UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > May > May 23

Re: Flying Saucers - The Greatest Lie Ever Told

From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs.nul>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 13:08:36 -0400 (EDT)
Archived: Wed, 23 May 2012 18:27:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Flying Saucers - The Greatest Lie Ever Told

>From: James Carrion <jcarrion.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 09:16:20 -0300
>Subject: Re: Flying Saucers - The Greatest Lie Ever Told

>>From: Dave Morton <Marspyrs.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 06:25:34 -0400 (EDT)
>>Subject: Re: Flying Saucers - The Greatest Lie Ever Told

>>>From: James Carrion <james_carrion.nul>
>>>To: <post.nul>
>>>Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 10:46:53 -0600
>>>Subject: Re: Flying Saucers - The Greatest Lie Ever Told


>>>When have I ever claimed that UFOs do not exist?

>>My attribution of you was correct because you stated a theory -
>>a fantastic theory - without providing any evidence.

>>Additionally, the title of your piece begins "Flying
>>Saucers..." - not "The Flying Saucers of June 1947."

>>The implication is "(All) Flying Saucers" - not a subset of
>>flying saucer reports.

>>That's how the English language works.

>>The word "All" is implied by you in your subject.

>>If we add "All" and some clarification, we have "All Flying
>>Saucers Are A Lie - the Greatest Lie Ever Told."

>>You asked:

>>"When have I ever claimed that UFOs do not exist?"

>>Well, if you meant "flying saucers" rather than "UFOs", you
>>just stated it: "...The Greatest Lie Ever Told."

>>You're claiming that they're just a lie, and therefore don't
>>exist in reality. That's when you claimed that they don't exist.
>>"Lie" = "Imaginary". "Imaginary" = "They don't exist".

>>So, in effect, you were saying "All Flying Saucers are a Lie -
>>the Greatest Lie Ever Told, Therefore They Don't Exist."

>>Your question has now been answered.

>>You stated above "...hard evidence means everything."
>>Very true. You haven't supplied any for your theories.

>>You talk about the CIA, then later about Project Seal. Somehow we're
>>supposed to figure out for ourselves how Project Seal meant that the June
>>'47 saucers were some kind of hoax, and that there never were any real

>>I'm slow, James. Spell it out for me.

>>You've come up with a better theory involving the CIA and
>>Project Seal - a secret project cancelled in January of 1945,
>>and revealed in 1947.

>>I don't see the connection, but it's an interesting theory, and
>>I'd like to understand it.

>>I need to see the evidence and methodology, because I don't
>>understand the mechanism.

>>I'd also be interested in finding out how many Soviet spies
>>were captured by this disinformation ploy. Names and dates,

>>You will also need to address David Rudiak's reading of the
>>telegram in General Ramey's hand - work completed in 2001.
>>Explain it, please.

>>How is it that we can clearly read "FORT WORTH, TEX", "VICTIMS
>>OF THE WRECK", "DISK", and "WEATHER BALLOONS"? This was the
>>Roswell incident - one of your specialties, and the photo was
>>taken on July 8th, 1947 in General Ramey's office at Fort Worth,
>>Texas (Fort Worth Army Airfield).

>>Was this a fake telegram planted by the CIA, intended for
>>revelation decades after the June '47 saucer flap, but not to be
>>believed, and seen as more >evidence for a cover-up so we could
>>flush out Soviet spies in 2001, even though news of Rudiak's
>>telegram reading didn't make the mainstream news, and >thus had
>>no clear-text from which to start a decryption of Soviet code,
>>as far as we know? What's the explanation?

>>You will also need to discredit all Roswell reports - from Mack
>>Brazel forward. Every single statement ever made from June '47
>>forward to the present day, by people who were involved in the
>>incident, including those who didn't see the debris or the
>>bodies, but spoke with or saw the people involved, or were
>>somehow connected to it - including General Vandenberg, General
>>Ramey's wife, Major Marcel, Marcel's son, etc.

>>We end up with something like this:

>>"All Flying Saucers Are A Lie - The Greatest Lie Ever Told,
>>Therefore They Don't Exist.

>>The CIA sent out fake stories of UFOs to capture Soviet spies.
>>Furthermore, Project Seal in New Zealand was somehow involved,
>>and the CIA captured more spies. I won't tell you who they
>>caught or how they caught them. All the stories of June '47
>>involving flying saucers were fake stories planted by the CIA.

