The matter of UFO's is a real one

[Goldstone]

Or do you really mean that this "shadow government" was created when they realised that not everything that is seen can be identified with certainty?

Well yes, but I didn't misuse the word. It is most likely that this group of men where as naive to their origins as we are the public today. Since then, they will have identified the objects, this is assuming it wasn't these men who created the objects in the first place. Groom Lake has been suggestion to have a tie to their existences.

[Strange]

Well yes, but I didn't misuse the word. It is most likely that this group of men where as naive to their origins as we are the public today. Since then, they will have identified the objects, this is assuming it wasn't these men who created the objects in the first place. Groom Lake has been suggestion to have a tie to their existences.

So what are these now-identified objects? And how did they identify them?

[Goldstone]

So what are these now-identified objects? And how did they identify them?

Somewhere between the time of 1950 - 1960 we had retrieved these crafts which we conventionally described them as flying saucers. The Military Officials reported to an investigating special FBI agent by the name of Guy Hottle that they had come into possession of flying saucers and that they had retrieved bodies from the crash site, humanoid in appearance but only 3ft tall. They probably identified them by taking the crash debris to a Military site, some have speculated area 51. The military would have brought scientists in to perform a reverse engineering on the aircraft.

[Swift]

Do you share his beliefs, or did you link to a video that you disagree with as a deliberate troll?

Comments like that earn you an infraction. If you can not discuss this politely, don't participate in this thread

And I'm sure I got infractioned for name-calling as well. I am sure calling someone a troll comes under the catagory.

A piece of advise, do not comment back to such comments in thread. Report them to the moderators (which you did), but ignore them publicly.

And that's good advise for everyone - it is senseless to Report an improper post, and then go respond to it in thread.

[Paul Beardsley]

Somewhere between the time of 1950 - 1960 we had retrieved these crafts which we conventionally described them as flying saucers. The Military Officials reported to an investigating special FBI agent by the name of Guy Hottle that they had come into possession of flying saucers and that they had retrieved bodies from the crash site, humanoid in appearance but only 3ft tall. They probably identified them by taking the crash debris to a Military site, some have speculated area 51. The military would have brought scientists in to perform a reverse engineering on the aircraft.

Ah, so by UFO, you actually mean alien spacecraft? Thanks for clearing that up.

[Goldstone]

Ah, so by UFO, you actually mean alien spacecraft? Thanks for clearing that up.

No. I don't claim this. I don't know what the bodies where. There could have been a number of explanations. Could have been children for all we know.

[astrophotographer]

Somewhere between the time of 1950 - 1960 we had retrieved these crafts which we conventionally described them as flying saucers. The Military Officials reported to an investigating special FBI agent by the name of Guy Hottle that they had come into possession of flying saucers and that they had retrieved bodies from the crash site, humanoid in appearance but only 3ft tall. They probably identified them by taking the crash debris to a Military site, some have speculated area 51. The military would have brought scientists in to perform a reverse engineering on the aircraft.

You need to dig a little further before you post this sort of claim. I mentioned this is in SUNlite 3-3 on the Roswell corner page. This is what I wrote:

Some people have stumbled across an FBI memo dated March 22, 1950 that describes three UFOs being recovered in New Mexico. Somebody found the document on the FBI’s web site and thought it was something new. Several blogs (like the one linked here) then began to repeat the “news”. However, this memo is not news and has been available for everyone to read for several decades.
The author of the memo is Guy Hottel and he goes on to describe that each saucer had three bodies in each craft. Roswell is never mentioned and these bloggers are trying to make a link. History has shown that this memo was actually linked to the infamous Aztec crashed UFO scam.
However, there are those who claim this memo has nothing to do with Aztec because Scully’s book appeared in September 1950 and had different details. This is just poor research because the Scully story was the “refined” version of events. The actual story had been circulating since 1949 by Silas Newton.
On January 6, 1950, the Wyandotte Echo of Kansas City carried the story as it was told to them. Other papers picked it up and printed similar versions such as the Atchinson daily globe of January 8, 1950 (written by Wes Izzard). The stories described two crashed discs with three-foot aliens inside. All were dead. In addition to the aliens, super strong metals were described and the idea that radar caused the craft to crash appeared.
Two months later, on March 8, there was a lecture by an “unknown” scientist at the University of Denver. According to the Greeley daily tribune (Greeley, Colorado), this “unknown scientist” reported three flying saucers from Venus had landed/crashed on earth and that the occupants were “midget-sized”. The article in the paper went on to state that in two of the saucers the occupants were dead but in the third, the occupants got away. The “scientist” was Silas Newton. All of these stories being circulated were the genesis of the final story published by Scully.
Meanwhile, the USAF Office of Special Investigations (OSI) was actually investigating the story. There are documents in the bluebook file describing how they interviewed the various players in this story. By late March, they pretty much gave up (with the implication they figured it was not important or it was a hoax) and stopped investigating.
These are various links on the subject that are very informative.

