Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 4 votes

More NASA UFO's?

ufo nasa

  • Please log in to reply
1528 replies to this topic

Poll: Are these UFO's? (51 member(s) have cast votes)

Do these videos contain images of UFO's?

  1. Yes (22 votes [43.14%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 43.14%

  2. No (29 votes [56.86%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 56.86%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1351    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:26 PM

View PostPericynthion, on 20 November 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

Yes, you did, and I'm commenting on them now.

We have a lot of evidence to show that these are some sort of photo defects, not real objects.  Would you agree with this conclusion?  If not, what evidence do you have to show that they're something else?


I have dug up a bunch of posts that more or less agree with your point about film roll 66 being damaged.  I do admit that's a possibility, but now I will have to find out what this Ken Johnston had to say.


#1352    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,576 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:27 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 20 November 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

In this interview, Mitchell said that he first asked about Roswell in the 1980s and was told it was a true ET craft by various military and intelligence officers.

But he also states in later interviews that was in the company of Stephen Greer, whom he now distances himself from. I imagine it to be a bit of an embarrassing situation.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1353    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,576 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:28 PM

View Postquillius, on 20 November 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

I agree to the point that it was the Roswell cover up he was referencing when saying NASA had no involvement.

and I have been pondeering for a while the wording used 'no personal awareness of'.....

How long did he hang out with Greer? He has offered that he has spoken to, and puts faith in Bob Lazar?

Does that not qualify his statement?

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1354    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:31 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 20 November 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

I honestly do not know how this line can be taken any other way than how it reads:

And he did not approach the old timers, he specifically states that they sought him out because of his standing as an American Hero and being a local boy.



I grant you that NASA probably had nothing at all to due with Roswell.  It couldn't have because NASA did not even exist in 1947.  

I can tell you for certain that when it's on the ground it becomes an Army matter, as Edward Ruppelt once said, not an Air Force or NASA concern.

That means many people have been barking up the wrong tree for a long time, but we won't go into that now.  LOL


#1355    Pericynthion

Pericynthion

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 865 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:31 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 20 November 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

I have dug up a bunch of posts that more or less agree with your point about film roll 66 being damaged.  I do admit that's a possibility, but now I will have to find out what this Ken Johnston had to say.

Fair enough.  We can discuss this some more when you post your findings.

P.


#1356    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,576 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:37 PM

View Postquillius, on 20 November 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

