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.

 

Taking on UFOs, out-of-the-box

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
One thing, that I have to say is, that there is a connection between triangular and saucer shaped craft. I'm basing this on my sighting, because the two were working together. As funny as it might seem (and that's an interesting detail to ponder upon) but the only two objects that we saw that were not nocturnal lights in the distance (meaning, due to their position and alleged distance from our viewpoint) worked together. When I say this I mean - first we noticed the saucer, which was quite close to the ground and pretty close to us. We could see it covering the stars behind and it seemed like changing shape, and if it wasn't for the faint red lights on the rim that we noticed few seconds later, I would still think it was changing shape. But it was merely tumbling/wobbling above the hill and moving side to side very slowly, as if it was scanning. Then we noticed a red point in the sky above it, that was literally moving side to side with it, copying its movement. As if they were in sync or if the upper one was projecting a hologram. Well, they split shortly after, and the red dot started coming down and becoming bigger. It turned out to be the triangle that flew between us and the not so distant town of Troyan, and we could see it as clear as day, although we were in shock and partly due to it, partly due to being already exhausted, we didn't notice much detail about the surface of the triangle, and it flew really close to us, on our altitude or even a bit lower than us just to disappear slowly in the distance, not giving a f--- (in the meantime, the saucer remained in its place, so I guess it wasn't holographic projection from the above craft).

Just a few add-ins, for anyone who's interested.




posted on May, 26 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: beetee
Interesting thread.

I think we need to be careful not to fall into a few traps when discussing, or otherwise engaging with, this whole subject matter.

The first trap to be avoided is to be imprecise with regards to the terminology we use. UFO simply means Unidentified Flying Object. Nothing
more. Thus, denying the existence of unidentified flying objects is silly, because everyone sees them every day. I, to pick a person at random, saw one object flying by today which I could not indentify. I think it was some sort of bug, but there simply was no time to make a proper identification. It could have been anything.

So when someone sees an object which defies identification, for example a giant flying triangle that makes no sound, it will be an UFO to most of us until someone steps forward and states (with incontrovertible evidence of course) that "we made it, and here it is" or "it was me, just watch me go" or similar. Claiming that one has seen an UFO is not in any way "fringe" but it has been made to appear that way by careless use or deliberate misuse of the term. The trick that is used is that the statement "I saw an UFO" is given meaning beyond that which the observer has perhaps claimed. For example it is assumed that the witness is claiming that he saw an extraterrestrial craft. Which, of course, the witness will be hard pressed to prove since the craft is -well unidentified - by his own admission.

The second trap I believe is to treat the whole mass of unidentified flying objects as a single phenomenon, which causes some very wide and unwieldy theories to be crafted to explain all these various observations. To me it seems very unlikely that all the various encounters with unidentified flying objects are expressions of the same phenomenon. It would be a little like trying to lump all "flying" objects on earth into one big family based on this criterion alone, and claiming it is the same creature/machine in all instances, which would result in a pretty novel piece of biology./engineering So unidentified flying objects could very well be both terrestrial, extraterrestrial, extradimensional, extratemporal as well as both technical and biological at the same time. It really is a bit pointless to try to kill my theory on the flying fish of the pacific ocean because you have some pictures of a Boeing 767 which you think show that it is clearly mechanical.

Hope this is not off topic. Just my two (insert currency here) ...


BT


Very good points you make here and in your following posts as well. I fully agree with you.

I really like Jacques Vallee, above all his rigorous research and scientific approach to the phenomenon. But I usually disagree with his conclusions, I find his theory on control and deceit pretty confusing and unnatural.

And I think it is because he is trying to understand all the phenomena happening in the skies as if having the same root and origin, that is, that weird matrix of control and deceit which he always is talking about.

I agree with you and disagree with Vallee. As for the nature of the UAP, they might well be different and totally unrelated phenomena.

I also feel identified with the old-fashioned theory of ETs to explain a part of the UAP phenomena. For a number of reasons.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog
Stop over complicating. From the Germans, using horses to pull their guns (WW2 1940s) to putting a man on the moon was 20 odd years. That's 20 years not eons.
Also stop using Einstien, his explainations are theories only. They are NOT cast in stone. Ok, at the moment they are the best we have, but he might be completely wrong.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ch1n1t0

The argument against ETs hypothesis based on time and distance has always puzzled me.

