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.

 

Admiral Hill-Norton "we have been visited for many years

page: 2
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by demongoat
 


It would seem that skeptics are just as selective as believers , Admiral Hill-Norton wasnt just "some high up commander of a ship" , he ended up as the Chief of the Defence Staff

From the creation of the post until 1997, the Chief of the Defence Staff was appointed to the highest rank in the branch of the British armed forces to which he belonged, being an Admiral of the Fleet, a Field Marshal or Marshal of the Royal Air Force, (NATO rank code OF-10)

This would give him access to information from across the British Armed Forces ,that is more information than any lap dancer
Also he wasnt the Commander of just any Aircraft carrier , he was in command of HMS Ark Royal ,The UK Navy flagship .




posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by demongoat

Originally posted by chunder


Seriously, come on.

There are a multitude of reasons why the opinion of someone with those credentials is to be taken more seriously than the majority of others.

i'd say naval battles would be one of the first, also battle strategy on the seas


Just as a quick example the logic and judgement of someone in control of an aircraft carrier is going to be taken a bit differently to that of your average pole dancer.

what does commanding an aircraft carrier have to do with knowledge about ETs?
believing a pole dancer or him is about on the same level


Yet in your view they are equal as opinions - doesn't work that way.

yes, yes it does, sorry but nether a stripper or a commander of an aircraft carrier is more of an expert, if they both have the same amount of knowledge.
no one is an expert on aliens, maybe if they made real contact and stopped probing people and killing cattle, we could learn something.


Erm....nope, it does NOT work that way. It's painfully obvious that your persistent scepticism is digressing from the point(s) in question here. Why not find objectivity instead of boring this thread to shreds with your objection to facts laid before you.

The gentleman in hand, Lord Hill-Norton's opinion would have differed subtantially to that of a lap-dance my dear fellow. One being the foundation of subjective education in relevant fields of expertise whereby exposure to and the administration of various disciplines would qualify him somewhat MORE than a lap-dancer.

Continue to convince yourself with your use of language in this thread, but for goodness sake, stay on topic and stop your pedantic rhetort.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by BAZ752]

[edit on 22-9-2009 by BAZ752]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Given the very credible evidence given in the thread by ZORGON " Naval space command uncovered ", I find it very confusing why some people find it so strange that someone in this very field, with such a high profile, would know what he is talking about. I think that he has far more credibility than a NASA spokesman, when talking on a subject such as this.
These are the very people who would in all probability handle a Disclosure project, in other words " The Experts " !

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Qwenn]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   
What about all the Military Brass that don't believe in Aliens. Surely these opinions, that are overwhelmingly the majority(as the likes of the OP' Hill-Norton are indeed rare), would hold sway given that they are "military" and have "authority" and are in greater numbers then those of Hill-Norton's Ilk.
While we are appealing to authority, why are these opinions left out?
When we have to give over to opinion instead of evidence, and inflate it as being significant, it is usually because there is nothing else to provide in supporting ones beliefs.

But yeah, I know, I know- its a cover up.



[edit on 22/9/09 by atlasastro]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by chunder
There are a multitude of reasons why the opinion of someone with those credentials is to be taken more seriously than the majority of others.
OK, can you enumerate some of those reasons that made his opinion more important in this particular subject?

Thanks.


Just as a quick example the logic and judgement of someone in control of an aircraft carrier is going to be taken a bit differently to that of your average pole dancer.
And that may be a mistake, just because someone is a pole dancer it doesn't mean that that person has a better or worse logic or judgement, those are things that may be only indirectly related to the person's work but that are directly related to the person as a living creature.


Yet in your view they are equal as opinions - doesn't work that way.
To me it does, being an admiral only means that he had a successful military career, it means nothing when dealing with other, unrelated, subjects.


And that is without taking into account the information that he definitely was, and maybe also was, privy too.
Yes, and that's because we don't have any reference what he really knew that I consider the things he said as just his opinions and not facts.

If he knew more than he said then he should have said it all or say nothing at all.


If you have a medical issue do you go to your doctor or a pole dancer (hmm - depends what it is I guess !) ? Experience and qualifications count when it comes to the weight of an opinion.
Usually I trust my own opinion first (after all I am the best specialist when the subject is "me"
), then I search the medical literature available on the Internet, only if all that fails do I go to a doctor (the last time was some 20 years ago), but that is because the doctor is a medicine specialist, I don't go to an admiral to ask him about my health.

