FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

Postby Frank Stalter » Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:26 pm

murnut wrote:Nobody told anybody to keep a lid on it.

Quoting Maccabee from the above link

The FAA sold a complete package for over $100 back in March, 1987.


Here is the link to page 3

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread ... 668&page=3


Look...you are free to believe what you want to believe.

The major issue for me is that Kean, a supposed investigative journalist, only tells one side of the story and I know that to be the case because of my personal dealings with her.

I don't trust her...she is basically a liar.

She covers up the truth.....she is doing it again with the Chilean Air base Bug/Ufo case.

I don't know what happened with the JAL case....although I think a pretty good explanation is at the link

You should read it


Apparently, both Pandolfi and Callahan suggest there was, in fact, some admonition to Callahan to at least keep the fact of the meeting quiet. My understand of the timeline of events is that it became public due to a UPI (?) reporter writing it up, so the cat was already out of the bag.

You seem to jump to a lot of conclusions. I do the same on occasion, but try to limit myself in that department. I "believe" what I want, Kean is a "liar." You're going a little far here, again, based on very little. There may very well be something to the prosaic explanations for the incident offered, but not every prosaic explanation of a UFO incident proves satisfactory, but they often get accepted rather easily . . . and, of course, some UFO adherents can't seem to accept the prosaic no matter how solidly it gets backed up.
Frank Stalter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:37 am


Re: FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

Postby murnut » Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:20 pm

Well if someone has both sides of the story, but only tells one....what do you call that?

Do you find it curious that she conveniently left out the fact that Maccabee was at the meeting?

Is that being truthful?

If it isn't truthful...what do you call it?

If we can't depend on a prominent ufo investigative reporter to be truthful...what the hell is she good for?

Now I have to question everything she reports....and with good reason...just look what happened in Chile!

Sorry...she is harming ufology...sorry you don't get that
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

Postby James Carlson » Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:03 am

CIA Science Analyst Ron Pandolfi does "not recall anyone making any statement that the meeting never happened, or that the data should be covered up."

Pandolfi stated, “I don’t recall trying to ‘keep the sighting hushed’ since it was already widely publicized.”

Maccabee "also did not recall anyone at the meeting trying to cover it up."

Everyone affirms that the sighting had already been widely distributed before the meeting in question.

Only Callahan discusses an attempt by the CIA to force the FAA to cover-up any findings or to claim that the meeting never took place. The CIA does not have the authority to make such demands, and given the internal, national-based characteristics of the meeting, it would be illegal for them to make such demands. I doubt that the CIA was even interested in the case, especially when any CIA actions adopted as a result of CIA attendance at such a meeting would be illegal.

Kean has ignored all of the above, and refuses to provide any contact information at all in regard to Callahan in order to request some clarity of the matter. In addition, she has refused point-blank to discuss the matter herself with Callahan in order to explain why multiple witnesses report information so contrary to Callahan's own story, and to the position adopted by Kean in her little UFO book.

Callahan's and Kean's insistence that a cover-up was being managed is also contrary to "the fact that the data was immediately released to Maccabee to do a full public disclosure immediately following the event", a confirmed fact that "blows both Kean and Callahan’s claim of secrecy completely out of the water." These cover-up claims are also contrary to what the FAA has repeatedly made public.

When such efforts are undertaken by someone who is completely aware of the facts and yet ignores them in order to maintain a point-of-view that depends entirely on the confirmatory role of only one man, even when she has the resources to clarify these matters, yet refuses to do so while refusing as well to provide any contact data or updated discussions so others could examine the testimony she refuses to examine herself, the only appropriate conclusion a sane man can make is that she is actively hiding something. This is orderly deceit of a kind that no one who wants to determine the truth would ever willingly adopt.

Look at it this way: if Kean insisted that Bigfoot regularly migrates across her front yard, and makes public these claims in order to prove to the world that Bigfoot is a nomadic species with her front yard establishing the primary migration pattern, and does so even in the presence of multiple video tapes showing her next-door neighbor running across her front yard with double-sized boots created to carry out a hoax, would you consider this behavior to be an honest appraisal? And what if some actual, intrepid journalist had discovered that these tapes might exist, but was unable to track or otherwise contact this neighbor to clarify the little story a bit, but was unable to do so, because Kean outright refused to pass on the man's name or address, and refused as well to ask a few penetrating questions directed at the neighbor for herself, would you consider her actions typical of someone who only wants to discuss the truth?

Kean's deceit has already been proven. The conscious manipulation of data used to elicit a conclusion that cannot be supported by the facts is a lie. If she were a district attorney and had done this in the context of a criminal proceeding, she would not only be in contempt of court, the judge would be forced to declare a mistrial, and she would likely be censured by the legal community who would be forced to consider disbarring her.

Nobody is jumping to conclusions here. Kean is a dishonest hack who refuses to clarify her own assessments, even when doing so would be as simple as making a telephone call, and the fact that she is purposely denying other investigators the means to examine this case for themselves is nothing short of a "cover-up". Unfortunately, she's the only one covering anything up...
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: FAA Instructions on UFO Sightings Debunk Cover-Up Claim

Postby astrophotographer » Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:31 pm

I have no real dog in this fight about the JAL flight conclusions. I never stated that it was put to bed. I was referring to the Chile bug videos. However, this is becoming more about Kean than any UFO case. When one looks critically at her book, she is highly selective in what she presents and is either, very gullible or dishonest. The Callahan, Penniston/Halt, and Symmington testimonies are perfect examples. All are extremely suspect stories that indicate she is more about sensationalizing than actual investigative reporting. If she looked beyond those stories she chose to present, she would discover that there is a whole lot more to the story. The CEFAA videos are another example of all of this. She either bought the CEFAA story hook line and sinker without even looking into it or she knows they probably are bugs (like CEFAA).
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Previous

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 20 guests

cron