Canada Admits - Alien Technology Operated by the USA

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Hellyer is not disclosing anything. He did not learn anything about this subject while serving as Minister of Defense. If you had bothered looking into the facts, you would already know this.

Right...

So you want a direct in-your-face type disclosure, one that indicts all his colleagues, friends, etc just to make a stronger case. Guess what? The real world does not work that way!

There is only so much he can say without getting a lot of people into serious trouble. I guess this noble approach is incomprehensible for people like you. You want it all and it you want it now.......

And yes I did read the link you provided and no we are not too lazy too read, however unlike you we can decode a RATHER SIMPLE CODED MESSAGE. Would I like more evidence? Sure but I am not going to demand anything; ONLY COURT JUDGES HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND...

Stop trolling mate!

[edit on 21-12-2008 by EarthCitizen07]

Originally posted by damagedoor

Originally posted by sdrawkcabII
For someone of his stature to go out on the limb and run the risk of ruining his career and his life by stating something like this is "evidence" enough for me. Think about it...seriously. Would you bolster your credibility by speaking such nonsense if you're not certain what you're speaking has a lot of truth to it?

What career is he at risk of ruining?

... Mr Hellyer may be considered an expert on matters of Canadian defense in the 1960s. During this period, as he acknowledges himself, he encountered nothing to make him believe in UFOs. That is his area of expertise.

Speaking now, by his own admission, he is simply a civilian who has read a book and - perhaps - spoken to a shadowy figure, who makes no sense in context. He is speaking from no more of a position of authority than a random person on the street.

I think these are very good points you are raising here. It was long ago that Mr. Hellyer served as defense minister and he does in fact state that nothing he heard during his time as defense minister backs up his belief. His primary reference he alludes to is Corso's book and I have a hard time swallowing the claims that all of this earth technology has any derivation from technology retrieved from the Roswell crash.

It would be interesting to know more about his "military source" and what he has learned from this individual. But without this information, all we are left with is the claims of one person who long ago served in government.

This is not in any way equal in value or significance to the hundreds of witnesses of unexplained transportation technology seen in the skies going back hundreds of years.

I am curious though about the disclosure he did make in 1967 when he stated that Canada had designated an offcial "UFO Landing Zone" in the 1950s (location was southern Alberta in the vast Suffield Experimental Station, a military testing and research area) and what was behind both the landing site and his disclosure of its designation.

reply to post by BungleX


I don't think any other country on earth is developing alien tech. The key word is *developing*. Sure many countries probably purchase some of this reverse-enginereed tech but as always the "cutting edge" stuff stays within the USA.

I always thought it odd that america is light years ahead of everyone else but I couldn't put my finger on the *why* aspect. After doing some research into underground bases and listening to hours of testimony it became clear.

That is why the american government is so keen on *non-disclosure*; they stand to lose the most if people start asking the right questions. The mult-billion dollar *black-budget* could be severly diminished and america would no longer be able to bully other countries!

[edit on 21-12-2008 by EarthCitizen07]

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Most of the people disclosing the cover-up are retired, old veterans with nothing to lose. They know their life is almost up and would rather not take such profound knowledge to their grave without at least sharing some of it to us laymen. What is wrong with that?

Because that isn't what happened. Hellyer isn't "disclosing" anything he learned while he was Minister of Defense. Nor is this unnamed (of course) US general coming out with any information; he is supposedly relying on Hellyer to do it. Again, this doesn't make sense given your scenario. It doesn't make sense in any scenario.

Originally posted by bluestreak53 It was long ago that Mr. Hellyer served as defense minister and he does in fact state that nothing he heard during his time as defense minister backs up his belief.

And Edgar Mitchell was adamant about stating nothing he is disclosing had anything to do with NASA

That is because both men would still be under a binding oath not to talk.

Any thing Mr. Hellyer may or may not have heard while he served as Minister of Defence would be under an oath of non-disclosure, so he could ONLY speak of his experience outside the office, in the same way Ed talks about stuff outside of NASA

Not sure why this is so hard for so many to understand



.

[edit on 21-12-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

I always thought it odd that america is light years ahead of everyone else but I couldn't put my finger on the *why* aspect. After doing some research into underground bases and listening to hours of testimony it became clear.

[edit on 21-12-2008 by EarthCitizen07]

We are? My light years ahead cell phone is from Finland, my TV from Korea, my car is from Japan, parts of my computer are made in Canada, and even most of the food I ate tonight is from Mexico and Chile. I even tried a foreign born girlfriend--but she was too advanced for me I guess, apparently I couldn't follow the directions.

I don't think we are that far ahead of anyone--I think the US has a lot of other reasons for being "ahead" than alien tech, most of it investment dollars coming in from around the world. Having the best university system in the world doesn't hurt either. I will say our aerospace research is pretty good--but remember that the USSR was ahead in the Space Race until the US landed a man on the moon.

