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: 25
230
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by transiant
reply to post by Jay-morris
 


so what do you think of the info presented over at...

www.alien-ufos.com...

it's really not my intention to spam.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by transiant]


Cheers for the link. I had a quick look. Very interesting. I will look more when i get home.

Cheers




posted on May, 14 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I, for one, refuse to believe that an American politician is capable of stupidity, cupidity or lying. Think about it, people.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by wonkamaniac
That being said, you really have to look at a preponderance of evidence.
Too many good, hard-working, honest people have said that this is real.
How can they all be ignored?
Simply put, they can't.
The preponderance of evidence points to this statement being true.


No, it doesn't.

You are committing a form of ignoratio elenchi, argumentum ad numerum and association fallacies. The number of people who have seen UFOs, the validity of their claims, or however hard-working and honest they may be is of complete irrelevance to McElroy's claims.

Outside of the being associated in the most superficial of manners (claims of UFOs or aliens), there is no real relation between the above mention people and McElroy. Their hard-work and honesty is not McElroy's. Just because they may be telling the truth does not mean McElroy is. Whatever evidence there may be for their claims is not evidence for McElroy's. You are attempting to substitute what you feel is a stronger claim as evidence for a weaker claim, when in fact there is no relation between the two.

As an example, suppose you were accused of committing a crime for which there was no evidence aside from the accusation. Using the same argument you did, the prosecutor would say that other people have committed the crime in the past, therefore you must be guilty. Or he might that honest people, hard-working made similar accusations about other people, therefore your accuser must be telling the truth.


[edit on 14-5-2010 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by DelMarvel
The old "you must be a paid shill" ad hom.

Just as much a character assassination as what the skeptics here have been accused of.


Right. Unable to form any sort of cogent argument defending McElroy, they have to turn to ad hominems and red-herrings.


Doomsday, One thing I'd like to know is why you call people to defend him and against what. My only possible answer so far is against the disbelief of those that choose to dismiss it.

I personally come to this thread from a neutral position and then try to see where the information takes me.

I don't think it is reading too much into you to assume that your position is dismissive. And that's fine, that is your opinion and you have explained it. But it does not constitute an absolute reality about this man, his testimony and his motives. Those things remain in the realm of uncertainty.

Is it not a possible alternative to neither dismiss it nor accept it?

Isn't that what people should do with incomplete information? Investigate further instead of speculating *only* in those directions that support their preconceived notions?

-rrr



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lady_Tuatha

Originally posted by inner_sanctum
Britain's new conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, might trump U.S. politicians on a galactic scale. According to a 2009 report by BBC, "David Cameron has vowed to publish any secret files that may exist on UFOs if he becomes prime minister. Speaking at one of his regular Cameron Direct public meetings, he pledged to be 'open and frank' with any government knowledge about close encounters…"

See link for full story:

www.examiner.com...


I would'nt hold out any hope on Cameron releasing anything earth shattering.

I think that he was just spouting off pre-election what people wanted to hear. Now that he is Prime Minister he will play by the rules of his predecessors.



True ! I do believe that if the UK government knows of anything of this nature it wouldnt be within even the PM's realm to disclose it



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickyrrr
Doomsday, One thing I'd like to know is why you call people to defend him and against what. My only possible answer so far is against the disbelief of those that choose to dismiss it.


That is all well and good.

However, many of the responses in this thread are non-sequiturs, that skeptics (or myself) are bad, therefore McElroy is telling the truth.


Originally posted by rickyrrr
Isn't that what people should do with incomplete information? Investigate further instead of speculating *only* in those directions that support their preconceived notions?


Insofar as this case is concern, no more information will be forthcoming, according to Larry Bryant in the comment sections of Paul Kimball's blog.


Well, Bruce, these are questions that occur to most any of us. In an ideal disclosure world, we'd see the whistleblower call a press conference at the National Press Club in D. C., lay out certified copies of various documentation, produce several TV-recorded deathbed confessions of some other key players involved in the coverup, and then be feted to all manner of official recognition.

But I suspect that McElroy's relative reticence at this point might derive from aversion to such personal attacks as Paul's, and maybe even from the notion that to provide more details about the "brief" might violate some level of security classification. Only our imagination can fill in the blanks on his decision not to wallow in the limelight and to offer us no more than this sketchy addition to the international record of UFO-E.T. awareness.

While I, too, hunger for more details on his story --if he can recall them (remember how hard it was for Pres. Reagan to recall details of the Iran-Contra affair?) -- I'll have to settle for appreciating his bravery in coming forward (however tentative that step may appear to us).



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


oh so no more questions what a surprise


[edit on 14-5-2010 by yeti101]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   


When I was in the New Hampshire State Legislature, I served on the State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee. It was, apparently, important that as a Representative of the Sovereign People who had elected me to this Honorable Office, that I be updated on a large number of topics related to the affairs of our People, and our Nation. As I understood it, some of those ongoing topics had been examined and categorized as Federal, State, Local development, and security matters. These documents related to various topics, some of which spanned decades of our nation’s history. One of those recurring topics is the reason I am addressing you this evening.


We don't know when McElroy supposedly saw the document, it could very well have been in the 1990s. What if the document was sent to the committee by someone interested in Roswell/MJ12 myth? I can imagine that MJ12 documents were sent to a lot of officials in the early 1990s.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I wonder if the alien doubters and debunkers are taking this news well. If I were a debunker and I found out I have always been wrong I would be in shock. So far the evidence is on the side of the believer.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I'm outa here! No point in this ridiculous thread!
Go right on "believing" alien fundies!
You can "believe" until the cows come come home, I guarantee you though, disclosure will never happen because it's fiction!
Pleasant dreams!



