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's

page: 9
44
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: Erno86




I'm only an armchair scientist, and a surveyor with no license...but I've had a lot of time (since my one an only --- double --- Foo Fighter sighting) too speculate about --- how on earth --- alien starships tick.

I would tend to believe that Foo Fighter propulsion is different from Hadron Collider technology --- save for the production of a micro-mini black hole.


It was the black hole that made me ask about it actually. That sort of thing really fascinates me. For being an armchair scientist, you certainly seem to have a pretty detailed idea of the inner workings of such craft. I don't know what all of that stuff means, but it is not the first time I've heard mention of plasma in conjunction with advanced propulsion and I'm trying to wrap my grey matter around it. It's a lot to take in.



You can google: the YouTube video titled - Black Hole Spaceship Propulsion, Black Hole Starships and Erno86 black hole starships.


edit on 17-8-2015 by Erno86 because: typo error




posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

I was just commenting on the fact we do indeed have boom less aircraft or a reduced boom that its inaudible above a fairly low alt. shapping is key.

as for some of those LTA vehicles. i could imagine a bunch of ways they could be relatively quiet. like electric propellers.

btw. this my first time interacting with you. i think its pretty cool that a average joe like me gets to converse with the actual Jim oberg.

edit on 17-8-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: JimOberg

I was just commenting on the fact we do indeed have boom less aircraft or a reduced boom that its inaudible above a fairly low alt. shapping is key.

as for some of those LTA vehicles. i could imagine a bunch of ways they could be relatively quiet. like electric propellers.

btw. this my first time interacting with you. i think its pretty cool that a average joe like me gets to converse with the actual Jim oberg.


Aw, shucks -- that's the way it's supposed to work, and the contribution quality of 'average Joes' on ATS is awesome -- and they not only have vast information and experience to share, they are scrappy enough to stand toe-to-toe with anybody, which makes them true friends despite occasional fundamental disagreements.

The sonic boom issue for the 'giant spaceships' hasn't grabbed my attention because my interpretation involves a stimulus that doesn't make any noise anyhow. I've posted the link to my recent study [based on the 1963 mass sighting in Kiev] several times but nobody has taken up that direction and I'm a guest on another OP's thread so it can go the direction he likes. I happen to think it's a detour to a blind alley but if so that'll be clear soon enough anyway.
edit on 17-8-2015 by JimOberg because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 01:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
a reply to: Wolfenz

The drawings from Kiev are supposed to represent what witnesses reported seeing. Do you want to consider any possible prosaic explanations, or not? Please read my linked report [third time] and comment on its theory.



WHAT ?

it is what it is ,, JIM

I just Simply placed a photo what that drawing reminds me off ,
a Resemblance of a illustrated artistic drawing concept of an earthen
ballistic spacecraft from the the late 1920s on a cover from Pulp
science fiction magazine called Amazing Stories and there is a Strew
of Ballistic space craft from the 1920s and 30s from Pulp Mags.

So its either Art imitates Life or Life Imitates Art..
of what they actually scene or Dreamed up

Your call , i know your Answer though.

there plenty ballistic or cylinder looking objects in the sky

Jeeze Jim
this is from 1898
called Edison's Conquest of Mars originally a series in a news paper aka war of the worlds part II


looks like that Kiev drawing you posted in a way too.


So it either they seen this object. they never seen before for real.

or they read too many pulp mags & science fiction Digests

or the Artist or writer in the 20s seen this type of craft before.

well you have to admit a 1850s book by Jules Verne showing a Capsule Illustrated
has a lot of resemblance of the actual Real Deal Control Module from Apollo

with stages ?





or just maybe a Top Secret Spacecraft from the Soviet Union!
that were playing with perhaps

no alien needed ..


hey a soviet concept


your photo drawing



well?? kinda looks like it

but to me it looks more like a ballistic missile in 1963






edit on 22015TuesdayfAmerica/Chicago8229 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz



So its either Art imitates Life or Life Imitates Art..

