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.


- - - - -

PBS broadcast: Dick Cheney Comment on UFO's


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#16    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    a dark, sarcastic, depressing blanket of nihilism

  • Member
  • 25,405 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:there

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 01 April 2013 - 11:51 AM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 01 April 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

People have long been familiar with the terms 'top secret' or 'classified'. That governments keep secrets isn't news to anyone, or at least it shouldn't be. To maintain an air of authority and control sometimes the government has to keep hush what they don't know as well as what they do. What would happen to public confidence if the governments were to say 'we have no idea what these things are'?
So you do agree that Governments are not telling the truth when they suavely say that they do not attach any interest to UFO reports because they are satisified that they are of no interest to national security*?

* suave politician voice

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#17    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 6,886 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • If you don't believe the sun will rise
    Stand alone and greet the coming night
    In the last remaining light -Audioslave

Posted 01 April 2013 - 11:54 AM

View PostLord Vetinari, on 01 April 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

So you do agree that Governments are not telling the truth when they suavely say that they do not attach any interest to UFO reports because they are satisified that they are of no interest to national security*?

* suave politician voice

I can agree that it seems that they aren't being entirely up front about what they know however what they know might not have anything at all to do with 'visitors'.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#18    bison

bison

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,443 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011

Posted 01 April 2013 - 03:54 PM

When a government  or military official is asked directly about his knowledge of UFOs, and gives a vague, equivocal response, rather than a forthright denial, we are given every reason to suppose that there is something he does not wish to tell us. The political ploy of replying to a question that was not even asked is a sure sign of a concealed truth, bearing on the original question. Giving a witty or humorous reply that denies nothing and confirms nothing is another ploy often used by those who do not wish to respond in a frank, open manner.


#19    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 01 April 2013 - 04:24 PM

View Postbison, on 01 April 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

When a government  or military official is asked directly about his knowledge of UFOs, and gives a vague, equivocal response, rather than a forthright denial, we are given every reason to suppose that there is something he does not wish to tell us.

To me an outright denial would be more disconcerting. That means he has been ordered  not to say anything.

Is anyone else here old enough to remember Watergate?


#20    bison

bison

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,443 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2011

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:08 PM

View Postscowl, on 01 April 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

To me an outright denial would be more disconcerting. That means he has been ordered  not to say anything.

Is anyone else here old enough to remember Watergate?
I certainly remember Watergate.  People can obey an order to not tell certain things, in a number of ways. They can simply lie about what they know (denial). They can also produce an answer so ambiguous that it can be interpreted variously, and so doesn't amount to an explicit (forbidden) admission. One can still read between the lines a bit, and get at least a sense of the true situation.

Edited by bison, 01 April 2013 - 05:09 PM.


#21    ancient astronaut

ancient astronaut

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 792 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:31 spooner street

  • It Is What It Is.

Posted 01 April 2013 - 05:19 PM

Career Politician = Habitual Liar.

[media='funny-pic'][/media]

#22    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 6,073 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 01 April 2013 - 06:40 PM

View PostScudbuster, on 31 March 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

I had PBS on this particular day in my office, and I was listening to an interview with Cheney by Diane Rehm, so I actually heard this comment live.

Cheney was essentially ambushed, as the previous questions had nothing to do with the topic of UFO's.  My sense is that he wasn't ready to field a call on this topic and it caught him off guard, so we probably got a more truthful answer:


    Truth from Cheney!?    :lol:        At least Cheney talked in circles ,   instead of Spirals like Rumsfeld.   Dubs  talked in little wooden blocks with letters on them.

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#23    Stardrive

Stardrive

    Resident Bass Guitarist

  • Member
  • 3,238 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 01 April 2013 - 06:50 PM

View PostSakari, on 01 April 2013 - 01:06 AM, said:

What are people reading into this?

Sounds like a very good, and honest answer to me.

Pretty witty also.
I agree, he was mearly stating the obvious. The end.

Posted Image

#24    Scudbuster

Scudbuster

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts
  • Joined:24 Mar 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana

  • "This Train will stop at Tucumcari"

Posted 01 April 2013 - 09:51 PM

View Postlightly, on 01 April 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

Truth from Cheney!? :lol: At least Cheney talked in circles ,   instead of Spirals like Rumsfeld.   Dubs  talked in little wooden blocks with letters on them.

Yea, exactly, if Cheney had of been anticipating a UFO question, he probably would have responded with something like "No, nothing, we haven't had any interest in any such thing since Blue Book ended in 1969".


#25    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 5,097 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 02 April 2013 - 01:36 PM

View PostScudbuster, on 31 March 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

I had PBS on this particular day in my office, and I was listening to an interview with Cheney by Diane Rehm, so I actually heard this comment live.

