'Deathbed Testimony' About UFOs Given By Former CIA Official 2013

Originally posted by suz62
Maybe ET does exist but we are never meant to meet each other. Maybe there's a good reason we're separated from our nearest cosmic neighbors.

Isn't prison fun?

Well, we're prisoners to our body, no? Did you choose to be born into a human body?

Did you know that most of the cells in/on our body aren't human? (by a large factor)

Nobody chooses to be born in a war zone or in a place with poverty, right?

What about the cows we slaughter for food. Did they choose to be in that circumstance?

All life is a prison.

If the UFOs are ET then I think they're as much a part of the conspiracy as we're. I doubt we could keep a conspiracy of this level. We're only human. It requires extra-human capability.

We're not able to hide something like this without messing up. Too many whistleblowers. Evidence would leak out and then the whole thing would shrivel up. We can't do it alone.

Originally posted by suz62
Maybe ET does exist but we are never meant to meet each other. Maybe there's a good reason we're separated from our nearest cosmic neighbors.

Isn't prison fun?

How can it be "never meant" when you consider these other ET's have existed millions - trillions of years longer? Transversing the distance would be no biggie. Especially with knowledge of wormholes and stargates.

BTW star and flag for the op. Wish I could give you more than one.

Originally posted by TrueMessiah

Originally posted by suz62
Maybe ET does exist but we are never meant to meet each other. Maybe there's a good reason we're separated from our nearest cosmic neighbors.

Isn't prison fun?

How can it be "never meant" when you consider these other ET's have existed millions - trillions of years longer? Transversing the distance would be no biggie. Especially with knowledge of wormholes and stargates.

BTW star and flag for the op. Wish I could give you more than one.

You know, wormholes and stargates are theory and nothing more.

Originally posted by jonnywhite

Originally posted by suz62
Maybe ET does exist but we are never meant to meet each other. Maybe there's a good reason we're separated from our nearest cosmic neighbors.

Isn't prison fun?

Well, we're prisoners to our body, no? Did you choose to be born into a human body?

Did you know that most of the cells in/on our body aren't human? (by a large factor)

Nobody chooses to be born in a war zone or in a place with poverty, right?

What about the cows we slaughter for food. Did they choose to be in that circumstance?

All life is a prison.

If the UFOs are ET then I think they're as much a part of the conspiracy as we're. I doubt we could keep a conspiracy of this level. We're only human. It requires extra-human capability.

We're not able to hide something like this without messing up. Too many whistleblowers. Evidence would leak out and then the whole thing would shrivel up. We can't do it alone.

edit on 14-5-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

But isn't there a huge amount of evidence already?
Is it all a hoax? all lies?
No way.

There are WAY too many credible eyewitnesses.
Videos of UFO's before 1996 or Pre-cgi evidence.
Pre photo shop photos as far back as the late 1800's.
If we threw out everything except the military pilot & astronaut testimony,
we'd still have ample evidence.

Originally posted by sealing
There are WAY too many credible eyewitnesses.
Videos of UFO's before 1996 or Pre-cgi evidence.
Pre photo shop photos as far back as the late 1800's.
If we threw out everything except the military pilot & astronaut testimony,
we'd still have ample evidence.

You may have to throw out the 'astronaut testimony' too, it's mostly bogus or just prosaic, despite what cable crockumentaries and the Internet tells you.

reply to post by JimOberg

You may have to throw out the 'astronaut testimony' too, it's mostly bogus or just prosaic, despite what cable crockumentaries and the Internet tells you.

"You MAY have to throw out--" and "it's MOSTLY bogus--"

I'd love to hear about one that you haven't thrown out as bogus. Just point...

Originally posted by suz62
I can't think of a reason not to give him the benefit of the doubt. He seems credible on the face of it, as credible as anyone else.

I say cut the guy some slack.

One thing that struck me as a strike against him is he states he was given a "swipe" ID card to gain access through restricted doors when he joined the CIA in the late 1950s. Except this technology wasn't even invented until the late 1960s.

I personally did not believe most of what he said. Maybe it is just "tall tales"?
I think there really does need to be further substantiation from Richard Dolan if this is to be taken seriously.

Note: I believe some UFOs are probably ET, but I also believe most of the fanciful tales of crashed UFOs with aliens, back engineered alien craft, AREA 51, captive ET, etc. are just disinformation or pure bunk.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by JimOberg

 

You may have to throw out the 'astronaut testimony' too, it's mostly bogus or just prosaic, despite what cable crockumentaries and the Internet tells you.

"You MAY have to throw out--" and "it's MOSTLY bogus--"

I'd love to hear about one that you haven't thrown out as bogus. Just point...

I haven't a clue about Socorro, or Alaska JAL, for example.

Originally posted by JimOberg


I haven't a clue about Socorro, or Alaska JAL, for example.

I think we can toss Alaska JAL too. There's a pretty good case that most of the incident was due to a cloud.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by JimOberg

Thank you Mr. Oberg for those two outstanding examples. I like Alaska JAL too. I'll read up on the other one.

"Military radar advises they are picking up intermittent primary target behind you in trail. In-trail, I say again.”

Although this is an interesting story it seems like a lot of these confessions before death like Col. Corso and others make you wonder how alert and in their right mind these people are. Hopefully their stories are true and evidence will come to light to substantiate their claims

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by JimOberg


I haven't a clue about Socorro, or Alaska JAL, for example.

