Does Military/Government insider testimony on the reality of UFOs constitute as proof to you ?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by CrashRetrieval

 

The majority of credible "witnesses" used hearsay evidence, no personal experience, no verifiable statements.

I don't really know how you can say that, as far as I can tell a vast majority of the credible witnesses use only personal experience. A lot of the pilots witnessing them as an example, also astronaut Gordon Cooper says that he say a flying disk land near an air force base in the desert in New Mexico. I really don't see how what you said can be remotely true in regards to the personal experience. Also a lot of the statements put forward by many military witnesses have corroborated by other witnesses.

I don't think what you're saying rings true.

Originally posted by 1questioner
As far as the UFO phenomenon is concerned, my feeling is that those who choose to ignore or dismiss the reality entirely are missing one of the great opportunities of history.

That's the problem, how can you know what is the reality?

As you said, if even some people say that in reality the computer in which you wrote your post does not exist (and I suppose you see it and feel it), how can know what is reality?

In this case, what are you calling reality, is it your idea of reality? If it is, how can we see your reality through our eyes and our minds?

That's why we need some kind of proof that looks the same to all people, as when we all look at a computer and see it as a computer.

reply to post by sir_slide

The OP is not about pilot witnesses, it is about "insider testimony" at Greer's disclosure press conference in 2001.

But I think you're talking about the incident at Edward's AFB (in California) which Cooper talked about. Cooper was not present, it is hearsay. He did not witness it. He was not there, he never claimed he was there. He was distorting what the film crew described.

As to the accuracy of the rest of Cooper's recollection of the "Edwards UFO", eyewitness Gettys had this to say in 1982: "I am amazed that Gordon Cooper said the object landed -- as far as I know, he never even saw it.... His story sounds kind of funny to me." And Gettys -- who still does not believe the '"weather balloon" explanation -- was there; Cooper, contrary to legend, played no role at all.

www.zipworld.com.au...

UFOs? I see plenty of them everyday! I can't identify any man-made flying object, except that they are some things other than a bird and not all birds either. So they are all Unidentified Flying Objects for me

As for "insider" testimony, it depends on what else the "insider" can offer, other than testimony.

Does the belief or non-belief in the existence of extra teerestrial intelligence visting the earth have any actionable consequences for me or others? None, that I can think of.

The very concept that there is an extra terrestrial intelligence visting the earth and that somehow the government of one country (or a few countries at best) can keep the existence of this extra terrestrial intelligence a secret that needs to be "disclosed" by "insiders" is a hilarious idea. Won't they be looking silly, if the aliens visted a country they have little influence over, like say Iran, and they announced to the world the existence of these beings?

i never ever trust someone from any gov because we all know they are shady and lying (especially regarding ufos...)...so why on earth would TPTB allow them to speak WITHOUT disinfo to control/manipzulate the horde...it sounds kinda illogical...sure the 1% but what is the 1% helping if 99 are destroying the credibility of the 1...and how to find out whos really lying and who not....

the disclosure discussion is big BS...i believe but not based on "evidence"...first when i can see an alien or a crashed/found ufo....videos of something hovering for 2-3 mins is BS, fotos are always BS (photomanipulation is happening since the beginning of photography)...and everything what happens in space is waaaay above our wisdom

like this video:

its old, daylight, "HQ"...but what..3 mins?????..no highspeed that breaks our laws of physics...-> BS
or this:

Originally posted by WingedBull
Does Military/Government insider testimony on the reality of UFOs constitute as proof to me?

I know it is uncouth to answer a question with a question but would military/government insider testimony that there is no cover-up constitute proof there is not a cover-up?

If you believe there is a cover-up, why would you believe what any insider has to say?

Good post. Star for that.

The point is that insider testimony - even if the source of the testimony believes what they are saying is all true - is not proof of a cover up. However, there is plenty more meat on the bones of the theory that there is a cover up that that type of testimony.

The water is muddied by the fact that disinformation has clearly not just been to cover up real penetration of allied airspace, including nuclear facilities, by unidentified craft (although that has been covered up before.) There have been definite attempts to manipulate how the phenomenon has been perceived and also much stranger forays into all of this (SERPO, MJ-12, and more.) Then, without naming names, there are also the frauds who have just cashed in on the interest and gullibility of the public. The subject is a mess.

While I suspect that some of the cover up may have been of genuinely what researchers believe, it gets far stranger than that. As I already stated confusion reigns supreme.

What can we do about it. Try to discriminate. Take nothing at face value. Continue to search for scraps of quality evidence. Enjoy the ride.

For me it is a very simple issue with two alternatives.

