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.

 

Giant UFO over Kibbutz Hatzor Isreal (1996)

page: 3
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Bloodydagger
But there are more possibilities, perhaps it was oddly lit (for whatever reason) only on 2 nights. Perhaps it was a building that looked weird and someone wanted to film it and pull a prank. I mean of the alleged 60 witnesses we cant confirm any of them...

And then of course if it's a holographic test for the digital temple (technology for which has existed since at least the 70s), it would be a synthesis of both hypotheses - a simple illuminated building, which people werent used to seeing, perhaps even projected in the sky!

This of course has the basis in reality, from the link I posted.




posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Ridhya

Good points. I'd buy almost anything but the simple "building" theory on this. Ive heard people say that perhaps its an optical illusion playing tricks on the crowd seeing it. Well, Ive never had a house or a building optically trick me when outside at night. I go outside a lot at night and I don't mistake neighbors houses or the buildings across the street or up the hill nearby as some craft in the sky. In fact, I know who lives in all of these dwellings. So that explanation is kind of "meh" to me. Besides, even if it was playing tricks on some of the crowd, I have high doubts it was for the WHOLE crowd. Someone would have pointed it out.

The only way its a building, is if its a mass hoax by everyone involved. Which is possible I guess.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Maybe the reason that they only seen it for 2 nights is because the lights in said "house" were turned off after 2 nights. Seems plausible.

Also, maybe this crowd that were there were'nt locals and they had to leave after a couple of nights. Therefore they wouldnt have known that it was indeed a house up on a hill.

Whats needed is video of the same spot in daylight.
edit on 27/12/14 by SecretKnowledge because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
This UFO...
I think that's jumping to conclusions to call it a UFO, since it's not obvious that it's flying. The F in UFO stands for "flying". "Unidentified object" seems more appropriate if we can't confirm it's flying.


Could this be mistaken identity of some sort? Perhaps its filming a Caravan or something on top of a hillside close by?
Well if it's "unidentified" then it can't be "misidentified".


originally posted by: Ridhya
a reply to: Bloodydagger
But there are more possibilities, perhaps it was oddly lit (for whatever reason) only on 2 nights. Perhaps it was a building that looked weird and someone wanted to film it and pull a prank. I mean of the alleged 60 witnesses we cant confirm any of them...
All good points.


originally posted by: SecretKnowledge
Maybe the reason that they only seen it for 2 nights is because the lights in said "house" were turned off after 2 nights. Seems plausible.

Also, maybe this crowd that were there were'nt locals and they had to leave after a couple of nights. Therefore they wouldnt have known that it was indeed a house up on a hill.

Whats needed is video of the same spot in daylight.
Starred. Yes, a real UFO investigator would want to see this and would want to interview the other witnesses and see if any of them had photography from different angles, etc.

It kind of reminds me of the guy who videoed what were apparently yachts and called them "UFOs". I'm not saying this is a yacht, just that it's an unidentified object which could easily not be flying at all from what we can tell in the video.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well many videos call it a "UFO". Was just going by what I read.....lol

edit on 27-12-2014 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: SecretKnowledge

So its plausible that the lights were only turned on for two nights in the houses entire existence?



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Bloodydagger
Is it plausible that this "flying island" which is not really flying can be seen for only 2 days?

www.caelestia.be...


Yes. Unusual conditions can and do occur, and by their very nature, they are unusual.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yeah, but we are talking about something very mundane and common in house lights............



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Bloodydagger
Are you claiming it's possible to see a reflection of an island, but not of house lights?



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

No, what im saying is, if that was house lights they were seeing, someone would have pointed it out because its something familiar to them (aka something they have seen a thousand times before)

And I don't buy the fact that it was only "lit up" for two nights in its entire existence either.

I don't walk outside at night and mistake my neighbors houses for a craft in the night sky. Never have, never will.

To say that its a building pretty much says that everyone in that village is retarded and cannot comprehend the fact that they are looking at something that they have seen many many MANY times before.........

Unless they are all in on it being a hoax....which is the only way I'll buy the "building" theory.
edit on 27-12-2014 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Bloodydagger

This is a very interesting UFO video to say the least. Is it odd that when I saw this thing, the first thing that came to my mind was how similar the structure of this thing looks to some of the stones from Puma Punku?




posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Emerys
a reply to: Bloodydagger

This is a very interesting UFO video to say the least. Is it odd that when I saw this thing, the first thing that came to my mind was how similar the structure of this thing looks to some of the stones from Puma Punku?




Sorry for the late reply! But yeah, nice find! It does look similar!



posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: stirling
I think inertialess drive means shape is no longer as important to design......
You could make anything fly if you could come yup with such a thing....
The craft, or whatever I saw made a 170 degree turn while accelerating to an impossible speed in a split second....
Such manouvers demand such a drive......
Imagine the monstrous creations one could make fly if it were in our grasp.....


Where was this ? When ? Do you have a topic about it ?



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Bloodydagger

Thanks for the info



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join