A Spanish scientist, Beatriz Gato Rivera, has penned the expression "Crown of Creation Syndrome".

When someone advocates the "long distance" argument against the ET hypothesis, he or she is falling voluntarily or involuntarily in this very CCS by applying a standarization of the current human knowledge to a non-human phenomenum.

Our scientific laws are all, by definition, human constructs. We know as much of science as our humanly constructed laws of science let us know, which is much more now than in 1516 and considerably less than in 2516. Not to speak of 22516 or 222516.

The very concepts of "distance", "time" or "visitations" are all human constructions. Imagine that you can move from Portugal to Australia in just a fraction of second, even less than a fraction. Would you call it a "journey", a "visitation"? Would you consider "distance" or "time" relevant factors, or maybe they wouldn't qualify as factors at all?

Would civilizations a million years ahead of us be free of human constructed concepts and human constructed scientific laws?

Moreover, are we fully aware on these debates that sudden stops and sudden right angle turns at unbelievable speeds have been maneuvers frequently documented in UFO related incidents? I mean, are we aware that our very scientific laws have been broken many times by these unknown things appearing in our skies?



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ch1n1t0

Most UFO related phenomena can be explained by modern physics... You just have to dig for the truth and move past classic Newtonian physics. Occam's Razor can still be used to logically expose the truth you just need some simple truths to get you there... Keep looking dude.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: Gothmog
Stop over complicating. From the Germans, using horses to pull their guns (WW2 1940s) to putting a man on the moon was 20 odd years. That's 20 years not eons.
Also stop using Einstien, his explainations are theories only. They are NOT cast in stone. Ok, at the moment they are the best we have, but he might be completely wrong.


First , it is Einstein . Second I agree that there is 2 parts that are questionable in the 21st Century
1) His speed of light maximum speed limit
2) Time dilation. Einstein was "stuck" on a certain part of the equation . Took him , I think , 4 years to "plug something in" to apparently make it work
Did I mention anything about WW2 ? errrr, no,
The part about each question as being "exponentially harder to answer" is correct.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ch1n1t0

Very interesting sighting.

When trying to sort out potential categories of ufo phenomena, I believe that shape is not something that is particularly useful whan sorting one kind of phenomenon from another. When dealing with technology, shape is very often (as you would know being an engineer) determined by function. Sometimes it is also determined by stylistic choice, rather than utility, as anyone that has witnessed fashion garnments can testify.

It therefor becomes problematic to say that triangles are this and discs are that, and so forth, which your sighting would to a degree support - given that the two "objects" worked together as per your impression.

Now what might be an interesting criterion for categorization would be machines/vessels versus other kinds of phenomenon. Here we will be severely limited by our current understanding of what a machine should be of course. But as there seem to be quite a few sightings which the observers very much feel they see some kind of craft in operation, this category might have som merit. I am curious as to your thoughts about what you saw. Do you think it was two machines/craft or do you feel it was something else?

If there was say a sighting in which some kind of entity seemed to be inside a "craft" of some sort, this would be a good category of ufo to treat as one subject for further study perhaps.

Now there are some ufo phenomena which does not give the impression of being "craft" in our mechanical sense of the word. I have read several in which the "craft" suddenly changes from seemingly being a vessel of some sort into - well something much more weird. Either seeming to be a living organism or some sort of energy. There are also the ufos that seems to have no mass or form, but rather seems to be balls of energy. The much discussed foo-fighters of WWII might be a good candiate for this kind of ufo.

While this might point to these kind of phenomena being something other than craft/machines, we must also perhaps take into account that our understanding of what technology is - and what a machine should be like - is limited to our own experience of these terms. There is also the possibility that some technologies we do not posess ourselves might interfer with our senses - even our brains - making our observations unreliable. For instance any kind of optical cloaking capability coupled with some kind of holographic projection could make any machine seem to do any number of things. Like melting into a blob, disappearing in the blink of an eye (while actually sitting quite still), turn into a helicopter - or an elephant for that matter. Some witnesses have described a feeling of being "watched" by the "craft" itself, which is not something that our machines currently do (if you discount watching by proxy). This could very well be something that an advanced artificial intelligence would be capable of, however, or it could be that it is just not possible to distinguish between being watched by something inside the craft and the craft itself. Or it could be that some by-product of the technology of the craft causes these kind of feelings in the observer. It has been observed, as has been remarked elsewhere in this thread I believe, that electromagnetical fields can do things to the human brain.

