the whole UFO UN disclosure thing is crap.

reply to post by silver6ix


Fun? Im having fun laughing at you, who has no clue what your talking about.
I wish their were more navy vets on this board to pounce on your foolish argument.


You really believe that an officer, fresh out of academy, knows every different ship type, and then knows eveery single weapon /radar/ ship system on all of them, then knows all the caps and lims of all those systems for every ship type, then knows every department on every ship type for every system, and knows how to maintain, repair, and in addition the admin work for them?

you have no #ing clue.

Originally posted by silver6ix
reply to post by NavalFC

 

Ok, sure. Have fun.

also you failed to answer..why if officers know everything, do they need to rely on their enlisted men for information?

reply to post by silver6ix


oh and looking back over your posts, when i told you about the prank you referred to it as NCO immaturity...i just caught that. News flash: the ships BOSN, the guy who carried the prank out, is an officer. BOSNs are NCOs they are officers.
shows how little you know

Originally posted by NavalFC
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

Hi there,

Couldn't agree more with everything you said because it is true, specially the last sentence.

ok, here in France, the Gilles Lorant & UN UFO story has been "debunked" a while ago. The guy lied, he admited it sort of and the FEA* got rid of him.

Guess what, if you understand french, that's the first thing you will read in their cheesy & empty website : www.federation-airplane.eu...

I did quote a few lines of your original message because the only thing that wasn't correct was the answer you got to your mail.

The person from the CNRS was right about the CNRS not studying or collecting data but it isn't true with the CNES, they've been collecting UFO data since over 30 years now thru their, SEPRA, GEPAN, and now the well known (by ufologist) GEIPAN* :

www.cnes-geipan.fr...

Well, I starred and flagged you because I salute your deductions, smart guy we got here.


Cheers,
Europa aka Buck

The Naval Officer referred to as "Source A" met with and was verified by Dr Bruce Maccabee. No offense but I'll be taking his word over your opinion. Thanks for the attempt to clear things up but there's more to this than you seem to be aware of.

Also - one investigator who submitted a FOIA request to the State Dept to verify that "Source A" is acting as a liaison to the UN and was paid for meetings at the time and place given resulted in verification from a State Dept Analyst as to the material facts of the story. (Naval Officer, Liaison to UN, attended meetings at time and place given)

This isn't one you can watch day to day as the developments are very slow and far between but all indications so far are that the material presented to date has proven true.

~edit to fix "State" analyst not "UN" and clarify what data was verified

[edit on 28-10-2008 by nfotech]

Originally posted by nfotech
The Naval Officer referred to as "Source A" met with and was verified by Dr Bruce Maccabee. No offense but I'll be taking his word over your opinion. Thanks for the attempt to clear things up but there's more to this than you seem to be aware of.

Also - one investigator who submitted a FOIA request to the State Dept to verify that "Source A" is acting as a liaison to the UN and was paid for meetings at the time and place given resulted in verification from a State Dept Analyst as to the material facts of the story. (Naval Officer, Liaison to UN, attended meetings at time and place given)

This isn't one you can watch day to day as the developments are very slow and far between but all indications so far are that the material presented to date has proven true.

~edit to fix "State" analyst not "UN" and clarify what data was verified

[edit on 28-10-2008 by nfotech]

Again if he was officer or enlisted and came in during the 60s, he wouldnt be in now. Sorry. High year tenure. 2nd who exactly was the foai request sent to? that s pure hear say/ You mean to tell me the State department disclosed allegedly top secret information in response to a FOAI request? Bull#. absolute bull#. you can not obtain information that is still classified via a foia request.
Oh yea, its a top secret UFO meeting, but we are going to give you the information in response to a FOIA request, even though the meeting was top secret. yea uh huh, sure.
and Earth to whomever, it says a Naval Laison to the UN. It doesnt say the same officer you guys were talking about. You do realize that every branch has Laisons to the UN? Who do you think coordinates with the UN whenever the UN requests troops for things and nations have to contribute?
What you have is someone saying there was A naval laison, not the same naval officer your speaking of, combined with the fact that due to high year tenure, a naval officer entering naval surface when the source claims would still not be in now.
And as the poster before me claimed, in France the GIlles Lorant story has alrady been debunked, and they even have him admitting to LYING.

reply to post by NavalFC


Why does high year tenure stop him from still being in the navy?

