J Edgar Hoover admitted Army recovered downed UFO

It appears J Edgar Hoover had previously admitted that the Army had recovered a downed UFO:

"We must insist upon full access to disks recovered. For instance, in the LA case the Army grabbed it and would not let us have it for cursory examination."

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk...

also Nixon;

Richard Nixon, US President from 1969 to 1974: "I'm not at liberty to discuss the government's knowledge of extraterrestrial UFO's at this time. I am still personally being briefed on the subject."

Quite an interesting article, although I'm not sure to what extent these public admissions have been discussed on ATS!

reply to post by Thebudweiserstuntman


Interesting - I'll probably look more into these statements when I get a chance.....

Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman
"We must insist upon full access to disks recovered. For instance, in the LA case the Army grabbed it and would not let us have it for cursory examination."

The Army didn't let them have it because they never recovered it. The Battle of Los Angeles is simply a case of war nerves.

Richard Nixon, US President from 1969 to 1974: "I'm not at liberty to discuss the government's knowledge of extraterrestrial UFO's at this time. I am still personally being briefed on the subject."

He is saying that he doesn't have enough information to say anything at that time. Some people would prefer to say nothing rather than make wild speculations based on incomplete information.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


He mentioned the government's 'knowledge' of the subject and did however say he was still being briefed on the subject, which, to me would suggest that they have information to 'brief' him with...

edit - spelling

[edit on 13-5-2009 by Thebudweiserstuntman]

Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Hi mentioned the government's 'knowledge' of the subjkect and did however say he was still being briefed on the subject, which, to me would suggest that they have information to 'brief' him with...

Or he could have been waiting to see if anybody came forward with information that was positive. He wouldn't have been briefed by just one agency, and they had to check their own records before reporting to him. It usually a good idea to do some IMAC before tell the President anything.

The statement is only a "smoking gun" if you assume the government actually has a wreck. Proving your thesis by your conclusions is kind of backward.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The Army didn't let them have it because they never recovered it.

The FBI director's note clearly says otherwise. Also don't assume LA refers to the Battle of LA. It could be referring to Los Alamos.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The Battle of Los Angeles is simply a case of war nerves.

Nice regurgitation of almost 70 year old govt talking points.
Have you seen this analysis ?
brumac.8k.com...

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The Army didn't let them have it because they never recovered it.

The FBI director's note clearly says otherwise. Also don't assume LA refers to the Battle of LA. It could be referring to Los Alamos.

It states his ASSUMPTION of the situation. Note the difference.

Nice quibble on the "LA", btw. People in Sri Lanka will tell you that "LA" means "Los Angeles". [/free clue]

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The Battle of Los Angeles is simply a case of war nerves.

Nice regurgitation of almost 70 year old govt talking points.
Have you seen this analysis ?
brumac.8k.com...

Sorry, but it's just another case of wishful thinking. The Battle of L.A. has been studied and debunk many times over.

A year ago Newspapers like The Telepgraph would never have published articles like this. Only to ridicule people on the subject What has changed?

Of course no hidden agenda here please move on to the The Times.

In regards to the OP there are some fantastic videos on you tube that talk about famous people advising the world UFO'S exist I will see if I can find one and post it up here,

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Proving your thesis by your conclusions is kind of backward.

I for one am happy to read anyones thesis and conclusions as long as they are sensible not pompous or ridiculing.

If we all take a minute or so and talk to each other without the baiting and argumentative approach I am positive we can all learn from each other.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
It states his ASSUMPTION of the situation. Note the difference.

Why did the FBI director assume the Army recovered a disc ?

You're assuming he made an assumption.

Your arguments are weak.

Star and flag for this thread. A- as it's a good article, and it has a few reputable sources taking about UFOs being of ET origin. And b- I'm a little "merry" and I'm gonna use the article to start an argument on another forum chock full of skeptics.

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
It states his ASSUMPTION of the situation. Note the difference.

Why did the FBI director assume the Army recovered a disc ?

You're assuming he made an assumption.

Your arguments are weak.

Here we go again.

YOU have to assume that there was a disk in the first place. Then you have to assume it was ever over LA. Then you have to assume that it was susceptible to our primitive AAA. Then you have to assume that we actually hit it. Then you have to assume that it crashed. Then you have to assume that it crashed in a place where it could be recovered. Then you have to assume that it WAS recovered. Then you have to assume that the Army would keep it secret from the FBI. Then you have to assume that the President would allow the Army to keep it secret from the FBI.

So, who is assuming here?

