Whistle Blowers are they proof enough ?

reply to post by manta78

Should persons continue to come forward if they have disclosures to make? Absolutely, and the more, the better.

But should there be a formal list of rules to apply to a wb for guidance something like Asimovs rule of robotics or am I overcomplicating things here.

reply to post by sherpa
I've considered it a lot. It's another reason that's led to my current disinterest in the UFO subject. The motivations and agendas of a WB remain unknown to us. Possibly, they remain unknown to spouses and children too.

I mentioned Col Corso earlier. He had a great career. Frank Warren and George Knapp pulled his file on a FOIA. One of them described it as amongst the largest files they'd seen and not a single blemish on his reputation. We should trust a man with such a reputation! Why would a respected gentleman be dishonest? It must be the truth...until we look at some of the claims in detail and they aren't true.

Why did he do it? Was it old age? Disinformation? Part of something wide-reaching and elaborate? Are there truths under the falsehoods? His testimony is rendered meaningless, in my opinion.

Would a modern WB be able to lie to their families? It brings us right back to chasing our tails again. We wouldn't know if they lie to their family or not for the same reasons we wouldn't know their agenda.

Would they be WBing for a greater good or for attention? Would they knowingly lie for either reason? Behind even that, could they be lying unknowingly? What they saw and what they think they saw could be two different concepts altogether!

Thinking more about it, perhaps a WB is doomed to failure due to all of the above and the usual fact that they stand alone. I wouldn't believe the President of the US if he alone made the claim. Support by the Chiefs of Staff would be more compelling!

The 2001 Press Club 'disclosure' had a lot of people. However they all stood alone. If 100 personnel from an AFB came out and seriously described an ET craft recovery...that would be more persuasive than one lone voice.

reply to post by Kandinsky


Ok I see what you are saying and that would be a whole lot of evidence which cannot be provided by a wb.

Thanks for your thoughts.

reply to post by sherpa


I think you can have a general set of guidelines established for showing that a disclosure is at least plausible with reference to the information provided, which I believe most serious investigators already do.

Here's one sentence, which of course is simplistic in nature, but in other fields outside of the UFO/realm quite often is true:

"“If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it’s a duck. Epistemologically.”

That of course is too simplistic for this field, although undoubtably acceptable to some.

The key to unlocking the mysteries behind these disclosures is the ability of being able to seperate the wheat from the chaffe, and I would add, without trampling it all into the ground before the product has ever been examined.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by manta78]

reply to post by sherpa
It's rather a conundrum, huh? I once saw (with friends) something in the night sky that I'm 99% convinced wasn't ours. Despite this, I still can't swear on someone's life that ET are visiting Earth!

A choir of reputable whistleblowers singing the same song would be a great day for TV news

reply to post by manta78

The key to unlocking the mysteries behind these disclosures is the ability of being able to seperate the wheat from the chaffe, and I would add, without trampling it all into the ground before the product has ever been examined.

Undoubtedly, and I am grateful to those with the time and skills that do thoroughly investigate them and I do emphasize thoroughly.

I wonder then if fully investigated cases could ever reach critical mass to tip the balance from hearsay to truth and what kind of numbers it would require to do this although I think their individual stories would have to be synchronistic to do so and at the moment most of them seem to be different in one way or another.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by sherpa

 

It's rather a conundrum, huh? I once saw (with friends) something in the night sky that I'm 99% convinced wasn't ours. Despite this, I still can't swear on someone's life that ET are visiting Earth!

A choir of reputable whistleblowers singing the same song would be a great day for TV news

I know this you can get jaded and frustrated the longer you spend with the alien/ufo subject I have recognised this in myself and have seen it in others I have been away from it for a year and I think it was a good thing although when you come back you are always hoping for something new and a little progress one way or the other but all I seem to see is the subject getting more complicated particularly with the apparent advent of hoaxers.

It is funny when I was a teenager, (a long time ago), I was keenly interested in the subject and this without the advantages of the modern global network but came to realise I could not prove anything one way or another when I looked at it again a few years ago the situation had not changed regardless of the new information that was available it did not answer the big question,,,,, sigh

reply to post by sherpa
Yeah, I recognise that feeling. It's a frustrating subject all by itself. Factor in all the disputing voices and smokescreens and it doesn't amount to much. Like you, I've been dipping in and out of the subject since childhood. It's the people that put me off the subject.

A few years out and something always seems to draw us all back in to the asylum!

Self-professed "Whistle Blowers" should be even more rigorously scrutinized than the average eyewitness as they more often have hidden agendas and ulterior motives.

Originally posted by sherpa
I believe the Kenneth Arnold case was a relatively simple sighting and he was an average Joe albeit a flying one he was not making any world shattering statements like most of the wb's today so it was easier to swallow, in the late 40's there had many advances in technology because of the war which may have made people more open to ufo,s.

Quite why he has credibility today is strange to me after all his report without photographic or supporting witnesses ultimately is anecdotal like so many others so why should he stand out from the crowd.

I think you partly answered your own question, and it pertains to the credibility of whistleblowers.

You said Arnold "was not making any world shattering statements", well I think that is partly an answer to "why he has credibility today is strange to me after all his report without photographic or supporting witnesses ultimately is anecdotal" As Carl Sagan and my signature says, the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required for us to believe it.

And certainly looking at the witnesses's background helps. Arnold had never seen a UFO before when he made his famous sighting. But compare that to a guy who has already seen 15 UFOs and reports another one.