Originally posted by silver6ix
reply to post by NavalFC

 

Why does high year tenure stop him from still being in the navy?

High year tenure is the max and mins a person is allowed to serve in the military. you cant stay in the military forever. thee are limits, called high year tenure, because let say that there was no such thing and you had people just staying in. eventually all the billets would be taken up for various paygrade and such like that, and promotion would come to a halt. Thats where high year tenure comes in, limitting peoples time as to not clog up the promotion system.

reply to post by NavalFC


You haven't' bothered to check into Bruce Macafee's background I'm guessing. You should know there are exceptions to the rule especially in high command. I know an air surgeon who has been recalled several times due to specific, "unique" skills. He's been in service since Korea and is still doing tours in the gulf as of today.

As for the FOIA request - the official response was not given. They did not release classified information as they are engaged in a controlled release for the purpose of disclosure.

The arrangement on the FOIA request was that the analyst assigned to respond would verify certain material facts "off the record" in exchange for dropping the request. The alternative would have been a "no relevant material available" response.
Why did they handle that way? I don't know, all I know is what I was told. You can disregard it if you want but I can assure you - the meetings are real and there is a program underway for disclosure with a target date of 2017. I know the FOIA thing is absolutely true, period. I'll leave it to you to figure out why. (Two other researchers were in the loop on the analyst's response, by the way).

Gilles Larant was involved in an early meeting but was not authorized to release information. He screwed up due to a misunderstanding on his part and he paid for it dearly. He apologized for lying about an element of his career for which he was terminated. Unfortunately, there are people who do that. He did not "admit" to having lied about the UN meetings.

I understand the skepticism, even the researchers involved in this case are skeptical as to the real motivations behind it, especially the methodology and time line. You based a lot of your debunking on your own comprehension rather than material facts, though.

cmon guys... give it a break.

Firstly, you can forgive a civilian for mistaking insignia for collar devices. A civilian isnt going to know the correct jargon. I know of only one way that a person can avoid the end of their term of service, and thats by becoming a civilian contractor. That opens up alot of other questions however. If so I cant explain why he would show up in whites unless he was trying to prove atleast a part of his story, or impress the interviewer.... Or he had just come from the set of a Village People Music Video.

Secondly, OCS is the beginning of an officers education, it supplies the basic fundamentals. You dont give a green officer command of anything bigger than a zodiac and a 45, and even then you show him which way the gun goes so he doesnt blow a hole in his torso. Once he is comissioned(by breaking a bottle of champagne over his head I recommend) a green squid is there to learn from everyone around him, NonCom and Officers alike. Those that dont learn are promoted and become members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

A green officer may be able to quote Von Klauswitz or recite Hallsey's various ramblings & curses, this makes him a gentleman and an officer, it doesnt make him an effective combat leader, nor an expert on all facits of a modern warship, or its integration into a modern warfighting fleet. If it did, we wouldnt have admirals and noncoms. Just millions of ensigns and zodiacs. *shudders*

Originally posted by nfotech
reply to post by NavalFC

 

You haven't' bothered to check into Bruce Macafee's background I'm guessing. You should know there are exceptions to the rule especially in high command. I know an air surgeon who has been recalled several times due to specific, "unique" skills. He's been in service since Korea and is still doing tours in the gulf as of today.

As for the FOIA request - the official response was not given. They did not release classified information as they are engaged in a controlled release for the purpose of disclosure.

The arrangement on the FOIA request was that the analyst assigned to respond would verify certain material facts "off the record" in exchange for dropping the request. The alternative would have been a "no relevant material available" response.
Why did they handle that way? I don't know, all I know is what I was told. You can disregard it if you want but I can assure you - the meetings are real and there is a program underway for disclosure with a target date of 2017. I know the FOIA thing is absolutely true, period. I'll leave it to you to figure out why. (Two other researchers were in the loop on the analyst's response, by the way).

Gilles Larant was involved in an early meeting but was not authorized to release information. He screwed up due to a misunderstanding on his part and he paid for it dearly. He apologized for lying about an element of his career for which he was terminated. Unfortunately, there are people who do that. He did not "admit" to having lied about the UN meetings.

