Monday, October 20, 2008


I've kicked this (October 2008) article back up today (December 4, 2009) for those of you who missed it and would like to know why UK disclosure isn't 'all that'.

It's a rather long read but if you don't read it and understand why they're not 'all that' then don't complain about a lack of UK disclosure because the answers are all in this article.


User Image
USAF pilot Milton Torres

The media's favorite story to report is about Milton Torres, the USAF pilot that was ordered to fire at a UFO in UK airspace. Did mainstream think to check Google first to see if that information wasn't already out and about on the Internet? Unfortunately for them they did not and yes, that particular story was most certainly on the Internet previous to the release of the most recent MoD files.

Essentially, all items coming out of the UK aren't 'all that' because they've been read previously on various websites, blogs and forums over the many years. This supposed 'new' information from the MoD is not new news, it's old news. The only difference is that for some reason people find the MoD to be the gospel and their info gets attention even though it's old news and was previously presented to Ufology.

User Image
USAF pilot Milton Torres

The USAF pilot Milton Torres story hit the Internet on August 11, 2008. It was written by known crop circle researcher David Clayton and delivered to BJ Booth at the UFO Casebook who published it for him.

This Milton Torres story was not a flash in the pan article like the mainstream media typically puts together these days with their one-liner paragraphs. Instead, this story David Clayton prepared was 7,313 words. As well, his article was accompanied by 13 photos of which four of those were of USAF pilot Milton Torres.

I really do not know what's wrong with mainstream media these days except to say that they are in the business of selling 'something'. Most of us sell nothing and at the same time we try not to deliver nonsense. Not intentionally that is. One thing I do know from working for monthly publications is that they have to show numbers in order to get their advertisers and keep their ad rates up to par. In the case of online publications those numbers they're looking for are based on views or 'clicks' or 'hits'. You get the idea. The more views their online papers receive the more opportunities they have for either more advertisers or an opportunity to raise their ad rates or both.

It was mainstream media that showed me that their readers don't like to read much in the way of text. I see it myself in the numbers of 'clicks' or 'hits' in what it is I publish. Mainstream media knows your habits quite well. This is also why they use one-liner paragraphs. They gotcha and they know you only want the grunt of the information so that's all they do because they only want the 'click'. So don't go in there. You'll see it in an article from the UFO community long before you will a story coming from them anyway. My favorite part is when they don't have a UFO photo that goes along with their story. It's as if they just go out and find any ole thing. Don't they? They've made some pretty embarrassing boo boo's due to some of those photo choices. They can be real comedy acts to us that have been around the block. I'm sure you've seen what I'm talking about.

User Image
USAF pilot Milton Torres

Even though I'm laughing at what I just said, I do get 'set off' when I read their UFO sighting stories because they take them and publish them, all well knowing that they'll get a lot of attention with their sensationalism, but at the same time they could really care less about UFOs. I say this because of the regular use of derogatory comments within many of the articles. This all reminds me of UFO sightings and televised news. It never fails, at the very end of a news report, the last newscaster to speak has something to say about it possibly being a meteor or a bird or a flying dish. Yes I said 'dish', not 'disc'. Why is it that it's the very last newscaster? It's because that's what they want you to leave with. The last thing they say leaves a lasting impression. At the same time, they're thinking about Dennis Kacinich and how he was lambasted by the media because, OMG he believes in UFOS! Nobody! in media wants to be looked at as someone who believes in UFOs. They shiver at the very thought of such. We can probably agree that the only brave souls in that biz is Larry King since he does show sincerity and Billy Cox at the Herald Tribune because he's so well informed on the subject.

And then there are the infamous Chinese lantern articles. I know they're lanterns, you know they're lanterns and even the media reporting the story knows that they're lanterns, so why do they run the story. Numbers. It's all in the numbers. You need to understand how high the numbers are in regard to UFO enthusiasts. It's extremely high and not just for enthusiasts but for almost everyone simply because we love intrigue and aren't UFOs full of intrigue? The particular media that runs such a story knows that they'll have a follow-up 'Chinese lantern debunks UFO' story in the days to come. More numbers, more clicks, ad rates increase - a planned affair. That's not a story. That's a con because when you open up a lantern story you are always, always, always greeted with 6 to 8 one-liner paragraphs about a group of lights and amongst that page are 9 to 14 advertisements. Who's kidding who?

