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.

 

The Evidence that's convinced me of ETs' Presence on Earth

page: 16
113
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   

However in 60+ years the UFO community has failed to turn up one iota of real evidence that aliens exist to convince a majority of people on the planet. This is despite some sterling work in the field by some individuals but not helped by the fakers, attention seekers and charlatans either.


There is plenty of proof - it is just ignored or dismissed.. I have no idea why.

If someone wants to believe there are huge secret military aircraft that are flown over populated cities that can attain 1900 mph in a couple of seconds producing some 43gs of force, I guess that's their prerogative. I won't bother to tiptoe around the fact... it's funny to watch scientists do this. "I can say I don't believe the military has this capability, but that doesn't mean it's extraterrestrial in nature." Actually, it kind of does mean it's extraterrestrial in nature. If no one on this planet created it.. it's extraterrestrial.

I don't believe for a moment that our military flies our most secret and impressive craft over populated areas. There is a reason the fighter jets we do know about such as stealth bombers, etc., were solely tested in the Nevada desert over protected airspace. Nor do I believe we have the technology to create massive aircraft that can silently attain massive speeds at g-forces that would kill any human passengers.

So there is proof - how much more proof does someone need? Dozens of witnesses to a single event, with radar returns from three flight towers corroborating their stories both in location seen and speed and size of said aircraft.. in my book, this constitutes proof. I guess it's not the right "kind" of proof?




posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit



So there is proof - how much more proof does someone need? Dozens of witnesses to a single event, with radar returns from three flight towers corroborating their stories both in location seen and speed and size of said aircraft.. in my book, this constitutes proof. I guess it's not the right "kind" of proof?

From what I can tell, these are just stories. "Dozens of witnesses", radar returns, etc., don't hold up under scrutiny. There are cases where these stories do turn out to be something else explained. Those cases are readily dropped from the lore or reintroduced again with false information. Propagation of misleading information drives this mythology.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

There is plenty of proof - it is just ignored or dismissed.. I have no idea why.


It's not that it's ignored or dismissed. It's the fact that this evidence is far too weak to show intelligent alien beings are visiting Earth as in fact. If you can't understand why, then you truly don't understand the extraordinary impact alien visitation would have. You turn it into a trivial non-event by accepting this type of low-leveled evidence.

You can't use the survival of high G forces as part of your argument for alien life. Humans have been shown to survive forces up to almost 180Gs. In the 50's, repeated testing of 35Gs by way of rocket powered sled were experimented with. The highest tested G-force was 46.2Gs. The SR-71 attained speeds of well past 2,000 MPH in 1976. So, "only aliens can do it" is a poor argument as far as your figures go.

No scientist, or scientifically minded person, is going to take eyewitness testimony of a UFO as proof of alien life. But, the ridiculous arguments by believers will continue that their approach is scientific, while the actual scientific community isn't. It's really the only recourse you have considering the lack of real evidence up 'til this moment. So, I guess I can understand why the need to be defensive and attack by some.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   

From what I can tell, these are just stories. "Dozens of witnesses", radar returns, etc., don't hold up under scrutiny.


How do radar returns not hold up under scrutiny? Three objects traveling at high speeds not having transponders on three different radars is very important evidence. I don't know how you feel it can just be discounted. Dozens of witnesses made reports.. they were not creating a story. Why do you call it a story? To give it less weight? It doesn't work that way.


You can't use the survival of high G forces as part of your argument for alien life. Humans have been shown to survive forces up to almost 180Gs.


Ok.. I am not just using G forces as proof-positive evidence. I'm using a preponderance of evidence. In that particular case, you had 3 objects, one traveling at 1900+ mph in the matter of 2 to 3 seconds, they were all on radar, none had transponders, it was witnessed by dozens of people. It was being pursued by military jets, that the military did not even admit were flying that night, until much later, when it was clear too many people saw them. And then.. they claimed.. flares! Worked well enough for them in Phoenix.. why not use it again. Although for Phoenix, they had time to actually drop flares to confuse matters.. they had no such time in the Stephenville case.

