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

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Jay-morris
Ok, this is my opinion. You came to that conclusion before you even watched the video. You are a de-bunker, and thats what de-bunkers do. They dont really care about et disclosure, even though they would never admit it.

But! Isn't that the...

Originally posted by Jay-morris
Same as calling him insane,mental, even before you know his state of mind. Sigh!

So, let's get this straight. Based on the examination of McElroy's claims, we cannot say that he is lying, hoaxing, insane or so forth. However, based on my posts, you can claim to read my mind and know what's in my heart-of-hearts.

Right.

So, what makes me a debunker?

That is such an idiotic label.

Ok lol
I will explain this to you nice and slowly. What have we seen from McElroy? Just one short video, thats all. And al we have is him reading his statement. Could be true, could be false, but there is nothing to go on with that one statement at the moment. Thats wy i have said i would like to know more, and for him to explain in detail how he came to see this document, amonst other questions that people have said on here. As its only ben four days, im will to see where this goes.

Now, with you, its different. You have posted many times on here, and when you post many times, a person can get an idea on your motives and beliefs on this forum. And i have seen many oof your posts, and i think most people would agree that you are just a de-bunker.

I cant call McElroy a liar,mental etc with one short video clip, and nor can you, but thats your de-bunking side taking over.

Understand now!

reply to post by Jay-morris


It does not matter whether he's made one claim or a thousand. There is no arbitrary amount of claims someone must make before you can make a judgement about those claims and the person making them.

So, what is it that makes me a debunker?

Originally posted by Arkady
reply to post by Jay-morris

 

The fact that YOU didn't see it doesn't mean it's not there. Time will prove me right.
I'm not out to insult anybody but nor am I interested in sugar coating my opinion which in this case is that this video shows a crazy old man rambling about something that never happened.
Just keep in mind that all this amounts to is ONE guy saying "I saw a document saying that eisenhower COULD have met with ET's" nothing more. S*** even if Somebody was to post the actual document on ATS there would still be a reasonable debate as to it's authenticity and implications yet people are crapping their pants because some poorly spoken old man claims to have seen it?
I'm sorry if it offends people but **** that, it's going to take a lot more than 'i saw/ heard this/that' stories to convince me that the govornment knows about aliens let alone that disclosure is coming.
One thing that cracks me up about ATS is all the horse **** people spout about the govornment / the man lying to us, disinformation agents and NWO plots, then one guy vaguely connected to power says that he once saw a document that suggested aliens were real and people just swallow it without question because it confirms their escapist fringe fantasies.
get a grip.

Difference is, i will wait for evidence that proves that he is mental,crazy old man or insane. I will not jump the gun. You moan at people jumping the gun that ufos are ET, but you are doing the same thing here !

i absoultly belive this man. people dont like to come forward. they are scared the government acts like your stupid or lying. or worse your wellbeing. i just read the unheard ham radio transmissions of appollo 11 and it gave me the chills!!!!!! please everyone google it!!!!

Originally posted by carebear420
i absoultly belive this man. people dont like to come forward. they are scared the government acts like your stupid or lying. or worse your wellbeing. i just read the unheard ham radio transmissions of appollo 11 and it gave me the chills!!!!!! please everyone google it!!!!

_____________________________________________________________

There you have it!
FAITH.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by Jay-morris

 

It does not matter whether he's made one claim or a thousand. There is no arbitrary amount of claims someone must make before you can make a judgement about those claims and the person making them.

So, what is it that makes me a debunker?

What makes you a de-bunker. This very thread, for one is a good example on how you work. Bringing in the mental,insane rubbish, even though you dont know the man, his personality etc.

Now, a skeptic like me will sit back and see what we have. We have a man who has made a statement. That statement alone tells me nothing, and as i dont know the man, i cant judge him. So, as this is only four days old, im hoping to hear some more bits and pieces, for him or against him. I have a bit more respect for people than to throw insults that they are insane, even though i dont know them personaly, or medically.

So, i will see what happens, and how it unfolds. Like everyone should do!

Originally posted by carebear420
...i just read the unheard ham radio transmissions of appollo 11 and it gave me the chills! please everyone google it!

Read but not heard? Shouldn't that tell you something?

I don't suppose it matters that the Apollo astronauts deny such an event ever took place, would it?

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by Jay-morris

 

It does not matter whether he's made one claim or a thousand. There is no arbitrary amount of claims someone must make before you can make a judgement about those claims and the person making them.

So, what is it that makes me a debunker?


While no one can prove Mr. McElroy is wrong, there is more evidence against him than for him, enough to cast serious doubt on his claims...

-- a huge hole in his story

-- no evidence

-- short on details.

If you have a cogent counter-argument other than the fact you don't like the fact I called him insane or lying, please, let's hear it.

The fact that you list "No evidence" as evidence makes you either a debunker or at least sounds very illogical.

The fact that you draw a conclusive judgement on the absence of information that you wish was there hints to me that you made up your mind about your position in advance.

Now if you were to explain why this lacking information should logically be expected to be there for the story to be consistent, I would have to agree. But you have not done so.

Given the facts that you present one can at best reserve judgement until further information is presented, or pursue leads if one is so inclined. But your position is seemingly quite conclusive or dismissive. Is it not?

-rrr

reply to post by Jay-morris


How long does one have to be a "sceptic' before they can draw a conclusion on a particular subject? How much "evidence" do you need to see to make up your mind?
Think 40 years is enough?

Nothing is impossible, or light years away, instead it is just difficult to predict the right time for disclosure. However, the hidden treasure will eventually be uncovered by wind, sand by sand and so forth. As many are aware, files unto UFO's have already been declassified by various countries. For this matter, people are the wind that hunt the hidden treasure, they enforce and uncover the unexpected and unplanned confrontations that governments try to cover.

