Wistleblowers or Frauds?Lets Trade opinions

Well we always speak about various people and clues turn up that some of us dont know about.Well in this thread lets decide who are the frauds who have been proved faked and who are legit.The documentary itself is very interesting and i highly recommend it to everyone!!

And yes i know some of you have seen it but the purpose is discussion,the new learn-the old have their memories refreshed

click

Ok so what we see is

Trevor James Constable

Speaking about rods and infrared photography.

Astronaut Edgar Mitchell talking about crashed craft,bodies and material recovered

Lieutenant Colonel Philip J. Corso claims he stewarded extraterrestrial artifacts recovered from a crash near Roswell, New Mexico

Colonel, USAF Test Pilot Gordon Cooper

Major Donald Keyhoe

Astronaut Scott Carpenter

Tether incident

Brigadier Stephen Lovekin

Aerospace researcher Richard Haines

Major George A. Filer III

FAA Oficcial John Callahan

Merle Shane Mcdow

Lt. Colonel Robert Salas from the famous Minot AFB B-52 UFO Incident

Professor Robert Jacobs

Sergeant Clifford Stone more from him in this thread basically he is the one talking about 57 species of aliens

Carol Rosin former spokesperson for Werner von braun

USAF, and CIA Contractor Don Phillips He testifies that we not only have these extraterrestrial devices, but have also achieved tremendous technological advances from their study

And many others.

LETS NOT TALK ABOUT STEVEN GREER AND IF HE WANTS TO MAKE A BUCK,because the point of the thread is to establish the Credentials of these people and if they are lying what is the reason.Because we have some heavyweights in there.For all of them to be liars means Americans have bad evaluation standards and i dont believe this and i get angry they paint everyone who sees ufos a lunatic.even if he is in charge of Atomic bombs...


So please watch the documentary and lets have a good discussion

an excellent idea,someone should sticky this

peace

reply to post by IMSAM
Constable - believed what he wrote, but his ideas of critters haven't panned out. Neither have his photos of them.

Mitchell - believes, profoundly, in what he says and has spent a fortune trying to gather the evidence to prove his ideas are correct.

Corso - fraud, but we can only guess at what caused him to put that story out. His son took the story and extended it to ridiculous levels.

Cooper - fraudish because his accounts had a lot of inconsistencies and varied with the re-telling.

Keyhoe - whistleblower. In the early years, he was right on the button and publicised a lot of UFO encounters reported to him by USAF personnel. In that way, he was blowing his whistle to show that there was a signal and that it wasn't all noise. Later on, the noise got too much and he lost his way a little.

Carpenter - IIRC he reported debris and has been misused by some UFO promoters.

Tether Incident - Self-inflicted fraud by too many people.

Haines - neither.

Filer - fraudish for promoting Billy Meier and a lot of dubious stuff on his site.

Salas - bit of both? I haven't made my mind up. One of the best cases did occur at Minot (see Tulien) so perhaps he's right. On the other hand, a lot of guys who I respect doubt his account.

Stone - outright fraud.

Rosin - fraud. Not an ounce of evidence to support her claims that Von Braun thought or said what she claims he said. On top of that, her conference talks have all the patter of Bob Dean.

Phillips - fraud/ disinfo

I think *whistleblowers* are a myth created by people to market shtick to the UFO fans. They're all full of BS. People who report sightings aren't whistleblowers no matter what their occupations are. In ufology, whistleblowers are usually pushing a conspiracy theory.

I think that the title of fraud needs to be reserved for the ones that have been proven beyond a doubt to be cons. I don't believe that most of the people on this list have been proven to be frauds. If you are going to call someone a fraud I think some sources should go along with your assessment!

Originally posted by jaws1975
I think that the title of fraud needs to be reserved for the ones that have been proven beyond a doubt to be cons. I don't believe that most of the people on this list have been proven to be frauds. If you are going to call someone a fraud I think some sources should go along with your assessment!