1. Everything i have studied for over 30 years has been a lie or disinformation.

2. Even if 10% of the data is correct then it is enough to prove a UFO/ET presence on Earth.


Surely calling EVERY witness/insider (since 1947) a liar or disinfo agent or deluded is harder to swallow than believing in UFOs.

Originally posted by CrashRetrieval
Surely calling EVERY witness/insider (since 1947) a liar or disinfo agent or deluded is harder to swallow than believing in UFOs.

Why does it have to be one of those options?
Can't a person be mistaken?

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by CrashRetrieval
Surely calling EVERY witness/insider (since 1947) a liar or disinfo agent or deluded is harder to swallow than believing in UFOs.

Why does it have to be one of those options?
Can't a person be mistaken?

The books i have in front of me contain dozens of reports of military personel (and civilians) who claim to have been in the presence of ET vehicles.
In what context does being mistaken apply to them ?

Originally posted by CrashRetrieval
In what context does being mistaken apply to them ?

How should I know, if I don't know what they said?

If they said that they were some 5 metres away from an extraterrestrial vehicle and that they know that because it said "Made in Alpha Centaury", then I would think that the "deluded", "liar" or "disinfo" options could be more correct, but if they said that they saw something in the air moving in a way they have never seen, then I would think first about the "mistaken" option.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by CrashRetrieval
In what context does being mistaken apply to them ?

How should I know, if I don't know what they said?

If they said that they were some 5 metres away from an extraterrestrial vehicle and that they know that because it said "Made in Alpha Centaury", then I would think that the "deluded", "liar" or "disinfo" options could be more correct, but if they said that they saw something in the air moving in a way they have never seen, then I would think first about the "mistaken" option.

Where exactly is this thread going? Maybe the craft did say "Made in Alpha Centaury", except in alien hieroglyphs. Not all of these witnesses can be mistaken.

reply to post by Zcustosmorum


When did I said that all witnesses were mistaken?

I am just pointing out that, to some people, it looks like those that doubt witness' testimonies do it because the witness must be lying or deluded, as if people could never be mistaken.

Originally posted by CrashRetrieval
Surely calling EVERY witness/insider (since 1947) a liar or disinfo agent or deluded is harder to swallow than believing in UFOs.

You are presenting a false-dichotomy. It is not an either/or proposition. It may be far more complicated than that. Sure, some are liars, some are deluded, some are disinfo agents (the governments use of the UFO phenomenon for disinfo is well documented), some are just wrong, though sincere.

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
. Not all of these witnesses can be mistaken.

Why can't they?

For eight-hundred-years, people have claimed to have met the Wandering Jew. Surely, they all must be mistaken or lying, unless you believe there is a two-thousand-year-old man cursed by God wandering the Earth like Kane in Kung-Fu.

Originally posted by CrashRetrieval
The books i have in front of me contain dozens of reports of military personel (and civilians) who claim to have been in the presence of ET vehicles.
In what context does being mistaken apply to them ?

How do you know they are telling the truth? Hearing what you want to hear is not a good marker of what the truth is or isn't.

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
. Not all of these witnesses can be mistaken.

Why can't they?

For eight-hundred-years, people have claimed to have met the Wandering Jew. Surely, they all must be mistaken or lying, unless you believe there is a two-thousand-year-old man cursed by God wandering the Earth like Kane in Kung-Fu.

excellent last line

You're too sceptical for me at this moment. My premise is highly trained personnel can't all be wrong, to turn it around on you, are you saying they are all fools?

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
You're too sceptical for me at this moment. My premise is highly trained personnel can't all be wrong, to turn it around on you, are you saying they are all fools?

Again, you are making it a false-dichotomy. It is not a simple matter of either they are right or they are fools. It is not the simple as the black-and-white thinking that is often forced onto the subject matter by believers.

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
You're too sceptical for me at this moment. My premise is highly trained personnel can't all be wrong, to turn it around on you, are you saying they are all fools?

Again, you are making it a false-dichotomy. It is not a simple matter of either they are right or they are fools. It is not the simple as the black-and-white thinking that is often forced onto the subject matter by believers.

If you belive they are mistaken then effectively you are calling them fools. Simple statement.

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
If you belive they are mistaken then effectively you are calling them fools. Simple statement.

No, you are attempting to put words in my mouth in order to continue to present a false-dichotomy and misrepresent my position. Being mistaken and being a fool are not one-in-the-same.

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
If you belive they are mistaken then effectively you are calling them fools. Simple statement.

No, you are attempting to put words in my mouth in order to continue to present a false-dichotomy and misrepresent my position. Being mistaken and being a fool are not one-in-the-same.

Ok, well elaborate on your "mistaken" idea, how can they all be wrong? Some examples of "mistaken".