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.

 

"Source A revealed!" : Secret UN meetings on disclosure

page: 7
68
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
I think you should read the RU article again, they have a rock solid case against Source A/Richard Theilmann. You might also want to follow the discussion over at OMF.


I have read it, several times, most recently about an hour ago. I'm just saying that the images they used to identify Source A were not taken at the same event. The image where he has the name tage is from 2009, at the 2010 event he is not wearing a name tag (nor the same suit and tie).

Etharzi od Oma




posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by AnthraAndromda
 


From the RU article



Narrowing down the list of suspects from three to one wasn’t going to be easy, but fortunately for us, the Pickering’s made this task much easier by having Source A visit with a number of well known members of the Ufology circuit. RU’s Ryan Dube has maintained an amicable working relationship with one of those people, so when Andy asked us if we could contact him and ask him to verify, Ryan jumped at the chance and fired off an email containing a number of photos and some background information.

Imagine our excitement when little over an hour later, he replied with the following:

“My recollection of him suggests that he is the guy at the left in the light colored suit

www.nynavyleague.org...

The other suggested photos show very dark images, some of which might be poor pictures of him.”


And



With all of this information in hand, I decided to email Ryan’s source in order to get his view on the situation and request a telephone call. The information we already had was more than sufficient to nail this down, but this was, after all, the man who had personally met with Source A on a navy base and indirectly ended up vouching for him. I called him up a couple of days later and had a very productive conversation. Whilst on the phone, I told him that we had discovered the name of Source A and I wondered whether Source A had identified himself by name to him. He said he had, to which I replied “Richard?” he answered by saying “Yeah Richard, Richard Theilmann”


Mr Bruce Maccabee is the "well known member of the Ufology circuit" "who personally met with Source A on a navy base" and he identified Source A from the 2010 luncheon photo. Mr Maccabee later confirmed the name of Source A as Richard Theilmann.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by cripmeister]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ET_MAN
 



(My quote: To discount the possibility of us being alone is, in my opinion, ridiculous) Wise opinion, it's a no brainer from my perspective but then again I've had personal experiences that the large majority have not yet been privy to. If I never had such experiences I would be on the same boat as everyone else wondering, researching and so on.


Please, with all due respect, do not try and suggest that I think the same way as you. Your labelling me as “wise” really should be a matter of your forming an opinion based on actual knowledge. I have no way of evaluating your “experiences” fully, but can form an opinion as to their resulting effect on your life.

They seem to have led you to Youtube as a serious method of evangelizing your beliefs. This leads me to an opinion regarding your “experiences” that you may not find comfortable.


(My quote: I am a skeptic when it comes to the more fanciful and Hollywood inspired stories about UFOs.) Who wouldn't be?


Really? You are skeptical?

… (as they say in Manga.)


Unity_99 is one of quite a few that keep in touch with me on this site. I never make judgments against anyone and do my best to properly engage other posters in a friendly manner. It's clear that Unity_99 must have skimmed over the headlines and missed the subject matter on this one.


You never make judgments? Oh please. You did it with me. You decided to respond to my criticism of Unity_99’s major gaffe in thinking this thread was proUN meeting, and then regale me with countless, completely off-topic videos as an attempt to re-educate my seeming skepticism.

And as I’ve countered your incorrect assumptions with a truth – as in my belief in ET – then where’s my apology?


(my quote: This whole “UN ET meeting” is a prime example of a deliberate attempt at manipulating other people’s opinions) It seems to have worked quite well.


No it hasn’t. What it has achieved is to fool certain people. If you consider that it “worked quite well”, then I once again have to seriously question your judgement.


(My quote: And what’s more, it is doing exactly what “sheeple” are accused of; accepting knowledge as true without any personal exploration.) Were on the same page.


Are you serious? We are not on the same page. In fact, we’re not even in the same book.

You consistently post Youtube videos – videos whose contents are unregulated and that can therefore contain totally spurious information – as visual reinforcement for your beliefs. Can you not see the huge problem there, or don’t you care?


Everyone is entitled to their own freewill/agency/choice so feel free to make assumptions/guesses/judgments.


Yes they are. But what the perpetrators of these supposed meetings – and you – should not do is try and continue to sway opinions with transparently hollow claims. Without proof, all they, and you, are doing is asking people to trust them.

And you –as did they – never offer proof. So what does that tell us?


Disprove what exactly?


