USAF intelligences.

The fact that a number of these cases where exposed as "force fit debunking" ones is a cause for concern is it not , how can any real investigations be conducted or even considered fair and stick to scientific protocols when cases are shown to have "force fit debunking" exploitation's forced on them, if this type of scientific protocol was used in any other investigation or research avenues there would be a out cry and a condemnation of such practices.With all due respect there has NEVER been a level or fair playing field from officialdom when it comes to the UFO situation, a look at the historical case histories investigated by Dr James E McDonald has shown that. There must be a more transparent, honest and open sharing of data available for a fair scientific investigation but sadly pigs will fly when that manifests as a reality.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shino
What he doesn't make clear, crucially, is whether his fabricated explanations were his own doing or whether he was encouraged to dismiss UFO reports by making absurd claims.

The person does clearly state that it was to maintain secrecy.

I doubt the Col. was the only person in that context to want to keep it a secret unless the person secretly suffered from severe OCD or something.


Originally posted by Elvis Hendrix
Sounds familiar, EH phage, Jim?



Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun
 

There are dozens of new followers right here on ATS......


S&F.

Do you persons ever wonder what it would be like if people on the board started saying, 'this thread reminds me of Arken and Elvis' every time someone misidentified an object in the sky or was wrong?

Can't imagine it would be that nice. Just saying.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
I'm just going to come right out and say it because nobody else will. This Col. French character is a fraud and a liar. Anybody can tell just by what he says and his body language. I was told personally by the researcher that found Col. French that he thought Col. French was now lying and that he regrets having introduced this fraud to the world.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyingTeacup
 


The man is a Colonel in the US Armed Forces. Or was. How dare you make such a claim with NO evidence whatsoever.
Good grief.





new topics
 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join