Does Military/Government insider testimony on the reality of UFOs constitute as proof to you ?

dp

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by CrashRetrieval

 

The majority of credible "witnesses" used hearsay evidence, no personal experience, no verifiable statements.

Links to sources? Show that it's "majority" and not some, or many, or a few, etc, etc........

reply to post by Toxicsurf

The Greer press conference is readily available for viewing.

I understand that and have viewed it many times, that wasn't my point...But I'll check it again sometime I'm sure and will look for myself.....thanx...

Originally posted by Phage
And yes, at least one of the "credible witnesses" was lying.

Karl Wolfe? Surely there wasn't a secret orbiter up there earlier? Where is Wolfe to explain his clanger? It would be funny but for being so pathetic!

I could get into the games and say he was told to do that to destroy the credibility of the project but that would be disinformation. After all, there's no history of that in this field is there? As usual confusion reigns supreme.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
'Insider testimony' is like slang for BS.

If you want hard evidence, fair enough. I agree that we can't use it to prove anything.

I will say one thing for insider information though. If there is a cover up then people who have been involved in operations will know. There are so many ex-military who say there is that I am convinced something VERY fishy has been going on. It isn't just kids tripping on acid. What that something is is another matter entirely.

To convince yourself it is extraterrestrials, inter-dimensional beings, time-travellers or whatever you have to decide who to believe. Or you accept that testimony is never enough and do what we must be doing on here (if anything CONSTRUCTIVE) and follow the clues. It's a bit like reading Sherlock Holmes but a lot more demanding.

Milton Torres, ex fighter pilot, this guy almost broke down on the podium once because he wants the truth to be known about UFOs, I believe his story:

reply to post by Zcustosmorum

That's from a different conference from the one the OP is referring to.

He's not really an insider either but I believe his story. I just don't think it had anything to do with ET.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Does Military/Government insider testimony on the reality of UFOs constitute as proof to me?

I know it is uncouth to answer a question with a question but would military/government insider testimony that there is no cover-up constitute proof there is not a cover-up?

If you believe there is a cover-up, why would you believe what any insider has to say?

reply to post by Phage


Your thread is certainly a theory, but we probably will never know either way.

reply to post by Zcustosmorum

Therefore, in the context of the thread:
a) Torres is not an "insider".
b) His testimony is not proof (or even evidence).

reply to post by Phage


Proof would be a UFO flying past my window with aliens clearly visible

reply to post by CrashRetrieval

I have been researching the UFO phenomenon for many years. After reading and hearing from military pilots, military radar operators, all types of military personnel from Generals to security people, from civilian pilots, civilian radar operators and astronauts to local police, I believe we have been and are currently being visited by extraterrestrial intelligent beings. To dismiss all the reports and statements of the above mentioned individuals as liars, hoaxers, or individuals unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, is in my opinion a condemnation of the human race. If we can't trust these people to be telling us the truth, who can we trust?

Originally posted by 1questioner
After reading and hearing from military pilots, military radar operators, all types of military personnel from Generals to security people, from civilian pilots, civilian radar operators and astronauts to local police, I believe we have been and are currently being visited by extraterrestrial intelligent beings.

Even if after all these years you can only believe in it does that mean that you haven't seen evidence strong enough so it could be considered as proof?

To dismiss all the reports and statements of the above mentioned individuals as liars, hoaxers, or individuals unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, is in my opinion a condemnation of the human race.

Sorry for repeating myself, but you forgot people that are mistaken or misidentified what they saw, that's not the same being "unable to distinguish fantasy from reality".

If we can't trust these people to be telling us the truth, who can we trust?

Do you mean "if we can't trust people we do not know, who can we trust?"

Originally posted by ArMaP

If we can't trust these people to be telling us the truth, who can we trust?

Do you mean "if we can't trust people we do not know, who can we trust?"

Listen. I know you can trust me. Tell you what, I'll tell you what I know. Read on for a revelation.



I know that some of them are telling the truth.... I'm just not sure which ones!

The problem is a thought-form block that is in place and can't be breached for most people regardless of who makes a statement. God himself could come down and say "there are trillions of others all over the galaxy" and few would believe him because of the thought form firewall that is in place on the topic.