Don’t play games, ET_MAN, you know full well I meant you could well be hoaxing. And let’s quote that sentence in full, shall we?:

And to disprove me, all you have to do is provide me with one piece of evidence that isn't on Youtube.


So? What’s your answer?


So far we seem to be pretty much on the same page.


No. See my above answer to that aspiration.


Appreciate you taking the time where there is no time.


Oh, there is a huge amount of time. You see, I don’t live in the same world as the miserable one you inhabit.

Mine is positive, forward looking, and full of hope.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
For those following the story part two has been posted

www.realityuncovered.net...



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Ashtrei...thank you for posting that so quickly. I was just going through the thread and getting ready to let everyone know about the update...thank you for beating me to it!


Yes, we confirm Bruce was the source, and elaborate a bit about security at the facility. Salla's response should be rather...interesting.

-Ry



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by rdube02
 




Boom! That is the sound of Salla and Co’s hopes and dreams for the Source A story exploding around their ears. The one remaining aspect of the story -in their eyes at least- that these people could use to prove to others there MUST be something to the story, has gone up in a cloud of white hot shrapnel and billowing smoke.




Great work, I can't wait for part three.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Game, Set, Match

Here are Richard Dolan's comments.....




I would like to offer my congratulations to the excellent research done here. Perhaps I can clarify my own “knowledge” about this case, such as it was. Ted Roe is right that I did defend the legitimacy of Mr. Theilmann over the phone. I had met him in person at the 08 X-Conference. We talked privately for a short while, and he gave a good presentation of himself. Following that, I attempted to obtain follow up information from Mr. Theilmann in order to get him to be more specific about his claims. He never did so, not to my satisfaction. Ted might have a better memory than I do on this, but I am fairly sure that when we had our phone conversation, it was before the surgery event. It was that whole thing, and the non-believable nature of it as described to me, that forced me to tell the Pickerings I was not interested in spending any more time looking into this case. After that, I decided just to let it go. At no time did I ever publicly endorse this case. Other than my phone conversation with Ted, I don’t think I gave support of the case to any other researcher. Although I will admit that privately I did think for a while that a meeting of some sort did take place at the U.N. Yep. Never pretended I knew it was true, but I did think it seemed that it happened. Now I think we all know better. It just shows for the umpteenth time that talk is cheap. The researchers who uncovered this case deserve everyone’s thanks and appreciation. So, from myself, a deep and heartfelt THANK YOU. Richard Dolan keyholepublishing.com... Comment by Richard Dolan — May 24, 2010 @ 12:38 am

Link



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   
And Another hefty nail in the coffin lid of this hoax


Congratulations guys, i too would like to echo Mr Dolans heartfelt THANK YOU.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by Ashtrei]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Beamish
 

Hi Beamish,

How are you?

I hope you are doing well.


Please, with all due respect, do not try and suggest that I think the same way as you. Your labelling me as “wise”

With all due respect, you do know the difference between me stating that your thoughts on the existence of extraterrestrials is a wise statement in comparison to everything about you in general don't you?


I have no way of evaluating your “experiences” fully, but can form an opinion as to their resulting effect on your life.

Feel free to form an opinion, make an assumption, judgment or write anything you want about me Beamish, I'm not ticklish.


Really? You are skeptical?

If you're referring to Hollywood movies It's a no brainer!


You never make judgments? Oh please. You did it with me.

I suggest you go back and review the post, you do know the difference between making assumptions and judgments don't you?


You decided to respond to my criticism of Unity_99’s major gaffe in thinking this thread was proUN meeting, and then regale me with countless, completely off-topic videos as an attempt to re-educate my seeming skepticism.

What you wrote about Unity_99 came off distasteful, insensitive, disrespectful and just plain rude. Who gives you the high and almighty right to go around using other ATS members as your prime example to make insensitive, disrespectful and rude judgment statements?

Here is your original post.


Our Unity_99 is the epitome of the target audience such hoaxes are aimed at, ie., unquestioning believers.

Make even the most extravagant claims about UFOs in a serious and seemingly covert way, add evocative organizations and clandestine meetings and bingo, the gullible will flood to your support.

Do you feel it to be in good taste to use another ATS member in such a way?

Why not just make a generalized statement and be on your way?

It's distasteful, insensitive, disrespectful and just plain rude.

Do you call that positive?

Son of Will made a comment about it here:


Wow, how many people are going to claim mental superiority over another ATS member? This is a bit distasteful. I can recall multiple embarrassing comments made by literally every member who has felt it necessary to showcase the embarrassing paragraph left by Unity_99. It's not exactly hypocritical, but it's quite offensive and completely uncalled for. Making a reasonable point, and attacking someone in the same sentence, is probably the worst way to get that point across.

