reply to post by kazanoom
Then she is by definition a fool. I've been told all sorts of stuff by people who *know* and you think I immediately take it at face value simply cos
of who they are and cos I *know them*? No, i check the basic facts surrounding the details I have been told to see if they have any chance of being
The author could have checked the Horton brothers out and the history of Mengele and immediately realised that it was total and utter BS and maybe
they would have told their source. "Nice try mate, but that's utter tosh."
In the end, it's rank bad research, and rank bad form to quote totally unnamed sources if I was to go that route I could write a book that would
scare the crap out of a hell of a lot of readers about the Government and UFOs and just how impotent they are in the face of some unknown technology.
I don't, because it would be just total hearsay even though, I do at least have my facts straight about several UFO encounters and the personal
See, there's a paradox at the heart of Ufology, particularly with regards to books and speaking in public. Anyone who has seriously investigated the
phenomenon and has an open mind to encounters being hoaxed, mis-identification as well as something more arcane tend to attract *whistle blowers* who
need to offload about their experiences. It's all totally off the record and would be denied if you ever named them and you'd never be trusted again.
So what do you do? You carry one hoping a crack will appear and something you know happened , because you already have inside info from a deep source,
will be forced into the public eye by sheer weight of interest. and someone leaking something or not covering their tracks sufficiently well.
I have a source who, if they were to go public, would cause absolute mayhem among the powers that be. Their credentials are impeccable, their
experience vast and they worked in an area that means they more than likely know more than 99% of the world's population about how governments view
UFOs. Their statement to me was nothing outlandish, not claiming anything spectacular on their own behalf at all, but should their words become
public and attributed to them, it would see a sea change in how the subject is viewed. Now, the point is, virtually every respected Ufologist will
tell you a similar story. The skeptics can't, because no-one would ever trust them not to use the information passed on for their own uses and to
further their own agenda.
The experience of just about every serious Ufologist is that. there are times when one thinks, i really can;t be bothered with this any more, fools,
charlatans, and others who do know something, steadfastly refusing to be honest about things. Often, we walk away and take a sabbatical from the whole
scene. That sabbatical nearly always ends when someone you think of as.... the last person I'd ever expect to hear that from..... comes clean and you
realise there is indeed, something there that deserves to be talked about rationally in the public domain.
Anyone taking this latest Roswell *revelation* seriously should hang their head in shame and realise that, by doing so, they have in effect, forgone
any right they might have to ever point the finger of fun at someone like Stephen Greer. if they are willing to believe the bilge that is presented
as, fact, by this author then they should equally believe any old crap Greer might suggest as well.
The question one should really ask of people who publish books on the subject and make documentaries about it is this.
"How many times have you been convinced you have the actual evidence to add something truly worthwhile to the body of knowledge about the subject only
for, at the twelfth hour, to have an essential person withdraw their participation yet, it was too late to stop the publishers/television station
going ahead and therefore making the author look like a bit of a prune in public"?
The answer you will most likely receive to that question is indeed a fascinating one, I know, I have been there on the verge of commencing a work only
to have the two key witnesses, back out at the last minute. Not only that, I then had the people backing the project try to force it through even
though I pointed out, without those person's testimony on camera, it was just another case of *hearsay*. and therefore, in the final analysis,
Just maybe, the author of this tat, should have considered that before wasting people's time
edit on 18-5-2011 by FireMoon because: