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.

 

Omsk UFO Report Aug 22

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa....
I'd have to say that really weakens your argument that reports of alien contact are often simply mis-identification of rockets and missiles.


I do argue that missile/space activity has caused some UFO reports, with detailed studies on my website, where everybody interested in new research results can go and examine them. Whether they thought they were seeing Stantonian spaceships piloted by critters, or vacuum critters alone, or demons, or time travelers, or leftover lunar Nazis, or secret Bilderburg vehicles, is lost in the details.

The chart I posted here showed that the local Russian media reported the sightings as "UFOs", which over there is pretty synonymous with 'extraterrestrials'.

The missiles of this type are particularly intriguing because they perform a high-altitude level burn that creates a triangular plume about 200 km long that lingers for several minutes in the high sunlight until it dissipates while falling back into the atmosphere. ALSO there is usually a spectacular brief spiral created by the warhead spinup motors, and if you check the list of launchings/times [you know exactly where to find it] you will see they coincide with several collections of eyewitness reports discussed here on ATS. Not just in and around Russia, either -- in June 2012 one of these was seen and imaged throughout the Levant.

I repeat my question to YOU -- do you accept the missile explanation of the December 2009 'Norway Spiral', and if not, why not? I'll be happy to link to any website you have already answered that question at, if you give me the URL.

Thanks for making me make my answers sharper and clearer. I appreciate the practice.




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg




I repeat my question to YOU -- do you accept the missile explanation of the December 2009 'Norway Spiral', and if not, why not? I'll be happy to link to any website you have already answered that question at, if you give me the URL.


I don't blame you for dodging my question, several times now. Or for trying to change the discussion to an unrelated incident.

But let's keep this thread on-topic, please.

The title of this thread is "Omsk UFO report Aug 22". So let's discuss it. I asked you:

Can you show us any evidence, any witness reports, or any interviews with any witnesses, that ANYONE mistook this missile launch for aliens, or any type of alien ship?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: JimOberg








I repeat my question to YOU -- do you accept the missile explanation of the December 2009 'Norway Spiral', and if not, why not? I'll be happy to link to any website you have already answered that question at, if you give me the URL.





I don't blame you for dodging my question, several times now. Or for trying to change the discussion to an unrelated incident.



But let's keep this thread on-topic, please.



The title of this thread is "Omsk UFO report Aug 22". So let's discuss it. I asked you:



Can you show us any evidence, any witness reports, or any interviews with any witnesses, that ANYONE mistook this missile launch for aliens, or any type of alien ship?







Sorry you are having such a problem with reading, I displayed half a dozen Russian press headlines from the incident calling it a 'UFO'. Why doesn't that count as 'a UFO report''?

"Dodging" is a tricky word to use when you're the one who proclaims you will NOT go the linked report that contains exactly the information you demand I deliver to you in a one-on-one tutorial.
edit on 30-8-2015 by JimOberg because: typo



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg




Sorry you are having such a problem with reading, I displayed half a dozen Russian press headlines from the incident calling it a 'UFO'. Why doesn't that count as 'a UFO report''?


For a self-proclaimed "Scholar", it seems that you are the one having difficulty reading.

A "UFO" is simply any unidentified flying object.
Which this was, of course, to any witnesses who didn't know about the missile launch at the time.
So what?

There is no indication that ANY of the witnesses believed this missile was aliens, or an alien ship.
Isn't that correct, Jim?

You have dodged that question three times now, so I will ask again:
Can you provide ANY evidence, any witness statements, any interviews with any witnesses, that show that ANYONE mistook this missile launch for an alien ship? Did ANYONE think it was aliens?

Of course you can't. That's why you've refused to answer.
I'm wise to this game.
You keep trying to convince the more gullible among us that when people report seeing aliens, flying saucers, and alien ships, they're really seeing rockets and missiles.
That's what you hoped for with this thread, but it hasn't worked out well for you.

I've seen you go so far as to take reports from witnesses who reported seeing rectangular windows on a flying disc-shaped craft hovering low over a lake, and "explain" it as a rocket breaking up on re-entry!

