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.
originally posted by: raymundoko
The only evidence that exists, the video. It disagrees with the assumptions in the report. Did you see how fast that skyscraper was going??
a reply to: Jonjonj
originally posted by: Choice777
a reply to: Ectoplasm8
Yes, it's solid. You can't take the crappiest frames and expect to define the object on that. There's video, shoot from a a military grade combat camera.
This thing doesn't allow room for imaginary balloons..the object at times displays a field around it, and at times a shine.
If you interpret that as a hollow object then be my guest and run head first towards a metal door just cause it looks hollow cause it's shiny in the middle.
As a matter of fact i've got perfect vision and perfect color acuity, and my visual cortex is top notch considering i was once at the top of cs1.6 server stats...and that was a decade ago...my vision is absolutely top notch
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Choice777
This is the best ufo footage ever shot.
If I had a dollar for every time I've seen that said...
If this is the best ever you're right, we have a problem.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Jonjonj
From what I've seen of the report, the authors begin with a premise and supply assumptions to support it. Standard fare for UFO "researchers." They "fill in the blanks" an awful lot.
I was unimpressed with the video when it first showed up here and still am.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
No more problem with one than the other. The video shows nothing particularly unusual that I can see and the report relies on the assumption that it does then takes it from there.
So in your opinion the problem we seem to have is more regarding the report than the video?
The claim that the object submerges and then returns to flight. I don't see it.
Apart from the "filling in the blanks" regarding speed, which seems to be the only real object of dispute in my opinion, what other blanks have been filled in your opinion?
If the report is made with the aid or under the supervision of the pilot/camera operator
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Jonjonj
No more problem with one than the other. The video shows nothing particularly unusual that I can see and the report relies on the assumption that it does then takes it from there.
So in your opinion the problem we seem to have is more regarding the report than the video?
The claim that the object submerges and then returns to flight. I don't see it.
Apart from the "filling in the blanks" regarding speed, which seems to be the only real object of dispute in my opinion, what other blanks have been filled in your opinion?