For those who don't understand why there is a UFO coverup
Andrew W
by Steven M. Greer M.D.
http://www.ufodigest.com/ufosecrecy.html
Summary: The evidence regarding this subject is clear and overwhelming: It
has not been difficult to make a compelling case for the reality of UFOs per
se. What is a greater challenge is elucidating the architecture of secrecy
related to UFOs (see the exposition of this matter contained in the paper
entitled "Unacknowledged" by this author). But the greatest challenge is
explaining the 'why'. Why all the secrecy? Why a 'black' or unacknowledged
government within the government? Why hide the UFO/ET subject from public
view?
Over the past few years I have had the responsibility of briefing senior
government and scientific leaders both in the US and abroad on the
UFO/Extraterrestrial subject.
The evidence regarding this subject is clear and overwhelming: It has not
been difficult to make a compelling case for the reality of UFOs per se.
What is a greater challenge is elucidating the architecture of secrecy
related to UFOs (see the exposition of this matter contained in the paper
entitled "Unacknowledged" by this author). But the greatest challenge is
explaining the 'why'. Why all the secrecy? Why a 'black' or unacknowledged
government within the government? Why hide the UFO/ET subject from public
view?
The 'what' or evidence is complex but manageable. The 'how' or nature of the
secret programs is more difficult, much more complex and Byzantine. But the
'why' - the reason behind the secrecy'- is the most challenging problem of
all. There is not a single answer to this question, but rather numerous
inter-related reasons for such extraordinary secrecy. Our investigations and
interviews with dozens of top - secret witnesses who have been within such
programs have enabled us to understand the reasons behind this secrecy. They
range from the fairly obvious and straight-forward to the really bizarre.
Here, I wish to share some key points regarding this secrecy, why it has
been imposed and why it is so difficult for the controlling interests within
covert programs to reverse policy and allow disclosure.
In The Beginning
In the early days of the ET/UFO phenomena, military, intelligence and
industrial interests had concerns regarding the nature of the phenomena,
whether it originated from our human adversaries and once it was determined
to be extraterrestrial, how the public would react.
In the 1930s and 1940s this was no small matter: If these UFOs were of
terrestrial origin, they would be evidence of an earthly adversary with
technological devices far in advance of US aircraft. And once it was
determined to be extraterrestrial (some quarters knew this prior to the end
of WWII) there were many more questions than answers. To wit: why were the
ET s here? What are their intentions? How do the devices travel at such
fantastic speeds and through the vastness of space? How might these
technologies be applied to the human situation -both in war and in peace?
How would the public react to this knowledge? What effect would the
disclosure of these facts have on human belief systems? Political and social
systems?
From the late 1940s through the early 1950s, a concerted effort was made to
figure out the basic science and technologies behind these spacecraft,
primarily through the direct study and reverse-engineering of the retrieved
extraterrestrial objects from New Mexico and elsewhere. It was immediately
recognized that these objects were using laws of physics and applied
technologies far in advance of internal combustion engines, vacuum tubes and
the like. In the climate of the Cold War and in a world where a relatively
minor advantage technologically could tilt the balance of power in the
nuclear arms race, this was no small matter.
Indeed, the theme of human geo-political dysfunction appears as a recurring
feature of the secrecy related to UFOs - up to the present hour. More on
this later.
From the Wilbur Smith top secret Canadian government document of 1950, we
know that this subject was held in greater secrecy than even the development
of the hydrogen bomb. There was a tremendous effort underway by the late
1940s to study extraterrestrial hardware, figure out how it operated and see
what human applications might be made from such discoveries. Even then, the
project dealing with this subject was extraordinarily covert.
It became much more so by the early 1950s when substantial progress was made
on some of the basic physics behind the ET craft energy and propulsion
systems. The best we can estimate, it was then that the entire project
became increasingly 'black' or unacknowledged.
The compartmentalization of the project dealing with UFOs was exponentially
increased by the early 1950s when it was realized what it was that these
covert projects actually had: Devices displaying physics and energy systems
which - if disclosed - would forever alter life on earth.
By the Eisenhower era, the UFO/ET projects were increasingly compartmented
away from legal, constitutional chain-of-command oversight and control. This
means that -while we know from witness testimony that Eisenhower knew of the
ET craft - the president ( and similar leaders in the UK and elsewhere) were
increasingly left out of the loop. Such senior elected and appointed leaders
were confronted with (as Eisenhower called it) a sophisticated
military-industrial complex with labyrinthine compartmented projects which
were more and more out of their control and oversight. From direct witness
testimony we know that Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter and Clinton were
frustrated by their attempts to penetrate such projects.
This is also true of senior congressional leaders and investigators, foreign
leaders and UN leadership. This is indeed an equal opportunity exclusion
project - it does not matter how high your rank or office, if you are not
deemed necessary to the project, you are not going to know about it. Period.
Contrary to popular myth, since the 1960s concern over some type of public
panic when faced with the fact that we are not alone in the universe has not
been a major reason for the secrecy. Those in the know -notwithstanding the
fantastic tales spun in UFO circles and on the X-Files -understand that fear
of hostile ET s has also not been a significant factor. While there has been
continued confusion in some covert circles over the ultimate purpose behind
the ET phenomena, we know of no knowledgeable insiders who regard the ET s
as a hostile threat.
By the 1960s - and certainly by the 1990s - the world was very familiar with
the concept of space travel and the popular science - fiction industry had
thoroughly indoctrinated the masses with the idea of ET s from far away
being a possibility. So why the continued secrecy?