I find it interesting that the two "craft" you saw mimicked the movements of one another, which I admit seems to be a very organic / biological kind of behaviour. You would perhaps expect this with animals, but not so much with the technology we deploy ourself. Although it does happen, even with aircraft. Seems very "primitive" in a way. I have this space faring triangle that can do mind bending feats, a marvel of engineering, and I need to move it about so that my equally advanced drone will perform what I want it to. Or to communicate with it. Seems odd. Would make more sense as a threat display perhaps, a sort of "warning shot" from one vessel not in communication with the other. Or one blob of intelligent whatsit to another.

I think it is fairly obvious that these craft, if that is what they are, do not particularly care if we see them or not. It seems they do their thing regardless, and what can we do about it anyway. I can't resist the anology of some of these isolated tribes that we know still exist in some remote places on planet earth. What is it they think they see when the FUNAI planes flies overhead looking to see if they are still there and that the illegal loggers aren't chopping down too much of the forest? Or the sentinelese which regularly fire arrows at both helicopters and fishing boats? Sometimes I get a gnawing feeling that we're just like one of these isolated tribes, pointing at the weird things in the sky, and firing our arrows. And if that should be the case it is only to be hoped that it is not the illegal loggers and drug runners of the universe that have the upper hand in the situation, but that those who would rather we be left alone to our devices manages to keep the mischief to a minimum.

I think it is safe to assume, whaterver the case might be, that if the extraterrestrial hypothesis has any merit, this is definitely a very remote backwater. And whomever swings by it probably isn't the great wossname ambassador from whatsit, but rather some analogue of what plagues places like the amazon forest. Not a cheering prospect.

Now go ahead and shoot holes in this construct of mine, I don't mind :-)
I could use some fresh air here in this damp forest.

BT
edit on 27-5-2016 by beetee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: valleean

In regards to time, I don't think we will reach a point where it disappears or stops making sense or being important. Let me explain - same is what we see with size and our understandings about it. We saw the world as molecules, built of atoms, at the beginning of modern day science. Now we seem to be breaking these into smaller particles. I'm safe to assume that we will break up these into smaller ones yet again. Same occurs with distance and larger objects in space and space mechanics (of course, I don't mean that we crash planets together haha). Who's to say that we won't see the same happen with time. Break it up into smaller and smaller pieces (theoretically, by speeding ourselves up or slowing ourselves down) but fail to reach a point of understanding where we can make time go backwards. We'd really have to hack the way the Universe works, name it as you will. See, time is just as modular as matter seems to be, given the circumstances, as presented by quantum physics. But time won't disappear, is what I'm guessing. And there will be certain thresholds, I'm guessing too.

Also, please, weigh in the odds of us making it for as long as it's needed to understand what's there to understand. I also, doubt that it's a process with an end.

With all that said, I'll throw something in that is obviously mandatory to be mentioned, in regards to the issue I have with "time" - when you look up to the stars, you're looking at the different layers of the past, every flicker of every star that you see has happened millions and billions of years ago. We humans have been here for lets say 100k years and we might not be around for too long, with the rapid risks that the ever-expanding science presents to us (incrementally growing with the growth of our understandings).

When you say that science doesn't yet know everything, yes, I agree, but you still have to look at what's obvious, in regards to what science has found and taught us so far. It is belittling to so many people's lifetime works. I know that science has its own flaws, of course. And I too guess that we might be building on top of some questionable basic concepts, but there are the obvious ones, too, upon which we can easily draw conclusions and not easily wave a hand, saying we know close to nothing, therefore, we can't explain everything to a 100%. It's the thirst for knowledge and answers that's been driving us forward. Again, don't get me wrong, I'm quite certain we're close to a huge change of the way science works. But I think that huge change in paradigm won't necessarily be a change in the way we write and calculate our physic's laws, rather than the reason they're there. And I think we will accomplish that by finally looking at the patterns, and not the result.

