Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 32
229
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by DelMarvel
 


I actually tried to call him (McElroy) based upon telephone information from a deep net search, which indicates that it probably is the same guy. The number is not in service at this time.....not surprising however given the publicity nationwide his video is receiving.

He appears to have an account on Linked In but you need to have a
paid subscription to send him a "in email". Anyone who has that
might try to reach him, and ask him if he would care to comment further on this situation. I am sure we would all be interested in hearing from
him, and the format at ATS might be easier for him than a TV interview.




posted on May, 15 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by manta78
 


Are you the person that uploaded it to youtube (BriefToEisenhower)?

Or is that someone else and you just stumbled across the video somehow?

Whoever uploaded it is more likely to know if there was any editing or not.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by manta78
 


Are you the person that uploaded it to youtube (BriefToEisenhower)?

Or is that someone else and you just stumbled across the video somehow?

Whoever uploaded it is more likely to know if there was any editing or not.


No. He's not the one who uploaded it.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
The person who posted it is a vicious hoaxer and needs to be held accountable for their actions. They've hoaxed many, many other videos causing torment to other innocent peoples lives. Cyber bullying and fraud is not acceptable. Fraudsters need to be brought to justice.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


No I had nothing to do with the production or uploading of the video; only the posting of it here; in my opinion this website qualifies 100% for sites that can use the video for educational purposes. If we are not educating ourselves, and others on this topic, who is? Not the MSM who should be as well as us and many others. The fact that it (ATS) happens to be a commercial website, is not relavent, unless the person who placed the video here (me) was an owner, shareholder, or had a financial interest in ATS----I wish!

The link to the video was sent to me originally in an email from
a person I know who has had an interest in UFO's and ET's for many, years, and knows that I share that interest, and has proven over and over to me on previous occasions that they are capable of weeding out
the hoaxsters.
Could that person be wrong? Sure, anything is possible. As I have stated many times within the posts, we need to wait and see how this matter is vetted about before drawing any final conclusions as to its accuracy. A few days on the net does not make that determination. I would be very interested also, as previously posted to know if he (McElroy) has any connection to the Neil Hosler McElroy who was the Secretary of Defense under the Eisenhowever adminstration.

If that is true, our McElroy could have received his information from
relatives or family; if that's the case there are many options including: he actually did see the document at some point, "puffed" his first hand knowledge of same by not advising how he was privy to this information, to protect the reputation of a very important man among other possibilities. These are the kinds of things we need to find out, even if just to eliminate them from consideration.

When I first viewed the video the night I posted same here, there had
been 248 views of same. As of just a few minutes ago I noticed that
the total views are now at 29,084 and counting, and several additional copies are popping up with 53 views, 112 views, etc. as well as
copies on ufo related websites with unknown viewers.

Even if the 259360 poster is correct, which I am reserving judgment on at this point, he has neglected to mention, forgot, or doesn't know
that if a video is removed from youtube.com temporarily due to "copyright claims" there is also a process called "counter notice" where a video can be reinstated by youtube.com and that generally would mean that the original complainer would then have to file a court action
subject to final determination of the validity of the claim, if youtube.com deems the "counter notice" is at least as presented, a valid one. And no, unlike 259360 posted, the complainant can not
remain anonymous.








[edit on 15-5-2010 by manta78]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by 259360
The person who posted it is a vicious hoaxer and needs to be held accountable for their actions. They've hoaxed many, many other videos causing torment to other innocent peoples lives. Cyber bullying and fraud is not acceptable. Fraudsters need to be brought to justice.


Nice join date. Long time lurker?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Riposte
 


Irrelevant.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by transiant
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]


Great post BTW. I am intentionally quoting the whole thing again here.

You have been ahead of the curve on this thread


It does appear that she was responsible for recording this video, unless new information turns up again...


I read through her discussions in that link you posted, and she talks about extraterrestrials in both pages 3 and 4. As far as I'm concerned, she is very intelligent and has a likeable position on ET's.

She claims to know directly that there is some ET involvement, but what mystic wouldn't? Throwing that out anyways, the rest of her comments and discussion is very intelligent.

I somehow doubt that McElroy would need someone to write this speech for him. I think he wrote it himself, as I have no reason to believe otherwise. Its not like it was Shakespeare...

Thanks for posting all the info.




posted on May, 15 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 259360

Irrelevant.


Yes, irrelevant.

What would be relevant would be information on the subject that could be confirmed.

Why can't/won't you provide that?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by 259360
The person who posted it is a vicious hoaxer and needs to be held accountable for their actions. They've hoaxed many, many other videos causing torment to other innocent peoples lives. Cyber bullying and fraud is not acceptable. Fraudsters need to be brought to justice.


Can you please provide us with links to the other "hoaxed videos"? I agree that internet hoaxsters should be held accountable for their actions. The question on my mind is - are you one of them?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
i still don't understand what he said have to do with disclosure? If the presdient did met these beings, who cares? I don;t becuase it was back in 1961, 1961??? BORING!!!! I want disclosure, not any 1961 crap



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by manta78
No I had nothing to do with the production or uploading of the video; only the posting of it here; in my opinion this website qualifies 100% for sites that can use the video for educational purposes.

Even if the 259360 poster is correct, which I am reserving judgment on at this point


259360 is long on accusations and short on proof so I'm reserving judgment also pending any evidence to back up the claims.