Cheney was essentially ambushed, as the previous questions had nothing to do with the topic of UFO's.  My sense is that he wasn't ready to field a call on this topic and it caught him off guard, so we probably got a more truthful answer:





A similar situation happened when Grant Cameron managed to ask Vice President Dick Cheney the UFO briefing question on the Diane Rehm PBS radio program, April 11, 2001.  (http://www.ufoeviden...ents/doc887.htm) Cheney had been a Senator and also  Sec. of Defense under Pres. George Bush Sr. before becoming Vice President.


Cameron asked Cheney whether he had ever been briefed about UFOs when he was in the government.  To this Cheney replied, "Well, if I had been briefed on it, I'm sure it was probably classified and I couldn't talk about it."


Like Clark, Cheney talked around the question without giving an unqualified denial.  Again the key to this, as Cameron points out, is Cheney mentioning how the subject matter would be classified, so that he couldn't talk about it if he had received such briefings.



This snippet above was taken from an article about Gen. Wesley Clark.

The full article:


http://www.roswellpr...Clark_UFOs.html




Hmmm, I would read it as if he wasnt briefed then he would simply answer 'NO' and if he was then he would know its classified....why else would he be briefed on UFOs???? So for him to be briefed to begin with says it cant have been a casual 'oh and by the way UFOs...we dont know what they are??? so what? you havent for over 60 years why would he be briefed to this affect?

the last link with its references to 'travelling the stars' and 'einsteins theory' kind of reminds me of Ben Rich of Lockheed Skunkworks


#26    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 6,886 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • If you don't believe the sun will rise
    Stand alone and greet the coming night
    In the last remaining light -Audioslave

Posted 02 April 2013 - 01:54 PM

View Postquillius, on 02 April 2013 - 01:36 PM, said:

So for him to be briefed to begin with says it cant have been a casual 'oh and by the way UFOs...we dont know what they are??? so what? you havent for over 60 years why would he be briefed to this affect?

If there were a group dedicated and tasked to continue research into UFO's then Cheney could have simply been briefed with a classified status report which need not necessarily contain any revelations on the matter. Or, it could very well be that the government has given up on chasing UFO's since they state that they deem them 'not a threat' and Cheney may have simply been speaking tongue in cheek.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#27    Esoteric Toad

Esoteric Toad

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 691 posts
  • Joined:04 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Where does one get certified as an "Ancient Astronaut Theorist" or "Cryptozoologist"?

Posted 02 April 2013 - 02:05 PM

It doesn't matter what reply he gave. Believers will find evidence in nearly everything regardless. The skeptics will still search for scientific evidence that may not even exist. Debunkers will just poo on everything.


#28    quillius

quillius

    52.0839 N, 1.4328 E

  • Member
  • 5,097 posts
  • Joined:04 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:LONDON

  • A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
    Albert Einstein

Posted 02 April 2013 - 02:09 PM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 02 April 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

If there were a group dedicated and tasked to continue research into UFO's then Cheney could have simply been briefed with a classified status report which need not necessarily contain any revelations on the matter.

ok this is true, although I feel should this be the case then it is still quite important, dont you think? that investigation still continues.....secretely.

View PostSlave2Fate, on 02 April 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:


Or, it could very well be that the government has given up on chasing UFO's since they state that they deem them 'not a threat' and Cheney may have simply been speaking tongue in cheek.

maybe....


#29    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    a dark, sarcastic, depressing blanket of nihilism

  • Member
  • 25,405 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:there

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 02 April 2013 - 02:12 PM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 02 April 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

Or, it could very well be that the government has given up on chasing UFO's since they state that they deem them 'not a threat' and Cheney may have simply been speaking tongue in cheek.
it might have been a double Bluff, you mean? That would be cunning and Devious. i couldn't imagine dick Cheney doing that. :innocent:

Edited by Colonel Rhuairidh, 02 April 2013 - 02:24 PM.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#30    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 6,886 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • If you don't believe the sun will rise
    Stand alone and greet the coming night
    In the last remaining light -Audioslave

Posted 02 April 2013 - 02:17 PM

View Postquillius, on 02 April 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

ok this is true, although I feel should this be the case then it is still quite important, dont you think? that investigation still continues.....secretely.

Indeed, I think that the public should be aware of at the very least that an investigation is still going on, if it is still going on. As far as full disclosure of any findings? I don't know. I'm all for government transparency however I know it is a difficult task to balance that and national security. Without being privy to the details of what exactly the government may or may not know then hard lining either stance is pretty much arbitrary.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users