I think the cold war and distance between the US and the USSR forced both countries to push their aerospace industry. A lot of research and money "had" to go into rockets and planes to keep an edge on the Soviets (and vice versa). I believe there are aliens, but I'm not sold that we have crashed wreckage, or we are really that far ahead if we did. The black triangles do make me think though, we either do have something very cool or the aliens have become very brazen.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
So you want a direct in-your-face type disclosure, one that indicts all his colleagues, friends, etc just to make a stronger case. Guess what? The real world does not work that way!

And yet, if he and you get what you want, disclosure of a supposed cover-up, this is exactly what will happen.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
There is only so much he can say without getting a lot of people into serious trouble.

Again, if you believe Hellyer's story, then it is obvious his actions have landed at least one person in trouble. If you believe in the cover-up, then those behind it would easily be able to find out which Air Force general Hellyer had talked to.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
And yes I did read the link you provided and no we are not too lazy too read, however unlike you we can decode a RATHER SIMPLE CODED MESSAGE.

You've gone beyond accepting wholecloth what someone says because they are saying what you want to hear. Now you are hearing what you want to hear, despite facts and statements to the contrary, in order to support your beliefs.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I am not going to demand anything; ONLY COURT JUDGES HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND...

In other words, do not question Hellyer, accept it without thinking. Sorry, I have every right to demand what I want; whether I get it or not is a different story. But I do have that right before I will accept anything.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Stop trolling mate

A difference of opinion is not "trolling," child. I have every right to express my opinion, whether you like it or not. This forum is not only for one-set opinion. If you do not like what I am saying, if you are so immature that you cannot handle a difference of opinion or someone challenging your beliefs, I would suggest you and the other children get a moderator, or you use the ignore function.

I have read carefully enough the "skeptical" opinions about UFOs, to be angry with the mis-representations, fact-twisting, half-truths and even outright lies told with a straight face, in the name of "rationality" and "science", when in fact they are unscientific and anti-scientific.

I discovered that "UFO skeptics" often offer and publicize explanations that contradict the available evidence or descriptions of what happened. When I discovered that "UFO skeptics" accept explanations that are found through analysis to be invalid, I became skeptical of the "UFO skeptics". A certain ilk of skeptics (the "debunkers") will attack whenever they feel their paradigms and the status quo are questioned.

Over the years, I've read my share of debunking and extremely skeptical books about UFOs. In the early years, when I was trying to make sense of the field, I considered very seriously the "facts" and arguments of these irrational critics. They did succeed in leading me astray for a while, but perseverance in reading the literature luckily saved the day, and I eventually understood what I was reading to be the highly prejudiced material that it is.

*The "crusader" anti-UFO zealots are engaged in a debate, not in seeking the truth. In debate, you don't give the other side information favorable to its argument. You let them find it on their own.

When one cuts through the ridicule and search for factual information in most of the skeptical commentary and one is usually left with nothing. This is not surprising. After all, how can one rationally object to a call for scientific examination of (UFO) evidence?

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
How many times do you need to be told that nothing that happened during his tenure as Minister of Defense informed his position? Under his own admission, he learned nothing, nothing while in office.

Given, he did not come to this conclusion until after he got out of politics.
But, and a very strong but here, not everybody gets to be a cabinet minister, and on the whole, unless it is a completely political appointment (see Maxime Bernier), then one has to have a clue.

The importance of Hellyer's commentary is that within the context of everything he has learned, he believes in UFOs and extraterrestrial contact. Whether or not I agree with his conclusions, I'm willing to concede that he has seen a whole lot more than I have, and that gives his opinion some undeniable weight.

It is, though, just opinion, and should be regarded as such.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Given, he did not come to this conclusion until after he got out of politics.

Actually, he did come to after he got out of politics (he hasn't held an elective office for some time; while he has been involved in party-politics, it is hard to imagine anyone giving information to someone of a very minor-party, no matter what position they may have held four decades ago). This is by his own admission; he considered UFOs a "flight of fancy" while Minister, something that did not hold serious political implications. He changed his mind after viewing Peter Jenning's 2005 special and reading the Day After Roswell.

Moving beyond that, his claims are ludicrous. His accusation that the United States is "preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war" is more a product of a steady diet of science-fiction than any rational thought. Creatures capable of traversing the galaxy would have technology so advanced, nothing the United States could deploy could even hope to bother them.; it would be the equivalent of the Sentinelese islanders firing an arrow at a US aircraft carrier.

[edit on 22-12-2008 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
...his claims are ludicrous. His accusation that the United States is "preparing weapons which could be used against the aliens, and they could get us into an intergalactic war" is more a product of a steady diet of science-fiction than any rational thought. Creatures capable of traversing the galaxy would have technology so advanced, nothing the United States could deploy could even hope to bother them.; it would be the equivalent of the Sentinelese islanders firing an arrow at a US aircraft carrier.

