Originally posted by Plasmamembrane
Well said Facefirst. Our problem is defintately the evidence, as discussed - in that light, we must give certain witnesses at least some credibility.
However, as we know, verifying their statements is an incredible task. So here we sit, on the fence, unable to make many conclusions.
As for your statement about at least a screwdriver being available, I agree; it is logical to presume that some shred of evidence should have been
leaked from the many alleged UFO crashes. However, as a member of the Military, I know how thourough we are, and it would not surprise me if, so far,
the Military has managed to prevent hard evidence leaks.
"And a great deal of what I read on their claims was often hearsay or distorted and exagerated by others."
Can you give me some examples? Also, what is your opinion on the statements of the two retired Air Force members that came forward in regards to the
Furthermore, what is your opinion about, for example, the leaked MJ-12 documents? These leaked documents are hard to dismiss, no? Also, can you tell
me more about that CIA director?
[Edited on 3-6-2004 by Plasmamembrane]
As far as distortions or exagerations of statements, one does not have to look too far. The CIA Director "Briefing" by Dr. Greer is a perfect
example. (the following paragraph is from a post I previously put up at ATS)
[Greer went around saying that he "briefed" the former CIA Director James Woosley on the ET subject back in the 90s. Later, Woosely sent out a legal
note to Greer and others saying that Greer distorted what actually happened and made the "dinner party conversation" seem like something it was not.
I really like the Disclosure Project's purpose, but Greer tends to get a little "out there" and exagerates a bit. At least it seems that way to me.
IIRC, even Edgar Mitchell asked to have his name not associated with Greer anymore. (if you do a google on the legal note, you should be able to find
That being said, there is always the possiblilty that Greer is telling the truth and Woosley was not expecting Dr. Greer to go public, which in turn
made Woosley feel the need to seek out his attorney's assistance. Or that Greer was not telling the truth and that Woosley wanted to maintain his
You never know. But I tend to lean towards individual exageration in that case. Greer has made some other fairly grand claims in the past. Most
recently was his "discovery" of an energy device that did not need any fuel. (needless to say, the device never materialized)
There seems to be a tendency of certian individuals to over-exagerate the importance of their info or even to go as far as to embelish the
facts/possibilties. It seems to me that some people want to believe so badly that it clouds their ability to look at facts objectivily. I too, like to
let my mind wander in regards to this subject, but I feel that I must always use and maintain a "tempered enthusiasm."
Easier said than done of course. Along with finding out what happens after death, ET contact would be the greatest Human discovery of all time, so I
just try my best to keep an even-keeled outlook. I really want to believe beyond my current outlook, but I must reserve my change of opinion to be
motivated by evidence that is beyond compelling.
There are more examples out there, but I feel that the Greer situation I presented seems to describe it very well without going into multiple
examples. (though there are a few more examples out there that paint similar pictures)
As far as Randlesham, I have only delved into that particular case slightly. There seem to be some very compelling claims and testimonies there, but
at the same time, there is also some discrepancies between witness accounts. But that is to be expected 24 years after... just as witnesses to a car
accident can have varying recollections of the actual events. I did recently see a documentary that took two of the main US AF personel witnesses back
to the now defunct base and tried to follow the steps of what happened. Very interesting, but again, I do not have enough info to truly make an
informed opinion. Not enough from a few internet interviews and one TV documentary, which unless you were in the editing room, the viewer cannot know
if and how the story and it's content was "shaped" or "modified" for presentation and appeal.
With regards to MJ12, I have done a fair bit of reading on them. Stanton Friedman presents some theories that do seem to make sense at first glance,
but I must point out that by the very nature of how the papers were obtained and the exact Truman signatures along with the fact that the actual
papers were never examined lends me to put the papers in a suspicious light. (the MJ12 documents were photographed and came from 35mm film/no actual
paper docs) Though, on an interesting note, Friedman's research did reveal a reference in an actual US Goverment paper to an MJ12 "Creative
Group." (I cannot recall which branch of Goverment the paper came from, but I believe it was from the Eisenhower era) The difference is that Friedman
had the actual paper this time. But it is unclear what the MJ12 "Creative Group" is or what the paper is referencing to MJ12. That itself seems to
be worthy of a follow-up. But so far, there has been no word from Mr. Friedman.
As you said, here we are sitting on the fence, unable to come to many conclussions.... it is frustrating, but then again the facts dictate that those
are the conclusions we must come to. With that said, you mentioned facts and evidence can be witheld or even obscured...I do subscribe to that view
But one thing that is having a new and possible profound effect on the proof possibility is technology. Camera phones, internet, video and several
other communication innovations are making it more and more difficult to hide or suppress information. The recent US Iraqi prison scandle comes to
mind as a recent example. Hopefully, this technology will allow some individual, somewhere out there to finally get the "money shot."
[Edited on 3-6-2004 by Facefirst]