I agree with this benevolent attitude -- I've found few people I would categorize as out-and-out hoaxers, but a lot of people who have sincerely told stories that have improved with age, to impress target audiences and to enhance the status of the teller. Gordon Cooper is one good, and sad, example, IMHO. The saddest part is he probably told early versions of his stories to ed mitchell when they served together on an Apollo lunar crew in 1968-9 [backup crew to Apollo-10].But Mitchell has steadfastly refused to disclose the versions he heard from Cooper, possible -- I speculate wildly here -- because he knows how far later versions diverged from the earlier ones and doesn't want to discredit Cooper's useful stories.

Other self-styled whistle-blowers regarding space UFOs are Clark McClelland (eg, 216.145.94.108...) and Ken Johnston. Donna Tietze Hare is another person with authentic 'insider' credentials who tells an incredible story.

Mitchell is not a WB since he claims he personally has nothing to reveal, just his trust in the stories others have told him.

Corso's material on space events is bogus, IMHO, but it's hard to tell how much was his own views and how much was 'filler' from the co-author.

Jacobs is, i think, the best sort of example of these witnesses -- recounting a story that I think is essentially accurate in its sequence of events and perceptions, but incomplete in accounting for plausible prosaic explanations from other witnesses. In that, his story is top quality because there ARE other witnesses to the event with a variety of memories. Most other WBs tell stories with absolutely no other witnesses or documentation to back them up [eg, Carl Wolf] -- Jacobs is much more believable, even if his interpretations remain subject to argument.

reply to post by IMSAM


Hello IMSAM.... How do we know who's legit? We don't, do we--- we can't! How can we know? If we did 'know' then this subject wouldn't be classed as a 'strange phenomenon' & places like ATS would be redundant ... IMO it's all down to who you believe when told a story...

peace.

dej...

reply to post by Kandinsky


yep i agree 100%

I was always impressed with kenneth Storch. He (is or was) a law enforcement officer and MUFON investigator.

reply to post by Kandinsky


Yes... and they also create documents, photos, videos and kill themselves eventually to make their ;just-conspiracy; more real

The late JUNE CRANE of Wright Patterson (Wright Field) impresses me.

reply to post by Kandinsky


So they are doing this for their own gain?

I mean Salas couldnt have been a liar.People like him undergo evaluations and psychological battery tests.And Don Phillips had everything to lose being a contructor and all.

About Trevor constable was his ideas proven phoney?like a trick of the camera or something like that?

I think *whistleblowers* are a myth created by people to market shtick to the UFO fans. They're all full of BS.

Basically you are saying that they pimp ufology to gain money all of it being a charade,while gaining money from lectures books and items sold right?Because after all this years thats what it seems is going on.Many people live off ufology by attending lectures lending us their expertise

But another question arises,people in prominent positions with authority in their hands turn out to be pathological liars,how can that be explained

Originally posted by jaws1975
I think that the title of fraud needs to be reserved for the ones that have been proven beyond a doubt to be cons. I don't believe that most of the people on this list have been proven to be frauds. If you are going to call someone a fraud I think some sources should go along with your assessment!

By what criteria? Legally convicted? ATS debunked? NASA shills agreeing with your set of standards...which you have failed to delineate...but are oh so willing to prop your credibility?

reply to post by IMSAM
Hiya IMSAM. I was trying to stay within your fraud/whistleblower terms of the OP. Ufology is often way more complicated than either/or and sometimes we don't even have the language to discuss what goes on with the people or the phenomena.

Where I used 'fraud' it was meant as fraud/not true.

I honestly don't know about Salas and it's for those reasons I mentioned - people I respect are adamant on both sides. I mentioned another Minot incident and that's about the most interesting evidence in recent years of an unidentified object landing outside an AFB. It was witnessed by a B-52 crew, radars, perimeter security and they've maintained their stories. So, it seems that if Salas' claims aren't enough to stick a flag in...the other case is.

We're back to complexities because we don't know if what the guys said they saw was what they actually saw.

So they are doing this for their own gain?