A: Think Star Wars...think space-based weaponry.

B: You can shoot down a plane with a crossbow...you can kill a 21'st century infantryman with a rock.

C: Relax...Hellyer has an opinion...we're all entitled to one.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
A: Think Star Wars...think space-based weaponry.

Again, my original statement stands. Even with "space-based" weaponry, we'd be no more of a threat to them than the Sentinelese are to us.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
B: You can shoot down a plane with a crossbow...you can kill a 21'st century infantryman with a rock.

We're not talking about technology seperated by just a few generations, we are talking thousands of years. And even if it were to happen, again, it would be much like the Sentinelese firing arrows and javelins at helicopters, hardly a cause of a full-scale war.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
C: Relax...Hellyer has an opinion...we're all entitled to one.

I am glad you recognize it as his opinion. However, others are not taking it as his opinion, and think of it as the gospel-truth.

Originally posted by Dreemer
I have read carefully enough the "skeptical" opinions about UFOs, to be angry with the mis-representations, fact-twisting, half-truths and even outright lies told with a straight face, in the name of "rationality" and "science", when in fact they are unscientific and anti-scientific.

In the context of this discussion, what misrepresentations, fact-twisting, half-truths and outright lives have been told? Can you be specific, outside of a general condemnation of skeptics?

Originally posted by bluestreak53
I am curious though about the disclosure he did make in 1967 when he stated that Canada had designated an offcial "UFO Landing Zone" in the 1950s (location was southern Alberta in the vast Suffield Experimental Station, a military testing and research area) and what was behind both the landing site and his disclosure of its designation.

I'm not sure about that in terms of disclosure or a military testing and research area. From online info, he's been opposed to the weaponisation of space for a long time, and he inaugurated a UFO landing pad in the town of St Paul, Alberta in the spirit of that. I'll just quote Wiki:

On 3 June 1967, Hellyer flew in by helicopter to officially inaugurate an Unidentified flying object landing pad in St. Paul, Alberta. The town had built the landing pad as its Canadian Centennial celebration project, and as a symbol of keeping space free from human warfare. The sign beside the pad reads: "The area under the World's First UFO Landing Pad was designated international by the Town of St. Paul as a symbol of our faith that mankind will maintain the outer universe free from national wars and strife. That future travel in space will be safe for all intergalactic beings, all visitors from earth or otherwise are welcome to this territory and to the Town of St. Paul."

So it looks more like a gesture - out of principle - than anything else, and certainly not any kind of 'disclosure'.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
But, and a very strong but here, not everybody gets to be a cabinet minister, and on the whole, unless it is a completely political appointment (see Maxime Bernier), then one has to have a clue.

The importance of Hellyer's commentary is that within the context of everything he has learned, he believes in UFOs and extraterrestrial contact. Whether or not I agree with his conclusions, I'm willing to concede that he has seen a whole lot more than I have, and that gives his opinion some undeniable weight.

No offence, but I don't see that as a "very strong but". The implication is that cabinet ministers are less likely to believe wrong things than normal people, which simply isn't true. Tony Blair, here in the UK, is now a Catholic. The fact he was Prime Minister doesn't make Catholicism more likely to be true. I'm sure he's a smart man, but his area of expertise lies elsewhere and he is not a position of authority in such matters.

You should have faith in yourself. Hellyer has seen "a whole lot more" than you ... but none of it made him believe. He believes because of a documentary and a book. You can believe on the same evidence and be equally credible in saying so.

Depressing, incidentally - this doesn't apply to either of the people I've just responded to - that there is now skeptic-bashing going on. All this "Hellyer is talking in code and if you don't see it you're an idiot" stuff is plain embarrassing.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
So you want a direct in-your-face type disclosure, one that indicts all his colleagues, friends, etc just to make a stronger case. Guess what? The real world does not work that way!

And yet, if he and you get what you want, disclosure of a supposed cover-up, this is exactly what will happen.

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.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
There is only so much he can say without getting a lot of people into serious trouble.

Again, if you believe Hellyer's story, then it is obvious his actions have landed at least one person in trouble. If you believe in the cover-up, then those behind it would easily be able to find out which Air Force general Hellyer had talked to.

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!

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
And yes I did read the link you provided and no we are not too lazy too read, however unlike you we can decode a RATHER SIMPLE CODED MESSAGE.

You've gone beyond accepting wholecloth what someone says because they are saying what you want to hear. Now you are hearing what you want to hear, despite facts and statements to the contrary, in order to support your beliefs.

