Paul Hellyer drops bomb @ hearing on UFO/Aliens in Canada - Deathbed Testimonial

a reply to: Greggers

I never said courts didn't make findings of fact. I said the purpose of courts was not to decide whether Aliens, Bigfoot, or Chupacabra were real.

Strawman argument since they don't need to. The answer to the question likely lies in the thousands of undisclosed classified reports and artefacts. Now if we have a hearing to release those hidden facts to the public, than the legal doctrine is 100% relevant to the issue, isn't it? It also needs not make a determination on whether or not any of those things are real, doesn't it?

Only if you can claim injury and point to specific responsible parties will you get an opportunity to make your case, and even then, the court will only make findings of fact relevant to its ruling.

Are you unaware of congressional hearings? You should know them, Benghazi for instance, loges hearing in the history of Congress. Tell me, do you think Pearl Harbour, Watergate, JFK, Subprime Crisis, 9/11...any of these deserved as much attention?

Now, you might say "holy snip Boncho, you sure went off on a straw man right after you accused me of it!" but no, since the two are directly correlated. Is the law being used to adequately pursue and protect the peoples interests, and is congress making a damn bit of difference and doing the job they are hired to do? The answer is no. And the answer to the UFO/Alien question likely lies in their hands if they would actually pursue the topic.

So you have enough evidence to take this to court? By all means, let us know how that goes.

Actually YES, and much more would it ever get to court? NO. Are you not aware of Congress "losing" all its files when they investigated the CIA? Are you also not aware of the CIA covering up the JFK assassination?

The existence of ET must be proven with direct empirical evidence. Preferably, the presence of an actual alien, analyzed by biologists and other specialists to prove its extraterrestrial origin.

You realize this is a circular argument if the military industrial complex is holding the empirical evidence hostage right? The only solution to the problem is disclose the files.

Thats it.

NOTHING MORE TO BE SAID.

Disclose, disclose, disclose.

If there is evidence, its in the many the many missing case files there is nothing more to be said PERIOD. Either disclose or don't, but don't talk about scientific protocols or empirical evidence or anything else, when there's clear evidence that's being kept away from you.

If you did a study to assess if black people are violent and only drew from criminal population data, would that be science? No. Would you be telling people, "well, once we have the empirical evidence to suggest they aren't, until then we must declare black people violent criminals."

Do you see the problem with this? You cannot have 'science' with missing datasets. It doesnt work. Politics and ideology destroy science and both of those have been covering up a subject, for many years and there is plenty of evidence to prove this. Official, physical, circumstantial, you name it.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

So advance they don't post any kinda of galactic recognized radiation warning signs. At least OSHA in the united states has us millennia ahead of space aliens in posting job related hazards or mitigating work place hazards?

Read the literal translations of Mauro Biglino, that he did for the Vatican. I think he wrote 6-7 books for them, before he disseminated his findings in his own publication.

When he told people the literal meaning of the bible, and that the "Glory of god" was actually a ship, and YWVH warned him to cover his face and hide behind a rock because he would burn, the Vatican fired him.

So no, they warn people by mouth apparently...

originally posted by: neutronflux
In an age police shooting are live streamed, the government suppresses all evidence of alien interaction with civilians?

False argument. 1-UFO/Alien contact comes in waves. 2-its been controlled since the 50's, CIA implanted personnel into media establishments, liaisons into Hollywood, and controlled the newswire. 3-CIA funded 'news' agencies like National Enquirer.

The entire subject is poisoned by "the giggle factor"

Tell me, if someone was on Youtube, or had blogs, wrote books, etc-about fake murders and rape, and military coupes, do you think nothing would be done??

No, of course something would.

But UFO/Alien subject allows people to create hoaxes and perpetuate the topic like its a junk issue not relevant to the public. Why is that? In the 70s it was brought in front of the UN to be addressed, a very serious topic that need worldwide cooperation, leading experts, one who helped create ARPANET, all put in their opinions...it needed to be addressed, did they? No. Why is that?

The topic is a joke for a reason, not because its a joke, but because its been made a joke. So when something concrete does come up, people can just point and mock it. Same thing happened in history during times of suppression for other subjects too. This isn't a first.

