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

reply to post by ArMaP


I think we are doing our best to agree with each other here, ArMap. If we include that the sighting may indeed have been true, as well as the options of 'mistaken' and 'lying', then that is what I am saying too. And yes, that is indeed three options.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Thunda
My, my- such vehemence amongst the skeptics in this thread!

Of course, you're right. You can't yell at people to make them learn the basics of logic, reasoning and how evidence becomes proof. No matter how long or loud you yell, they'll be just as ignorant. No reason to get all worked up about it.

Apologies if I am missing your point, but are you suggesting that non skeptics are lacking 'the basics of logic, reasoning and how evidence becomes proof'? And even if you 'yell at people' they will be 'just as ignorant'?

Wow, what a patronizing viewpoint. Well, thank goodness we have the debunkers to put us all right (quietly)

If people didn't keep on using the term "UFO" under false pretenses, then people wouldn't have to keep reminding those people what it actually stands for. Since when is it OK to make up your own meanings for words and phrases? Does this mean that... next time I get a bill that says "due".... I can just not pay the bill and tell them that to me "due" means; 'don't pay this'? Or when I come up to a stop sign... Can I just race through it and tell the cop that "stop" to me means; 'go as fast as possible'?

When i started this topic i wanted it to be a simple issue of truth or lies not misidentification of lights in the sky or of fading memory.
When you have people such as :

Attorney Stephen Lovekin - White House Army Signal Agency.
Don Phillips - U.S Air Force/Lockheed Skunkworks.
Dr. Alfred Webre - Stanford Research Institute , Senior Policy Analyst.

The case is not complicated, either these people are flat out liars or they are telling the truth it is that simple and there are alot more people of this calibre if you are willing to open your eyes and minds to the facts they have put in front of you.

Originally posted by CrashRetrieval
When i started this topic i wanted it to be a simple issue of truth or lies not misidentification of lights in the sky or of fading memory.

That's the problem, things are never as simple as "truth or lies".

Life, in all its aspects, is full of small things that make it impossible for everything to be just black or white, they are all possible shades of grey, and, to make things worse, if we ask two different people about something they may have different opinions about it, and both can be true.

Originally posted by CrashRetrieval
When i started this topic i wanted it to be a simple issue of truth or lies not misidentification of lights in the sky or of fading memory.
When you have people such as :

Attorney Stephen Lovekin - White House Army Signal Agency.
Don Phillips - U.S Air Force/Lockheed Skunkworks.
Dr. Alfred Webre - Stanford Research Institute , Senior Policy Analyst.

The case is not complicated, either these people are flat out liars or they are telling the truth it is that simple and there are alot more people of this calibre if you are willing to open your eyes and minds to the facts they have put in front of you.

Fallacy, argument from appeal to authority doesn't works. That is not how logic works... No concrete proof to everybody see and touch = no proof at all.

Originally posted by blackcube

Originally posted by CrashRetrieval
When i started this topic i wanted it to be a simple issue of truth or lies not misidentification of lights in the sky or of fading memory.
When you have people such as :

Attorney Stephen Lovekin - White House Army Signal Agency.
Don Phillips - U.S Air Force/Lockheed Skunkworks.
Dr. Alfred Webre - Stanford Research Institute , Senior Policy Analyst.

The case is not complicated, either these people are flat out liars or they are telling the truth it is that simple and there are alot more people of this calibre if you are willing to open your eyes and minds to the facts they have put in front of you.

Fallacy, argument from appeal to authority doesn't works. That is not how logic works... No concrete proof to everybody see and touch = no proof at all.

I have never seen a Sperm Whale with my own eyes but i believe they exist because of film/ photographic evidence and scientific/witness testimony.
Now you tell me the difference between this and ufology ?

There are very few insiders who will talk about the existance of E.T....except those who are doing so to spread disinformation. The real people in the know....keep silent for two reasons...1. They would prefer to keep on living.....and 2. They understand that it is imperative to keep it a secret as knowledge of E.T.'s existance would have a VERY dangerous effect on peoples actions as well as markets and general Global stability.

Everything that I have said....is nothing new and has been either theorized about publicly or made public by someone before hand. The only people that I know still living that have released real data or information about E.T....are former Astronauts....and only because they felt that because of their high profile....they were safe from any action against them. For an "ACCIDENT" to befall one of them would not serve the Agencies agenda...as this would only bread more interest and investigation.