http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog...it-again-scam/
http://www.nmsr.org/aztec.htm
http://www.nmsr.org/hottel.htm
However, it was “Isaac Koi”, who debunked it better than anybody else with his posting in the Above Top secret forum:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread689049/pg1The bottom line with all of this is that this was not a smoking gun of any kind and it wasn’t new. Those promoting it as such, should be ashamed.

The Hottel letter is not very good evidence.

[Paul Beardsley]

No. I don't claim this. I don't know what the bodies where. There could have been a number of explanations. Could have been children for all we know.

Hang on, a minute ago they were "now-identified" (Strange's phrase but you answered it), yet now they're back to "I don't know what [they] where [sic]." Which is it?

[Goldstone]

Some people have stumbled across an FBI memo dated March 22, 1950 that describes three UFOs being recovered in New Mexico. Somebody found the document on the FBI’s web site and thought it was something new. Several blogs (like the one linked here) then began to repeat the “news”. However, this memo is not news and has been available for everyone to read for several decades.

I discovered this independantly. There was a copy of it in Goods book, and I compared it to the photocopied version in two british news papers.

[Goldstone]

Hang on, a minute ago they were "now-identified" (Strange's phrase but you answered it), yet now they're back to "I don't know what [they] where [sic]." Which is it?

Stop trying to intentionally distort my words.

I already made it clear to you I am talking about the men who are a part of this shadow government. If they retrived this craft and identified it, then they know. But I don't, niether do you, or anyone else outside the circle of the need-to-know-basis.

[NEOWatcher]

That statement has absolutely nothing to do with my question. My question has to do with previous examples of "paradigm shifts".
And what is this "suggested" statement? And disclosure of what was planned?

Information on UFO's and their origins.

Again, you avoided answering my question. You specifically mentioned how the revealing of classified material has caused Paradigm shifts. I asked you for examples of this.
Information on UFO's and origins have NEVER caused any kind of Paradigm shift that I'm aware of.

Even the secret stealth fighter, U-2 spyplane, and blackbird de-classifications were nothing more than "cool".

As for the rest of your reply, I am taking that as opinion and your own interpretation of what you take as evidence. I can only speak of actual evidence we know. I can not speak to what someone is thinking when they give me an interpretation or statement.

[JayUtah]

Don't even get me started. I read the rest of that previous post, and If i see anyone misrepresenting facts, it is you.

The only Debus memo I spoke of in my work was the memo which he said the FBI where not within jurisdiction to investigate the UFO phenomenon.

False.

On a similar investigation into cover-up tactics and denial, comes from a statement made by NASA in an information sheet, serial number 78-1, prepared by the LFF-3/Public services branch, office of external relations, NASA headquarters in washington, that ''NASA is not engaged in any type of research program involving UFO activity.''

However, contradictory to this rather straightforward statement, two pages from a NASA instruction kit: issued originally by Kurt Debus , Director of John F. Kennedy Space Center in June 1967, explains that UFO's are to be reported immediately to control, and that the outcome of the investigation with not be discussed with the caller.

I have shown how the memos are not contradictory, and have only been made to seem so because of the omission of pertinent context.

[JayUtah]

I say does it matter how Debus used ''UFO'' as well, because he still said that ''UFO's'' where not a matter of investigation permitted in the jurisdiction of their power. Then 2 years (or something like that) later, 1,100 documents where released from the FBI which stated that they had been investigating them for decades.

Kurt Debus has nothing to do with the FBI. You are still confusing your source documents. I urge you to slow down and read more carefully.

[Goldstone]

Again, you avoided answering my question. You specifically mentioned how the revealing of classified material has caused Paradigm shifts. I asked you for examples of this.
Information on UFO's and origins have NEVER caused any kind of Paradigm shift that I'm aware of.

