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

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

(do you realize you have a big toe with a happy face on it as your avatar?)

Ladyinwaiting.....

I've decided to reveal myself peice by peice.....

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Let's just hope the next "piece" is not on a toilet seat!

Whoops....wrong thread.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


-------------------------------------------------------------------

Lol....Is that allowed under TOS rules? Will you let us know in
advance so we can leave the post and give you some privacy?


[edit on 14-5-2010 by manta78]

WOW! Terrific post, manta 78, thank you!
Perhaps other politicians who have been sitting on information regarding E.T. visitation, will now show the same courage as Mr McElroy, and step up to the plate with what they know. Most I'm sure will sit back and wait to see how the public reacts to Mr. McElroy's statement, not wanting to chance ruining their political careers by being labeled a "nut". As for myself, I can now visualize the near future, filled with many great and wonderful changes for humanity and all other life forms on our beautiful planet. As things now stand, this oil that's spewing out from the ocean floor could very well be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, and unless we receive outside intervention and receive it soon, life in the oceans will cease to exist, with all life on land soon to follow.

Why now Sir? Who wrote the statement that you were obviously reading? It all seems a little too timely for it to be a huge and wonderful coincidence. To me.
Some one wants us to believe it though. That's what I think.

I do expect more to come.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


The question of what will constitute "final and absolute proof issue" are key words with reference to disclosure. Even in this thread, we see numerous examples of what would constitute acceptance of the proof provided; disclosure by government, a physical being...what if they are not physical in the sense we know it ????? One guy mentioned here that even if he had physical proof in the form of a vesticular, or venicular something, ( I will have to find that post) people would still say the being was fake..... sounded like that scene from M.I.B where Will Smith was helping to deliver a alien baby in the station wagon....lol

That discussion about what would be considered final proof was of course discussed by the alien with that kid in the movie " The Day the Earth Stood Still," and of course a selective cutoff of all electricity worldwide was the idea concocted to convince us earthlings that he was real. Would that idea work in today's society? Possibly, or as your handle states, maybe or maybe not..

We need to think about these things beforehand...What will I as an individual consider acceptable to me as final proof?





[edit on 14-5-2010 by manta78]

Originally posted by Bkrmn
WOW! Terrific post, manta 78, thank you!
Perhaps other politicians who have been sitting on information regarding E.T. visitation, will now show the same courage as Mr McElroy, and step up to the plate with what they know. Most I'm sure will sit back and wait to see how the public reacts to Mr. McElroy's statement, not wanting to chance ruining their political careers by being labeled a "nut". As for myself, I can now visualize the near future, filled with many great and wonderful changes for humanity and all other life forms on our beautiful planet. As things now stand, this oil that's spewing out from the ocean floor could very well be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, and unless we receive outside intervention and receive it soon, life in the oceans will cease to exist, with all life on land soon to follow.

Read the Eisenhower brief below then go on youtube and say you read it. You will be doing mankind a great favor and help pave the way to full ET disclosure.

www.majesticdocuments.com...

When disclosure is here everyone will have their own Unicorn for transportation and a personal Tooth fairy. I can't wait.

edit to add: or you could stop drinking the Koolaid and start using your head.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by cripmeister]

I'm not sure why this thread has gotten the attention it has.

A revelation like this is the same as any other UFO/ET related one. Nothing really new was gleaned nor was any further proof offered.

Its about on par with the type of information given by those who spoke for the Disclosure Project. Yet another story by yet another somewhat credible witness isn't going to take us further than where we already are.

With this subject, you unfortunately need a real physical ET to go any farther with it.

reply to post by john124


John: Thanks for your post.

With reference to your comment:
"UFO documents released by Britain, France etc contain no proof of alien visitation." one poster who was here for a very short time late last night posted one comment that he did not believe that ET visitations (appearances) had been made in the countries you mention... I am assuming he was not discounting UFO sightings in many countries, and said that he believed that no technology had been shared outside of the U.S. Hopefully he will come back here to explain this in more details; it was short and quick visit from that poster but still interesting to hear.

reply to post by Frith


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

You might be surprised to know the caliber of people who are either reading, posting and/or monitoring this thread...... from some of the posts here, there are definitely some interesting ones.... nuff said.