Again, it's difficult to be sure. There's *gain* yes, it can be through notoriety or increased attention. For example, what would make Rosin come out and start making the claims? Von Braun's diaries and the recollections of friends don't have any indications that he was a New World Order conspiracy theorist. She doesn't bring evidence of her employment being connected to Von Braun and neither does she explain *why* he apparently decided to share these incredible secrets with only her. To see her in front of a crowd at the last conference might just explain why. She's clearly enjoying the speaking, she'll be in company, treated specially and PAID.

But another question arises,people in prominent positions with authority in their hands turn out to be pathological liars,how can that be explained

Not always *liars.* Paul Hellyer is out and about selling the conspiracy ideas of peaceful, loving aliens being covered up by dark US forces. He's an ex-defense minister for Canada. The problem with his claims, like Mitchell's too, is that he hasn't read a document that we haven't read. He hasn't seen anything we haven't seen. So he's operating on beliefs and hasn't checked his evidence.

That doesn't make some of the people who believe liars. It makes them human like us. Because they're human and have only access to stuff we have, their positions are not important. What I notice is that *whistleblowers* always come with a conspiracy theory that involves an evil NWO, global destruction and friendly aliens. Because so many sing from the same hymn sheet...it implies an original source.

We're back to complexities because we don't know if what the guys said they saw was what they actually saw.

An excellent pass,because i want to ask ,we hear many times people are not qualified observers.Who do we accept as a qualified observer if not people responsible of icbm missiles?Because its cases like those that debunkers dont have a leg to stand on.

Again, it's difficult to be sure. There's *gain* yes, it can be through notoriety or increased attention. For example, what would make Rosin come out and start making the claims? Von Braun's diaries and the recollections of friends don't have any indications that he was a New World Order conspiracy theorist. She doesn't bring evidence of her employment being connected to Von Braun and neither does she explain *why* he apparently decided to share these incredible secrets with only her. To see her in front of a crowd at the last conference might just explain why. She's clearly enjoying the speaking, she'll be in company, treated specially and PAID.

Well some will say that there's a conspiracy to make her and others like her look like that.But i do agree (not on rosin as i am on the fence) that some people do seem to revel in the attention gained and have turned ufology into a profiteering business by giving lectures and selling books and merchandise.Some people seem like they rely exclusively on lectures for income...

Not always *liars.* Paul Hellyer is out and about selling the conspiracy ideas of peaceful, loving aliens being covered up by dark US forces. He's an ex-defense minister for Canada. The problem with his claims, like Mitchell's too, is that he hasn't read a document that we haven't read. He hasn't seen anything we haven't seen. So he's operating on beliefs and hasn't checked his evidence.

I think we will agree when i say that politicians are an alien race that worldwide has the same traits(promising things-telling lies-backing up on words etc,and we as sheep believing them but thats another discussion) and they never do anything without a purpose.What is Hellyers purpose i dont know.He might be a crackpot,a disinformation agent,an ignorant or just a man acting on his beliefs.Still Astronauts-contructors-colonels-ministers all of them lying or acting like fools is hard to accept or maybe this tell something about our system

reply to post by IMSAM

An excellent pass,because i want to ask ,we hear many times people are not qualified observers.Who do we accept as a qualified observer if not people responsible of icbm missiles?Because its cases like those that debunkers dont have a leg to stand on.

It's not a pass. We're talking 'UFOs' and whilst they remain *unidentified,* we have to suspend judgement. These guys emphatically describe what they saw. They saw an object that looked nothing like anything of ours. Still doesn't. They had objects on radar. Lights in the sky, Radar/Visual encounters.

Fair enough?

Do we have proof of visitors? I'd say so. Where did the *visitors* come from? We don't know.

They could have been AFOSI conducting an exercise to see how base staff reacted. Or testing how it would work in an overseas operation. Maybe somebody was checking how *leaky* the Minot AFB was by presenting an incident too hard to hush up. They could have been Folk from Elsewhere too.

