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

reply to post by transiant


Excellent work, Transiant.

I don't think we can necessarily call Silverthorn the original source, as she was providing only a hint not the entirety of information available. Still, you raise an interesting: why is Campbell relying on proxy sites to get out this information? He already has a website dedicated to Ike meeting aliens; it seems it would only help his convention-speaking business to post the information there, yet it's missing.

Although, those questions may be ultimately irrelevant. Whatever Campbell's motivations and behavior may be in releasing the information could be irrelevant to the validity of McElroy's claims.

Originally posted by transiant
Something else that I find interesting is, why wasn't this video, released as part of the X-conference that ran May 7th-9th?

Could it be that there is some background dis-harmony in the disclosure camp?

I think it is just a coincidence of timing. The video was filmed on the 8th and Silverthorn's blog stated it would be ready by the 15th.

Originally posted by transiant
McElroy was the cause of a murderer being able to have his conviction overturned

We are skirting very close to Bulverism here. McElroy's behavior as a juror is irrelevant. It may show him to be a flake and a nuisance, but being a flake or a nuisance doesn't mean he isn't telling the truth. We should concentrate on his statement and it's validity rather than his character.

Originally posted by transiant
If he has always been 'into ufo's' it's possible the document he saw was a practical joke by his colleagues.

While it is certainly possible, McElroy's statement said the topic of aliens was an ongoing and recurring topic. That would seem to be a lot of time and effort for a practical joke with the potential for very damaging backfire. Not only are there ethical implications but I am sure the voters of New Hampshire would not appreciate their representatives at the state house wasting tax-payer money playing jokes on each other.

Originally posted by transiant
There is no logical reason why a man of Henry's limited political clout would have access to such sensitive information.

None whatsoever. His supporters attempt special pleading, that he had friend or family connections, but this is not supported by McElroy's statement.

Originally posted by transiant
My (un-founded) hunch is that this is somehow tied to the Monroe Institute, and that Kevin Courtois is the link between Art, Henry and Teresa.

What is the Monroe Institute?

Originally posted by transiant
Some food for thought for those throwing the 'D' word around...
home.comcast.net...

It's Bulverism, appeal-to-spite and rationalization.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by transiant

 

Originally posted by transiant
There is no logical reason why a man of Henry's limited political clout would have access to such sensitive information.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
None whatsoever. His supporters attempt special pleading, that he had friend or family connections, but this is not supported by McElroy's statement.

From McElroys confusing statement it appears (to me at least) that everyone on his committee had access to the document, these people are elected officials. I am convinced that McElroys statement is deliberately obfuscated to confuse believers - it's disinformation in an effort to add support for the MJ12 mythos.

This video is taken from a student fictional documentary style short. I have seen it. Nothing more. Fiction. The man is not who he even says he is. It's funny how you people believe something and get taken into something just because of a speech made by someone who claims to have superior knowledge. By buying into this video, you're being made a fool of. Don't let people manipulate you like that. This video will be taken off YT - NOT because of reasons such as, "this shouldn't be in the public domain.." BUT because it is violating copyright laws of the documentary maker in question. - Who will be remaining anonymous for privacy reasons.

reply to post by 259360


Im calling BS on you! Post a link to this said documentry or dont post such dribble.

reply to post by Jdawg9909


The documentary has since been taken offline.

reply to post by 259360


Is this the film you're referring to?

www.pr9.net...

PR9.NET January 08, 2007 - Los Angeles, CA - One of the great truth-or-hoax tales in UFO folklore involves a 1954 meeting between President Eisenhower and aliens at the Edwards Air Force Base in California. But Ike's connection to UFOs had a bigger story than that, one in which he prepared for a possible alien war, or so the legend goes in "The Top Secret UFO Project," filmmaker R. J. Thomas' parody of UFO documentaries.

"Ike was president in 1956, at the time when my film takes place, so I had to drag him into it," Mr. Thomas said. "My film is a spoof of UFO cover-ups, and Ike certainly was interested in keeping the public in the dark about things of this nature."

reply to post by DJW001


I'm referring to this actual video footage. It's part of a 45 minute student film made up of other shoddy, low budget sequences of other officials giving disclosure. Just fiction. That's all. It will be taken off YT because websites who advertise (such as this) are making money off web surfers viewing related content.

Originally posted by 259360
This video is taken from a student fictional documentary style short. I have seen it. Nothing more. Fiction. The man is not who he even says he is. It's funny how you people believe something and get taken into something just because of a speech made by someone who claims to have superior knowledge. By buying into this video, you're being made a fool of. Don't let people manipulate you like that. This video will be taken off YT - NOT because of reasons such as, "this shouldn't be in the public domain.." BUT because it is violating copyright laws of the documentary maker in question. - Who will be remaining anonymous for privacy reasons.

