It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ships of light, Great UFO Documentary...If this is REAL then WOW

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Very convincing....I don't know squat about video....but I have seen a Gepan photo of a similar ship thingy....including four beams of light which cut off abruptly in a way we cannot do....
These are not just Carlos sightings alone either....those who call Bull# forget the RADAR evidence from Mexico City among other things...
There is just too much back up evidence....
The W56 friends of Pescara sightings and mass contacts in Italy may be the next best evidence and they too have a depth of back up....
Also looks similar to the UFO Ed Walters photographed.....S&F and thanks ........s
edit on 26-4-2014 by stirling because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-4-2014 by stirling because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: stirling
Very convincing....I don't know squat about video....but I have seen a Gepan photo of a similar ship thingy....including four beams of light which cut off abruptly in a way we cannot do....
These are not just Carlos sightings alone either....those who call Bull# forget the RADAR evidence from Mexico City among other things...
There is just too much back up evidence....
The W56 friends of Pescara sightings and mass contacts in Italy may be the next best evidence and they too have a depth of back up....
Also looks similar to the UFO Ed Walters photographed.....S&F and thanks ........s


No problem...I will research the mass contacts in Italy, (ive read about them before) and will post my research next...

GS



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   
A protocol I use when attempting to establish the authenticity of any strange event, which could be applied to UFO sightings as well, is whether the activity and descriptions are common. If there is a common thread amongst reports then there is a greater probability that they are all describing some interconnected phenomenon. But when you have claims that stand alone, with no other cases to lend any credence to them, then you cannot accept it as being valid evidence. Even if it were true, it must be set aside until there is more sighting data and one can analyze with respect to the rest of the body of evidence as a whole.

When I hear that an alien lent him a tripod, I think to myself that this is a bit of a stretch. Then I realize that I have never come across another such report, although I am not a UFO investigator and am not even interested in UFO's to any great degree, but I still would be willing to bet no other case like that exists...

Anyway, what the poster was saying was that this guy is thought to be a hoaxer throughout the UFO community. Think about this...the majority of people in any community dealing with strange phenomena are going to be believers. Not all, but the majority probably will be. So if even the believers think someone is a hoaxer, they usually have a good reason to think that. Another point is that it is virtually impossible to prove a piece of evidence as being real. So if a believer cannot do that, then why would they be so adamant that a disbeliever prove something to be a hoax? It is just as difficult to prove a hoax as it is to prove that something legit is going on in many cases...

So you may not get someone who can prove his videos are hoaxes, but I would not advise you to believe that they are real just because they can't be proven to be fake. That is not the way to go, and it is kind of hypocritical in my opinion. I would say anyone's objectivity should tell them not to take any claim seriously unless certain criteria are met. There are quite a few criteria in my opinion, although I suppose everyone will have their own. My don't really apply to UFO's because, as I said, that is not really my area of interest or expertise by any means.

But if I was interested in proving UFO's existed, or aliens or whatever, the first thing I would do is categorize every single sighting report, and note any correlations between the eyewitness reports. If the majority of reports have some underlying thread, then the likelihood of all of those witnesses creating a false report that agrees with everyone else is just not going to occur. One thing about UFO's though that doesn't apply to any other "strange" field is that a lot of people can be fooled by a single hoax. With other things you can only fool a handful of witnesses at a time, because only those near what is going on can see. With a UFO high in the sky, potentially thousands of people could see it. Or at least hundreds. So if someone rigged up a toy helicopter with LED's or something, you could have many people reporting similar things.

I would bet that all of their reports wouldn't agree though, even though they saw the same thing. They would be similar, but not identical. Human observers are fallible, and they are more apt to get the minute details wrong as opposed to the greater details. So reports will agree that something was flying around in the sky. Most will agree on the color, a few less on the movements of the object, even more on the altitude, etc...That is just the nature of eyewitness testimony.

I think the biggest problem in the UFO field is that there are many more potential explanations than in any other field dealing with strange phenomena. You take a subject like bigfoot, where my interest lies, and a witness can either be hoaxing, could have been hoaxed, could have seen a person or some other known animal, and that is about it, aside from maybe a stump or something. But when you are looking at a light in the sky you have to consider whether they are seeing planets or stars, secret military aircraft, conventional aircraft, atmospheric phenomena, bugs, someone out toying around or attempting to create a UFO hoax, which could be a toy plane or helicopter, balloon, etc., then there are things dropped from aircraft such as flares or chaff, which maybe could reflect light or something, birds, etc. There are many things. Daytime reports would seem better to me, simply because you could maybe determine more than you could at night.

