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.

 

Wikileaks & UFO's

page: 10
94
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I hate to put this to you, I don't like being a spoiler of all of your funn, but sometimes you have to keep your eyes open yourself.

So here's my answer to your questions:

Your question is twofold: You have good faith in Wikileaks so you ask why they don't publish anything of importance to ratify the legitimacy of the UFO question. (your second quest)

Has it ever occured to you that wikileaks could be a limited hangout?
Did you ever hear about cryptome.org? This is what wikileaks co-founder has to say about it's trustworthyness:
There was suspicion from day one that this was entrapment run by someone unknown to suck a number of people into a trap. So we actually don't know. But it's certainly a standard counterintelligence technique. And they're usually pretty elaborate and pretty carefully run. They'll even prosecute people as part of the cover story. They'll try to conceal who was informing and betraying others by pretending to prosecute them.
Source: news.cnet.com...

This is what the founder of Wikileaks himself has to say about 9/11 conspiracy that directely led to the execution of the warplans that were already in place for years:

" What about 9/11? "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud." What about the Bilderberg conference? "That is vaguely conspiratorial, in a networking sense. We have published their meeting notes."
source: 911blogger.com...

-------------------------------------------
now as for your second question: the legitimacy of the UFO question: The general assembly of the UNITED NATIONS formally recognised UFO's as a valid issue in 1978.
There is an ongoing Written declaration on the declassification of documentation on UFOs in the European parliament. Read this document: www.europarl.europa.eu...//EP//NONSGML+WDECL+P7-DCL-2010-0057+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&EN

Source here: www.europarl.europa.eu...

-----------------------------------------------
Now, do you really want to see the technology behind UFO's? Then you're not in the right place, but for your conveniance I'll make it the right place. ALL knowledge is kept under wraps: what do I mean with that? It's NOT a secret AT ALL, there are COUNTLESS scientific inventions that deal with flying sourcers and machines and other entrapments that deal with exotic propulsion and the likes. BUT (and it's a big butt) it's ALL PATENTED knowledge. So can you pay for it? start taking a look here: patent# 6404089

source:www.google.com...,774,865&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q=3%2C774%2C865&f=false

And an even BETTER example from 1987: Patent# 4663932
www.google.com...

As said in this patent: invisibility is just an automated asset to this type of propulsion.
-----------------------------------------------------------

So in fact: do machines exist with the flight caracteristics of that of an UFO???
MY humble answer is: YES (there's ample proof of that, no I'm not going into that)
So there's a lot of patents being scrupulously used without the proper payment to it's owners or with proper payment: but then it's behind the closed doors with the rest of all that knowledge. They can't admit to patent infringment, so covering up is only logical. Compartmentalisation and the like...

Start out by asking YOURSELF questions AND reading some good books to get answers from authors like Paul A. Laviolette (Phd) and you'll soon discover that there's a whole new paradigm to behold: the scientific angle.

And that... is it. Thanks for your attention. I wish you well!!




posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Many of the leaks there are hardly near a level of secrecy that ufos would own within the government. Ufos would be "eyes only," and well beyond the "secret" stuff leaked thus far. An E3 leaked all the Afghan info. Secret level in the Army is hardly all that secret to be honest.

The number of people that have access to that sort of information (and more than a tidbit, due to compartmentalization) would be very few indeed. You don't get into those positions to see that information, unless you are one tight-lipped individual.

The new times someone "in the know" has blabbed, has been people on their deathbeds, or so old, they don't care what "they" would do to them. For that is a very real fear.

Wikileaks is hardly revolutionary, either. It's not the shining beacon of hope someone with vast UFO knowledge was waiting for, I'm sure. Things have been anonymously leaked before, you don't need a special website to do it.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
To OP: You are correct IMO. It doesn't make any sense, or does it? Possibly, just possibly, we have been conditioned through massive disinformation as well as out and outright opportunism, to "believe" or perceive this issue as being "under control" in just such a logically sequential and linear system of control. (the release of information that is)

Maybe they have virtually NONE. Maybe all that "they" (the organizations that we "believe" are in the know concerning UFOs) have is the power of "better" observation.

It's VERY difficult to remove the critical element that is influence from the whole of the UFO equation. It's 100% based on perception is it not? We have been being taught, for at least the last 100 years, "what" UFOs are and what they represent.

It's quite possible that all the control agencies can do with respect to UFOs is present perceptive imagery.

Is it not a severe "stretch" to conclude that UFO's don in fact represent our humanly preconceived notions of intelligence and mechanization?

How much choice do we have with respect to the UFO phenomenon? Perhaps this question is key.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I bet you guys are going to like this SSE talk:

Evaluation of Two Original-paper 'Leaked' UFO Documents

Your welcome.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Student X]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Maybe they haven't said anything because it isn't true? Or the implications of telling such news is too much and too many?

