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.

 

You have all been duped.

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 02:40 PM
link   
If the US is really covering up all their technology, why do they even bother building super-expensive stealth-bombers and F-35 fighters? very expensive cover-up I might add...

Did you know they had some Russian technology there which they obtained and tested it there? doesn't it seem plausible that they might do the same to Alien Technology and test it in the Groomlake facillity?

Your crude statement seems to be more fear than thought my friend...




posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Aliens and UFOs are nothing more than government fabricated lies to divert your attention away from its experimental military aircraft...and you all bought it and are soaking in it. Isn't it ironic that the government who created the UFO phenomena is being blamed for UFO coverups? You people are hillarious and do not realize to the extent that you have been manipulated. There are government officials who have been laughing at you for the past 50 years.


Right. And the Belgium, Mexican, & other governments of this fair planet have also been duped?

Experimental aircraft fabricated by "the government"?
I'm assuming you're refering to the US government? The best NASA can come up with is the space shuttle that can go fast enough to break out of earth's gravity, while Belgium F-16 pilots reported that the UFO had made maneuvers at speeds beyond the capability of their technology, and once the radar showed the craft almost instantly drop from 10,000 to 500 feet in 5 seconds!

Oh...& one more thing: Give yer head a shake.


[edit on 7-12-2004 by evilution]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
With billions of galaxies, each containing billions of stars in our universe, it is statistically impossible for us to be the only sentient beings in existence. I am sure we had to have a few visits now and then. Some tourists, maybe.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:33 PM
link   
well this is a gd piont 50/50 makes a simple amount of sense be it 50 % off world craft and in other words an other species craft and 50 % goverment craft , other very advanced races in the present world of tec and what as a race can provide dont want us in there lives yet as we have nothing to offer them, our planet isnt even of any significance at all as there are millions like it out there


ask urself this would america with its wealth or the uk ask say the likes of another low end country say the likes of uganda to build a stealth aircraft


NO


and whys that ask urself that

we are all cave men, pond life, nothing more than chimps to another species until we can end all wars, starvation,all misery, act as a planet for the planet 100% free renewable fuels the hole lot and have inter steller craft 1 voice for us all ( hint hint new world order) mybe not fact so dont quote me on nwo

just broaden ur minds too what as a planet we should do but ive accepted the world is going as fast as it can we are all as evil as we are all trapped here and u all know for fact u wont see the universe yet but why not our children

they count u know

i have more to add to this but hey im off to to ma bed get sum sleep

a huv work the morra


god bless to every 1 thats all gods for every 1 jesus's da and allah, the buddah guy as well ,visnu and all they ppl annol



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mephorium
With billions of galaxies, each containing billions of stars in our universe, it is statistically impossible for us to be the only sentient beings in existence. I am sure we had to have a few visits now and then. Some tourists, maybe.


You mean "improbable"...When dealing with statistics, nothing is impossible



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Interesting, can you explain that further?



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   
that last painting "Glorification of the Eucharist", is actually earth the sun and the moon and GOD is "painting" the earth. It is supposed to represent that GOD is writing history, making things happen. Things come into being in the physical realm that we know because it was GOD's Intelligent Design ie the writing stick and he is modeling the world as he wants it to appear.

You can clearly see the Sun and beneth that is the image of the Moon which apparently even in the 1600's they knew was much smaller then the Earth. Since I assume they had no idea how large the Sun was they made only the refelection of the Sun on the earth.

Nice carry over from the Egyptian RA in above the earth and GOD and Jesus in the form of the bird. Which occues during the eclipse at summer solstices ??? I believe is where the egyptians came up with the bird idea. Due to the Sun's corona rays during a full eclipse.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I wouldn't really consider "Glorification of the Eucharist" evidence for UFO's or ET. It could be anything really. Also, sputnik came after.

However, the one I posted "Madonna" is undeniably, incontrovertibly, a UFO. Someone would have to be particularly fanatical to deny that.


[edit on 7-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   
The word Troll comes to mind - no point justifying your beliefs to it.

FYI ATS members, I've had to change my ID, I was formerly mistamash. For search engines reasons I have changed.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I never thought i'd see the day when i would get home from work and at last, find out the REAL TRUTH ABOUT UFO'S. Dang, what an enlightning thread this one is. (Sarcasm/on)




posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I think that's really looking at things from a modern prejudice.