I understand the skepticism, even the researchers involved in this case are skeptical as to the real motivations behind it, especially the methodology and time line. You based a lot of your debunking on your own comprehension rather than material facts, though.

oh boy so full of holes.
First off now the stiry changes.. so now the guy was told secret info in exchange for dropping a foai request. I call bull#. why would they be afraid of a FOAI request that way? the government can deny any foia request if the info is still classified. They wouldnt need to bargain like that.

also in regards to the surgeon who was recalled, yes it happens, but 2 things:
an officer doesnt need any special skills to serve as a laison.
They dont need to recall someone on active duty merely to attend meetings and then relay the info to the CoC. go betweens can be anyone competent. secondly, you are only eligible for recall for so long after your service. it isnt permanent.
and on gilles lorant, hes been debunked. the CRNS called bull# on this.
and the story changes again? 2017? the story says 2013.

Bruce Maccabee has NOT met with this man so far as we know. The alleged informant only agreed to meet and display credentials with these researchers. In all likelyhood, it won't happen, because Maccabee will be able to tell if the whole thing is a put on. He's just retired from working with the Navy for many years.

Again, the letter does NOT say Maccabee has vetted this guy.

This is coming from Michael Salla for chrissakes people. That ought to be enough to dismiss it alone.

Nothings changed , especially your continued habit of debunking based on your own bad interpretation.

Nothing changed as to the FOIA, I added in the details which you've proven to be a complete waste of time. As I said in the original post, a researcher who submitted the only FOIA request to date was able to verify material facts of the case. If you can't understand that there is no change in story at all between that post and the follow up all you're doing is reinforcing my belief that you suffer from poor reading comprehension.

Rather than debunking this case based on one article why don't you do some research and look up all the information releases made by the case sources? Salla was brought into the case very recently, basing your entire disbelief based on his article (which is not completely accurate) just makes it clear you haven't really bothered to do much research.

As I already stated, twice - Macabee met with and verified Source A as being exactly who and what he claims to be. Sadly his credibility runs circles around yours when it comes to the Navy. (His service record and research history is public record and he is very respected on both sides of the debate) You'll have to dig around beyond Salla's information releases to find that one. (Thanks for proving exactly my point when I told them involving Salla was a horrible idea)

If Macabee states publicly that he did not meet with and verify Source A then the primary sources are lying and that would be something of concern. This was one of the first questions the outside investigators asked and the reply can be found elsewhere.

I'd advise you to look up all the case data especially that which comes from primary rather than secondary sources. Or continue to believe whatever makes you happy. You've more than proven your verdict on this case is based on very poor grounds.



[edit on 29-10-2008 by nfotech]

reply to post by nfotech


Where did the meeting between Maccabee take place. When...and a statement from Maccabee? Where is that?


According to the posting:
"He has however agreed to be physically interviewed and shown his credentials to the following researchers: Clay and Shawn Pickering, Bob Vanderclock, Robert Morningstar, Dr Bruce Maccabee, two other unnamed researchers, and most recently myself on October 8."

This is all thats been stated officially as far as we see here.

"Shown" is the past tense of "Show". The sentence structure is unfortunate but what Salla is writing is a restatement of facts already put forward by the Pickerings in their daily updates "elsewhere" on another forum.

He's telling you that Source A has already met with the list of people given and had his credentials examined by them, including Macabee. His inclusion of the first part of the sentence where he states Source A agreed to be physically interviewed (by who he does not say) is confusing and an example of less than steller writing.

If the entire sentence was to relay credentials examination in the future he would have said "and agreed to show". His next sentence relaying that he examined the credentials already, on the 8th reinforces that he is talking about examinations which already took place.

The alternative would be that Salla and the Pickerings are all stating that Macabee met Source A and examined his credentials is a falsehood. I doubt any researcher would be that irresponsible.

I'm sure you have Macabee's email, ask him.

reply to post by nfotech


Nah. I take that statement as "he will", not he has. He's "agreed" to...not that he has.

I've emailed Bruce, so we'll find out. I see the OM forum is involved, which is another razor blade in the apple.

EDIT:
Yup, Bruce did in fact meet with the guy...which I'm surprised about, so I was wrong about that. That posting really ought to be re written and that aspect made very clear. But, I was completely wrong.

That said, the question ultimately is, do we take A at his word. If we do, then this ought to be removed from Salla and the whole exo-Greerdom crowd, and maybe followed up with Haines or Dolan.