What do you suggest it was? A military black project? The last bastion of defense for those who can't explain it away in any other matter. Even if it doesn't make sense.. it's the excuse given. Even if the craft uses propulsion nothing we have can match (incredibly powerful, yet utterly silent), flies over civilian space, is pursued by military jets, hovers over a populated city, etc.. heck.. it's a black project! Can't ever disprove a black project.. so it's a convenient excuse.

From those who researched the Stephenville case (i.e. scientists):


It was not any known aircraft. The enormous size of the object, its complete silence, and its ability to travel at high rates of speed and to also remain stationary or travel at slow speeds, is not explained by any known aircraft. The smallest size calculated from witness descriptions was 524 feet and most of the calculations based on approximate distance of the object and witness descriptions of degrees of sky covered by the object indicated an object closer to 1,000 feet in size. Twice, radar picked up an unknown object flying at 1,900-2,100 mph.


So this isn't simply delusional UFO believers inventing stuff. Hundreds of research hours using FOIA requests, radar return analysis (and verification from professionals), eyewitness testimony, etc. yields this conclusion. But it's just common sense. I know if I was watching flares.. I'd know they were flares. If I was watching a series of lights change from horizontal to vertical, and then take off at amazing speeds silently.. I'd know it was something completely different.

I'm curious what some of you folks think the Phoenix Lights actually were.. or the Tehran sighting in 1976.. or the Stephanville lights. Those three in particular.. what do you feel they were? Were they all black projects? Or something else?



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   
originally posted by: [post=18111332]Ectoplasm8



You can't use the survival of high G forces as part of your argument for alien life. Humans have been shown to survive forces up to almost 180Gs. In the 50's, repeated testing of 35Gs by way of rocket powered sled were experimented with. The highest tested G-force was 46.2Gs. The SR-71 attained speeds of well past 2,000 MPH in 1976. So, "only aliens can do it" is a poor argument as far as your figures go.



That's true of horizontal G but not vertical. It's significantly lower for the latter, and only in very short bursts can a pilot survive at 10G vertically, otherwise he will black out en.wikipedia.org...-force
edit on 5-7-2014 by Sharted because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

Playing the Devil's advocate here....

The problem is that none of this 'evidence' convinces enough of the Earth's population to think "OK it's got to be aliens!"

Also if the governments of the world have all covered it up for over half a century then why is this the only topic they ALL seem to agree on without question? Not only that successive generations have also decided upon that policy and agreed upon it. This is despite the division of Korea, the break-up of the Soviet Union and the fact that nations like Iran were once Allies and then perceived as enemies of the West?



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit


How do radar returns not hold up under scrutiny? Three objects traveling at high speeds not having transponders on three different radars is very important evidence. I don't know how you feel it can just be discounted. Dozens of witnesses made reports.. they were not creating a story. Why do you call it a story? To give it less weight? It doesn't work


I am at a disadvantage because I am not sure what case you are referring to.

Well it seems we are both generalizing but as an example of what I am talking about is the JAL 1628 case. Here is the link where you participated in a conversation about it www.abovetopsecret.com...

To me this represents how radar returns can influence someone's perceptions and how a story can be spun. Multiple witnesses turns out to really be one, a captain and his entire crew turns out to be 3 people....

None of these are representative of delusional UFO believers and I don't think they can be discounted either. We should be looking at all the cases, even the ones that are discovered to be something explainable. As it is now, there is no true baseline and it is impossible to tell the difference between an explainable case and an unexplainable case based on the available data. For instance, what is the difference between a radar return of a cloud and alien metal?


In commenting on the radar image the captain pointed out
that "normally it appears in red when an aircraft radar catches another aircraft" whereas green
is usually the color of a weak weather target such as a cloud. The fact that the echo was green
on the screen led him to ask whether or not the "metal used in the spaceship is different from
ours."(2) One might also speculate on the use of radar signature reduction techniques generally
calssified as "stealth." At any rate, the shape, size and color of the radar target indicated
that the object was quite large and yet quite a weak reflector.

brumac.8k.com...