Originally posted by sherpa
This is the wb in question I started a thread on him hoping to put my thoughts there but it has gone mostly unnoticed, however at least everything I know so far is in one place perhaps you could look at it and tell me what you think.

Link

Sorry I didn't havee anything to add to that thread as I never read any of his books so I really don't know much about him beyond what you wrote in the OP

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I appreciate your response re Mr Arnold and I can see were you are coming from but in my mind I tend to separate sighting witnesses and wb's into 2 different categories it doesn't make your comments any less valid because both need validation it is just their standpoints are very different.

I think Arnold got so much attention because he was among the first, had he made a report today the case would not have anywhere near the exposure and being lost in the crowd.

Perhaps like many others I have got used to the sheer quantity of fantastic claims and I was looking for another way of approaching them hence trying to look deeper at the individuals psychological profile just to get a different handle on the subject.

Sorry I didn't havee anything to add to that thread as I never read any of his books so I really don't know much about him beyond what you wrote in the OP

Not a problem, it is interesting though that this particular wb seems to be relatively unknown maybe he too has got lost in the crowd perhaps his claims are not fantastical enough to generate interest these days either and maybe that is why he got my attention in the first place.

reply to post by sherpa


I think what the snafu or conundrum will be is; although their high-ranking eye-witness testimony is substantial and holds merit, it still doesn't prove what they heard/saw or read, originated from off-world entities.

I believe probably 97% of everything we see/read/watch are made through Black OP projects with..........the help of alien Beings.

So, that leaves 3% of UFO sightings to be, unknown. Hey, it only takes one alien-piloted UFO to conclude we're being visited which, I know we are.

But either way, the government (the lower echelons working in Washington I mean) still won't admit anything because either way, every one will know they've kept at least one huge secret from the public (i.e. their highly developed technology or.........their previous knowledge of alien visitation). And we all know they hate to be called liars!

Oh yeah, they have this all worked out! "They" aren't about to tell us anything. Mum is the word and if for no other reason, the ruse of national security purpose.

Hopefully there will be another huge Phoenix Lights event very soon! That way, no disclosure will be necessary and our government can finally dismantle and disappear forever!

reply to post by One Moment

I think what the snafu or conundrum will be is; although their high-ranking eye-witness testimony is substantial and holds merit, it still doesn't prove what they heard/saw or read, originated from off-world entities.

Your statement is correct to a point but the stories told are not all the same so cannot be applied generically.

In the case of Charles Hall he is interacting with beings that although human like, have enough differences to be obvious they are not human so it comes down to the bottom line of is he telling the truth we are not talking about a 2nd or 3rd person relating to him but a one to one contact or up to 200 I think in one instance.

I believe probably 97% of everything we see/read/watch are made through Black OP projects with..........the help of alien Beings.

Well again referring to Charles Halls statements we have solar capable craft that are made for us by the aliens with materials supplied by us.

So, that leaves 3% of UFO sightings to be, unknown. Hey, it only takes one alien-piloted UFO to conclude we're being visited which, I know we are.

How do you know ?

But either way, the government (the lower echelons working in Washington I mean) still won't admit anything because either way, every one will know they've kept at least one huge secret from the public (i.e. their highly developed technology or.........their previous knowledge of alien visitation). And we all know they hate to be called liars!

If there is in truth an alien presence then you are probably right.

Hopefully there will be another huge Phoenix Lights event very soon! That way, no disclosure will be necessary and our government can finally dismantle and disappear forever!

But what if they have an agreement of non disclosure with the aliens then it just will not happen.

IMHO
I believe whistle blowers are disinformation agents sent out by the very ones they are blowing the whistle on to cover something else. Keep in mind that you can be part of a PSYOP and not know that you are taking part in it. Remember they always run things parallel to one another. (As in parallel universe) They ran drills parallel with 911 as they do with other things like NASA.

Regarding the ET subject. More than likely the reptilian beings whether physical and or inter dimensional living in underground cities may be the real deal because it is the most absurd and difficult to believe.

The lizard theme in media has been pushed more than ever since late 20th and now 21st centuries as part of a desensitizing campaign more than likely. That yes indeed we were engineered by these beings which would also be very hard to swallow by most of the populace..This would make us ET as well and everything about history that we have been taught has a chunk missing from it.


[edit on 4-6-2010 by superluminal11]

In the case of Charles Hall he is interacting with beings that although human like, have enough differences to be obvious they are not human so it comes down to the bottom line of is he telling the truth we are not talking about a 2nd or 3rd person relating to him but a one to one contact or up to 200 I think in one instance.

reply to post by sherpa



True! So is the case with Clifford Stone. But in these cases, where is the proof? I s'pose it would be their word. But it's a vicious cycle of frustration to Truth Seekers like myself.

How do I 'know' we have visitors? I just posted a new thread about alien abductions.

But in the fairness .....even THAT could go either way. I KNOW something happened to me but it's not out of the realm of possibility that that too wasn't a government sponsored experiment with the help of alien technology!

But I know, they're here (or were here at some point) but now, I just don't know whose doing (or flying) what anymore. But just because many of these events are probably military.... that doesn't exonerate alien presence. If anything, it helps substantiate it!

All I know is, the more I read the more I distrust and the more I question everything!
But all in all, I feel in the deepest part of my Being, Humans and aliens have had a relationship for many many many MANY years.