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger



I'm outa here! No point in this ridiculous thread!
Go right on "believing" alien fundies!
You can "believe" until the cows come come home, I guarantee you though, disclosure will never happen because it's fiction!
Pleasant dreams!


Just take the evidence as enough to prove you wrong.

you lose because the evidence is against you



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by NephraTari
 


You don't know much about effective disinformation do you. Get out of here



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
You don't know much about effective disinformation do you. Get out of here


On the contrary, I think she does. Her post was riddled with disinformation.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
We don't know when McElroy supposedly saw the document, it could very well have been in the 1990s. What if the document was sent to the committee by someone interested in Roswell/MJ12 myth? I can imagine that MJ12 documents were sent to a lot of officials in the early 1990s.


It's possible and certainly not something I had considered. But re-reading his statement, I don't think that's what happened. McElroy refers to it as both an "ongoing" and "recurring" topic. And he seems to suggest that this was all through official channels.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by cripmeister
You don't know much about effective disinformation do you. Get out of here


On the contrary, I think she does. Her post was riddled with disinformation.


But it's not very effective on anyone with half a brain



Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by cripmeister
We don't know when McElroy supposedly saw the document, it could very well have been in the 1990s. What if the document was sent to the committee by someone interested in Roswell/MJ12 myth? I can imagine that MJ12 documents were sent to a lot of officials in the early 1990s.


It's possible and certainly not something I had considered. But re-reading his statement, I don't think that's what happened. McElroy refers to it as both an "ongoing" and "recurring" topic. And he seems to suggest that this was all through official channels.


I don't think he wrote the speech and the ambiguity is probably deliberate.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by cripmeister]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
ALRIGHT! EVERYBODY STOP.

So, some new things that are ON TOPIC that ATS should be digging into, is the photo that shows McElroy, Ron Paul, and this other guy, Kevin Coutrois or whatever his name is.

here

Im no good at embedding images, if someone would have the courtesy to stop arguing over who killed who and post it that would be great.

In my opinion, his association with Ron Paul is a big
to his credibility.

Here is a link (scroll down) to a whole bunch of McElroy politicians, I think dead ones by the sounds of the website, so Henry McElroy is not listed.

Manta78 mentioned Neil Hosler McElroy a couple pages back, and it GOT LOST IN ALL THE ARGUING. Neil H. McElroy was SecDef under Eisenhower(fancy that).

In some measure the Soviet sputniks may have hastened the landmark Defense Reorganization Act of 1958. Although President Eisenhower provided strong leadership in achieving the necessary legislation, McElroy was instrumental in seeing it through. The Defense Reorganization Act of 1958 significantly influenced the evolution of DoD organization and the role of the secretary. McElroy considered the most important aspects of the 1958 reorganization to be the replacement of service executive agents by the JCS in directing the unified commands and the creation of a strong director of defense research and engineering.

As always, the budget greatly influenced the shaping of Department of Defense plans and programs. Although the Eisenhower administration maintained a determined interest in controlling expenditures and balancing the budget, McElroy did not place economy above preparedness. A strong supporter of military assistance, he argued effectively for continued congressional and public support for the program. "Military Assistance," he said, "is to the defense of our Country as fire prevention is to fire fighting. You can have the best, most modern sprinkling system in your factory but it will be useless if you don't take steps to prevent fires from getting out of control before they reach your plant." Nonetheless, he presided over a budget that remained stringent. In spite of public concern about preparedness in the wake of the Russian Sputnik and pressures from Democratic critics to spend more money, the Eisenhower administration did not panic. While it shifted some expenditure priorities, especially toward missile development, production, and deployment, it did not support a drastic increase in the defense budget. The president and Secretary McElroy contended that the budget was adequate to insure the nation's security. For the McElroy period, the Defense Department's total obligational authority by fiscal year was as follows: 1958, $41.1 billion; 1959, $42.1 billion; and 1960, $40.2 billion.

When McElroy acceded to Eisenhower's request in 1957 that he become secretary of defense, he limited his availability to about two years. Although there was criticism that the secretary was leaving just as he had learned the job, McElroy confirmed early in 1959 that he would resign before the end of the year. Speculation that Deputy Secretary of Defense Donald A. Quarles would succeed him ended with Quarles's death in May 1959. Secretary of the Navy Thomas S. Gates, Jr., succeeded Quarles, and when McElroy's resignation became effective on 1 December 1959, Gates replaced him. Actually, McElroy served longer as secretary of defense than any of his predecessors except Wilson.

On December 1, 1959, President Eisenhower presented McElroy with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

When he left the Pentagon, he became chairman of the board of Procter & Gamble. He died on November 30, 1972 in Cincinnati at the age of 68. He left behind his wife, Mrs. Camilla F. McElroy, his eldest daughter, Mrs. Nancy M. Folger, his younger daughter, Mrs. Barbara M. Dimling (who later had four children; Jennifer, Elizabeth, Mark, and Rebecca) and his son, Mr. Malcolm McElroy.



This is much too coincidental for my tastes, so all you dedunkers why not help in researching to see if there is a connection?! Or do you already have your minds made up that this is a hoax for selling books, etc...?

Is there any relation between the McElroy's? What about any of the relatives Neil McElroy left behind(in bold above)?

Has Henry McElroy, who has given this testimony in this video being discussed in the thread, been handed down family information about Eisenhower and Neil McElroy? This could have prompted his own research into the matters of ET's and UFO's during his employment as a legislator.

Dig, Dig, Dig, ATS. Who is this Kevin guy in the photo as well? I haven't researched him yet, perhaps someone can help?

Kudos to whoever dug up that other thread on that other forum with the photo.




posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


yeah whoever wrote that either made a big mistake or was preparing the ground for more "revelations".



new topics

top topics



 
230
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join