Even the secret stealth fighter, U-2 spyplane, and blackbird de-classifications were nothing more than "cool".

As for the rest of your reply, I am taking that as opinion and your own interpretation of what you take as evidence. I can only speak of actual evidence we know. I can not speak to what someone is thinking when they give me an interpretation or statement.

A shift of information. It may even have a global repercussion.

[Goldstone]

Kurt Debus has nothing to do with the FBI. You are still confusing your source documents. I urge you to slow down and read more carefully.

It was you who mentioned him earlier.

[Goldstone]

no he's not... he's NASA LOL

[Goldstone]

Never mind confusing sources, I think you're confusing elementary sentances.

[Goldstone]

I apologize. I did get terribly confused there. Rather embarrasing mistake!

[Goldstone]

Clarence M. Kelly was the director in question for the FBI, just to clear it up with myself as well.

[JayUtah]

You're post is long, i will tend to it all...

I trust you will, but I urge you to slow down and read it more carefully because it is evident you are missing important lines of reasoning it contains and simply reiterating the beliefs they were meant to refute.

Does it matter which way Debus meant it?

Very much so, because if Debus and HQ do not intend the same meaning to attach to "UFO" then Good has no case. His entire line of reasoning here is that a coverup exists because these two documents allegedly give conflicting statements of policy over the same phenomenon.

And Good writes at the beginning of his book that ''UFO'' is to be taken as it's real meaning.

Good doesn't have the right to put words into Kurt Debus' or NASA PR's mouths any more than we do to put them in yours. He may not make a credible argument that depends on his post hoc imposition of meaning onto historical documents, especially when the documents themselves contradict the imposed interpretation. There is no one single universally agreed upon definition of "UFO" that suffices for all its usage on either or both sides of the debate. So there is no value in pretending there is some "natural" meaning to the word that is meant by all authors in all cases.

Toward that point I have asked you repeatedly to describe what you mean by "UFO" and the statement "UFOs are real," and you haven't done that. And you've subsequently flip-flopped wildly in your definitions. As I said, running around in circles avoiding being pinned down on anything doesn't make for good debate.

[Goldstone]

Good doesn't have the right to put words into Kurt Debus' or NASA PR's mouths any more than we do to put them in yours. He may not make a credible argument that depends on his post hoc imposition of meaning onto historical documents, especially when the documents themselves contradict the imposed interpretation. There is no one single universally agreed upon definition of "UFO" that suffices for all its usage on either or both sides of the debate. So there is no value in pretending there is some "natural" meaning to the word that is meant by all authors in all cases.

I really don't think he is putting words in anyone mouth. He simply stated that he said NASA does not get involved in any UFO investigation was shown to be false. An interest was there because the NASA team where instructed to take calls on UFO's but never divulge the outcome of those calls. I'm sure Good intends the reader to know that UFO's are simply unidentified flying objects.... as I said before, he clears this matter in his book at the very beginning. He's very precise.

[JayUtah]

Because of every bit of information I have extracted from him, I have cross-referenced via the internet.

The internet contains a mix of fact and fiction, of truth and error. What did you do to ascertain the information on the web was reliable?

I have obtained memo reports, and cross checked his statements on reports with statements reported on the net.

And what did your research turn up regarding Maurice Chatelain, the former head of NASA communications? And regarding Otto Binder? These were important witnesses in support of Good's claim that NASA was aware of sightings of alien beings on the lunar surface.

I have also studied other books, like ''Open Skies, Closed Minds,'' by Nick Pope.

So far all your sources seem to be on one side of a UFO debate that these authors largely began and which they perpetuate to their advantage and profit. Have you read any books written by skeptics? Have you read any general science books on relevant subjects: say, astronomy, the history of aerospace engineering, human perception, nighttime flight operations?

Is the assertion of "intelligent control" part of how you define UFOs to be "real?"

No. I see intelligent control only being allowed when there is a clear report of fighter pilots chasing these objects, and no matter what strategy used the objects always evade them.

Are you aware that a significant number of these turn out to be pursuits of conclusive astronomical objects like stars or planets? The pilot's nighttime disorientation coupled with the maneuvering of the jet created the illusion of relative motion in the target. Aviation vertigo is something they warn us about in pilot school and something I've experienced. My point is that this explanation doesn't account for all such sightings, but it casts doubt on that metric as an indicator of intelligent control.