False dichotomy.
How about, an artist's imagination creates an impression on that of others?
edit on 8/18/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)




has a lot of resemblance of the actual Real Deal Control Module from Apollo

with stages ?
Except, if you read the story you'll find that is not the case. Verne's spacecraft was a projectile. Bullet shaped with no stages, just a really big gun.

This fictional columbiad is made of cast iron six feet thick, is 900 feet (274 m) long, and has a bore with a diameter of nine feet. It weighs more than 68,000 short tons (61,700 metric tons or 60,700 long tons) and is therefore cast directly in the ground, rather than being mounted on rails. The cannon is then loaded with 400,000 pounds (180,000 kg) of "pyroxyle" (gun cotton) to give the projectile sufficient velocity to leave Earth's atmosphere and reach the Moon.[7]

en.wikipedia.org...

Here's the story, btw.
www.mckinley.k12.hi.us...
edit on 8/18/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wolfenz



So its either Art imitates Life or Life Imitates Art..

False dichotomy.
How about, an artist's imagination creates an impression on that of others?


Yeah that's the Meaning of Life Imitates Art ,

(back and forth) it not always a close perspective tho.


So says NASA to Jules Verne From the Earth to MOON

young boys receives influenced from reading from the earth to the moon

Rocket Scientist Wernher von Braun , Robbert Goddard, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Hermann Oberth

the book became a reality, and very close detailed description too. with a few minors
cannon became rocket! and Texas and Florida was switched roles



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz
I thought you were talking about visual arts, since you were presenting images of imaginary spacecraft.



So says NASA to Jules Verne From the Earth to MOON

young boys receives influenced from reading from the earth to the moon
The idea of space travel, yes. The technology, no. The Apollo missions were not projectiles. It took far more than "a few minors" to get to the Moon. The only thing Von Braun may have gotten from Verne was the idea of space travel.

edit on 8/18/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


I was going by this !

1874 english version ?


Ive read the book years ago.

look like stages in the Art .

not sure what the 4 short cylinder objects are near the Capsule connected with rods are about

a possible idea for Braun! for Stages if he seen the same art cover in germany



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz

The illustration looks more like a train (note the smokestack) and has nothing to do with the text.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 03:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wolfenz
I thought you were talking about visual arts, since you were presenting images of imaginary spacecraft.



So says NASA to Jules Verne From the Earth to MOON

young boys receives influenced from reading from the earth to the moon
The idea of space travel, yes. The technology, no. The Apollo missions were not projectiles. It took far more than "a few minors" to get to the Moon. The only thing Von Braun may have gotten from Verne was the idea of space travel.


ok ok . Phage you made a point


but from the mouth of NASA well. NASA JR ..

JULES VERNE SPACE BOOK GALLERY

FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON
er.jsc.nasa.gov...


The United States would launch the first manned vehicle to go to the moon.

The shape and size of the vehicle would closely resemble the Apollo command/service module spacecraft.

The number of men in the crew would be three.

A competition for the launch site would ensue between Florida and Texas which actually was resolved in Congress in the 1960s with KSC as the Flordia launch site and Houston, Texas as the Mission Control Center.

A telescope would be able to view the progress of the journey. When Apollo 13 exploded, a telescope at Johnson Space Center witnessed the event which happened more than 200,000 miles from Earth.

The Verne spacecraft would use retro-rockets which became a technology assisting Neil Armstrong and his crewmates in their journey to the Moon.

Verne predicted weightlessness although his concept was slightly flawed in thinking it only was experienced at the gravitational midpoint of the journey (when the Moon and Earth gravity balanced).

The first men to journey to the Moon would return to Earth and splash down in the Pacific Ocean just where Apollo 11 splashed down in July of 1969 one hundred and six years after the initial publishing of Jules Verne's FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON.





posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 03:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wolfenz

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wolfenz
I thought you were talking about visual arts, since you were presenting images of imaginary spacecraft.