The Cold War is over. People would hardly be shocked to find out that we are
not alone in the universe ( the majority of people already believe this - in
fact most people believe the UFOs are real). Besides, what could be more
shocking than to live through the latter half of the 20th century with
thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed at every major city in the world? If we
can handle that, surely we can handle the idea that ET s are real.
The facile explanations of fear, panic, shock and the like do not suffice to
justify a level of secrecy so deep that even the President and his CIA
Director could be denied access to the information.
Story continues: Page 2. http://www.ufodigest.com/ufosecrecy2.html
Main page:
http://www.ufodigest.com/ufosecrecy.html
--
If you are a hard skeptic then you haven't researched or questioned enough.
If you believe something too much then you have the same problem.
Sir Gilligan Horry
wrote:
> Understanding UFO Secrecy in the 21st Century
>
> by Steven M. Greer M.D.
>
> http://www.ufodigest.com/ufosecrecy.html
>
It's busy OUT THERE by a trillion X trillion x trillion X trillion
plus a few extra trillion events.
Enjoy!
And as the movie said behind me...
"You Can Be Very Sure Of That".
____________________________
Never Fear... Old Horry is Always Here!
_____________________________
JTEM
"Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> http://www.ufodigest.com/ufosecrecy.html
>
> Summary: The evidence regarding this subject is clear
> and overwhelming: It has not been difficult to make a
> compelling case for the reality of UFOs per se.
I have to disagree. Not only do I find the case less than
compelling, I catch myself forcing back the laughter at
the opposing view.
"Photographic" evidence is meaningless, all of it suffering
from one of two flaws. They are "Too good" and "Too bad."
Most "Photographic evidence" is so bad that it can either
be just about anything or nothing. We just can't tell anything
for sure, not from the poor photos. The rest of the "Photographic
Evidence" is too good. The craft are so big, so clearly discerned
that the fact that thousands didn't report them defies all
explanation.
An example of this latter category was a supposed "UFO"
hoovering outside of an apartment area. Such an event
simply could not take place in any area sufficiently urbanized
to supposed a high-rise apartment building.
The eyewitness accounts are even worse. I mean, those few
which actually exists. Go listen to "Coast to Coast AM" and
the people peddling UFO hype, and one thing soon becomes
clear: The /Claims/ of witnesses far exceed their actual
numbers.
What does that mean? UFO nuts will often tell tall tales about
a crash here or a sighting there -- all duly witnessed by large
numbers of credible citizens. What's missing is the actual
citizens who supposedly witnessed events.
In case you're still not getting it...
If I claim to have seen a UFO and that ten other people were
with me at the time -- all doctors, lawyers, college professors
and police officers -- and that they all saw it too, amongst
UFO nuts this would count as 11 witnesses (me plus the 10
I said were with me). Here on this planet though, all you've
really got is one (and only one) person making a whole bunch
of unsubstantiated claims.
Not that there aren't "eye witnesses."
http://lewwaters.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/ron-paul-screwball.jpg
> Why all the secrecy? Why a 'black' or unacknowledged
> government within the government?
If those clue impaired, the above is a fallacious argument.
Effectively what it's claiming is that the denial of their
view ("UFOs exist") is proof that they are right.
If that was too subtle for you...
Everything is proof of their position. There is literally nothing
the government could say that would dissuade them.
"Look! They deny everything! That proves I'm right!"
> Why hide the UFO/ET subject from public
> view?
Ditto.
Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet
Horse SHIT!
Andrew W
> "Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>> http://www.ufodigest.com/ufosecrecy.html
>>
>> Summary: The evidence regarding this subject is clear
>> and overwhelming: It has not been difficult to make a
>> compelling case for the reality of UFOs per se.
>
> I have to disagree. Not only do I find the case less than
> compelling, I catch myself forcing back the laughter at
> the opposing view.
>
> "Photographic" evidence is meaningless, all of it suffering
> from one of two flaws. They are "Too good" and "Too bad."
>
> Most "Photographic evidence" is so bad that it can either
> be just about anything or nothing. We just can't tell anything
> for sure, not from the poor photos. The rest of the "Photographic
> Evidence" is too good. The craft are so big, so clearly discerned
> that the fact that thousands didn't report them defies all
> explanation.
>
Actually there are many cases where scores of people reported large objects,
some of them police officers etc.
>
> An example of this latter category was a supposed "UFO"
> hoovering outside of an apartment area. Such an event
> simply could not take place in any area sufficiently urbanized
> to supposed a high-rise apartment building.
>
> The eyewitness accounts are even worse. I mean, those few
> which actually exists. Go listen to "Coast to Coast AM" and
> the people peddling UFO hype, and one thing soon becomes
> clear: The /Claims/ of witnesses far exceed their actual
> numbers.
>
The eyewitness accounts of airline pilots, airforce pilots, astronaughts
etc. are very credible.
>
> What does that mean? UFO nuts will often tell tall tales about
> a crash here or a sighting there -- all duly witnessed by large
> numbers of credible citizens. What's missing is the actual
> citizens who supposedly witnessed events.
>
I don't know what you're talking about. Most of the witnesses are available
for interview to this day.
They are still being interviewed on many radio stations and documentaries
(search online) and include professional people mentioned above.
You obviously only watch the six o'clock news like the rest of the sheeple.
>
> In case you're still not getting it...
>
> If I claim to have seen a UFO and that ten other people were
> with me at the time -- all doctors, lawyers, college professors
> and police officers -- and that they all saw it too, amongst
> UFO nuts this would count as 11 witnesses (me plus the 10
> I said were with me). Here on this planet though, all you've
> really got is one (and only one) person making a whole bunch
> of unsubstantiated claims.
