Former Legislator Makes Statement May 8, 2010 on Un-Released Eisenhower Brief Regarding ET's

Originally posted by Bob Down Under
All I can comment on is that there must be some merit to his story and past experiences.

If not? why put yourself in a position where your face and comments are going to pasted all over the internet and up for public ridicule, also after a long respected position in the goverment.

Either he is on a mission of self destruction or he actualy did witness those documents.

Regards BDU


[edit on 13/5/10 by Bob Down Under]

Well said.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doesn't that answer conflict with your earlier statements here?

"What evidence has been provided? All that has been posted is that he is a real person. So what? That was never in question. And none of that supports his claims."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and here?

"I have chills too. But it's over the very frightening fact people are taking a politician at his word... "

[edit on 13-5-2010 by manta78]

Want do some of you guys want? Everyone who has a testimony but no "hard evidence" to just 'shut up?' NO Way! The more testimony that comes, the more follows from that. Its that simple. He speaks, another listens, then the other speaks. Eventually, someone with the "evidence" we want will come forward.

I applaud people who come forward to tell their story, especially if they had been in the gov or whatever.

All I see so far on certain blogs and here is an attack on the man's character. Well, no-one has a perfect character and truth be told we are all probably a little 'nuts' in our own way.

Until we have evidence ourselves, we should take this at face value and take the word of the man and give him the benefit of the doubt. Why cast stones?

Wow!! It looks like disclosure is slowly beginning to happen. Let's hope it continues.

Originally posted by manta78
reply to post by DoomsdayRex

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doesn't that answer conflict with your earlier statements here?

"What evidence has been provided? All that has been posted is that he is a real person. So what? That was never in question. And none of that supports his claims."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and here?

"I have chills too. But it's over the very frightening fact people are taking a politician at his word... "

[edit on 13-5-2010 by manta78]

Not in the least. Did you bother reading my answer?

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


You're still here?!

And you still argue with nonsense:

The government is not known for divulging state-secrets to state legislators. So then why they would reveal this secret to him and possibly thousands of other people in a similar position? While it doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't happen, it doesn't make any sense why it would happen. It is a hole in his story, one he doesn't not shore up with any facts. The lack of details is very suspicious.

1. You are assuming this man was briefed, or was 'divulged' this information... implying someone intentionally showed this document to McElroy. Perhaps it was a bureaucratic mistake. Or maybe he has friends that you don't know about and he WAS briefed.

2. "possibly thousands of other people in a similar position" This is completely illogical and probably a fallacy. Who is saying that all state legislator's are briefed with this info? Again, no one, and see #1 about the idea of him being briefed.

3. Then you use the flawed logic from #1 and 2 to provide an easily seen debunking of your initial points: "While it doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't happen, it doesn't make any sense why it would happen." The "it" in the sentence is presumably referring to points #1 and 2.

4. Then, you use your flawed argument to again supply any sucker that will read your posts with more dedunktions(debunk/deduct) by saying that this is a 'hole in his story' with which he provides no facts for... which I'm not sure was his intention AT ALL for recording this testimony. It is only what YOU WANT from him.

5. Then, you conclude after all of that that the man is suspicious based on your 'logical' dedunking(I am really starting to like this word)


You are so annoying... and dangerous if anyone is suckered into your thought patterns.

Its like you are just here for cognitive infiltration... and for peeving off people that care about this time-sensitive, possibly world changing information.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Bob Down Under
If not? why put yourself in a position where your face and comments are going to pasted all over the internet and up for public ridicule, also after a long respected position in the government.

Was his career "long and respected"? I'm not saying it wasn't, but there seems to be a lot of assumptions about the man's career in politics, when we know nothing about how the man was received by the people of New Hampshire. For all we know, he could be reincarnation of Mr. Smith or he could be that one flake politician that you're embarrassed lives in your state.

Originally posted by Bob Down Under
Either he is on a mission of self destruction or he actualy did witness those documents.

It isn't necessarily self-destruction. There is a lot of mileage to be gained with certain segments of the population, depending on how he spins this.

Hi Rex

If this man was well known in his career no doubt it would be for something more tastless, If the guy just plodded along doing his job and not drawing attention to himself up to now then all good.

Also you were right I was assuming because I do not criticise and try to debunk every post and also everyones comments on a subject, I just like to be a bit more open minded then put it in the relevent box when proven otherwise.

Just because it has not been proven as fact does not mean its fiction either and visa versa.

As For Mileage he will not get far If he was distorting the facts, I can not see this story supplementing his retirement fund unless it becomes proven as fact.


Regards BDU

[edit on 13/5/10 by Bob Down Under]

Originally posted by beebs
1. You are assuming this man was briefed, or was 'divulged' this information... implying someone intentionally showed this document to McElroy.

I am not assuming anything. That is what McElroy says. According to his statement...

When I was in the New Hampshire State Legislature, I served on the State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee. It was, apparently, important that as a Representative of the Sovereign People who had elected me to this Honorable Office, that I be updated on a large number of topics related to the affairs of our People, and our Nation. As I understood it, some of those ongoing topics had been examined and categorized as Federal, State, Local development, and security matters. These documents related to various topics, some of which spanned decades of our nation’s history. One of those recurring topics is the reason I am addressing you this evening.