And the next biggest problem imo is that it is difficult for the average person to determine things like altitude and distances in the sky, and it is also quite difficult for them to determine just what the thing looks like. If it is quite low then perhaps a shape can be determined, but if higher up it may just look like a blob in the sky, and trying to guess its shape would be just that...a guess.

I know you weren't asking for all this junk I'm posting, but I suppose it pertains to the documentary in a way, lol. Another thing I have found is that most people who are interested in something, let's say UFO's, are always torn between whether they should believe a particular piece of evidence to be authentic or not. But like I was saying, there is absolutely no way to know for sure. Even if you've had an experience and know that something is real, you cannot determine whether an individual piece of evidence is real.

This is why I believe that in fields like this we can only work on probabilities. That is why I advocate looking for patterns, since common sense dictates that a bunch of unrelated reports are not likely to agree with each other in all that many details if they are indeed all fake. There are exceptions though, such as people witnessing a conventional object that only appears to be unconventional. But on that I would say that since it was conventional, it would move conventionally. So reports where objects aren't zipping around the sky can be tossed out, unless there is something unique about them. The best reports would be those in which it is obvious you are not seeing something conventional or stationary, which has a lot of witnesses to back it up, all of which agree on most of the details.

That is about the best one could hope for to be honest, but it still is not enough to prove that what occurred was alien. It very well could be, but how can you know for certain? This is because even though you can establish it is not something conventional, you cannot establish that it is alien. Sort of like how you can obtain DNA from a bigfoot, but that won't prove the existence of bigfoot. This is because even though you know you have something unknown, you still don't know what it belongs to. Or you can't say it came from such and such animal, or relate that to all the reports that have been filed. I mean from a scientific point of view. This is all my two cents anyway...More like one dollar and eighty-two cents.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
A protocol I use when attempting to establish the authenticity of any strange event, which could be applied to UFO sightings as well, is whether the activity and descriptions are common. If there is a common thread amongst reports then there is a greater probability that they are all describing some interconnected phenomenon. But when you have claims that stand alone, with no other cases to lend any credence to them, then you cannot accept it as being valid evidence. Even if it were true, it must be set aside until there is more sighting data and one can analyze with respect to the rest of the body of evidence as a whole.

When I hear that an alien lent him a tripod, I think to myself that this is a bit of a stretch. Then I realize that I have never come across another such report, although I am not a UFO investigator and am not even interested in UFO's to any great degree, but I still would be willing to bet no other case like that exists...

Anyway, what the poster was saying was that this guy is thought to be a hoaxer throughout the UFO community. Think about this...the majority of people in any community dealing with strange phenomena are going to be believers. Not all, but the majority probably will be. So if even the believers think someone is a hoaxer, they usually have a good reason to think that. Another point is that it is virtually impossible to prove a piece of evidence as being real. So if a believer cannot do that, then why would they be so adamant that a disbeliever prove something to be a hoax? It is just as difficult to prove a hoax as it is to prove that something legit is going on in many cases...

So you may not get someone who can prove his videos are hoaxes, but I would not advise you to believe that they are real just because they can't be proven to be fake. That is not the way to go, and it is kind of hypocritical in my opinion. I would say anyone's objectivity should tell them not to take any claim seriously unless certain criteria are met. There are quite a few criteria in my opinion, although I suppose everyone will have their own. My don't really apply to UFO's because, as I said, that is not really my area of interest or expertise by any means.

But if I was interested in proving UFO's existed, or aliens or whatever, the first thing I would do is categorize every single sighting report, and note any correlations between the eyewitness reports. If the majority of reports have some underlying thread, then the likelihood of all of those witnesses creating a false report that agrees with everyone else is just not going to occur. One thing about UFO's though that doesn't apply to any other "strange" field is that a lot of people can be fooled by a single hoax. With other things you can only fool a handful of witnesses at a time, because only those near what is going on can see. With a UFO high in the sky, potentially thousands of people could see it. Or at least hundreds. So if someone rigged up a toy helicopter with LED's or something, you could have many people reporting similar things.

