Canada Admits - Alien Technology Operated by the USA

reply to post by bluestreak53


bluestreak - a bit harsh. I think it's plainly obvious that, due to the similarities - a UFO landing strip being opened forty years ago - I was missing your point rather than attempting to mislead anyone.

Having said that - mislead anyone from what? I'd appreciate a link to a primary source for confirmation it happened (assuming I've not missed one; read the whole thread but it's been going on a while and I've slept) but let's say Hellyer turned up at the opening of a public gesture UFO strip and said "yeah, we did that 13 years ago, but nobody came, ha ha".

How does that add to his credibility?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
First of all cabinet ministers are LESS LIKELY to have wrong beliefs.

History is full of examples proving you wrong, and recent history at that. In fact, opposition parties make the claim all the time about the administration in power.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
First of all cabinet ministers are LESS LIKELY to have wrong beliefs. The last time I heard people don't nominate high school drop-outs to represent them in government!

Please justify that first statement. It's meaningless. A cabinet minister is less likely to have a wrong belief about ... what? Quantum physics? Religion? Evolution? Something within their sphere of expertise, you say. All right, then - the existence of aliens. Oh no - those beliefs, when they express them, are all lies.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Second your example is totally flawed when compared to Mr. Hellyer because as minister of defense he would have access to all (or most) national security threats and we all know that ufos have been classified as such in the past.

Yes. He had access to that and there was no evidence there, by his own admission. Except he's speaking in code, of course...

There's another thread on here about 'evidence to convince the world' . Despite your protestations, this is blatantly not it.

[edit on 22-12-2008 by damagedoor]

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Not necessarily. Many times an indirect disclosure can be just as effective as a direct disclosure and has less strings attached. No one gets hurt this way.

But that isn't what Hellyer is calling for, is it?

Then what is he calling for?

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Even if the government did find out who spoke it would be hard to prove in a court that X general said this and that. Besides chasing ghosts is never easy!

Who said anything about court? If you believe there is a cover-up, certainly you must believe there are ways of maintaining the cover-up and punishing those who betray it outside of the court-system.

I think it hardly makes any difference wether one is taken to court for hearings or simply taken out by the "shadow" government. What exactly are you trying to prove?

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Actually what you call "hearing voices" is more like deductive reasoning and we have continously demonstrated the reasons and logic behind our theory.

"Hearing voices?" I said nothing of the sort. I said you are reading into Hellyer's speech what you want to hear. A far cry from "hearing voices."

What deductive reasoning has gone into the claim he is speaking in a "simple coded language?" You have not demonstrated it at all; what you did was make a claim without supporting it. What evidence supports this? What logic supports this? You have not even told us what this "code" is.

Perhaps you need to work on your *deductive reasoning* skills a bit! Most people understand perfectly what I say yet you seem to have trouble.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I truely apologize if I offended you, however in all sincerity you come across more as a hardcore non-believer bent on disrupting a valid conversation rather than being objective and seeking truth.

And you come across as immature and closed-minded; a sincere disagreement is not "trolling" or a sign of someone "bent on disrupting a valid conversation." Any mature, open-minded person could recognize this. You claim I am not "objective" or "seeking truth;" could you tell us how you are any different? You attack me as a troll for not agreeing with you, for voicing a different opinion, even question their intelligence. Yet you proclaim you have found some hidden code in Hellyer's speech, further proclaim it is based on logic and deductive reason, yet fail to tell us how you came to these conclusions; we are just supposed to accept it, not question you. You go so far as to tell us we have no right to question Hellyer, or ask that he back up his claims. Could you please tell me how any of that is being "objective" or "seeking truth?"

But, you are right. I am a troll for asking questions, for not accepting wholecloth what someone says, just because it's what I want to hear. You are right, that is disruptive. But you, on the other hand, my friend, you accepting without question what he says, hearing what you want to hear, attacking people who do not agree with you as trolls or disruptive, yes you are the objective one here.

