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.

 

Former Legislator Makes Statement May 8, 2010 on Un-Released Eisenhower Brief Regarding ET's

page: 12
230
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
It is becoming readily apparent to me that with our advancements in editing software and the new Adobe Photoshop, that it doesn't matter what you see anymore because people always want evidence. Then when evidence is presented, they want evidence for that evidence, so on and so forth. My question is, where do we draw the line? It seems that unless you have 5 eye witnessess, each with their own camera, shooting from 5 different angles, all with time stamps, each holding ID and broadcasting live, then it can't be verified and therefpre isn't true. I've never seen a million dollars all at once, but I know it exists..
Deflection is a useful tool in disinformation. Instead of us following a normal train of thought and exploration about a topic, we're instead forced to spend our time not tryin to understand, but trying to prove something that cannot be proven. There are sooo many first hand accounts and reports, videos, pictures, theories, yet everyone who comes forth is crazy, insane, looney, or has alterior motives?? Why is it as humans, our first instinct is to say "not uh, that piece of candy is mine, and you can't prove otherwise"?
Has anybody ever thought maybe these people come forward, just to come forward?? Does there always have to be an objective? People who come forward know the ridcule they will face, yet still do so. I don't know about you guys, but if you spend 40 years doing something, I wouldn't risk throwing all the progress in my life I'd made just to publish a fake story. It's just not logical... Just my view.

great topic though...combined with Canada's ex Sec. of Def.'s plea for disclosure, I think this topic may just be gaining the momentum it needs to reach national recognition. When the gov't strts fighting back...tht's when we kno we're on the right track.




posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
For those of you keeping score at home, the defense of McElroy's claims has amounted to...

-- skeptics are bad.

-- wait and see, there might be more information.

-- appeal-to-authority.

-- negative proof fallacies

-- skeptics are bad.

-- he's just getting something off his chest, no need to think any deeper.

-- appeal to motive

-- skeptics are bad.


Wow, keeping score...

Do you actually think there's any winners here?

I will agree with one thing, some skeptics are bad, especially when they are arguing for the sake of it. The simple fact that you refuse to understand that he may indeed just be making his peace with himself completely turns you from skeptic to unreasonable.

Again I ask, do you think this is a man who looks like he wants 10 mins of Net fame or has tried to make himself look like a smoking gun?

Or does he look like a man doing something personal for himself...

When you can actually give that notion some thought then I'll give you your skeptics badge back..



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I would like to see how the debunkers can explain his testimony itself verbally. What computer software or technology can hoax a verbal testimony on video. The evidence you are demanding is in the video. After you watch it then you can come back and post that you found the evidence.

I would like a debunker to find 1 piece of evidence that Mcelroy's testimony was hoaxed or a fraud.

It appears the Believers win again



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
I would like to see how the debunkers can explain his testimony itself verbally. What computer software or technology can hoax a verbal testimony on video. The evidence you are demanding is in the video. After you watch it then you can come back and post that you found the evidence.

I would like a debunker to find 1 piece of evidence that Mcelroy's testimony was hoaxed or a fraud.

It appears the Believers win again


Again, there are no winners here, we will never know either way but for what it's worth I feel this man truthfully believes what he is saying..



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
I want this to be true very, very much.

As a skeptic, I have some questions, however. If anyone can answer them, please let me know so that I can lay my doubts to rest. There is no one who wants this to be legitimate more than I do. Believe me.

1) Who is this man? It's very difficult to find information regarding this representative. Wikipedia has nothing on him, and a Google search revealed only sporadic mention of this very video, and some listings of him on campaign websites. I do find a listing of a person by the same name in Norfolk Virginia, whose profession is listed as health and fitness. (www.linkedin.com...) Whether they are the same man or not, I cannot know.

2) What is this man like? I can't find his voting record, his party affiliation, or even the dates of his tenure(s). The closest thing I could find was a mention on a message forum of him filing legislation in the New Hampshire state legislature. I don't even know if this is the same man or not, for that matter, or whether they are even related. In effect, I have been able to learn nothing about this man, his credibility, his record, etc.

3) What does he mean by "document?" Does he mean he was shown a copy of a legitimate document in an official capacity while on the committees he alludes to in his statements? Or does he mean that while serving in that capacity, he was shown alleged documents like those floating around (unconfirmed as real or hoaxes in many instances) in many books by concerned citizens or others? (He does begin by saying the electorate felt he should be privy to certain information, unless I misunderstood.) He does not clarify what he means by "document," specify the origin of this "document," or explain why he was shown this "document" in his official capacity.

4) What does he mean when he speaks of Eisenhower's optimism in his farewell address, and cites it as evidence that Eisenhower did in fact meet with benign extraterrestrial visitors? The Eisenhower farewell address was not optimistic in my opinion. In fact, it included the now famous warning regarding the Military Industrial Complex, which he characterized as "the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power:" Military Industrial Complex Is this some kind of subtle hint by McElroy? Is he trying to say something here that he hopes people who remember this address will understand, without coming out and saying it? Does he just see the address differently than I and many others do? Even my father who was young when the address occurred recalls it as cautionary and as a warning.