[edit on 14-5-2010 by manta78]

I am really mystified at the attack this man is having hurled his way. Just for simply telling people what he saw. He makes it pretty clear that he probably didn't see this until more recent as the documents he saw spanned decades of the Nations History.

Give the man the benefit of the doubt until you have real proof of something.

Originally posted by manta78
reply to post by john124

 

John: Thanks for your post.
With reference to your comment:
"UFO documents released by Britain, France etc contain no proof of alien visitation." one poster who was here for a very short time late last night posted one comment that he did not believe that ET visitations (appearances) had been made in the countries you mention... I am assuming he was not discounting UFO sightings in many countries, and said that he believed that no technology had been shared outside of the U.S. Hopefully he will come back here to explain this in more details; it was short and quick visit from that poster but still interesting to hear.

Manta78.....

Do you mean "transiant"?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

No, it was a guy you asked the question last night as to how he knew what
he was stating was true--never responded--------------------

still also trying to find the one with the funny comment--that is one
of the problems, but in this case I guess it is a good one to have, with
lots of pages......much searching wtih tired eyes...



[edit on 14-5-2010 by manta78]

Originally posted by Frith
I'm not sure why this thread has gotten the attention it has.

A revelation like this is the same as any other UFO/ET related one. Nothing really new was gleaned nor was any further proof offered.
.....
With this subject, you unfortunately need a real physical ET to go any farther with it.

I read this thread when it had just a few replies, and I didn't find it very interesting. I didn't imagine it would garner 550 replies, so I don't know why it's got the attention it has either. So I agree with you on that point.

However I disagree with you that the only thing that will take the subject further is real physical proof of an ET. Well I agree that would take the subject further, but it's not the ONLY thing that would.

For example, in this case, when he refers to the documents he has seen, what's not going to advance Ufology is to make such vague references to such documents, he doesn't even say what they are!

More information about the documents like what they are called, or better yet, copies of the documents themselves MIGHT help advance UFOlogy.

But he provides none of that. So that's why it doesn't advance the cause, he can't even provide any evidence for the claims he's making, or worse yet, not even any specifics about the nature of that evidence.

Given the lack of specifics about what documents he saw, I'm not sure his video even rises to the level of hearsay evidence.

I'll give you an example of why we need specifics:

---

I could make a similar video saying I've seen official documents saying the UFO threat is a fact. In fact here's an exact quote from the document: "The UFO Threat- A FACT".

Now I know some other people who are aware of and have seen this document think it proves the existence of ETs or at least UFOs. But now let me reveal why vague references to such a document are worthless. Let's look at what the document really says:

CHAPTER 13: ENEMY ATTACK AND UFO POTENTIAL

THE UFO THREAT--A FACT

In this chapter we will now turn our attention to the very real
threat posed by Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), whether they exist
or not.

Based on my vague description, I tried to convince you the document treats UFOs as fact. It's not until you actually read the document that you find out it questions whether UFOs even exist or not and it uses the example of the Orson Welles broadcast to show that UFOs can be a threat even if they don't exist, by causing panic. So the document is hardly the smoking gun I can portray it to be in a video if I don't give you any specifics about it.


[edit on 14-5-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by manta78
No, it was a guy you asked the question last night as to how he knew what
he was stating was true--never responded--------------------

still also trying to find the one with the funny comment--that is one
of the problems, but in this case I guess it is a good one to have, with
lots of pages......much searching wtih tired eyes...

Manta78.....

OK.....it was "nightflight".

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Ok, this is a real mess... Ima try to make some sense of it. Ordo ab Chao.

So Larry Bryant, a longtime ufology researcher, claims on his blog that :

a communications team in Hampton, Va., has completed its video documentary of a retired state legislator's having observed, while in office, a one-page "brief" addressed to president Eisenhower, in which unknown executive-branch officials lay out the case for the benign presence of extraterrestrial visitors.

Below, you'll find the team's transcript of the videographed statement. Meantime, one would hope that the witness's statement (which in, say, a grand-jury setting would carry substantial evidentiary weight) will encourage other former state legislators to come forward with their own direct knowledge of the historic document in question.

Larry Bryant Ufoview blog

The way he states 'coomunications team' and 'the team's transcript' sounds like he is trying to imply he knows this 'team'... but my gut feeling is that he is just using the statement at the end of McElroy's testimony a little too liberally...