>
> Not that there aren't "eye witnesses."
>
> http://lewwaters.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/ron-paul-screwball.jpg
>
>> Why all the secrecy? Why a 'black' or unacknowledged
>> government within the government?
>
> If those clue impaired, the above is a fallacious argument.
> Effectively what it's claiming is that the denial of their
> view ("UFOs exist") is proof that they are right.
>
> If that was too subtle for you...
>
> Everything is proof of their position. There is literally nothing
> the government could say that would dissuade them.
>
> "Look! They deny everything! That proves I'm right!"
>
>> Why hide the UFO/ET subject from public
>> view?
>
> Ditto.
>
You obviously didn't read the posted document which explains the
government's and military's numerous reasons for the cover-up.
They still have several reasons to continue the cover-up. Today its becoming
more and more a case of extreme embarrassment if they did admit to all their
past lies and subterfuges.
Originally it was just a military security concern because they thought
Russia or Germany had some kind of new weapon. Then it was the public panic
issue. Then it was the desire to grab the ET technology to make better war
weapons.
It has just become a huge mess that cannot be let out of the bag - maybe
never.
But of course for the ignorant majority which includes the debunkers here it
all seems incredible that our governments would want to cover up such a
thing.
JTEM
"Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> Actually there are many cases where scores of people
> reported large objects, some of them police officers etc.
You're kind of proving my point here, making the exact kind
of claim I described without the slightest proof to back it
up.
> The eyewitness accounts of airline pilots, airforce pilots,
> astronaughts etc. are very credible.
You mean they really did see something they couldn't
identify?
> You obviously didn't read the posted document which
> explains the government's and military's numerous
> reasons for the cover-up.
....which is every bit as valid as it would be if I posted
your reasons for inventing the idea of a cover-up.
Seriously, can't you see this? It's even more transparent
than your anecdotal evidence that's missing the anecdotes.
> They still have several reasons to continue the cover-up.
Again, it's "I'm right, and the fact that they don't agree with
me proves I'm right."
That's not an argument, that's a disorder!
Andrew W
> "Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Actually there are many cases where scores of people
>> reported large objects, some of them police officers etc.
>
> You're kind of proving my point here, making the exact kind
> of claim I described without the slightest proof to back it
> up.
>
You are welcome to check the reports and testimonies yourself. They're all
over the net.
Do you expect them to be delivered to you and dropped in your lap?
>
>> The eyewitness accounts of airline pilots, airforce pilots,
>> astronaughts etc. are very credible.
>
> You mean they really did see something they couldn't
> identify?
>
More than that. The objects in many cases made high speed manurers that show
a high level of technology and intelligence.
Some of the objects were of an enormous size.
>
>> You obviously didn't read the posted document which
>> explains the government's and military's numerous
>> reasons for the cover-up.
>
> ....which is every bit as valid as it would be if I posted
> your reasons for inventing the idea of a cover-up.
>
> Seriously, can't you see this? It's even more transparent
> than your anecdotal evidence that's missing the anecdotes.
>
You think I and others have reasons for inventing cover-ups?
Who's crazy now?
Why don't you get off your seat and check out the scores of documented
evidence for the government and military cover-up campaigns?
>
>> They still have several reasons to continue the cover-up.
>
> Again, it's "I'm right, and the fact that they don't agree with
> me proves I'm right."
>
> That's not an argument, that's a disorder!
>
You are very ignorant about this subject and your government.
Bob Lazar and others have seen the recovered craft.
Many including high ranking officers have seen craft in flight.
The problem here is that you and others simply can't handle the higher
implications of what all this entails, so you base all your beliefs only on
what you can handle, which is that what your five senses can detect and what
mainstream science has confirmed is all there is and nothing more.
And you refuse to look at the mountains of data coming in every day from
around the world because it will take you out of your comfort zone.
HVAC
"Andrew W" <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:4aff2251$0$16741$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> More than that. The objects in many cases made high speed manurers that
> show a high level of technology and intelligence.
You mean they APPEARED to have "made high speed manurers" (sic)
> Some of the objects were of an enormous size.
You mean they were REPORTED to APPEAR to
have an enormous size.
> Why don't you get off your seat and check out the scores of documented
> evidence for the government and military cover-up campaigns?
Wow! What a revelation, OUR government is actually
hiding SECRET aircraft and covering up sightings of same?
Call CNN
Andrew W
> "Andrew W" <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4aff2251$0$16741$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> More than that. The objects in many cases made high speed manurers
>> that show a high level of technology and intelligence.
>
> You mean they APPEARED to have "made high speed manurers" (sic)
>
Spell checker mishap.
That's your opinion.
Its your opinion against that of trained pilots etc.
But of course since you weren't there to see what they saw your opinion
doesn't count for much against the numerous pilots and ground observers.
>
>> Some of the objects were of an enormous size.
>
>
> You mean they were REPORTED to APPEAR to
> have an enormous size.
>
No. Trained eyes saw large solid objects. You're welcome to check the
reports.
>
>> Why don't you get off your seat and check out the scores of
>> documented evidence for the government and military cover-up
>> campaigns?
>
>
> Wow! What a revelation, OUR government is actually
> hiding SECRET aircraft and covering up sightings of same?
>
> Call CNN
>
How ignorant are you?
Do you think the military can do its job if it tells everyone everything?
Secrecy is how a military force works.
How do you think the west defeated Germany? (look up the cracking of the
enigma machine).
What do you think the cold war was?
JTEM
"Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> You are welcome to check the reports and testimonies
> yourself.
Okay. Just did. What did I miss?
> > You mean they really did see something they couldn't
> > identify?