William Casey CIA Director:

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: boncho

I am calling bs on: ""Ruach", which has a Babylonian origin, and it means literally, vessel-air-disturbance. "
From: en.m.wikibooks.org...
"'Ruach' cannot be construed as a person. It is a force. It is invisible and like wind, because it can be felt or experienced, but not seen.

Read the books the Vatican hired Mauro Biglino to translate "literally". There's a big difference between religious and literally interpretations. Meaning religious sects have added their own meaning over the years. This was from Masoretic texts which prided themselves on direct translations.

Also check out www.hebrew-streams.org...

Hebrew-Streams.com eh...yeah, right. Like "Stichin is wrong" where the guy is a Hebrew scholar and explains how Elohim isn't actually plural because you are just "thinking the wrong way" and if you consider a bunch of BS he made up, prior to translating the text, it makes perfect sense.

You can't argue literal translation. The literal translation is ship-water-effect on the water. Sorry. If you are just looking to tell yourself there's some alternative explanation, knock yourself out.

You will find plenty of them.

a reply to: boncho

Prove its a literal translation and the word was used in Babylonian in that context? By how many scholars opinions? What sources. Just the one? What is obvious, it's not used in the Hebrew Bible in the context you implied.

And how does the CIA control all the cell phones and uploads to Facebook to prevent streaming live UFO events.

And what are all those ufologists up to again?

Courts are for dispute resolution. If you can't get the case into court (and it sounds like you can't, by your own admission) what a court would or wouldn't find is irrelevant. So please round up all your friends in the "ET is real" camp and tell them to stop talking about courts like they are even remotely relevant.

Not that it would matter anyway, since court cases do not determine the nature of physical reality. That is what the sciences are for.

And just so you are aware, a congressional hearing and court case are two completely different things. If what you're trying to say is that a congressional hearing could decide whether ET is real, perhaps you might want to change your rhetoric. I disagree with that too, but hey, I'm just trying to help you form a cogent, consistent argument.

By the way, you don't seem to understand what a circular argument is. I can get you some dictionary or encyclopedia links if you'd like to read up on it.

a reply to: Greggers

Courts are for dispute resolution. If you can't get the case into court (and it sounds like you can't, by your own admission) what a court would or wouldn't find is irrelevant

Strawman argument. You can plug your fingers in your ears and claim something else, it doesn't change what Im saying. I, not asking or telling or saying anything about the Alien/UFO being reliant on the courts to prove its existence. That's already been done by scientists. And government.

What Im telling people, is that the government, the courts, (congress and the courts and POTUS all have legal/constituational powers if you are unaware... what Im telling people, is the same powers, the same people will put you away to jail, for life, if the same amount of proof was presented towards your guilt in court, as exists in circumstantial and witness testimony, and other forms, in proving there is something to the UFO/Alien subject/

They don't NEED to prove it. Do you knot get that? People just NEED to understand they deserve the answer that's been kept from them. If that answer can explain UFOs that defy the laws of physics, and beings who have been reported from the 1500s, the 1600s, the 1800s, the 1900s, by all means, at least people are getting **answers.** That should be the only concern of those interested in the topic.

Not that it would matter anyway, since court cases do not determine the nature of physical reality. That is what the sciences are for.

No actually. Sciences cannot determine anything if they are being subverted. If there is information being kept out of the social, public, scholarly sphere, then there is no way science can make a determination. One way or the other. That's called lack of evidence, or manufactured/manipulated evidence.

That's not even going into the real problems with "science" today (which in many cases isn't science. Politics and ideology is an anathema to science, without full data sets, false information, politics motives and pressure and ideology being injected, science cannot make any scientific conclusions.

Take a room full of red and green glasses. Now take away all the green glasses and count how many in total. Science wants to know how many green to red glasses there are. Can you give a legitimate answer? NO. You can't

"Science" has lost its way, awhile ago. Maybe if we fix the major problems the little ones will fall into place:

[Peer Review: Trouble from the start - Nature](www.nature.com...)

Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility tests = but I bet it isn't the social engineering ones

Nature: Reproducibility problem - more than 50% cannot reproduce peer reviewed research.

Nature: Is science broken?


Here's the reality, the topic has been subverted. It's not normal. The influence corporate America has in the scientific realm, makes any popular claim today as about as useful as political rhetoric. And don't go anywhere, because you will find it together anyway.

