Quotes From Prominent Officials Implying An Extraterrestrial Presence On Earth

a reply to: mirageman

I agree, but if someone could show something like cattle mutilations couldnt be done by us(I do however think we could pull this off), i dont think it is necessary to first prove aliens exist to make them a legitimate last possibility.

iv) UFOs (i.e Unidentified Flying Objects) are actually a genuine phenomena. We are probably dealing with a number of different things of which ET spacecraft remains a possibility.

v) I have still not seen anything to convince me beyond reasonable doubt that UFOs are alien spacecraft.

Like I said I still think there's something at the bottom of it all but I am yet to be convinced there are aliens amongst us.

Most of the time a UFO sighting is just a fly by of sorts, and people call it in or report it, like the Madagascar sighting. How many reports like this would you have to read before you believed it? I personally wouldnt give it much thought it if there werent so many instances of it happening.

Not a popular opinion around here, but
we are probably better off with society at large not knowing, with every missing persons case becoming a possible alien abduction case. Would just create a bunch of fear.

a reply to: mirageman

You definitely know a lot about crop circles and animal mutilation. Have you been inside a crop circle or stood over the body of a mutilated animal?

a reply to: Reddaysun

Whether I have or haven't what difference would it make?

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE


i) There are aliens
ii) They have the means to reach Earth from wherever they reside
iii) That means is used to visit Earth, and that the aliens choose, for whatever reason, to routinely mutilate herd animals.

You're right I should look more into this, just don't have the time, but will try to make some. It is also hard that given the hypothesis that this is being done by aliens, much of the info pointing to this would have been suppressed, destroyed, covered up etc.

I don't think I need to prove any of these three points to come up with overwhelming circumstantial evidence that some of these are being done by aliens, but I will try to remain unbiased, I realize that is important.

Look at your ii) point - how do aliens get here? Don't you think there is a logical flaw there?

If I come home and my house has been ransacked, money and appliances stolen......do I have to know the burglars means of conveyance to my house to make the logical connection that they were burglars?

Or another one, if I get sick, have a fever, cough, chills - do I have to know how I caught the disease to validate me having the disease? If I don't know how I caught it does it invalidate it? If I don't know how the burglars got to my home does it invalidate the burglary?

I used to watch Star Trek re-runs in the 70's as a kid. I used to marvel at their little communications device, the one where they could talk to each other and see each other on the little screen. It seemed so advanced then. Yet we have it today with face-to-face on certain smartphones. And that was only 50 years! Imagine what technology breakthroughs we could have in 500, 5000 or 50,000 years. We don't know how far in advance these beings are, or at least that info is not being released. We can't literally imagine the physics, chemistry, molecular science they know. So just because we don't know or can't imagine how they got here does not invalidate their being here.

a reply to: mirageman

Simple question. I imagine you have been involved directly. I would love to have such an experience!

a reply to: Reddaysun

Like I said what I have to add is not going to make any difference to the debate. I've seen various animals in state of decay in desolate places. Nothing to add to that would make me think it was anything peculiar.

I've seen a crop circle or two across our green and pleasant land. In my opinion all of those , despite being works of art, were the work of human cereal killers.

Well I was in doubt once about this:

a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

I do enjoy our debates because I know you really believe and I know I want to believe but also need to see the hard scientific proof to make it so .

I don't think I need to prove any of these three points to come up with overwhelming circumstantial evidence that some of these are being done by aliens, but I will try to remain unbiased, I realize that is important. Look at your ii) point - how do aliens get here? Don't you think there is a logical flaw there? If I come home and my house has been ransacked, money and appliances stolen......do I have to know the burglars means of conveyance to my house to make the logical connection that they were burglars? Or another one, if I get sick, have a fever, cough, chills - do I have to know how I caught the disease to validate me having the disease? If I don't know how I caught it does it invalidate it? If I don't know how the burglars got to my home does it invalidate the burglary?

