Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Scudbuster

PBS broadcast: Dick Cheney Comment on UFO's

41 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

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:

Edited by Scudbuster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you know Politicians, that's the kind of standard not-actually-giving-an-answer-as-such-exactly that they usually use, the "i'm glad you asked me that" kind of response. What it is perhaps interesting is that he does seem to be saying that the Govt. would, and therefore presumably does, actually take an interest in UFOs and doesn't actually disregard them as of no interest, as the "official" line tries to claim, always rather implausibly, I've always thought.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea their not interested in UFO's and don't believe they exist that's the reason they have a plan for Alien invasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sort of evasiveness with which General Clark and Mr, Cheney responded certainly seems to point to things known but not to be revealed, on the subject of UFOs and Extraterrestrial visitation. They could give frank, informative denials if they knew nothing of moment about these matters. It's interesting that they are evasive, rather than dismissive. Perhaps they expect to still be around when the truth comes out, and don't want to be see as having been deceitful, especially on a subject of such immense importance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So an absence of denial equals admission? Grasping at straws anyone?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Well, if I had been briefed on it, I'm sure it was probably classified and I couldn't talk about it."

What are people reading into this?

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

Pretty witty also.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So an absence of denial equals admission? Grasping at straws anyone?

No, but it does just suggest that they probably wouldn't just dismiss it out of hand, as they've always tried, somewhat implausibly, to claim, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So an absence of denial equals admission? Grasping at straws anyone?

specifically about whether cheney had been briefed or not, right? not that there is no evidence that the guvmint had been collecting ufo reports and channeling them up the command through norad... :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but it does just suggest that they probably wouldn't just dismiss it out of hand, as they've always tried, somewhat implausibly, to claim, doesn't it?

Or possibly that a politician is exercising their talent for non committal phrases that have no real meaning, hidden or otherwise.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember the video of that response. Besides the words alone it really says nothing one way or the other. And to think the "upper ups" dont get briefed about "UFO" the unidentified object kind especially if it occured over the US airspace would be to think they actually get useful info in there daily briefings.

I would be willing to conjecture weve had "UFO" activity that originated from very earthly means thats made said briefings.

Therefore he was giving a honest answer. Classified cant say nuttin'

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

specifically about whether cheney had been briefed or not, right? not that there is no evidence that the guvmint had been collecting ufo reports and channeling them up the command through norad... :unsure:

More or less, yes. I've no doubt that Cheney has been briefed on classified information regarding 'unknowns'. Whether that means ET of course, remains to be seen. Honestly, I don't find anything worth reading into in his statement. It's not just about 'he said, she said' which is bad enough, but it's about 'he meant, she meant' which can not only be subjective but incredibly biased.

Edited by Slave2Fate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or possibly that a politician is exercising their talent for non committal phrases that have no real meaning, hidden or otherwise.

You dont' think, though, he's revealed that they weren't telling the truth when they tried to suavely assure us that Governments don't take any notice of UFO reports because they've decided they're no threat to National Security?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, i suppose what you could say is that this is a rare example of a Politician admitting, thanks to being caught off guard, that Governments do and always have lied to the People.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More or less, yes. I've no doubt that Cheney has been briefed on classified information regarding 'unknowns'. Whether that means ET of course, remains to be seen. Honestly, I don't find anything worth reading into in his statement. It's not just about 'he said, she said' which is bad enough, but it's about 'he meant, she meant' which can not only be subjective but incredibly biased.

yes, but the problem here is that the government has been denying the very fact that there were unknowns to begin with, so it's clear that they are partly responsible for fueling the conspiracies... they can always set the record straight, but instead... :alien:

if you press them for any info via foia, you will get a copy of the...

8b906f2ae2bb.jpg

which is of course false as we do know that they were collecting reports up until 2011.... http://main.aol.com/2011/10/19/air-force-deletes-ufo-rep_n_1021565.html

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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'?

Edited by Slave2Fate
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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'.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Career Politician = Habitual Liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.