My opinion of McElroy's comment at the end of the video is that he knows some younger people that are more tech savvy and they have helped him get the thing on youtube...

On that same blog he claims Art Campbell is the foremost researcher about the Eisenhower/ET thing. Which, he very well might be, I have no clue I've never read his books(and I'm relatively new to the idea the Eisenhower had ET contact). And he directs you to Campbells website.
ufocrashbook

Paul Kimball(not sure of any relation to the above gentlemen) has posted the McElroy video on his website, here, and posted this commentary:

It is stuff like this that makes it virtually impossible to get people to take the UFO phenomenon seriously. Let me get this straight... the US government has orchestrated a massive cover-up of the alien presence on Earth (pause for laughter), but they saw fit to brief a New Hampshire state legislator about it? Oh my......

Meanwhile, it appears that McElroy was once removed from the jury in a first degree murder trial. The subsequent conviction was overturned when the appeals court ruled that the trial judge didn't have cause to remove McElroy. Read through the decision - McElroy comes off as a nut.

No wonder. He is a nut.

In 2004, McElroy - a Republican - also introduced HB 1342, dubbed the New Hampshire Sound Money Bill, which would return NH to the gold standard, and sponsored a bill to nullify the 16th amendment to the US constitution. He is linked to so-called "Free Staters" and other far right, supposedly libertarian groups.

Just scratching the surface here. Like Canada's ex-Defence Minister, the cuckoo for coconuts Paul Hellyer, the UFO believer fringe tends to latch on to any ex-politician who seems to support their cause... without actually asking if that politician's support is really going to help them.

I swear, I have got to make a documentary about all of this - not the UFO stuff, but the sociology behind the true believers, which as time goes on I find even more interesting than the UFO phenomenon itself.

there are a couple links embedded in his comments, visit his website(do I dare say that?! he's gonna make MONEY from web visits!!!) to see his links.

The fact that McElroy has been trying to make 'sound money' lends to the idea that he is involved/friends with Ron Paul. And I like the guy even more so for his work in that area. I don't know about the nutter comments, I have to check the links tomorrow, but it sounds to me the guy is just hatin on McElroy.

I started writing this earlier today, but then I had some things going on so I had to finish it now.. these things could have very well been addressed in the mean time but I'm going to post it anyways and then look back at the thread to see what I have missed.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Yes! We have a winner. I would definitely like to hear more from that poster.
Thanks

Yep... thats about it. I have summed up what I take the dedunkers have been talking about... mostly DoomsdayRex and yeti101.

Unless I missed something more important from those bloggers... they really have NO relationship at all to McElroy.

I have seen no evidence that some 'ufologist' was involved with the taping/speechwriting or any other aspect of McElroy's recorded testimony.

If such evidence exists, please direct my attention to it.

Otherwise, his credibility is impeccably intact and his testimony is incredibly valid.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Interesting reading on the fire department manual, and your assessment of same. Of course there is also the CYA possibility. How can a fire department or agency for that matter deal with a problem that doesn't officially exists? Is that a stretch? Sure.

Same question has to be asked with reference to documents UFO researchers try to obtain thru FOIA., that are frequently denied under exemption 1. If the documents contain no value or national interests, i.e. ufos, ET's don't exist, why the denials of access? (other than documents that may also contain other military info---not every document can however.

There are however plans that are in place for dealing with national emergencies that the general public is not aware of. One for example that is here in Texas, it's not a secret, but not easily verifiable, or generally known is that in case of a national emergency, the police departments will obviously be the first line of defense in cities, supplemented by national guard/military, and then licensed security agencies who generally have armed security guards, would to be used, not in the traditional sense to protect private property, but basically as supplemental cops patrolling with police authority(scary thought in some instances) In the last several years they changed their power structure from being under a civilian regulatory agency, to the state's department of public safety, which is of course the state police, a law enforcement agency. The reasoning behind that I heard is that there are more security guards than police officers in most major cities in Texas, therefore more backup as needed is available. Don't know if other states have similiar plans, but possible.

Anyways thanks for posting.




[edit on 14-5-2010 by manta78]

Originally posted by manta78
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

Yes! We have a winner. I would definitely like to hear more from that poster.
Thanks

Manta78.....

He's been registered on ATS for 3 years & only made 6 posts.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A quick Google & a quick Youtube produce no references.

You can always U2U him.

That's all I have time to do for now.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]