Black Triangle UFOs and an Alleged Breakaway Civilization- Discuss

a reply to: Baddogma

The "story" strikes me as a compilation of Star Gate meets The Matrix and they have a baby called Battle Star Galactica. Fascinating concept with the "dream harvesting" but the part about the giant ships having to hover close to "gather" the data blows it. While it's a convenient excuse as to why the triangles have been so sloppy that they have been seen by lots of people it's ridiculous to think the very thing that gives "instant communication ability across galaxies" (distance is irrelevant) must be "gathered" at close range.

Decent Sci-Fi but until I meet one of the RKs in person and (s)he can tell me what I'm dreaming about, well...

a reply to: Springer

Springer: What's the chance on you having some of ATS' photo experts take a look at these pics?

a reply to: The GUT

They look like a double exposure or a reflection of the street light(s), maybe caused by wiggling the camera on a long exposure, to me...

As far as "experts" go there's no value in analyzing them unless we can get the real, original image file straight off the card in the camera. Compressed copies aren't worth dealing with on any level because lots of the data is missing and what is there is corrupted or changed from being compressed and saved.

a reply to: Springer

Wholeheartedly in agreement... heh... and if members hadn't told me about nighttime RK visits and strange mind warping PM's I'd write it off as an excellent effort at stitching a plausible explanation for the UFO-abduction enigma... one of the best I've read yet... and I've read far too many!

And then there's that pesky BASSPLYER sighting ...he had the cajones to admit to it, anyway... poster's like him (seemingly intelligent, none too gullible) had the weirder experiences... and then there is that odd day where I woke with certainty this stuff was accurate... that's the least compelling bit for me, actually, 'cause it was dream weirdness... but it's not just some guy weaving a good yarn... at the least, it's some guy weaving a good yarn and having non-gullible people hallucinating that it's real! OR it's an organized effort at yanking our collective chain... to recap, heh.

ETA and the object in the photos being a reflection of the streetlights... yeah, but I can see those reflections, too, along with the "object." Doesn't mean it isn't, though.

a reply to: Springer

The whole foreverman story does sound like a hodgepodge of sci fi, and I don't think people should take it at all at face value.

Communicating through dreams for interstellar travel sorta doesn't make sense. Why use humans clones for communication like some sort of organic star wars holonet. Why not just keep it simpler and use entangled photons for communication. Clones of each other reacting instantly to each other regardless of distance, so to speak.

Harvesting dreams doesn't make too much sense. But harvesting "something" would. There's more signals than just brain waves out there to hoover up. Sending messages from the craft to the person via dreams is also a bit weird. But sending "things" from the craft out to other things isn't.

And I think they are getting to the point they don't need to hover close to accomplish either of the above. Hoovering or emitting. One quick flyby at the right altitude will do. A real quick flyby BTW.

Although standing on station for long periods undetected can have it's benefits too. Especially if it's nearly impossible for people to see you due to their own literal (anatomic) lack of ability to perceive.

People need to get away from the RK story and look harder at what was presented if they want to make sense of all of that mess. Take a analogy and then research its real world equivalents. Things might begin to click.

a reply to: Baddogma


Dont forget multiple "verified as accurate by unrelated people" tip off's about time and locations of classified military aircraft as stated by Zaphod.

@springer Agreed that one of those pics is blurred..luckily there are other none blurred pics...if you know someone who has the credentials the clear one of the triangle craft must be worth 10 minutes?

a reply to: Jukiodone

Oh yes, there's that, too... I guess I was getting at "I'm really interested in this tale and I'm not an idiot (most of the time)," heh... but seriously... wth is going on with this?!

I really cannot think of another story that has as many supportive elements... as far as internet disclosures, anyway.

It does make the grey matter run a bit, though... doesn't it?

This subject fascinates me and, honestly, isn't too far fetched.

The US Military is many years ahead of current technology. Idk how many, but let's say for example they are 50 years ahead of us, right now.

Imagine what 2014 would look like to someone from 1964. Like magic, probably. Unexplainable. Mysterious to many but scary to some.

a reply to: lovebeck
That's another of my oft repeated primary points... if we WERE exposed to the UFO truth, it would likely garner the same reactions we see here... as in the tech, by definition, MUST seem magical to us scabrous plebes.