Paintings were and are not photographs---they are pictorial and often abstract
representations mixed with realism.

My guess: it is a representation of the "holy spirit". That is an essentially incorporeal
and ephemeral concept in various Christian theologies. Painters used their own
imaginations to represent it---there is no single consistent form, obviously.

It would be bizzare in a religious picture to put something that somebody saw in a sky:
Imaging the buyer/Church asking the painter: "Why is that thing there? What does it mean? What is its purpose? What are you trying to say?" The idea of "Oh I saw this thing flying over there a couple of weeks ago" versus a religious devotional painting doesn't really seem to mix in any sensible way.

Of course true conspiracy theories can never be falsified. For example,

"Oh the painter really painted a UFO but it was given plausible deniability as
the Holy Spirit so he wouldn't get in trouble if anybody asked him."



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Calm down people. Hasn't anyone heard of Project Blue Book? It went through extensive detail after investigating a large number of UFO sightings and found no refutable proof to their existence. There has been government proof that UFO (et's) do not exist.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   
First of all, I'd like to remind everyone to keep their tempers. Those who anger easily lose courage in important moments, and a loud voice indicates a weak argument. Second, I'd like to say that several of those photos look like they have been tampered with, and (although they may be real) I wouldn't use them in an attempt to convert a skeptic. Finally, I'd like to build off both trains of thought for a moment in an attempt to compromise:

It is a possibility that people have attempted to use UFOs as cover-ups (although have not entirely created them, like a movie or rumor), and now things are getting out of hand. People are digging too deep, and the public is too fascinated, so now they're trying to cover up two things: UFOs and something else.

Any thoughts? (Remember to keep composure
)



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Calm down people. Hasn't anyone heard of Project Blue Book? It went through extensive detail after investigating a large number of UFO sightings and found no refutable proof to their existence. There has been government proof that UFO (et's) do not exist.


Nice. Using evidence. However, didn't you begin this by saying that UFOs are a cover-up, so who in their right mind is gonna deny the existence of their cover-up?



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by clerickghost

Originally posted by Frosty
Calm down people. Hasn't anyone heard of Project Blue Book? It went through extensive detail after investigating a large number of UFO sightings and found no refutable proof to their existence. There has been government proof that UFO (et's) do not exist.


Nice. Using evidence. However, didn't you begin this by saying that UFOs are a cover-up, so who in their right mind is gonna deny the existence of their cover-up?


Blue Book states, and rightfully so, that there is no proof to the existence of UFO's. People will deny the validity of BB and claim the government is hiding something. I mean, that's what the government was after, for people to question the integrity of the project and further fantasise about government cover ups and write BB as a coverup. Why would the government in the 50s and 60s try to prove the existence of UFO's, there was no basis or proof in the first place that they even existed.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 07:03 PM
link   

I think that's really looking at things from a modern prejudice.


No, not really. UFO's have been documented, depicted and reported from the early past, and the characteristics they are popular for, repeat in the past too. It's a simple process of logic to state they are talking about the same thing.


Paintings were and are not photographs---they are pictorial and often abstract
representations mixed with realism.


There is nothing abstract about what is in the painting. It's a flying saucer, with a glow on the underside, hovering above an ocean, and it is being watched in awe by a man and his dog.


My guess: it is a representation of the "holy spirit". That is an essentially incorporeal
and ephemeral concept in various Christian theologies. Painters used their own
imaginations to represent it---there is no single consistent form, obviously.


There is nothing incorporeal, or metaphysical about it. It's a solid flying machine, a UFO, that is being observed by the man and his dog. Imagination is not random, it is inspired from existing phenomena, culture and understanding. However, as I told you, UFO's have been documented and depicted extensively in every time period. It is a myth that it is a modern phenomena.


It would be bizzare in a religious picture to put something that somebody saw in a sky:
Imaging the buyer/Church asking the painter: "Why is that thing there? What does it mean? What is its purpose? What are you trying to say?" The idea of "Oh I saw this thing flying over there a couple of weeks ago" versus a religious devotional painting doesn't really seem to mix in any sensible way.