I want this to be true deeply - almost desperately. However I must remain skeptical and therefore until these questions can be answered, this does not constitute proof by my standards.

[edit on 5/13/2010 by AceWombat04]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by manta78
 


The big question manta, is when??!! You know? I have been hearing more and more on the disclosure, but no actual dates. The only similar thing I keep coming across in all of these types of posts and videos is that it will be sometime this year.

I really hope it is because this world needs something to WAKE IT THE HELL UP! Does anyone have any solid dates or a time frame of when "disclosure" is supposed to happen? I also heard that Obama is supposed to confirm their existence and presence here on Earth, but then I started thinking about his "transparency" promise.. LOL We know how that's going..



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
I would like to see how the debunkers can explain his testimony itself verbally. What computer software or technology can hoax a verbal testimony on video. The evidence you are demanding is in the video. After you watch it then you can come back and post that you found the evidence.

I would like a debunker to find 1 piece of evidence that Mcelroy's testimony was hoaxed or a fraud.

It appears the Believers win again


It is becumbent upon the claim-maker to present the evidence. One who seeks evidence for unsubstantiated claims is merely asking for proof.

Get the cart before the horsey, so to speak.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by romanmel

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
I would like to see how the debunkers can explain his testimony itself verbally. What computer software or technology can hoax a verbal testimony on video. The evidence you are demanding is in the video. After you watch it then you can come back and post that you found the evidence.

I would like a debunker to find 1 piece of evidence that Mcelroy's testimony was hoaxed or a fraud.

It appears the Believers win again


It is becumbent upon the claim-maker to present the evidence. One who seeks evidence for unsubstantiated claims is merely asking for proof.

Get the cart before the horsey, so to speak.


The mountains of provided evidence you have available to look at is not good enough evidence to prove your deflating non believer religion. In court you would lose hands down because you have yet or will not post any evidence to support your isolated agenda.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
There's only one way you can debunk this man's claim short of an admission by himself and that is to dig into history and find out as much as you can about Eisenhower, Truman, Roswell and aspects of American history during that era.

Granted, most of the evidence needed to corroborate McElroy's story is likely still classified. But mistakes have happened before and possibly all we need is someone to connect the dots.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Furthermore the large amount of evidence in my corner is steadily proving the case I present that has obviously influenced you. This congressman's testimony goes on top of the pile of other evidence.

When most cops say UFOs can be proven in court they make good sense.

That is what you should learn about debating UFO/ET issue its your arguments that make your point go nowhere.

When presented with mountains of evidence the believers have become the overwhelming winner in the UFO /ET issue debate.

Debunkers are a dying breed due to the evidence being against them.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by Paradigm2012]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
All we know is that the man is who he says he is and he did the job he said he did, After that it's conjecture, he says he saw a document which would presume he meant an official document.

Again, what he talks about are his views and only that, he's not trying to rewrite history or suggest he knows more than of what he said.

He 'thinks' Eisenhower did meet with the ET's by the tone of his speech, he's not saying he knows for a fact nor that he has seen anything that proves this.

I seriously think people are trying to hard to see some hidden agenda here, seeing if he's trying to point towards other events as if he knows something. I personally as I have said several times believe this was an act for him, a cleansing of the soul so to speak.

He never asks to to believe him, nor does he ask for notoriety, this seems just deeply personal..



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paradigm2012

Originally posted by romanmel

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
I would like to see how the debunkers can explain his testimony itself verbally. What computer software or technology can hoax a verbal testimony on video. The evidence you are demanding is in the video. After you watch it then you can come back and post that you found the evidence.

I would like a debunker to find 1 piece of evidence that Mcelroy's testimony was hoaxed or a fraud.

It appears the Believers win again


It is becumbent upon the claim-maker to present the evidence. One who seeks evidence for unsubstantiated claims is merely asking for proof.

Get the cart before the horsey, so to speak.


The mountains of provided evidence you have available to look at is not good enough evidence to prove your deflating non believer religion. In court you would lose hands down because you have yet or will not post any evidence to support your isolated agenda.


That would be like me going to court and saying that you stole my car. Without presenting any proof, I would then demand that you prove you did not steal my car. Get it?



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
here are some brief s

Ray alex website !

reinep.wordpress.com...

vote usa .org he's real as it looks
www.vote-usa.org...

the examiner
www.examiner.com...



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
LOL here we go again with the 'disclosure'. SIGH....you people are kind of pathetic ya know. You take every little piece of 'evidence' that is most likely a hoax and then use it to prove 'disclosure' is coming.

Just like with every other UFO hoax. i remember a few UFOs being a hoax.....but what i remember most is that the ET believers were trumpeting it as proof.

There is no getting through to these people.