Your tactic here is to blur the line, to take reports that clearly describe unconventional, intelligently controlled craft that defy our understanding of propulsion and aeronautics, and lump them in with something as mundane as rocket launches.

You do this by using the intentionally-undefined euphemism "UFO" to suggest they are the same thing.

That's why the Air Force invented the purposely vague term UFO, because they didn't want the public talking about metallic, flying disc-shaped craft with windows and landing gear.

And that tactic has worked pretty well for a long time, but people are getting wise to it. So I'm calling you on it.
So please, show me someone who thought it was aliens, or this thread gets filed under DEBUNK FAIL.



"Dodging" is a tricky word to use when you're the one who proclaims you will NOT go the linked report that contains exactly the information you demand I deliver to you in a one-on-one tutorial.


Hey, you started the conversation here, so finish it here. I wouldn't go to your website in a million years. I'll click on pop-up SPAM ads if I feel the need to be misled.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Scdfa,,,
You keep trying to convince the more gullible among us that when people report seeing aliens, flying saucers, and alien ships, they're really seeing rockets and missiles.


Sorry you misunderstand so grievously. Please stop parading your imaginary version of what you think I think or claim.



I've seen you go so far as to take reports from witnesses who reported seeing rectangular windows on a flying disc-shaped craft hovering low over a lake, and "explain" it as a rocket breaking up on re-entry!


Here, you are right on target. That's the Yukon 1996 mother ship, there's a thread on it, go restart it and I'll meet you there to argue it out.

Here's three sketches from a 1963 mass UFO event over Kiev. Are you willing to bet your reputation that it COULDN'T be a rocket breaking up on reentry, misperceived by three witnesses?


edit on 30-8-2015 by JimOberg because: add image



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Why did you start this thread when you know it's a missile? This is what a number of people have pointed out in the thread. This type of behavior should get your fired from whatever you do.
edit on 30-8-2015 by game over man because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: JimOberg

Why did you start this thread when you know it's a missile? This is what a number of people have pointed out in the thread. This type of behavior should get your fired from whatever you do.


Don't you want to learn to tell the difference between an IFO and a UFO? Shouldn't that be the primary purpose of this forum, rather than as a repository for hoax videos from youtube?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg


Sorry you misunderstand so grievously. Please stop parading your imaginary version of what you think I think or claim.


No misunderstanding, grievous or otherwise. I only have your writing on which to base my conclusion, and from your writing, your agenda is quite transparent.




Are you willing to bet your reputation that it COULDN'T be a rocket breaking up on reentry, misperceived by three witnesses?


I wasn't there, but knowing your reputation, I'd take that bet.
Tell me, what did the three witnesses say when you suggested to them that it was only a rocket and not a ship with windows?
Did even ONE of them think your theory wasn't ridiculous?

Oh, right, you just cooked up an "explanation" and never made any attempt to contact the actual witnesses.

Well, what did the researchers and investigators who took the report say about your "rocket theory"?
Oh, right, you never contacted them either.

Am I correct in that?




edit on 30-8-2015 by Scdfa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: JimOberg

Why did you start this thread when you know it's a missile? This is what a number of people have pointed out in the thread. This type of behavior should get your fired from whatever you do.


Don't you want to learn to tell the difference between an IFO and a UFO? Shouldn't that be the primary purpose of this forum, rather than as a repository for hoax videos from youtube?


It's common sense to identify a flying object because over 95% of the time they can be identified. This forum isn't filled with hoax youtube videos. Especially right now unless you categorize Bob Lazar, the Battle of Los Angeles, and the 1952 DC sighting to be youtube hoaxes.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Pretty much everything flowing on the net from from Russia is either criminal or BS. The bright spot in the sky is what happens when all their phishing sites go active at the same time.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: game over man


It's common sense to identify a flying object because over 95% of the time they can be identified.


Then why are complaining about Jim providing you with a tool that will help you identify future sighting?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: game over man


It's common sense to identify a flying object because over 95% of the time they can be identified.


Then why are complaining about Jim providing you with a tool that will help you identify future sighting?


Because it's a waste of time for some, especially with a misleading thread title since this all a big learning lesson? Give me a break.

We're complaining because Jim is a big advocate for denying the theory of ET visitation.

