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

Possibly the video I posted a couple threads up has some answers.

I hope it's at least looked at and considered in all this.

Originally posted by la2

One question does arise from this video................

If the extra terrestrials have been here since at least the 1940's, then you would think that they are reproducing, do we agree?

No. We do not agree. There is no evidence, and very little conjecture on this point.

In fact, there seems to be significant speculation that at least some of the visitors are here in part because they are UNABLE to breed. Further, that this inability to procreate has led them here in search of "raw material" with which to experiment in a desperate attempt to perpetuate their species.

Some suggest that this need has led to some complicity with Earth governments (e.g., exchange of advanced technology for a few cows and other "laboratory specimens").

Speculative? Of course. Impossible? Says who?

The hands-off "prime directive" may be circumvented if the benefactors are us...

Maybe the meeting with Ike - if it indeed took place - was to negotiate "the deal": Give access to humans to ET for a few morsels of computing/bio-engineering/stealth weaponry technology. Now THAT is a contract I'd like to see...

reply to post by faithkeeper



Thank you for posting that video. I have watched it, as well as the 5 others related to # 1 posted on youtube.com. The analysis is interesting, and it of course represents one viewpoint that is considered valid by many people; all viewpoints should be presented for evaluation and thought on this topic. And I do recommend that persons watch all six videos rather than just the one, to understand her viewpoint, and decide for themselves how they feel.

I was surprised to see some of the photos in the six videos viewed; primarily because I have never seen them before.

Thanks, and I do agree that the truth is out there somewhere..........












[edit on 19-5-2010 by manta78]

Your welcome and yes all 6 videos need to be looked at closly. I also agree with you on the photos in the videos. very interesting and I'm also very curious as to where these photos came from?

I have never seen them posted or presented before.

Larry W. Bryant submitted six questions to Mr. McElroy and posted McElroy's answers at his blog. I've posted the Q&A below. I've left out Mr. Bryant's comments on the answers; they can be viewed at his site.

What percentage of confidence do you have that the Ike UFO-E.T. "brief" you'd observed while on duty at the New Hampshire state House of Representatives circa 2003 was an official government document?

100%

(2) If a U. S. congressional committee were to hold a series of open hearings on the matter of UFO-E.T. reality, would you be willing to testify, under oath, before that committee?

No.

(3) During your inspection of the "brief," did you notice any security classification stamped/imprinted thereon (e.g., SECRET)? What kind of federal security clearance (if any) did you possess (and why) as a member of the N. H. House's Committee on State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs?

My memory serves me that it was an official Memorandum to President Eisenhower. I do not remember the presence or absence of any security stamps. No federal security clearance required.

(4) Would you be willing to be interviewed by such renowned radio-talk show hosts as Jerry Pippin (of www.jerrypippin.com... ) as to your pre-representative education/employment background and as to your motivation, timing, methodology, and prospects for this smoking-gun disclosure of UFO-E.T. reality? (Please explain your answer.)

No. I have nothing more to say on this topic that can’t be gleaned from viewing of the video, the script, and President Eisenhower’s 1961 Farewell Speech. Insightful studies should also be done of what has gone on before us. This would include, but not [be] limited to, what a host of our own American, earth-based Astronauts have said about the existence of off-world Astronauts. Then, integrate this with what twelve other sovereign countries have released in their extraterrestrial (off-world) Astronaut-related files.

(5) If you could redo any aspect of your pivotal disclosure effort, what would that be - and why?

No “redo” required.

(6) What suggestions do you have as to how certain UFO-E.T. researchers worldwide can help determine the document's whereabouts and investigate its authenticity/provenience?

I do not want to be so presumptive as to suggest that such a distinguished body of researchers on this topic do anything. One last point is that we are speaking of the fact that “Truth Will Come Out.” This reminds me of the following quote which I remember from a story which went something like this: The noises around us make it hard to hear. But the human voice is different from other sounds. It can be heard over noises that bury everything else. Even if it’s just a whisper . . . when it’s telling the truth.

There seem to be many missed opportunities here. Mr. Bryant missed what I think may be the more obvious questions, such as why Mr. McElroy would have access to such documents, what context did he view the documents under, how often did this topic come up and is there any corroborating evidence?

Given opportunity to clarify and expound upon his claims, Mr. McElroy does not take it. As with his original statement, Mr. McElroy is again vague, perhaps purposefully so. This is very suspicious.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
There seem to be many missed opportunities here. Mr. Bryant missed what I think may be the more obvious questions, such as why Mr. McElroy would have access to such documents, what context did he view the documents under, how often did this topic come up and is there any corroborating evidence?

Given opportunity to clarify and expound upon his claims, Mr. McElroy does not take it. As with his original statement, Mr. McElroy is again vague, perhaps purposefully so. This is very suspicious.