I'm always highly suspect of "leaks" and official channels, because these are the same people allegedly hiding all this to begin with. So, the question then becomes what possible reason do we have to believe this person.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by jritzmann]

You need to look at that stuff as like a soap. Total bull to keep the public occupied. When have they told us any truths on anything. People have to experience the sh*t the do to us, before anyone realises that they do it.

The un thing is just bull, and should always be played on coasttocoast, as thats just a government front too.

Originally posted by jritzmann
reply to post by nfotech

 

Nah. I take that statement as "he will", not he has. He's "agreed" to...not that he has.

I've emailed Bruce, so we'll find out. I see the OM forum is involved, which is another razor blade in the apple.

"he will" be interviewed in person, he has "shown" credentials.

Anyway, I'm glad you emailed Bruce, best way to resolve that bit.

I don't know why the Pickerings chose to go there, adding Sallas did not help much. They claim these strategic decisions were handed down by "Source A" . I hate being put in the position of having to defend a case I have my own issues with but to debunk it based on the issues raised by the OP seems "wrong" IMO. He is relying too much on his own perceptions rather than the mountain of public evidence.

I've only been able to verify that at least 3 researchers I trust claim the source is valid and I can verify that someone at State wants people at OM to believe the meetings are real. None of this means the agenda of disclosure is real, however. The truth could be just another psy-op, exercise or even a method of misdirection as to the real nature of those meetings. (I may as well admit that I was the researcher who filed the FOIA and had the very strange interaction with the analyst, it's public record over on that other forum).

It's also public record over there when myself and some other researchers took a huge step back when Sallas was added to the "inner circle" of researchers. It was my opinion then that his addition indicated something other than the offered "disclosure" story. Judging by the private emails circulated my instincts were fairly accurate.

Perhaps Source A is simply a way to counter the initial leak by the Frenchman? Dunno, unfortunately. As I said though, debunk the case based on the facts rather than opinion (not aimed at you, Jeff). There's plenty there to work with and still acknowledge the factual data, (Source A is real and "they" do want us to believe the meetings are real").

It's rough being a UFO believer in a world full of UFO fantasy but every now and then we do find something real. You have to be willing to dig through a mountain of BS to get those nuggets, however. As to the UN case being a nugget of gold or a nugget of fool's gold - too soon to tell, IMO.

Naval, I was in Navy 4 years active and 2 years reserve. In my opinoin you are spltting hairs. There is nothing so terribly toublesome about the verbiage to dismiss it out of hand (to me anyway).


Also to everyone else, Naval is pretty spot on here. As a Operations Specialist I served side by side with officers everyday. Naval has given some information that only someone who has had day to day experience would know.

Sorry for all the darn edits, Wiki won't link to the Operations Specialist page correctly, If Search the term you will see the link Operations Specialist (navy).

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Helmkat]



[edit on 29-10-2008 by Helmkat]

Originally posted by NavalFC

Originally posted by silver6ix
reply to post by NavalFC

 

Why does high year tenure stop him from still being in the navy?

High year tenure is the max and mins a person is allowed to serve in the military. you cant stay in the military forever. thee are limits, called high year tenure, because let say that there was no such thing and you had people just staying in. eventually all the billets would be taken up for various paygrade and such like that, and promotion would come to a halt. Thats where high year tenure comes in, limitting peoples time as to not clog up the promotion system.

Thats really interesting because I thought it was a system introduced to clear the middle ranks of enlisted people who were "just taking the paycheck" and had no desire to report.

In fact id have said it had very much more to do with how long a person can serve maximum at any one given rank before having to leave. You see "high year tenure" doesnt enforce promotion it enforces you to earn promotion within a timeframe or separate from the Navy.


Id have though you knew this? Second of all you seem to be aware of whats call the waiver system, which is widely used and common place?

Anyone who is in a critical paygrade or holds a specific classification code, or is deemed specialist enough can submit and be waivered continually retaining their rank and tenure until the Navy see fit to do otherwise. You might find these people do special assignements, UN Attache for example, or senior command personell duties, you know the kind the Navy has no need or desire to move on?

So yet again, another reason why your debunking is just BUNK.

The fact is everything you have presented here as reason is just based on what you believe and want to present, in fact theres nothing in the details you talk about that invalidate the story.

The only solid piece of evidence ou could have come up with was that he lied.

Seems to me theres liars on both sides of the tale.

That means, as the last poster suggests, the way to the turht lies in qualifying the details of it piece by piece and seeing who is telling the truth.