UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jan > Jan 23

Re: FAA's Credibility & Varacity Over O'Hare -

From: Steven Kaeser <steve.nul>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:58:09 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:09:01 -0500
Subject: Re: FAA's Credibility & Varacity Over O'Hare -

>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:56:34 -0000
>Subject: Re: FAA's Credibility & Varacity Over O'Hare

>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:56:27 -0400
>>Subject: FAA's Credibility & Veracity Over O'Hare UFO


>>Often they are made to look the fool. I find it curious and very
>>disturbing that United Airlines have attempted to subvert
>>freedom of speech by ordering their employees not to speak of
>>this incident. A few thoughts in a limited forum.

>>Don Ledger
>>Pilot, Author "Swissair Down' the crash of Swissair Flight 111.
>>NARCAP Representative for Canada.

>Don & List,

>Surely the only folk qualified to judge craft and their flight
>characteristics are pilots? And that includes astronauts. But
>they're specifically barred from speaking, by military law and
>maybe now even by civil 'law' or 'guidelines' (corporate

>Astronomers, meteorologists (weather people), other scientists
>and folk in 'administration' have no experience or knowledge of
>flying and so should be ignored. But they're the only ones asked
>or allowed to speak, because their careers are controlled by

>Here's some references which I think are still valid and
>checkable -



>http://tinyurl.com/fjx9c Page 958 onwards

>"Aug 1952 - referring to the very last time reports were
>obtained from professional astronomers - but only by fellow
>astronomer J Allen Hynek presenting himself as willing to "chat
>- off the record". Their apparently new, and clearly increasing
>reluctance to talk was presumably due to fear of official

>"August 1953 US Air Force Regulation (200-2) criminalized AF
>personnel speaking to public or Press about 'sightings'. Base
>commanders were authorized to publicize 'sightings' only if they
>could be firmly identified as 'familiar or known objects'. I.e -
>only 'debunking' reports allowed. Quote: 'UFOs:'The Government
>Files' - Peter Brookesmith, Brown Books, London, 1996 (p 38)."

>"Former Director of Central Intelligence, Vice Admiral R.H.
>Hillenkoetter: "It is time for the truth to be brought out in
>open Congressional hearings. Behind the scenes, high-ranking Air
>Force officers are soberly concerned about the UFOs. But through
>official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are lead to believe
>the unknown flying objects are nonsense. To hide the facts, the
>Air Force has silenced its personnel." Quote - The New York
>Times, Sunday, February 28, 1960: 'Air Force Order on Saucers
>Cited' p. L30."

>All this should tell us something about the motives of the
>corporate media and those who've made the laws: they don't want
>the truth or even informed comment.

Hi Ray,

I believe that any employer would have the right to limit the an
employee's contact with the press regarding job related
activities, and that would include anything seen by the employee
while on the payroll. I'm not convinced so much that there was a
cover up, but rather that the Airlilne just wasn't set up to
respond to the questions they were getting and really had no
obligation to research it for the curious (or the Press, which
may or may not come back to haunt them in the form of bad

Somehow I think we're all going to be stuck in speculation-land
until we get Richard Haine's report.


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com