I agree 100%

The way you conduct yourself and engage other posters reveals a lot about yourself Beamish.


What it has achieved is to fool certain people.

Tell us something we don't know, it's a no brainer and exactly why I responded the way I did.


Are you serious? We are not on the same page. In fact, we’re not even in the same book.

If you say so and here I was agreeing with most of what you wrote in your previous post.


I don’t live in the same world as the miserable one you inhabit.
Mine is positive, forward looking, and full of hope.

In making such a statement it goes to show how very little you know about me.

Are you in need of a sparring partner or are you after an argument or is it the attention?
If you wish to continue ranting and raving let's take this to another thread or chat about it directly as I'm sure many here would appreciate that. Personal attacks against other posters are not exactly on topic don't you think?

Best Wishes!

[edit on 24-5-2010 by ET_MAN]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   
and the saga continues....

update just posted...

www.realityuncovered.net...



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ET_MAN
reply to post by Beamish
 

Hi Beamish,

How are you?

I hope you are doing well.


Please, with all due respect, do not try and suggest that I think the same way as you. Your labelling me as “wise”

With all due respect, you do know the difference between me stating that your thoughts on the existence of extraterrestrials is a wise statement in comparison to everything about you in general don't you?


I have no way of evaluating your “experiences” fully, but can form an opinion as to their resulting effect on your life.

Feel free to form an opinion, make an assumption, judgment or write anything you want about me Beamish, I'm not ticklish.


Really? You are skeptical?

If you're referring to Hollywood movies It's a no brainer!


You never make judgments? Oh please. You did it with me.

I suggest you go back and review the post, you do know the difference between making assumptions and judgments don't you?


You decided to respond to my criticism of Unity_99’s major gaffe in thinking this thread was proUN meeting, and then regale me with countless, completely off-topic videos as an attempt to re-educate my seeming skepticism.

What you wrote about Unity_99 came off distasteful, insensitive, disrespectful and just plain rude. Who gives you the high and almighty right to go around using other ATS members as your prime example to make insensitive, disrespectful and rude judgment statements?

Here is your original post.


Our Unity_99 is the epitome of the target audience such hoaxes are aimed at, ie., unquestioning believers.

Make even the most extravagant claims about UFOs in a serious and seemingly covert way, add evocative organizations and clandestine meetings and bingo, the gullible will flood to your support.

Do you feel it to be in good taste to use another ATS member in such a way?

Why not just make a generalized statement and be on your way?

It's distasteful, insensitive, disrespectful and just plain rude.

Do you call that positive?

Son of Will made a comment about it here:


Wow, how many people are going to claim mental superiority over another ATS member? This is a bit distasteful. I can recall multiple embarrassing comments made by literally every member who has felt it necessary to showcase the embarrassing paragraph left by Unity_99. It's not exactly hypocritical, but it's quite offensive and completely uncalled for. Making a reasonable point, and attacking someone in the same sentence, is probably the worst way to get that point across.

I agree 100%

The way you conduct yourself and engage other posters reveals a lot about yourself Beamish.


What it has achieved is to fool certain people.

Tell us something we don't know, it's a no brainer and exactly why I responded the way I did.


Are you serious? We are not on the same page. In fact, we’re not even in the same book.

If you say so and here I was agreeing with most of what you wrote in your previous post.


I don’t live in the same world as the miserable one you inhabit.
Mine is positive, forward looking, and full of hope.

In making such a statement it goes to show how very little you know about me.

Are you in need of a sparring partner or are you after an argument or is it the attention?
If you wish to continue ranting and raving let's take this to another thread or chat about it directly as I'm sure many here would appreciate that. Personal attacks against other posters are not exactly on topic don't you think?

Best Wishes!

[edit on 24-5-2010 by ET_MAN]


Not one single part of that was on topic, whats wrong with you man ?

The topic is Source A exposed as a hoax, focus man, focus



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ET_MAN
 


I have to agree with Ashtrei, in that this thread is about the sterling work done on behalf of those who are serious about ufology.

Our ongoing gripe, however, is still relevant, as you seem to be aggrieved at my pointing out one ATS member neglected to actually read the opening post, and replied erroneously.

To once again reiterate the reasoning behind my pointing that out; in my opinion – the whole UN meeting story was fabricated for, and aimed at specific “believers” in the UFO phenomenon who will take what they need from such stories – without bothering to even consider that that information could be wrong, or downright false - as corroboration for their beliefs.

