Paul Hellyer drops bomb @ hearing on UFO/Aliens in Canada - Deathbed Testimonial

They always have eyewitness accounts? Which has been proven time and time again to be the least accurate form of evidence. Then throw in the desire for public attention, being biased, and lack of physical evidence. Again, if you know alien visitation is actually occurring, seems government disclosure is a moot point.

In an age police shooting are live streamed, the government suppresses all evidence of alien interaction with civilians?

originally posted by: Cenny
a reply to: CoffeeInMyHand

The reason that there is no disclosure is because it is Earth-Shattering. Mind boggling run and hide in fear, denial and sheer terror should the truth be known.

Cenny, is there any way you could elaborate a bit more on this? I'm quite interested in what you seem to know. Throw us a bone and drop a couple hints, please!

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: boncho
The government officials of any country who are aware of the true nature of UFO's know this as does anyone with half a brain. The notion of any kind of disclosure is a dream I'm afraid.

Not to interject Politics..But Hillary Clinton...as well as one of her campaign advisors...have been talking disclosure..

My instinct is to say she is pandering for votes, but logically I don't think the disclosure advocates represent enough of voting bloc to warrant pandering..not sure..

Hillary Clinton Gives U.F.O. Buffs Hope She Will Open the X-Files
www.nytimes.com...

Clinton campaign chair: 'The American people can handle the truth' on UFOs
www.cnn.com...

The second link is interesting because it is Bill Clintons former chief of staff...and Clinton has said he asked for UFO infor while he was in office...Anderson Cooper asks..."Is there evidence of alien life?"...the guy responds "uhh..that's for the public to judge once they have seen all the available evidence"...or something like that.

The only thing that makes me not think it's pandering for votes is how many ufo people would actually like her? Is the ufo demographic so big that it's worth making yourself seem like a fool to the rest of the electorate?

I tend to agree. Her husband when he was president tried to get info on Area 51 and aliens...and she is saying she wants to do the same if elected. I do wonder what in their past or personal life they might not talk about publicly motivates this. They are obviously (she in particular) in career mode and guarded about being ridiculed...but feel strongly enough to risk a little a talk about pressing for disclosure of what evidence the gov might have.

a reply to: SargonThrall

Go ahead and believe in aliens, it makes no difference to me. But Hellyer is a pathetic bastion for evidence.

If you don't mind me asking, why do you believe he is a pathetic bastion for evidence?

originally posted by: CoffeeInMyHand
a reply to: lovebeck

Many, including me, find Hellyer to be more than unreliable. He is either greatly misinformed, or a liar. I don't think calling him out on this is "shade". It just making our own opinions heard. I for one will never take anything the man says as fact or even given much more than a second thought. He simply can't be trusted, because much of his info is so ludicrous.

Well, as someone who has researched this subject for years, all I can say is this is YOUR problem, not anyone else's. If you want to make personal, emotional judgments about the people involved, and this causes you to ignore what they're saying, and how MANY OF THEM are saying it, and the HIGH DEGREE of reliability their current or previous position was in society, that's a shame, but hey, if you want to keep your head in the sand, and refuse to believe anything until it is related to you by an authority figure you trust on the television, then you should just remember to keep bleating.

Because the fact is, there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence out there, and anyone with any semblance of critical thinking skills can decide what is fact, what is fiction and what is possible but not proven yet, in their minds. And while there is a ton of stuff 'out there' that is possible but not proven to ME, yet, the existence of UFOs, multiple dimensions, and aliens is not a difficult task to discern. That's why MANY HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people already know these things, that some people just will not be able to see, as I said, until they've been told by the same people that have been lying and brainwashing them for decades. It's truly a sad statement on the education system in this country since the mid-70s.

originally posted by: Aliensarehere
The truth is more likely a deity than aliens. At least that's what I'd be more inclined to believe