I don't know. sometimes with these stories I have to give myself a reason as to why i am spending my time thinking about it - what's the agenda behind my thinking?
For example, do I want to be involved in an abductee session? Take them out to the bar for a few beers? I mean you have to have a reason other than having a fascination with comic books and grey blobs in the sky.
We know crop circles are a myth....... Who knows, I don't know.
Is there a reason why we want to believe anything so badly?
just wondering



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
A simple reason for not posting about UFOs is that discussing UFOs could destroy the credibility of Wikileaks. This is a site that's obviously working very hard to be taken seriously and there are many organizations out there who are dying for the site to disappear. A site that purports to prove "little green men" would be eaten up by the mainstream media and instantly undermine their credibility no matter how solid the evidence might be.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by boudha10
I hate to put this to you, I don't like being a spoiler of all of your fun


Don't worry... you weren't! Your post was speculative and not to be confused with fact. I do like your spin on intergalactic copyright/patent infringement though. No offence but it gave me a good chuckle!

I guess we will just have to wait for those disenfranchised inventors of alien tech to come down to Earth yelling "We Was Robbed!" on Larry King.

Thanks for your post mate!

IRM



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Tofind151
 



Absolutely there is a reason. Just like there is a reason why we "need" the concept of that which is superior. It's ingrained into us on an undeniable instinctual level. If you read up on basic survival instincts it becomes obvious how we are all driven to better our understanding of that which we perceive as being superior.

This DOES NOT mean that all that is not proved is not real. That's utter foolishness and indeed if that were the case, we would have proof of NOTHING.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tofind151
Maybe they haven't said anything because it isn't true? Or the implications of telling such news is too much and too many?

I don't know. sometimes with these stories I have to give myself a reason as to why i am spending my time thinking about it - what's the agenda behind my thinking?
For example, do I want to be involved in an abductee session? Take them out to the bar for a few beers? I mean you have to have a reason other than having a fascination with comic books and grey blobs in the sky.
We know crop circles are a myth....... Who knows, I don't know.
Is there a reason why we want to believe anything so badly?
just wondering


I think you've hit the nail on the head. If they do have information about UFOs or extraterrestrials then they would most likely hold off and wait until they have a proven track record of legit leaks. I wouldn't doubt that they may even be holding onto the "Juicier" stuff in order to secure their safety from assassination or other government prosecution.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Ever heard of the 'DISCLOSURE PROJECT'?????



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I'm just gonna throw this out there....

perhaps there really isn't anything to disclose or leak, maybe aliens are not and have not recently been here?

I'm not sure i believe that or not but it is a possibility, maybe the joke is on us...



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATSZOMBIE
Ever heard of the 'DISCLOSURE PROJECT'?????


You ever heard the term, "Steven Greer is Fruitcake"?

IRM



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 




You ever heard the term, "Steven Greer is Fruitcake"?


Are you trying to tell me that the 1,000 dollars i paid for ambassador training was all for nothing? And that the $25 a year- $50 a month people pay to be members was all for nothing???

FACT- People have been paying up to 50 dollars a month to join a free yahoo discussion list.



www.cseti.org...
Our members' email discussion list on Yahoo is being replaced by the above forum



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by zaiger
 


Thanks Zaiger... that about sums up Greer. It ain't about the truth. It's about the moola!

IRM



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by zaiger
 
Ssshhhhhhhhh...we're not allowed to talk about the ambassador trainings without the express written permission of CSETI Inc. You'll get us all into trouble.

Expect a 'moth' to be beating against your window one night...it's like the sign of the black thumb...doom!



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   


Thanks Zaiger... that about sums up Greer. It ain't about the truth. It's about the moola! IRM


Mr Greer, I don't know this person and don't agree with the lack of respect he's showing you or CSETI.

Release the moths!



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Oh but i just can't get over the irony.



A CALL ON U.S. CONGRESS FOR HEARINGS & LEGISLATION

To hold open, secrecy-free hearings on the UFO/Extraterrestrial presence on and around Earth. -Steven Greer




By my signature affixed below, I agree to hold all proceedings of this CSETI Ambassadors to the
Universe Training Retreat confidential and agree that it shall not be shared publicly without the prior
express written consent of CSETI.- Steven Greer



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Great Thread! I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps this info that's been leaked is part of some nefarious plot by the TPTB. If it hasn't already done so, we're fast approaching the point where we are fed so much crap on a daily basis, folk just won't know whom to trust. I personally am skeptical of most of what I read, and have to see things for myself before making a decision. I don't enjoy being like this, but I do have my reasons.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bkrmn
we're fast approaching the point where we are fed so much crap on a daily basis, folk just won't know whom to trust.


Bingo. This is the WORST problem of all in the sense that it destroys most people's perception of the UFO phenomenon as being in any way substantial.

Sometimes getting others to do your work for you is not the product of laziness as much as it is intent. Infiltrate, divide and confuse. Or something like that.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Great thread.

Wikileaks has a political agenda and that agenda is tied to War. With hundreds, if not thousands of reports being created and stored daily on those Wars along with thousands of fairly low level employees being responsible for data integrity, it's no surprise that they found a source or two.

The fact that so many people want to call flares, Chinese lanterns, balloons, and advanced experimental aircraft "UFO's" and assume they come from other worlds means that any real valuable data would be buried in all that clearly bogus crap that we argue about everyday here.

Not to forget only a fraction of time trusted folks would have access to that data and there is probably no clear benefit for themselves or the public to release such data to Wikileaks/ATS. Unlike the War data where data thieves/whistle-blowers see themselves as folk heroes changing people’s perspectives of the Wars thereby using that power to shape future policy.












[edit on 29-7-2010 by verylowfrequency]




top topics



 
94
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join