Unity_99 did precisely that by seeing the thread title, and posted assuming that it was in favor of her beliefs.

Others have done it too. Even you.

You deem it necessary to post computer generated pictures of aliens on this thread and defend your right to do that because, and in response to DelMarvel’s objections:


The elementary school graphics have nothing to do with the subject and are annoying when trying to scroll through the thread.


you assumed you can do this because:


The thread does have to do with supposed UN meetings about extraterrestrials does it not?


No, it’s about another UFO hoaxer being caught out. It has nothing to do with real, CGI, or imaginary aliens who deliver messages of doom.


What you wrote about Unity_99 came off distasteful, insensitive, disrespectful and just plain rude. Who gives you the high and almighty right to go around using other ATS members as your prime example to make insensitive, disrespectful and rude judgment statements?


No, you’re wrong. I pointed out that she had made a mistake, and offered an opinion as to why, with reference to the subject matter of this thread. If you – or her - want to consider someone having a relevant opinion and posting it on an open thread as being rude, then I once again question your judgment.

And I’m high and mighty?

This from your big thread:


I cannot share with you who I am or what I know only that I am a voice coming forward with a whisper and warning hoping some will listen who were meant to hear.



I am in the same density as everyone on this planet but am from another time in which I cannot share anything further.


So, please, let’s not go there, ok?


Do you feel it to be in good taste to use another ATS member in such a way?

Why not just make a generalized statement and be on your way?

It's distasteful, insensitive, disrespectful and just plain rude.


You’re really not getting it, are you? I didn’t drag any member of ATS to this thread so I could criticize them.

This isn’t about Unity_99, or you specifically, it’s about anyone who will eagerly and willingly accept any form of information that sustains their beliefs, and more importantly, the reasoning behind “Source A” and the whole charade it entailed, and the brilliant work completed by these guys:

www.realityuncovered.net...

See?


The way you conduct yourself and engage other posters reveals a lot about yourself Beamish.


Thanks. I take that as a compliment.


In making such a statement it goes to show how very little you know about me.


That you’re a time travelling emissary for “benevolent aliens”, here to deliver a message of the imminent destruction of mankind?

Yea, thanks; I think I know enough about you. And as I’ve already compared you to the guys who perpetrated the UN meeting story, why say that?

And as I’ve said before, all you have to do to prove that opinion wrong and therefore make me apologize – which I will - is to provide one piece of solid evidence.


Are you in need of a sparring partner or are you after an argument or is it the attention?

If you wish to continue ranting and raving let's take this to another thread or chat about it directly as I'm sure many here would appreciate that. Personal attacks against other posters are not exactly on topic don't you think?


“Seeking attention”?; Pot. Kettle. Black.

If you don’t like my opinions, and object that strongly to my stance as to fraudsters such as Richard Theilmann – and possibly you - then contact the owners of this site and voice your complaints.

They’ve already contacted me, by the way, but for reasons I won’t go into here. It might annoy you.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ET_MAN
 


ET MAN.....

I think it's a shame that you keep posting relentlessly off topic & ruining this strong investigative thread.

This also happened to me recently in a very detailed thread wherein I was investigating a UFO sighting & accompanying photographs.

Can you just leave us in peace & take up your issues in a more relevant thread?

Please.......?

Regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Beamish
 

Hi Beamish,


This isn’t about Unity_99, or you specifically,

Of course it isn't, perhaps it's time for you to stop getting off topic making false accusations/judgments about others.


I pointed out that she had made a mistake,

You inappropriately used Unity_99 as an example in poor taste and there's no need to further debate that. You've already tried to explain and defend yourself a few times now in this thread but how about an apology to Unity_99?

Those who read your original post using Unity_99 as an example in poor taste understood exactly what you were implying.


That you’re a time travelling emissary for “benevolent aliens”, here to deliver a message of the imminent destruction of mankind?

Another false accusation and it's apparent that you are looking for things to throw at me but I'm not ticklish remember? Anyone who has followed that particular thread has the answer to your question.

If you would like to further discuss the contents of that thread take it to the thread. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Best Wishes!



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 

Hi Maybe...maybe not,


ET MAN.....

I think it's a shame that you keep posting relentlessly off topic & ruining this strong investigative thread.

It's as simple as ABC-123, if certain individuals stop replying to my posts making false accusations/judgments then I will hopefully never have to post in this thread again.