I would bet that all of their reports wouldn't agree though, even though they saw the same thing. They would be similar, but not identical. Human observers are fallible, and they are more apt to get the minute details wrong as opposed to the greater details. So reports will agree that something was flying around in the sky. Most will agree on the color, a few less on the movements of the object, even more on the altitude, etc...That is just the nature of eyewitness testimony.

I think the biggest problem in the UFO field is that there are many more potential explanations than in any other field dealing with strange phenomena. You take a subject like bigfoot, where my interest lies, and a witness can either be hoaxing, could have been hoaxed, could have seen a person or some other known animal, and that is about it, aside from maybe a stump or something. But when you are looking at a light in the sky you have to consider whether they are seeing planets or stars, secret military aircraft, conventional aircraft, atmospheric phenomena, bugs, someone out toying around or attempting to create a UFO hoax, which could be a toy plane or helicopter, balloon, etc., then there are things dropped from aircraft such as flares or chaff, which maybe could reflect light or something, birds, etc. There are many things. Daytime reports would seem better to me, simply because you could maybe determine more than you could at night.

And the next biggest problem imo is that it is difficult for the average person to determine things like altitude and distances in the sky, and it is also quite difficult for them to determine just what the thing looks like. If it is quite low then perhaps a shape can be determined, but if higher up it may just look like a blob in the sky, and trying to guess its shape would be just that...a guess.

I know you weren't asking for all this junk I'm posting, but I suppose it pertains to the documentary in a way, lol. Another thing I have found is that most people who are interested in something, let's say UFO's, are always torn between whether they should believe a particular piece of evidence to be authentic or not. But like I was saying, there is absolutely no way to know for sure. Even if you've had an experience and know that something is real, you cannot determine whether an individual piece of evidence is real.

This is why I believe that in fields like this we can only work on probabilities. That is why I advocate looking for patterns, since common sense dictates that a bunch of unrelated reports are not likely to agree with each other in all that many details if they are indeed all fake. There are exceptions though, such as people witnessing a conventional object that only appears to be unconventional. But on that I would say that since it was conventional, it would move conventionally. So reports where objects aren't zipping around the sky can be tossed out, unless there is something unique about them. The best reports would be those in which it is obvious you are not seeing something conventional or stationary, which has a lot of witnesses to back it up, all of which agree on most of the details.

That is about the best one could hope for to be honest, but it still is not enough to prove that what occurred was alien. It very well could be, but how can you know for certain? This is because even though you can establish it is not something conventional, you cannot establish that it is alien. Sort of like how you can obtain DNA from a bigfoot, but that won't prove the existence of bigfoot. This is because even though you know you have something unknown, you still don't know what it belongs to. Or you can't say it came from such and such animal, or relate that to all the reports that have been filed. I mean from a scientific point of view. This is all my two cents anyway...More like one dollar and eighty-two cents.


I agree with your post almost completely...however the "tripod from the aliens" is just hearsay at this point. There is alot of evidence from the residents of the town where he lived, the airport in the area, even witness testimony from the mayor.

What I would LOVE is if you could actually watch both videos and then come back here and let me know how they fared with your "authentication" methods. Would be very interesting to hear...

GS



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Wilbert Smith (of Canadian UFO fame in the early years.....) did a survey of contactees in Canada.....
The Conatactees were NOT AWARE who the other were...He sent them a survey and a percentage of them all answered the questions exactly alike....he used this group to further contacts and got results too.....a good read his story....



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   
I watched the first episode. I feel these people are describing what they saw truthfully. I live near the Texas/Mexico border. I know a lot of Mexicans and they tend to be humble and honest. I have seen these things myself.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: skunkape23
I watched the first episode. I feel these people are describing what they saw truthfully. I live near the Texas/Mexico border. I know a lot of Mexicans and they tend to be humble and honest. I have seen these things myself.


I also have lived in Texas for over 5 yrs, and all the Mexicans ive met were hardworking honest fellows...Like I said before, its a gut feeling this guy is truthful....