I'm curious what some of you folks think the Phoenix Lights actually were.. or the Tehran sighting in 1976.. or the Stephanville lights. Those three in particular.. what do you feel they were? Were they all black projects? Or something else?


I don't know. Could they represent aliens? Sure. My feeling is that none of them have to be aliens and could all represent various combinations of misidentifications, military, exaggerations, hype, etc. basic human nature.
edit on 5-7-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-7-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

The Stephenville Lights: What Actually Happened
The Stephenville Lights: What Actually Happened

Much mischief was caused by a Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) report on the incident issued on July 4, 2008. MUFON members tend to promote the idea that UFOs are real and in fact are extraterrestrial spacecraft. The seventy-six-page report is mostly an analysis of FAA “raw” radar returns for the period in question, plus eight eyewitness reports.

These raw data contain 2.5 million points of noise and scatter. MUFON’s report selected just 187 of these points to contend that radar had tracked a huge “object” at least 524 feet in size, traveling near the Western White House (the Bush ranch, which is fifty miles southeast of Stephenville). “MUFON’s radar analysis is nothing more than cherry picking the 187 targets out of 2.5 million points of noise and scatter to make a track moving forty-nine mph for over one hour,” says McGaha. “This analysis is absurd!”


Who has the raw data so we can verify who is telling the truth?
edit on 5-7-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ben555
zetarediculian and occamsrazor.

what couple of pathetic TROLLS.
this person created a thread evidence that convinced "ME". why are you even on this thread? what has it to do with you what evidence and it is evidence,you could take his articles to a court and presented as evidence of ET no matter what you say it still could be used as evidence.
you have ruined and interesting thread.
you have to come to site like this and try and prove how clever you both are you can not in your real life.
you are not even correct,what a couple of TROLLS (look it up you 2 meet the definition)

why do you people even bite when these trolls join a thread? just blank them. act like they don't even exist!!!


You do realize every single bit of evidence has been proven to have no ET connection right? It could be presented as evidence. You could also present a video of yourself committing murder and claiming it as evidence ET's are to blame. None of this would sway a single Juror though. Something with zero ET connection convincing you there is an ET connection might explain the rest of your post.

If something I posted is wrong I welcome you to challenge me on the facts.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit

However in 60+ years the UFO community has failed to turn up one iota of real evidence that aliens exist to convince a majority of people on the planet. This is despite some sterling work in the field by some individuals but not helped by the fakers, attention seekers and charlatans either.


There is plenty of proof - it is just ignored or dismissed.. I have no idea why.

Proof .. does not mean what you think it means.

proof (pruːf)

— n
1. any evidence that establishes or helps to establish the truth, validity, quality, etc, of something
2. law the whole body of evidence upon which the verdict of a court is based
3. maths, logic direct induction See also induction a sequence of steps or statements that establishes the truth of a proposition

I believe the word you mean is evidence, not proof. There is lots of evidence .. the problem is that all of the evidence is so weak it's worthless.

I have evidence I own the Universe.

Official testimony from OccamsRazor04: I own the the universe.

There you go ... testimonial evidence. Does that mean you will give me your house, car, wife, bank account? What if I can find 10 other people who will say I own everything, will you do it then? Why not .. it's evidence?

Because the evidence is crap, it's worthless. Same as ALL the ET "evidence". There is not one single piece of evidence worth anything. If you can find me some I will be happy to look at it. The OP is a perfect example of crap evidence.


If someone wants to believe there are huge secret military aircraft that are flown over populated cities that can attain 1900 mph in a couple of seconds producing some 43gs of force, I guess that's their prerogative. I won't bother to tiptoe around the fact... it's funny to watch scientists do this. "I can say I don't believe the military has this capability, but that doesn't mean it's extraterrestrial in nature." Actually, it kind of does mean it's extraterrestrial in nature. If no one on this planet created it.. it's extraterrestrial.

Why do I need to believe that when there is no actual REAL and VALID evidence any such craft even exists? For one thing 1900mph is not even fast. The new SR-72 goes about 7000mph. It really seems like you just don't have a good understanding of the topic. Oh, and people can survive 50g's with no harm done with proper protections. So both your listed speed and G forces are nothing indicative of ET craft.