>
> More than that.
They saw two things that they couldn't identify?
> The objects in many cases made high speed manurers
Pure conjecture.
> that show a high level of technology and intelligence.
Or a lot of totally natural bouncing around on an atmosphere
which is anything but "Smooth as glass."
> Some of the objects were of an enormous size.
Who held the measuring tape?
> You think I and others have reasons for inventing cover-ups?
Absolutely. Your UFO claims imply a cover up. You could
even say that your claims require a cover-up. See, If craft
from another planet are real, and so prevalent, the only way
everyone on the planet wouldn't be accepting them as fact
would be if the governments of every major nation are
actively engaged in an enormous cover-up.
> Who's crazy now?
Oh, you're making it too easy...
> Why don't you get off your seat and check out the
> scores of documented evidence for the government
> and military cover-up campaigns?
Okay, just did. What is it you find so compelling?
> > Again, it's "I'm right, and the fact that they don't agree with
> > me proves I'm right."
>
> > That's not an argument, that's a disorder!
> You are very ignorant about this subject and your
> government.
Judging from the volume of hard information you've posted
here ("nadda"), I don't think the problem is so much
"Ignorance" as it is "Imagination."
> Bob Lazar and others have seen the recovered craft.
Bob Lazar is a tool who made a pile of cash selling UFO
mumbo-jumbo to the gullible.
> Many including high ranking officers have seen craft in flight.
Insert an anecdote somewhere in the above and you'd have
something that qualified as "anecdotal evidence."
JTEM
"HVAC" <harlowcampb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote
> > Some of the objects were of an enormous size.
>
> You mean they were REPORTED to APPEAR to
> have an enormous size.
Where did they get the measuring tape?
Andrew W
> "Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>> You are welcome to check the reports and testimonies
>> yourself.
>
> Okay. Just did. What did I miss?
>
Lol.
Did your five second research for the day?
Which cases did you look up and on which website?
>
>>> You mean they really did see something they couldn't
>>> identify?
>>
>> More than that.
>
> They saw two things that they couldn't identify?
>
Who are you talking about?
>
>> The objects in many cases made high speed manurers
>
> Pure conjecture.
>
Seeing is conjecture? Ok. Whatever.
>
>> that show a high level of technology and intelligence.
>
> Or a lot of totally natural bouncing around on an atmosphere
> which is anything but "Smooth as glass."
>
More opinions.
>
>> Some of the objects were of an enormous size.
>
> Who held the measuring tape?
>
Funny. Ha ha.
The pilots had enough perspective from other things to evaluate the general
size of the objects. Some were extremely large.
Here's one case:
http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009c/colorado082209.html
Some early cases:
http://www.nicap.org/waves/1958fullrep.htm
Some more:
http://www.theblackvault.com/wiki/index.php/More_UFOs_reported_over_Ohio_(American_Chronicle,_12-17-08)
>
>> You think I and others have reasons for inventing cover-ups?
>
> Absolutely. Your UFO claims imply a cover up. You could
> even say that your claims require a cover-up. See, If craft
> from another planet are real, and so prevalent, the only way
> everyone on the planet wouldn't be accepting them as fact
> would be if the governments of every major nation are
> actively engaged in an enormous cover-up.
>
There is well documented evidence for a cover-up.
Do you think the military just tells everyone everything and lets the
government do the same?
I can see that you know nothing about how the military, NSA etc. work.
>
>> Who's crazy now?
>
> Oh, you're making it too easy...
>
You've only shown your ignorance so far.
>
>> Why don't you get off your seat and check out the
>> scores of documented evidence for the government
>> and military cover-up campaigns?
>
> Okay, just did. What is it you find so compelling?
>
Where did you look? www.debunker.com?
>
>>> Again, it's "I'm right, and the fact that they don't agree with
>>> me proves I'm right."
>>
>>> That's not an argument, that's a disorder!
>
>> You are very ignorant about this subject and your
>> government.
>
> Judging from the volume of hard information you've posted
> here ("nadda"), I don't think the problem is so much
> "Ignorance" as it is "Imagination."
>
Everyone who does zero research and knows nothing thinks it just
imagination, alcohol, Venus etc.
You're like the average person on the street who has a really smart opinion
about what was seen.
Your type think you have an explanation for everything.
>
>> Bob Lazar and others have seen the recovered craft.
>
> Bob Lazar is a tool who made a pile of cash selling UFO
> mumbo-jumbo to the gullible.
>
Actually he didn't make much money at all.
Just another of your opinions.
>
>> Many including high ranking officers have seen craft in flight.
>
> Insert an anecdote somewhere in the above and you'd have
> something that qualified as "anecdotal evidence."
>
Testimonies and govt. documents are not anecdotes.
Its clear you're not even interested in this subject.
You just like waging your smart mouth about the thousands of serious cases
around the world of which you know nothing.
HVAC
4>>
>> You mean they APPEARED to have "made high speed manurers" (sic)
>>
> Its your opinion against that of trained pilots etc.
> But of course since you weren't there to see what they saw your opinion
> doesn't count for much against the numerous pilots and ground observers.
And YOU weren't there either. So you are REPORTING
what they THOUGHT they saw. Correct?
>>> Some of the objects were of an enormous size.
>>
>>
>> You mean they were REPORTED to APPEAR to
>> have an enormous size.
>>
>
> No. Trained eyes saw large solid objects. You're welcome to check the
> reports.
I have. Others report seeing different seperate objects.
Decoy flares to be exact. Why don't you tell THAT side
of the story?
>>> Why don't you get off your seat and check out the scores of
>>> documented evidence for the government and military cover-up
>>> campaigns?