Your arguments are non-existent.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

Nice regurgitation of almost 70 year old govt talking points.
Have you seen this analysis ?
brumac.8k.com...

Sorry, but it's just another case of wishful thinking. The Battle of L.A. has been studied and debunk many times over.


Oh knowledgeable one! May I request some links to where exactly this has been debunked over and over again.

It really does nothing for your arguement just stating that its been debunked!

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
The Army didn't let them have it because they never recovered it.

The FBI director's note clearly says otherwise. Also don't assume LA refers to the Battle of LA. It could be referring to Los Alamos.

As much as it pains me to support the "grumpy sceptic", you actually should read the OP's source. It is clear what J. Edgar is talking about, and as the people in Sri Lanka will tell you, its Los Angeles, the Battle of.

J Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI from its inception in 1935 to 1972, said of a famous incident when flying saucers were allegedly fired at over Los Angeles in 1942: "We must insist upon full access to disks recovered. For instance, in the LA case the Army grabbed it and would not let us have it for cursory examination."

Nice regurgitation of almost 70 year old govt talking points.
Have you seen this analysis ?
brumac.8k.com...

It was nice, but at least he read the OP article, nice spew at a poster without actually reading what the thread is about.

*Slides on shades & holds up a black pen object*

Would you all look at this--------> !FLASH!
There was no President, it was just nerve agent reflecting off of DaveRabbits "shiny spot". Your both contributing members of ATS and happily post away in meaningful collaborative efforts.

*Clears throat*

Eh em, Whiskey six, Saber four golf, clear.

Well more paper work to do.....


[edit on 13-5-2009 by ADVISOR]

reply to post by Thebudweiserstuntman


Concerning The Hoover Quote in the OP, it was from a FIA release of MAy 2008. The quote from Hoover is from these notes here.

Mr. (name blacked out) also discussed this matter with Colonel L.R. Forney of MID (Military Intelligence Division). Colonel Forney indicated that it is his attitude that inasmuch as it has been established that the flying disks are not the result of any Army or Navy experiments, the matter is of interest to the FBI. He stated that he was of the opinion that the Bureau, if at all possible, should accede to General Schulgen's request.

SWR:AJB (initialed here)

ADDENDUM

I would recommend that we advise the Army that the Bureau does not believe it should go into these investigations, it being noted that a great bulk of those alleged discs reported found have been pranks. It is not believed that the Bureau would accomplish anything by going into these investigations

DML (Special Agent Ladd- signed below typed initials)

(Clyde Tolson)
(J. Edgar Hoover)
I would do it but before agreeing to it we must insist upon full access to discs recovered. For instance in the LA case the Army grabbed it & would not let us have it for cursory examination.

articles.dubroom.org...
I think this adds a bit of context to the discussion.

I was always confused about why that dumb old Army put out a press release of a crashed flying disk from outer space that was recovered in Roswell and then the next day, claimed it was a weather baloon. What was it that made them lie like that. Was it just a joke? You know how the government loves a good joke. And then there were those picture of the object in the sky over LA being hit with AA fire. It is freakin amazing how back in the day they had that extra cool technology to make a photo of someones overactive immagination. I wonder if they took a picture of a sad little debunkers immagination.........would it be a black blank page or a white one?

Originally posted by ADVISOR
*Slides on shades & holds up a black pen object*

Would you all look at this--------> !FLASH!

There was no President, it was just nerve agent reflecting off of DaveRabbits "shiny spot". Your both contributing members of ATS and happily post away in meaningful collaborative efforts.

*Clears throat*

Eh em, Whiskey six, Saber four golf, clear.

Well more paper work to do.....

This is totally of topic and I'm reporting you to a moderat.......hang on, dose Super Moderator trump a moderator....hey WTF what was that flash. Oh yeah, now where was I umm....I'll have a Big Mac, fries.....

reply to post by atlasastro


Thanks for that, it does indeed put the original quote in context. Interestingly they mention that a great bulkof these discs found turned out to be pranks, and not allof them found turned out to be pranks.

Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman
reply to post by atlasastro

 

Thanks for that, it does indeed put the original quote in context. Interestingly they mention that a great bulkof these discs found turned out to be pranks, and not allof them found turned out to be pranks.

Actually, it says REPORTED. The bulk of discs reported were found to be pranks. There is nothing about Discs actually being found. It is a report about wether the FBI needs to investigate, the report to the Big Cheese: J. Edgar is that it is not worth FBI time and resources to which the Big Cheese answer is that he would agree to this "if" the army let him have a look at the Discs he thinks they have because of reports, most of which turned out to be pranks, reports of. Heresay.