[NEOWatcher]

He simply stated that he said NASA does not get involved in any UFO investigation was shown to be false. An interest was there because the NASA team where instructed to take calls on UFO's but never divulge the outcome of those calls.

And you say this while ignoring an entire post of mine directly relating to this and not answering any of the questions there.

[DALeffler]

No. I see intelligent control only being allowed when there is a clear report of fighter pilots chasing these objects, and no matter what strategy used the objects always evade them. These are reports from the Military itself from declassified memo's written by the air force. Keyhoe also explains this in the video as well.

Do any of these reports have the pilot(s) identifying what they where chasing as an alien craft piloted by an intelligent alien(s)?

[R.A.F.]

...I am talking about the men who are a part of this shadow government.

There is no evidence for this "shadow government", so making assumptions based on that are premature to say the least.

If they retrived this craft and identified it, then they know.

Again, you are not only assuming the existence of this "shadow government" but for these "crafts" as well ...I just don't see any evidence that I should take this seriously...

But I don't, niether do you, or anyone else....

I partially agree...what I "can" say is that there is no credible evidence for the existence of ET crafts.

...outside the circle of the need-to-know-basis.

Again...you are assuming there are people who know "things", when there is no evidence that these "things" actually exist.


Please provide conformational evidence for the ideas you have presented.

[JayUtah]

I really don't think he is putting words in anyone mouth.

He would be if he assumed each of the authors of the memos he discusses intended "UFO" to mean what he says it means for the purposes of his own book. You say Good precisely defines what he means by "UFO." Fine; what does that have to do with how Debus defines it?

He simply stated that he said NASA does not get involved in any UFO investigation was shown to be false.

Emphasis yours. You're now trying to interpret these memos to your advantage too. As I mentioned, the historical context places this memo at a time when there was much interest in entertainment about UFOs, specifically about aliens and government coverups. The NASA HQ memo was meant to disavow any ongoing research, but with that interest in mind. That has nothing to do with a Center director issuing instructions a decade earlier, only for that Center, to report test artifacts to an office, and to report anything you couldn't identify also to that same office.

An interest was there because the NASA team where instructed to take calls on UFO's but never divulge the outcome of those calls.

No, that was not the instruction at all. The instruction was to the reporter (not the receiving office), advising him that he may not necessarily receive any feedback on what he reports. That also includes identified objects as well as unidentified objects.

I'm sure Good intends the reader to know that UFO's are simply unidentified flying objects...

That's debatable, but in any case he doesn't get to define it for Debus or NASA PR. For what those authors mean by "UFO" (and what they think it might mean), we have to look at the separate contexts. In doing so, we don't agree with Good's analysis of those sources.

[Goldstone]

Are you aware that a significant number of these turn out to be pursuits of conclusive astronomical objects like stars or planets?

I'd be quite afraid and nerved to think that we are letting pilots into the sky if they could not tell the different between a star located beyond air space, and a real object in direct vision evading direct contact.

[Goldstone]

That's debatable, but in any case he doesn't get to define it for Debus or NASA PR. For what those authors mean by "UFO" (and what they think it might mean), we have to look at the separate contexts. In doing so, we don't agree with Good's analysis of those sources.

I'm sorry. I simply don't see any reason why ''personal definitions'' are even important here.

[Goldstone]

There is no evidence for this "shadow government", so making assumptions based on that are premature to say the least.



Again, you are not only assuming the existence of this "shadow government" but for these "crafts" as well ...I just don't see any evidence that I should take this seriously...



I partially agree...what I "can" say is that there is no credible evidence for the existence of ET crafts.



Again...you are assuming there are people who know "things", when there is no evidence that these "things" actually exist.


Please provide conformational evidence for the ideas you have presented.

Stop replying to my personal contentions as if I am unaware of their being no proof towards these sensationalist claims of mine. But I did say this when I was asked what my own personal beliefs where, but warned it was highly speculative. So get off my back please.

[R.A.F.]

I'd be quite afraid and nerved to think that we are letting pilots into the sky if they could not tell the different between a star located beyond air space, and a real object in direct vision evading direct contact.

Your "fear" is irrelevant.

Have you ever heard of making a "mistake"?