So says NASA to Jules Verne From the Earth to MOON

young boys receives influenced from reading from the earth to the moon
The idea of space travel, yes. The technology, no. The Apollo missions were not projectiles. It took far more than "a few minors" to get to the Moon. The only thing Von Braun may have gotten from Verne was the idea of space travel.


ok ok . Phage you made a point


but from the mouth of NASA well. NASA JR ..

JULES VERNE SPACE BOOK GALLERY

FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON
er.jsc.nasa.gov...


The United States would launch the first manned vehicle to go to the moon.

The shape and size of the vehicle would closely resemble the Apollo command/service module spacecraft.

The number of men in the crew would be three.

A competition for the launch site would ensue between Florida and Texas which actually was resolved in Congress in the 1960s with KSC as the Flordia launch site and Houston, Texas as the Mission Control Center.

A telescope would be able to view the progress of the journey. When Apollo 13 exploded, a telescope at Johnson Space Center witnessed the event which happened more than 200,000 miles from Earth.

The Verne spacecraft would use retro-rockets which became a technology assisting Neil Armstrong and his crewmates in their journey to the Moon.

Verne predicted weightlessness although his concept was slightly flawed in thinking it only was experienced at the gravitational midpoint of the journey (when the Moon and Earth gravity balanced).

The first men to journey to the Moon would return to Earth and splash down in the Pacific Ocean just where Apollo 11 splashed down in July of 1969 one hundred and six years after the initial publishing of Jules Verne's FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON.






ok back to big UFOS

America needs to discover Antigravity ! so we can have Big UFOS



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz

Yes. Verne was an amazing man.
20,000 Leagues Beneath the Sea got some things right. And many things wrong.
True science fiction, extrapolation of the effects of technology on society.


edit on 8/18/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wolfenz

The illustration looks more like a train (note the smokestack) and has nothing to do with the text.



LOL

Steam Powered Space Craft !

Good Lord it would take 83 days to get tothe moon !

see link and Laughable 46 1/2 years to mars !
www.infomercantile.com...



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
What I had hoped would be worth discussing is some new research of mine on UFO cases over the last half century that indicate that in terms of reports of 'giant UFO motherships', there is one documented type of prosaic visual stimulus that can be PROVEN to generate such perceptions without the need for an actual 'giant craft', as explained here --

www.jamesoberg.com...

Of course it doesn't work in reverse -- all such reports cannot be traced back to that one type of stimulus.

But I claim that this is a'demonstration proof' that the existence of a multiple witness collection of reports of a 'giant spaceship' is not sufficient proof in some cases that such a hardware vehicle actually ever existed. And I think I've proven that.

What do you think?
edit on 18-8-2015 by JimOberg because: typos



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

This is the one an only UFO landing spot that I personally investigated.

You can go deeper on Slideshare with this link:

www.slideshare.net...

Here is an excerpt of the MUFON report:

"page 8"

"#1,024 --- United States, Gatchellville, Pennsylvania, March 8, 1977

Eleven (11) witnesses at various locations reported seeing a 'red ball of fire' moving very slowly at very low level. Duration of sighting was 25 minutes. A ground fire was reported and an area 30x100 feet, was found burnt. In this burnt area, a triangular section was not burnt. The area measured 72"x54"x52"; a" (3/4" diameter x 3/4" deep --- my own measurement) "deep hole was found at each point of the triangle." (Report from John Lutz to CUFOS)

So it had one hole in the center of each of the 3/4" deep (3) triangle landing pod marks.

Gatchellville is a township at Fawn Grove, Pennsylvania








edit on 18-8-2015 by Erno86 because: deleted a sentence

edit on 18-8-2015 by Erno86 because: added some data

edit on 18-8-2015 by Erno86 because: added a sentence

edit on 18-8-2015 by Erno86 because: added a word

edit on 18-8-2015 by Erno86 because: ditto



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Erno86




a reply to: tigertatzen

The one an only UFO landing spot that I personally investigated.

You can go deeper on Slideshare with this link:

www.slideshare.net...

