Re: Government Interest In UFOs

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:14:23 +0800, "slh" <slh@com> wrote:

so, you would have noticed that the documentation made a distinction between
unidentified aircraft, missiles & other "obvious" (dahhhh) machinery versus
UFO's which they specifically say they have no interest in.


"Since the termination of Project Blue Book, no evidence has been
presented to indicate that further investigation of UFO�s by the Air
Force or other government agency is warranted. In view of the
considerable Air Force commitment of resources in the past, and
extreme pressure on the federal budget, there is no likelihood of
renewed government involvement in this area"

This in no way states that the Air Force will no longer log actual UFO
sightings by military personnel, as you seem to assume throughout the
website.
Merely the intention to abandon a specific project aimed at
investigating alleged "flying saucer" sightings.

From this you seem to get to: "Agencies throughout Washington will say
that the government does not investigate UFOs". 
This is a crystal clear reference to "flying saucers", put into
layman's language.
Professional pilots would never confuse these two meanings of UFO.

Then you go on to (successfully) prove this statement wrong, in a
sense, based on an incorrect interpretation of what the military
understand by "UFO".
In that "UFO" has a clearly defined meaning in the Air Force, which
does not instantly imply an object of spooky extra-terrestrial origin,
merely an object that appears to be flying, and that it cannot
categorised with reasonable certainty.

All of the subsequent military documentation that you present, refer
to UFO as exactly the military meaning, irrespective of the
conclusions that you apparently arrive at:
Example:
"5.7.3 Report the following specific sightings:
   5.7.36.1 Hostile or unidentified aircraft which appears directed
against the United States, Canada, or their forces.
   5.7.3.2 Missiles.
   5.7.3.3 Unidentified flying objects.
   5.7.3.4 Hostile or unidentified military surface vessels or
submarines..."

To a pilot this means that any object that is apparently flying, and
that you cannot with reasonable certainty slot into the other two
categories of 1) Aircraft, or 2) Missiles, should be classified as
unidentified.
There is no conspiracy here.
This instruction is quite plain:
If you don't know what it is for sure that you see flying, then it's
classed as "unidentified".
I note with some interest that you haven't (yet) taken up the cause of
USVs (unidentified surface vessels), and the conspiracy surrounding
their reporting. (5.7.3.4)
The instruction that you highlighted in relation to aircraft applies
equally well to surface craft.

You seem to pick and choose when "UFO" means exactly that, and when
you suggest obliquely that it is intended to imply a "flying saucer".

Quote from the website:
"To have these crews, these pilots and these airman all instructed to
reports CIRVIS reports, the kind of report that reports a
�Unidentified Flying Object� as the government terms it, one can
conclude that this subject is incredibly serious. "

I agree completely.
UFOs *are* serious.
They *could* be an enemy aircraft.
They *could* be a missile.
They *could* be a stray civilian aircraft.
They *could* be a weather balloon.
They *could* pose any sort of threat.
The threat is not known until the UFO is clearly identified.
That is the reason that unidentified flying objects are taken
seriously.
I am not for one moment disputing the veracity of your quite scholarly
evidence, in fact I commend you for it.
What I am disputing is the conclusion(s) you arrive at, (however
obliquely stated), from your personal interpretation.

I don't know which wavelength you are on, but the one I am on seems to be
telling me that they publicly state they have no interest in UFO's as
Project Blue Book came to the conclusion that there wasn't anything to them
, yet their own recently revised procedures manuals make specific reference
to gathering intelligence on UFO's (as opposed to unidentified aircraft,
etc).


You are possibly correct in your assumption that we are on different
"wavelengths".
You confuse a simple distinction that the term "UFO" can have two
meanings, and blow it up into a major conspiracy theory, solely
supported by that confusion.

1) "...they publicly state they have no interest in UFO's..."
Meaning kooky reports of flying saucers.
There is no point in taking these reports seriously.

2) "...procedures manuals make specific reference to gathering
intelligence on UFO's..."
Meaning potential airborne threats that have yet to be assessed with
any certainty.
There is every reason to take these reports seriously.

That seems incredibly obvious from this wavelength.
I stand by my earlier, (admitedly facetious), post, which distilled
the above reasoning.