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: 29
230
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Thank you. Your mission which you volunteered to accept, has
been completed.




posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Well, here we are 201 flags later...

I haven't seen anything substantial from the skeptics and debunkers that would make me question my view of this testimony.

It is just that those that think this is insignificant will think that anyways... there is no information that I can think of that will change their minds.

As for all those that think this testimony is significant, which I belong to that party obviously, we can move on knowing one more step has been taken in the right direction towards disclosure.

I still think further research should be directed towards determining the relationships(if any at all) between Henry McElroy and former SecDef Neil McElroy, like you first suggested earlier Manta..

I must say, this thread feels to me like it has been a success... in whatever sense that may end up being





posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Well, here we are 201 flags later..

It is just that those that think this is insignificant will think that anyways... there is no information that I can think of that will change their minds.


I think a huge mile wide triangle craft like what was described over Phoenix AZ a few years back hovering over Manhattan island during the day time for a week or so will put an end to skeptical interjections.

The question is are you guys prepared for the deception that comes with it?

You have been programmed through movies all of your live to believe the alien gospel. I believe its coming and it is real, the strong delusion.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


Yes. I had guessed in advance the thread would probably get around 50 replies or so, and then people would move on. After just now checking the number of views on his video at youtube.com, I see that the number of views is over 25,000 in just a few days.

I am still amazed at the continuing response to this thread, and thank you and each person who posted so far.....even the skeptics in this matter who have been somewhat less than courteous to McElroy at such an early stage. They too however play a role, in moving the discussion to a level of realism that can be seen by observers; if everyone just said that's great, beam me up, interest would not be sustained. In my opinion, as indicated previously, some, or most of our comments will be duplicated, and some of the same thoughts considered about these issues over and over again on the topic of ET's and UFO's by the general public about this individual, and for those who will follow him, in this and other threads ATS members will be posting.

There is another conversation going on now started by Blackout regarding the topic of: do we really want disclosure/disclosure has occured, now what? which could prove to be very interesting.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You know what they say about one small drop of water being the start of a new pond, etc. .......


]





[edit on 15-5-2010 by manta78]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


So you don't have any questions or doubts about his testimony at all?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 



He clearly said:


Originally posted by beebs


I haven't seen anything substantial from the skeptics and debunkers that would make me question my view of this testimony.




posted on May, 15 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by iSeeKEnlightenment8o5
 


But that wasn't what I asked, was it?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


You asked if he had any questions or doubts about McElroy's testimony and, earlier, he said he didn't see anything that would make him QUESTION McElroy's testimony. How the hell does that not answer your question?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by iSeeKEnlightenment8o5
You asked if he had any questions or doubts about McElroy's testimony and, earlier, he said he didn't see anything that would make him QUESTION McElroy's testimony. How the hell does that not answer your question?


He said he saw nothing from skeptics that would make him question it. You posted that quote yourself. I am asking if he has any questions or any doubts at all.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 




Originally posted by beebs
As for all those that think this testimony is significant, which I belong to that party obviously, we can move on knowing one more step has been taken in the right direction towards disclosure.




Read that and tell me if that doesn't answer your question.
It might not be a yes or no answer, but I get the impression that he does not question Mr. McElroy's testimony. He believes it's one step closer to disclosure. And I can see why he doesn't too. Because this man has nothing to lose. Maybe he's dying (your god forbid!) and feels like he got this off his chest and wont take the secret to his grave.

Oh yeah and if you're getting the impression that I'm on the "i'll believe what this guy says because he's a political figure side" you're wrong. I'm neutral. I'm hoping this is real and we are in fact one step closer to disclosure. But you have to ask yourself how he got his hands on this document while being in office. Or was it something a relative mentioned or passed down to him? I don't know. We'll just have to wait and see.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by iSeeKEnlightenment8o5
Read that and tell me if that doesn't answer your question.


No, it does not. Perhaps you should stop trying to answer for him and let him do that himself.


Originally posted by iSeeKEnlightenment8o5
Because this man has nothing to lose. Maybe he's dying (your god forbid!) and feels like he got this off his chest and wont take the secret to his grave.


"Your god forbid"? That's an interesting phrase.

You're making an appeal to motive. His motive is irrelevant and has no bearing on the truth.


Originally posted by iSeeKEnlightenment8o5
I'm neutral. I'm hoping this is real and we are in fact one step closer to disclosure.


That doesn't make you neutral...


Originally posted by iSeeKEnlightenment8o5
But you have to ask yourself how he got his hands on this document while being in office.


We certainly do, don't we? But why is it so few of his supporters are asking this?


Originally posted by iSeeKEnlightenment8o5
Or was it something a relative mentioned or passed down to him? I don't know. We'll just have to wait and see.


McElroy is explicit this was not given to him by a friend or family member. It was a recurring and ongoing issue in his time on the committee.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by manta78
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.