I don't believe for a moment that our military flies our most secret and impressive craft over populated areas. There is a reason the fighter jets we do know about such as stealth bombers, etc., were solely tested in the Nevada desert over protected airspace. Nor do I believe we have the technology to create massive aircraft that can silently attain massive speeds at g-forces that would kill any human passengers.

No ET do and even though everyone has a camera/video camera in their phone not one person can take a picture of the craft flying ultra low. Yeah .. good story, almost believable.


So there is proof - how much more proof does someone need? Dozens of witnesses to a single event, with radar returns from three flight towers corroborating their stories both in location seen and speed and size of said aircraft.. in my book, this constitutes proof. I guess it's not the right "kind" of proof?

Zero proof and evidence so weak it should be laughed at. How about the craft flying ultra low over neighborhoods start getting video taped and we can talk.

I will also address this ....

originally posted by: Sharted


That's true of horizontal G but not vertical. It's significantly lower for the latter, and only in very short bursts can a pilot survive at 10G vertically, otherwise he will black out en.wikipedia.org...-force


Good thing the acceleration is near instantaneous according to that poster so the G force is only experienced for a very short burst. This again, is HIS hypothetical craft. 43g in a short burst with a special suit can be tolerated by people.
edit on 5-7-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit

From what I can tell, these are just stories. "Dozens of witnesses", radar returns, etc., don't hold up under scrutiny.


How do radar returns not hold up under scrutiny? Three objects traveling at high speeds not having transponders on three different radars is very important evidence.

How about I show you where Radar showed objects and pilots in the area should have been right on top of them and there was nothing there?

Radar returns are not proof of ET life. False readings happen all the time.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: fleabit
First, let's be clear these were 3 separate sightings and not all at one time.
The first sighting- Looking at the radar data... The first "UFO" is seen by 7 witnesses between 6:10 and 6:35. At that time, four F-16's fly into the same area across Stephenville and in direct line of this sighting:


Followed by four more fighters 10 minutes later:


The radar shows an object blip at one point and then at another after the first set of fighters go by. This is the supposed 1900-2100 MPH jump picked out that this UFO did. Only 2 radar hits are registered for the entire portion of this sighting. There's absolutely no path leading up to or away from either of these two blips for the 25 minute sighting:


Also note, other indiscriminate blips are seen throughout the radar screen and the overall data consisted of over 2 million pieces of noise or scatter in which MUFON investigators hand picked 187 targets. These blips are picked out random. At no time do the military jets acknowledge or investigate this supposed huge 524 foot craft during this time.

So, if flares were indeed dropped in the path of those fighters- They would have been seen exactly where the witnesses saw these lights and at the same time. Also, a second set of fighters came on the radar roughly 10 minutes after the first which would be consistent with people seeing fighters "chasing" this UFO after the first set of fighters dropped the flares.

The second sighting was 20 or 30 minutes later by 1 person and was picked up on radar traveling at 44 MPH.

The third was seen near 7pm according to the witness. But, the supposed corroborated radar data of this object starts at 7:21pm. There's also an assumed jump to another spot on the track of this object then back to the original path. This is the 2100 MPH that you're talking about:


If you watch the video on YouTube of this data, you can see spots appear randomly across the entire screen. You could pick any point to represent a jump of path.

The first 4 fighters came into view at 6:10pm. They traveled across Stephenville to the area where they did their training maneuvers. A second set of F-16s flew in 10 minutes later from the same direction. For an hour and 10 minutes, these 8 fighters did their maneuvers within their designated area. The final 2 fighters flew out of this radar across Stephenville and out of the range at 7:22PM. This all happened in the exact time frame of this UFO sighting. A coincidence?