What IF?

a reply to: Baddogma

I think it's entirely possible. Kept secret because the energy/propulsion systems probably aren't running on fossil fuels.

a reply to: lovebeck

The US Military is many years ahead of current technology.

That statement does not make sense. The military uses current technology and they try to keep it as current as possible.

While technological innovation has been used for military applications, it has never really involved anything that isn't in the realm of "known science."

a reply to: lovebeck
You're right. The space shuttle didn't use fossil fuels either.

a reply to: Phage

Just how is it you "know" this and are so sure of it?

it has never really involved anything that isn't in the realm of "known science."

Even law enforcement consults psychics on occasion. Certainly the aviary was, and likely still is, well into unknown territory, as in remote viewing, for instance, or is that "known science," now?
And so, should we now consider the military did what happened to the Gulf Breeze Six and knew what they were doing, or what?
See how this box works? It's not fun getting put into it, either…..

originally posted by: The GUT
a reply to: Baddogma

From what I just read, poster claims he's A_0 and was BANNED from here?

A O was not banned from ATS so th e person you are talking about is lying. He left of his own accord.

a reply to: tetra50

Just how is it you "know" this and are so sure of it?

Why do you think it is the case? Can you come up with a single example? What military technology from 1964 (50 years ago so we should have it now. Did the military have laptop computers in 1964? iPhones?) used some form of "unknown science?"

Even law enforcement consults psychics on occasion.

That isn't technology.

as in remote viewing, for instance

Neither is that.

And so, should we now consider the military did what happened to the Gulf Breeze Six and knew what they were doing, or what?

What.

originally posted by: Baddogma
I really cannot think of another story that has as many supportive elements... as far as internet disclosures, anyway.

It does make the grey matter run a bit, though... doesn't it?

I don't think it's all that convincing in the ways you do. I mean, sure, he addresses a fair amount of ufological history; abductions to Phoenix lights and Cash-Landrum, but there's no real meat other than a "fit all" type of story with little-to-no connective tissue and he made sure he didn't stick around to answer the questions he assured you that he would.

If that is A_0 posting at LO, then that raises even more questions and doubts about his veracity. Claiming he was banned here at ATS for one, when he wasn't.

a reply to: yuppa

Probablly didnt want to tell the new place hed be looking stupid with all the questions people would ask him. Which they did there and yes still dodged specific questions.

a reply to: Phage

While technological innovation has been used for military applications, it has never really involved anything that isn't in the realm of "known science."

But then the question remains, who (or what) is behind the (admittedly seemingly) advanced tech?

Someone has to be in possession of relatively unknown tech... or the core UFO phenom is a strange/unknown natural phenomena... or aliens... or... what... no actual UFOs? I guess that's possible... but I tend to believe my own eyes, if not people in general.

a reply to: Baddogma

Someone has to be in possession of relatively unknown tech... or the core UFO phenom is a strange/unknown natural phenomena

Why "a"? With the wide variation and disparity, it seems odd to attempt to assign a single origin.

but I tend to believe my own eyes

That's a big part of the problem in determining what's going on. Time for my story, it's been long enough since the last time.
While walking down to the beach one fine summer day I came upon a group of people looking up with their hands shading their eyes from the Sun and pointing at the sky. I looked up but couldn't see anything. As I got closer to them I could hear comments; "It's huge!", "Look how fast it's going!"

Really curious now, I asked what they were looking at. One of them said, "It's a UFO. Look, right there." I looked. I saw. A black toy balloon about 10" in diameter and maybe 100' in the air, drifting with the wind.

An object isolated in the sky, with no points of reference, can fool the eye. The observers had made the assumption that this was a very large object. Going from that assumption, because it looked so small, it must be very high in the sky. From there, its motion must be very fast instead of just drifting with the wind, the way balloons do. As a group, they had come to the wrong conclusion about what they were looking at. Their excited chatter feeding the illusion.

I said, "Um, I think it's a balloon." There was an immediate, "Yeah, right. Look how big it is." But then there were some abashed giggles as the observers' perspective changed. The group dispersed as the balloon passed under a cloud, making it obvious what was being seen.

Add the human propensity to "fill in the blanks" and to embellish (consciously or otherwise) after the fact and is there any wonder why "believing my own eyes" is not all it's cracked up to be?