the whole UFO UN disclosure thing is crap.

This story is the biggest load of bull ever. first off it claims the source is a naval officer, and that the person was met in full dress navy uniform with rank patches. That's error #1. Naval officers don't have rank badges. They have collar devices and shoulder boards. I did 6 years in the Navy. My guess is the person writing the article confused the enlisted ranking for officer, since the ranks for E-4 through E-9 have officer in their name, (petty Officer, Chief Petty officer etc etc) That presents another problem. enlisted men can do at most 30 years Naval service, so if this person joined the Navy in the 60s as the story claims, theyd have been out in the 90s. Secondly, they claim he wasnt formerly assigned to the disclosure management project but that he worked for an admiral on the side while under his chain of command. this is BS. that isnt how the navy works, that would fuddle the whole Chain of Command. The ID card he likely has was the retiree ID card that all retirees are given. They look just like one of a regular military IDs but they say retired on them.
Also, the source of all the info, alleged;y a man named Gilles Lorant who allegedly worked with CNRS?

I emailed them. There reply:

No, this person has nothing to do with CNRS. Nor does CNRS carry out research in parascience. CNES, the French Space research agency, used to have a UFO-related unit, but it was along the lines of the work carried out SETI in the US.

[email protected] a écrit


There are to many hoaxers in the UFO research arena these days

Am I missing something here? Could you explain and provide a link to what your trying to discuss? As I haven't heard of UN disclosure? anyone else?

reply to post by franspeakfree

this crap:
exopolitics.org...

Originally posted by NavalFC

Also, the source of all the info, alleged;y a man named Gilles Lorant who allegedly worked with CNRS?

I emailed them. There reply:

No, this person has nothing to do with CNRS. Nor does CNRS carry out research in parascience. CNES, the French Space research agency, used to have a UFO-related unit, but it was along the lines of the work carried out SETI in the US.

[email protected] a écrit


There are to many hoaxers in the UFO research arena these days

Oh well as long as they said he never worked there... it must be true

reply to post by Total Package


That was only half my post. Like I said I did time in the Navy and their descriptions were way wrong.

Originally posted by Total Package

Oh well as long as they said he never worked there... it must be true

In the sense of fair play, the 'logic' of your argument works both ways. Perhaps you see fit to believe one story over another?

One minute, you believe 'the military', and then suddenly - you don't. How curious!

IRM

So your saying that just becasue you have been in the Navy before that this story is crap??? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. I've read all of the articles about the alleged UN leaks about UFO meetings and all that but i havn't decided either way. I don't think that you calling it false because you've been in the navy is quite enough to convince me.

reply to post by W3RLIED2


I didnt call it false just because ive been in the navy. I called it false because there description of uniforms, ranks, etc was completely wrong , and i know they are wrong from personal experience.
We've got a supposed gilles lorant who the CRNS has never heard of, weve got descriptions of a "naval officer" that are totall bunk, and i even factored in as you can read in my first post, that mayhaps they made the mistake of calling an enlistedmen a officer and showed even then how it would not work.

so when those 2 people are factored out, theres nothing left for this claim to stand on.

Even if he was a part of CRNS... do you think an e-mail asking about the guy is enough for them to release any personal information about people involved with them? Look i'm just playing devil's advocate because i'm still undecided about that whole story. Everything you've thrown down is still circumstantial so it's really just your opinion that this is crap.

While i respect your opinions and the fact that you're a former brother in arms, it's all pretty thin.

reply to post by W3RLIED2


circumstantial my ass! theres nothing circumstanstial about it, its black and white, clear cut, they were wrong about the descriptions no matter how you slice it. If I tell you oranges are purple, im wrong. Nothing circumstantial about it. It isnt a opinion. There description of said Officer and his uniform was totally bogus. Which doesnt suprise me since the person who posted this information on that site, a doctor of some sorts i forget his name, doesnt live in the US and probably doesnt know US Navy uniforms.


and also, with your reference to Gilles Lorant, they didnt say "we can not disclose this infomration " They said that they dont know him. I didnt ask them for personal information, all I asked was if he worked for them,

Originally posted by NavalFC
reply to post by W3RLIED2

 

I didnt call it false just because ive been in the navy. I called it false because there description of uniforms, ranks, etc was completely wrong , and i know they are wrong from personal experience.

I wouldn't have known if you had not told me that the Journalists description of the US Navy uniform was wrong. He is a Journalist. That doesn't make him an expert in US Navy uniforms or the terminology used to describe them.

I could make an arrrghs of myself also if I was to write a description of what I saw when presented to a US Air force officer for a brief period. I bet you two kippers that I ould get it wrong.