The slight difference is we are talking about proving aliens mutilate cattle. As far as all the legal statute books are concerned there is no evidence of aliens existing. So in those scenarios if you claimed your house was burgled we know that human beings are almost exclusively going to be involved in such activities. We know human beings exist.

Now if you were claiming "aliens" burgled your house then you'd have to prove they exist and how they got to your house from outer space and removed your possessions.

Is any of this circumstantial evidence really pointing to interference by aliens or is that your own bias wanting to believe that?

Tell you what I'll look into it myself in more depth in the spirit of fairness and see if I can pull together something on it all. I think we've dragged this thread way off topic now.

So watch this space! Or this forum.

originally posted by: jordan77

originally posted by: Gianfar
a reply to: TrueMessiah


One of the best posts on this topic ever! You did the homework and that's grand.

No offense to the OP, but had he done his homework, he would have included where the statements in question were made. Sometimes, that's a big problem with UFO quotes is they're attributed to somebody without any context as to specifically where or when they were made. Which to me, makes them useless. An unsourced quote by itself next to somebody's name doesn't do anybody any good cuz you can't verify it.

Are you disputing that government officials believe that some UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin or that you doubt the veracity of the statements made by said officials named in this post?

a reply to: Gianfar

Are you disputing that government officials believe that some UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin or that you doubt the veracity of the statements made by said officials named in this post?

C. Statements that cant be verified are worthless.

Case in point is your response to the person you quoted which had nothing to do with his quote. Even though you phrased it as a question, you are leading people to think that he is

A. "disputing that government officials believe that some UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin "
B. "doubt[ing] the veracity of the statements made by said officials named in this post?

Can you explain which part of the post even comes close to A or B? Here, I will help. Highlight the text.

No offense to the OP, but had he done his homework, he would have included where the statements in question were made. Sometimes, that's a big problem with UFO quotes is they're attributed to somebody without any context as to specifically where or when they were made. Which to me, makes them useless. An unsourced quote by itself next to somebody's name doesn't do anybody any good cuz you can't verify it.

This is, in essence, how misappropriated quotes are propagated.

originally posted by: DarthFazer
a reply to: TrueMessiah

Inb4 the debunkers claim "there is no proof of aliens"


Anyway those are some great quotes op. I think it is safe to say we have been visited by a higher intelligence for a very long time. We cant afford to ignore the elephant in the room. We need to get to the bottom of this phenomenon once and for all. We need to cut off the black budget and stop funding entities suppressing the truth and tech if we are ever going to get the disclosure we deserve.

I'm not sure you entirely get the phrase elephant in the room. That would be something so obvious that no one could ignore or deny it. That's not the case with any extraterrestrials.
What would be obvious if they exist is the fact that they choose not to disclose themselves and that begs the question why. Any reason for that can't be good. And if they exist we can count on never getting disclosure because they choose not to.

Except these aren't ducks.
If it looks like a saucer it could be our technology




. a reply to: DarthFazer

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Gianfar

Are you disputing that government officials believe that some UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin or that you doubt the veracity of the statements made by said officials named in this post?

C. Statements that cant be verified are worthless.

Case in point is your response to the person you quoted which had nothing to do with his quote. Even though you phrased it as a question, you are leading people to think that he is

A. "disputing that government officials believe that some UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin "
B. "doubt[ing] the veracity of the statements made by said officials named in this post?

Can you explain which part of the post even comes close to A or B? Here, I will help. Highlight the text.

No offense to the OP, but had he done his homework, he would have included where the statements in question were made. Sometimes, that's a big problem with UFO quotes is they're attributed to somebody without any context as to specifically where or when they were made. Which to me, makes them useless. An unsourced quote by itself next to somebody's name doesn't do anybody any good cuz you can't verify it.

This is, in essence, how misappropriated quotes are propagated.

