A question to sceptics.

Originally posted by AlienCarnage
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

How often do you have multiple witnesses of the same event to compare? Or are you suggesting that Joe Policeman's testimony of his experience on May 1 should match Suzy Doctor's experience on June 1? Most of the time, it's not more than one witness, and I have found that most multiple witness accounts tend to generally agree.

It is actually "Joe Policeman's" testimony that does not corelate to his own later testimony. Just pick an interview of an eye witness testimony then find that same eye witness giving there testimony in another interview a week or two later, the two rarely match up.

I throw out testimony because their veiw is subjective and because people can't keep their stories strait even ones who believe what they saw will have varied stories of the event. Which makes them very difficult to use as any kind of evidence.

ALL testimony, all EXPERIENCE even, is subjective. Throwing out testimony solely based on its subjective nature is throwing the baby out with the bath water. The better choice is to see how many are the sorts not taken with flights of fancy, are "down-to-earth," are rational, capable humans known for honesty and integrity, and give their testimony credence.

The fact is that, though there are some number that don't make the cut here, many, many do.

I agree there are some whose stories change, and those are ones I would discount. But I know there are also many whose stories not only don't change one week to the next, but don't change one decade to the next.

And likely the ones whose stories change would not make the above cut, and likely those who remain steadfast in their story do make that cut.

I want hard facts, to which there afre none currently.

I want to actually see them myself. I understand the desire to have the concrete, solid object(s) to examine, poke and prod. There seems to be some reason we don't have this, a great deal owing to the military's extreme interest and habit of confiscation.

But I cannot discount testimony. I am not so biased that I cannot take that as a strong indicator of the truth of the matter.

Photos are just not conclusive enough as well as vidios, especially with 3d graphics programs getting as good as they are for low prices. So you realy can't trust this as evidence.

I agree. But I don't need them. I have heard enough testimony (that remains consistent) to fully determine there are aliens among us.

Honestly I don't know what proof I am looking for, I just know I have not seen proof that I can believe yet.

Just for shigs and gittles, read The Terra Papers. They're linked in my sig, but before you go reading them know these things:

1. There is something that will remind you of Star Wars. The Papers were written BEFORE Star Wars (1970's) as a term paper by a Hopi who had been one of his tribe to be taught secret knowledge about Earth's history that was taught to them by an ET they rescued from a UFO crash in 1947.

2. The Hopi, Robert Morning Sky, was influenced to petition the Elders of the tribe to release some of that information when he saw that someone else had published a close approximation from research.

3. I nearly quit reading several times when I first read it, thinking I was reading bad scifi - but the back story I just gave you kept me going, and when I got to the end, I was - very literally - shaking from a radical paradigm shift.

I know you won't see this as proof, but it may provoke thought, at least.

Oh, and to help out, I very diligently put together a glossary - Robert was not the greatest of writers in his youth, and I found it a bit difficult to follow the first time though. The glossary is here (twice, because of editing issues with the bold tag): www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am not trying to tell you what to believe, I am just trying to explain where I am coming from.

Oh, I understand that. I appreciate it too. I'm trying to point out how you are biased, despite your claims. [smile]

reply to post by Amaterasu


I may be biased, but I have reason for this. I have seen way too many "credible" witnesses that swear up and down that they have witnessed an event, some of them have unchaging stories, who then come out 5 or 10 years down the road and admit to lying about their claims. I know some people claim the military got to these people or that the Aliens scared them in to recounting thier stories, but there is no proof of that either. To me these people who come out years later and admit to being fakers or liars, hurt the believability of pretty much all other eye witness testemony, maybe it shouldn't but for me it does.

It is like the little boy who cried wolf. You hear people cry wolf so many times, how can you believe what they say, even though one of them might be true, but how do you know which ones are true and which ones are false? Does this make me biased maybe so, but with good reason as far as I am concerned.

[edit on 9/10/2008 by AlienCarnage]

Originally posted by AlienCarnage
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

I may be biased, but I have reason for this. I have seen way too many "credible" witnesses that swear up and down that they have witnessed an event, some of them have unchaging stories, who then come out 5 or 10 years down the road and admit to lying about their claims. I know some people claim the military got to these people or that the Aliens scared them in to recounting thier stories, but there is no proof of that either. To me these people who come out years later and admit to being fakers or liars, hurt the believability of pretty much all other eye witness testemony, maybe it shouldn't but for me it does.

I can see your approach here and understand it. But I also figure that it very well may be that someone (human or alien) strong-armed an individual, so I have to at least color the event with that possibility, as well as take the many other testimonies (like Alex Collier) and combine them with the Crop Circle phenomena (you haven't addressed this point), and The Terra Papers.

What emerges is a certainty in me that we have aliens among us. Some are not ET, having been bred, as we were, here on Earth. Some are very much ET.

It is like the little boy who cried wolf. You hear people cry wolf so many times, how can you believe what they say, even though one of them might be true, but how do you know which ones are true and which ones are false? Does this make me biased maybe so, but with good reason as far as I am concerned.

Except, if they are being strong-armed, it ISN'T like the boy who cried wolf - though the effect on the population at large is as if it were. So one has to look at a bigger picture. There are many whose stories don't change. And then there's the Circles, and lastly, the Papers.

I give the Papers great credence, because unlike all other tales, the Papers are said to be direct teachings, done in gratitude and trust, for having been hidden from the military and for being nursed back to health. Virtually all others come from:

Channelings (going into trances, e.g.)
OOBE (floating out of body to gain the experience)
Abduction (pretty clear what THIS one is)
Direct Contact (ET's came to the individual)

I might point out another link that leads me to believe the Papers are the real deal. Are you aware of who Joseph Campbell was? He was featured in a Bill Moyer interview on PBS. His life work was studying "myths," and correlating them. He spent a lot of time with the Hopi, and it would seem, learned what Bek'Ti, the rescued ET, taught the Hopi.

I say it seems very likely that he did so because he was also a very good friend of, as well as a mentor to, George Lucas.

This would clearly explain the element in the Papers finding its way into Star Wars.

Have you read The Terra Papers?

reply to post by Amaterasu


Yes I have, I think I answered that earlier in the thread, but that was quite a few posts ago. Althogh it was an interesting read, I have read many other documents that were supposedly transcribed from early writings that contradict these papers and others that support them. Because of this it is hard to take either of the sources as fact. For the alternate sources, that contradict or Coincide with the Tera Papers look towards translations of the Myan Hieroglyphs "Clandar depicting EOW scinario", Egyption Hieroglyphs "God's (people from the stars) helped build their society", Sanskrit texts "Sanskrit Samarangana Sutradhara".

There are many more I could reference, but what would be the point. There are too many different stories out there, which is true? Possibly none of them are true, possibly all hold a bit of truth, there is no one, in my oppinion who knows the entire truth, but maybe some day we will have some tangible evidence of the truth.

That is what is good about ATS it allows us as a group skeptics and believers and those who walk the line between, tobe able to discuss these things and maybe together this forum will get the truth revealed. unfortunately there are also those here on ATS that only wish to present false (mainly youtube vidios) evidence without doing the investigation of it before they post to see if it has already been discounted or to look at it a little closer themselves for the obvious CGI. This type of stuff only hinders true investigation into the truth. One of the bestATSers IMHO is interos, mainly because of the research he puts into his posts. Most of the stuff posted by him has actually made me less skeptical but not completely won me over yet.

I do have my own theories, if you would like to here them send me a U2U and I will discuss them there, would be way off topic here.