To better understand 'numbers' this is why Larry King Live never misses a beat with UFOs in the news. CNN's no dummy nor is the History Channel, Travel Channel and National Geographic. History, travel and geography has little to nothing to do with UFOs except that they draw big crowds and they know better than any of us that the numbers of viewers are most certainly there. The same thing goes for the paranormal.

User Image

I believe that I also have to blame Dr. David Clarke for most of what has transposed today since he finds the need to distribute items alongside legitimate UFO sightings that are something that probably belong in the National Enquirer or some other grocery store rag. Both the May and October releases of the UFO Files from The National Archives left me with a feeling that we're all being made fun of based on what is being delivered outside of UFO sightings.

I published one of those 'types' of stories myself today, which you probably saw. Did you notice how I make a point of making sure that the original source got more than full credit 'as the original source'. Sometimes I find the need to point these things out because it's been a very long road for thousands of us and if mainstream media is going to continue to come along for the ride, they need to change their way of thinking.

And of course it has crossed my mind that Dr. Clarke purposely released the USAF pilot story 'this round' because he already knew it was on the Internet. I think he also knew that what he had to present was weak without it and that those in the know would see right through it.

What I don't understand is Dr. Clarke doesn't spend his time putting together only those reports of the caliber of the USAF pilot sighting. What's with all of the muckity, muck? That's not what we want, we want the meat. He has to already know that so why not just assemble the biggies and leave the others for the last batch released. I happen to think that he has an ulterior motive such as that of mainstream media. I can't quite put my finger on what that motive is but it most certainly exists.

User Image
USAF pilot Milton Torres

All in all, the files released this time around were just like the last time in May. There was one, maybe two that were worthy and rest belonged in a trash heap somewhere. It's almost as if he's giving us crumbs and doing it purposely. We'll really never, ever know. On that note, I think we're better off without the UFO files because from what I read today, mainstream media is instead making a mockery out of UFO believers.

Both the Associated press and Reuters (many times called the gospel) have also published their version on the USAF pilot, which of course has led other forms of media to perform their repeat performances. It appears that neither news service thought to check to see whether this story had previously reached the Internet and instead now appear less of a news service while thinking that what they were delivering was 'new news'. See, even our two most faithful news services, responsible for supplying information to the media were under the assumption that outside of Milton Torres, only the MoD was privy to such. Imagine that, the gospel not checking it out beforehand and instead completely dependent on the presentation of The National Archives in the UK.

Then again, there are too many of you that think that such brings disclosure. These releases from the MoD, hence the new services and then media will not bring disclosure. Based on what they've disclosed, I can safely say - quite the the contrary.

Directly below is a Google Search screen print on the UFO Casebook article from August 11, 2008. You can click on the screen print below and it will take you directly to the UFO Casebook article written August 18, 2008 and titled, USAF Pilot was Ordered to Fire at a UFO in U.K. Airspace. It is the 9th article down the page. BJ Booth at the UFO Casebook published that article about the pilot (Milton Torres) who was ordered to fire at a UFO in UK airspace two months before this last UK disclosure of Dr. David Clarke's - not mainstream media. Put that in your pipe and smoke it mainstream media because your latest articles on this last UK disclosure are old news.


See todays UFO/Alien News here

****blog******blog****blog ****blog***

September Archive *August Archive *July Archive *June Archiv

1 comment:

Maltese Frog said...

O.K. I'll read - I actually can do that if forced to it.

You make excellent points and I will check out the 9th article.

I am not a UFO believer. I have seen two UAP, one by night and one in daylight. I have not been contacted, nor abducted (as far as I remember) no missing time blocks nor alien hair.

The light in the sky at night was in 1978 and is not just unidentified it is unexplainable given our current knowledge. Conjecture? Sure.

The daylight incident was March 24th of this year and I'm still scratching my head and re-doing angles in order to try and sort out size and speed. It was early and I was but half awake when I saw it.

I have observed, and complained about, exactly what you wrote of: the eternally popping up candle lanterns over Britain. I expect any day to hear that there was a wedding party near Rendlesham.

I shall check in on your site several times a week.

Thank you,