NEW Dr. Jonathan Reed LINK: Documentary MAY 2009

Originally posted by Aspie
Rutter, Man of no Substance

Aspie prove Im Rutter.



- Chip Douglas, Man of Action.

You are either Rutter himself or one of his cronies who like to continue this charade. Typical fraud who pushes a hoax case by continuing to sign up here and start threads and only post in threads concerning the said fraud.

Just because someone is asking for a discussion on Reed's case doesn't make them one of his cronies or him in disguise.

The UFOWatchdog site is incredibly bogus and full of lies and is NOT a credible source for anything or anyone.

It doesn't matter if Reed changed his name or not - that has nothing to do with whether or not he had the experience he talks of. If you want to write of everyone's credibility who's changed their names, there goes a large portion of the population.

I'm asking for a discussion on his story and evidence presented and not to rely on the "its been proven a hoax" one-liners because as far as I can see it has NOT been proven a hoax, only SAID its a hoax.

I disagreed with someone's "opinion" that the video taken had to be a dummy because of the way the neck moved when the head was turned.

I've heard accounts from other experiencers that the noise they make is like a scream/shrill/piercing sound (which is what he described).

Someone said his dummy looked like one that can be purchased at K-Mart - well I looked at that dummy online and while it is similar, the markings are not the same so to me it suggests the dummy was made in the likeness of this being, not the other way around.

No one has (to my knowledge) even begun to discuss his photos of the spaceship in the field, or his dogs death.

I grow very tired of people who take someone else's opinion as gospel and then run with it like it is "truth". To me Reed's case has not been proven a hoax - he has been run out of town by people "declaring" hoax without any substance.

So please, if anyone has proof one way or another, I'm interested. If it's just an opinion, well I have those too but opinions don't mean its true, a mistake too many people make here.

The UFO Watchdog site is full of bad information - I went through it a few months ago and have personally experienced things they say don't exist - like Jim Delitosso's Village Labs. They're spreading disinformation and casting long shadows on credible people for no reason and without substance. I don't know why its even used as a reference! It's not a reference - it's a disinformation site.

Oh here we go again, lets have a dig at UFOWatchdog. I'm sick of hearing this same old crap from the Rutter fanatics. How about you point out all these lies and bogus claims you keep banging on about on UFOWatchdogs site.

How many times do we have to say it???

Dan McEvoy investigated this THOROUGHLY and did a presentation to the MUFON Network at one of their conventions and PROVED without a DOUBT that this story is 100% TRUE

PLEASE GOOGLE DAN MCEVOY ON THIS AND WATCH THE YOUTUBE VIDEOS.

NOBODY SAYS sh%($(%t about Dan McEvoy's intensive investigation into this matter.

Oh whoopie doo Dan McEvoy says it's real, well there ya go end of story.



Who the hell is Dan McEvoy?

reply to post by AboveTopSecretX


Hi. I couldn't sleep so started watching these videos. I got sucked in became a member of the group...
tech.groups.yahoo.com...
(It is a boring group so far but then I just got there)
I began to post a question or two..what did it eat (lets call him Sandy since IT doesn't seem right for the little fellow, did Sandy eliminate waste? how long did he/she stay in the garage? Sandy slept? in the freezer? why didn't it Sandy run away immediately? and what happened to Sandy?

Suddenly I thought what if this is a hoax? there are a few people putting videos up, a conspiracy like this would need to involve a few people, I saw no dead dog, the voice might have been anything, the closeups were shaky same angle all the time and the quality was so bad as to have been a cover, why didn't the best friend show up right away? and get his picture with the alien? they said red eye only photographs from a living being but christmas lights inside a mask would do that too and the communicating bit without filming that too seems absurd...so I don't know

I stopped myself short realizing I WANT to believe it.
I am leaping without looking. It might be fake

In searching google I found the normal search terms for Dr Reed are taken by www.ufowatchdog.com/exposed10.html

This makes me doubt my doubts since whenever an especially deliberate attempt is made to hijack anothers web key words, someone is trying to take internet traffic away from someone.

So now I am thinking that it might be genuine or such a thorough effort would not have been made to discredit Jonathan Reed...on every search term.

Then I looked here and notice 3 skeptics. They jump on the topic too quickly even before the enthusiasts. "oh that's alot of bullcrap" is all they can say. Shows me this a grudge or else it is maybe a professional debunker, disinformer. I think one guys name was disinformer and
UFOWatchdog offers no credible links, no links on the page at all to support their claims it is a hoax.

So, now I am thinking it might be true.

Who the hell knows? I know I am tired now... know you're getting sleepy when the edit makes it worse




[edit on 6-12-2009 by rusethorcain]

Originally posted by Aspie
Oh here we go again, lets have a dig at UFOWatchdog. I'm sick of hearing this same old crap from the Rutter fanatics. How about you point out all these lies and bogus claims you keep banging on about on UFOWatchdogs site.

