It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
Considering something is not the same as making one's mind up about any given topic.
And that's a problem with things like this, is there seems to be an insinuation that once something's been decided it should never change under any circumstances.
And this was before Project Blue book, which concluded, perhaps wrongly, that there isn't anything worthwhile to investigate.
Originally posted by greeneyedleo
Please join us tonight on ATS LIVE RADIO where we will be discussing this topic! Please visit THIS THREAD for the schedule of topics!
We would love to have you call in and voice your opinion regardless of what it is!
ATS Live Is Broadcasting * Today @ 9:00 PM EST
Title: Unidentified Flying Objects
To: Director of Central Intelligence
Author: MArshall H. Chadwell, Assistant Director Scientific Intelligence
Date: December 2, 1952
Originally posted by FireMoon
www.dailymail.co.uk...
Originally posted by ypperst
Originally posted by Aliensun
It is utterly amazing how you can sit in front of your computer and debunk the deliberations of top US military officials that had mounds of info at their disposal. Not to mention that they would have every reason to down-play what they already knew to interested but unworthy parties such as the FBI. You have done the debunker's work, using a few words that--evidently sufficient for you--simply negates the whole business from day one right up to the present. But it seems to me to fall a bit short of the facts--oh, but you didn't use any, did you?
Originally posted by Aliensun
It is utterly amazing how you can sit in front of your computer and debunk the deliberations of top US military officials that had mounds of info at their disposal. Not to mention that they would have every reason to down-play what they already knew to interested but unworthy parties such as the FBI. You have done the debunker's work, using a few words that--evidently sufficient for you--simply negates the whole business from day one right up to the present. But it seems to me to fall a bit short of the facts--oh, but you didn't use any, did you?