Even in the case of Bob Lazar....and for those who doubt this story....remember...after Los Alamos denied that he EVER worked there or for them in any way...was a Los Alamos employee phone and employee directory made available....a new one was quickly printed. He is still alive....and if you notice....you don't here to much about him and nothing from him anymore....because his death would serve no purpose. Make no mistake....he was threatened with death....and is living on the graces of others because what he did was not only stupid...but dangerous.

If you know any USAF pilots active or not...ask THEM....what current protocol is once a USAF pilot encounters a UFO. If they will talk about it at all. Split Infinity

Just pointing out the obvious, but here's the last part of the foreward of Captain Ruppelt's book:

The hassle over the word "proof" boils down to one question: What constitutes proof? Does a UFO have to land at the River Entrance to the Pentagon, near the Joint Chiefs of Staff offices? Or is it proof when a ground radar station detects a UFO, sends a jet to intercept it, the jet pilot sees it, and locks on with his radar, only to have the UFO streak away at a phenomenal speed? Is it proof when a jet pilot fires at a UFO and sticks to his story even under the threat of court-martial? Does this constitute proof?

The at times hotly debated answer to this question may be the answer to the question, "Do the UFO's really exist?"

I'll give you the facts - all of the facts - you decide.

July 1955 E. J. RUPPELT

He died of a heart attack at age 37, without closure on this issue.

reply to post by CrashRetrieval


testimony is never proof, as it is easy to lie, for a number of reasons, like they want their spot in the light, get in the papers, whatever. no matter who you are, if it is not verifyable it is worth nothing, more than the entertainment value.

Tangible proof is what we need, an actual close up video, preerably hd, of an alien craft. not just a light in the sky or some story.

Surely another important point is the issue of trust.
Many of the calibre of witness i have mentioned have lived their whole working lives in positions of massive responsibilty and should be regarded with the highest respect.
To claim they are hoping for financial gain or that their testimony is false/a lie/bad memory is an insult to the people in question.

I trust credible insider testimonies, yes. Greer has kinda gone too much into koo-koo territory for me to take him, or the quality of his witnesses, seriously. Some of the individuals on his list are credible enough, and I believe genuine. Alot of others, however, are pretty questionable.

With the possible exception of Asronaut testimony of UFO or E.T. activity....I would not believe ANYTHING that comes out of the mouth of any supposed in the know former or current military or civilian official. I would not even recomend that you believe what I post....anyone who either has worked in the field or has knowledge of E.T. is under the strictest of constraints to keep quiet.

Those who do not keep quiet are most likely spreading disinformation and I am VERY DUBIOUS of any COMETA report or statement that is anounced as a supposed RELEASE OF INFORMATION. Lets get one thing straight....the people involved in this field....DO NOT RELEASE OR ALLOW THE RELEASE OF ANY INFORMATION....unless it is bogus.

The current plan is to flood the media with as much varying information as possible to allow the growth of doubt in the minds of the general public. Every time a person is seen on a UFO special detailing some fantastic abduction story...the agency gets a very big smile on its face.

Nothing bodes better for secrecy than a secret to be hidden by doubt. Split Infinity

There are researchers who had experiences in the late 70s who now have websites that don't mention anything of the knowledge they learned from those experiences, then when in front of a microphone they do not mention any of the knowledge they learned either from those crucial substantial experiences.

There is no testimony, not only because of the government but because it would not be understood or believed for what it is. Those who speak of testimony are creating stories to gain profit and some are disinformation agents.

reply to post by SplitInfinity

Lets get one thing straight....the people involved in this field....DO NOT RELEASE OR ALLOW THE RELEASE OF ANY INFORMATION....unless it is bogus.

I find this a MOST interesting insighfull comment. Very much so. I'm a would be/could be military witness (ahem) but certain ufo authorities, mostly early 1990's and recently as 2005, always consistently, no matter who they are, react to me ranging from the silent treatment, to mean, to dismissive, to afraid. But now I'm on the internet.
And for some reason, I prefer to make posts in threads about food, pets, and gender wars, etcetera.
(Well, and all sorts of --other-- stuff too..)

Originally posted by greyer
There are researchers who had experiences in the late 70s who now have websites that don't mention anything of the knowledge they learned from those experiences, then when in front of a microphone they do not mention any of the knowledge they learned either from those crucial substantial experiences.

Then how do you know that?

Originally posted by ArMaP
Then how do you know that?

I've researched interviews of UFO researchers (some appearing to be agents) who referenced their name at a certain place and given time. Apparently in some taped interviews more is told by a person than on a video camera. There is also a large chain of events with individuals and being fair in psychology I will not let a bigot say a word to me without evaluating proper guidelines because this man speaks, that goes to the disinformation agents and frauds.