It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dan Sherman? Your Opinion

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Is he a hoaxer or genuine, how much other proof exists of the Preserve Destiny Project-why is he the only one coming forward.




posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Who is this guy?
Wht is project perserve destiny?
I've never heard of either one.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I just did a double check with Project Camelot. I was right. He has a very good heart, with integrity. Project Camelot verifies the backgrounds of everyone they interview. He is for real, he is who he claims to be, and has been substantiated to them by others. His story is remarkable.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mystiq
 


The problem with Project Camelot is that many of the people interviewed contradict each other. There is also never any proof or verification of anything stated. I do agree the people interviewed sound very sincere, but that may not be the case.
Remember the Georgia Bigfoot press conference? The men did sound very sincere and were on national television stating they were telling the truth. They were getting points because they showed up and stayed true with there story. And of course, it turned out to be a rubber suit.
Sounding sincere is nice and all, but if you are going to make a claim, back it up with something.

Edited to add:
He loses me when he says his mother was abducted and he was genetically modified. A captain calls him into his office to tell him.

[edit on 10/4/2008 by kidflash2008]



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
He doesn't lose me there as my family is dealing with that reality, minus I hope the genetic manipulation. Which explains my interest in ufology. Also, the reality for those working in black op, they are compartmentalized and controlled with the amounts of different, and yes, sometimes deliberately conflicting testimony. This is to make their disclosures difficult to believe, and you have to get an overall sense of things. He, like Clifford Stone, came across with heart and a real love for people, that made him far more believable than listening to George Green, who probably is giving some truth away with his story, but he doesn't care about people the same way, fondled his gold coins too much and said that we are overpopulated, hence the omission was his cold robotic heart was like a psychopaths, with no empathy towards us, and 1-5 billion dying would be inconsequential. He may not have meant to suggest that, but thats what it means in layterms. My own experience, my one solid memory, along with all the other signs, was of grey and what appeared to me now looking to be nazi involvement. Now my son is telling me glimpses of memories, but they seem to have split with the nazis or cabal and are doing solo agendas now. I don't doubt for a minute that genetic manipulation is done to some of them. I don't know what they were doing in my case, with the children I remember seeing, what the agenda was. I want to remember all of it.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I think that Dan Sherman is for real. As a contactee, I believe that the detailed descriptions of his psychic training and methods of communication are very plausible.

Dan's story is pretty fantastic and does read like a work of fiction, but he has never changed his story or even claimed to have had any further contact with the visitors. There is a part in his book 'Above Black' when he is privy to an obviously staged conversation between two superior officers. I think that this conversation was staged for him and that the decision was made to let him tell his story.

Why they let him do so is anyone's guess.

Here is a fun exercise, try watching Dan Sherman's Interview and then Watch one of Dan Burisch's more recent interviews. Sherman has been telling his story for a lot longer than Burisch, yet he hasn't felt the need to add a huge volume of sensationalist crap to his story like Burisch has.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Martindoolittle
 


I am starting to question contactees, channelers and abductees more and more. The fringe element, and yes the above are fringe aspects to the UFO cause seem to be doing much more harm than good. We get sincere stories from all the people who are interviewed, but as I stated before the Bigfoot hoaxers were sincere. I think it is time to put up or shut up for some of them. They have sold their books and DVDs, but what kind of proof do they have? If there was any kind of genetic altering, wouldn't it show up on some tests? There are many universities to go to and have that kind of testing done.
Maybe I've been to Kevin Randle's site too often, and I am starting to get a little cynical. It is just there are thousands of claims out there, and very little evidence to support it. They can't even name where they were, but they can tell all about the actual classified stuff they saw. That just doesn't make any sense to me that they would break the federal law and talk about the classified items seen or tested, yet they have not been prosecuted or their books not taken out of print.
I know there are many people who will jump in and defend these people and call me a disinfo agent or whatever, but I want the truth too.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I agree with the part about wanting the truth. Its the hardest thing, to wade through it all and try to make sense of it, the overall picture. And if you've had experiences it becomes a core need to piece it together and understand whether you are in danger, or whether the planet is, and what is going on. So far the only danger that has been demonstrated as real is coming from our leaders and the people they are working for, and et represents the mystery element in all of it.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   


Maybe I've been to Kevin Randle's site too often, and I am starting to get a little cynical. It is just there are thousands of claims out there, and very little evidence to support it. They can't even name where they were, but they can tell all about the actual classified stuff they saw. That just doesn't make any sense to me that they would break the federal law and talk about the classified items seen or tested, yet they have not been prosecuted or their books not taken out of print.


Actually Dan Sherman doesn't. He is quite careful. Indeed, he explicitly says he will not break the laws and discuss the "black" projects and do anything which would officially be actually illegal. And he doesn't. Those are the normal secret and up things where you officially sign forms etc. and there is a big institution and system to punish you in the various gradated ways if you don't. And he officially worked on those black projects, and he would be liable if he said anything about them. (and he did not).

The whole point of Sherman's (i.e. the title "Above Black") is that there is another layer, apparently dealing with ET things, which has to be so secret that there can't be any normal bureaucracy to enforce it, because it's not supposed to exist. Being entirely unacknowledged, even among black projects, is apparently more essential than having rules.

