Lightning Strikes Cloaked UFO Twice

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Verideecimo

Here's an interesting clip I found when discussing the Texas Ufo. Notice how the "ufo" shoots a bolt of lightning before getting zapped itself.




Now that is some pretty cool video...




posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Verideecimo

Here's an interesting clip I found when discussing the Texas Ufo. Notice how the "ufo" shoots a bolt of lightning before getting zapped itself.



YOU people amaze anything in the sky you don't know about is a UFO!

First of all learn something regarding lightning, MANY bolt's go from the GROUND UP it's usually not seen because it's basically a large static charge but really HUGE ones have been filmed with very high speed cameras and can be played back in slow motion .



Going by the OP's assumption this bolt hit 20 or 30 cloaked ufo's




NEXT!



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 03:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lichter daraus
a reply to: Verideecimo

So by your logic, since you dont know what it is, its a cloaked ufo?




It is a logical deduction when nothing in nature exists that account for that sphere being seen, and it can be seen getting hit by the bolt. nothing in our atmosphere exists naturally that has a circular or spherical shape and is also invisible. It may not be from a different galaxy, but it sure isn't the normal thing seen in the sky.
It's the first time I have ever seen anything like that, and I remember one of the NASA vids that show several big circular bogies heading to electrical storms. Maybe there is a connection to those seen in that video, and this video adds credence to that.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Verideecimo

The first one seems to outline a shape of something, but the second event seems to have no correlation to the first.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Nothing you've shown resembles anything of what the OP was highlighting. Not even the bit you've quoted from another member represents what they're showing.

You've debunked nothing.


Next!!



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Cool video of lightnings but I can't see any ufo's...
Sorry.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: skyblueworld
a reply to: wmd_2008

Nothing you've shown resembles anything of what the OP was highlighting. Not even the bit you've quoted from another member represents what they're showing.

You've debunked nothing.


Next!!


I suggest you re watch the second video I linked to, plenty of round BLOBS when the lightning changes direction.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed


It is a logical deduction when nothing in nature exists that account for that sphere being seen, and it can be seen getting hit by the bolt. nothing in our atmosphere exists naturally that has a circular or spherical shape and is also invisible.


Actually it's not a logical deduction even if there were nothing in nature to account for the "sphere" being seen [which there is].



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Then that bolt shot up and struck that "mysterious floating object which has no business being there, defying gravity before slowly flying away"

I guess that makes it a MFOWHNBBGTDGBSFA object, not a UFO, sorry my bad.

Next!



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

That video was uploaded by and copyrighted to looknowtv who are are well known hoaxer channel , it is believed the channel is run by Blake Cousins of Third phase of moon although for obvious reasons it's hard to verify that.

I think the lightning storm is real.

edit on 25-8-2014 by gortex because: Spell



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

If I had a fishing hoax channel that showed anglers catching extinct fish and one video showing someone catch a 400 lb sturgeon, does that mean the 400 lb sturgeon is a fake? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater?
edit on 25-8-2014 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Im quite objective when it comes to the topic, as I am neither a believer, nor a skeptic. When it comes to the idea of having real UFOs throughout man's history, I would argue with skeptics. When it comes to UFOs recorded on someone's camera, I would go for a lot of man-made objects before I jump to any extraordinary...

And for this video I can see nothing that suggests a UFO. The round shape formed below the strike that you call 'lower part of the UFO' is barely seen as shape of a solid object, you call it 'cloaked' but this is another jump from the first one - that there is any object there at all. I would say based on many variables you see the shape that you see but it all comes down to natural, there is nothing that suggests there is an object there..



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo


Plausible deniability.

It's the best way to sum it up for them.



Is it inconceivable to say that we have crafts using technology in our skies in 2014 that we wouldn't know about?



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: skyblueworld

holy crap that was one mad storm! I've never seen one with such violent lightning like that, like right out of a sci-fi movie.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed


It is a logical deduction when nothing in nature exists that account for that sphere being seen, and it can be seen getting hit by the bolt. nothing in our atmosphere exists naturally that has a circular or spherical shape and is also invisible.


Actually it's not a logical deduction even if there were nothing in nature to account for the "sphere" being seen [which there is].


Ahh, so you're saying that it isn't a logical deduction to see this as non natural, aka, a manufactured event or device, simply because the implications of that means it must be something we just don't know about, and that would indicate you aren't all knowing after all, and that bugs you so you say my comment isn't valid?
I like that, good answer...



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

Ahh, so you're saying that it isn't a logical deduction to see this as non natural, aka, a manufactured event or device, simply because the implications of that means it must be something we just don't know about, and that would indicate you aren't all knowing after all, and that bugs you so you say my comment isn't valid?
I like that, good answer...


You should like that answer since you made it up yourself.





top topics
 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join