That's fine too if it were. Though I'd question why a deity needed a silver metallic vehicle that spits out radiation to get around. This is documented by numerous encounters, radiation burns in the Michalek Falcon Lake Incident, there's also 3 incidents across the span of 60 years where people witnessed beings with brown skin and red eyes (one set of girls called it 'the Devil' itself. )

Also, religious interpretations of UFO events are documented, a wave in the 1500s and 1600s, and most aerial phenomena was considered to have religious meaning. Even the bible (the oldest intact full version, in the masoretic tradition), when literally translated speaking about 'glory of god' it states, "Ruach", which has a Babylonian origin, and it means literally, vessel-air-disturbance. Common interpretation of god's glory is "the spirit of god" but it's actually pretty clear in a literal translation it sounds like effect the Elohim ship makes as it passes over the water.

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: Aliensarehere
The truth is more likely a deity than aliens. At least that's what I'd be more inclined to believe

That's fine too if it were. Though I'd question why a deity needed a silver metallic vehicle that spits out radiation to get around. This is documented by numerous encounters, radiation burns in the Michalek Falcon Lake Incident.

Yeah, from a man that has a symmetrical set of burns squarely across his stomach with exhaust ports from a "spaceship" that has the ports drawn at an angle:


He would have to be leaning up at an angle and inches away from the exhaust to create a square uniform pattern burn like that. When Falcon visited the hospital, the radiologist found no evidence of radiation trauma either.

Also, his shirt suspiciously has an outline burn that looks like a piece of rectangular metal with holes was placed down and flash burned with a torch. Oh yeah.... he happened to be a mechanic obviously familiar with a welding torch, wearing welding goggles and heavy welding gloves while prospecting.


Some suggested he had fallen on a BBQ pit grate.

His description was stereotypically futuristic for 1967. A 40 foot saucer with a 3 foot dome on the top with openings around it. A hatch that opens and inside a maze of lights on a panel with a cluster of lights flashing in a random sequence like a computer.

a reply to: one4all

Actually the colour of the sky does change depending on the weather, global position, time and other things.

But that's unimportant I'm just being a pedantic dick, I get what you're saying and the "true colour" of the sky might be blue.. but I'm more interested in these Earth changes you speak of. What Earth changes are you talking about and what is your source for this information?

we are 1/2 way over the wall and have breached the Gates.....no amnesty available.

What do you mean by this?

a reply to: boncho

And no, it's not as you describe. Because as above, this is suitable evidence in the court of law, if an actual serious hearing or legal case was held on the UFO/Alien reality, we'd be living in a world that recognizes the reality.

What a crock!

Why the hell would a "dying testimony" be taken as anything factual?

If I were dying and made a death bed testimony that I had a pink unicorn in my garage would it stand up in court?.....don't make me laugh!

a reply to: boncho

I am calling bs on: ""Ruach", which has a Babylonian origin, and it means literally, vessel-air-disturbance. "
From: en.m.wikibooks.org...
"'Ruach' cannot be construed as a person. It is a force. It is invisible and like wind, because it can be felt or experienced, but not seen.

Also check out www.hebrew-streams.org...

a reply to: nomoredemsorreps

You sure read a lot from so little. You seem to be under the idea that I don't find the UFO phenomenon to be real, or I am waiting for some "authority figure" to explain it me; neither which are true. I don't pretend to know the origin of this phenomenon, but I am well aware of existence. I am also well aware of many false claims that abound in the field. I simply find Paul Hellyer to be a man who spits worthless information. If that offends you in some way, so be it.

a reply to: superman2012
I certainly don't mind you asking, but if you had read my posts thoroughly you would see I have already answered this.

He never witnessed any aliens himself, he believes the most absurd things told to him, his stories were inconsistent, his former position has no effect on his accuracy, he merely rehashes thirdhand information.

Oh, boncho , what in the world has become of you? You used to be such a clear thinker.

A well-known UFO nut claims to have deathbed testimony from someone and this, you say, doesn't need a shred of proof to be taken as true because of some legal wrinkle?

