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.

 

U.S. Secretary of State reports alien bodies in Capitol building in 1939?

page: 4
80
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I read someone saying that if he wanted to share it why isn't he the one whistle blowing? My guess is that maybe it just ate him up so much inside that he had to get it out to someone. Who better than those he trusts? Possibly it made him feel better about himself or lessened the stress he had. Just a little theory, ya know.




posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Robin Goodfellow
The year given is the year the bodies and ship were shown off to the man, not the year they were recovered and placed in the Capitol building. Where do you suppose it would be placed if recovered in 1910? There were no airfields and/or hangars anywhere in 1910 were there? It may have been viewed in 1939 but who is to say when it was recovered. 1903? 1875? 1855?


Ft. Knox, perhaps? The Federal Gold Bullion Depository was established in 1937. Not only does it hold a significant portion of the United States gold, but valuable artifacts of the United States and Western history, such as the Constitution and Magna Carta during WWII.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Ok. Does anyone else think it is odd that the government would put alien bodies in a sub basement of the Capitol building to conduct research on them? You think they might be in some kind of top secret research facility or something. At least someplace that is not open to the public. This fact by itself, of course, does not mean the story is false.

This story is being relayed to us second or third hand and about sixty years after the events have supposedly taken place. I don't doubt the veracity of the gentleman who originally told the story. I don't even really doubt that the elderly woman believes she is telling the truth. It has not been explained clearly under what circumstances the story was relayed to her. Perhaps he was suffering from alzheimer's in later life. Perhaps the story was just meant to be a "tall tale" told for the sake of entertainment. We simply don't know. To me, the less believable origin of the story is to accept that there were humanoid creatures kept in a king sized pickle jar in the basement of the U.S. Capitol. But, I suppose stranger stuff has happened. Maybe. While I'm at it I should not that the elderly woman telling the story did not relay that her father said they were aliens. He supposedly said that they were humanoid and they looked like creatures. Far be it from me to know what kind of biology experiments were going on beneath Capitol Hill in the 30's and 40's.

This is a good story, but until I see some kind of scientific proof I'm not a believer. Third person tales from the elderly given 60 years after the fact are impossible to verify. I'll have to continue my search for little green men elsewhere.

CPTAMEDD



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
ONE MORE LINK with a little more information. I will cop to being surprised that they couldn't rule ot a subbasement, which sounded like fishiest part of the story to me.... even in the 30's in DC there were better places to keep this than the basement of a busy, crowded and fairly open building.

I wish they said when he told them this --- was it the 40's ? 50's? 60's?



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Landru
 


Thanks for the link. That helps fill out the story. It mentions that the father told his daughter the story when she was a teenager. I'm supposing that would roughly be in the timeframe of the late 40's or early 50's. Have to hand it to a kid for keeping that kind of a secret for that long.

Holt was afraid of mass panic if the story should have gotten out. I have to note the total lack of panic once the story did break.


CPTAMEDD



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
I'm sorry but just because their father was a very influential and credible person does not mean they are the same, it just seems like a bad movie to me with a lot of plot holes.. i.e aliens in a capitol building? There are plenty of other places that are not so within the public eye or such places could be created without ANYONE knowing.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by karl 12
Credibility of witnesses always is one of the main proving grounds when anything like this is revealed. The amazing thing is that both of the principals involved, Secretary of State Cordell Hull and Reverend Turner Hamilton Holt, Th.D, had impeccable credentials as intelligent and honest men.


But so what? They are not the ones making the claim, it is Holt's daughter.


This is the most important post in this thread.

Being credible doesn't make your kids credible.



utter ignorance.
anything secondhand is false and can't be backed by credibility?
if i read a history book of a journalists firsthand accounts and documentation and pictures from the civil war, and talk to someone about it, it doesn't make it any less credible. i could be a 'child' of this knowledge but what i can tell you amounts to nothing because the person who taught me can't tell you to your face? how did we advance as a civilization with brains like yours getting in the way.

what an insane comment.

and doomsday rex, the little anecdote i replied with, you missed the point, just like this guy. the reason my friend told me about the incident with her dad was because he is dying of heart problems and she knows i'm interested in the subjects. the dad was being a good soldier and not squealing. she knew and told me. does that make my story any less credible? nope!

this case isn't any different though, i mean, does it matter if it's true or not? the man was facing death and had to explain to his closest of kin what he saw. he lived in a different time, people trusted their government. also it would ruin the other guys reputation and trust if he told anyone that he brought him down into a sub basement in the white house to show him a freakshow and unknown technology. who would believe that anyway back then?

it's like in the movie following, with al pacino when the huge black guy dressed as a cowboy beats the shjt outta some suspects in an interrogation room. who would believe that story in court? it would make them look even more insane.

also i can say that these women, wether the story is true or not, aren't telling the story with any uncertainty. it's something they remember very vividly, have retold eachother, or themsleves in their head many times, and is appearant in their delivery. also, there is no aspect of glorifying or dramatizing it, and are very confident, and repeat themselves and certain bits matter-of-fact-ly.

just because you can't freaking prove something right off the bat doesn't mean you shouldn't talk about or investigate it. you don't just write things off that you can't prove on the outset because gravity didn't leave you a note saying, 'hey, that was me not letting you float off into space today', otherwise everything that goes on around you is due to some magical unknown force.

as for the location, the man had clearance to enter, nobody could just walk into the whitehouse and ask where the sub-basement is and walk in awkwardly on a scientist tearing his hair out trying to reverse engineer this stuff or figure out these beings biology or talking to living ones. also, it sounds like they only saw a glimpse of what was down there, since most of it was darkened hallways.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Anytime the elderly tell a story, it seems so geniune, like why would they be saying this if it wasn't told to them in the exact same way. However, we are still left with a great story, and we all know how great and creative people can tell and cook up stories, we have hollywood for proof of that. We may never know if what the little old ladys tells us is the truth, but what we do know is that this story was told to them, because they seem to complete each others sentences about the story. If the story was true or not, well that would change everything wouldn't it, and when I say everything, I mean everything.