GS



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: stirling
Wilbert Smith (of Canadian UFO fame in the early years.....) did a survey of contactees in Canada.....
The Conatactees were NOT AWARE who the other were...He sent them a survey and a percentage of them all answered the questions exactly alike....he used this group to further contacts and got results too.....a good read his story....


Interesting....I will look into this...

GS


(post by Onslaught2996 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 01:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
A thread for the gullible and ignorant. The OP gets angry when this garbage is called for what it is..A hoax.

If you can't take the criticism, stop posting well known hoaxers and their BS.



Oh ok, can you please show me your information on this being a hoax? Would be very interesting.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: GeminiSky

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
A thread for the gullible and ignorant. The OP gets angry when this garbage is called for what it is..A hoax.

If you can't take the criticism, stop posting well known hoaxers and their BS.



Oh ok, can you please show me your information on this being a hoax? Would be very interesting.


Plenty of info out there proving he is a hoaxer..find it. You may also want to use some rational thought here...Has refused independent analysis of his 'evidence, Phony contactee, likes to make bogus UFO videos using models and lights, filmed so-called plasma ships that are clearly models that no three-year-old would believe, he was lent a tripod by aliens...really..
.

here's just one
Carlos Alberto Diaz Was a Hoaxer



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

originally posted by: GeminiSky

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
A thread for the gullible and ignorant. The OP gets angry when this garbage is called for what it is..A hoax.

If you can't take the criticism, stop posting well known hoaxers and their BS.



Oh ok, can you please show me your information on this being a hoax? Would be very interesting.


Plenty of info out there proving he is a hoaxer..find it. You may also want to use some rational thought here...Has refused independent analysis of his 'evidence, Phony contactee, likes to make bogus UFO videos using models and lights, filmed so-called plasma ships that are clearly models that no three-year-old would believe, he was lent a tripod by aliens...really..
.

here's just one
Carlos Alberto Diaz Was a Hoaxer



Um you claimed hoax so the burden of proof is on you...I dont have to find anything since im not the one making claims...

GS



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: GeminiSky

Debunking the debunk.....well played!

I haven't watched the full video yet, but I have flagged it to watch tomorrow. Because I am a rational and logical person, I find it extremely hard to believe that we are alone in this universe. How could we be when the universe is such a large place?



...in 1999 the Hubble Space Telescope estimated that there were 125 billion galaxies in the universe, and recently with the new camera HST has observed 3,000 visiblegalaxies, which is twice as much as they observed before with the old camera.

Nasa

3000 VISIBLE galaxies. Visible - as in ones detected by the Hubble telescope. This does not include galaxies that can be detected with radio telescopes, infrared cameras, or xray cameras. Science has shown that the universe is larger than most people can even imagine. Why wouldn't there be other life out there? Or is our species so egotistical that it believes we're the smartest species so obviously extra terrestrials don't exist because we haven't found them first?



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: halfpint0701
a reply to: GeminiSky

Debunking the debunk.....well played!

I haven't watched the full video yet, but I have flagged it to watch tomorrow. Because I am a rational and logical person, I find it extremely hard to believe that we are alone in this universe. How could we be when the universe is such a large place?



...in 1999 the Hubble Space Telescope estimated that there were 125 billion galaxies in the universe, and recently with the new camera HST has observed 3,000 visiblegalaxies, which is twice as much as they observed before with the old camera.

Nasa

3000 VISIBLE galaxies. Visible - as in ones detected by the Hubble telescope. This does not include galaxies that can be detected with radio telescopes, infrared cameras, or xray cameras. Science has shown that the universe is larger than most people can even imagine. Why wouldn't there be other life out there? Or is our species so egotistical that it believes we're the smartest species so obviously extra terrestrials don't exist because we haven't found them first?


Yes I agree....definetly watch the videos and come back to post..

GS



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 03:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Urantia1111




you do see this happen a lot here. it's not just you, it's ALL ufo threads. they're hoping nobody actually checks out the link, and most people won't. most will just assume the case HAS been debunked and move on. pretty effective technique and definitely one folks should watch out for.


I don't care what the mega-bucks, over-qualified DoD psychologists researching influencing public thought and opinion say...the old, tried and tested methods are the best.

KiSS methods work - period.