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

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Stop trolling mate

A difference of opinion is not "trolling," child. I have every right to express my opinion, whether you like it or not. This forum is not only for one-set opinion. If you do not like what I am saying, if you are so immature that you cannot handle a difference of opinion or someone challenging your beliefs, I would suggest you and the other children get a moderator, or you use the ignore function.

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.

Originally posted by damagedoor

Originally posted by bluestreak53
I am curious though about the disclosure he did make in 1967 when he stated that Canada had designated an offcial "UFO Landing Zone" in the 1950s (location was southern Alberta in the vast Suffield Experimental Station, a military testing and research area) and what was behind both the landing site and his disclosure of its designation.

I'm not sure about that in terms of disclosure or a military testing and research area. From online info, he's been opposed to the weaponisation of space for a long time, and he inaugurated a UFO landing pad in the town of St Paul, Alberta in the spirit of that. I'll just quote Wiki:

On 3 June 1967, Hellyer flew in by helicopter to officially inaugurate an Unidentified flying object landing pad in St. Paul, Alberta. The town had built the landing pad as its Canadian Centennial celebration project, and as a symbol of keeping space free from human warfare. The sign beside the pad reads: "The area under the World's First UFO Landing Pad was designated international by the Town of St. Paul as a symbol of our faith that mankind will maintain the outer universe free from national wars and strife. That future travel in space will be safe for all intergalactic beings, all visitors from earth or otherwise are welcome to this territory and to the Town of St. Paul."

So it looks more like a gesture - out of principle - than anything else, and certainly not any kind of 'disclosure'.

You are rather missing or evading the key point here. The St. Paul "Alien Landing Pad" is only relevant to the discussion because it was the location where then Canadian Minister of Defense, Paul Hellyer, disclosed that the Canadian government had designated a "UFO landing area" within the vast lands of Suffield Experimental Station (and Canadian military base) in southern Alberta. This had occured in 1954 and this "disclosure" was reported in the Ottawa Journal, a daily newspaper in Canada's capital city.

Here Kimball must be referring to the article printed in the Ottawa Journal in July 1967, "UFO Landing Site was 13 Year Secret". The article states "The Canadian Government 13 years ago made available the defence research board experimental station at Suffield, Alberta as a landing site for Unidentified Flying Objects, defence minister Paul Hellyer has now disclosed." The article goes on to state:

"Nothing ever materialized from that top secret project. No extraterrestrial flying objects ever sought to land on that 1000 square mile restricted tract of land over which no aircraft, civilian or military, was allowed to fly without special permission. The idea behind the classified project was that if any UFO tried to make contact with earth it could land at the DRB station without being shot down by defence interceptors."

You are either missing the key point of my post or you are misleading the readers on this list by focussing on St. Paul's tourist site.

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?

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
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.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
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.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
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]

Originally posted by damagedoor
No offence, but I don't see that as a "very strong but". The implication is that cabinet ministers are less likely to believe wrong things than normal people, which simply isn't true. Tony Blair, here in the UK, is now a Catholic. The fact he was Prime Minister doesn't make Catholicism more likely to be true. I'm sure he's a smart man, but his area of expertise lies elsewhere and he is not a position of authority in such matters.

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!

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.

The title of this thread is misleading... "Canada" (the country) admitted nothing. This admission is from a private Canadian citizen (albeit a former Canadian government official.)

And the fact that he's a former government official PROVES nothing. All countries have had their share of high-ranking government officials whose judgement should not be blindly trusted.

That's not to say that this former Defence Minister is an idiot, I'm just saying that the opposite -- that is that his statements are automatically valid just because he was a government official -- is not necessarily true either.

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!...

Educated people can have wrong beliefs (although it is less likely). This guy has not given us any "inside information" other than his anecdotal experiences. His burden of proof is EXACTLY the same as an uneducated person's burden of proof. Who he is should not really make a difference if he has no hard evidence.

An uneducated person with hard evidence is more valuable than an educated person with opinions and unconfirmable anecdoctal stories.

[edit on 12/22/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by zorgon
Any thing Mr. Hellyer may or may not have heard while he served as Minister of Defence would be under an oath of non-disclosure, so he could ONLY speak of his experience outside the office, in the same way Ed talks about stuff outside of NASA

Not sure why this is so hard for so many to understand

I am not sure why it is so hard to understand that Mr. Hellyer has said that nothing that happened during his time in office informed his opinion. He is clear he considered UFOs for be a "flight of fancy," and did not give it thought until four decades later. He has not said that he cannot talk about what happened during his tenure in office; instead, he has been very clear about that time.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Even without Hellyer's comments about his time as Minister of Defense, you would not know what he saw or didn't see while in office. You are filling that gap of knowledge with speculation. And some here are confusing that speculation with fact. Because (if we disregard what Hellyer has said) you don't and can't know what happened, why assume anything one-way-or-another?