>>
>>
>> Wow! What a revelation, OUR government is actually
>> hiding SECRET aircraft and covering up sightings of same?
>>
>> Call CNN
>>
>
> How ignorant are you?
> Do you think the military can do its job if it tells everyone everything?
> Secrecy is how a military force works.
And yet it was YOU who found it to be an evil government
plan to hide aliens and their ufo's. Talk about ignorant.
And like most ufotards, humor and sarcasm go right over your head.
--
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --- Mark Twain
Andrew W
> "Andrew W" <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4aff2edb$0$31579$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> 4>>
>>> You mean they APPEARED to have "made high speed manurers" (sic)
>>>
>> That's your opinion.
>> Its your opinion against that of trained pilots etc.
>> But of course since you weren't there to see what they saw your
>> opinion doesn't count for much against the numerous pilots and
>> ground observers.
>
> And YOU weren't there either. So you are REPORTING
> what they THOUGHT they saw. Correct?
>
INcorrect. I'm reporting the findings of the experts who examined the cases
(since you common profane folk never get (bother) to see/hear them).
>
>>>> Some of the objects were of an enormous size.
>>>
>>>
>>> You mean they were REPORTED to APPEAR to
>>> have an enormous size.
>>>
>>
>> No. Trained eyes saw large solid objects. You're welcome to check the
>> reports.
>
> I have. Others report seeing different seperate objects.
> Decoy flares to be exact. Why don't you tell THAT side
> of the story?
>
Which cases turned out to be decoy flares? There may have been one or two
against 100 cases.
Of course your type also bought the military's silly story that the Phoenix
lights were just flares too, even though 1/ the airforce do not drop flares
above populated areas, 2/ no flares can last for two hours, 3/ flares can't
travel in perfect formation from city to city, and 4/ flares do not block
out the stars.
Fools and the ignorant believe foolish stories.
>
>>>> Why don't you get off your seat and check out the scores of
>>>> documented evidence for the government and military cover-up
>>>> campaigns?
>>>
>>>
>>> Wow! What a revelation, OUR government is actually
>>> hiding SECRET aircraft and covering up sightings of same?
>>>
>>> Call CNN
>>>
>>
>> How ignorant are you?
>> Do you think the military can do its job if it tells everyone
>> everything? Secrecy is how a military force works.
>
> And yet it was YOU who found it to be an evil government
> plan to hide aliens and their ufo's. Talk about ignorant.
>
Me? Wrong. Ex-military generals and other insiders have confirmed such many
times F.Y.I.
>
> And like most ufotards, humor and sarcasm go right over your head.
>
Ah, so you think the govt. is only hiding their own secret aircraft.
So where did they get the technology to do high speed 90 degree turns, dart
aways, and phase outs/dematerialising?
Oh that's right, being an old fart you don't believe in that new fangled
hokey high-tech stuff. And the scores of military personnel who saw them
and risked their careers to report them were just drunk and seeing things.
JTEM
"Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> Which cases did you look up and on which website?
All of them. now what is it you think I missed? What do you
find so compelling?
> >> The objects in many cases made high speed manurers
>
> > Pure conjecture.
>
> Seeing is conjecture?
Unless you've got a clear an accurate picture of what you're
looking at, and RADAR guns in your eyeballs, it's all pure
conjecture.
"What was that?"
"I have no idea!"
"It was really moving fast, based on absolutely no data."
"And it was from another planet, which I know because
I don't know what we were looking at."
> > Or a lot of totally natural bouncing around on an
> > atmosphere which is anything but "Smooth as glass."
>
> More opinions.
The only difference, of course, is that my explanation
does not require everything from a huge government
cover-up to a re-writing of the laws of physics...
> >> Some of the objects were of an enormous size.
>
> > Who held the measuring tape?
> Funny. Ha ha.
It's a serious question. When you make claims about
dimensions, as you have, you require a measurement.
> The pilots had enough perspective
Please establish what is the requisite "amount" of
perspective.
> Here's one case:
http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009c/colorado082209.html
People have names & faces. This is merely a story.
> Some early cases:
http://www.nicap.org/waves/1958fullrep.htm
I commend you for using cites, but it's meaningless. All
your claims do is invoke questions...
> Some more:
http://www.theblackvault.com/wiki/index.php/More_UFOs_reported_over_O...)
This last one says that there's currently no page.
> > Absolutely. Your UFO claims imply a cover up. You could
> > even say that your claims require a cover-up. See, If craft
> > from another planet are real, and so prevalent, the only way
> > everyone on the planet wouldn't be accepting them as fact
> > would be if the governments of every major nation are
> > actively engaged in an enormous cover-up.
> There is well documented evidence for a cover-up.
Which massively contradicts the "Cover-up," doesn't it?
> Do you think the military just tells everyone everything
> and lets the government do the same?
Honey, that's EXACTLY what you're claiming! You're
saying that the government -- and one presumes that
includes the military -- went through a great deal of
trouble documenting their "Cover-up," just so people
like you can expose them...
Things like this, as obvious as they are, just never
occurred to you....
Andrew W
> "Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Which cases did you look up and on which website?
>
> All of them. now what is it you think I missed? What do you
> find so compelling?
>
>>>> The objects in many cases made high speed manurers
>>
>>> Pure conjecture.
>>
>> Seeing is conjecture?
>
> Unless you've got a clear an accurate picture of what you're
> looking at, and RADAR guns in your eyeballs, it's all pure
> conjecture.
>
> "What was that?"
>
> "I have no idea!"
>
> "It was really moving fast, based on absolutely no data."