Can you just leave us in peace & take up your issues in a more relevant thread?

Please.......?

I would have never made a second post if it were not for Beamish's issues/accusations/judgments and a few others going after me. If someone clicks and makes negative comments/assumptions/accusations/judgments then naturally I have every right to follow up to those false assumptions/accusations/judgments.

Best Wishes!



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
Many of the regular visitors to the ATS Aliens & UFOs forum will have seen at some point in the last couple of years a reference to "Source A".

"Source A" is an individual that has been reported by a few researchers to have revealed details of secret United Nations meetings about UFOs and aliens.


Hi IsaacKoi, thanks for posting this information.


Due looking at the information presented and in order to give me a good view of it all there is one thing that did draw my immediately attention.

When looking at all the pictures here presented

www.flickr.com...@N08/sets/72157616593265276/show/

for some reason I cannot copy this link but you can find it on this page.

an interesting new article about "Source A" over on the Reality Uncovered blog, "Ufology Exopolitics Special: Source A Exposed!".


I wonder myself the following.

How come that the name tag of what must be Richard Theilmann is so different then all the other person’s name tags in those pictures?



Is this already mentioned here, and if not, has anyone a good explanation for that.


[edit on 24/5/10 by spacevisitor]



[edit on 24/5/10 by spacevisitor]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ET_MAN
 



…perhaps it's time for you to stop getting off topic making false accusations/judgments about others.


Excuse me? Where have I made a false accusation?

Answer me this; did, or did not a contributor to this thread – one whom in my opinion represents the target audience of the UN meeting scam – misread the title of this thread and respond without thinking?

That’s the point I’m making; UFO scams are aimed at people who only absorb what supports their beliefs!

If I’m wrong in that opinion, then show me how!


You inappropriately used Unity_99 as an example in poor taste and there's no need to further debate that.


Yes there is. There was no “inappropriate” behaviour on my part. I was simply stating an opinion.

If you believe I have behaved inappropriately, hit the alert button.


You've already tried to explain and defend yourself a few times now in this thread but how about an apology to Unity_99?


I haven’t tried to explain myself, I have explained myself.

However, you have the right to read something – as in my posts - and take from it what you will.

Note to Mods: Apologies. I am about to go off-topic, but it is only in response to an outright twisting of the truth. Even though what I am about to post is within the investigative spirit of this thread, it won’t happen again.


(MY quote: That you’re a time travelling emissary for “benevolent aliens”, here to deliver a message of the imminent destruction of mankind?)

Another false accusation and it's apparent that you are looking for things to throw at me but I'm not ticklish remember? Anyone who has followed that particular thread has the answer to your question.


Excuse me again? What false accusation?

Here, let me educate you in your own words:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

C-JEAN asked you:


From which density are you ?


And you replied:


I am in the same density as everyone on this planet but am from another time in which I cannot share anything further.


In response to QuestionItAll:


I have traveled to other worlds, worlds within worlds and times and reside on earth in your density,


In response to canihavemyvoteback:


An earth catacylsm will take place October 2011,


In response to d.read75:


On board a inter dimensional craft I have been allowed to control the vehicle by my thoughts, upon entering this vehicle…


Want me to go on proving you wrong?


If you would like to further discuss the contents of that thread take it to the thread.


No thanks. You’ve hijacked this thread enough without stealing posters for your own.



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Beamish
 

Hi Beamish,

I've addressed those comments/questions many times in the thread.

I suggest you read past the first few pages and find those answers.


No thanks. You’ve hijacked this thread enough without stealing posters for your own.

Hijacked? I made a post on your distasteful/inappropriate comment towards Unity_99. Then you came after me and it went from there. I could honestly careless about Source A, Disclosure project and the entire Disclosure shenanigan that I already know will never happen and with good reason by design.


Want me to go on proving you wrong?

I openly challenge you to prove me wrong and good luck with that.

Read all about it, you just might learn a few things while your at it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Coming Earth Changes-comingearthchanges.phpbb3now.com...

Best Wishes!

[edit on 24-5-2010 by ET_MAN]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor


I wonder myself the following.

How come that the name tag of what must be Richard Theilmann is so different then all the other person’s name tags in those pictures?





[edit on 24/5/10 by spacevisitor]


All the other person's name tags? There's only one other name tag visible in that photo, and it looks pretty much the same.

Grasping for straws, are we?



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Beamish
 



The ignore button is your friend in these cases. When the attention density diminishes, the ET's go home.



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join