It seems the military not acknowledging they had fighters out that night somehow is a cover up for this UFO? It could be a communication SNAFU, or simply the military not wanting to release information about the routines of their jets. Never-the-less, the fact remains as the radar shows and the military later admitted, fighters were in the area at the exact same time of these sightings. This radar data also shows these jets had zero interest in a supposed UFO in the area. Watch the entire video and point out where any one of the 8 fighters deviate from their course to the training area (in the brown box) to chase a UFO. It's just not there. They fly straight over Stephenville to the training spot where they do many maneuvers for over an hour and fly straight back. If anything, this radar data is evidence of military pilots carrying out their typical routine. Not that they are chasing a UFO. There's no cover up or conspiracy.

YouTube



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   
So there is proof - how much more proof does someone need? Dozens of witnesses to a single event, with radar returns from three flight towers corroborating their stories both in location seen and speed and size of said aircraft.. in my book, this constitutes proof. I guess it's not the right "kind" of proof?

OCCAMSRAZOR
"Zero proof and evidence so weak it should be "LAUGHTED" at. How about the craft flying ultra low over neighborhoods start getting video taped and we can talk".

so occamsrazor thinks UFO evidence should be laughed at. what a terrible view about somebody trying to understand
UFO






edit on 6-7-2014 by ben555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   
hey fleabit

have you ever looked at ted phillips? he was J.allan hyneks understudy. hynek told him to specialize in a area of ufo phenomenon,he chose ufo landing sites. look him up,he has evidence you may be interested in.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 02:52 AM
link   
more evidence of trolling people.



"Because the evidence is crap, it's worthless. Same as ALL the ET "evidence". There is not one single piece of evidence worth anything. If you can find me some I will be happy to look at it. The OP is a perfect example of crap evidence."

belittling anybody and their evidence is bullying!!! how dare you call peoples evidence crap.this whole post was evidence that convinced the OP,not the world.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ben555

How about you show me some of this proof you keep talking about. It's easy to say it exists, quite another to show it. I say there is no proof, if there is show it, you counter with it exists man, and it's awesome ... but rather than show you some I will just say it exists, so believe.

Show me the money.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 03:51 AM
link   
"How about you show me some of this proof you keep talking about. It's easy to say it exists, quite another to show it. I say there is no proof, if there is show it, you counter with it exists man, and it's awesome ... but rather than show you some I will just say it exists, so believe."

hi guys,again people are saying some made up things about "proof". this thread is called EVIDENCE that has convinced ME ets have visited earth. NOT proof.

i have never said proof. evidence is NOT proof. simple really. (Please read my posts above)



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 04:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ben555


"How about you show me some of this proof you keep talking about. It's easy to say it exists, quite another to show it. I say there is no proof, if there is show it, you counter with it exists man, and it's awesome ... but rather than show you some I will just say it exists, so believe."

hi guys,again people are saying some made up things about "proof". this thread is called EVIDENCE that has convinced ME ets have visited earth. NOT proof.

i have never said proof. evidence is NOT proof. simple really. (Please read my posts above)


I did read your above posts. This is what you said.

originally posted by: ben555

So there is proof - how much more proof does someone need?


You claimed proof.

As to the evidence in the thread it was debunked pages ago. There were 3 other pilots with Thomas Mantell. Two of them witnessed the "UFO" and claimed it was small and did not look like any special. They refused to climb higher because it was unsafe to do so without O2. Mantell did not have O2, he did not listen, he climbed higher .. and he was at an altitude you would expect hypoxia. His plane was witnessed crashing and the reported manner in which it crashed is 100% consistent with a crash due to hypoxia. NOTHING about the Mantell case supports ET existence.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
ok i made a mistake there,i did right proof. i meant evidence. the title of thread is evidence. i meant to say evidence.
ill hold my hands up to that mistake.

there is evidence. no proof. this is what i mean. "there is evidence there i no proof"

picking on my mix up does not change the way you belittle people with their evidence. evidence is not proof. your still here on a thread you dont believe in, why else do you stay? its called trolling a thread!
(sorry for my mix up people).



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ben555

Well I am glad we cleared that up.

On to evidence .. I just posted the actual facts about the topic of Mantell in the OP. Can you dispute the facts as I posted them?



new topics

top topics



 
113
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join