UFO watchdog is full of misinformation - I've personally been to places they claim don't exist. They don't provide any references or reasons, just blanket slams and claims. They have zero credibility for any side of any argument - and their posts are years old.

So be more specific, it's no good just throwing the old misinformation argument around. Point out the specific things on UFOWatchdogs site that you claim are bogus and lies

Why did this get labeled a Haox ? Who changed it? a mod?

You do realize there are disifo sites everywhere on the web.....read my sig....

reply to post by Aspie


UFOWatchdog writes off Linda Moulton Howe for being "sensationalist". Writes off Mausson for supporting "hoaxes". Refers to Delitossi's "supposed" Village Labs, writes off Shirley MacLaine for throwing everything together, etc. etc.

What it does not do is speak of their research, their work, nor does it provide anything but "OPINION".

I don't disagree with some of their write-ups, eg Richard Boylan is a sleaze in his personal life - but what's that got do with whether or not there really are cattle mutlitations and sightings?

We ALL get taken in by a hoax (whether intentional or not) here and there - this site throws out the baby with the bathwater. It's old, hasn't been updated, and doesn't base anything on anything except "opinion".

I'm more interested in "facts".

Originally posted by Reevster
Why did this get labeled a Haox ? Who changed it? a mod?

You do realize there are disifo sites everywhere on the web.....read my sig....

Yes, I wondered that too - this guy has been written off because it's "too" incredible to be true. I'm not convinced its a hoax by a long shot - haven't heard any debunking of his photo of the ship - I don't buy the debunking the alien is a dummy because anything similar in the market has different markings, I don't buy the debunking it's a hoax because of the way the head moved -

And I've seen way too many people get written off who had a real story to share - I posted a genuine photograph of a UFO from the 1960's on ATS for an opinion, and people jumped in and said "Oh, obviously a hoax - a ship wouldn't angle like that"

Guess what - the ship did angle like that - but because people assume and presume they know everything there is to know, real, genuine information is being dismissed and missed left, right and center.

I'd rather error and give a hoax too much credibility than to turn my nose up at something that turned out to be real just because I think I know better.

Originally posted by kshaund
reply to post by Aspie

 

UFOWatchdog writes off Linda Moulton Howe for being "sensationalist". Writes off Mausson for supporting "hoaxes".

And he's right to do so as these two crackpots will push anything so long as they can make money out of it.

Originally posted by Aspie

Originally posted by kshaund
reply to post by Aspie

 

UFOWatchdog writes off Linda Moulton Howe for being "sensationalist". Writes off Mausson for supporting "hoaxes".

And he's right to do so as these two crackpots will push anything so long as they can make money out of it.

Sensationalist? It is the stories that are incredible. Should she water down the facts to make them more mundane and appetizing for the average viewer? And Mausson for supporting hoaxes really doesn't discredit the fellow - I am sure all of us have been duped at one time or another.

This planet is the only source for water, bio diversity and life as we know it for a few hundred thousand light years. Why wouldn't aliens come here to harvest plant life and biological life that might be able to flourish somewhere else or maybe genetically combine it with another form of life to make it better adapt to extreme heat or cold?

I think we are visited so often by extra terrestrial life forms we are beginning to look like a cosmic 7-11...but that's just me.

Originally posted by Aspie

Originally posted by kshaund
reply to post by Aspie

 

UFOWatchdog writes off Linda Moulton Howe for being "sensationalist". Writes off Mausson for supporting "hoaxes".

And he's right to do so as these two crackpots will push anything so long as they can make money out of it.

Have you even looked at the volume of work by Howe and Mausson???

I think you're a classic example of people who buy into the hype and not the work. UFO Watchdog is not a credible sight. And if you use them for your resource, you are lost before you've even begun.

And for you and everyone else who always wants to play the "make money out of it" - every magazine on the stands costs money and everyone else's books whether it fiction or not - why shouldn't researchers charge anything for their work? Are they supposed to live on air ? Can you live on air? Do you charge for your time? Your work? Geez - if you're going to dismiss someone, for everyone's sake at least make a real argument.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by kshaund]

Once again I ask you, please explain why UFO Watchdog is not a credible site? Is it just because he doesn't agree with your views. Are you just one of those people who want to believe so badly you will stick up for any old case because you are obsessed to the point that it is a religion to you?

UFO Watchdog and myself have already exposed Sean David Morton to be a fraud. I think Watchdog did a good job of investigating Rutter and exposing his scam.

You Watchdog haters always fail to point out that he has a section on his site where he names the decent people involved in Ufology.

