Canada Admits - Alien Technology Operated by the USA

reply to post by tigpoppa

canada knows something about the usa?

A heck of a lot more than you my friend!

The US and our Canadian cousins up north have been for decades been hand in hand with the defense of north America and they were and still are vital to our nuclear deterrent against former and present communist countries.

I cant stress this enough! When you have two closely tied military's such as this it does not surprise me a bit that some information even vital top secret info gets passed either on purpose or by accident!

Thanks, I will now consider nominating you for the Darwin award.

Originally posted by mystiq
Just as an example of the position he held, so it becomes a little clearer:

www.forces.gc.ca...

His credibility is above average, I'd say. And that he is actually coming forth, it doesn't matter whatever smear campaign others launch against him. Its irrelevant. His position was not lightweight.

And are you ignoring the facts? So far his credibility on the UFO and alien technology is the same as a villager in Siberian tundra.

He presents no facts. Zero. Nada. He presents no evidence. He presents the conviction of his beliefs.

Do you believe in the church of Scientology any more because Tom Cruise and John Travolta are members? If you believe in the church of Scientology based on your own feelings/research/study, that's fine by me. But I hope that it's not because someone like Tom Cruise is an adherent.

reply to post by stumason


Not really sure what you mean by that... Paul Hellyer was the Minister of National Defence from 1963 - 1968.

Any rate, not one to get caught up in semantics but for the record there is no
"Prime Minister" of Defense.

reply to post by gandalph and anyone else spouting this "gimme the facts" mantra


what te heck do you want,

video is unreliable, no matter how good it can only ever be inconclusive.
photo's are unreliable, as above.
witnesses are not credible because they claim to have seen a UFO.
credible believers don't exist because anyone who believes cannot be credible.

do you want an alien to come down and kick you in the nads. what the heck kind of fact is sufficient to convince you. if the answer is that yes, indeed, you require a little green man to kick you in the nuts, then you are not a skeptic, you are an idiot.

take the video for what it is, a genuine statement of belief from someone who has a lot to lose by stating these beliefs.

actors can believe whatever the heck they like as long as they look good and can act, a politician has nothing much bar his public perception to trade on.

[edit on 19/12/08 by pieman]

Originally posted by Sys_Config
The Canadian thing should have been edited out, it has absolutely no place in any thread, and a counter Nation bashing does neither.

I think the Canada-bashing is ironic (though perhaps not the most fitting word) given who we are talking about. I detect an Anti-American undercurrent in some of Hellyer's ramblings; if it wasn't for the US covering-up UFOs we would solve global warming, the US is going to start an intergalatic war, the US perpetrated 9/11 on itself, the US is going to annex Canada, and so forth.

Originally posted by pieman
do you want an alien to come down and kick you in the nads. what the heck kind of fact is sufficient to convince you.

No. That would be painful.

Originally posted by pieman
if the answer is that yes, indeed, you require a little green man to kick you in the nuts, then you are not a skeptic, you are an idiot.

How does wanting hard evidence, as opposed to taking someone's word on face value alone, make one an idiot?

Originally posted by pieman
take the video for what it is, a genuine statement of belief from someone who has a lot to lose by stating these beliefs.

Though you don't realize it, you've hit the nail on the head. He is taking about his beliefs, nothing more. He is not talking about anything of substance, not presenting evidence, he is talking about his opinion. While he uses his former position as Minister of Defense to add weight to his opinion, admittedly his opinion has absolutely nothing to do with anything that happened while he served; if he did offer something in that regard, it would add credibility to his claim. But he doesn't.

Originally posted by gandalph

Originally posted by mystiq
This guy is completely geniune. I think you need to go back on watch the disclosure project and look at some of those names too. His position was not a minor one.

People, STOP CITING POSITION OF AUTHORITY IN ORDER TO MAKE ANY STATEMENT MORE TRUSTWORTHY.

This cannot be overstated.

As a homework, as a service to yourself and your fellow man, as a service to your country, please, I pray, go and grab Psychology 101 book and read it. What you learn about human behaviour and thinking will change your life, for the better.

Do you think persons of authority are not mistaken? Moreover, do you think persons of authority do not provide false information? Do you think persons of authority, armed with the knowledge how they can influence people, do not influence people willfully to their purpose?