McElroy is explicit this was part of his duties as a member of the committee and a topic that was discussed on numerous occasions. It is clear from his statement this was neither a mistake nor did he just happened to have friends in the know.

Originally posted by beebs
2. "possibly thousands of other people in a similar position" This is completely illogical and probably a fallacy. Who is saying that all state legislator's are briefed with this info? Again, no one, and see #1 about the idea of him being briefed.

Why would only New Hampshire be privy to this information? If New Hampshire is briefed then it is safe to conclude other states may be as well.

Originally posted by beebs
4. Then, you use your flawed argument to again supply any sucker that will read your posts with more dedunktions(debunk/deduct

) by saying that this is a 'hole in his story' with which he provides no facts for... which I'm not sure was his intention AT ALL for recording this testimony. It is only what YOU WANT from him.

Not sure what you are driving at here.

Originally posted by beebs
5. Then, you conclude after all of that that the man is suspicious based on your 'logical' dedunking(I am really starting to like this word)

Yes. Terrible, isn't it?

Perhaps you would like to muster a defense of the man that does not rely on bashing me or any other skeptic.

I don't yet know if there is any connection, but just found out that
a man by the name of Neil Hosler McElroy, was the United States Secretary of Defense under President Eisenhowever from 1957-1959.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...




If there is any connection, that could explain a few things....

[edit on 14-5-2010 by manta78]

More on Neil H McElroy here:

* Secretary of Defense Neil H. McElroy testified before the House Armed Services Committee: "Such long-range programs as the antimissile missile and the military satellite programs are in the research and exploratory development stages. They are important and must be pursued, but they must not distract us from the speedy development of our other missile systems. To handle them, I am establishing within the Department of Defense an Advanced Research Projects Agency, which will be responsible to the Secretary of Defense for the unified direction and management of the antimissile missile program and for outer space projects (1958)."

Rex uve been breaking balls on this thread since page 1. almost like its ur job to wail away on this thread until it dies.

Originally posted by manta78
More on Neil H McElroy here:

* Secretary of Defense Neil H. McElroy testified before the House Armed Services Committee: "Such long-range programs as the antimissile missile and the military satellite programs are in the research and exploratory development stages. They are important and must be pursued, but they must not distract us from the speedy development of our other missile systems. To handle them, I am establishing within the Department of Defense an Advanced Research Projects Agency, which will be responsible to the Secretary of Defense for the unified direction and management of the antimissile missile program and for outer space projects (1958)."

Manta78.....

It’s not the same guy.

He looks quite different & he passed away in 1972.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9628fff14cab.jpg[/atsimg]

Neil H. McElroy:

Neil Hosler McElroy (October 30, 1904 - November 30, 1972) was United States Secretary of Defense from 1957 to 1959 under President Eisenhower. He had been president of Procter & Gamble. Born in Berea, Ohio, to school-teacher parents, McElroy grew...

www.freebase.com...

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not




Getting a little tired? I didn't say it was the same guy. I said I wondered if there is a connection, meaning a relative of some kind, etc. which could have been the actual source data....




[edit on 14-5-2010 by manta78]

William Cooper, had ALREADY informed America of this TRUTH in his book: "Behold a Pale Horse," which went into paperback in December of 1991. The book was finally recommended to me by a friend early 1995, and when I read it, it stirred up some very powerful emotions inside me & sent a chill up my spine, but it also made me VERY WISE to the ways of this world we live in.
That Book is "The Key that un-locked the Door," & HELPED Me "See the Light," & it's what motivated me to learn more about Politics & Government, and 5 years later after being a DRUNK for 10 years, I actually went to College & studied BOTH Criminal Justice & Political Science & graduated in 2006, with a 3.16 GPA......"The Mind is a Terrible thing to Waste."
"May, William Cooper's Soul Rest in Peace."

Originally posted by Urantia1111
Rex uve been breaking balls on this thread since page 1. almost like its ur job to wail away on this thread until it dies.

-------------------------------

I was kind of wondering the same thing under that
old expression of: "Me thinks thou doth protest too much? "

and yes I know that is not the correct actual quote but the sentiment is the same.

Originally posted by manta78

Originally posted by Urantia1111
Rex uve been breaking balls on this thread since page 1. almost like its ur job to wail away on this thread until it dies.

-------------------------------

I was kind of wondering the same thing under that
old expression of: "Me thinks thou doth protest too much? "

and yes I know that is not the correct actual quote but the sentiment is the same.

The old "you must be a paid shill" ad hom.

Just as much a character assassination as what the skeptics here have been accused of.

Originally posted by manta78
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

Getting a little tired? I didn't say it was the same guy. I said I wondered if there is a connection, meaning a relative of some kind, etc. which could have been the actual source data....

Manta78.....

I apologise if my attempt to help you did not meet with your satisfaction.

I shall try harder next time.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

reply to post by Agent Logan


----------------------------------------------------------

Thanks. Will have to read that book. In the meantime are you saying that there is a connection between the two McElroys, or are you referring
to ET's?

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


------------------------------------------------------

No problem. I nearly always enjoy reading your posts, just was wondering
why that response.

Originally posted by manta78
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

No problem. I nearly always enjoy reading your posts, just was wondering
why that response.

Maybe I am tired.....

It took me 17 edits to write that last post!