Whistleblower Speaks on Area 51

Found this video of a possible whistleblower speaking on Area 51 and other topics. He sounds credible, but I'm not completely sure, so I'm looking to hear some of your opinions.

The uploader of the video is Thirdphaseofthemoon, but still, I wouldn't completely discard this.

It seems to be very interesting video.


What do you think ATS?

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
What do you think ATS?

Well, the video is over an hour long, so maybe you could briefly answer a question.
Does he at any point move from the "telling stories" state, to a state where he says something that can be independently verified?

reply to post by alfa1


I'm around seven minutes into the video. For now, I haven't heard anything that can be independently verified. But it's too early to conclude anything yet.

I watched most of the video but then my Internet bleeped out and I'm tired so thought I'd comment. Great video as far as UFO ones go. I've always thought it viable that we...in the future...travel back in time and this is what people are seeing. Or as this guy also says, time warps. If these life forms exists and travel here often I don't know why they would not rescue their counterparts at Area 51. Maybe they can't. Maybe that's the mission they chose; to be captured in order to teach? I find it interesting they resemble us and aren't blobs or intelligent six foot fungi so keep going back to time travel. At least to explain some of it. Could we potentially evolve to look like the beings in this video? I think we could. What conditions would it take. Darkness to make eyes evolve to become bigger. Shorter and smaller to conserve energy (less oxygen in environment). Heads bigger due to brain growth through the millennia. It's just too much of a coincidence that they have all the same parts in all the same places.

Double post as Internet connection screwy

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by alfa1

 

I'm around seven minutes into the video. For now, I haven't heard anything that can be independently verified. But it's too early to conclude anything yet.

So... you created this thread without even watching the video, but already had both confidence in the person, and found it wise to post it?

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
What do you think ATS?

Well, the video is over an hour long, so maybe you could briefly answer a question.
Does he at any point move from the "telling stories" state, to a state where he says something that can be independently verified?

what exactly about area 51 do you think could be independently verified, and what source would one use? aside from google earth photos, where would "independent verification" of a completely classified installation come from. another whistleblower?

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


Do you always make threads about videos you havent even watched yourself?

Do not direct your posts at me. You should direct them at the video, not the messenger.

Originally posted by Dianec
I've always thought it viable that we...in the future...travel back in time and this is what people are seeing.

It is not viable as you cannot travel back in something that does not exist.

If these life forms exists and travel here often I don't know why they would not rescue their counterparts at Area 51. Maybe they can't.

I find it interesting they resemble us and aren't blobs or intelligent six foot fungi so keep going back to time travel.

Man designing aliens could easily lead to that.

At least to explain some of it. Could we potentially evolve to look like the beings in this video? I think we could. What conditions would it take. Darkness to make eyes evolve to become bigger. Shorter and smaller to conserve energy (less oxygen in environment). Heads bigger due to brain growth through the millennia. It's just too much of a coincidence that they have all the same parts in all the same places.

Or the sci-fi writer thought just that. Might be slightly more plausible?

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
Do not direct your posts at me. You should direct them at the video, not the messenger.

But you are the one throwing possible fecal matter at the users of the Internet as you didn't taste it first, yet gave the impression of that by telling that it was rather convincing.

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
Do not direct your posts at me. You should direct them at the video, not the messenger.

But you are the one throwing possible fecal matter at the users of the Internet as you didn't taste it first, yet gave the impression of that by telling that it was rather convincing.

I am not throwing anything. I thought it was "interesting" enough to share I with other members. I never said it was convincing.

Are you enjoying derailing my thread?

Mr. X announced he would whistelblow,
Uncloak all U.S. knowledge of UFOs,
Saying, "I'm ex-CIA and know all this stuff,"
And his credentials check out, sure enough,
Sincere or disinfo? Nobody knows.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
I never said it was convincing.

Without even watching the video you said - and I quote:

He sounds credible,

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
Do not direct your posts at me. You should direct them at the video, not the messenger.

The ATS terms and conditions state that you are supposed to give a "reasonable description of" the content of the video you post. Would you agree that if you haven't watched the video, it could be a challenge to comply with that part of the terms and conditions, not to mention the part about explaining why it interests you?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

15k.) Video links/embeds: You will not embed or Post a link to a video without a reasonable description of its content and why it interests you, is germane to the topics discussed on the Websites or the topic of an existing thread should you post it in a reply to an existing thread.

Regarding the video, Gardner talks about "Dr. Dan Burisch" who is not really a Dr. as he claims, so that's just the tip of the iceberg about how untrustworthy he is as a witness.

Dan Burisch

Burisch alleges he attended the State Univessity of New York (SUNY) and completed a doctoral degree in 1989. He also claims the government funded his education. However, Burisch does not have a Ph.D. from SUNY and during the time he alleged to have been earning his Ph.D., he was employed as a parole officer with Nevada state where he met his current wife and alleged 'government handler' Deborah Burisch who was reportedly a parole/probation client. Does being a parole/probation client qualify you as a 'government' employee. Sure it does...if you're making twenty-three cents a day performing prison labor, I guess that would qualify. UFOWATCHDOG.COM does not have any specifics regarding Deborah Burisch's alleged criminal history or if she was on parole or simple probation (there is a big difference between the two). So here we have Dan Burisch working at a black ops facility in Nevada, earning a Ph.D. from a university in New York, and working as a parole officer in Las Vegas all at the same time. Indeed, Burisch was a busy bee. Burisch contradicts many of his claims with his 1991 resume that surfaced (see below image).

Since Burisch is a key source, the video has little credibility...but wait. He mentions the story is corroborated by Bob Lazar, who has similar problems with his academic credentials being unverifiable, being 2 or 3 places at the same time, etc, and Stan Friedman says even if Lazar's claims that the government buried his education records were true, he should still know a lot more about basic physics than he does if he had the degree he claimed to have.

So we have one non credible witness corroborated by another non-credible witness. Some corroboration, huh? Here's the link about Bob Lazar's educational fabrication:
Bob Lazar

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
I never said it was convincing.

Without even watching the video you said - and I quote:

He sounds credible,

Since when does saying some sounds credible mean it is convincing?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Would you perhaps want me to watch the entire video, then come back to you and tell you every single thing he said? If I post a video of a UFO, should I give an explanation on what the object is? No, that would defeat the purpose of posting the video.

I'll let a moderator handle the situation, but thank you.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
Since when does saying some sounds credible mean it is convincing?

How could I guess that instead of talking about why the person is credible, you avoided it by focusing on my wording.
But okay, here goes:

You said that the person sounded credible:
Credible - capable of being believed; believable

And since you posted a story by a credible [sounding] person, the story is inherently convincing, otherwise you wouldn't have found the person credible.

But please go ahead, tell me why he sounds credible while the story isn't convincing to you, but you still posted the story?

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Would you perhaps want me to watch the entire video, then come back to you and tell you every single thing he said?

Is that what the terms and conditions say? No.

"Found this video of a possible whistleblower speaking on Area 51 and other topics." is to me, a perfectly reasonable explanation.

But like I said, let's leave that job to the mods.