There are no 'ifs' 'ands' or 'buts' about this topic. It needs to be disclosed. Simple as that. If you are fighting or against disclosure, you are against the American people and world getting to the truth of the topic. No matter *how* its explained, the important answers lie in classified folders. End of story...and until that information is disseminated, science cannot make any call on the totality of the subject. It's impossible. If they do its flawed, and *not* scientific.

a reply to: neutronflux

Prove its a literal translation and the word was used in Babylonian in that context? By how many scholars opinions? What sources. Just the one? What is obvious, it's not used in the Hebrew Bible in the context you implied.

Mauro Biglino was hired *by the Vatican* to do the translations. So it's the Vatican you are contending with. He did a **literal** translation, and really, it *shouldn't* be an issue, or controversial, if it hasn't been covered up. Hmm... weird, they fired Biglino once he published (personally) the odd results of his works. He was hired to translate more work, but it was cancelled. Why is that?

You are basically saying, "well, you need to ask the person covering it up, to see if they agree if they are covering it up, and if so...well, ok. But if they say something else, well then, gee whiz this guy must be lying."

You see the fatly logic there?

I already posted the proof. I posted the Sumerian pictograms, which later were converted to Cuneform. If you feel its a different translation, besides what *I provided, with proof!*, than you need to look over and address what I posted. You can do the research, or do whatever. But I already provided the translation and the characters(pictograms) associated with it. Now its up to you.

If you have an alternative literal translation, call the Vatican, Im sure they will hire you to "debunk" Biglino. There should be some good money in it, not to mention the praise of the religious community. Good luck.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

This is borderline deceitful. Did he have welding protective gear with him? Yes. He was an amateur geologist, and he chipped away rock, it makes sense he'd have his work gear out there, since another set of gloves and glasses would cost more money.

Do I question anything about an industrial mechanic familiar with welding, prospecting for rocks wearing dark welding goggles, heavy welding gloves, that comes out with a UFO story with uniform burns across his stomach, a shirt scorched showing holes with an outline of what looks like a piece of metal, describes the interior of a spaceship stereotypical 60's style with "flashing lights like a computer"

Stereotypical 60s style, is that the same as the 'stereotypical style' of "airships" in 1800s, or is it all they had to reference it to?

He had been wearing welding goggles while chipping at the quartz to protect his eyes from flying rock fragments, and now they served the additional purpose of protecting his eyes from a brilliant purple light that was shining through openings in the object's exterior. The object was making a hissing sound and a whirring noise, and it gave off a sulphurous smell.

Did he have an arc welder? No. What was it hooked up to, what powered it? Well, nothing did. You are making inferences that are not backed by a reasonable breakdown of the event. You claim because he's a welder, and he had welding gloves and a mask, that...what? A welding machine mysteriously appeared for him? No. It's logically consistent that someone who's a welder, at that time, who also chips away at rock would bring their gloves and mask.

As he looked around, he developed a severe headache, became nauseous, and broke out in a cold sweat. His nausea became worse, and he soon vomited. He decided to head back to the motel, and on the way back he had to stop several times because of vomiting.

Finally, after asking for help from a passing RCMP officer and being refused, he reached the motel. At 4:00 p.m., he entered the coffee shop and asked where he could find a doctor. He was told that the nearest doctor was in Kenora, Ontario, 45 miles east of Falcon Lake.

Is there something he gained by this story? No. Did he become a big giant reality TV star because of a UFO encounter? Nope. While this might be a straw man argument IM presenting, I seriously question what possible reason you think he, or others had for making up encounters back before they were even widely known about.

a reply to: boncho

One man speaks for the Vatican? Show me where other scholars and the Vatican stand by his literal translation.

Take this for example. At work we say poop hits the fan. What good is the literal translation. The communicated concept is an event occurred and caused much additional work. A system upset thst ruined a batch of something that took operating system tweaking to fix? Not an actual spreading of crap by mechanical agitation? Big difference in how the term is used vs the literal meaning.

You still have not proved in the Hebrew Bible it means more than a unseen force? Sorry.

a reply to: boncho

What kind of radiation was it again?

Why do Ufologists need government disclosure to prove alien visitations? How many ufologists supposedly have proof? Are you implying ufology is a pseudoscience?

a reply to: boncho

Back to the trap of literal translation. Another civilian or a space alien gets ahold of a book with the term walking on air. They use the literal translation to prove we fly by simply walking? You don't see the trouble with literal translation logic?