EM: Well, Richard, I am never loathe to investigate anomalous phenomenon. Sometimes I don't have enough time to investigate all the ones I want to look at, and if you have indeed really turned up a very strange and bizarre set of events that are not explainable, sure I'm intrigued. I'm always intrigued by that. What I am turned off by is jumping to conclusions that, when there's a more obvious way to go.
AB: All right. Gentlemen, I want to jump in and ask a question. Richard, in the facts that you sent to me earlier today, you said Dr. Mitchell, on his previous appearance emphatically claimed that he was not precluded by NASA from discussing anything, that he either saw or experienced during his Apollo 14 flight. You, in fact, did say that, Dr. Mitchell, correct? All right, Richard says the NASA Space Act itself, in light Brookings strong recommendation, says otherwise, that you were, in fact, barred from discussing many things that you would have seen and done. Is that correct, Richard?
RH: Well, let's not be unclear on this. I have in my hands a copy of Public Law 85-568 from the 85th Congress HR 12575 published July 29, 1958 called An Act, which is the enabling legislation which created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This is the document which basically brought into being the agency which employed Ed Mitchell to go to the moon back in 1971. And there are several interesting sections to this. This entire document is up on the Enterprise Mission Web Site, which can be reached through the Art Bell Web Site on the Net. On page 4, there is a section titled "Functions of the Administration," meaning NASA. And it says that section 203, "The administration, in order to carry out the purpose of this act, shall 1. plan, direct and conduct aeronautical and space activities, 2. arrange for participation by ? committee, etc., 3. provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the result thereof." Now, that's the part that we always quote because it's the part that the American people have as their guarantee that everything that NASA found, it got to see. All right? Unfortunately, as we look through the act, we have found that there are other interesting sections that are not as generally well-known. For instance, there is a section on page 8. Well, let me start with page 7. This is section 206, subsection A, "The administration (meaning NASA) shall submit to the President for transmittal to the Congress, semiannually and at other times as is deemed desirable, report to its activities and accomplishments." It then says, section D, "No information which has been classified for reason of national security shall be included in any report made under this section unless such information has been declassified by, or pursuant to authorization given, by the President." So there's a caveat there. Now..
EM: Let me jump in there, Richard, because we're spending a lot of time on details here. Let me just cut across that. There are some valid areas of technical development that I'm sure military and security people which they came out of the NASA program. By and large, those are very, very limited, but I can think of some. For example, the development of computer technologies was certainly not released to all nations of the world, and it was classified in some way. But, we're talking about discovery here. What is really the issue of going to the moon and the data that we recovered. Scientific data in this sense was not classified. We were not under any restriction on what we reported. Yes, there was a time delay between the live voice circuit and what went out on the air. I think most of that was designed to keep four letter words, because sometimes we spoke a lightly gruffly, four letter from getting out without censorship, but the content of what we were reporting, the content of what we were doing was not, in any way, classified. We were not briefed on anything concerning scientific research. It was not even discussed about extraterrestrials. Good Lord, we would have loved to have been able to discuss something about that, or to have had something to discuss. It simply wasn't there. Technical information having to do with national security, military operations, the sophistication of our equipment, yes, there might have been some classified stuff, but, by and large, at NASA there was very little.
RH: Let me make another couple of points here from the Act. Further down on this page 8 relating to security, section 304, and this again is on the web site for those who want to read it. "The administrators shall establish such security requirements, restrictions and safeguards, as he deems necessary (Notice the assumption that it's always going to be a "he," 1958, all right) in the interest of the national security." Ed, we have a study from Brookings that was commissioned in '59 and was delivered to the Congress in '61, which we call the Brookings Report, which is a several hundred page document with a section related to specifically to the implications of NASA's confirmation of extraterrestrial intelligence, either by means of radio or artifacts, and they claim that you might find them, NASA might find them someday, from the perspective of '59 on the moon, Mars or Venus. There, then, is another sections of Brookings related to the recommendation that consideration be given to withholding such a discovery from the American people for reason of fear of social dislocation or social disturbance. The Act itself...
EM: Well, that may be true, Richard. I don't have any problem with the fact that it's written in the record.
RH: What I'm saying is that the act itself provides in law the mechanism for the administrator, for whom you work, for whom you sign documents, to restrict dissemination of this information if it ever came to pass. Now, the problem that I'm having is that we're all lawful individuals. We all presume we operate under the law. If this, in fact, was a reality, then sitting on the radio this morning you could not, in conscience with what you have signed, admit to the presence of remarkable anomalies there in consonance with the administrator's classification, if that ever came to pass.
EM: Well, you're stretching it way out of context. Let's say that at the time that was done it was undoubtedly considered a prudent policy to write such a thing into effect. In practice, what has happened, however, is that I know of no administrators since that time who have really considered extraterrestrial intelligence, or anyone at NASA at that level of operation that gave it practical consideration of something that needed to be done. As far as operation as crews, people on the job doing it, it had utterly no effect on us whatsoever. And I have signed nothing suggests that I am aware of that, or that I am required to be circumspect in what I say. It simply doesn't exist. That is ..
RH: Ed, I am quoting..
EM: ?...theoretical structures, and that quote of yours has virtually no practical bearing on what we're talking about.
RH: I am quoting from the law, the enabling legislation on page 11 in section I, it says, "The administration (meaning NASA) shall be considered a defense agency of the United States." Now we have always operated on the assumption....When I was with PBS, I absolutely would have sworn on a stack of Bibles and Korans that NASA was a civilian agency for space exploration of the government of the United States. Literally, a few days ago, when I read this carefully, I was stunned to see in the language the actual act says that NASA shall be considered a defense agency of the United States. Now, what that implies...
EM: I'll have to admit that's an interesting bit of language.
RH: Isn't it? Now, what that implies is that, in consonance with Brookings, if, not you guys, let's take the astronauts out of the equations for a minute, because as I said at the top of the show, there are absolutely physical models in which you could have landed in the middle of this stuff and not seen it. I really firmly believe that. So let's take you out of the equation. If there were people in NASA who knew there were interesting things there, and they were specifically looking for further information, and the landing sites were chosen so they could get it, maybe, without your knowledge from the films, from the seismic data, whatever, the administrator with this language can classify all of that and Golden, to this day, does not have to tell us unless Bill Clinton says, "Dan, we want to finally now go public."
EM: In principle I think you may be right, if that language that you've just read ...
RH: It's on the record.
EM: ? ...however, in practice, that simply is not the way it happened. That isn't the way sites were selected. That isn't the way mission were chosen. That sort of knowledge that you're talking about might have existed, simply didn't exist. How would it have existed in the first place. Simply didn't exist. It didn't operate so what we're getting awfully close to in this discussion is some more of the great conspiracy theories which we hear a lot of floating around the country at this point, which simply don't hold water. They should be looked at. I don't want to dismiss them totally out of hand. Yes, there are people within government who might hold that point of view, but frankly in this particular area in going to the moon during the Apollo program, during the entire NASA program, that sort of conspiracy and that sort of cover-up simply did not happen. However, it is quite clear that many within the military and within the intelligence establishment would very much like to have operated under those rules. We didn't, however.
RH: All right.
AB: Gentlemen, I've got to break in. We've got one more hour if you can both give us one more hour?
RH: Oh, why not, Art.
EM: Ha, ha. We've ruined the night already...
RH: It is dawn here on the east coast for both of us.
EM: Might as well stick with it.
AB: Yes. All right. Very good. Gentlemen, stand by.