Using the traditional Portuguese way (used even before Roman times by the Lusitanians) of asking other people about the same problem, I could ask the pole dancer before going to the doctor.

Now, if I want to know something about UFOs and Aliens, the pole dancer can be a better source than an admiral, the admiral may have only his opinions and the pole dancer may be a witness to some UFO event.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Are there any interviews with 'Military Brass' on a par with the commander of the Navy's Flagship in which they debunk anything that Lord Hill-Norton has suggested?

To suggest that the opinion of such a high ranking member of the armed forces is equal to that of a pole dancer is comical. And to suggest that such a high ranking and well respected naval commander is not privy to classified or sensitive information (regarding ufo's or otherwise) is also foolish!



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by kingmonkey
 


can you tell me what evidence he has seen that makes his position any more credible than anyone else who belives this?



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


As for the information being his opinion, I agree also. But as Gortex points out his opinion does garner more credibility. Please remember that someone in his position would most likely risk some serious repercusions even jail time if he actually devulged classified information. These poeple have made oaths of secrecy and do not take them lightly. I know this as the higher level government security clearances is my area of expertise.

You do not start spouting classified information at those levels, ever!
You play it safe, you sensor yourself and you call the theories you put forth your opinion.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Ok, let me say beforehand that I do believe in UFOs, however Armap makes an excellent point. Why should we believe this guy anymore than say Joe from down the street? Higher level officials are still human, and just as prone to delusions, or heck just the belief that an airplane could be a UFO as anyone else. I know fairly high up people in the military complex, that are freaking nuts, would I believe them more than someone from off the street?

Should I?

I don't think so.




edit for clerical error


[edit on 22-9-2009 by Stormseeker]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


No! I think you have missed my point, or simply disagree?

Becomming Admiral of the Fleet is not something that happens by accident, if you feel that the opinion of a pole dancer holds as much weight as that of an esteemed naval commander in matters of national security, then I'm sure there is nothing further that I could write to convince you.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Kryties
 


Why would an admiral be more credible than any other person? Just because he chose a military career instead of being a civilian for all his life? Or because it was a career somewhat connected with the government?

What he said was just his opinion, and although I would love to talk with someone like him, it was just that, an opinion.

PS: I think the best reason for not having a disclosure is not having anything to disclose.


uhmm...because if he was known to make rash statements, he never would have been trusted to reach the position of admiral. admirals tend to be pretty grounded people. he's going to be alittle more credible than a truck driver that claims he saw a UFO and is trying to sell a book.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Kryties
 


Why would an admiral be more credible than any other person? Just because he chose a military career instead of being a civilian for all his life? Or because it was a career somewhat connected with the government?

What he said was just his opinion, and although I would love to talk with someone like him, it was just that, an opinion.

PS: I think the best reason for not having a disclosure is not having anything to disclose.


uhmm...because if he was known to make rash statements, he never would have been trusted to reach the position of admiral. admirals tend to be pretty grounded people. he's going to be alittle more credible than a truck driver that claims he saw a UFO and is trying to sell a book.


Jimmyx, OK, that was a little less articulate than I would have attempted to put it, but yes, asbolutely, you took the words out of my mouth.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by kingmonkey
 


i havnt mentioned anyone else never mind pole dancers.

again i ask the question : what evidence has he seen that makes him more credible than anyone else? is the reason you wont answer becuase you dont know?


[edit on 22-9-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


I already answered your question. I assume you didn't read it before the facetious response?



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by kingmonkey
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Are there any interviews with 'Military Brass' on a par with the commander of the Navy's Flagship in which they debunk anything that Lord Hill-Norton has suggested?
What are they debunking exactly? His opinion! It is his belief. As there is nothing else to go on, why is there a need for debunking.

In this instance, the fact that Hill-Norton has expressed his opinion is being touted as being significant. I can infer and jump to conclusions too then that there are numerous military that do not express the same opinion or belief and that this then must also be as, if not more, significant.


To suggest that the opinion of such a high ranking member of the armed forces is equal to that of a pole dancer is comical. And to suggest that such a high ranking and well respected naval commander is not privy to classified or sensitive information (regarding ufo's or otherwise) is also foolish!
I agree that it is comical to draw parallels between the Admiral Hill-Norton and Pole Dancers, but they are both entertaining in their own right.

