Watch this conference organised by The Disclosure Project... it is quite interesting, presents a more sober and credible view of UFo's and ET technology...

Just watch this then post your opinion... i'm watching it now... it's quite long... http://www.netro.ca/disclosure/npccmenu.htm

It is definitely a great conference that the Disclosure Project held. The witnesses are credible, and the tone serious. They never claim that they have proof of ET's visiting Earth or anything like that, just that they saw things in the air, UFO's which they couldn't identify.

Whenever someone sees a UFO and makes a report, the skeptics are always quick to jump in and try to discredit the witness. The skeptics always try to make it sound that every witness claims that they saw evidence of aliens are something, when most UFO observers just say they saw something in flying in the air that they couldn't identify, a UFO. Heck, the very definition of UFO is unidentified flying object. It's not like these things are called ALFFO, alien life-form flying objects.

UFO's are real, what they are is undetermined, and all the "believers" want is a thorough, objective, scientific investigation into what UFO's are, be they alien craft, secret military vehicles, meterological phenomenon, stars, planets, whatever!

Agreed, the witnesses are MORE than credible... thse are not people who would embarass themselves for financial gain. We have ex-government officials... people of importance. The entire tone is professional and sober throughout. I would find it very hard to wholly discredit these witnesses of their accounts... interesting stuff...

I agree with what you just said.

One thing that gets to me about these skeptics that are trained scientists is that they claim eye witness accounts aren't enough proof. Having trained as a scientist myself, and having conducted many lab experiments and field experiments, all of these vaunted experimental results basically boil down to my "eye" witness testimony. I conduct the experiment according to some guidelines, but it all comes down to my word that I "saw" what was supposed to happen and that it did happen. Sure, there might be some measurements, but aren't pictures that witnesses took of UFO's, baring obvious tampering, the same thing.

Skeptics would say, yes, but a scientific experiment can be replicated, and only after repeated verification is a "discovery" validated. Well, aren't repeated sightings of the same UFO "replication" of the "experiment". For example, the famous Rutherford gold foil experiment "proves" that the structure of an atom is a relatively dense nucleus surounded by a "cloud" of electrons. An atom is mostly empty space because of this structure. How many modern scientists have done this experiment for themselves? How any did it back in Rutherfords day after he was supposed to have done it? I'm willing to bet not many have. The scientific community is basically relying on the eye witness testimony of Rutherford's graduate student assistants and some photo plate exposures. Is this much different than the eye witness testimony of credible, trained military observers and some photographs that have been proven to not be faked?

I'm not claiming that an observation in the real world is the same as a laboratory controlled experiment, far from it. All I'm trying to do point out is that scientific experiment is not as objective and controlled as some would claim. There are always those that do the experiment, as described letter for letter and do not get the results that are written.

I'm already anticipating flames, ad hominim attacks, and such from my above ideas, but here they are anyway.

Im at the 51 minute mark at the moment, this is really well done.

Credible people telling it exactly how it was


Snbatman as for why eyewitness testimony isn't considered proof, you should ask the next Police officer you see to explain why that is so, as thats what they deal with everyday


Back to it ......

Very well said snbatman

I have watched this. Very good material. I actually worked with one of the gentleman on the project, but it hasn't yet gone to congress. It needs international attention to open the whole thing up...

Sure you have, sure you have

Please don't come in here and be an arse, troll some other thread.

Bit of an over reaction.

Come on now...

I can say that was well worth watching, and might be the instigation to prove to the world that aliens exist.

One can only hope that one day the government does a full disclosure as to exactly what they know.

Thanks for the link

I have every right to question him, if you buy anything he says, then that is your problem, not mine.

No not over reaction, simple lack of patience for someone trying to instigate for no reason other than their own personal shortcomings.

Sure, my shortcomings, if believing that makes you happy, then go ahead.

I did not accept everything he says, I just read it. If you feel the need to to post snide little comments in a thread that was perfectly amiable to make yourself feel that little bit better then fine... but PLEASE can you leave it out of this thread? there was simply no need for you to post to antagonise... it's just petty, that's all there is to it.

Rolling your eyes at what other members claim is bound to upset some people. Please try to use a little more tact when responding, members then will not 'over react'.

You're not questioning him though. You're just being an arse. The guy inst even claiming anything extraordinary.

Anyway I finally finished watching the conference last night and it was as I keep saying... interesting. After watching it I was quite convinced a fair few of them were telling the truth... either that or thay are good showmen.

I saw this awhile back. I'm convinced that some of them are probably telling the truth. However, I highly suspect that others are engaged in a classic imitation of rugs...ie, "lying like a rug". Some others may have agendas that aren't obvious to the viewers.

All in all it was interesting but the bottom line remains; the plural of anecdote does not equal data. Without some solid evidence this is just more witness testimony and at the end of the day we aren't any closer to the solid evidence needed.

Oh I agree. I'm not saying that eyewitness testimony is "proof" of extraterrestrial life or anything like that. What it can be proof of, coupled with photos, videos, repeated viewings, is something was there, and that it might not be identifiable as anything known right now.

This particular video isn't really of the, he said, she said variety. Plus, telling the truth is just that telling the truth. All these people are doing is reporting what they believe they saw with their own two eyes. Some think they saw something not created by humans. What the implications are is not known, but the sheer volume of reports, the credibility of many witnesses, and the authenticity of much photographic and video recordings begs for further investigation.

BTW, indeed, love the avatar!! I love beagles!!

Thanks. What are your thoughts on the video and the accounts recounted by the participants at the conference?

Who's "he"? Who are you talking about? Me?

No, obviously he was talking to the guy who's post his followed. The guy who said he had worked with one of the people in the conference.

Anyway please ignore previous comments, there is no point in bringing them back up now the thread has settle down.

Lilly could you please explain what would be the motivation for some of these people "lying like a rug". Just in general terms off the top of your head. Because I am curious about the fact that none of them made dollar one, so no monetary gain. None of them got famous at all, haven't seen them on the TV, so they had no gain there. They are in peril of their government for breaking confidentiality with them, which is not a good thing I hear. So why lie?

Sure richdog, sorry. I'll let it go.

I was responding to Richdog's subjective feelings regarding the credibility of the witnesses. My subjective, personal feeling (aka opinion) was that some of the speakers seemed far more credible than others. Some of the claims being made were just too outrageous for me. I simply have the impression that some were not telling the truth.

Since all of this was anecdotal, someone saying that they'd seen this or that, there's nothing there that approaches solid evidence. One simply has to go with the old, "do you think this person is credible?" method. I agee, this is probably not very accurate and most certainly a matter of opinion.

Now, why do people lie, is that what you're asking? Well, yes, some lie for money but some also lie for attention, recognition, a sense of belonging etc. Others "lie" but because they have mental problems and they don't see their behavior as "lying" per say. Others may "lie" because they have been given incorrect information that they honestly believed to be the truth!

However, at the end of the day, whether you believe the disclosure witnesses, or not... it can't be seen as anything more than anecdotal.

Exactly... some of the 'witnesses' seemed genuine... others I believe are motivated by political means.

I don't believe all of them were lying... however... i'm not naive to believe none of them were.