No Cover up

[dr wu23]

Originally Posted by Carol Nistri

This is just plain not fair Jurg.

"Attacking an opponent's arguments or motives, instead of presenting positive evidence in defense of one's own view is common among defenders of the claim that UFOs are alien spacecraft"

Instead of presenting positive evidence??? If only we could do that but to ignore years and years of sightings is to be a blind believer that nothing is going on.

I think it's as fair as it gets......my problem has always been that many assume the ufo is an alien craft simply because it fits their personal beliefs and not any actual proof of that.
It might be an alien craft and it might not.

[orangekea]

Originally Posted by dr wu23

Friedman is a 'bleever' and impossible for him to be objective and he hasn't shown anything.

Where ever do you come up with these sweepingly dismissive statements, Wu ? Could you say what he believes in, making objectivity impossible? UFOs? Would it be rational to think every flying object can be identified? Aliens? Would it be rational to think we are the only planet with life?

Originally Posted by dr wu23

Where has he shown that the info is 'above top secret'? Because they blacked out some documents..?
Please.......

In Stanton Friedman's book TOP SECRET/MAJIC, published by Marlowe & Company 1996, on page 104-105 he details a series FOIA requests made by Citizens Against UFO Secrecy (CAUS) to the National Security Agency. When thwarted (the NSA withheld 156 documents for security reasons) they requested that (only) Judge Gerhard Gesell be allowed to read them, to determine their National Security status. The NSA refused, instead they gave Judge Gesell an Above Top Secret clearance, needed to read their affidavit justifying withholding 156 UFO documents. This makes the NSA's reasons for UFO secrecy logically classified Above Top Secret (and indeed this affidavit too turned out exempt from the Freedom Of Information Act, too sensitive for uncensored publication).

And Judge Gesell found in favor of the NSA: this UFO information may not be read/accessed, due to its sensitivity and national security effect. Based on Gesell's requests to the NSA we now know the minimal level of clearance required to have a peek at their secret UFO files: Above Top Secret.


orangekea

[dr wu23]

Originally Posted by orangekea

Where ever do you come up with these sweepingly dismissive statements, Wu ? Could you say what he believes in, making objectivity impossible? UFOs? Would it be rational to think every flying object can be indentified? Aliens? Would it be rational to think we are the only planet with life?




In Stanton Friedman's book TOP SECRET/MAJIC, published by Marlowe & Company 1996, on page 104-105 he details a series FOIA requests made by Citizens Against UFO Secrecy (CAUS) to the National Security Agency. When thwarted (the NSA withheld 156 documents for security reasons) they requested that (only) Judge Gerhard Gesell be allowed to read them, to determine their National Security status. The NSA refused, instead they gave Judge Gesell an Above Top Secret clearance, needed to read their affidavit justifying withholding 156 UFO documents. This makes the NSA's reasons for UFO secrecy logically classified Above Top Secret (and indeed this affidavit too turned out exempt from the Freedom Of Information Act, too sensitive for uncensored publication).

And Judge Gesell found in favor of the NSA: this UFO information may not be read/accessed, due to its sensitivity and national security effect. Based on Gesell's requests to the NSA we now know the minimal level of clearance required to have a peek at their secret UFO files: Above Top Secret.


orangekea

If you already believe that ufos are aliens then it's pretty hard to be objective as time goes on....a no brainer.
And because something is security sensitive does not mean it has anything to do with proving aliens...another no brainer.

[orangekea]

Originally Posted by dr wu23

If you already believe that ufos are aliens then it's pretty hard to be objective as time goes on....a no brainer.

That's a puzzling misrepresentation of Friedman's position, he nowhere states that all UFOs are Aliens. Only that based on the evidence, for instance the percentage of Unknowns (=not of earthly origin) in Project Blue Book (between 10 and 30 %), indicates some UFOs very probably are of extraterrestrial origin. It is as rational a conclusion as they come, and shows no lack of objectivity. "a no brainer"? I urge you to locate the ON switch of your brain and go flip.

Originally Posted by dr wu23

And because something is security sensitive does not mean it has anything to do with proving aliens...another no brainer.

Judge Gerhard Gesell was required to be given Above Top Secret clearance, to read the reasons (in NSA affidavit) for 156 UFO files' security classification. This definitively proves the mimimum level of clearance needed to access this UFO information, dr wu: ATS. (And Gesell's legal finding concurred, the NSA was right!)

What you really need is another espresso, make it a double...

[dr wu23]

Originally Posted by orangekea

That's a puzzling misrepresentation of Friedman's position, he nowhere states that all UFOs are Aliens. Only that based on the evidence, for instance the percentage of Unknowns (=not of earthly origin) in Project Blue Book (between 10 and 30 %), indicates some UFOs very probably are of extraterrestrial origin. It is as rational a conclusion as they come, and shows no lack of objectivity. "a no brainer"? I urge you to locate the ON switch of your brain and go flip.






Judge Gerhard Gesell was required to be given Above Top Secret clearance, to read the reasons (in NSA affidavit) for 156 UFO files' security classification. This definitively proves the mimimum level of clearance needed to access this UFO information, dr wu: ATS. (And Gesell's legal finding concurred, the NSA was right!)

What you really need is another espresso, make it a double...

I think you need the expresso so we'll agree to disagree....but you are coming from a position of belief so are you biased by definition when you look at a case?

btw.. it doesn't matter if he thinks only some are aliens because it will subjectively affect all his consderations. It's human nature and no way around it...that is my point. A true skeptic /scientist would say well..maybe they are aliens but we need more information. He has already made a conclusion based only on his personal beliefs since there is no actual evidence to prove any hypothesis at this stage.
And again the other top secret files don't indcate any 'alien truths' only that people see ufos both in and out of the govt...so what..?... we all know this already. They are not blacked out for that reason but due to gathering methods and protocol that they don't want other countries to know about.
I would bet you any amount of money that there is nothing in those 'secret docs' that get blacked out that would tell us anything more than what we already know....ufos get seen.