Belief in ET is like a religion....just as much faith to believe in. and in some cases just as much zeal.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfenz

here are some brief s

Ray alex website !

reinep.wordpress.com...

vote usa .org he's real as it looks
www.vote-usa.org...

the examiner
www.examiner.com...


what will the next debunker make up now? debunkers were did you go? you seem to have become silent. When faced with facts the debunkers are speechless



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by romanmel

Originally posted by Paradigm2012

Originally posted by romanmel

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
I would like to see how the debunkers can explain his testimony itself verbally. What computer software or technology can hoax a verbal testimony on video. The evidence you are demanding is in the video. After you watch it then you can come back and post that you found the evidence.

I would like a debunker to find 1 piece of evidence that Mcelroy's testimony was hoaxed or a fraud.

It appears the Believers win again


It is becumbent upon the claim-maker to present the evidence. One who seeks evidence for unsubstantiated claims is merely asking for proof.

Get the cart before the horsey, so to speak.


The mountains of provided evidence you have available to look at is not good enough evidence to prove your deflating non believer religion. In court you would lose hands down because you have yet or will not post any evidence to support your isolated agenda.


That would be like me going to court and saying that you stole my car. Without presenting any proof, I would then demand that you prove you did not steal my car. Get it?


I think people are not getting it, has he came onto a forum and claimed anything...No

He is public-ally making a video that he believes in, the comments section was turned off, he is not looking for a debate and thus does not have to prove anything as he's not looking for a fight.

He is not making claims against anyone, he simply telly his story and you believe him or not..



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by romanmel

Originally posted by Paradigm2012

Originally posted by romanmel

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
I would like to see how the debunkers can explain his testimony itself verbally. What computer software or technology can hoax a verbal testimony on video. The evidence you are demanding is in the video. After you watch it then you can come back and post that you found the evidence.

I would like a debunker to find 1 piece of evidence that Mcelroy's testimony was hoaxed or a fraud.

It appears the Believers win again


It is becumbent upon the claim-maker to present the evidence. One who seeks evidence for unsubstantiated claims is merely asking for proof.

Get the cart before the horsey, so to speak.


The mountains of provided evidence you have available to look at is not good enough evidence to prove your deflating non believer religion. In court you would lose hands down because you have yet or will not post any evidence to support your isolated agenda.


That would be like me going to court and saying that you stole my car. Without presenting any proof, I would then demand that you prove you did not steal my car. Get it?



Oh yeah, it happens all the time. Assault and rape. Get it? or are you saying that assault and rape is a myth?


-rrr



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by romanmel

Originally posted by Paradigm2012

Originally posted by romanmel

Originally posted by Paradigm2012
I would like to see how the debunkers can explain his testimony itself verbally. What computer software or technology can hoax a verbal testimony on video. The evidence you are demanding is in the video. After you watch it then you can come back and post that you found the evidence.

I would like a debunker to find 1 piece of evidence that Mcelroy's testimony was hoaxed or a fraud.

It appears the Believers win again


It is becumbent upon the claim-maker to present the evidence. One who seeks evidence for unsubstantiated claims is merely asking for proof.

Get the cart before the horsey, so to speak.


The mountains of provided evidence you have available to look at is not good enough evidence to prove your deflating non believer religion. In court you would lose hands down because you have yet or will not post any evidence to support your isolated agenda.


That would be like me going to court and saying that you stole my car. Without presenting any proof, I would then demand that you prove you did not steal my car. Get it?


Let me help you get things sorted out. What you need to learn first is that you cannot win in court if you have no evidence. All the UFO/ET evidence will be presented and you then have to provide yours.

You see let me inform you of the basics so you can begin the elementary process of logic.

You are making a wild claim that the congressman is lying or faked a video.

1. You are being out debated because you came to class unprepared and you do have not any evidence.

2. Its easy for me to out debate you because I have the facts on my side.

3. Your lack of evidence will not prove a hoax or prove a fake. You see you first need to provide evidence.

Are you starting to understand how things work? If you have any questions on the basics ask me or others who can help you learn the basics.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by Paradigm2012]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
There is reason that alien fans call themselves "believers".
They have a religious fundamentalist zealot mindset.
Sorry, but after 40 some years of ufology, nothing has changed.
I've heard ALL this stuff since the 60's, still no "disclosure".
Ain't gonna happen. No ET's visiting. Sorry.
Don't "believe" it? You will die awaiting disclosure.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tauempire
LOL here we go again with the 'disclosure'. SIGH....you people are kind of pathetic ya know. You take every little piece of 'evidence' that is most likely a hoax and then use it to prove 'disclosure' is coming.

Just like with every other UFO hoax. i remember a few UFOs being a hoax.....but what i remember most is that the ET believers were trumpeting it as proof.

There is no getting through to these people.

Belief in ET is like a religion....just as much faith to believe in. and in some cases just as much zeal.


Aman bro pass the offering plate!

When Disclosure actually takes place, ET will invite all the "believers" over for lunch. Lunch will of course be "believer sandwiches"...yum, yum




new topics

top topics



 
230
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join