Unidentified Flying Threats--A NYTimes Editorial

www.nytimes.com:80...

Here's a link to an editorial in The NYTimes online.

It's a brief article about the dangers of ignoring UFO sightings, and the problem with relying on radar evidence as a basis for acting upon incidents. It sites several high-profile UFO cases.

It presents a point of view that I, personally, haven't really considered before.

I've never tried posting a link before, so I hope I've done it correctly.

Fuggle


PS -- I'm unaware if there's any (free) registration required, as I'm already registered on that site.



[edit on 29/7/08 by Fuggle]

Oh why don't you just sing me to sleep, Mr. Nick Pope.

(And no, registration doesn't seem to be required, Fuggle. At least, I could see it just fine.)

Hmmm quite a random and out of the blue article in my opinion.

Why do these journalists still use pathetic "little green men" tag?

edit: I see it was written by Nick Pope himself

[edit on 29-7-2008 by dodgygeeza]

freaking amazing! however have a look at the link in my sig. Is this a setup?

reply to post by dodgygeeza


Well, I'd suppose I'd venture to guess that maybe he's pre-empting readers that might otherwise think up the cliche themselves--diffusing the usual line of ridicule, maybe.

F

Originally posted by stikkinikki

freaking amazing! however have a look at the link in my sig. Is this a setup?

It appears you might be onto something there. As Nick Pope is all about the threat that these UFOs pose to the world, maybe he's part of the plan to weaponise space.

Edit: In my opinion this is worthy of its own thread,

[edit on 29-7-2008 by dodgygeeza]

reply to post by stikkinikki


Ouch. Exactly as she's saying it, Stikkinikki.

Who in the MSM will pick up this angle next, I wonder.

reply to post by dodgygeeza

As Nick Pope is all about the threat that these UFOs pose to the world, maybe he's part of the plan to weaponise space.

I think that's jumping to conclusions. Pope isn't trying to scare everyone with an alien invasion. In fact he's saying it's not about little green men. It's about some unknown that is a possibile safety hazard (like hovering over a busy airport like OHare). I think it's a very good angle to attack if one is trying to reopen an investigation.

reply to post by Scramjet76


Oh I know . I'm just throwing a theory out there.

Interesting on so many levels, thanks for sharing it Fuggle

I have to laugh at his naively stating that "nothing was picked up on radar" at O'Hare, as if they'd announce that they HAD picked it up on radar! But then he's just a a NY Times reporter/editorial writer and this is what the average Joe off the street believes...that if it's "reported" that there was nothing on radar then it MUST be true

Also how he points out that "UFOS" haven't been studied:

The American government has not investigated U.F.O. sightings since 1969, when the Air Force ended Project Blue Book, an effort to scientifically analyze all sightings to see if any posed a threat to national security.

(Taken from the OP article)

Why because the government SAYS they haven't studied them??


Those of us who read the Stephenville UFO threads and the MUFON report thread about them, were all wondering this very thing...the lack of concern for something without a transponder flying in a direct beeline for Bush's Crawford, TX ranch.

Makes you wonder if they did nothing because: A) They knew it was theirs, or: B) They knew it was "aliens" and that there was nothing they could do about it anyway. You can't tell me if they thought these UFOs were an "earth" enemy of the U.S. the response would be completely different then it is now to these things. Just my 2 cents!