Nuclear Physicist confirm on Main Stream Media: Aliens worked with US Military!

Originally posted by Arken
From Albuquerque in New Mexico, Charles Hall, Nuclear Phisicist, during an interview on "Yahoo!7 TV Channel", he made an amazing claim: he worked with Alien Beings in US military base in 1960'. au.tv.yahoo.com...

edit on 28-3-2013 by Arken because: (no reason given)

Check this, I tried to be funny...
Anyway, there are a lot of Legends about our coming to The Earth from somewhere in Outerspace, very, very, very long time ago... www.abovetopsecret.com...

For some reason i'm fascinated with the idea of aliens looking like us. "Aliens" are often depicted as the typical "grays" but the tall, fair haired humanoids both creep me out and, like i said, fascinate me.

Now do i believe in these stories of people in the government interacting with them? Probably not. It's unfortunate and i hold on to some hope that it has some truth to it... The idea must have come from somewhere right? Often the alien idea comes from the ancients.... what did they know/see that we don't?

I looked into this guy's series of books on Amazon after reading this thread...considering reading them.
Unfortunately, the reader's reviews are all just terrible.

Wright Patterson AFB has a "foreign technology" division. Not even people with a TS TK clearance are allowed.

wow

Originally posted by yamammasamonkey
So, this guy was a low ranking enlisted "weather boy", and he was the only one allowed to interact with these space aliens for a three year period. I doubt it.

Well, if you believe his story, the ETs had a habit of shooting and frying anybody who even slightly 'dissed' them. Who are you going to send out? Your Top. Men.?

(And he did say that ETs were more respectful of generals who had authority and presumably could do things for them)

Originally posted by usernamealreadytaken
Wright Patterson AFB has a "foreign technology" division. Not even people with a TS TK clearance are allowed.

True Statement

OP, it could explain this economic issue and push of the nwo, maybe its due to their workings with 'them',

S n F

I'll repeat something that may have been repeated pointed our in the foregoing pages.
The man is not a nuclear physicist.

In the video I watched the other day from Australian TV, he was a weatherman, and enlisted weatherman which probably does not even qualify him for being called a meteorologist, at least, not in the official sense.

Oh, and I don't believe his spiel. Yet, I'm quite sure that the US and the aliens have been in cahoots at least since Eisenhower's term. I have my own proof of that.

reply to post by Malynn


That was beautiful!

reply to post by yamammasamonkey


No, Charles was not the only one at all.

The TW's do not care about secrecy. They don't even know the concept. They visited Las Vegas regularly, played poker there, and occasionaly entertained other military personnel at their bases. Human military officers were routinely flown around by TW's in locally fabricated TW scout ships and TW's and humans actually mingled a lot - albeit carefully and with carefully maintained mutual respect. TW's and humans also worked together on a number of scientific / military projects, in underground laboraties / officies. Hence there are many thousands of people who know about the TW's and other alien activity. Charlie is yet another one.

As said: the TW's themselves don't give a dang about secrecy. They are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. To them, we're wildlife. If humans seem to threaten them they simply eliminate them. They go where they want and when they want. That behaviour made it very difficult to keep a lid on all this. Our military know this. So a much simpler, much cheaper control is used: ridicule.

Please note that the TW's actually dictated that Charly should be allowed to tell whatever he wanted to whomever he wanted too. They like to 'outhink' us - and this is one example. Charlie, in their eyes, is nothing more that a 'pet', a rather stupid human, and they are far superiour to him - or to any other human. By allowing Charly to talk about them they send us a simple message "try to harm us, and you'll be sorry. We don't mind even if all 7 billion of you know about us".

The military had to promise the TW's they would allow him to talk about this, and as Charles points out: they TW always keep their word and expect us to do likewise. The military knows they can't do much agains the TW's nor do they wish to, as the TW's have valuable knowledge and are willing to teach us. So, the military allows this. But they make sure he has no concrete proof. So actually, the knife cuts both ways: the honour their agreement with the TW's and help strengthen the idea that all whom tell this type of story are frauds, whom are simply trying to sell books.