I suspected you weren't the uploader, thanks for confirming it.

And yes nobody on ATS is charging to see the video, plus it's just a link to youtube, so the use here seems to be consistent with the authorized for educational purposes use (though I can't say I feel much more educated after watching it
)



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
Can you please provide us with links to the other "hoaxed videos"? I agree that internet hoaxsters should be held accountable for their actions. The question on my mind is - are you one of them?


Ok. So you're thinking, "Why is this person posting outrageous claims with no evidence? Why would they do that? Why would they throw more light on a subject that they apparently want rid of? They're effectively shooting themselves in the foot. Aren't they?"

So here I am, making claims that is having the appearance of having the opposite desired effect - I make claims so that the original video seems "more legit", "more real."

Why would I do that?

For control. That's why.

Who better than have an official make ET claims to cover up other things I don't want the spotlight on? How do you go about it? You "leak" it on the internet. "Ooops!! Leaked video... get it out there... let thousands of people see it, then take it away." Then it's real. No one wants any more evidence. "The cover up" is evidence enough. But why someone obscure? Why not Obama do it? - Because it's a test. It's a dummy run. Let old McElroy take the brunt if it goes wrong - sure he has one foot in the grave already anyway.

My double bluffing on this thread today only has the effect of driving it into peoples heads that the video is legit. But am I double bluffing? Is this post another double bluff? What do you care to believe? You probably don't even care right now - you're maybe angry right now - "Who the hell is this guy - What is he some asshole troll?? What's he playing at?" That doesn't even matter because this post effectively cancels all my previous posts out. This post covers my back.

Anyway - the video has been copied more and more. It's probably copied 8,000 times by now. It'll get popular. But it'll be another bigfoot video. And I'll continue to manipulate. That's what I'm told to do right?

I'll get you that 45 minute documentary. Even if I have to make it myself. Or will I??



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 259360
This video is taken from a student fictional documentary style short. I have seen it. Nothing more. Fiction. The man is not who he even says he is. It's funny how you people believe something and get taken into something just because of a speech made by someone who claims to have superior knowledge. By buying into this video, you're being made a fool of. Don't let people manipulate you like that. This video will be taken off YT - NOT because of reasons such as, "this shouldn't be in the public domain.." BUT because it is violating copyright laws of the documentary maker in question. - Who will be remaining anonymous for privacy reasons.


Just my opinion but to me you come across as a strawman sock puppet who is trying to discredit the skeptical arguments put forward here and persuade people that there may be something in this after all.

You join today and immediately start throwing around accusations about how the video is a hoax without giving any evidence of this so called student film. Of course everyone is meant to think 'dis-info agent', right? If 'they' are now on this thread trying to debunk there must be something in it, yes? Classic double-bluff.

I wonder if you've already posted on this thread under a different name in the 'believer' camp? I'll let the moderators decide if I've just got an overly paranoid imagination.



Edit: Ha! you cross posted my reply with your 'confession'. I think I'm right. What your doing is definitely against site T&Cs. I don't care what side of the argument you're on, your behaviour is unacceptable and I will be reporting it.

[edit on 15/5/2010 by MarrsAttax]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by 259360
 




post by 259360
Ok. So you're thinking, "Why is this person posting outrageous claims with no evidence?

No...... Actually I'm thinking great another IDIOT with nothing to add



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MarrsAttax
 


That was NO CONFESSION.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I googled "259360" and it appears he/she has a Youtube Channel:
www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by 259360
 


It's in the lap of the Mods now.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by iSeeKEnlightenment8o5
 


1. I'm not Romanian.
2. I'm no Cure fan.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 259360

Originally posted by cripmeister
Can you please provide us with links to the other "hoaxed videos"? I agree that internet hoaxsters should be held accountable for their actions. The question on my mind is - are you one of them?


Ok. So you're thinking, "Why is this person posting outrageous claims with no evidence? Why would they do that? Why would they throw more light on a subject that they apparently want rid of? They're effectively shooting themselves in the foot. Aren't they?"

So here I am, making claims that is having the appearance of having the opposite desired effect - I make claims so that the original video seems "more legit", "more real."

Why would I do that?

For control. That's why.

Who better than have an official make ET claims to cover up other things I don't want the spotlight on? How do you go about it? You "leak" it on the internet. "Ooops!! Leaked video... get it out there... let thousands of people see it, then take it away." Then it's real. No one wants any more evidence. "The cover up" is evidence enough. But why someone obscure? Why not Obama do it? - Because it's a test. It's a dummy run. Let old McElroy take the brunt if it goes wrong - sure he has one foot in the grave already anyway.

My double bluffing on this thread today only has the effect of driving it into peoples heads that the video is legit. But am I double bluffing? Is this post another double bluff? What do you care to believe? You probably don't even care right now - you're maybe angry right now - "Who the hell is this guy - What is he some asshole troll?? What's he playing at?" That doesn't even matter because this post effectively cancels all my previous posts out. This post covers my back.

Anyway - the video has been copied more and more. It's probably copied 8,000 times by now. It'll get popular. But it'll be another bigfoot video. And I'll continue to manipulate. That's what I'm told to do right?

I'll get you that 45 minute documentary. Even if I have to make it myself. Or will I??


Thank you for reminding everyone to be skeptical of extraordinary claims. And for pointing out that UFOlogy is basically a joke.









 
229
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join