[Darrell]

I think it would be wonderful if everyone would make a slight adjustment in terminology ...

How about we refer to alien spacecraft as something other than UFOs? I like IAS (identified alien spacecraft) or then there could be ETS (extra terrestrial spacecraft). We should use UFO to literally mean UNIDENTIFIED flying object -- subject to clarification as more is learned.

Using this, what the Hills related after their experience, their "UFO" would be reclassified as IAS (or perhaps ETS) as a result of their hypnotic recall stories. Same for Rendlesham events. To use such labels, one would need to either experience alien entities or witness the apparent violation of physical laws in its behavior characteristics.

On the other hand, lights in the sky would stay simply UFOs as long as no aliens are observed and no physical laws seem broken.

just a thought to eliminate arguments about "UFO" au priori interpretations.

[orangekea]

Originally Posted by dr wu23

I think you need the expresso so we'll agree to disagree....but you are coming from a position of belief so are you biased by definition when you look at a case?

Are you talking to me? Well, sure I've often repeated the Friedman position on UFOs, also quoting (and linking insite!) the Project Blue Book pie charts with 10-30% potential Unknowns (=UFOs of non-earthly origin). (It never hurts to quote a rocket scientist !) So I give the same answer for myself. What in my beliefs excludes me from being objective? UFOs refer to the majority of identification difficulties when things are moving through the sky, plus a minority of sightings deemed not of earth, based on Blue Book. Believing in what is simply factual and reported by the USAF does not make me less objective.

Originally Posted by dr wu23

btw.. it doesn't matter if he thinks only some are aliens because it will subjectively affect all his consderations. It's human nature and no way around it...that is my point. A true skeptic /scientist would say well..maybe they are aliens but we need more information. He has already made a conclusion based only on his personal beliefs since there is no actual evidence to prove any hypothesis at this stage.
And again the other top secret files don't indcate any 'alien truths' only that people see ufos both in and out of the govt...so what..?... we all know this already. They are not blacked out for that reason but due to gathering methods and protocol that they don't want other countries to know about.
I would bet you any amount of money that there is nothing in those 'secret docs' that get blacked out that would tell us anything more than what we already know....ufos get seen.

It does matter exactly what he thinks, as evidenced by your attempted misrepresentations of his ideas, allowing you to dismiss his reasoning. And since Stanton Friedman both acknowledges the misidentification of most UFOs (duh... who wouldn't??!), plus the small percentage of Unknown craft, his position conforms to the facts as we know it. No bias in there at all, Wu.

The remarks about advanced information gathering technology by the NSA do not begin to explain why these documents (plus an affidavit by NSA Chief Yeates) have to be withheld from release under the Freedom Of Information Act. Obviously, the very text (affidavit) concerning these means has been selected for declassification, impossible if it's the content to be kept secret. And most telling, Judge Gesell asked the NSA to provide UFO files throughout, so any files only containing ways&means of Intelligence Gathering would not be considered by the NSA. Logically, it is UFO info which is contended here. NSA Chief Yeates' affidavit shows why UFO information must remain secret, for National Security reasons, necessitating 75% of that explanation to be blacked out.

Source (document clickable link): NSA UFO Document Index - 1. In Camera Affidavit of Eugene F. Yeates

Source: Sarasota Herald-Tribune Nov 6, 1981

Judge Gesell's investigation and finding in this FOIA case, proves a level of Above Top Secret clearance, or higher, is required to view these NSA UFO files. The NSA had to clear him to ATS before he could read their affidavit. To think that "....ufos get seen." is deemed ATS, or that this could endanger the national security of the United States is frankly ludicrous.

The only reasonable conclusion is that your government holds in trust some info regards 'Unknowns', or True UFOs, which when released to the American public will compromise national security. You can bet your donkey it is BIG, as in Mega-GODZILLA Humongous.

[Jurgen]

Originally Posted by Darrell

I think it would be wonderful if everyone would make a slight adjustment in terminology ...

How about we refer to alien spacecraft as something other than UFOs? I like IAS (identified alien spacecraft) or then there could be ETS (extra terrestrial spacecraft). We should use UFO to literally mean UNIDENTIFIED flying object -- subject to clarification as more is learned.

Using this, what the Hills related after their experience, their "UFO" would be reclassified as IAS (or perhaps ETS) as a result of their hypnotic recall stories. Same for Rendlesham events. To use such labels, one would need to either experience alien entities or witness the apparent violation of physical laws in its behavior characteristics.

On the other hand, lights in the sky would stay simply UFOs as long as no aliens are observed and no physical laws seem broken.

just a thought to eliminate arguments about "UFO" au priori interpretations.

UAP... Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon, this has been suggested by many people. If this would replace UFO, UFO can be used to suggest an alien spacecraft...

[orangekea]

Originally Posted by Jurgen

UAP... Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon, this has been suggested by many people. If this would replace UFO, UFO can be used to suggest an alien spacecraft...

Listening to you and Darrell, I get the idea it would be best to dispense with the term UFO altogether. It is annoyingly ambivalent. I like UAP better.

But I know language has a life of its own, so we'll have to live with it...




orangekea

[Miss Deetective]

A rose by any other name.......well you know what I mean.
It wouldn't change a thing, imo. Skeptics/debunkers are not attacking the words.
No matter what you call something that might POSSIBLY be of alien origins....the results will be the same....you get accused of being a biased "bleeeever"!!!!