Come on. When did you swallow the Gullible Pill?

Come back to reality please. We miss you.

originally posted by: boncho
The deathbed testimonial is not Hellyer's, it was someone who spoke to him

I phoned him and he gave me a full report of what he saw

And what did he see ?

a reply to: Greggers

Courts are not utilized for determining the legitimacy of ET, or Bigfoot, or Chupacabra.

Courts are used all the time to determine whether events transpired or not. Whether or not something is credible or not. And also whether or not further study, be it regulatory, scientific or whatever form need be done.

They are for determining a SPECIFIC person's GUILT (or lack thereof) in a SPECIFIC case of wrongdoing where a victim has sustained some type of injury.

The guilt of people who were involved in a wide scale conspiracy to hide the truth about UFO/Alien phenomena is one that should be tried in the court of law. National security may have been a valid argument back when it was initially done, but we are long since passed the days of the Cold War. And all the effort put in to socially engineering cognitive dissonance and fostering distrust, mistrust, derision re: the UFO subject could've been put towards actively pursuing long term disclosure in the least harmful means possible, of course with the controlling influence they've had in Hollywood, it's quite possible this was done to some extent, but the cover up has carried on far too long.

Otherwise, all this talk of what could or couldn't be proven in court is totally irrelevant.

No, it's not actually. Court's convict and find/make absolute determinations all the time. This is based on circumstantial evidence. There is enough circumstantial evidence to prove that numerous extra-terrestrial crafts (which break laws of physics as we know them) exist - and if this is proven in court, in hearings, then the reality of that determination needs to be addressed and they need to disclose what they are hiding from the people.

The claim people are waiting for 'scientific evidence' or that they need solid, reproducible evidence, is intellectually dishonest, ignorant to science and understanding, also a logical fallacy. END... OF... STORY.

"Boncho, you just made a really wild accusation, gee whiz, I hope you back it up..." ...and I will. Let's first understand scientific discovery and its purpose:

"the intellectual and practical activity of the systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.*

Science cannot make proper conclusion based in truth when the data it uses for such is corrupted, false, hidden or if political or ideological forces prevent it from analyzing the truth of the subject. -Please read this sentence over if you feel the previous statements I made are wrong. We have enough evidence to suggest UFO/Alien question deserve legitimate, serious study, it was even presented in the 70s to the UN as such, and they completely ignored every recommendation made (back then citing 60,000+ global sightings). We now have circumstantial evidence, to suggest possible extra-terrestrial visitation, the crash of many craft which defy the laws of physics, and plenty other related events, all of which have been classified above top secret, hidden from the general populace, and covered up by the MIC and by use of social engineering and media manipulation, an entire culture of denial, attack and ridicule has been created to keep the subject under wraps. There is more than enough evidence, documented, proof in official reports, in hidden reports, in reports that should exist but don't and in thousands of witness testimony.

This alone should be enough to warrant serious inquiry into why it was covered up in the first place, and to ascertain the full scope of hidden knowledge. Because the legitimate investigation has been subverted, it's intellectually deceptive. As we know information is withheld from the subject, a proper study and assessment, and therefore any conclusion cannot be obtained without the data released. Any claim from anyone, stating they wish to seek an answer to this question, without demanding the release of all information related, are being deceptive.

You would not agree with any scientific study if you knew there were deliberate removal of data, if it were subverted, if information were kept from it. And really that is all that matters.

For instance, a scientific conclusion that men are dumber than women, but any inclusion of male participants with an IQ of 80+ were omitted from study, would not be considered legitimate.

A study determining there were very few stars in the sky, and achieved its results by omitting all stellar phenomena below a visible magnitude of +6, would not be scientific, accurate, or accepted.