I would say that both of you are engaged in semantics, since the OP's post includes enough information enabling anyone to find the associated references. I did my homework and found enough sources on this topic to satisfy my need for verification. I would assume that both of you are capable of doing this as well.

a reply to: Gianfar

I would say that both of you are engaged in semantics, since the OP's post includes enough information enabling anyone to find the associated references. I did my homework and found enough sources on this topic to satisfy my need for verification. I would assume that both of you are capable of doing this as well

Semantics? How so? I didn't find any sources. Do you mind sharing yours? the "Semantics" comments followed by the "do your own research" comments leads me to believe that you really dont have much other than deflection.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Gianfar

I would say that both of you are engaged in semantics, since the OP's post includes enough information enabling anyone to find the associated references. I did my homework and found enough sources on this topic to satisfy my need for verification. I would assume that both of you are capable of doing this as well

Semantics? How so? I didn't find any sources. Do you mind sharing yours? the "Semantics" comments followed by the "do your own research" comments leads me to believe that you really dont have much other than deflection.

I basically view the UFO/ET subject matter as the white noise of limitless stories, amateur investigators, lights in the sky, public psychoneuroses. Notwithstanding, there are very rare exceptions worth the effort of deeper study. So, if you're a real skeptic, as I am, then you'll find the sources - if they exist. Expecting others to provide such information is rather lazy and disingenuous if trying to convince me you're real.

a reply to: Gianfar

public psychoneuroses

What do you mean by that exactly?

Expecting others to provide such information is rather lazy and disingenuous if trying to convince me you're real.

Why? If you have convincing information, just provide it or just say you don't really have anything. Its not that big of a deal. I haven't come across anything convincing. If I did, I would share it and offer it up for scrutiny and discussion because that's what we do here. The whole point of this forum is to sort out information like this, not make it more confusing. Yes, I expect people to provide information and links and sources, otherwise, I have no clue what they are basing their assertions on.

And what makes you think that I didn't come across the same exact info you did? Maybe, to me, it was obviously bogus. Either you don't have anything worth sharing or you would just rather not give someone the opportunity to point out something that invalidates your beliefs. Maybe you read something somewhere and forgot where? Who knows? since you aren't sharing. I can only guess as to why and you can deflect and call me names if you want I guess. Not much of a discussion is it? It really has nothing to do with me being lazy or disingenuous. That is your projection of your own faults.

a reply to: Gianfar

I agree with Zeta, OP should source where the quotes came from . Every decent book or article you read will do the same.
The quotes, while interesting, dont really matter though, imo. People of power or position can be mistaken as easily as anyone. While Hoover might have thought it was a recovered alien craft, maybe it was just one of the experimental planes on page 1 of this thread.

Im not saying the thread shouldnt be here, just it doesnt really sway me one way or the other.

There are however, plenty of direct eye witness cases involving UFOs, many by multiple people. This is what has swayed me to the visitation side.

Westall case in Australia
Ravenna police chase
Madagascar green ufo, double siting
Belgium ufo wave

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
OP should source where the quotes came from .

This is like the third time I've seen this in the thread. Please click the link I provided in the OP.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Gianfar

public psychoneuroses

What do you mean by that exactly?

Expecting others to provide such information is rather lazy and disingenuous if trying to convince me you're real.

Why? If you have convincing information, just provide it or just say you don't really have anything. Its not that big of a deal. I haven't come across anything convincing. If I did, I would share it and offer it up for scrutiny and discussion because that's what we do here. The whole point of this forum is to sort out information like this, not make it more confusing. Yes, I expect people to provide information and links and sources, otherwise, I have no clue what they are basing their assertions on.

And what makes you think that I didn't come across the same exact info you did? Maybe, to me, it was obviously bogus. Either you don't have anything worth sharing or you would just rather not give someone the opportunity to point out something that invalidates your beliefs. Maybe you read something somewhere and forgot where? Who knows? since you aren't sharing. I can only guess as to why and you can deflect and call me names if you want I guess. Not much of a discussion is it? It really has nothing to do with me being lazy or disingenuous. That is your projection of your own faults.