Strawman argument.

You're the one who brought it up. And you felt so strongly about my initial reply that it was IRRELEVANT that you felt the need to reply again, and again, and again.

So I repeat: You stop pretending it's relevant what a court would find, and I'll stop saying it's irrelevant. Seems pretty easy.

I, not asking or telling or saying anything about the Alien/UFO being reliant on the courts to prove its existence.

No, but you are saying there is enough evidence to prove the case in a court of law. And, in direct response to your point, I'm countering that it's IRRELEVANT because the case will never go to court, would not be within the jurisdiction or scope of a court, and a court has no bearing on the standard of proof required to prove a concrete facet of the nature of physical reality, such as the existence of ET.

what Im telling people, is the same powers, the same people will put you away to jail, for life, if the same amount of proof was presented towards your guilt in court, as exists in circumstantial and witness testimony, and other forms, in proving there is something to the UFO/Alien subject/

Irrelevant. Those people "who will put you away to jail" are not part of this process.

No actually. Sciences cannot determine anything if they are being subverted. If there is information being kept out of the social, public, scholarly sphere, then there is no way science can make a determination. One way or the other. That's called lack of evidence, or manufactured/manipulated evidence.

And as I said above, the fact that evidence is being subverted does not change the nature of the evidence REQUIRED to establish proof.

There are no 'ifs' 'ands' or 'buts' about this topic. It needs to be disclosed. Simple as that. If you are fighting or against disclosure, you are against the American people and world getting to the truth of the topic.

I'm not arguing against disclosure. I haven't said anything about disclosure. I responded specifically to your irrelevant comments about courts.

The idea of alien visitation is either true or not true, regardless of what a court would find.

A court (let's say an American court) finding that there is enough evidence to say alien visitation is occurring would not make the idea of alien visitation any more true. Conversely, a court finding that there is not enough evidence to say that alien visitation is happening would not make the idea of alien visitation not true.

Courts do not determine absolute truths and untruths.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
The idea of alien visitation is either true or not true, regardless of what a court would find.

A court (let's say an American court) finding that there is enough evidence to say alien visitation is occurring would not make the idea of alien visitation any more true. Conversely, a court finding that there is not enough evidence to say that alien visitation is happening would not make the idea of alien visitation not true.

Courts do not determine absolute truths and untruths.

True.
Plus there is always that one guy on the jury who will say "not alien" no matter what...even if the aliens landed right in the court room! But then there are ways around that...like threats against family members or bribes. and say there are 20 witnesses to a crime and they all said they saw an alien commit that crime. Now what? You have to either bring in that particular alien in for trial or convict the guy whos fingerprints match...even though the aliens have tech that can make finger prints match any ones. The whole "putting aliens on trial" thing just gets complicated. Maybe there will be the equivalent "alien vs wade" and if Trump gets elected...I have no idea how that's going to work.

a reply to: boncho

Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility tests

Funny thing is that some of what psychology practiced cant even be produced....For instance the whole concept of "recovering memories" while under hypnosis....there is not a single shred of evidence that hypnosis can enhance or recover memories and yet it was practiced and accepted by main stream psychology. Now "recovered memories" are not even allowed in courts...so then what do you do with all those ufo/alien abduction cases that involved "recovered memories"? you would have to throw out all of the work by Mack, Jacobs and Hopkins.

Take a room full of red and green glasses. Now take away all the green glasses and count how many in total. Science wants to know how many green to red glasses there are. Can you give a legitimate answer? NO. You can't

Yes you can. the legitimate answer is "I don't know".

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Unless you can physically make the glasses wink out of existence, there are still the same number of glasses in existence. It's about perspective.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Unless you can physically make the glasses wink out of existence, there are still the same number of glasses in existence. It's about perspective.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Unless you can physically make the glasses wink out of existence, there are still the same number of glasses in existence. It's about perspective.

True. So another legitimate answer is that there are the same amount as before the guy stole all green ones. But what about the Blue glasses made out of alien metal?

Sounds like heat stress..

As he looked around, he developed a severe headache, became nauseous, and broke out in a cold sweat. His nausea became worse, and he soon vomited. He decided to head back to the motel, and on the way back he had to stop several times because of vomiting.