A lot of documents HAVE been released. Here's one that began to convince a Roswell eager believer that the truth might actually be revealed in some of these declassified documents:

Kent Jeffrey - Anatomy of a Myth


The 1948 Military Documents

For me, the beginning of the end for the Roswell UFO case came last spring, when I first saw one of a number of previously classified military documents dealing with unidentified flying objects. The 289-page document was released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in March 1996 in response to a FOIA request by researcher William LaParl. It contained the minutes of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Conference at the Pentagon on March 17 and 18, 1948. Buried in the document is a very interesting statement by a Colonel Howard McCoy which referred to a number of unpublished UFO reports. The last sentence of McCoy's statement, however, is devastating to the Roswell case.

"We have a new project -- Project SIGN -- which may surprise you as a development from the so-called mass hysteria of the past Summer when we had all the unidentified flying objects or discs. This can't be laughed off. We have over 300 reports which haven't been publicized in the papers from very competent personnel, in many instances -- men as capable as Dr. K. D. Wood, and practically all Air Force, Airline people with broad experience. We are running down every report. I can't even tell you how much we would give to have one of those crash in an area so that we could recover whatever they are."

My first reaction to this statement was one of disbelief. Thoughts came to mind like- This can't be correct, there must be some mistake, this guy didn't know, etc. We are probably all somewhat prone to such initial reactions of denial when confronted with facts that conflict with our preconceived notions of reality or our established beliefs.


So sometimes classified documents ARE released, and they don't always tell us what we want to hear.

And I can even guess what the Eisenhower briefing document might have said, check this out:

www.examiner.com...

"The document I saw was an official brief to President Eisenhower.
The tone of the brief indicated to me that there was no need for concern, since these visitors were in no way, causing any harm, or had any intentions, whatsoever, of causing any disruption then, or in the future."

I heard a similar briefing from Major General John A. Samford, who stated in 1952 when Eisenhower was president:

www.shirleymaclaine.com...
"since 1947, we have received and analyzed between one and two thousand reports. There have been a certain percentage of this volume of reports that have been made by credible observers of relatively incredible things. It is this group of observations that we are now attempting to resolve. We have, as of this date, come to only one firm conclusion with respect to this remaining percentage. It does not contain any pattern of purpose or of consistency that we can relate to any conceivable threat to the United States."

Yes, I'm sure Eisenhower heard, as did all of us, that these objects described in the "reports that have been made by credible observers of relatively incredible things"... "were in no way, causing any harm, or had any intentions, whatsoever, of causing any disruption "
All you have to do is add one sentence to the Eisenhower briefings like "We have no idea what these things are, they might be ETs" and it looks to me like you've got the briefing document McElroy recalls.

Now if the original briefing document is ever produced and it says something more substantial than that, then there might be some reason to get excited about it. But forgive me for wanting to see the actual document, and not someone's recollection of it.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by beebs
 


So you don't have any questions or doubts about his testimony at all?


My only doubt is the most obvious and main one as I have said despite ignorance and name calling.

He says it's the truth but did he actually see the truth, there were loads of all sorts of documents out there at the time, could he have been (and I use this phrase for sarcastic outside effect) spoon fed a lie.

He could very well be telling the truth as far as he knew it but was it?

Part of me hopes it's the real truth but I don't know and blowing hollow sh*t storms up over unreliable connections based upon best guess theory and 'spidey senses' isn't going to make it any clearer as even if there isa bigger deal here no one will admit to it.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Dear Arbitrageur

From Arbitrageur "were in no way, causing any harm, or had any intentions, whatsoever, of causing any disruption"

Interesting as always. (of causing any disruption,) and pray tell how would they know???

But in any case this sort of stuff will be very compartmentalized so this guy McCoy's just was not in the loop. That is why they released it.

Yes I know clutching at straws.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Dear Arbitrageur

You have seen the reports from credible witnesses as much if not more than I.

If by now these guys TPTB the military didn’t know what these things are they would be going hairless.

Lack of response the closure of Blue book is to me pretty much proof they know what it is that is flying around.

And it is not all Dan Dare the all American boy.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Mclaneinc
 


lol the reasons to be skeptical are obvious.

1. why would the State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee be breifed on ET or the president meeting with them. Thats utterly proposterous, if someone can explain their need to know on that topic im all ears.

2. Its obvious he never wrote this statement so we have some external interference. Investigation finds a ufologist is behind this and the most likely candidate. His work is lets be kind and call it weak (based on a fake document) and hes in line to make money.

3. the statement contains false information. Usual ufo bs artist patter (re buzz aldrin)

4. Ufologists like campbell and his associates have previous in writing statements for witnesses which amazingly matches precisely their chosen line in ufolgy. But all the time cant be verified or corroborated.

if your going to be rational your default position should be skeptical. If someone deosnt think like that i would question their sanity/motivation. But ufologist generally rely on people like that to sell their stuff. This isnt aimed at the mass media like bbc or cnn, this is material by ufologists for ufo belivers becuase they are the only ones who would buy it.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by yeti101]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by MAC269
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
"were in no way, causing any harm, or had any intentions, whatsoever, of causing any disruption"
How would they know? I think you missed the point I was trying to make. My point was, that sounds perfectly consistent with the press release General Sanford made which said:

"It does not contain any pattern of purpose or of consistency that we can relate to any conceivable threat to the United States."