I often find that many (most) purporting to be UFO/ET skeptics are so bound by rigid preconceptions of material evidence, that not even qualified science using the best data would convince them. Obviously, I know nothing about you or your standard for qualifying data. And to be honest, this particular topic regarding what government officials alleged in this post may or may not be worth pursing, since the statements were made long ago in some cases. You would have to go to the books and authors who published these things and find out how they got statements from or about officials. Its not information you'll get from the internet.

Being a skeptic and something of an agnostic myself with regard to this unraveled affair, I have read every good book I could find, considering the authors qualifications, from physicists to investigative journalists. I'm not here to prove anything or share links. Just small talk and some intellectual libation with anyone who wants to give it serious consideration. For my part, I conduct private research and record the results for my own purposes.

As stated, if you're an objective skeptic who can do research, you won't need others to supply links and sources that you can summarily dispute in any case. You'll just quietly go after the most obscure data and you'll find it.

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
OP should source where the quotes came from .

This is like the third time I've seen this in the thread.

Please click the link I provided in the OP.

I looked at the link and noticed a problem right off the bat:

General Nathan D. Twining, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1957-1960). As Lieutenant General in charge of the Air Force Air Materiel Command at Wright-Field, Ohio, he reported in 1947 on his investigation of UFO sightings to date:

"a. The phenomena reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious.

b. There are objects probably approximating the shape of a disc, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as a man-made aircraft.

c. There is a possibility that some of the incidents may be caused by natural phenomena, such as meteors.

d. The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and action which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically, or remotely." (Letter to the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces, September 23, 1947.)

OK, yes, this is a real thing but its out of context. Why not look at the whole memo?

www.roswellfiles.com...
e. The apparent common description is as follows:-

(1) Metallic or light reflecting surface.
(2) Absence of trail, except in a few instances where the object apparently was operating under high performance conditions.
(3) Circular or elliptical in shape, flat on bottom and domed on top.
(4) Several reports of well kept formation flights varying from three to nine objects.
(5) Normally no associated sound, except in three instances a substantial rumbling roar was noted.
(6) Level flight speeds normally above 300 knots are estimated.


f. It is possible within the present U.S. knowledge -- provided extensive detailed development is undertaken -- to construct a piloted aircraft which has the general description of the object in sub- paragraph (e) above which would be capable of an approximate range of 7000 miles at subsonic speeds.

g. Any development in this country along the lines indicated would be extremely expensive, time consuming and at the considerable expense of current projects and therefore, if directed, should be set up independently of existing projects.


h. Due consideration must be given the following:-


(1)The possibility that these objects are of domestic origin - the product of some high security project not known to AC/AS-2 or this Command.

(2) The lack of physical evidence in the shape of crash recovered exhibits which would undeniably prove the existence of these subjects.

(3) The possibility that some foreign nation has a form of propulsion possibly nuclear, which is outside of our domestic knowledge.

3. It is recommended that:-

a. Headquarters, Army Air Forces issue a directive assigning a priority, security classification and Code name for a detailed study of this matter to include the preparation of complete sets of all available and pertinent data which will then be made available to the Army, Navy, Atomic Energy Commission, JRDB, the Air Force Scientific Advisory Group, NACA, and the RAND and NEPA projects for comments and recommendations, with a preliminary report to be forwarded within 15 days of receipt of the data and a detailed report thereafter every 30 days as the investigation develops. A complete interchange of data should be affected.

4. Awaiting a specific directive AMC will continue the investigation within its current resources in order to more closely define the nature of the phenomenon. Detailed Essential Elements of Information will be formulated immediately for transmittal thru channels.

Why are only the parts of the memo provided? And why only the parts that make it seem like the memo is about alien space ships? If you read the whole memo in context, it seems to me that it has nothing to do with UFOs piloted by aliens and has everything to do with the cold war. Why not the whole memo? Why not a link to the original? It is very short. Don't you feel like you are being misled? Doesn't that bother you?