>
> "And it was from another planet, which I know because
> I don't know what we were looking at."
>
Your statements are very simple minded and out of date.
The experts around the world are taking the cases seriously which wouldn't
be the case if there was a chance that they were just misidentified craft or
optical illusions etc. But of course you think you're smarter than the
experts.
And yes we do have data, tons of it. Not that you'll ever look at it.
France and other countries are now releasing their findings to their public.
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=france+releasing+ufo+findings&meta=&aq=f&oq=
Check out the official Cometa report.
>
>>> Or a lot of totally natural bouncing around on an
>>> atmosphere which is anything but "Smooth as glass."
>>
>> More opinions.
>
> The only difference, of course, is that my explanation
> does not require everything from a huge government
> cover-up to a re-writing of the laws of physics...
>
Some things in this world and universe are not so simple and believable.
I know you like to have everything simple and kosher so you can remain in
your comfort zone but we live in a complex world. Sorry.
You're going to have to pull your head out of the sand sooner or later.
>
>>>> Some of the objects were of an enormous size.
>>
>>> Who held the measuring tape?
>
>> Funny. Ha ha.
>
> It's a serious question. When you make claims about
> dimensions, as you have, you require a measurement.
>
To the centimetre measurements are not required.
And you can't use a measuring tape in the sky, silly dill.
>
>> The pilots had enough perspective
>
> Please establish what is the requisite "amount" of
> perspective.
>
Read the reports yourself to get an idea of how the observations were made.
>
>> Here's one case:
>
> http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009c/colorado082209.html
>
> People have names & faces. This is merely a story.
>
>> Some early cases:
>
> http://www.nicap.org/waves/1958fullrep.htm
>
> I commend you for using cites, but it's meaningless. All
> your claims do is invoke questions...
>
Oh, and we can't have questions now can we? Because then we have to start
thinking and considering higher and more complex concepts and issues of our
universe, and that is too hard.
>
>> Some more:
>
> http://www.theblackvault.com/wiki/index.php/More_UFOs_reported_over_O...)
>
> This last one says that there's currently no page.
>
>>> Absolutely. Your UFO claims imply a cover up. You could
>>> even say that your claims require a cover-up. See, If craft
>>> from another planet are real, and so prevalent, the only way
>>> everyone on the planet wouldn't be accepting them as fact
>>> would be if the governments of every major nation are
>>> actively engaged in an enormous cover-up.
>
>> There is well documented evidence for a cover-up.
>
> Which massively contradicts the "Cover-up," doesn't it?
>
Not if the government can convince the dumb masses to not seek them out
through public ridicule campaigns, which they have succeeded for the most
part.
>
>> Do you think the military just tells everyone everything
>> and lets the government do the same?
>
> Honey, that's EXACTLY what you're claiming!
> You're
> saying that the government -- and one presumes that
> includes the military -- went through a great deal of
> trouble documenting their "Cover-up," just so people
> like you can expose them...
>
> Things like this, as obvious as they are, just never
> occurred to you....
>
Its not the cover-ups that the govt. documented silly, they documented their
secret operations for their own purposes.
The investigators later documented those records, many now declassified,
plus their findings, proving the govt. cover-ups.
Check out the testimonies of Sgt. Major Robert Dean, Col. Jesse Marcel Jnr.,
Sgt. Clifford Stone, Dr. Steven Greer, Col. Philip Corso and many others.
JTEM
"Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> > "What was that?"
>
> > "I have no idea!"
>
> > "It was really moving fast, based on absolutely no data."
>
> > "And it was from another planet, which I know because
> > I don't know what we were looking at."
>
> Your statements are very simple minded and out of date.
What an odd euphemism for "Stunningly Accurate."
> The experts around the world
This is utter bullshit. Seriously. Google "Fallacious arguments"
and see for yourself.
In the end, that's the problem with people like you, which
is most people. You have no idea what actually constitutes
evidence, and what doesn't.
You're simply mindlessly uncritical towards anyone &
anything that supports your agenda, even as you mindlessly
reject everything that conflicts with your agenda.
Andrew W
> "Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>>> "What was that?"
>>
>>> "I have no idea!"
>>
>>> "It was really moving fast, based on absolutely no data."
>>
>>> "And it was from another planet, which I know because
>>> I don't know what we were looking at."
>>
>> Your statements are very simple minded and out of date.
>
> What an odd euphemism for "Stunningly Accurate."
>
Man what an ego.
The less one knows the more they think they know.
>
>> The experts around the world
>
> This is utter bullshit. Seriously. Google "Fallacious arguments"
> and see for yourself.
>
You see them as fallacious arguments because they're too hard for you to get
your head around.
Your type are ridiculing respected scientists who are now getting into this
area.
I listed them in previous posts.
>
> In the end, that's the problem with people like you, which
> is most people. You have no idea what actually constitutes
> evidence, and what doesn't.
>
This is about information and new discoveries.
Hard irrefutable evidence will be revealed after our current ego based
governments crumble and are replaced.
But I can see that you're not interested in information and new discoveries.
>
> You're simply mindlessly uncritical towards anyone &
> anything that supports your agenda, even as you mindlessly
> reject everything that conflicts with your agenda.
>
Wrong. I critically question everything.
Its your type that refuse to look into this subject and instead judge it by
your own cock-sure reckonings, plus the trumpetings of all the public
skeptic loudmouth baboons.
I merely report what the serious researchers are finding and reporting.
Do you know something the researchers don't know? Out with it.
Here's something most people don't know and explains why you and others are
so sure now that ET craft are fiction.
The CIA has been carrying out public disinformation campaigns for the past
five decades.