If you value the opinions and work of Howe and Mausson then there is no point talking to you as you are just as bad as them.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by Aspie]

Originally posted by Aspie
Once again I ask you, please explain why UFO Watchdog is not a credible site? Is it just because he doesn't agree with your views. Are you just one of those people who want to believe so badly you will stick up for any old case because you are obsessed to the point that it is a religion to you?

UFO Watchdog and myself have already exposed Sean David Morton to be a fraud. I think Watchdog did a good job of investigating Rutter and exposing his scam.

You Watchdog haters always fail to point out that he has a section on his site where he names the decent people involved in Ufology.

If you value the opinions and work of Howe and Mausson then there is no point talking to you as you are just as bad as them.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by Aspie]

The website is based on OPINION, not fact. So there's zero credibility from the start. I've been at Village Labs with Jim Delitisso so for the website to say "supposed Village Labs" is ridiculous. I've met Sean David Morton and personally (opinion here) don't care for his ego. Where's your evidence he's a hoax? Where's your charting of his predictions over the years and how many were right/wrong? Where's your research of Mausson, his years of research, not just one "possible" error in judgment resulting in a hoax - THAT'S THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER. Mausson does not "support hoaxes" but I assure you everyone gets sucker punched somehwere along the line.

Linda Howe - where's your research showing her work isn't credible??? Did you spend years (decades) IN THE FIELD documenting mutilitation? Traveling to talk to people? She SO doesn't deserve Watchdog's "opinion". That site is not a watchdog, its an unsupported, undocumented smear campaign based on OPINIONS.

So yes, please provide your proof Morton is a fraud, would like to see his predictions panned out over the years and checked off as yes or no. You DO have that don't you?

That any of these people charge anything for anything is an absolutely MUTE point used by people who seem to have the arrogance to believe they shouldn't have to pay for anything. Betty Crocker sold books, she didn't give them away! GET REAL!

The John Rutter case has not been proven a hoax by my standards. I remain with an open mind either way. I do not give credibility to researchers based on my opinion - it's based on their work. I have met many of these people over the decades - Budd Hopkins, Whitley Strieber, Sean David Morton, even Barbara Marciniak and on an on. I absolutely have my opinions about each of them, but I am careful not to mix that up with FACTS. I know how little they make doing any of this work (there's no "jobs", "grants", "donations" to do this work!) Many of the presenters in this field are genuine - like Mausson - so to write him off because of one possible error in judgment is really said for YOU, not him because you're missing out on a lot of other really important stuff.

FACTS is what I'm after. What's extra hilarious is you are so adamantly defending UFO Watchdog - are you the one doing it? haha would explain a lot.

Unless you and everyone follows the research WHEREVER it goes and WHOMEVER it passes, you are DOOMED to remain absolutely IGNORANT of the REAL TRUTHS that are totally elusive and obscured by all the religions, new age dogma, media biases, political control, etc. etc. etc.

So your turn, PROVE with FACTS the WATCHDOG has ANY credibility rather than just OPINION.

I am not addressing this same, redundant question again - is a total waste of time. I wrote this reply hoping if someone else reads it they will think twice before buying someone's opinion over reality.

Yes, facts need references - will be waiting for your research proving these people are what the site's opinions claim they are.

Over 4 years worth of Morton's predictions documented proving he has no more psychic abilty than you or I. It's there for all to see but as you can't see past your own nose because of your blinkered views then I guess you're going to struggle finding them.

Originally posted by Aspie
Over 4 years worth of Morton's predictions documented proving he has no more psychic abilty than you or I. It's there for all to see but as you can't see past your own nose because of your blinkered views then I guess you're going to struggle finding them.

My point is that UFOWatchdog is throwing the baby out with the bathwater! My personal opinion of these researchers is not related to whether or not their work is credible.

Sean David Morton has never been credible to me, nor to others who I know know him personally. I only met him once and as I said found him arrogant and without a lot of substance. I'm not defending Sean David Morton's credibility - I'm defending the "babies" being thrown out with the "bathwater" like Linda Moulton Howe - how is she NOT credible???

UFOWatchdog is an old website. It hasn't been updated in years! Many of the links are dead. In regards to Sean David Morton's law suit, etc. there's not ONE court document in the website - are we to take their word for EVERYTHING? It's all hearsay as it's called - therefore (to me) not credible for me to walk away and say "yes, absolutely true."

Can't imagine why you think it's such a hot site!



Is it yours?

Well nice to see we agree on something, ie Sean David Morton.

Regarding UFO Watchdog, no it is not my site. I met the author on the Coast To Coast message forum. He's a good guy and has helped me out with a few things. The reason it is not updated is because he decided to take a break from ufology, probably because of all the bitching and fighting that goes on.