FOIA newly released document

  • Thread starter Payton
  • Start date

Answers and Replies

  • #2
2,685
22


1. What is it you want to discuss?

2. What is special about this document?

Referring to 2, it is just a report someone made. Not evidence in any way.

I'd go so far as to say it looses credibility (well it kills it) at the end when it says:
it is believed the radar interfered with the controlling mechanics
So I'm curious how does radar interfere with mechanics (or do they mean computers?) and also if said crafts were able to travel through space - abundant in various radiation a lot more powerful than found on earth - how did it survive that and get done in by our radar?
 
  • #3
60
0


this is not an original government document(not written by a government official). it was just put into government records. nothing makes this true. if it were true their would be an official gov report on the issue.
 
  • #4
107
0


1. What is it you want to discuss?

2. What is special about this document?

Referring to 2, it is just a report someone made. Not evidence in any way.

I'd go so far as to say it looses credibility (well it kills it) at the end when it says:


So I'm curious how does radar interfere with mechanics (or do they mean computers?) and also if said crafts were able to travel through space - abundant in various radiation a lot more powerful than found on earth - how did it survive that and get done in by our radar?
The OP never claimed it is special. He claimed it is a newly released document, and that checks out.

By controlling mechanics they are referring to the mechanism that controls the craft. They probably chose that term, controlling mechanics, because it is a very unspecific general term which could refer to any type of controlling system.

If you were in space, you would probably use a different mechanism for controlling your craft then you would on earth. A craft designed to fly in space and on earth would probably have two types of controlling mechanisms.

How do you know wether or not an unknown controlling mechanism would be effected by high powered radar?
 
Last edited:
  • #5
107
0


this is not an original government document(not written by a government official). it was just put into government records. nothing makes this true. if it were true their would be an official gov report on the issue.
FBI — Guy Hottel
Guy Hottel
Guy Hottel was a Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Washington Field Office. The information concerning Mr. Hottel is in regard to a March 22, 1950, memo he sent to the Director concerning flying saucers.
http://vault.fbi.gov/hottel_guy

So apparently, what happened, was that a special agent in charge of the FBI's Washington Field Office, reported to the director of the FBI, that an investigator for the Air Force stated ........blah blah blah.

Is this not an original government document?
 
  • #6
60
0


the Air Force investigators report would have been the original document. Why hasn't it been released along with this document? the same ammount of time has passed, so the freedom of information act gives us the right to the air force report, so where is it?. This is just a letter to the head director of the fbi.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/J-Edgar-Hoover-Obit3may72.htm [Broken]

"Years ago, when Guy Hottel, a Hoover bodyguard and friend, got married, the F.B.I. director found out, where Mr. Hottel was going on his honeymoon and conspired with the Virginia State Police to have the newlyweds picked up and held overnight on a fake charge."(11th paragraph from the bottom)

This could have just been guy hottel getting the director of the FBI back. without the Air Force report this letter means nothing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
107
0


the Air Force investigators report would have been the original document. Why hasn't it been released along with this document? the same ammount of time has passed, so the freedom of information act gives us the right to the air force report, so where is it?. This is just a letter to the head director of the fbi.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/J-Edgar-Hoover-Obit3may72.htm [Broken]

"Years ago, when Guy Hottel, a Hoover bodyguard and friend, got married, the F.B.I. director found out, where Mr. Hottel was going on his honeymoon and conspired with the Virginia State Police to have the newlyweds picked up and held overnight on a fake charge."(11th paragraph from the bottom)

This could have just been guy hottel getting the director of the FBI back. without the Air Force report this letter means nothing.
If the Air Force report exists, has or hasn't been declassified is something worth investigating. Sometimes secretive documents are destroyed, for example when the CIA's mind control research program got exposed, they destroyed most of their documents relating to the their work and operations. My point is just that you have no substantial argument at all, wether or not the air force investigator really stated such as suggested in the memo.

This is an original government document, written by a government official. Actually, SAIC of the Washing FBI field office, is quite a high position as well as Director of the FBI.

What meaning this has is some matter? Your view that it is meaningless doesn't excuse your positing misinformation to make the argument. You can't just make up the facts because you don't take the subject seriously.

If you can convince yourself that it was most likely a prank or an act of revenge that is fine, but you could just as well assume a number of imaginative explanations including ones in which the report was honest and factual, as well as ones which are dishonest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
2,685
22


The OP never claimed it is special. He claimed it is a newly released document, and that checks out.
The OP didn't say anything. How do you know it "checks out" and isn't just some report that was taken down? You know the content is true?
If you were in space, you would probably use a different mechanism for controlling your craft then you would on earth. A craft designed to fly in space and on earth would probably have two types of controlling mechanisms.
Yes but why is that relevant?
How do you know wether or not an unknown controlling mechanism would be effected by high powered radar?
Why are we glorifying high powered radar? Do people believe it's some mystical thing that only occurs on earth?

Space is full of EM radiation, including radio waves. This planet is full of radio waves.

Unless you are sat on the dish, you shouldn't be affected in anyway - neither should your technology. The metal skin would give all the protection required.

The entire premise that you can navigate space (however far) but get taken out by radio waves is just ridiculous.

Oh, and one last thing, what does it look like when radar interferes with something? (Assuming legit), how does the informant know that the radar had anything to do with it? It's the informant who says it, it's him who says "it is believed radar...".

All this document means is that someone made a report and the air force took note. Nothing special, proof of exactly nothing.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
2,685
22


If the Air Force report exists, has or hasn't been declassified is something worth investigating. Sometimes secretive documents are destroyed, for example when the CIA's mind control research program got exposed, they destroyed most of their documents relating to the their work and operations. My point is just that you have no substantial argument at all, wether or not the air force investigator really stated such as suggested in the memo.

