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.

 

NASA Officially Corroborates Evidence For Ancient UFO Sightings

page: 3
87
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   
over 25 testimonies.


These people exist...

And no: there are not many lunatics on this world who risk their credibility for 10 seconds of fame on different Ufo-Geek Websites....

You have no idea what ridicule this people have to endure...And NOO not everyone of those writes a book. And no the 5 percens that write a ufo Book don´t get rich by doing that..

Its more cons than pros ..These people are (how do you americans call it in your romantic ways) just patriots


www.disclosureproject.org...




posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kauskau
Yes, I referred to Weygandt here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And no, I don't think his recollections are particularly credible.


Curious how literally anyone who doesn't jive with your point of view isn't particularly credible in your opinion, and those who happen to hold similar views to your own...are.




edit on 1-6-2014 by MysterX because: typo



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Curious how literally anyone who doesn't jive with your point of view isn't particularly credible in you opinion, and those who happen to hold similar views to your own...are.
I think the word you want is "jibe."

But whether or not I consider someone credible doesn't have much to do with their point of view. I consider many eyewitness reports credible. That doesn't mean that I agree with the conclusions reached about those reports.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: jeep3r


Does all this lead to historical reports now being a new "known variable" in the big UFO equation? Or can we still go ahead and interpret all these strange phenomena in the sky as hallucinations and misinterpretations by generations of intelligent & educated people throughout human history? - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Great questions to start out the thread OP. The sighting from Ezekiel (King James version/bible ) should probably belong on the list of high profile ancient UFO sighting. I am not even a bible believer but the descriptions in Ezekiel are, in my opinion, describing an alien abduction. The NASA author Richard Stothers has completely left out the Ezekiel encounter in his analysis and it exists only as a foot note #32 in his paper. (Bad bad bad research, and this makes him appear to be one of the Gate Keepers).

On the other hand, NASA is and has been obsessive compulsive when it comes to naming their missions after mythological gods. For example, one of the missions being built right now is Osiris-Rex, the asteroid return mission.

Again, this is NASA, which functions as gate-keeper to the Moon and human travel outside the Van Allen belts. NASA has Keep Out Zones on the moon --- and there was recently a new law submitted (not approved) that would make Apollo landings sites as US "national parks zone" --- so it is clear that there is something to hide on the moon.

Take a look at the Wernher von Braun threat sequence which was first verbalized by Dr. Carol Rosin at the Disclosure Conference in 2001.

Von Braun Threat Sequence


1. Communism completed the fall of the Soviet Union
2. Terrorism completed with 9-11
3. Rogue Nations almost complete, only a few rogue nations left
4. Asteroids we are here in 2014 (See Book of Revelations for more asteroids)
5. E.T. presented to the unwashed masses in so many Hollywood movies...

Also, I believe the Pope recently indicated that he would baptize aliens if they came to earth. That being said, the threat sequence is unstoppable.Wernher von Braun had planned missions to Mars by the 1980's but Richard Nixon cancelled Apollo and kept the USA in low earth orbit for 42 years with the Space shuttle. von Braun got cancer in the early 1970's and was dead by 1977.


edit on 6/1/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: tags



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Well, there goes the neighbourhood...



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter


Again, this is NASA, which functions as gate-keeper to the Moon and human travel outside the Van Allen belts. NASA has Keep Out Zones on the moon --- and there was recently a new law submitted (not approved) that would make Apollo landings sites as US "national parks zone" --- so it is clear that there is something to hide on the moon.


Yes, those 1 to 3 metre exclusion zones around the hardware will really hide a multitude of secrets, won't they?


...for the Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 16 sites, more access should be provided to individual components and artifacts, NASA added, allowing for future robotic missions to get within touching distance of Apollo hardware – as much as they won’t be allowed physical contact.

This additional access is shown as buffer zones, with a three meter buffer for descent stages, one meter buffer distance for the Lunar Rovers, experiments, sampling sites and flags, while no restrictions are recommended on the footprints and rover tracks outside the identified keep-out zones.


www.nasaspaceflight.com...

So, for four of the six lunar modules, future lunar explorers will be able to get within 10 feet of them. I don't think I managed to get within 10 feet of the Mona Lisa last time I went to the Louvre.
edit on 1-6-2014 by Rob48 because: Added link



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I agree with others, I personnally have never seen anything out of the ordinary in the sky. That's not to say the subect is very interesting, but with all the claims and theories we still have no smoking gun. All the time tv devotes to the subject seems to gloss over the same thing over and over again. I'll keep an open mind because I don't think any of us really know the truth and if they do they've done a very good job of keeping it buried for a long time



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: kauskau

It worries me that you are "becoming a judge" and yet don't notice very obvious tells when someone is lying (ie face touching).



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Well, there goes the neighbourhood...


The 2007 paper published by Stother which is found on .gov servers is only 12 pages (14 with footnotes) is not a hardy piece of research. It's a total fluff piece.