And it works. Be honest, do you believe Charles? .. thought so :-)

reply to post by Arken


Oddly, I knew a woman who told me about these very same Aliens (tall whites) just before she passed away in the 1990's. Hearing the guy talk about them gave me chills, rarely if ever do I hear anyone talk about them in detail.
I was told by my friend who passed away, they are no longer in Nevada they have been moved to the East still in the USA, you have to take a helicopter to get to them in the mountains. I'll leave it at that.
Thanks! S & F

I think the entire alien angle is a creation of our government to hide info they want to hide... it's all theater. Which is also why this site is so focused on it... it's by design.

Originally posted by Brighter

Originally posted by draknoir2

The fact that he earns "a few thousand bucks" writing books on the topic is just one more reason for increased scrutiny.

Originally posted by Hopechest

I haven't checked yet but I will guarantee he has a book for sale.

How ironic isn't it?

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

And look, you can buy his book, too!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

He has written 3 books

This argument has been expounded over and over as though it actually means anything, and I'd like to point out that it's a simple logical fallacy. It's a basic ad hominem attack, intended to suggest something about this man's character, without addressing the actual claims being made. It could also be seen as an example of a Red Herring fallacy, simply diverting attention away from the actual issue.

These are old debunker tricks, and as usual, rest on irrational grounds.

The fact that someone profits from something is no more an argument against the content of what they're saying, as the fact that Stephen Hawking sells millions of books is an argument against the cosmological claims he makes in those books. And James Randi, because he too sells untold numbers of books, would as a result also be a fraud (actually, I'm confident he is a fraud, but for independent reasons). Either way, it's a childish argument.

In fact, it's not even an argument, but rather an expression of emotion.

People making such invalid attacks are doing nothing more than expressing their 'feelings' and 'gut reactions'. And I hope I don't have to point out that your feelings don't constitute a valid argument. I'd simply point out that there are likely other forums out there, probably self-help based, in which it would be appropriate to talk about ones feelings and intuitions.

It's a statement of fact and a logical reason to question his already bizarre and highly suspect claims.


But do go on "expounding" the purely childish and emotional nature of this line of reasoning, even as you accuse others of ad-hominem attacks. Your "feelings" towards skepticism are made clear in your siggy links, which themselves show you to be biased and ill qualified to school others on logical fallacies [such as the shifting of burden of proof, a concept you have yet to grasp]. I would point out that there are other forums out there far more friendly to unquestioning belief where you would not be subjected to such unwarranted attacks by "debunkers", who merely serve as an impediment to unanimity.

Another whistleblower who didn't live long to tell his story. A government geologist who helped create some of the 200+ DUMBs in america and probably other countries. He shot two gray aliens when he was surveying the dulce establishment back in the 60s or 70s and speaks of the dulce firefight.

Shouldn't the media have been talking about this for decades? Why the need for hush-hush? That by itself is the definition of a conspiracy. National Security concerns, against whom? This stuff is mindblowing and transcends political or religious ideology. It should not be covered up unless you have bad intentions.

reply to post by draknoir2


It's highly amusing that you find actual logic a mere inconvenience in the expression of your opinions.

Originally posted by draknoir2

It's a statement of fact and a logical reason to question his already bizarre and highly suspect claims.

Incorrect. Its being a statement of fact in no way makes it relevant. He might also like underwater fingerpainting and diving for pearls off the coast of Sri Lanka with his grandmother. Those could be statements of fact - but do their being statements of fact make them directly relevant to this man's claims?

And to say it's a "logical reason" just displays a willful ignorance of clear, critical thinking. It's not a "logical reason" by virtue of the very fact that it's a logical fallacy. That, in fact, makes it not a reason, or a justifiable reason, which is what I really hope we're talking about. Although none of these blatant errors surprise me, as you've consistently misidentified simple logical fallacies in other threads.

