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.

 

Whistle Blowers are they proof enough ?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Whistle blowers in the UFO/Alien field seem to be a comparatively recent phenomena and we all have our own standards for believing their confessions and I know in a court of law a sworn witness statement is admissable as evidence that will lead to conviction but is this really enough regarding the ET question.

Can you really compare a civil or even high court procedure that sits in judgement of everyday crimes with such an extraordinary subject as alien presence.

Over the decades there has been 10's maybe 100's of thousands of UFO reports dutifully recorded by winesses many from fine upstanding citizens but has this moved the case for ET's any further forward, I have to say for my part no.

And the whistle blowers themselves, many of which appear to be sincere and willing to swear an affidavit to legitemise their stories, histories and backgrounds can be checked many of which will prove that they worked or served where they did and carried out the duties that they say they did but is this really enough.

Perhaps if you knew a particular WB extremely well then you would not have any trouble excepting their story but the fact is the vast majority of us do not and will not so is it wise to except their word alone.

There seems to be different levels of believers and skeptics with extremes in both cases and I think many of the latter will pursue the publics devils advocate roll regardless of personal belief which I think is the most comfortable for me and therefore aligns me with the not proof enough side of the fence but what would constitute enough proof for you, is there one thing that would tip the balance for you to believe unquestionably or perhaps you already do and if so what was that pivotal moment.




posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by sherpa
 


I'm not usually in here posting about UFOs but I wanted to bump your thread because I think it is important. However with the many various claims as to what UFOs are (aliens, advanced military craft, poorly identified 'natural' phenomenon, disinformation used to deflect away from identifying military experiments, a mix of the above...), it is hard to determine if someone (a supposed eyewitness) has an agenda. The most common agenda is "hey look at me!"; with "hey, look at me, and give me money" coming in a close second. Having said that, many eyewitnesses come off as credible and honest.
So the eyewitness question really is everything here IMO.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by time91
 


Thank you for your interest time91 clearly I share your view that this is an important subject even just from the point of view of setting a datum line if nothing else although I not sure if that is possible knowing how different people can be so polarised.

I wonder if a WB is selling a book it is necessary to automatically discount there testimony they are of course asking for your money to get the full sp but the choice is with the buyer and not compulsory and would we be throwing the baby out with bath water everytime we did.

I think thorough investigation of each individual is paramount as the minimum requirement.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa
I think thorough investigation of each individual is paramount as the minimum requirement.


Definitely. Also, I wouldn't throw out a witness strictly because they wrote a book, but it would be a contributing factor. For instance, Jeff Ritzmann comes off as honest and at least believable but he is writing a book.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by time91]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by time91
 



For instance, Jeff Ritzmann comes off as honest and at least believable but he is writing a book.


Really, I did not know that, obviously I am not keeping up to date with the news from what I have seen from Jeff's posts in the past they have always been skeptical of a good many witness reports sometimes quite aggressively so I have thought, I guess he wants to record his dealings in these areas for prosperity.

So Mr Ritzmann may well give balance to my view, thanks.

edit for duplicate words



[edit on 3-6-2010 by sherpa]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Whistle blowers are bad news, they only muddy the waters. Reality Uncovered are doing an exposé on one of these "whistle blowers" and it's a fascinating read.

btw Jeff Ritzmann is not a whistle blower.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa
Perhaps if you knew a particular WB extremely well then you would not have any trouble excepting their story but the fact is the vast majority of us do not and will not so is it wise to except their word alone.


Take the example of Donna Hare, one of the disclosure project whistleblowers. I actually think there's a chance the story she tells happened exactly the way she tells it. So what proof does this give us?

Even if she's telling the absolute truth, my first guess is that her co-workers may have been playing a cruel joke on her by telling her what they did. So, what she may be blowing the whistle on is the fact that she was a victim of a prank, rather than blowing the whistle on a government conspiracy.

You have to look at the merits of each claim, the credibility of the witness, but in most cases it just hasn't seemed to be enough.