[edit on 22-12-2008 by SaviorComplex]

[edit on 22-12-2008 by SaviorComplex]

How ironic?! Actually you are a troll because you like to argue just for the sake of arguing. And yes you are disrupting a decent coversation by making unreasonable demands of evidence and by asking the wrong questions to the wrong people.

If you think the minister is lying or are incapable of figuring out his motives then I suggest you go to a different thread and leave us the hell alone!

[edit on 22-12-2008 by EarthCitizen07]

Originally posted by damagedoor
reply to post by bluestreak53

 

bluestreak - a bit harsh. I think it's plainly obvious that, due to the similarities - a UFO landing strip being opened forty years ago - I was missing your point rather than attempting to mislead anyone.

Having said that - mislead anyone from what? I'd appreciate a link to a primary source for confirmation it happened (assuming I've not missed one; read the whole thread but it's been going on a while and I've slept) but let's say Hellyer turned up at the opening of a public gesture UFO strip and said "yeah, we did that 13 years ago, but nobody came, ha ha".

How does that add to his credibility?

I didn't say it added to his credibility. I only stated that is what he said and it was printed in the Ottawa Journal in July 1967. Check out your local archives to read the microfilm archives of the Ottawa Journal. If your local library doesn't have them, you can probably order through the library.

That is the primary source. Wikipedia is not a primary source and is edited by anyone with an opinion. It is only slightly more reliable that ATS as a source for information.

There are multiple places on the Internet that reference the government designated UFO landing site at Suffield.

Here is one:
Canada UFO Information
You'll have to scroll down to find the reference to the UFO landing site at Suffield and it references the primary source which is again the Ottawa Journal news article.

So there you have it. I didn't say Hellyer was any more credible on UFOs than say, President Reagan or Carter. But he DID DISCLOSE information, WHILE HE WAS SERVING AS DEFENSE MINISTER revealing the interest of the Canadian Government from the 1950s in the study of UFOs that went so far as to designate a landing area for them in a large desolate military base and research station in southern Alberta.

I think that is far more important than what Hellyer's current opinions are about UFOs - especially considering the fact that he reveals nothing new on the subject.

Originally posted by damagedoor
reply to post by bluestreak53

 

...How does that add to his credibility?

This is the issue. His credibility is above board. The ministry of defense is simply a position not given to anyone that is not only beyond credible, but also able to be know what can and cannot be discussed.

Originally posted by bluestreak53
I didn't say it added to his credibility. I only stated that is what he said and it was printed in the Ottawa Journal in July 1967. Check out your local archives to read the microfilm archives of the Ottawa Journal. If your local library doesn't have them, you can probably order through the library.

That is the primary source. Wikipedia is not a primary source and is edited by anyone with an opinion. It is only slightly more reliable that ATS as a source for information.

Excellent. But this is misleading, since your quote in the post before, and the link in this one, are from potentially biased secondary sources: specifically, UFO websites that simply claim Hellyer was reported as saying something in the Ottawa Journal. They don't quote the primary source, as far as I can see. Have you read it? Or are you taking their word for it? Speaking generally, I don't understand why they wouldn't quote him directly if he said something interesting.

However, let's take their word for it. He did say there was a UFO landing strip.

Which means that, in the 1960s, Hellyer admitted to a (mere) 13-year-old military operation involving aliens. At the opening of a similar tourist attraction. Without, thus far, being "disappeared" in any way.

He also says he saw nothing during his personal tenure to convince him that aliens exist.

I agree that his experiences then are more interesting than his beliefs now - though that is saying little, as his current beliefs are of no more interest than any random person's. But I'm struggling to see any connection between the two.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Then what is he calling for?

It would seem he is calling for full disclosure. A bit different than what you claim.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
I think it hardly makes any difference wether one is taken to court for hearings or simply taken out by the "shadow" government. What exactly are you trying to prove?