So, regarding it being a hoax, your basing it all on the fact that a journo got the badges and insignia wrong and some company claims that someone never worked for them?

Dude, no matter how you slice it it's your opinion so yes. TO ME your opinion is a circumstatial argument becasue it's just not a very good one.
I'll wait for further evidence or another article or whatever. This thread is THIN... its got about as much weight as your McClelland hoax thread.

Originally posted by NavalFC
This story is the biggest load of bull ever. first off it claims the source is a naval officer, and that the person was met in full dress navy uniform with rank patches. That's error #1. Naval officers don't have rank badges. They have collar devices and shoulder boards. I did 6 years in the Navy. My guess is the person writing the article confused the enlisted ranking for officer, since the ranks for E-4 through E-9 have officer in their name, (petty Officer, Chief Petty officer etc etc) That presents another problem. enlisted men can do at most 30 years Naval service, so if this person joined the Navy in the 60s as the story claims, theyd have been out in the 90s. Secondly, they claim he wasnt formerly assigned to the disclosure management project but that he worked for an admiral on the side while under his chain of command. this is BS. that isnt how the navy works, that would fuddle the whole Chain of Command. The ID card he likely has was the retiree ID card that all retirees are given. They look just like one of a regular military IDs but they say retired on them.
Also, the source of all the info, alleged;y a man named Gilles Lorant who allegedly worked with CNRS?

I emailed them. There reply:

No, this person has nothing to do with CNRS. Nor does CNRS carry out research in parascience. CNES, the French Space research agency, used to have a UFO-related unit, but it was along the lines of the work carried out SETI in the US.

[email protected] a écrit


There are to many hoaxers in the UFO research arena these days

1. It does not mention patches on the uniform, it says identifing insignia including name and rank. All dress uniforms have this in all services, name rank and insignia to identify the rank from a distance (stripes on a uniform, stripes on the cuff, rank on the hat, shoulder boards etc. their all considered insignia's)

2. You assume there was a mistake and he is enlisted there is no way to know that by the information given. But is true at higher ranks it's 30 years max if the person chooses that long. My former enlisted boss chose 20 even though he had the option of 30.

3. The information given about the chain of command is elusive which is suspect. But in this situation could be considered true. Reason being there are the normal chain of commands and then the "need to know only" chain of command usually reserved for missions that could be said are above top secret. This is to keep your commander from knowing what is really going on and at the same time able to pull rank on that commander and have the person under them removed to an urgent mission that the current commander does not have a need to know about.

4. The ID card is an easy check but that information was not in the article. Retired ID cards are Blue, active duty are Green.

Not saying one way or the other but the facts you present are not quite how you present them to be.

The only mention of patches are in an album with photo's he shows them.

Do I believe him to be active duty? Nope, even in 1969 if joining he would be retired by now no doubt on that.

Well this topic appears to be a complete mis interpretation turned into some form of unsustainable debunk.

First up they never claims anything which you claim.

Source A was dressed in full US Navy uniform with identifying insignia including name and rank. He showed me his military I.D. which confirmed his name, rank and pay scale. His I.D. card was valid for a three year period and had a vertical barcode on the left hand side next to his photo

Very consistant with ANY Military officer.

He subsequently showed me an album filled with photos, military patches and cards that represented his various assignments and awards since first joining the US Navy in the 1960s.

Once again, very consistant, coming from an ALBUM.

Regarding Gilles Lorent.

He was fired from the F.E.A in March for his denial over IHEDN and questions of his credibility. However I wouldnt assume too much, Gilles Lorent would have known before hand this would happen and yet the whole thing played out, and I do believe the whole thing has attracted far deeper interest by cynics than it ever would have on its initial track, people dig when theres a story to be had, maybe that was the original point.

reply to post by Darthorious


Darthorius No, active duty cards are not green, not anymore. That changed in late 2002.
ALso you point out another fact i forgot to touch on. The US military has chnged the ID card, it is now a CAC card. it is white.
On it, it gives rank, and duty status.
It has the picture and below the picture a bar code and a gold microchip.
the only difference now between a retiree and active duty card is that the retiree cards say "Retired" where as active duty says "Active Duty"

Also his using the term "join" the Navy is incosistent. You cant just join the Navy as an officer. You need a degree first, and then you go to Officer training.

and no, insignis are "Symbols" on the uniform. Enlisted men have insiginias on their uniform. Officers do not. An officer wears collar devices on his collars
has shoulder boards and cuff stripes.
These are not referred to as "Insignia"

also your explanation on chain of command is BS. There isnt a command, and then a "secret command"
If you are part of a covert ops team in the military IE: the Navy Seals, there is a specific chain of command to carry out that function.
The notion that someone works for one commander, while seperately doing covert ops for another, is complete BS.

reply to post by NavalFC


"Also his using the term "join" the Navy is incosistent. You cant just join the Navy as an officer. You need a degree first, and then you go to Officer training."