I am a skeptic, but when you hear it from such nice old ladys, who are proably long standing members at their local church's, it really makes it tough to say, "your a liar."



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
After all we do have proof that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who wrote, "I would do it but before agreeing to it we must insist upon full access to d! isks recovered. For instance, in the La case the Army grabbed it would not let us have it for cursory examination." This was a well known document recovered through the freedom of information act, what was he talking about, well we can only come to one conclusion.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Look at it this way folks; what have these people got to gain from their disclosure?

The answer you seek is; Nothing.

Therefore, we have no reason to say they are lying to us. We do not KNOW, so we cannot lay claim to their honesty or lack of it.

Either go with the info provided or don't, that is your choice.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by cptamedd
Ok. Does anyone else think it is odd that the government would put alien bodies in a sub basement of the Capitol building to conduct research on them? You think they might be in some kind of top secret research facility or something. At least someplace that is not open to the public. This fact by itself, of course, does not mean the story is false.


I had exactly the same thought, why the basement of the Capitol building?

It would make more sense to find a better location.

Also, wouldn't writing everything down and signing it with his daughter as a witness to the signature make more sense to keep his daughter out of the loop on the credibility/reliability issue?

But true or not it's an interesting story and one I hadn't heard before, but without more corroboration I'm not sure if it's any more than a story.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_skepticc
After all we do have proof that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who wrote, "I would do it but before agreeing to it we must insist upon full access to d! isks recovered. For instance, in the La case the Army grabbed it would not let us have it for cursory examination." This was a well known document recovered through the freedom of information act, what was he talking about, well we can only come to one conclusion.


And that conclusion is?

From that document and from others, I can only come to the conclusion that they didn't have any more idea what those UFOs were than we do. I can infer from that document that the author believed there were disks recovered, but besides that author, so do lots of other people and that doesn't necessarily make it a fact. Now if the document was more of a smoking gun and stated that he had seen the disks and they were of alien origin, then that could only mean one conclusion. But it's really not that clear from that document so I have to say there must be more than one possible conclusion.

Maybe someone will find a smoking gun document about these alien bodies in the Capitol basement, that would be some nice corroboration for this story.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tayesin
Look at it this way folks; what have these people got to gain from their disclosure?

The answer you seek is; Nothing.


No, they get attention.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Tayesin
Look at it this way folks; what have these people got to gain from their disclosure?

The answer you seek is; Nothing.


No, they get attention.

Yes that is right.

I just don't see attention getting as anything worhtwhile. But that's just me.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tayesin
Look at it this way folks; what have these people got to gain from their disclosure?

The answer you seek is; Nothing.

Therefore, we have no reason to say they are lying to us. We do not KNOW, so we cannot lay claim to their honesty or lack of it.



More nonsense:

You assume you understand their motive, but that's just an assumption. In FACT you have no idea why they said what they said.

This post is actually a big contradiction:

You say you know they seek nothing, then you say we cannot know.

Which is it?



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
I didn't care about the first guy's opinion
What makes you think I would care about yours?
Neither post has substance; neither one offers anything.


Much like this story you've chosen to believe. It has nothing. No evidence, nothing to corroborate it, nothing. It is just a story. But it's a story you want to hear so you are accepting it without question. Then you are sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to any critique.


I disagree
And assert you are trying to project your own truth onto me.
Thanks , but no thanks.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonsmusic
 


More nonsense.

There's only ONE truth to this situation.

There's the more likely scenario - someone is lying

and

There's the less likely scenario - Aliens were kept in the Capital and ranking politico could bring their families to see them


Why is one more likely?

Well, not just because it's the one I happen to believe, but because there's no corroboration of any sort to this highly unusual story.

Simply wanting something unlikely to be true doesn't make it more likely, but it does bring your judgement into question.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
More nonsense:

You assume you understand their motive, but that's just an assumption. In FACT you have no idea why they said what they said.

This post is actually a big contradiction:

You say you know they seek nothing, then you say we cannot know.

Which is it?

Semantics.

We cannot know the truth from our perspective looking in from the outside. We can guess and assume, but unless they tell us exactly why they are speaking up now we cannot know.

What I assumed is that many people are frightened by ridicule, as are most people who have had "alternative experiences", and so I applied this based on watching the two older women speak.

My point is that everyone debunks immediately now. With so much of it prevalent here the real stories will also be tainted with the same brush. Which is why I spoke up about these two old ladies who appear to me to be speaking honestly, even though the other younger women is pushing them more than they are comfortable with.

I hope this answers your question. And I hope to see your manners improve some please.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Tayesin]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I believe hiding the Artifacts and Specimens inside the Capitol Building is genius. Where is the last place anyone would look? Or even assume to be a possiblity? Right at home.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Paradox.]



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
12 minute MP3 podcast of Grant Cameron interview:



In early April 2009 Grant Cameron traveled to Ohio to interview Lucile Andrew and Allene Gramly, now both in their 80s, to hear them recount a story that was told to them by their father Reverend Turner Hamilton Holt in 1948


link



new topics

top topics



 
80
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join