OI - Wheres my link???


;)

So no, there is no NDA in place according to Dr Mitchell, and no Apollo cover ups.

I am glad you posted this. It's good to see Dr Mitchell in a better light for a change. I feel awful about what the media have done to him.


EM: I'll have to admit that's an interesting bit of language.


:lol: That's some diplomacy! I really quite like that short sharp response. I would like to he seen Edgar handle the Bill Nye interview in this fashion. It would have been much more interesting.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1357    synchronomy

synchronomy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario Canada

  • Facinating

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:38 PM

View Postbmk1245, on 20 November 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

Have you, on occasion,  one of those photos (if survived I don't need this, and this, and...? Just for comparison.
Unfortunately I have no examples of my own pictures to provide.
My days of home darkroom work were over thirty years ago.  Time has claimed them all.

At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.
This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. -- Carl Sagan

#1358    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,576 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:43 PM

View Postquillius, on 20 November 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

why did NASA decide to comment on the back of the Kerrang interview......

could this be why


Kerrang! Radio reported at its website:
“Producer Alex contacted NASA to confirm Dr. Mitchell's story, this was their reply:

‘Dear Alex,
NASA does not track UFOs.
NASA is not involved in any sort of cover-up about alien life on this planet or anywhere in the universe.
Dr Mitchell is a great American, but we do not share his opinion on this issue.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.’

http://www.thewhiten...82&forum_id=196



although I have seen this phrase banded about also:


A rep for NASA told CNN: "NASA does not track UFOs. NASA is not involved in any sort of cover-up about alien life on this planet or anywhere else - period."


is it the same NASA message by spokeperson Michael Cabbage? or is this another?



Because that interview blew Dr Mitchell's words out of proportion, hence the Lise Bonnice interview I keep referring back to, as Dr Mitchell says this is "To Clear The Record Up"





Quote


Astronaut Edgar Mitchell Sets Record Straight About E.T. Beliefs



Former man on the moon Dr. Edgar Mitchell found himself in the news today regarding remarks he made on the British radio program Kerrang!about believing in alien beings – and the long-rumored UFO crash in Roswell, New Mexico.
In the wake of that flap, the American astronaut set the record straight in an interview with Lisa Bonnice, host of BlogTalkRadio’sShapeShifting, saying that though there was indeed a cover-up at Rosewell, NASA knew nothing about it – at least not to his knowledge.
Here’s the full transcript of Mitchell’s discussion:





LINK

The words "Sets the record straight" I find very meaningful.

Edited by psyche101, 20 November 2012 - 10:44 PM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1359    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:44 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 20 November 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

But he also states in later interviews that was in the company of Stephen Greer, whom he now distances himself from. I imagine it to be a bit of an embarrassing situation.

Old J. Edgar Hoover had it right back in 1947, although few people ever picked up on it.  Whatever else Hoover was, he was nobody's fool when it came to bureaucracy and politics.  

He said that when there was something on the ground, the Army would grab it and then not "share" it with anybody else.  They don't have to.

And what does the Army ever say about UFOs?  Nothing.