I'm disputing claims that he is trying to protect someone or anyone.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Perhaps you need to work on your *deductive reasoning* skills a bit! Most people understand perfectly what I say yet you seem to have trouble.

You've been asked now by myself and at least one other posters to explain this "coded language" and to back up your claims. And thus far, you have refused, resorting instead to insulting our intelligence for asking.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Actually you are a troll because you like to argue just for the sake of arguing.

How am I arguing for the sake of arguing? I've stuck by the same positon since I've entered this conversation; I have not changed my position just to argue with someone. Having a position, presenting the rationale behind it and arguing your case is not "arguing for the sake of arguing." If that were true, the same could be said about you and everyone else here.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
And yes you are disrupting a decent coversation by making unreasonable demands of evidence and by asking the wrong questions to the wrong people.

It is not disruptive to ask questions or ask for evidence. It is not disruptive to argue a position. What is disruptive is coming into a conversation and instead of making it about the subject at hand, making it about the personalities of the posters instead; for example, by calling them trolls or disruptive for the crime of disagreeing with you.

And if you want to get down to brass tacts, I have been in this conversation since the first page, arguing my positon about Hellyer. You came in on the fifth page; who is the one disrupting a good conversation?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
If you think the minister is lying or are incapable of figuring out his motives then I suggest you go to a different thread and leave us the hell alone!

Excuse me, but this thread is for everyone, agree or disagre with Hellyer. It is not just for those who want to nod along and not question him. I have every right to be here, whether you disagree with my opinion or not. It seems very suspect that you claim others are not being objective or "seeking truth" when you don't think that people who disagree with you should be allowed to voice their opinion.

Call me a troll again, continue to try to make this thread about me, tell me I don't have a right to be here, or tell me I'm being disruptive, and I'll ask the moderators to get involved.

He makes very good points. It took a lot of courage to say what he said. Finally someone who had the balls to speak up. As for documentation i doubt you will ever see it, the people pulling the strings would never let documents such as these to ever be released. Eyes only for a reason, so someone doesn't borrow them and make copies duh. I see how fast a thread dies when someone yells hoax, one of them, or something similiar. Is that all it takes to put a gag on truth? Try this for once, read the message and post your reply before mixing your ideas with other ideas. People tend to glean truth and simliar ideas before second guessing themselves when they learn about what others think. Most people want to be the same as everyone else without thinking, but who is the ideal model of everyone else? If you guessed the governments version of the ideal person, you're on the right track.

Well, I'm sure that Hellyer definitely believes in what he's saying. Of course, he held the position in the 60's. In '67, he inaugurated a UFO landing pad. He's done some other strange things since then.

It sounds like the real turning point in his belief in UFO's was the Philip J. Corso book, which I've personally read and seems mostly plausible. But there is a big debate over that book as well.

Hey, new to the site!

Just wanted to make a few comments relating to the defence ministers speach.

First off, if theres a government within the government in the United States, and the military champions the use of, "Plausible Deniability" to keep everyone in the dark, then how does a Canadian Official get ahold of that kind of information in the first place?

Secondly, Some of what he says doesn't add up. On the one hand, he mentions that the aliens intentions were to help mankind. So we would assume that the government had to have made contact with them personally. So why are they developing countermeasures against these aliens, while at the same time enlisting the help of so-called, "Renegades" if they know they are here to help? Paranoia? And who are these so-called Renegades, aliens who are part of some political faction against their own government? Why bother helping us?

Also, If there were communication between humans and aliens, wouldn't there be some kind of coordination in regards to procedures when a US plane happens upon one of their craft? In the speach he explains that various military planes were brought down accidently, by the energy fields created by their craft. Why didn't they just move away? Why let a fighter plane get close enough to be damaged if your here to help everyone? So does this now mean that the aliens who once came to help are now our enemies?

If they had become our enemies, I'd have expected that we would have been ID4 toast by now and that we'd never have had the time to develop countermeasures before a full scale invasion occured. Or might it be that we are so primitive and paranoid that they simply just don't take us that seriously when we try to threaten them?