I think we can toss Alaska JAL too. There's a pretty good case that most of the incident was due to a cloud.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is false. The poster never explained how a cloud travels at 565 mph and follows that airliner for at least 166 miles, not to mention the other stretches of imagination one has to make in order to get the cloud explanation to work. Force-fit debunking at its worst.

Notice how this was conveniently ignored by Arbitrageur.

I read to page 7 and didn't see where anyone mentioned when it was published.

Published on May 3, 2013 Video testimony by an anonymous alleged former CIA official was shown at the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on Friday, May 3.

It was probably made when he died so he wouldn't be harassed?? Dunno.

Also, assuming other races have crashed here from other Planets, what all do "they" know, we don't?

That's what bothers me the most, I want to KNOW what is what.... exactly. I know I could handle it, but how would the world react as a whole if "they" were to come out and disclose all that is known?

www.thetruthembargo.org...

Originally posted by Brighter

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by JimOberg


I haven't a clue about Socorro, or Alaska JAL, for example.

I think we can toss Alaska JAL too. There's a pretty good case that most of the incident was due to a cloud.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is false. The poster never explained how a cloud travels at 565 mph and follows that airliner for at least 166 miles, not to mention the other stretches of imagination one has to make in order to get the cloud explanation to work. Force-fit debunking at its worst.

Notice how this was conveniently ignored by Arbitrageur.

Actually, I read the opposite. The explaination is that it didn't follow the plane and I really haven't seen any evidence that it did.

Here is the conveniently ignored quote from Arbitrageur:

I don't know why people keep propagating this myth, but it's a myth. They lost sight of the object and there's no confirmation at all it followed them around the turn. A lot of people say that, but there's simply no evidence for it. The object was there, they made the turn, and after the turn it was right where it was before the 360 turn, so the object didn't have to move to do that, it only had to stay where it was.

I have to agree with that. This is a well documented case and anyone can look for themselves. I did. I didn't take anyone's word.

So I guess it's more likely that the radar return was consistent with a cloud due to the alien metal used?
brumac.8k.com...

In commenting on the radar image the captain pointed out
that "normally it appears in red when an aircraft radar catches another aircraft" whereas green
is usually the color of a weak weather target such as a cloud. The fact that the echo was green
on the screen led him to ask whether or not the "metal used in the spaceship is different from
ours."(2) One might also speculate on the use of radar signature reduction techniques generally
calssified as "stealth." At any rate, the shape, size and color of the radar target indicated
that the object was quite large and yet quite a weak reflector.

Now that's force fitting an explanation!

Here's the link to the thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


The radio transcripts between the captain and the radar operators and between the radar operators at the different installations suggest that the object was following them. I clearly laid this out here: link

The transcripts of the captain and the radar operators indicate that this 'cloud' followed him for more than 20 minutes. Nowhere has it been explained, by Arbitrageur or anyone else, how a cloud follows a 747 for over 20 miles, and furthermore, that during that entire length of time, not the captain nor any of the three separate radar installations identify it as a cloud.

To make the cloud explanation work, you'd have to assume that three separate radar installations (two of which were some of the most advanced in the world, and built to protect the borders of the United States) misidentified a cloud, and all at the same exact time. (Actually, what they were seeing on those radar screens was strong enough evidence to have them suggest scrambling military aircraft.) You'd have to further assume that the captain, an ex-military fighter pilot with over 10,000 of hours of flight time, also misidentified a big cloud, at the *same time* that three other radar installations were also, simultaneously, misidentifying a cloud.

The sheer number of independently unlikely factors that would have to not only all be true, but all be true at the same time, and this combined with the fact that the cloud explanation cannot account for how this object followed them for over 20 minutes, leads me to believe that the cloud explanation is unlikely.

Finally, here's a good point that TeaAndStrumpets makes in that thread:

Would the CIA and other high-level officials have wasted so much time on this incident, months later, had "cloud" even still been a plausible explanation? Or can we all agree that weather and radar anomalies would've been the first things ruled out?.

link

Thanks, Brighter. And my skeptic friends tell me they've proved it was just the planet Jupiter.

i just don't know.

there's so many 'targets of opportunity' much closer to home in my 'rocket science' experience, i just haven't had time to delve into it.

but there are so many well-reasoned arguments hereabouts, i'll feel like i'm getting a good leg up, if i ever do try to look at it.

attaboy, ATSers.

reply to post by Brighter


I think the cloud explanation is pretty solid. In order to make the "giant mothership" explanation work, you have to explain why all the radar returns are in the direction of a cloud. A cloud that also appears on satalite images at the exact same time. Also, as pointed out, the radar registered it as a cloud. So I would say, it's a cloud. Not too much of a stretch.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Brighter

 

I think the cloud explanation is pretty solid. In order to make the "giant mothership" explanation work, you have to explain why all the radar returns are in the direction of a cloud. A cloud that also appears on satalite images at the exact same time. Also, as pointed out, the radar registered it as a cloud. So I would say, it's a cloud. Not too much of a stretch.

So we don't continue to derail this thread, I've responded in the JAL1628 thread here.

reply to post by Catalin

No, actually the last counseler took one look at a certain photo proving I am not and have never been mentally ill and immediatly filled out a form - "Services Completed" - resigned and may now be in hiding - so really as Drak Lord Dick says "go # your self!"

Back on track -- where can we find ANY checkable independent documentation that ANYTHING this guy claims about his military service is anything more than imagination?