Now if we dissect the written statements we can say they don't say exactly the same thing. However, that's not the situation we're faced with, We have the fallible memory of someone trying to remember what a document he saw a long time ago said, and he even highlights that it's not a verbatim recollection by referring to "the tone of the brief". I would say the "tone" of the brief matches General Sanford's statement pretty well, even if he was recalling what he heard earlier that same day. But when he's recalling it decades later, I see no reason to rule it out as a match knowing what I do about human memory being imperfect.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   
Larry was not the source of this, here is the source...

teresasilverthorn.wordpress.com...
teresasilverthorn.wordpress.com...

www.blogcatalog.com...

Bless her she's a martyr(sarcasm)
teresasilverthorn.wordpress.com...

An insight to Teresa can be found here(page 4 is about aliens)...

epages.wordpress.com...

Larry was given PERMISSION by Art Campbell to promote the 'testimony'

"UPDATE: On May 12, 2010, Art Campbell, the foremost researcher into the Eisenhower UFO-E.T. saga, e-mailed me to invite readers to examine the fruits of his labor:
"Great announcement [re McElroy's statement]. You may release this data about what we believe was the second meeting (in 1955) between Ike and the ETs ... "

ufoview.posterous.com...

THE FRUITS OF HIS(ART'S) LABOR!

So why didn't Art release this via his own website?

Who was the military contractor that contacted larry?

"A military contractor recently contacted me to share her episode of having met a retired northeast-state legislator who, during his term in office, became privy to a one-page "brief" summarizing Pres. Eisenhower's personal knowledge of UFO-E.T. "

ufoview.posterous.com...

Is Teresa the contractor? It would be a world away from her day job as a mystic.

McElroy was the cause of a murderer being able to have his conviction overturned:

"In reversing the convictions, the Supreme Court said the focus was not on the nature of the crime but on the fundamental constitutional right implicated by the removal of a deliberating juror.

Former Republican state Rep. Henry McElroy of Nashua was the juror removed."

www.unionleader.com...

The court documents are available on Kimball's site, I suggest you read them.

Something else that I find interesting is, why wasn't this video, released as part of the X-conference that ran May 7th-9th?

Considering Teresa's blog on May 5th and that Art wasn't invited to speak this year(He was filming the interview on the 8th):

teresasilverthorn.wordpress.com...

Could it be that there is some background dis-harmony in the disclosure camp?

I wonder how is it that Henry has got himself involved with Teresa the mystic, Maybe looking for peace in his later years or maybe he has always been a spiritual person.

Is Teresa Henry's spiritual adviser?

If he has always been 'into ufo's' it's possible the document he saw was a practical joke by his colleagues.

There is no logical reason why a man of Henry's limited political clout would have access to such sensitive information.

My (un-founded) hunch is that this is somehow tied to the Monroe Institute, and that Kevin Courtois is the link between Art, Henry and Teresa.

Is this the same Art Campbell?
artc.net...

Maybe they are all linked through this?

thegrotonline.com...

Thoughts?

Just for clarification I'm not interested in de-bunking. I'm just a nosy bar steward interested in the 'background story'. That and the fact that I really don't have anything better to do at the moment!

Some food for thought for those throwing the 'D' word around...
home.comcast.net...





[edit on 15-5-2010 by transiant]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Well heck, since just about everyone is throwing in their favorite speculative theory, pro AND con, I like the idea that he's just a frontman.

You know, when you seek any kind of office you gotta network and rub shoulders as you try to move up the ladder. I think it's quite possible (dare I say probable) that back in the day he rubbed shoulders with someone who did know more than just speculative assumptions, someone or some people in much higher positions of power. He knew someone who showed him a thing or two (maybe in some kind of ad hoc payment for doing them a favor in the office he held, dealing with veterans was it?). They told him to keep it hush at the time. So he just filed it away in memory since there wasn't anything he could do with it.

Fast forward... Old cronies sitting around after a dinner party, talking about 'going public', Mr. McElroy says he'll make the first move. He's not THAT high up in the circle. He'll be the frontman. And so he did.

Well hey, since people are so focused on assassinating his character, why not offer/consider other possible situations? I've had family members run for public offices, and there is quite a bit of this kind of stuff that happens. Just saying...



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
If McElroy's statement is true, that he received access to this document in the course of his legislative duties, it can mean only one thing: Extra-terrestrials were once serving in the United States military and are now eligible for Veterans Administration benefits! This would also explain why VA hospitals spend so much on tanks of fluorine gas....



new topics

top topics



 
230
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join