It would have been more believable in my opinion if he had said that the government knows of their existance but can't do anything about it. As far as the reverse engineering side of things, we could build these craft ourselves anyway without parting out an alien craft. Humans already understand the fundimentals of most of these super high technologies. Just because the commercial world or the academic community says we don't have the technology, doesn't mean we don't. Nasa's shuttles and space station surely do not reflect the State of the art.

Just an opinion.

reply to post by TheGearsAreAlwaysTurning


You bring up some excellent points, Gears. Hellyer's story has little in the way of internal consistency.

And welcome to ATS.

Originally posted by asmall89
Whether the craft are extraterrestrial or not the Military (or shadow government) is definitely hiding technology from the public. I agree 100% with his cause. They need to reveal all their secrets, the most dangerous enemy we are facing now is the destructive power of ourselves.

Sure, the greatest enemy is our own destructive power, but our greatest defense is the ignorance of our enemies.. I wouldnt share anything to the public. To many Americans hate the US Government, honestly why should the Government trust them?

But I dont think alien technology is the explination. Id like to think a brain like my own is the cause for these massive leaps in technology.

Originally posted by gandalph

Originally posted by Maya432

The Ops trying to show us the "OFFICIAL who said these claims.
Does the thread title look like it says 'LETS TRASH CANADA" ??

widespread malnutrition??? are you on drugs or something?????

Wow, I am highly offended there pal and shocked by the stereotype.
pretty crazy how you judge a country by its military.

get over it ... YA... Canada knows stuff..... real surprise there.

crazy kanucks and their maple????.... laught it up funny boy.
we are an EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT people with strong character
and morals.

mods... please don`t give me the off topic slap...
this guy needs a slap , and justifiably so.

That's OK, let him be, the population of the USA is known to be the most ignorant one in the western world.

They also believe they have the best democracy in the world.

However, some points he made are valid. Our military sucks, and our spying/intelligence is certainly lacking. We do not have the funds, the expertise, and the technology to be a world-class army.

And you are showing yourself to be not ignorant? For your information, most Americans know that their country is a Republic, not a democracy. As far as funds go, ask yourself why we don't have the funds. When you have your answer you will see why we cannot call our own country of Canada a democracy either.

Nothing personal to the OP, but the thread title is absolutely misguiding and a lie.

First of all the Canadian government has admitted to absolutely nothing, second of all there is no such thing as a Prime Minister of Defense.

And third...

Government is a very complex thing, in the case of Canada we are talking about a constitutional monarchy, Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, is the sovereign and head of state of Canada, if she went public saying what this former Minister of Defense said, then we could conclude that there has been an official statement.

Until that happens Canada has admitted to nothing.

How did this thread turn into ours is better than yours? The spark of one idiot can ignite the flame of ignorance. Both countries were founded on stolen land so the whole we are better than you argument is moot since both are founded on theft and oppression. I highly doubt our explosion in science and technology in the last 60 years can be attributed to our own genius. If we are so intelligent this would have happened long ago. The powers that be throughout history are part of why it hasn't by supressing knowledge and reserving it for themselves. Maybe we could have come this far if not for them, but we didn't so we stole or were handed this technology bit by bit to make it seem like we did it all on our own. As for nasa and their shuttle tech, it is still the most advanced tech known to public knowledge. What isn't public knowledge is that which scares me the most and i understand why they couldn't divulge this without raising questions, since it would be very hard to explain how we developed ufo's and other high technology far beyond our current understanding of physics and the universe. Much easier to explain by allowing it to trickle out than open the floodgates.

what does this guy have to gain by making this up?

x2 post ftl


sorry hit the button to many times

[edit on 23-12-2008 by killartofu]

Originally posted by killartofu
what does this guy have to gain by making this up?

For starters, lots of attention.

idk i guess so but, wouldnt more people shun him for saying these things rather then encourage him?