This reminds me of the episode of Family Guy where Lois is running in the elections, and her intelligent, logical approach toward people does not work. At the end, all she does is drop "9/11" in the speech and people rally. It makes me think that certain people, the moment they hear "UFO", "alien", and "believer" IN THE SAME SENTENCE will use that as support of their shaky, often groundless and baseless ridiculous beliefs (US using alien technology? oh really? and they still cannot win the war in Afghanistan or Iraq).

Pardon me, this man held the highest position of defense in our country, with massive qualifications, and ufos are a matter of national defense. He is talking, now that he is beyond a certain contractual clearance, out about this issue. He does not go into details for obvious reasons, though I think we wish he would or could. However, his position of authority makes what he is saying an enormous understatement of the reality of the situation and is crucial to the his case coming forth. This guy is no featherweight disclosure advocate. Its who he is and what his position was that tells us that and so much more than he is personally able to say.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


my point is not that wishing for hard evidence makes you an idiot, my point is that no evidence is hard enough that a determined idiot can't dismiss it. what hard evidence would you accept? simple question, any chance of a simple answer.

Originally posted by gandalph

Originally posted by mlp187
Please don't let that post taint your view of our perception. It wasn't funny and should be deleted.

I disagree about posts being deleted. There is too much censorship on this site. Free speech is a welcome aspect of our society, and the price to pay is occasional insults/flame.

I agree with this position. If you were to edit the ignorance out of certain posts, you wouldn't have any reference as to the poster's credibility the next time you are considering that person's opinion.

Originally posted by mystiq
Pardon me, this man held the highest position of defense in our country, with massive qualifications, and ufos are a matter of national defense. He is talking, now that he is beyond a certain contractual clearance, out about this issue.

You are just completely ignoring the facts. He is not talking about it now because of "contractual clearance" as you claim. Nothing during his tenure as Minister of Defense informed this position. He said it himself, clear in the article I sourced. When he was Minister of Defense, he thought UFOs were a "flight of fancy." It was not until this decade, over 30 years after he served as Minister of Defense, did he give the issue serious consideration. And not because of anything that happened while he served, but because he saw a TV show and read a book.

Originally posted by pieman
my point is not that wishing for hard evidence makes you an idiot, my point is that no evidence is hard enough that a determined idiot can't dismiss it.

If an idiot is able to dismiss it, then it probably wasn't strong evidence to begin with.

Originally posted by pieman
what hard evidence would you accept? simple question, any chance of a simple answer.

That is not relevant to the discussion. It would derail the discussion, making it about me, instead of about Hellyer.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


right, that'll be a no then, no simple answer.

you really think that all these people coming along saying "i want facts, hard facts, you haven't presented indisputable evidence" don't derail every freaking UFO thread.

i'm a pretty skeptical guy, i'm always happy to examine anything and make a judgment on it, usually i say there's nothing in it. the video is faked, or something identifiable, or inconclusive.

what i don't do is whine about the lack of hard evidence presented by someone who is giving his personal opinion because he has been asked to speak about his personal opinion.

meh, forget it, derail away. talk about the mans nationality or the books he reads or the TV he watches, anything rather than his actual track record or credentials or anything else that might actually establish his credibility.

[edit on 19/12/08 by pieman]

Originally posted by pieman
meh, forget it, derail away. talk about the mans nationality or the books he reads or the TV he watches, anything rather than his actual track record or credentials or anything else that might actually establish his credibility.

It is not derailing to talk about the books he has read and the TV he has watched, because it is those things alone that constitute his credibility here. Just because someone is an authority of some kind does not mean everything they say comes from that position of authority.

If he'd read a book on fairies recently, would the fact he was defence minister decades ago add weight to any claims he made?

Originally posted by pieman

what te heck do you want,

video is unreliable, no matter how good it can only ever be inconclusive.
photo's are unreliable, as above.
witnesses are not credible because they claim to have seen a UFO.
credible believers don't exist because anyone who believes cannot be credible.

do you want an alien to come down and kick you in the nads. what the heck kind of fact is sufficient to convince you. if the answer is that yes, indeed, you require a little green man to kick you in the nuts, then you are not a skeptic, you are an idiot.

take the video for what it is, a genuine statement of belief from someone who has a lot to lose by stating these beliefs.

actors can believe whatever the heck they like as long as they look good and can act, a politician has nothing much bar his public perception to trade on.