Secrecy at the "above black" level appears to be not enforced, but just maintained, by obscurity, non-acknowledgement, and sheer bizzareness. As a result, nothing happens if you talk, because it doesn't matter. Or it is so compartamentalized, nobody knows what to do if somebody does talk, which inevitably would be about only one tiny part of things which adds up to a big WTF?

I'm quite the skeptical scientist, but his story somehow does have the texture of truth of somebody who is actually involved with government. Government really is about rules and budgets and laws etc, it isn't like the movies.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by mbkennel]

[edit on 4-10-2008 by mbkennel]

[edit on 4-10-2008 by mbkennel]



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


If someone wants to sell a bunch of books, they can make any kind of claim and state they cannot back it up because of an oath or whatever is convenient for them. I have watched a lot of the interviews on Project Camelot, and I am not very impressed. They all sound sincere, and they really do care about what is happening. But when one checks up on certain things the interviewees have stated in the past that are not true at all, one is left with the feeling what else is a like.
While I have great respect for the service of CSM Bob Dean (ret), he had a photo of the copy of the classified book he read about the ET contacts. Many people who had very high security clearances called him on errors on the cover. He then changed his mind and stated that it was not a photo of the actual book, but a copy of what it looked like. He got caught and had to back track
Sgt Clifford Stone also stated he went to the crash site at Kecksburg PA. The problem was he would of been 16 at the time. The story then changed and he claimed that he didn't go there, but "remote viewed" the site. Another example of a change in stories. I also admire Sgt Stone for his career in the military, and he at least is collecting paperwork that dealt with what he did through the FOIA to show he did what he did.

Here is the link to the criticisms of many of the witnesses on Maj Kevin Randle's blog, and an answer by Dr Salla:

kevinrandle.blogspot.com...

The blog also has many interesting articles, and a more level headed approach to Ufology.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


I realize that I do use that line 'as a contactee' a lot. I don't like the way it sounds, as if I am presenting my experiences as some kind of exclusive club membership.

I realize that my story has a lot less weight than Dan's, but from my own perspective, Dan's descriptions of his psychic contact with the visitors rang a lot of bells.

A couple of times; the day after an encounter, I have heard the sub vocal thoughts of other people. From these experiences I have learned that we process sub vocal thoughts in a kind of short hand.
We half construct sentences into a kind of mushy half recognizable stream of information. We don't bother adding proper structure to these thoughts simply because we have the benefit of already knowing what we are thinking about before we construct these semi-sentences.
From the perspective of someone listening to these thoughts, it kinda sounds like mumbling, you get the emotion and the nature of the sentence, but not the full meaning.
Hearing other people's thoughts is almost exactly like hearing normal speech, except that the sounds seem to emanate from either inside your head or just behind it.

I drive a forklift truck at my work and as an exercise in safety I am constantly aware of the people around me. I have had many occasions where I have spun around to see who has snuck up on me to say something from just behind me, only to find that the person who seems to have said it is on the other side of the warehouse way beyond earshot.

The exercises that Dan used to develop his skill as a psychic communicator made a lot of sense to me. He would listen to a sound and try to simulate the same sound in his mind. I think that this exercise would increase his sensitivity to the visitor's communications, but will have also allowed him to construct high clarity streams of psychic data himself.

You might not believe in my own story and I don't think that it makes me more of an authority, but when I read something that strikes a cord and relates to an experience that is pretty unusual, I will occasionally feel the need to put my point of view across. I am just trying to bring another perspective to the table, whether you accept it or not is your choice.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Martindoolittle
 


I have been to your site, and it is quite interesting. I am not questioning what you state as real or not as you have not been on TV hawking a book or DVD to buy. There are others who just like the attention. All the interviews sound "authentic", but they can still be blowing smoke up our @$$es.
I can tell a story that is so believable people would state it as fact. I have been in the military, so I know plenty of information on how things are done and can use the lingo. I also have had a variety of experiences to help with it. Reading older books on UFOs that are no longer available can help, as long as I change things around so not to get caught. I can also sound very sincere, and think about very emotional moments in my life to get choked up at the right moments. I would never do that, as I have too much respect for the people seeking the truth.
I want to hear all the stories, and then would like to see something to back them up. If you have a radar report of an unknown object at the time when one of your experiences happened, it would put more weight in your favor. If you also had a group of researchers take soil samples and photograph the alleged landing, again that would lend credibility to the story.
One of the main things in your favor is that the aliens do not look like all the other stories. Most people see the Close Encounters movie aliens and describe them. They are in pop culture, so everyone knows what they look like. Again, I am not ranting against you in particular, just in the way these cases are handled. If respect is ever to come into the field of ufology, then the whistleblowers will have to undergo a very tough vetting process.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Cheers for reply Kidflash.

I tend to get a bit defensive, just because every now and then I end up writing something that is a bit of a cliche or makes me cringe for some other reason.

I then end up writing long posts explaining why I wrote what I wrote as an attempt to pull my head out of my own a$$.

There a so many ridiculous folk out there that claim to have all of the answers and put themselves up as the ultimate authority on everything to do with the subject. If I post anything that seems even remotely self righteous then I end up in a vicious circle of over defensiveness and self loathing.

Having said all that, I don't have the slightest idea about Dan's credentials, but I did like his book and there were parts that really clicked with me.

I will leave it up to folk like yourself that have inside knowledge of Dan's military career to weight the real evidence and judge the plausibility of his story.




top topics



 
4

log in

join