What would be interesting is if a guy like Kenneth Arnold was a whistleblower. For some reason I can't find anybody anywhere who doubts that he told the truth about what he saw to the best of his ability. Now exactly what it was that he saw is still a matter of debate, but there seems to be no debate about the fact that he saw something just as he said. It seems like his credibility is universally accepted almost without question, by everyone, including me.

That's pretty rare. Col. Halt has good credibility too but his recording seems to suggest he was looking at a lighthouse.

Find a whistleblower with credibility like Kenneth Arnold had, and who has a more interesting story than Col Halt, and let's look at those claims. I haven't found one like that yet.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
Whistle blowers are bad news, they only muddy the waters. Reality Uncovered are doing an exposé on one of these "whistle blowers" and it's a fascinating read.

btw Jeff Ritzmann is not a whistle blower.


So can I take it that your stand point is no WB is to be believed under any circumstances because there are so many bad apples that finding one good one is unlikely ?

The link you have provide demonstrates dedication to getting to the truth and I would encourage this in all cases.

I think both time91 and I both know Jeff is not a whistle blower he was just being used as an example to demonstrate the other side of the coin unless you think it is a bad comparison because he is not a wb and the example is out of context.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Find a whistleblower with credibility like Kenneth Arnold had, and who has a more interesting story than Col Halt, and let's look at those claims. I haven't found one like that yet.


I believe the Kenneth Arnold case was a relatively simple sighting and he was an average Joe albeit a flying one he was not making any world shattering statements like most of the wb's today so it was easier to swallow, in the late 40's there had many advances in technology because of the war which may have made people more open to ufo,s.

Quite why he has credibility today is strange to me after all his report without photographic or supporting witnesses ultimately is anecdotal like so many others so why should he stand out from the crowd.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa

Originally posted by cripmeister
Whistle blowers are bad news, they only muddy the waters. Reality Uncovered are doing an exposé on one of these "whistle blowers" and it's a fascinating read.

btw Jeff Ritzmann is not a whistle blower.


So can I take it that your stand point is no WB is to be believed under any circumstances because there are so many bad apples that finding one good one is unlikely ?

The link you have provide demonstrates dedication to getting to the truth and I would encourage this in all cases.

I think both time91 and I both know Jeff is not a whistle blower he was just being used as an example to demonstrate the other side of the coin unless you think it is a bad comparison because he is not a wb and the example is out of context.


WBs that cannot provide hard evidence and verifiable information should be dismissed in my opinion. I misunderstood what you were saying about Jeff Ritzmann and I apologize, I'm a sloppy reader sometimes. I'm a big fan of Paratopia btw and I like Ritzmanns approach on investigating UFOs and the paranormal.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   

WBs that cannot provide hard evidence and verifiable information should be dismissed in my opinion.


I agree but I have to confess there is one wb that has led me to want that evidence rather more because now I am considering his psychology in relation to his family which I have never done before when reading about a wb.

This has led me to question my skeptism because I had never looked at this angle before and why I had to start this thread to help me organise my thoughts.

This is the wb in question I started a thread on him hoping to put my thoughts there but it has gone mostly unnoticed, however at least everything I know so far is in one place perhaps you could look at it and tell me what you think.

Link


I misunderstood what you were saying about Jeff Ritzmann and I apologize, I'm a sloppy reader sometimes. I'm a big fan of Paratopia btw and I like Ritzmanns approach on investigating UFOs and the paranormal.


It is not a problem cripmeister I just wanted to make sure we understood each other


Yes I am sure Jeff's approach is the right one, I was unaware of Paratopia I had to look it up having found it I will look into later.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by sherpa]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by sherpa
 


There is an interesting disclosure as presented by one of the moderators in the really above top secret forum if you have access to same.





[edit on 4-6-2010 by manta78]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
to an individual yes...

to the whole population... no.

for the world to really get on board, there would have to be a UFO land on the white house lawn and grays coming out to shake the presidents hand...

or an invasion like independence day.


[edit on 6/4/2010 by ugie1028]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by manta78
reply to post by sherpa
 


There is an interesting disclosure as presented by one of the moderators in the really above top secret forum if you have access to same.


Thank you for that manta78 I do not have access to RATS I think I went there many moons ago but did not find any revelations perhaps things have changed.