[edit on 19/12/08 by pieman]

Listen, if it makes far more sense to you to believe any word that anybody states, be my guest.

I am certain that such thinking will propel our civilization well into the realms of stratosphere in terms of enlightenment.

after watching bowling for columbine last night i have a new found respect for Canadians. although i never hated or was rude or called them schmucks in the first place.

savior complex is simply looking at the facts. which is fine. and i commend him for his healthy skeptisism. therefore i have nothing to say as a rebuttle..

what i will say is that i cannot allow myself to deny the professional career of this man, the fact that others in the military usa or canada can and have mislead other professionals is only a tale tale sign that something is actually happening ANYWAY. to me it seems as if the 'war on government secrecy' statement was a highlight of his argument to solidify his belief in what he is saying.

the fact that he doesnt present any EVIDENCE is not important to me, WHY you ask, because if he did im sure 99% of the people would just say its inconclusive anyway. This cover up requires wit/testemony/evidence/and personal experience.

thanks for the video. nice to know we have people from the top all the way to the bottom who are acknowledging this phenomenon.the whole world..man im getting excited about UFO all over again.

Originally posted by mystiq
Pardon me, this man held the highest position of defense in our country, with massive qualifications, and ufos are a matter of national defense. He is talking, now that he is beyond a certain contractual clearance, out about this issue. He does not go into details for obvious reasons, though I think we wish he would or could. However, his position of authority makes what he is saying an enormous understatement of the reality of the situation and is crucial to the his case coming forth. This guy is no featherweight disclosure advocate. Its who he is and what his position was that tells us that and so much more than he is personally able to say.

And yet his belief in aliens is based on a book he read after he retired.

Many whistleblowers revealed detailed and incriminating information. This Canadian man reveals nothing of the sort, and only states his beliefs.

You know what I find incredible? That this man was in charge of our defenses.

Originally posted by zacherystaylor
Talk about a intergactic war isn't going to do much for his credibility.


www.ufodigest.com...

www.canada.com...

but didn't genenral macarthur mention "interplanetary war"? does that make him less credible as well?

Originally posted by pieman
my point is not that wishing for hard evidence makes you an idiot, my point is that no evidence is hard enough that a determined idiot can't dismiss it. what hard evidence would you accept? simple question, any chance of a simple answer.

And yet, a determined idiot believes in something without any evidence.

A determined idiot will moan and groan how nothing will sway the skeptics, how no matter how much evidence is presented, it's never good enough, all the while when he says "evidence" he really means "faith" and "belief".

Let's stop with generalities and let's concentrate on this Canadian ex-official. Let's call a spade a spade.

And the bottom line is this: if you believe that aliens are regularly visiting us and communicating with certain factions of our governments, that is your freedom to do so. And if your belief is based on statements such as one from this Canadian ex-official, again, it's your freedom to do so.

But please pardon me if I think you are being naive and you are doing a disservice to yourself and to the people around you.

Originally posted by tigpoppa
gimme a break those shmucks couldnt find their way out of a paper bag unless the way out was lined with maple syrup.

Careful swinging that judgement hammer, you're likely to miss and smack yourself.

Originally posted by pieman
you really think that all these people coming along saying "i want facts, hard facts, you haven't presented indisputable evidence" don't derail every freaking UFO thread.

Not in the least.

Originally posted by pieman
what i don't do is whine about the lack of hard evidence presented by someone who is giving his personal opinion because he has been asked to speak about his personal opinion.

Our point here is just that, he is talking about his personal belief, and some people are confusing it with "disclosure," proof-positive extraterrestrials are visiting the Earth.

Originally posted by pieman
meh, forget it, derail away. talk about the mans nationality or the books he reads or the TV he watches, anything rather than his actual track record or credentials or anything else that might actually establish his credibility.

His credentials have nothing to do with what he is saying. By his own admission, this is not information he found out in the course of this duties as Minister of Defense. We talk about the books he reads and the TV shows he watches because, again by his own admission, this is forming the basis of his opinion. And we are pointing this out, because again, people are confusing his opinion with facts, which he is in very short supply of.