I believe, the more evidence and speculation into the government involvement of ET's will evolve into a nation of people who are reasonably curious. And then. people will not hesitate to believe about the possibility of ET's, and even the best of debunker's will lose a battle against frenzied media. Media, peppered by hot stories and volatile topic into ET's, like now days will educate the rest of the nation. In conclusion, this will be a perfect time for government to open up the files. My speculation is, is another decade or less and here we go.





[edit on 5/13/2010 by krystalice]

Originally posted by Jay-morris
What makes you a de-bunker. This very thread, for one is a good example on how you work. Bringing in the mental,insane rubbish, even though you dont know the man, his personality etc.

Oh, so, based on his one statement I cannot make any judgement call about McElroy. But based on one thread, you can make one about me.

Originally posted by Jay-morris
I have a bit more respect for people than to throw insults that they are insane, even though i dont know them personaly, or medically...

Again, you are claiming I just threw around an insult. Out of curiosity, could you tell me what my arguments were?

Originally posted by rickyrrr
The fact that you list "No evidence" as evidence makes you either a debunker or at least sounds very illogical.

So, pointing out there is no evidence for a claim makes one a debunker?

It's getting ripe in here. That is one of the dumbest things to have ever been stated on ATS.

Originally posted by rickyrrr
The fact that you draw a conclusive judgement on the absence of information that you wish was there hints to me that you made up your mind about your position in advance.

It's not there is no information, it's that there is no evidence. None. It's just his word. He has nothing to corroborate.

Originally posted by rickyrrr
Now if you were to explain why this lacking information should logically be expected to be there for the story to be consistent, I would have to agree. But you have not done so.

Out of a 746 word statement, the most interest part consists of only 153 words. Before is background. After that, it is just a rundown of people he believes have come forward and thanking nations that have supposedly disclosed. You would think this important revelation would warrant more discussion, not a mere 153 words.

Originally posted by rickyrrr
Given the facts that you present one can at best reserve judgement until further information is presented, or pursue leads if one is so inclined. But your position is seemingly quite conclusive or dismissive. Is it not?

Not at all. If Mr. McElroy presents more information, I'll examine it and correct my view as (and if) necessary.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
While no one can prove Mr. McElroy is wrong, there is more evidence against him than for him, enough to cast serious doubt on his claims...

-- a huge hole in his story

-- no evidence

-- short on details.

If you have a cogent counter-argument other than the fact you don't like the fact I called him insane or lying, please, let's hear it.

You presented a list of wishes of yours, which could have been summed up in one single line item:

"The claims raise questions"

And then declared that it constitutes "evidence" against the claims made. That is your argument.

-rrr

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by Jay-morris

 

How long does one have to be a "sceptic' before they can draw a conclusion on a particular subject? How much "evidence" do you need to see to make up your mind?
Think 40 years is enough?

Age has nothing to do with it im afraid. We can all read!

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

So, pointing out there is no evidence for a claim makes one a debunker?

It's getting ripe in here. That is one of the dumbest things to have ever been stated on ATS.

But that is not what I said. You declared that lack of evidence constitutes evidence.

You are either unable to understand or deliberately using a straw man argument.

-rrr

reply to post by manta78


Every single whistleblower that comes out, people say we are getting closer to disclosure. I'm actually sick of people hyping it up, give up until you have evidence to support the credibility of the story.

reply to post by Mclaneinc


It's sad, but i fear you're right, there seems to be no middleground.

Watching how this discussion and similar ones use to develop, it's seems to be some kind of natural law, that rather earlier than later those discussions heat up and change from the exchange of logic arguments to the exchange of personal insults.

Maybe this isn't really surprising, because we're not talking about stamps or minigolfing, we're talking about things that are truly earthshattering (if they're true or going to happen). We are talking about possible paradigm-changes from the quality of the discoveries of Copernicus, Gallilei, Darwin, Freud. In the moment, it's not conceivable, what the consequences will be; for our entire world and for every single one of us. Highest hopes and greatest fears are aligned with the question if we're alone in the universe or not, and if they are possibly already here.

So it's no wonder that this kind of discussions tend to get emotional.

I hope for us all, that soon we'll know the whole true story, be it the one way or the other way.

Maybe we should show a bit more respect to each other remembering, that every one of us has a reason to be sceptical or to believe. Hm, maybe the most annoying thing is, that still, after all these years we're not able to look behind the curtain and see what it's really like.

I hope we'll know it one day, and I hope this day will come soon.

peace to all of you!

Originally posted by rickyrrr
You presented a list of wishes of yours, which could have been summed up in one single line item:

"The claims raise questions"

Those are wishes? That is an odd way of putting it.

Originally posted by rickyrrr
And then declared that it constitutes "evidence" against the claims made. That is your argument.

Yes, it is. There are questions that raise serious doubts about his claims. In the end, it doesn't matter whether you want to have a semantic argument or not, there is nothing to support him and questions, evidence, what-have-you that cast doubt.

Jay-Morris, Rickrrr...do either of you have a defense of the man or his claims that does not rely on calling me a debunker?

I will not believe in ET's until i see them with my own eyes. Nobody will manipulate with me anymore and i heve already wasted too many time on this issue. For me is currently this entire circus around UFO's and disclosure only very well premeditated business...

Originally posted by rickyrrr
But that is not what I said. You declared that lack of evidence constitutes evidence.

That is what you said. The quote is right there.

Sometimes absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The fact there is no evidence for his claim means there is no evidence for his claims. That casts doubt on his story.



[edit on 13-5-2010 by DoomsdayRex]