It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Robin Goodfellow
The year given is the year the bodies and ship were shown off to the man, not the year they were recovered and placed in the Capitol building. Where do you suppose it would be placed if recovered in 1910? There were no airfields and/or hangars anywhere in 1910 were there? It may have been viewed in 1939 but who is to say when it was recovered. 1903? 1875? 1855?
Originally posted by seethelight
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Originally posted by karl 12
Credibility of witnesses always is one of the main proving grounds when anything like this is revealed. The amazing thing is that both of the principals involved, Secretary of State Cordell Hull and Reverend Turner Hamilton Holt, Th.D, had impeccable credentials as intelligent and honest men.
But so what? They are not the ones making the claim, it is Holt's daughter.
This is the most important post in this thread.
Being credible doesn't make your kids credible.
Originally posted by cptamedd
Ok. Does anyone else think it is odd that the government would put alien bodies in a sub basement of the Capitol building to conduct research on them? You think they might be in some kind of top secret research facility or something. At least someplace that is not open to the public. This fact by itself, of course, does not mean the story is false.
Originally posted by Mr_skepticc
After all we do have proof that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who wrote, "I would do it but before agreeing to it we must insist upon full access to d! isks recovered. For instance, in the La case the Army grabbed it would not let us have it for cursory examination." This was a well known document recovered through the freedom of information act, what was he talking about, well we can only come to one conclusion.
Originally posted by Tayesin
Look at it this way folks; what have these people got to gain from their disclosure?
The answer you seek is; Nothing.
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Originally posted by Tayesin
Look at it this way folks; what have these people got to gain from their disclosure?
The answer you seek is; Nothing.
No, they get attention.
Originally posted by Tayesin
Look at it this way folks; what have these people got to gain from their disclosure?
The answer you seek is; Nothing.
Therefore, we have no reason to say they are lying to us. We do not KNOW, so we cannot lay claim to their honesty or lack of it.
Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
Originally posted by dragonsmusic
I didn't care about the first guy's opinion
What makes you think I would care about yours?
Neither post has substance; neither one offers anything.
Much like this story you've chosen to believe. It has nothing. No evidence, nothing to corroborate it, nothing. It is just a story. But it's a story you want to hear so you are accepting it without question. Then you are sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to any critique.
Originally posted by seethelight
More nonsense:
You assume you understand their motive, but that's just an assumption. In FACT you have no idea why they said what they said.
This post is actually a big contradiction:
You say you know they seek nothing, then you say we cannot know.
Which is it?
In early April 2009 Grant Cameron traveled to Ohio to interview Lucile Andrew and Allene Gramly, now both in their 80s, to hear them recount a story that was told to them by their father Reverend Turner Hamilton Holt in 1948
link