So why then do we accept any conclusion or determination made by the very limited number of studies which omitted all important information from the onset. Also, since we know the subject is being suppressed (re: priority reporting kept out of blue book, all above secret classifications, CIA operations w/media, Condon direction to debunk and convince public it's not important, etc) we also know then a proper scientific study cannot be achieved. In fact, it really comes down to demanding disclosure and that's it. It's very possible (via eyewitness testimony) the government is sitting on evidence that will require no debate whatsoever, and prove conclusively the instant it's disclosed.

There is a huge circumstantial case for the visitation theory. And it begins way back in biblical times. But perhaps that is the problem. If you notice, science breaks down the easiest when subverted by political and ideological influence. Of course any ET visitation in our history, even accounts in the 1500/1600s is recorded as 'religious events' and since anything contradictory to religion is heavily contested, controlled and opposed, it makes sense why this subject would find much difficulty in logical or reasoned discussion, investigation and query.

And ignoring the circumstantial argument as a legal position, lets not ignore that many sciences are reliant on circumstantial evidence as well.

More than with any of the other human sciences, anthropology is based on circumstantial evidence.

***

And The thrashing of Margaret Mead - Lies & deception, politics & ideology create the largest controversy to date in Anthropology.

Beyond that, modern science has some major problems and has had for awhile.

Peer review: Troubled

So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.

The corruption of peer review is harming scientific credibility

Why most published findings are false

Plenty more than that too but I ran out of room.

a reply to: boncho
I think you are correct since the courts in Salem Massachusetts proved that there were witches. Thank god they burned them all.

originally posted by: SargonThrall
a reply to: superman2012
I certainly don't mind you asking, but if you had read my posts thoroughly you would see I have already answered this.

He never witnessed any aliens himself, he believes the most absurd things told to him, his stories were inconsistent, his former position has no effect on his accuracy, he merely rehashes thirdhand information.

He says he witnessed a UFO. I would have trouble easily discounting that as many others have as he would be familiar with aircraft and he was an engineer.
What you say is absurd, might be truth. Unless you can provide your proof to the contrary, you have to admit it is a possibility.
Do you have a link to his inconsistencies? I would like to read them over, only to try and understand for myself the inconsistencies.
His former position has quite a bit of an effect on his accuracy. He would have seen military aircraft and been familiar with them. That along with his early career of building training aircraft for the Royal Canadian Air Force would put him far and above the average person imo.
I agree that taking thirdhand information isn't reliable, but, that's how things get proven, wouldn't you agree? By taking everyones information and putting it together, you start to see an overall picture of the situation. That is true in many instances in life.

I'm not trying to change your "belief" in his reliability at all, I'm merely providing a differing viewpoint from the one you have cemented yourself into. I enjoy trying to view things from every perspective and I haven't made up my own mind on this mans claims yet. I merely find them interesting.

originally posted by: Argyll
a reply to: boncho

And no, it's not as you describe. Because as above, this is suitable evidence in the court of law, if an actual serious hearing or legal case was held on the UFO/Alien reality, we'd be living in a world that recognizes the reality.

What a crock!

Why the hell would a "dying testimony" be taken as anything factual?

If I were dying and made a death bed testimony that I had a pink unicorn in my garage would it stand up in court?.....don't make me laugh!

I would be interested to know why you believe this story would be made up. What does he have to gain by lying about it? Most people would be more inclined to confess something that is truthful (as they know it) when they are dying, not make up a fanciful story. I'm not saying that's law, just what the average person would do, trust me, I'm average.

originally posted by: Argyll
a reply to: boncho

And no, it's not as you describe. Because as above, this is suitable evidence in the court of law, if an actual serious hearing or legal case was held on the UFO/Alien reality, we'd be living in a world that recognizes the reality.

What a crock!

Why the hell would a "dying testimony" be taken as anything factual?

If I were dying and made a death bed testimony that I had a pink unicorn in my garage would it stand up in court?.....don't make me laugh!

No one has ever had a death bed confession of seeing any pink unicorns before, so that argument is a red herring.

But when they are very specific of other things already known not to be fairy tales, that is something to pay attention to.