Did you even read it? Let me quote from it:

over the past six decades, almost no scholarly studies of the
very early history of the phenomenon have appeared.


Stother complains 60 years and "almost no scholarly studies". The irony is that his own 12 page synopsis doesn't even reach the level of a "scholarly study". Stother doesn't mention Ezekiel therefore his paper titled "UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY" is really not a good contribution to UFO's.

The only thing noteworthy about the paper is the FACT that his paper is found on a NASA .gov server.... if the man had any sense he would have published a book of his "scholarly study" but it's only 12 pages which suggests to me that the purpse of the his paper was Gate Keeper.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: jeep3r

The older I get it seems I grow more skeptical about UFO's. When I was a kid I was gung ho about them and figured they had to be piloted by space aliens and all of that. Now I'm not so sure they even exist. I'm not sure what it is people are seeing, as not all of these sightings are hoaxes, but I can no longer put any stock in the idea of craft that are piloted by aliens. Misidentifications probably make up the vast majority of reports, I would think.

At any rate, I found your thread very well written, and interesting. I love threads where I get to learn something, and I found this one particularly informative, even if I might not draw the same conclusions you have. S&F!


Exactly. In the end, eyewitness testimony is the LEAST trustworthy. And man, how I wanted to believe when I was a child/teenager. But with age came logic, with age came the knowledge of not trusting everything you hear or read. But hey, the majority of humans in the entire world believes in something it cant prove( ie a higher power). So I will let the UFO believers do the same.
edit on 1-6-2014 by Jungian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: CJCrawley

don´t worry...i can become a judge but i can also become a lawyer ...Its not sure yet.

And face touching alone is not a sign of lying.

The way he constructs his story is not planned..the way his eyes moves show that he uses "images to remember"...

and a lot of other stuff... Emotional dynamics.... Not flat....


etc etc



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

The 2007 paper published by Stother which is found on .gov servers is only 12 pages (14 with footnotes) is not a hardy piece of research. It's a total fluff piece.

No it isn't. Research papers and journal essays don't have to be lengthy in order to make a few valid points. His work is thorough incl. a hypothesis (for which he provides evidence), literature research, analyses, a summary and, lastly, a proper bibliography.



Stother complains 60 years and "almost no scholarly studies". The irony is that his own 12 page synopsis doesn't even reach the level of a "scholarly study".

He refers to a limited research regarding 'historical UFO reports in antiquity' done over the past decades. And with that, he is quite correct.



Stother doesn't mention Ezekiel therefore his paper titled "UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY" is really not a good contribution to UFO's.

IMO, Ezekiel is indeed a "smoking gun" report, but Stothers' accounts don't start any earlier than 218 BCE. Apart from that, Joseph Blumrich beat him to it regarding Ezekiel. And, by the way, Blumrich also worked for NASA. What Stothers did was to go ahead and introduce new sources, eg. the greco-roman historians and chroniclers, in order to give his research a new 'twist'.

No offense intended, but your criticism is IMHO greatly exaggerated.
edit on 1-6-2014 by jeep3r because: text



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Ezekiel was fkn stoned man, let it go..



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: kauskau


And face touching alone is not a sign of lying.


True, there are other signs. But it's a common one.

He does do it a lot, doesn't he?



The way he constructs his story is not planned


How would you know?

You can plan how to act, and be convincing; a lot of people are good actors.

They just don't pursue it as a career.




the way his eyes moves show that he uses "images to remember"


That surprises you?

I could totally convince you I've seen aliens.

Thing is, wouldn't be true.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: jeep3r

maybe its was his task to fill the gaps that so many have touched upon already in the ancient alien hypothesis, maybe they felt like they where missing out on some obvious interest that seems to be quite popular these days.. or maybe there bare face lying

ill give it to them though, they appear to be warming to the potential of life elsewhere, on the face,. take for instance there sudden alterations in mission parameters regarding fossils hunting on mars.. did they really headline that ?
how very acclimatising of them
I feel there maybe hope yet for life /fossil evidence on mars

as for what they know and are not telling. that all depends on whether we are getting lies mixed with truth or vice versa,in varying percentages
the article is odd all on its own , especially considering all the re-explaining of the whole Nibru 2012 mayan prophecy a short while back.
but

all touched on in Charles Forts damned books

*a small yet bespectacled microfunbox appears from a tatty looking wormhole , dressed in a T shirt with the embroidered words *officially touting the Fort*

his speculative humorous mental amblings on E>T visitation motives still make me chuckle today
"Harem replenishments "


or like curiosity , is it that simpler of a motive, to go somewhere else just to see?


funBox



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: CJCrawley
a reply to: kauskau

It worries me that you are "becoming a judge" and yet don't notice very obvious tells when someone is lying (ie face touching).



one of my sons does it all the time, it's called 'obsessive compulsive', the same phrase Saryonajupiter used for NASA.
My son is 'fragile X' a genetic disorder carried mostly by the mother, and is also Autistic, he has little speech, and couldn't lie if you paid him.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jungian
Ezekiel was fkn stoned man, let it go..