This is a fact.
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=cia+ufo+disinformation+campaign&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=
Watch these videos if you're not too busy doing nothing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZNOoQ0fxLI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVbQxFPNigI
JTEM
"Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> > What an odd euphemism for "Stunningly Accurate."
> Man what an ego.
Is that your problem? You think if you said something accurate
that would be a character flaw?
NO WONDER YOU SPEW BULLSHIT!
> > This is utter bullshit. Seriously. Google "Fallacious
> > arguments" and see for yourself.
> You see them as fallacious arguments because
Because they are fallacious arguments. Again, do yourself
a favor and Google it yourself.
> > In the end, that's the problem with people like you,
> > which is most people. You have no idea what
> > actually constitutes evidence, and what doesn't.
>
> This is about information and new discoveries.
No, honey, it's about evidence. There isn't any.
> Hard irrefutable evidence will be revealed after our
If & when that day comes, you will actually have
something other than a personality disorder to
base your claims on.
Until then, you're shit out of luck...
> > You're simply mindlessly uncritical towards anyone &
> > anything that supports your agenda, even as you mindlessly
> > reject everything that conflicts with your agenda.
>
> Wrong.
Guess again. As a matter of fact, you even admitted that
you have no hard evidence. You did.
HVAC
>
> So where did they get the technology to do high speed 90 degree turns,
> dart aways, and phase outs/dematerialising?
Well... At least you used the technical term, 'phasing out'.
> Oh that's right, being an old fart you don't believe in that new fangled
> hokey high-tech stuff.
You mean like 'phasing out' ?
knowbuddee
Examiner report/article: UFO-hovering-over-Oklahoma-skies-baffles-
astronomy-club
On the evening of 10-17-09 myself and four other club members were at
our astronomy clubs’ observatory (35.8308 96.14518) for a clear night
of observing. With many years of experience in observing under our
belts we were needless to say quite qualified to identify most
anything that we would see. Between approximately 6:40 – 7:00 P.M. one
of the members noticed something off in the west and queried as to
what it may happen to be.
First and foremost it was bright, more or less as bright as Jupiter,
yet setting about ten to twelve degrees above the horizon, due west.
At our first sighting most of us thought that it was nothing more than
an airliner reflecting sunlight from the setting sun but that
determination was tossed aside shortly there after. If it had been
what we first thought it was it would’ve lost it’s size and brightness
fairly quick as it shifted positions in relation to the sun while in
flight.
But, it continued to maintain its position, did not move in any
direction - vertically, horizontally. If by some chance it were a
celestial body it would follow a gradual celestial track that all of
us would have noticed in a few minutes. Again, it didn’t move,
remained in one position, which eliminated the possibility of it being
a celestial body that none of us were unlikely familiar with. That
alone became puzzling since the obvious – Venus, Mercury – are now
tracking in the morning eastern sky, not the evening western sky.
With that we continued to watch it as one of the guys used his 10x50
binoculars to get a better view. What was seen initially brought to
mind that it may perhaps be a high altitude research balloon but the
more we watched it and as it maintained its position that thought was
tossed quickly also. From the beginning it remained in one position,
never moved. Balloons, of any type, will not remain in one specific
position be they weather balloons, high altitude research balloons or
otherwise.
But as we watched it more closely it was very surprising as to the
manner in which it morphed into various shapes and sizes. Its
brightness would vary some but that was easily seen as being caused by
the low-lying clouds on the horizon. As we commonly call it – it was
“sitting in the soup”. When they would move in front of it the objects
brightness would dim some. Otherwise it would maintain its brightness.
That was easily seen via binocular observations.
The longer we watched it the more curious we all became and with that
growing curiosity we quickly set two telescopes onto it. Two different
sized telescopes were used, one, Celestron 11” Schimdt-Cassegrain
telescope and a smaller Orion 4.5” dobsonian telescope. Between the
two we could pull it in for a much closer look in a very inquisitive
effort to determine just what it actually was. Charts and web sites
were checked also to make sure we weren’t simply forgetting perhaps
one event that may explain what we were now seeing. Nothing could be
found.
The Celestron was using a 40mm eyepiece for a much wider field of view
whereas the smaller Orion had a 15mm eyepiece to pull it in much
closer. Through the Orion one could easily see what appeared right off
as a bell shape. The same was viewed in the other also.
But as mentioned before it morphed into what was clearly seen and
could be interpreted as the same basic outline of the Shuttle that
anyone would see as it flies over. Again, the same basic shape as to
what you would see looking up at the bottom of it. That distinctive
shape was easily recognized. At the rear of it you could see what
looked like bluish green waves that would both come and go from the
main rear line of the object. Nowhere else was this color and wave
seen, just at the rear.
The objects color was a combination of the just mentioned bluish green
at the rear to a lighter orange yellow up through the main body and
then into red orange, much more intense, than any of the other colors
at the top or perhaps, from appearance at that time, leading edge.
None of us had ever seen a color distribution of this sort before.
Especially on either the Shuttle or any other normal day-to-day
satellites. From our position/location it appeared to be hovering over
either Bristow, Ok or possibly even Oklahoma City.
There was no attempt by any of us then to determine its specific
distance or altitude from us. The same applies to its actual size.
Visually, it appeared very similar to the size of Jupiter. Other than
that comparison we honestly don’t know either its distance or specific
altitude. It remained in the same position for approximately 40
minutes and never moved. Close to 8 P.M. we started to notice what
appeared to be a ring of lights that was rotating around the bottom
portion. The lights were seen in the same location that the bluish
green colored waves were at. Several of us noticed this while looking
at it through the telescopes.