If this is true I'll be laughing my ass off Good times.

The man does come accross as sincere and genuine to me. I'm basing that on his tone and body language - he doesn't look like he's lying to me, if you know what I mean. His political position has been verified, It's already been said he has nothing to gain from this, and I don't think he's a trouble maker. I think the only thing going against him is there is no possible way to substantiate his claims. The document in question would never be released under any circumstances, but without it this story will NEVER go any further

He said that he was updated on topics that included security matters. Could these include ufo files? Maybe but doubtful. But then who's to say what goes on behind the scenes at State Legislature HQ

I think it's a case of you either believe him or you don't, but for me there is nothing jumping out telling me he's lying

Originally posted by 259360
reply to post by DJW001

 

I'm referring to this actual video footage. It's part of a 45 minute student film made up of other shoddy, low budget sequences of other officials giving disclosure. Just fiction. That's all. It will be taken off YT because websites who advertise (such as this) are making money off web surfers viewing related content.

First you say it is "offline now" and then you say "it will be taken off" so what connection do you have with this film as to make the statement you have requires that you have seen it.

Oh and welcome to ATS as these seem to be your first 3 posts since you joined today.

reply to post by sherpa


The clip in relation to this thread WILL be taken off. The 45 minute documentary HAS been taken off.

reply to post by 259360



I take it your reffering to this movie ???



However it supposedly takes place in 1956 so I don't see how the OP's clip fits into the movie, but who knows I think we'll need someone to actually watch the movie to find out for sure.

reply to post by 259360


I am skeptical.

The Top Secret UFO Project was filmed (or at least set) in 2003. McElroy's claim was filmed May 8, 2010. Can you explain the discrepancy?

Further, do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up your claim?

Originally posted by IntastellaBurst
reply to post by 259360

 

I take it your reffering to this movie ???

No. No, I'm not. Do not get these confused. I'm referring to a NEW documentary, just a student fiction movie.

Details really aren't that important. Just understand me when I say that this is not real. It's from a scripted piece of work by students. Totally taken out of context.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by 259360]

Originally posted by 259360
reply to post by sherpa

 

The clip in relation to this thread WILL be taken off. The 45 minute documentary HAS been taken off.

But how did you know it would be taken off, in other words where did you get your information, for instance is there a link you can provide where there might have been some discussion regarding this action, unless this was a general observation of what had already happened of course.

Originally posted by 259360
reply to post by sherpa

 

The clip in relation to this thread WILL be taken off. The 45 minute documentary HAS been taken off.

You come accross as a man of position???
it WILL be taken off...you seem very sure???
Is this the governments dis-info agent or dredger of classified info if so you're not very good at it.....

reply to post by DreamerOracle


The fact of the matter is : This video has been online for days now. If it was of importance, it would have got culled immediately. Pages and sites closed down, immediately. In a weeks/months time when it gets taken off DUE TO COPYRIGHT - it will just go to show that it's meaningless to the government. Doesn't it? They'd take it off immediately wouldn't they? So why's it still available now? Ask yourself that.

Originally posted by 259360

Originally posted by IntastellaBurst
reply to post by 259360

 

I take it your reffering to this movie ???

No. No, I'm not. Do not get these confused. I'm referring to a NEW documentary, just a student fiction movie.

Details really aren't that important. Just understand me when I say that this is not real. It's from a scripted piece of work by students. Totally taken out of context.

[edit on 15-5-2010 by 259360]

The only thing missing is the JAM you sound so dodgey.......ITS FICTION nice choice of words......but then if something was SO desperately important thaat you took it offline asap or as soon as it was actually realised to be out there and label it as fiction....You know you are basicly confirming it's validity!!
I'm merely relaying how a poster all of a sudden joins ATS to take down a video, why bother?....why not just take the video off? unless your following a trail to the target via ATS? but keep up the good work....

[edit on 15-5-2010 by DreamerOracle]

reply to post by 259360



I have a feeling your totally full of it, ... it seems as though you have joined ATS JUST to post on this topic.

You say " details don't matter" just trust me, ... its fiction. without giving any info on how you know this.

you claim its from a student documentary, .. yet that has been " taken off" so that we cannot verify that this is true.

last but not least. ..... WHY would student's be taking a stupid documentary offline due to copyright infringement ????

I suggest as many people copy this video untill we can figure out what is what.

I would have to suspect that anyone who is declaring this testimony "incredibly valid" is not very familiar with state and local politics in the U.S.

We're talking about someone who could have been elected in New Hampshire with as few as 1500 or so votes.

I'm not saying he's not a reliable source. I don't know.

But the very minor role of State Representative in New Hampshire certainly does not automatically indicate he is a reliable source.

And aside from the accusations that he fell asleep on jury duty, that's really all that I've seen that we have to go on.