NY Times Says National Interest in UFOs is “Waning”
“No News That’s Fit to Print
When Dealing with UFOs”
<Edited by Robert D. Morningstar>
William Gallison Replies To NY Times Writer
Regarding his article
”Out of This World, Out of Our Minds”
By John Schwartz
Frank Ryman (US Coast Guard) UFO photo taken July 4th, 1947 in Seattle, WA
On Jul 4, 2010, at 3:37 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
“Our cultural love affair with little green men”…. “if the truth really were out there, we’d see it. And we haven’t”….”Intelligent life, somewhere“….
However do you come up with these gems?
Do you generally bother to do any research at all before writing your articles, or do you simply pull them straight out of your ass? I’ve heard the New York Times has a history of using the latter method.
If you decide to try the research method, you might start by considering the copious radar documentation of the recent Stephensville Texas sightings
These were compiled from five independent FAA radar beacons which showed a massive craft moving alternatively at over 2000 mph and 40 mph over a period of eight hours, and being chased by ten F-16’s. If radar is too scientific for you, there are also numerous videos and dozens of eyewitness reports (which are all corroborated by the radar data.) But Stephensville is only one of thousands of similarly documented cases.
The “Phoenix lights” were captured by many video cameras, and witnessed by Governor Symington (former USAAF pilot) who believes them to be extraterrestrial.
Check out www.disclosureproject.com at which hundreds of witnesses testify, including military and commercial pilots, air traffic officials, ICBM base commanders etc, many with corroborating evidence from film, radar and simultaneous observations.
How about testimony form astronauts Gordon Cooper and Edgar Mitchell to name a couple?
If you read books, you might try “UFO’s and the National Security State” by historian Richard Dolan, that features hundreds of declassified official government documents on the subject.
Your article is the work of a man who would rather look smart and be stupid than be smart and look stupid (to his stupid peers).
I’d love a response if you can pull one out.
From: Schwartz, John <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Jul 4, 2010 8:11 am
Subject: Re: Your UFO piece
Dear Mr. Galison,
Thanks for your note. I’m sorry you didn’t like the story.
Telephone: 212 556 7353
620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018
Speaking only for myself since 1957
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 1:33 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
With all respect, the point of my letter was not that I didn’t like the story, but that it was false.
When you write “if the truth really were out there, we’d see it. And we haven’t”, that is a false statement, in light of thousands of authenticated videos and corroborating radar data. If you wrote “if there were evidence of an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, we’d see it, and we haven’t” you would be equally off base. The appropriate response would be that you have examined the radar data from Stephensville (for example) and you have concluded that it was forged, or inaccurate.
My questions to you are, in light of my letter:
– Did you examine the radar data and decide it was invalid or:
– did you examine the radar data and decide it was valid but you don’t care
– about the biggest story of the millennium?
– did you simply not examine the radar data?
NPR reporter John Burnett is a good friend. His wife is from Stephensville and knows many witnesses of the event. He told me that a) something inexplicable occurred there and b) NPR has a stated policy of not reporting UFO related matters. In fact, NPR did report the sightings but not the radar confirmation, which is the real story.
While I appreciate your concern that I did not like the story, can you please tell me whether you believe what you wrote or if you were just sacrificing your journalistic integrity for a few extra bucks?
New York City, NY
July 4th, 2010
Read Part 1 – Click here.
Read Part 2 – Click here.