Honey, I’d like you to meet the Greys; our new neighbors from Dulce!

[Ron Collins]

"Reptilian" ETs alone sinks its credibility for me.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I have no problem accepting that there is a phanomenon. I have no problem accepting that it might be extratrerrestrial in origin. But, this sort of science fiction mumbo jumbo deosn't help anything. It only makes it more fringy. But, it sells a lot of books the TFHC eat it up.

 

[Skymon876]

Dulce is a bunch of bunk.

---------- Post added at 09:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 AM ----------

Dulce is a bunch of bunk.

This Anthony Sanchez who is he? hasn't he paid attention to the last 20 years of alleged rumors and hype about this so called Dulce base.

How many unproven Dulce rumors do we need to consider this one of the least interesting cases.

Attention Mr.Sanchez if you are reading this. Please do your history lesson in UFOs and when you use a secret so called source named Colonel-x your highlighting this story as a bunch of BS

WHY CANT COLONEL X USE HIS REAL NAME

what a load of malarchy, this colonel is the new Guy Kirkwood.

 

[CapnG]

Phil Schneider. Bill Cooper. John Lear.

These are the names of men who have supported the idea of a base at Dulce.

Food for thought.

 

[Trajanus]

Phil Schneider. Bill Cooper. John Lear.

I'm not familiar with the first but the other two ...Add to them the Castello story.

 

[Xylo]

I'm not familiar with the first but the other two ...Add to them the Castello story.

 

[Trajanus]

OK thanks, that shoots Schneider's credibility too, lol.

 

[Skymon876]

This Dulce mess smells of rotten fish.

In fact Richard Doty also say's that the Aliens like Strawberry Icecream

 

[Trajanus]

This Dulce mess smells of rotten fish.

In fact Richard Doty also say's that the Aliens like Strawberry Icecream

Lol, all who claim contact with ET at some secret facility are comedians. I believe the government retrieved wreckage and bodies. But stories of a secret deal or contact appear to be the work of scam artists.

 

[tyder001]

Lol, all who claim contact with ET at some secret facility are comedians. I believe the government retrieved wreckage and bodies. But stories of a secret deal or contact appear to be the work of scam artists.

I don't think the government have any "alien" bodies. But, the folks who claim contact with E.T.'s are no more "scam artists" Well some are but not all, than the folks claiming the government have "bodies" buried in a secret bunker.

Sorry, folks it would be great fun. But, there are no "spacemen/women" from the planet Nanunau visiting oith!

---------- Post added at 12:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 PM ----------

I don't think the government have any "alien" bodies. But, the folks who claim contact with E.T.'s are no more "scam artists" Well some are but not all, than the folks claiming the government have "bodies" buried in a secret bunker.

Sorry, folks it would be great fun. But, there are no "spacemen/women" from the planet Nanunau visiting oith!

Maybe I'm being a little harsh. "I" don't think there are aliens visiting earth. But, if you do believe it then I don't see how you can "ridicule" a contactee for simply saying "yeah, I saw em." Yet, beleive without reservation a person who says "Yeah, I saw an object in the sky and an indention in the ground." Just don't see one as more "credible" than the other.

 

[Trajanus]

...the folks who claim contact with E.T.'s are no more "scam artists" Well some are but not all, than the folks claiming the government have "bodies" buried in a secret bunker.

I consider people like Marcel (or certain MPs at the time who saw bodies even if Jesse didn't) more credible than Adamski or Meier.

Maybe I'm being a little harsh. "I" don't think there are aliens visiting earth. But, if you do believe it then I don't see how you can "ridicule" a contactee for simply saying "yeah, I saw em." Yet, beleive without reservation a person who says "Yeah, I saw an object in the sky and an indention in the ground." Just don't see one as more "credible" than the other.

A key difference is that physical evidence can be evaluated by researchers. If it isn't shown to be a hoax, the account is stronger than one based on just testimony.

 

[tyder001]

I haven't seen or known of any scientist who has confirmed this "physical evidence." Same for the "trace evidence" I hear alot about it but don't see any or it. Actually, the abductees sound much more credible to "to me" than the "I saw a light blinking in the sky folks." I remain open to the possibility but just don't see it at this point.

 

[Trajanus]

I haven't seen or known of any scientist who has confirmed this "physical evidence." Same for the "trace evidence" I hear alot about it but don't see any or it.

Try reading on Socorro and other cases.

Actually, the abductees sound much more credible to "to me" than the "I saw a light blinking in the sky folks."

Many of both are OK to me.

 

[tyder001]

I'm not saying they are right because the "Skeptical Inquirer" has made a cottage industry out of "simpllistic answers for all "paranormal" mysteries. But, this group seems pretty sure Socorro is a hoax. I'm sure there are two sides to it. It's just that this was the first article I found on it. I knew nothing about the case before you mentioned it. Then I thought about it and some of the particulars sounded familiar. Anyway, here's their take:

http://www.nmsr.org/socorro.htm

---------- Post added at 04:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:27 PM ----------

I'm not saying they are right because the "Skeptical Inquirer" has made a cottage industry out of "simpllistic answers for all "paranormal" mysteries. But, this group seems pretty sure Socorro is a hoax. I'm sure there are two sides to it. It's just that this was the first article I found on it. I knew nothing about the case before you mentioned it. Then I thought about it and some of the particulars sounded familiar. Anyway, here's their take:

http://www.nmsr.org/socorro.htm

Then I found this which seems to give the case more credibiltiy:

http://www.ufocasebook.com/Zamora.html

 

[Trajanus]

I'm not saying they are right because the "Skeptical Inquirer" has made a cottage industry out of "simpllistic answers for all "paranormal" mysteries. But, this group seems pretty sure Socorro is a hoax. I'm sure there are two sides to it. It's just that this was the first article I found on it. I knew nothing about the case before you mentioned it. Then I thought about it and some of the particulars sounded familiar. Anyway, here's their take:
http://

That claim isn't credible. Zamora would've had to be deaf and blind to miss the rotary blades of a chopper, especially since he was looking at the thing from above. Moreover, if that "explanation' were true, it wouldn't be a theory but a documented fact. The copter pilot and others would've come forward long ago. In fact Quintanella would've found out about it quickly.

 

[tyder001]

That claim isn't credible. Zamora would've had to be deaf and blind to miss the rotary blades of a chopper, especially since he was looking at the thing from above. Moreover, if that "explanation' were true, it wouldn't be a theory but a documented fact. The copter pilot and others would've come forward long ago. In fact Quintanella would've found out about it quickly.

I'm not a "debunker" I just don't beleive we are being visited by beings from "outer space." However, after listeining and reading some about the Leslie Keene book and the other things out lately I am at least giving it a possibility. A year ago I wouldn't have even done that or at least not easily. So who knows? But, until we have a body or a craft or unless you have experienced it yourself the way abductiees have I don't think it's provable one way or the other.

 

[Trajanus]

I'm not a "debunker" I just don't beleive we are being visited by beings from "outer space." However, after listeining and reading some about the Leslie Keene book and the other things out lately I am at least giving it a possibility. A year ago I wouldn't have even done that or at least not easily. So who knows? But, until we have a body or a craft or unless you have experienced it yourself the way abductiees have I don't think it's provable one way or the other.

Evidence available to laypeople may not constitute conclusive proof but it's still enough for belief. There sure is a lot of it.