Here is an excerpt of the MUFON report:

"page 8"

"#1,024 --- United States, Gatchellville, Pennsylvania, March 8, 1977

Eleven (11) witnesses at various locations reported seeing a 'red ball of fire' moving very slowly at very low level. Duration of sighting was 25 minutes. A ground fire was reported and an area 30x100 feet, was found burnt. In this burnt area, a triangular section was not burnt. The area measured 72"x54"x52"; a 3/4" diameter x 3/4" deep hole was found at each point of the triangle." (Report from John Lutz to CUFOS)

Gatchellville is a township at Fawn Grove, Pennsylvania




Thank you so much for that. I'll be interested to read the whole report...it's awesome too, when multiple people who don't know each other and are not in the same location at the time of a sighting see the same thing. Harder for it to be just explained away. Just because it's a UFO, it doesn't mean it's from off-world...but the insistence upon trying to convince people that they are imagining things or not seeing something that they know good and well that they actually saw is just as disturbing from the standpoint of it being man-made...even more so, really.

It's one thing to be lied to about alien technology and visitation to this planet; it can be "justified" to a certain point by the desire to avoid mass panic, but lying to people about our own technology, even going so far as to try and make them believe they're hallucinating or insinuating that they are mentally unbalanced or fundamentally lacking intelligence or unable to accurately recognize what they saw with their own eyes (all of which happen routinely on ATS and even right here on this thread), rather than just acknowledging it and telling the truth about it? There is no justification for that, yet here we are, in 2015, still being fed lies and deception...why? If there are giant (or otherwise) UFO's up there, our own people either put them up there, or are complicit in the plans of whoever did. Denying it only makes people more suspicious, so why keep doing it? And round and round and round it goes...



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg




What I had hoped would be worth discussing is some new research of mine on UFO cases over the last half century that indicate that in terms of reports of 'giant UFO motherships', there is one documented type of prosaic visual stimulus that can be PROVEN to generate such perceptions without the need for an actual 'giant craft', as explained here --



I personally don't know about "motherships"...to be honest I'm not even sure what that means...but as far as any craft, giant or otherwise, it is not just visual perception. If you were addressing a group of people who have only seen these things, that would be your perfect target audience for promoting yourself and your research. And I am sure that there are plenty of people out there who fit that description. But those of us who have experienced something beyond simple visual anomalies know better. And truly, it is puzzling why you seem so very insistent upon discussing this particular research. It truly seems very much as if you are trying to convince people that they didn't see what they say they saw, much like the way you tried to reword my sentences to say something other than what I actually meant.

Why would you do something like that? I'm sure you are a very nice person, and it seems that you are quite popular and people know who you are, etc., and that's awesome. But your dogged insistence on this visual stimulus research of yours strikes me as more than a little odd, definitely overdone and, to be perfectly frank, it sounds like a sales pitch. Not in the sense of monetary compensation, to be clear, but in the sense that you seem extraordinarily eager to convince us that we should believe it.

You've got all these people sharing their stories, extrapolating theories, all of these ideas and questions that are more than deserving of further discussion (and hey...the thread hasn't had to be closed for review yet, so that's a phenomenon in and of itself), yet you're casting all of that aside and insisting that your research should be the topic of conversation here, that it proves giant UFO's are a fallacy, based on a visual misconception. My apologies for oversimplifying, I am in a bit of a time crunch, but I just wanted to get that out there.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: charolais
I am puzzled at the amount of energy that would be required to hold a craft that size up in the air.

Now, granted beings from another planet could have entirely different forms of energy and technology, it still amazes me that crafts this size could hover and move throughout our atmosphere.


yes, their technology would probably be anti-gravity, same technology used to build the Great Pyramid and other monoliths with enormous pieces I bet



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Yes! I have seen one of these Giant UFO's, and what I saw covered about 1/3 of the visible sky! I tried to paint a depiction of what I saw, and posted it here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I haven't had time to read all responses here but I did just think "... What if there are tiny UFO's too?".




top topics



 
44
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join