It is also ridiculous to assume that you know exactly what the Admiral was privy to in relation to classified and sensitive information, it would be a given that information is indeed classified and sensitive in the military, but those criteria alone do not automatically relegate them ET or UFO related. So you have to jump to conclusions and assume that his beliefs are a result of his exposure to such material. That is just typical and weak in this field in MHO and we should be striving for better than Celebrity Ex-Military Insiders with nothing but TOP SECRET OPINION.

At least he had the balls to say his piece. Gotta love him for that.


Thank you for your reply.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I second that Opinion!!!
Really,if the Dear Admiral would like "offer proof" I would gladly give him more credence than on a blanket opinion ,he believes.I believe also in UFO's. My opinion and the Admiral s opinion are,shall I say,one and the same.


Star and Flag

Because I believe.....



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by kingmonkey
 


so you dont know what evidence he has seen. Your guessing he must have some inside infromation becuase of his position. That means atm the evidence only exists in your imagination.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
It would seem to me as though admiral hill norton , had at some point in his career been given some documentation which may have backed up or confirmed already his belief that UFO's were extraterrestrial in origin ,

He then felt that strongly about it that he chose to express his belief as his opinion , in hope that people like ourselves would take his word for it more so than that of joe the trucker and chantelle the pole dancing slag from essex simply because he was the head of defense of britain.

This would then make us start to press the government more in order to find out their origin , instead as he stated having the main stream media make a mockery of it.

Of course the reason he went about it in this fashion is probably because the documentation is still classified to this day as a matter of national security.

and yes simply because of his position im sure he had more evidence of things than say the prime minister or president of the US at the time!
whether they were related to UFO's or ET's or not , it seems plainly obvious he was in the loop. Someone who was in his position surely would have been clued up on things of UFO origin , he just took the step others simply will not . He went out on a limb over a pond of thin ice balancing a sword on his tongue!

[edit on 22-9-2009 by sapien82]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Good post,there are some other intriguing comments here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

As for the statement I think the extremely high ranking status of Lord Hill Norton is a factor as he was probably in a far better position to ascertain whether the UFO subject has any validity (or not).
Cheers.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Listen folks, this thread as always started out with good intentions and a good source of compelling information and within 3 posts it degraded into a bickering match. Who gives a flying rats ass whether or not you give this guy more credibility or equal credability as a stripper. Honestly. THis is defection at best.


Personally my thoughts are this. We all on a human level trust and give more weight to the opinion of professionals in any field. Like it or not. It IS human nature. If you want to try and change human nature then feel free, but don't cloud up this otherwise good thread doing it.

Stop living in a fantasy world where everyones opinions carry the same weight, 'cuz it just aint happening. It would be nice if it did and hope it will someday.
But, you can take all of your hopes and dreams in one hand and a steaming pile of S*** in the other and guess which one fills up first???

Now, moving right along.

Please allow me to state my thoughts on the matter of disclosure/ufo's/aliens.

I am of the opinion that, as mentioned earlier, If they wanted to be seen they certainly have the ability to land on the Rose garden or in the middle of Times Square. But they don't, Do they???

These entities are far from our saviors but they will probably try to present themseves as such in the near future as they seem to have done in the past. As for now, there seems to be a very wicked, evil, nefarious plot against humanity led by none other than these beings. They have infiltrated every level of gov't of every major country around the world. They have apparently figured out over the millinea that the best way to enslave a planet in not through direct overt takeover but through subversion, manipulation, and infiltration behind the scenes.

We can not possibly fight against our rulers because we can't see them nor do we even know who in the hell they truely are. The whole thing is a pyramid structure and guess who sits at the top??
The Police in you local town?
The mayor?
The Governor?
The President?
Ewww I got it, the EU???
Eww eww ewww, The United Nations?
How about the Masons?
Surely it's The Illuminati??? LOL!!!
Try again.

These bastards are at the very top. They always have been and always will be untill we finally figure that out. We can not possibly begin to throw off the yolk of opression and slavery that has been around our necks for thousands of years untill we figure out who our slave masters are.

Please consider this as you ponder why the cute little aliens haven't landed yet and shared their cool technology with all of us. You can take the mystery right out of this subject with the explanation that I and others have provided.




top topics



 
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join