Actually you join as an Officer. If you have the education and are accepted as a officer, you carry the rank of an officer even during training. As far as I know an officer cadet is entitled to be called sir, even by sergeants or training instructors(this can be an exception because as a rule training instructors are among the few non commissioned officers to be addressed as Sir.). This I doubt very much has changed, so his information is accurate.

The whole reason training officers have the exceptional status is because they have to train officer cadets who have the right to the tag "sir" always from on commissioned officers.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by silver6ix]

[edit on 28-10-2008 by silver6ix]

reply to post by W3RLIED2

No it isnt a opinion.

FACT: They got their descroption of officers uiforms wrong

FACT: If the person had entered the Navy in the 60s, theyd be retired by now. HYT and all. This goes for officer or enlisted. yet this claim maintains this person is on active duty


FACT: another source to the claim, one Gilles Lorant, is protrayed in this as have worked with the CNRS. They say otherwise.


When you look at these facts, this story has nothing left to stand on! the above 3 things are fully verifiable facts, the first 2 via military policy and the 3rd from the CRNS.
This story has nothing to stand on now but the guys claims in and of themselves. The problem here, and indeed a problem with a large part of the UFO research arena is people buy into things alot without analyzing them. Had I come on here and made a post claiming that I knew the UN story was true, that I was in the navy and I was involved, alot of people here would take it as gospel and laud me as some new big witness even though I didnt give jack # for proof. This story is full of holes, and the 3 aforementioned things are facts.

reply to post by silver6ix



No you dont join as an officer. You are not an officer until your commissioned, and cadets are most certainly NOT CALLED SIR.

if you already have a college degree, you go to OCS. Officer Candidate School. If you dont, you can attend the Naval Academy or a college.


One thing that also is done, if you go to the academy (and if you go to the academy your not an officer yet, but a midshipmen) during your time there you will go on a mid shipmans cruise where you go to one of the Naval Bases and go underway with that ship to learn. When we had mid shipmen on our ship, we did not call them sir, and they did manual labor just like us enlisted.


Also if your in one of these programs, your not an officer yet. at the very end, there is a commissioning ceremony, then and only then, is someone a officer and called sir.

reply to post by darkmaninperth



It isnt just a journalist writing though. This guy claims to have seen and been shown everything. That led me to the conclusion he man might have been enlisted, as if someone didnt know better, you could confuse a enlisted man wth an officer in the navy, since all enlisted ranks in the navy E-4 and up have the word officer in the name.

This combined with the fact that one of its biggest sources, this Gilles Lorant, doesnt check out.

reply to post by NavalFC


Sounds untrue, no offence. I know in the British Army even an officer cadet is treated with their rank, they have the right to be called Sir by ALL NCOs and they have the right to be saluted.

I dont believe for a second its any different in the USA. Officers are selected and train as officers to be officers, from the second you are in the program you have the right to be treated by anyone outside of the trainers in the way an NCO must treat an officer.

The whole reason trainers are to be called sir is because of this. Trainers who train officers cant be calling their trainees sir, which is why a training sergeant in officer training will always be addressed as SIR.

Anyone outside of training and any other NCO must address officer cadets with their correct respect for rank. They arent entitled to salutes maybe without commision but they are entitled to be called sir by NCOs.

Officer Cadets in the British Armed Forces are treated in most respects as commissioned officers, except that Officer Cadets are not saluted (RAFVR(T) aside). In the British Army and Royal Air Force they are referred to and addressed as, for example, "Mr Smith" or "Miss Smith", or more formally as "Officer Cadet Smith" or as "Sir" or "Ma'am".

Thats during their training and anyone outside the training, a passing Segreant or other non training NCO would address them always as Sir.

It doesnt matter that they are training, NCOs are expected to treat officers, even potential officers with correct decorum. A sergeant cannot disrespect officers in training unless hes assigned to do so and as a training sergeant carries the right to be addressed as sir.

As far as I can see its the same for your US officer cadets, which is sensible as it would be highly unusual for any military to allow lower rank NCOs to disrespect future officers unless assigned to them to train.

Officer Cadets are generally paid below the standard pay rates for junior officers but receive some of the rights and responsibilities of a junior officer during their training. Officer Cadets are nominally in the chain of command and have, in certain battles, been the surviving officer in a unit and thus in command.[citation needed] Officer cadets, trainees, and midshipmen are considered Geneva Conventions Category III personnel.

Officers earn the right to commission from their seniors and the military, they are entitled to the respect of their juniors.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by silver6ix]