It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by The GUT
Just because a person holds high-office doesn't make them credible. Ron & Nancy Reagan, for example, consulted astrologists and the like.
If I remember correctly, Hellyer got on his UFO kick after reading Corso's book. That either makes him extremely gullible or a shill for myth-making.
Don't get me wrong: I totally believe in the anomalous nature of many sightings/experiences, however, Hellyer would flunk any course that depended on objective fact research.
Originally posted by Just Chris
Two very valid points to take into consideration here....
1) He just 'had' to mention his book during the hearing? Why...
2) He was paid $20,000.
Besides that, seems 'relatively' credible imo.
The guy's got credentials, yes, but once again he's just telling second hand stories that he's been told, and also getting in a chance to plug in an advert for his latest book.
Originally posted by meaningless333
Paul Hellyer is (better was) a canadian politician.
So one take it or leave it´s testemony.
But one has to consider that this man is a former defense minister of an important NATO country.
He had access to very classified information within NATO and the canadian government. And a very significant part is still classified (even some decades after) and not known by the general public.
Originally posted by Mudwlke
I think Mr. Hellyer was doing fine and was being accepted as credible up until the point where he started talking about Bush, Osama Bin Ladin, and the Muslim religion.
Originally posted by Snaffers
Since when is a politician a credible source????
Originally posted by MisterMiyagi
reply to post by MrJohnSmith
The thing I have noticed on ATS is this, no matter the credibility or background of any eye witness or whistleblower in relation to UFO's , and there are hundreds of names we could quote that have spoke out about the reality of ET's visiting Earth, each and every one of them is ridiculed, debunked and attacked by an element of the forum.
The point I am trying to make is this.If we dismiss these eye witnesses accounts at every turn then we diminish human testimony that would, under normal circumstances, be considered good enough for a conviction in a court of law.