The men who've gone on record, in my opinion, aren't 'whistleblowers.' They're witnesses reporting a sighting - a pretty bad-ass sighting! They haven't claimed cover-ups, conspiracies or aliens.

It's not a pass. We're talking 'UFOs' and whilst they remain *unidentified,* we have to suspend judgement. These guys emphatically describe what they saw. They saw an object that looked nothing like anything of ours. Still doesn't. They had objects on radar. Lights in the sky, Radar/Visual encounters.

I mean pass as in assist(basketball term) because with what you said you gave me the chance to jump to another topic.

And by whistle-blowers i meant witnesses but i always come up with not-on-spot topic titles

They could have been AFOSI conducting an exercise to see how base staff reacted. Or testing how it would work in an overseas operation. Maybe somebody was checking how *leaky* the Minot AFB was by presenting an incident too hard to hush up.

Another good pass here,because recently and i dont remember from where exactly i red it,but the same was said of the rendlesham forest.That it was an exercise to see the reactions of the participants.Is this common in Us or England?And why is it done?To evaluate-reevaluate or to keep the personnel on their toes because of how crucial a base is?

reply to post by IMSAM
It's likely that we'll never know.

We have to remember that these are military endeavours conducted in secrecy and overlapping into National Security issues. If they were base security tests, we'd never find out. If they were genuine incursions by Folk from Elsewhere, they'd never say.

Often in ufology, people forget that State Secrets are taken seriously. Budgets of billions, massive Armed Forces and vast webs of Intel agents. People die for National Security and State Secrets, but some guys get paranoid when they aren't allowed to go trampling into military bases or film their activities!

Whistle-blowing or fraud? He doesn't seem to be so well known in ufology these days, but it wasn't until 1978 that someone fired the UFO gotcha question point-blank on national TV at Colonel William T. Coleman, former Public Information Officer for Project Blue Book and the USAF’s Chief Public Relations Officer in the early 1970s: "Have you ever seen a UFO yourself?" HIs answer was that as a bomber pilot in 1955 he and this crew of five saw a 60-foot grayish disc, followed it, closed to within 1/8 mile, and filed reports with Blue Book, which he said he couldn’t find when he later went to work for Blue Book and was able to check.

That admission came on the Merv Griffin Show, where he was a guest because he had been hired as a Producer on Project UFO, Jack Webb's TV series about Project Blue Book.

www.nicap.org...

He also appeared together with Colonel Robert J. Friend (head of Blue Book 1958-1963) on KTLA for a few minutes on a special in which Mike Farrrel gave them a chance to speak about the UFO situation.

www.youtube.com...

That's interesting, to me at least, because if he was telling the truth, it means that the top U.S. government spokesman on this issue was knowingly lying to the public for years. And the very fact that he is not so well known in the field would tend to point away from a verdict of fraud.

Originally posted by AlchemicalMonocular

Originally posted by jaws1975
I think that the title of fraud needs to be reserved for the ones that have been proven beyond a doubt to be cons. I don't believe that most of the people on this list have been proven to be frauds. If you are going to call someone a fraud I think some sources should go along with your assessment!

By what criteria? Legally convicted? ATS debunked?

NASA shills agreeing with your set of standards...which you have failed to delineate...but are oh so willing to prop your credibility?

ATS debunked = major FAIL!
Legally convicted, or the equivalent = Reality.

It is really very simplle, Any group that will accept an "alternate" explaination, without proof that the "alternate" was actually employed is only lying to themselves. All that can be garnered from "on-line" forums such as this can not provide the quality of evidence required to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt. Thus all the "debunking" in the Universe cannot / will not work.

The kind of evidence, and rules of evidence employed in a court of law are the only criteria that should be employed.

Etharzi od Oma.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Stone - outright fraud.

Do you think he has always been a fraud? I know he has a story that is disinformation, but I don't think he is lying everytime he gets teary eyed speaking of his experience. in 1989 he wasn't a fraud in my opinion, he was the voice of someone alone in the wilderness.