Needless to say this was surprising to us all. This carried on for one
to two minutes and then suddenly the object started to move. The
movement was slow at the beginning but increased very rapidly. I had
my eye glued to the 40mm eyepiece when this began and once it started
I could not move. Within two seconds it had totally disappeared from
open visual sight but I still had a lock on it in the eyepiece. Fast,
very fast it moved from dead center in the eyepiece field of view
upwards and at the same time was getting smaller and smaller as it
flew away. Two or three seconds later it was totally gone from view in
either of the telescopes.
The speed that it moved was without question way beyond anything that
we have knowledge of or is publicly known to be in our military. At
the rate it flew away would make a SR-71 Blackbird look very old and
slow. Could it have possibly been a new experimental aircraft?
Possibly yes but if so what was something such as that doing in
Oklahoma? Most generally new experimental, top-secret aircraft of that
type are being tested at either Edwards AFB or Area 51, not Oklahoma.
In a nutshell, we will never know.
It was unidentifiable, it was in the air and flew away and it most
certainly was an object of some unknown kind/type. From this alone it
could be justifiably categorized as a UFO.
=====================
=====================
See recent pictures of UFOS
http://tinyurl.com/ufo-pictures
The SI 'star' sign video at the youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuuMOvy1KNE
The youtube page where Benjamin Creme talks about the 'star' sign:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JihYJhfAs4
On Nov 12, 1:00 am, "Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au>
wrote:
> UnderstandingUFOSecrecy in the 21st Century
>
> by Steven M. Greer M.D.
>
> http://www.ufodigest.com/ufosecrecy.html
>
> Summary: The evidence regarding this subject is clear and overwhelming: It
> has not been difficult to make a compelling case for the reality of UFOs per
> se. What is a greater challenge is elucidating the architecture of secrecy
> related to UFOs (see the exposition of this matter contained in the paper
> entitled "Unacknowledged" by this author). But the greatest challenge is
> explaining the 'why'. Why all the secrecy? Why a 'black' or unacknowledged
> government within the government? Why hide theUFO/ET subject from public
> view?
>
> Over the past few years I have had the responsibility of briefing senior
> government and scientific leaders both in the US and abroad on theUFO/Extraterrestrial subject.
>
> The evidence regarding this subject is clear and overwhelming: It has not
> been difficult to make a compelling case for the reality of UFOs per se.
> What is a greater challenge is elucidating the architecture of secrecy
> related to UFOs (see the exposition of this matter contained in the paper
> entitled "Unacknowledged" by this author). But the greatest challenge is
> explaining the 'why'. Why all the secrecy? Why a 'black' or unacknowledged
> government within the government? Why hide theUFO/ET subject from public
> view?
>
> The 'what' or evidence is complex but manageable. The 'how' or nature of the
> secret programs is more difficult, much more complex and Byzantine. But the
> 'why' - the reason behind the secrecy'- is the most challenging problem of
> all. There is not a single answer to this question, but rather numerous
> inter-related reasons for such extraordinary secrecy. Our investigations and
> interviews with dozens of top - secret witnesses who have been within such
> programs have enabled us to understand the reasons behind this secrecy. They
> range from the fairly obvious and straight-forward to the really bizarre.
> Here, I wish to share some key points regarding this secrecy, why it has
> been imposed and why it is so difficult for the controlling interests within
> covert programs to reverse policy and allow disclosure.
>
> In The Beginning
>
> In the early days of the ET/UFOphenomena, military, intelligence and
> By the Eisenhower era, theUFO/ET projects were increasingly compartmented
> away from legal, constitutional chain-of-command oversight and control. This
> means that -while we know from witness testimony that Eisenhower knew of the
> ET craft - the president ( and similar leaders in the UK and elsewhere) were
> increasingly left out of the loop. Such senior elected and appointed leaders
> were confronted with (as Eisenhower called it) a sophisticated
> military-industrial complex with labyrinthine compartmented projects which
> were more and more out of their control and oversight. From direct witness
> testimony we know that Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter and Clinton were
> frustrated by their attempts to penetrate such projects.
>
> This is also true of senior congressional leaders and investigators, foreign
> leaders and UN leadership. This is indeed an equal opportunity exclusion
> project - it does not matter how high your rank or office, if you are not
> deemed necessary to the project, you are not going to know about it. Period.
>
> Contrary to popular myth, since the 1960s concern over some type of public
> panic when faced with the fact that we are not alone in the universe has not
> been a major reason for the secrecy. Those in the know -notwithstanding the
> fantastic tales spun inUFOcircles and on the X-Files -understand that fear
> of hostile ET s has also not been a significant factor. While there has been
> continued confusion in some covert circles over the ultimate purpose behind
> the ET phenomena, we know of no knowledgeable insiders who regard the ET s
> as a hostile threat.
>
> By the 1960s - and certainly by the 1990s - the world was very familiar with
> the concept of space travel and the popular science - fiction industry had
> thoroughly indoctrinated the masses with the idea of ET s from far away
> being a possibility. So why the continued secrecy?
>
> The Cold War is over. People would hardly be shocked to find out that we are
> not alone in the universe ( the majority of people already believe this - in
> fact most people believe the UFOs are real). Besides, what could be more
> shocking than to live through the latter half of the 20th century with
> thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed at every major city in the world? If we
> can handle that, surely we can handle the idea that ET s are real.
>
> The facile explanations of fear, panic, shock and the like do not suffice to
> justify a level of secrecy so deep that even the President and his CIA
> Director could be denied access to the information.
>
> Story continues: Page 2.http://www.ufodigest.com/ufosecrecy2.html