You seem not to understand how to construct a basic argument, just like many others in this thread. If you're unhappy with this man's claims, then you have to interact directly with the claims themselves. All you've done is to employ what's essentially the rhetoric of a politician, focusing on the other's character without ever really engaging with the real issue.

And it's hilarious how the "burden of proof" never applies to you, but as the actual laws of logic don't apply to you, I suppose that somewhat makes sense (?)

In other words, if you are going to make an argument against his claims, then you are now responsible for providing substantial, relevant evidence for your claims. And ad hominem attacks do not count as evidence at all. They're no more convincing to the rational mind as any other argument based on emotion, belief or preference. At best, they might act as secondary, conditional, supporting evidence, but only after the primary claims have been conclusively shown to be fallacious through the production of relevant counterevidence to his claims, which is what, after all, everyone is interested in.

And above all else, you clearly haven't even read this man's book, nor done even the slightest bit of meaningful research into it, yet, like everyone else, you're going with your 'gut feeling' and basically assuming his claims are false, which, I might point out, is assuming the very thing that needs to be proved.

This doesn't surprise me, as elsewhere your opinions consistently fall under this same exact pattern - don't do any research, assume you have the answer, create fallacious arguments in support of your conclusion (the construction of which must come as a great inconvenience as you already know that you're right), get upset when someone points out your inability to reason, repeat ad infinitum.

Originally posted by TheKeyMaster
I think the entire alien angle is a creation of our government to hide info they want to hide... it's all theater. Which is also why this site is so focused on it... it's by design.

Is there ANYTHING the government is NOT corrupt in??

Why would hiding the alien agenda(if there is one) be different?

Nonsense.

Originally posted by Brighter


And it's hilarious how the "burden of proof" never applies to you, but as the actual laws of logic don't apply to you, I suppose that somewhat makes sense (?)

What is hilarious is your persistent failure to understand why it is that the burden of proof does not apply to me when I am not the one making the wild claims.

I am confident this will continue to be a challenge for you and look forward to many more, overly verbose posts on the evils of skepticism.

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by Brighter


And it's hilarious how the "burden of proof" never applies to you, but as the actual laws of logic don't apply to you, I suppose that somewhat makes sense (?)

What is hilarious is your persistent failure to understand why it is that the burden of proof does not apply to me when I am not the one making the wild claims.

I am confident this will continue to be a challenge for you and look forward to many more, overly verbose posts on the evils of skepticism.

There is very little room for skepticism if you sit down and look at all the whistleblower testimony from the past and present from people who allegedly worked at underground facilities. We also have many ancient artifacts from the old world that for the most part have remained burried, people abducted by aliens who tell their stories, mariners and pilots who have seen ufos with their own two eyes and radar signatures, religion which WAS based on alien beings, etc.

But at least you are skeptical rather than dismissive. I have seen posters who will not contemplate anything unusual. They refuse anything that they were not taught growing up by parents, school teachers and church officials. THIS IS THE PROBLEM! The system intentionally covers it up and presents alternative twisted realities that if you really look at them are absurd.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Well spoken. In the face of all the correlating military, governmental, state official, scientific and civilian testamonies, medical anomolies, ancient unexplained artifacts correlating with ancient (considered to be) myths; I find it rather surprising that the majority of skepticism isn't aimed towards the governements and military, rather than the opposite.

Makes one wonder how much homework people actually do regarding this subject before attempting to debunk the conspiracy theories and claimes. Especially in a conspiracy forum.

Originally posted by draknoir2

I am confident this will continue to be a challenge for you and look forward to many more, overly verbose posts on the evils of skepticism.

Nothing at all that you've posted suggests that you're an actual skeptic. On the other hand, it points quite clearly to the fact that you're engaging in pseudoskepticism - you're simply assuming, on a consistent basis, what needs to be demonstrated.

A true skeptic would never do such a thing, but will remain agnostic and objective and form a working conclusion only after having done sufficient research.

The fact that you're having difficulty with definition of, and consistently contravene the basic methodologies of skepticism with outright contempt is, well, telling.