This is an original government document, written by a government official. Actually, SAIC of the Washing FBI field office, is quite a high position as well as Director of the FBI.

What meaning this has is some matter? Your view that it is meaningless doesn't excuse your positing misinformation to make the argument. You can't just make up the facts because you don't take the subject seriously.

If you can convince yourself that it was most likely a prank or an act of revenge that is fine, but you could just as well assume a number of imaginative explanations including ones in which the report was honest and factual, as well as ones which are dishonest.
Ah I see, so this document is based on a factual, honest account and they destroyed the report. Yes, that's the most likely explanation.

I like the concept of Occam's Razor, given everything else, it just doesn't add up.
 
  • #10
107
0


Ah I see, so this document is based on a factual, honest account and they destroyed the report. Yes, that's the most likely explanation.

I like the concept of Occam's Razor, given everything else, it just doesn't add up.
My intention was only to debunk the misinformation which had been presented by another member. I made no speculation as to wether the documents were truthful. Gabe said it is possible it was a prank, and I said all kinds of things are possible.

Do you support misinformation when it agrees with you or what?
 
  • #11
107
0


The OP didn't say anything. How do you know it "checks out" and isn't just some report that was taken down? You know the content is true?


Yes but why is that relevant?


Why are we glorifying high powered radar? Do people believe it's some mystical thing that only occurs on earth?

Space is full of EM radiation, including radio waves. This planet is full of radio waves.

Unless you are sat on the dish, you shouldn't be affected in anyway - neither should your technology. The metal skin would give all the protection required.

The entire premise that you can navigate space (however far) but get taken out by radio waves is just ridiculous.

Oh, and one last thing, what does it look like when radar interferes with something? (Assuming legit), how does the informant know that the radar had anything to do with it? It's the informant who says it, it's him who says "it is believed radar...".

All this document means is that someone made a report and the air force took note. Nothing special, proof of exactly nothing.
I know that the FBI released a document which is apparently authored by the SAIC for The Washington FBI field office, and addressed to the director of the FBI, which reports that an investigator for the Air Force stated they found three flying saucers and 9 alien bodies in new mexico. That part isn't debatable.

The comment I made about control mechanisms is relevant to what you said about high powered radar interfering with a control mechanism, because I think it debunks the conclusion of your argument.

A control mechanism includes every component which assists the craft in it's movement. Sending and receiving signals may be essential to the controlling mechanism of a craft. I wouldn't interpret the memo to imply that the radar exploded the ship in mid air, or jammed it's steering wheel, like you seamed to have assumed.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
2,685
22


I know that the FBI released a document which is apparently authored by the SAIC for The Washington FBI field office, and addressed to the director of the FBI, which reports that an investigator for the Air Force stated they found three flying saucers and 9 alien bodies in new mexico. That part isn't debatable.
I assume this is from another thread or source. Either way, I haven't seen this so a link to it would be nice.
The comment I made about control mechanisms is relevant to what you said about high powered radar interfering with a control mechanism, because I think it debunks the conclusion of your argument.
It doesn't even come close to debunking it.
A control mechanism includes every component which assists the craft in it's movement. Sending and receiving signals may be essential to the controlling mechanism of a craft. I wouldn't interpret the memo to imply that the radar exploded the ship in mid air, or jammed it's steering wheel, like you seamed to have assumed.
I never assumed anything of the sort. I took it to mean any form of interference. Frankly, this isn't the time or the place for me to run through signal jamming and interference to explain why I find it so ridiculous.

Plus I ask how anyone knows the radar interfered in the first place - I mean the report is sketchy at best and indicates the person wasn't actively in contact with the ship or systems, so how would they know, outside of speculation, that radar brought it down?

The way this looks right now (again assuming something crashed) is that someone has gone "something crashed, there's a high powered radar near-by, therefore that's what brought it down".
 
  • #13
2,685
22


My intention was only to debunk the misinformation which had been presented by another member. I made no speculation as to wether the documents were truthful. Gabe said it is possible it was a prank, and I said all kinds of things are possible.

Do you support misinformation when it agrees with you or what?
Where is the misinformation in Gabe's post? (The second one which I responded to your comments on.)

Looking at this from the simplest perspective, it comes down to a false report. It's the simplest explanation. So to automatically assume it's correct is wrong, given the likelihood of such a thing is significantly lower than the former possibility.
 
  • #14
2,685
22


For the record here, I'm not passing judgement either way. I'm just stating that the content of the letter is somewhat sketchy.
 
  • #15
107
0


One thing I noticed is that the date of the memo, march 22, and it was stamped and signed by two different people, on march 28, and march 29. While a few days early, April fools was right on the horizon.
 
  • #16
2,685
22


One thing I noticed is that the date of the memo, march 22, and it was stamped and signed by two different people, on march 28, and march 29. While a few days early, April fools was right on the horizon.
That's one hell of a prank!
 
  • #17
107
0


Where is the misinformation in Gabe's post? (The second one which I responded to your comments on.)

Looking at this from the simplest perspective, it comes down to a false report. It's the simplest explanation. So to automatically assume it's correct is wrong, given the likelihood of such a thing is significantly lower than the former possibility.
The misinformation is in his first post. He claimed it wasn't a real government document written by a government official. It was his first post.

Making claims based on assumptions doesn't make anyone a skeptic.
 
  • #18
60
0


i didnt say it wasnt a real government document, just that it wasnt the original document. i was wrong saying it wasnt written by a government official. and i wasnt implying i believed it was a prank, just saying a prank is way more believable than little green men. if the little green men do exist then someone has been keeping a lid on it throught all known history.

ha ha, could you imagine. all the alien hysteria around dreamland just stems from an april fools joke.
 

Related Threads on FOIA newly released document

Replies
184
Views
20K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
571
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
966
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
Top