#1360    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,576 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:48 PM

View Postquillius, on 20 November 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

hey McG, could it be that one of these members of the group went on to assist in setting up NASA?

also what do you make of Hoaglands discussion with Edgar on NASA being there for National security as a main


The CIA also formed in 1947, and by gum I would have to agree with Edgar on that one. They did get too much power in my personal opinion. I am not sure how the CIA maintains funding. They must have some very good friends in very high places.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1361    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,576 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:54 PM

View Postquillius, on 20 November 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

fair points Boon, although when it was set up wasnt it for space exploration....

RH: I am quoting from the law, the enabling legislation on page 11 in section I, it says, "The administration (meaning NASA) shall be considered a defense agency of the United States." Now we have always operated on the assumption....When I was with PBS, I absolutely would have sworn on a stack of Bibles and Korans that NASA was a civilian agency for space exploration of the government of the United States. Literally, a few days ago, when I read this carefully, I was stunned to see in the language the actual act says that NASA shall be considered a defense agency of the United States. Now, what that implies...
EM: I'll have to admit that's an interesting bit of language.

I guess this is what Hoagland thought it was for at least....and maybe Edgar too judging by his response....

I took Edgars response to be a polite way of saying "your out of your gourd reading it like that"



Quote

EM: In principle I think you may be right, if that language that you've just read ...
RH: It's on the record.
EM: ? ...however, in practice, that simply is not the way it happened. That isn't the way sites were selected. That isn't the way mission were chosen. That sort of knowledge that you're talking about might have existed, simply didn't exist. How would it have existed in the first place. Simply didn't exist. It didn't operate so what we're getting awfully close to in this discussion is some more of the great conspiracy theories which we hear a lot of floating around the country at this point, which simply don't hold water. They should be looked at. I don't want to dismiss them totally out of hand. Yes, there are people within government who might hold that point of view, but frankly in this particular area in going to the moon during the Apollo program, during the entire NASA program, that sort of conspiracy and that sort of cover-up simply did not happen. However, it is quite clear that many within the military and within the intelligence establishment would very much like to have operated under those rules. We didn't, however.
RH: All right.

And Richard cuts him off.

Mate, you give Hoagland an ounce of credence??????

View Postbee, on 20 November 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

@bmk...

IF Edgar Mitchell had got his info from a couple of girls you might have a point..... :P


.


Umm, Hoagland, Greer, Lazar........... pfft, girls are probably tougher.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1362    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,576 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:57 PM

View Postquillius, on 20 November 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

has anyone been able to access the web link ... www.access.gp etc etc as posted in Jims post #1284???

Nope, I think this is the doc though - LINK

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1363    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,576 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:04 PM

View Postquillius, on 20 November 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

do you agree that NASA do not track UFO's? and /or never have done?


ps: I am off home now so will catch up tomorrow.....I have a feeling this debate could turn rather interesting tonight :)

Would they go out of their way to perhaps visit a UFO report in a remote area, or would someone else do it?

The scope is opening up horribly. NASA,The Government, the military, and that is even that is down to Navy Army and Air Force all having their own cover ups, then we have the FBI, the CIA ProjectTwinkle, Moon-dust you name it, dozens of projects. Is there anyone who is not "in" on this "secret"?

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1364    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:14 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 20 November 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Would they go out of their way to perhaps visit a UFO report in a remote area, or would someone else do it?

The scope is opening up horribly. NASA,The Government, the military, and that is even that is down to Navy Army and Air Force all having their own cover ups, then we have the FBI, the CIA ProjectTwinkle, Moon-dust you name it, dozens of projects. Is there anyone who is not "in" on this "secret"?


Everybody had their own UFO investigations going on, but President Truman thought that there should be more "sharing".  Of course, the FBI and CIA hated each other, while the first Defense Secretary James Forrestal was driven to distraction by inter-service rivalries, so presidential intervention was always in the direction of trying to encourage more cooperation among the different bureaucracies.

Every president has expressed frustration on this issue, and by no means only on UFOs.


#1365    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,576 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:14 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 20 November 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

Old J. Edgar Hoover had it right back in 1947, although few people ever picked up on it.  Whatever else Hoover was, he was nobody's fool when it came to bureaucracy and politics.  

He said that when there was something on the ground, the Army would grab it and then not "share" it with anybody else.  They don't have to.

And what does the Army ever say about UFOs?  Nothing.

Would you say that any hypothetical group who would be involved in anything on the ground, would have a division specifically for recoveries, or would they have a "higher up" for want of a better word whom they would step aside for? For arguments sakes, would some sort of "Torchwood" override the regular army or woud the army/nayv/UASF itself have such a division each?

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users