I must admit I do not understand what disclosure would be unsuitable to the regular forum.

I might investigate that later.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by sherpa
 
Hiya Sherpa, as you mention, people request different burdens of proof. An Examiner article is more than enough for some people. On the other hand, others have set the bar so high they may as well rule it out altogether. For example, if a vast ET craft hovered over a Presidential Inauguration, some would say, 'False flag,' others, 'Haarp' and hardcore skeptics, 'Well we don't know it isn't one of ours. It could be from anywhere!'

In this sense, the credibility of a whistleblower is almost moot.

We live in times of extremely weak signal to noise ratios. It's just a cacophony of information...a racket. In the UFO field it gets ever louder. So many WBs turn out to be liars. Others bring no evidence. Think of Col. Corso. What was that? Was it whistleblowing, delusion or something more elaborate? Did he allow his reputation to 'take one for the team?' Was it just fiction? Major Jesse Marcell?

At the same time, what passes for the 'UFO community' (whatever that means) quarrels, scores point of each other and never misses an opportunity for disagreement. Researchers are divided. We have members who accuse others of 'belittling' Ufology before attacking them...as if Ufology is more than a circus! Others who are clearly seeing 'black tech' in every UFO report and laugh at people who don't. Others believe we're already run by alien overlords. Diversity of ideas...good and bad.

My assertion is that whistleblowers will be attacked from a variety of sides according to the agenda of individuals and groups. The resultant noise drowns the signal. Added to that is the history of dishonest, lying WBs. At the back of our minds is the constant suspicion that feeds on the memories of Bob Dean, Cliff Stone, Greer and others. Who wants to say 'I believe!' in case it's just another BS merchant.

I like Dr Bob Jacob's account of Big Sur and the alleged UFO knocking out a dummy ICBM. He claims to have filmed the incident and the film was taken away. The USAF denied ever knowing him. Then it was shown he was employed by them. They denied testing ICBMs from Vandenburg AFB, but FOIA documents proved they did. Philip Klass attacked his credibility. He was ridiculed and called a liar. Years later his superior at the time, Major Florenz Mansmann wrote letters supporting Jacob's account. The Major described an object shooting down the dummy warhead.

So can I say I believe Jacobs saw and filmed an extraterrestrial craft shoot down a test missile? I can't. Too much noise! What more could it take?

The argument and counter-argument merry-go-round has left the subject, for me, almost redundant. It's bordering on meaningless. It's like a yapping dog chasing its own tail. We don't seem to take anything at face-value...and probably shouldn't. So where does it leave us when a whistleblower presents a great and sourced account? Pretty much exactly where we are already...sadly.

(SnF Sherpa for giving me something to think about for a half hour!)



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 



to an individual yes...


So are you saying word alone is enough for you as an individual ?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by sherpa
 


not for me... an individual is different from one another.

for one yes, to the masses no. some are gullible enough to beleive something they will beleive it.

others need hard evidence like i just mentioned.

I do think aliens exist out there in some way shape or form, but of course i cant prove it but the universe is too big to ignore that other life could exist.

just my two cents.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Thanks for your detailed post Kandinsky.

Have you ever considered pondering a wb's mental standpoint as a component for belief though and I am talking about current wb's now as I know old cases can be difficult to apply this to I am not talking about whether they are nuts or not but whether they would lie to their families.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


But do you have a mental checklist of required evidence to believe a wb or do you dismiss them out of hand for instance would there have to be irrefutable physical evidence or would corroboration from other person/persons of good standing be adequate ?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Good analysis. A discussion on what would constitute proof of aliens and UFO's has of course been discussed here before on ATS, and they are always interesting to me to read and/or post comments on (and thanks to sherpa for bringing this topic up again.)

Short of something similiar to the scenario from the the original 1950's movie, the Day the Earth Stood Still, followed up by some sort of acknowledgement by governments, United Nations, etc. I don't see the majority of people on earth ever fully accepting or acknowledging that UFO's and/or aliens exist. I am sure however that even given that dramatic type of evidence, that there would still be skeptics who would claim that it was faked, a government plan, etc.

Should persons continue to come forward if they have disclosures to make? Absolutely, and the more, the better.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join