Ingo Swann, a very credible person, an insider, tells of personally witnessing an alien craft. He details his experience eloquently, but even he isn't sure. This is an important point, he saw something alien, with a person who specifically took him to see it without telling him what he would see, and he isn't sure what it means - it didn't really make him a zealot type believer. The thought-form wall that there is nothing but the reality you have been taught is too great for even a witness to break down without issue.

There will never be witnesses that will be credible because of this because part of the thought-form wall has a line in it that reads - there are no credible witnesses. So people have a program in their head that tells them that all witnesses are not credible before they meet anyone. In Ingo's case, even he is under the influence of this thought-form with regard to himself.

Things that are not simply understood like 2+2=4 are not ever going to be subject to one convincing another that something is or isn't. For most 911 was done by terrorists who learned to fly on crop dusters and that's it. No one will be credible enough to teach them otherwise - the idea is too complex and the thought-form blocks are too deep. The idea of beings other than use existing is too complex and the thought forms are too complicated to be broken down by an insider of any sort. The blocks are broken down over time, not in a moment.

Oddly enough there are a few thought-form programs that afford any sitting US president the credibility to say "others exist....." and folks will accept it. There is no such thought form for any other elected official world wide - as far as I can see. This means, the only credible person on the other worldly topic, for most people, is the sitting US president - even Carl Sagen wouldn't work, A C Clark neither, your dad or mum couldn't break the wall.

reply to post by ArMaP


I appreciate your effort to "rattle my cage," but I made my point.

reply to post by 1questioner


My intention was (mostly ) to get answers, but if you think that what you said was enough then I have to accept that.

reply to post by CrashRetrieval

Are they:
A - Liars.
B - Disinfo Agents.
C - Telling the truth.

My vote:

A: 80% +/-
B: 20% +/-
C ~0-1% +/-

A & B Combo: min. 50%

Originally posted by crankyoldman
The problem is a thought-form block that is in place and can't be breached for most people regardless of who makes a statement.

That may be true for some (few) people, but to most, real evidence is what is wanted, not some statements from people they do not know.

God himself could come down and say "there are trillions of others all over the galaxy" and few would believe him because of the thought form firewall that is in place on the topic.

I don't believe in god(s) either, but I don't think I would be affected by some "thought firewall" and I would ask for some kind of evidence that those words were true.

Ingo Swann, a very credible person, an insider, tells of personally witnessing an alien craft. He details his experience eloquently, but even he isn't sure.

If he isn't sure how can we be?

This is an important point, he saw something alien, with a person who specifically took him to see it without telling him what he would see, and he isn't sure what it means - it didn't really make him a zealot type believer. The thought-form wall that there is nothing but the reality you have been taught is too great for even a witness to break down without issue.

Or so he says. The problem with witnesses is that some people are really:
- good at lying
- convinced of what they saw (although it was nothing like what they think)

There will never be witnesses that will be credible because of this because part of the thought-form wall has a line in it that reads - there are no credible witnesses.

No, credible witnesses exist, but we should not accept any one that presents him/herself as a witness as if it was really true, we should first try to find if the witness is credible and not accept it blindly.

For most 911 was done by terrorists who learned to fly on crop dusters and that's it. No one will be credible enough to teach them otherwise - the idea is too complex and the thought-form blocks are too deep.

Are you implying that those people are not capable of understanding complex ideas?

The idea of beings other than use existing is too complex and the thought forms are too complicated to be broken down by an insider of any sort. The blocks are broken down over time, not in a moment.

It's not, that's your understanding of what other people think about it, but you don't know if that's true or not, it's just an assumption like any other (like there is no god ).

Oddly enough there are a few thought-form programs that afford any sitting US president the credibility to say "others exist....." and folks will accept it.

Really? And how do you know that, has that happened before?

This means, the only credible person on the other worldly topic, for most people, is the sitting US president - even Carl Sagen wouldn't work, A C Clark neither, your dad or mum couldn't break the wall.

To me, the US president is just another guy, and, as he is a politician, I don't have any reason to see him as more credible than anyone else. Arthur C. Clark was just a writer, although one with good ideas, but not more than that. I never liked Carl Sagan, but I find him the most credible of these three.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by CrashRetrieval

 

The majority of credible "witnesses" used hearsay evidence, no personal experience, no verifiable statements.

And yes, at least one of the "credible witnesses" was lying.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Like the airforce photo lab technician that was witnessing bases on the moon???

I'd believe him over anything you could possibly connive