Well, apparently you are unaware that there are even more paintings by different painters, that depict UFO's too, and in one, Jesus and Mary are onboard one. So, it would appear that the Church of the time, knew there was a connection between Jesus and UFO's. Because, as you said, the church had control over theological paintings, and would have dictated what should be painted: they apparently dictated UFO's too.

[edit on 7-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

I think that's really looking at things from a modern prejudice.

Paintings were and are not photographs---they are pictorial and often abstract
representations mixed with realism.

My guess: it is a representation of the "holy spirit". That is an essentially incorporeal
and ephemeral concept in various Christian theologies. Painters used their own
imaginations to represent it---there is no single consistent form, obviously.

It would be bizzare in a religious picture to put something that somebody saw in a sky:
Imaging the buyer/Church asking the painter: "Why is that thing there? What does it mean? What is its purpose? What are you trying to say?" The idea of "Oh I saw this thing flying over there a couple of weeks ago" versus a religious devotional painting doesn't really seem to mix in any sensible way.

Of course true conspiracy theories can never be falsified. For example,

"Oh the painter really painted a UFO but it was given plausible deniability as
the Holy Spirit so he wouldn't get in trouble if anybody asked him."


Well you bring up a valid point, but I think a lot of your arguments can be turned around and counter argue.

It is a painting, not a picture, well who can argue with that

it is common to paint symbolic references, I guess, but in painting the holy ghost why choose the round shape with "light" comming from it?

You say that it is common to paint religious symbols in these old paintings, well is it not a possibility that the painter and every one else at that time had no idea that it was UFO's they were seeing? And if this is a possibility, is it not also a possibility that they concieved them as perhaps the holy ghost when in fact it was UFO's? This option should make a lot of sence to you according to your arguments about painting holy symbols etc.

Anything can be questioned, anything. No matter what you can always offer an alternative explanation. So what we have are a wide variety of different explanations, and which one is most probably?

There is a man looking, scouting towards the sky in that picture, he is observing the phenomena.

The object / thing / holy symbol IS disc shaped.
It is in the air, flying, hovering what ever.
and it emits light.

These 3 things fits the description of a UFO.
Are there other paintings where the holy ghost has been portrayed as a round disc, flying, emitting light?

No one can stop me from sticking my head in the sand, as I cannot stop anyone from looking towards the sky.


Sincerly

Cade

[edit on 7-12-2004 by Cade]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Calm down people. Hasn't anyone heard of Project Blue Book? It went through extensive detail after investigating a large number of UFO sightings and found no refutable proof to their existence. There has been government proof that UFO (et's) do not exist.


How could government ever prove that UFO's do not exist? How could government ever prove that the lockness monster does not exist? I'm affraid the burden of proof lies with those who wants to prove that they do exist.

It's fair that you share your opinion on this subject. Is mocking those who does not share your views narrowminded? And if so, are your opinions also as such?


Sincerly

Cade



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Col. Philip J. Corso (that is one of the the guys who was assigned for the Roswell Crash) statet in his speach at the Ranch (RSE Yelm) that the Goverment actually never knew what was going on with the UFO's / Alien's.
Because of the fundings$$$$$ they never disclosed findings that lead to many of the technologies we have today i.e. optic cable,computers and so on.Col. Philip J. Corso description click on " more info "in this site to see the first 10 minutes of the video



[edit on 7-12-2004 by frozen_snowman]

[edit on 7-12-2004 by frozen_snowman]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I dont want to seem to be an Ass here , I have stated many times in various threads that I beleive, unshakably that we are seeing unknows in our skys. I have also stated that i suspend beleif that they are "manned" craft as yet.
Would anyone having pics/links to, of craft alledgedly shown to be manned, ie beings seen through portholes etc, please come forward and post them. Photographs rather than drawings.
I did see one of this nature once, but long ago and ive not been able to find it since nor any others.
Before anyone jumps up to say "it doesent prove...bla bla"
let me assure you, im well aware of the fact, im a reasonably intelligent bloke and i can decide for myself without the help of debunkers or their opposit counterparts, thanks.

Thanks in advance to anyone kind enough to help out. :Cheers:



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join