I was thinking the same thing...he gets six questions answered and those are the six questions he wanted answers to? They aren't very good questions.

And in response to the last question when McElroy chooses to elaborate, he is very vague, I agree.

Thanks for posting this, it's interesting, but disappointing, but I'm not surprised by that.

What kind of response was that??

*Would you be willing to testify under oath? No.
*What kind of "secret" designation did you or the document have? None. Don't know.
*Would you be willing to be interviewed? No.
*Would you change anything? No.
*Can you offer any suggestions to researchers? No.

Well, gee, thanks a bunch, "Mac"!! That was grand of you to pop open a profound, earth-rattling, giant can of worms and then casually turn your back on everyone.

Nice speech. But IMHO 'Ole Mac's credibility just dropped a few notches...

*sigh* NEXT!

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


DoomsdayRex.....

Well, at least that excludes the student hoax idea, as per our transient friend "259360"

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



[edit on 19-5-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Originally posted by Outrageo
What kind of response was that??

*Would you be willing to testify under oath? No.
*What kind of "secret" designation did you or the document have? None. Don't know.
*Would you be willing to be interviewed? No.
*Would you change anything? No.
*Can you offer any suggestions to researchers? No.

Well, gee, thanks a bunch, "Mac"!! That was grand of you to pop open a profound, earth-rattling, giant can of worms and then casually turn your back on everyone.

Nice speech. But IMHO 'Ole Mac's credibility just dropped a few notches...

*sigh* NEXT!

To play devil's advocate - wouldn't a hoaxer looking for publicity or a loon have answers with substance here?

Originally posted by Xelif

To play devil's advocate - wouldn't a hoaxer looking for publicity or a loon have answers with substance here?

Not necessarily.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex



Rex:

I see no proof that this was an actual interview with McElroy. And you know that is the same statement you will probably make to me, if/when he responds to my request for more information.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by manta78]

reply to post by Xelif



No verification that McElroy conducted that interview--

which is why it would be great if he would either agree to answer questions here at ATS with moderators having verified that he is
who he says he is, or of course on television, or even thru the
production of another video.





[edit on 19-5-2010 by manta78]

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
(4) Would you be willing to be interviewed by such renowned radio-talk show hosts as Jerry Pippin (of www.jerrypippin.com... ) as to your pre-representative education/employment background

Once again, suspiciously nothing about this guy's career outside of his two year stint in the NH House.

More idle speculation on my part--if this guy had a background that in any way lent credibility to his claims we'd have heard about it in his original presentation.



[edit on 19-5-2010 by DelMarvel]

Now we know that Mr McElroy supposedly saw the document in 2003. That's a start

Originally posted by Outrageo
Nice speech. But IMHO 'Ole Mac's credibility just dropped a few notches...

Maybe it dropped for you, it was already so low on my scale it didn't have much room to drop.

Even if he thinks he's telling the truth as he knows it, which he may be, his story sounds like a confabulation to me, meaning he might have seen a memo briefing Eisenhower but he can't recall the language verbatim so he's filling in the blanks with things that may not have been explicitly stated in the memo. And no amount of gum-flapping on his part will resolve that question until we see the same Eisenhower briefing that he saw. Even if he gave better answers to those questions, that would still be no substitute for producing a copy of the document. And if it wasn't secret or classified, why can't we see it?

Originally posted by manta78
I see no proof that this was an actual interview with McElroy.

Larry Bryant's blog was the first to publicize Mr. McElroy's statements. I see no reason to doubt that McElroy did not answer these questions.

Originally posted by manta78
And you know that is the same statement you will probably make to me, if/when he responds to my request for more information.

You are putting words in my mouth in what amounts as an ad hominem attack. Once again, do not make this about me. If you do not think McElroy answered these questions, if you think Mr. Bryant is hoaxing us, then produce a cogent argument as to why. What I may or may not do is not an argument, it's a non-sequitur, a red-herring, a distraction.

Rex:

You are the one who posted it. That in itself subjects it to verification as much as the original video here that I posted.

I am merely asking you on what basis, other than a blog post, do you believe the questions and answer session via email actually occured?

If you are going to be a skeptic my friend, you need to be skeptical in things that not only you challenge, but the source that you believe helps you back up a position you support.

The question and answer session may have taken place, but once again, we have no proof of same, now do we?

I will once again be reserving judgement of the information you have
provided, subject to verification of same.






[edit on 19-5-2010 by manta78]

Originally posted by Xelif
To play devil's advocate - wouldn't a hoaxer looking for publicity or a loon have answers with substance here?

Not necessarily. Hoax can be perpetrated for any number of, what the hoaxer would consider to be, altruistic reasons, such as generating sympathy for a cause or reinforcing a belief.