Downloading both parts of the film to watch later, thanks for the links OP.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: GeminiSky

Even when I believed in ET UFOs I never fell for the Carlos Diaz hoax



Ships of light is about right , powered by light bulbs.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Alright bud? Have you seen this one at 2:05? >>



He's never been solidly debunked and, no, there's no *proof* that he was a hoaxer either. Still, when we look at the tree footage (his best evidence), it clearly looks like two stills (one in front of the other) being filmed whilst the one behind is being moved.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: GeminiSky

originally posted by: lovebeck
I've seen it and it's quite a doozy of a UFO doc.

However, I believe, Carlos Diaz is a known hoaxer according to the UFO community.

I highly doubt aliens really lent him a tripod...When he said that, he lost me.

Carlos Diaz Hoax


And here we are just as I predicted. The Link you provided HAS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE of this being a "known hoax" According to the "UFO community" LOL!!

Thanks for playing tho!!

GS


And your link provides such evidence? Like I said in my response, he lost me when he said his alien pals lent him a tripod. But, hey, at least he gave me a good laugh!

I watched those videos a while ago. After watching I researched more into Mr. Diaz and that is how I came to my conclusion that he is a charlatan trying to cash in on the UFO phenomena.

The INFORMATION is out there regarding Mr. Diaz. It's ALL OVER the interweb. Not my job to do your research for you. I did my own and came to my own conclusion about Mr. Diaz. It seems the majority of members here did the same.

Regardless of what you claim in your OP, you seem to only want to play nice with those that share your views. If you believe Mr. Diaz, that's your right as it is mine not to believe anything he has to say.



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

In fairness, what you say is possible of course, but neither you nor i have seen a UFO up close and moving...the craft may well move naturally as to look as though it is 'being moved' by hand. It may be a function of the type of drive system it employs.

It's a shame there weren't more independent people hanging around that saw the same craft when the film was shot.

As an aside..for those fixated on the 'tripod issues' (no pun), try to imagine an instance where you yourself were in the same situation as is being described...if, for example, you were lent some type of device that performed AS a tripod, but wasn't exactly a tripod, wouldn't you simply call it a tripod if that was one of it's functions and what you were using it for?

I sincerely doubt ANYTHING inside an ET craft has a single purpose or is exclusive in what it does. I would expect, devices or instrumentation on board a (hypothetical) ET craft would each have a multitude of uses, especially if the craft is not a small shuttle type of thing belonging to a larger so-called 'Mother craft'.

It may have had to have travelled a long way, or perhaps otherwise be able to do a variety of tasks with limited space and storage to dedicated, single use equipment..it would make sense for each item to have a variety of functions, or be readily adaptable to do them if needed. In tech like this craft, that could conceivably be something akin to self organising nano-tech, or semi-intelligent nano-machines capable of shape and form changing to suit specific requirements as needed.

Given these possibilities, and if the occupants of such a craft tasked one of their devices to serve as a tripod, it taking on the basic characteristics of a tripod...isn't it easier and much simpler to say the occupants lent me a tripod? Especially if the guy himself didn't realise or understand the technology or processes involved in the device 'becoming' a tripod.

If this case is genuine, and who knows..it might be, i doubt we can apply what we know about our own devices and their functions, to what might be in the possession and ordinary use of people who understand and build the technology capable of either traversing large distances of space relatively quickly, or otherwise somehow moving through 'short cuts' in order to routinely arrive here...surely our technology would be as different from each others to be almost indescribable.






edit on 27-4-2014 by MysterX because: added info



posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 06:24 AM
link   
So these video warrant further study and discussion beyond what has taken place thus far. The start of these photos and video begin in 1991 (25 years) and have yet to be conclusively debunked and I fill there is valid reason for that.

Listening to the story felt genuine and I didn't spot any lie indicators that would lead me to believe he was being in any way disingenuous. Further, I am impressed that what he captured was "plasma" or inner-dimension as opposed to metallic or black projects. The animals in the video were awfully excited, its just a shame there weren't any reference videos without the plasma encounter of the surroundings at night to see how the animals typically react.

I'm curious as to why this story hasn't gained more traction within the "mainstream" Ufology community...makes one wonder. Is it because it doesn't fall into the manufactured metallic craft disinformation meme?


edit on 27-4-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join