>>All the interviews of people supposedly involved were fake,
>>even up to the present day. They all lied and continue to lie.
>>Any photographs of saucers are fakes. The telegram in General
>>Ramey's hand was a fake, printed out and handed to him by a CIA
>>agent. I won't tell you how they did it because it's a secret.
>>Furthermore, flying saucers don't exist. I know they don't
>>exist just because."

>>James, please answer ALL these questions, in this forum.

>>Dave Morton

>I have already stated that I won't be presenting my findings in
>this forum. You can read my research findings on my website once
>I post them. Maybe you should start with reading my paper on
>Project Seal which I doubt you have yet to read.

>Speaking of Project Seal, you already have it wrong. The Project
>was killed in 1945 but the principal scientists were promoting
>it as ongoing in 1947, and informed the public that it was
>developed outside of the United States and outside the reaches
>of Soviet Espionage. They provided a mix of true and false
>statements to the press, which I have hard evidence of in the
>form of declassified documents. Disinformation in the classic
>sense. So let me spell it out for you:

>A Top Secret Research Project, bigger than the Manhattan
>Project, possibly an airborne weapon, developed outside the
>United States and outside the reaches of Soviet Spies, confirmed
>by the principals who worked on the project who are purposely
>disinforming- information released 2 weeks prior to Kenneth
>Arnold's sighting.

>In the eyes of a Ufologist or believer, all of this adds up to
>nothing. In the eyes of an Military Intelligence Historian it
>shows purposeful intent to deceive.

>As for all of the things you claim as evidence to the contrary,
>I don't need to discredit anyone's research or findings, I only
>need to prove my own theory with hard evidence. Then you can
>stack my research next to Friedman's, Rudiak's, and every other
>researcher interested in this period and make your own judgment.
>If you prefer to believe anecdotal evidence, recovered messages
>from photographs, unsubstantiated control groups, etc., well
>that is your right to do so. When I walk into my congressman's
>office, I won't be bringing that kind of evidence with me.

I read the stuff on your website and here on the List. It was
empty. Just a lot of meaningless talk.

I asked for your evidence here, on this List. You didn't provide

After all, this is the place to discuss these things. You didn't
do it

You say I should read your research findings on your website
once you post them. IE, you haven't posted your findings, yet.
Emptiness again combined with evasiveness.

I did read your verbiage about Project Seal.
My reaction was "So what?".

The Ramey memo is a direct refutation of your theory.

You have a theory, but no evidence.

The Ramey memo IS evidence - proof, in fact, that there was a
saucer crash with victims.

It proves that you're wrong.

Your Side: A theory about a hoax.

Ramey's Memo: A Top Secret memo about a saucer crash with
victims. My conclusion: There was a saucer crash with victims
near Roswell.

Your Side: You don't need to refute anything.

My Side: That's true. Your theory is irrelevant. I don't take it
seriously, and assume you're joking or some such. In fact, I
doubt that ANYONE takes it seriously.

But if you want people to take your theory seriously, you would
need to refute the Ramey memo, for starters. Evidence and logic
are convincing for me.

For you to change MY mind about your theory, you would need to
overturn the evidence and logic I see in the Ramey memo.

Do it here. Right here, right now, James.
One case, one piece of evidence (the Ramey memo),
one explanation. Simple and easy.

Prove that the memo was not a "real" memo about a real
subject from a real person to another real person,
containing real information.

Prove that the memo isn't authentic.

Or prove that the memo is entirely unreadable.

Prove that Ramey was just kidding, for example.
Or that someone inserted a fake memo into the picture.

Or that a CIA man handed the memo to Ramey with instructions
to pose with it during the photo-op.

And that General Ramey would take orders from a CIA man.

Or that General Vandenberg ordered Ramey to send Van such
a fake memo, and then pose with it.

If you have photos, etc, that can't be posted here, then post
them on your website and give us the link. These would be
materials needed to disprove the authenticity of the Ramey memo,
in addition to your explanation posted here.

I've done similar things. I proved that my chiropractor was a
quack when I noticed that he hadn't turned on his machine, but
was supposedly getting some kind of feedback. (He was an old
man). Some scientist disproved the concept of "N-Rays", I think
they were called, by tricking the imposter. Now it's your turn.

We have the proof, you have the burden of proof to disprove our
proof - Rudiak's proof.

The Ramey memo. Let's hear it, James.

Right here, right now.

Dave Morton

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ 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