That's funny,
a bit of well needed humour..."don't give me those negative wheels"

Thing is, I'm not sure if Ezekiel is properly sussed out yet, was he dreaming, or having a vision? That excludes hallucinations of course, that wyn't a word then!



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Char-Lee

ahh Char-Lee, where have you been hiding
? and I didn't even know you retorted , how very surreptitious of you

certainly a potential, and cheers for the links , others may find them interesting , but for myself I prefer a book in hand, albeit it harder to reference


but yeah , farmed and swapped ownership
is there some kind of intergalatci trading going on
but what would we know
how would fort put it

Deep sea fishes
flotsam floats down from above...
what do they think?

but to use the full quote , since you started the ball rolling
, one sec ill nick it from my first thread
..



Would we, if we could, educate and sophisticate pigs, geese, cattle?

Would it be wise to establish diplomatic relation with the hen that now functions, satisfied with mere sense of achievement by way of compensation?

I think we're property. I should say we belong to something: That once upon a time, this earth was No-man's Land, that other worlds explored and colonized here, and fought among themselves for possession, but that now it's owned by something: That something owns this earth -- all others warned off.

Nothing in our own times -- perhaps -- because I am thinking of certain notes I have -- has ever appeared upon this earth, from somewhere else, so openly as Columbus landed upon San Salvador, or as Hudson sailed up his river. But as to surreptitious visits to this earth, in recent times, or as to emissaries, perhaps, from other worlds, or voyagers who have shown every indication of intent to evade or avoid, we shall have data as convincing as our data of oil or coal-burning aerial super-constructions.

But, in this vast subject, I shall have to do considerable neglecting or disregarding, myself. I don't see how I can, in this book, take up all the subject of possible use of humanity to some other mode of existence, or the flattering notion that we can possibly be worth something.

Pigs, geese, cattle.

First find out they are owned. Then find out the whyness of it.

I suspect that, after all, we're useful -- that among contesting claimants, adjustment has occurred, or that something now has a legal right to us, by force, or by having paid out analogues of beads for us to former, more primitive, owners of us -- all others warned off -- that all this has been known, perhaps for ages, to certain ones [156/157] upon this earth, a cult or order, members of which function like bellwethers to the rest of us, or as superior slaves or overseers, directing us in accordance with instructions received -- from Somewhere else -- in our mysterious usefulness.

But I accept that, in the past, before proprietorship was established, inhabitants of a host of other worlds have -- dropped here, hopped here, wafted, sailed, flown, motored -- walked here, for all I know -- been pulled here, been pushed; have come singly, have come in enormous numbers; have visited occasionally, have visited periodically for hunting, trading, replenishing harems, mining: have been unable to stay here, have established colonies here, have been lost here; far-advanced peoples, or things, and primitive peoples or whatever they were: white ones, black ones, yellow ones I have a very convincing datum that the ancient Britons were blue ones"

Charles Fort . The Book Of the Damned



funBox
edit on 1-6-2014 by funbox because: Wolves mistook the Quote for an order



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
If we liken ancient sightings to the sightings of today I think the idea of these being natural phenomena is not accurate, for the simple reason that many of these sightings have been visually documented today yet we still have no explanations as far as natural phenomena are concerned. But perhaps we still have not discovered said phenomena. If these ancients had described what they did and the reports ceased with the origin of modern times, then I would say that what they saw was probably explainable in an easy manner, but considering quite similar sightings have persisted for millennia I think it is only accurate to assume that what they described is what they actually saw...and we know of nothing natural to explain such occurrences.



posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: jeep3r

The older I get it seems I grow more skeptical about UFO's.


Funny enough, the older I get, the more I realise that Aliens are real. I mean, we're here are we not? and living in a dynamic biosphere. Isn't that enough to chew on?


But there's a massive difference between aliens existing, somewhere, which I'm sure they do, and aliens visiting Earth, for which there is no evidence at all.

Just because you believe that mankind is not alone in the universe (and believing that we are would be a very arrogant viewpoint) doesn't mean you have to believe that "UFOs" have anything to do with aliens.

I'm certainly in that camp: aliens are "out there" but they are not, and never have been, "down here".

How can you believe that aliens exist on other planets, yet claim you are certain they have never been to Earth. What makes you so certain?
How can you say there is NO evidence to suggest they have visited Earth? There is a wealth of circumstancial evidence, such as radar hits, pilot sightings and thousands of civilian sightings. These combined should be enough for anyone to say that it is POSSIBLE that SOME of these are genuine, it only takes one of these to be genuine to prove intelligent life exists elsewhere and are visiting Earth. To be so sure there is no or has never been any visitations from other life forms is very closed minded.




top topics



 
87
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join