He should have posted this in the military section of the website and discussed what is actually happening instead of some passive aggressive reverse psychology in the UFO/Aliens forum.

We could have a much more grown up conversation about these missile launches happening in Russia then this cryptic UFO thread. Why are you even arguing this?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: game over man

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: game over man


It's common sense to identify a flying object because over 95% of the time they can be identified.


Then why are complaining about Jim providing you with a tool that will help you identify future sighting?


Because it's a waste of time for some, especially with a misleading thread title since this all a big learning lesson? Give me a break.



The title is accurate, it's about "UFO reports" from Omsk and elsewhere.


We're complaining because Jim is a big advocate for denying the theory of ET visitation.



I have never claimed I could prove, or even believe, that alien visitations are NOT occurring.

What I do believe is that alien visits are not REQUIRED to account for the UFO report phenomena.




He should have posted this in the military section of the website and discussed what is actually happening instead of some passive aggressive reverse psychology in the UFO/Aliens forum.

We could have a much more grown up conversation about these missile launches happening in Russia then this cryptic UFO thread. Why are you even arguing this?


If you don't believe these stimuli have contributed significantly to the body of UFO reports, you need to look at the evidence more closely, and you're NOT going to get it from UFO advocates.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: game over man

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: game over man


It's common sense to identify a flying object because over 95% of the time they can be identified.


Then why are complaining about Jim providing you with a tool that will help you identify future sighting?


Because it's a waste of time for some, especially with a misleading thread title since this all a big learning lesson? Give me a break.



The title is accurate, it's about "UFO reports" from Omsk and elsewhere.


We're complaining because Jim is a big advocate for denying the theory of ET visitation.



I have never claimed I could prove, or even believe, that alien visitations are NOT occurring.

What I do believe is that alien visits are not REQUIRED to account for the UFO report phenomena.




He should have posted this in the military section of the website and discussed what is actually happening instead of some passive aggressive reverse psychology in the UFO/Aliens forum.

We could have a much more grown up conversation about these missile launches happening in Russia then this cryptic UFO thread. Why are you even arguing this?


If you don't believe these stimuli have contributed significantly to the body of UFO reports, you need to look at the evidence more closely, and you're NOT going to get it from UFO advocates.


You just put into writing what the other posters called you out on.

Alien visitations are not required for the UFO phenomenon, why do you phrase things like that because you are a denier? Most if not all UFO encounters are not aliens in flying saucers at all, this is what you preach. So you use this thread as an example to illustrate your point? Why did you do this, and not title the thread correctly? Why not admit to what you did instead of beating around the bush with everyone? Do you think we are stupid? This thread is way off topic and no one on ATS thinks the missile test could be a UFO piloted by grey aliens or multi-dimenional beings.

This thread is more of a waste of time because both your links in your OP are not in english, so we have to go and translate it ourselves?

edit on 30-8-2015 by game over man because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: game over man





He should have posted this in the military section of the website and discussed what is actually happening instead of some passive aggressive reverse psychology in the UFO/Aliens forum.


Of course you're right on the money with that.
Mr. Oberg's body of posts are all I have to go on, and I've read quite a few of them.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Scdfa



Mr. Oberg's body of posts are all I have to go on, and I've read quite a few of them.

He also has a reasonably expansive bibliography.
www.isfdb.org...
edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Scdfa



Mr. Oberg's body of posts are all I have to go on, and I've read quite a few of them.

He also has a reasonably expansive bibliography.
www.isfdb.org...


Yes, expansive. Here's one of his gems on your link:

"Unidentified Fraudulent Object (1976)"

At least he's consistent.
You know, a balloon is expansive, too. If you fill it with hot air.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Scdfa




You know, a balloon is expansive, too. If you fill it with hot air.

Hurr, hurr. Good one.

But you might notice too, that his range goes quite a bit beyond your obsession.


edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

For the record, those pics kinda reminded me of the Norway Spiral.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage




You know, a balloon is expansive, too. If you fill it with hot air.

Hurr, hurr. Good one.


Heh heh. Thanks for admitting I had a good one there.
Maybe you're an alright guy after all, Dr. Lizardo (your avatar).




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join