In regards to Vallee's stance, one that I don't necessarily abide to, he comes to these conclusions by taking in mind pre-nuclear age sightings and experiences. Before we get to reaching for conclusions like his, we'd first have to be sure that these really took place. And I'm yet to read a few books on that, that I've recently noticed being thrown around here and see how compelling the evidence in those is. So it's something I haven't yet made up my mind on (which can be good). What I agree on Vallee, he's on the right train of thought - he's asking different questions, he's working outside of the box, he's taking into account things that we've been a bit blind to look into, while asking "who's that".

Of course, without having read these books with a list of pre-nuclear age era accounts, besides drawings and a few famous cases, which we all know about (thanks to fellow ATS members), I really can't say if these were all that rare, or the opposite. So I think you have a point there, about Vallee's conclusions. But I still have a lot of reading to catch up to.

Hudsonhawk (where's the mo?
) - I know, exactly. And exactly why I think it's a local phenom.

Some of you might be aware of this, but UFOs in the past seem to have made sounds more often than not. Nowadays, they don't. So it's not only us that's developing, it's the phenom.
edit on 27-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: beetee

Not going to shoot anything down, rather than add to your thoughts, hope this works for your need for refreshment


With your thoughts of the isolated tribes in mind (and a very good example), I'd like to ask a few questions:

- What part of Earth is covered with water and how much do we actually know about it?
- Why do many UFOs suck-up water?
- What about USOs?

I do believe it's quite possible that Columbus saw the classic UFOs on his voyage.

I tend to look at humankind as the retarded neighbor's kid in the story that from out of nowhere, decided it's a good idea to split the atom. And I have pride for being a human and for us getting this far, although I dislike it just as much. Humanity's older and humble, technologically advanced brother would explain a lot of Vallee's views btw. As well as many stories of gods and mythology, if we are to mix these up in one place.

Oh, and about me being an engineer - I deal with only a small part of the frequency spectrum (sound), I don't understand the mechanics further up perfectly, although I understand the concept (as it's governed by common parameters over the spectrum) fairly well and can apply it to a large extent in regards to my understanding of the world.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Just had to add the observation that this thread seems to be quite the magnet for massive, wall of text posts, mine included...


BT

Edit to add: I'll get back to you with another lengthy reply shortly.. Just need to get some feeling back in my fingers first after that last mammoth...
edit on 27-5-2016 by beetee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: beetee

Before that, a brief answer on another question from your previous post - it doesn't matter what I feel it was, whether it was the objects or the occupants, who were observing us. I mean, back then I was a young mind, taken up by all kinds of possibilities - even 2012 and the sort. At the time of the sighting I was thinking we were seeing darn little green man and was going through the whole spectrum of emotions, to be able to, at times, focus and look for logic and try to build up as much observation as possible. And I really got involved into the field afterwards. The good thing the followed is I stopped being childishly stupid and naive, I grew up philosophically and mentally. Bad thing is, now I know that it's really hard to KNOW anything hah.

So in other words, my judgement and feelings were clouded due to the stress and I wouldn't dare say if I felt one way or another, in regards to the craft.
I can say that I was terrified mostly, while my friend was irritatingly uninterested at some point, and even plain ol' tired. Which was a bit strange, too.

I think they knew we were there. Quite possibly, they were there during the day, as there was an incredibly thick fog (same as when the morning came and our sighting ended) throughout daytime which was not normal at all for an August day that had no clouds overcast. They seemingly knew we were there and not cared until we flashed our flashlight towards the closest object sometime around 1-2 AM - the seemingly saucer shaped one. Which stopped in its tracks for a couple of minutes afterwards. Then, a bright light appeared some height above us (really hard to tell how high it was), it stayed stationary for the whole rest of the evening, was a few times brighter than all other nocturnal lights flying around. We caught it on photo, this one, and is the only object that appeared on a photo. I'm guessing if we had time to react for the triangle, we would have caught it as well and that would've been nice.
edit on 27-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   
See, I said brief hahaha... For this thread's standards



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed
Agree on Einstein, some time ago I watched a docu that talked about Newton, Einstein, Hawkins etc. and mentioned the fact that all the greatest scientists in the world have postulated numerous theories and when one hits the jackpot they are considered geniuses....
If you immerse yourself in the alternative theories of gravity you may come up with a view very different from established science and may think that mass is not gravity.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
1) there is no "inter-dimensional " beings. The 11 dimensions are just to locate a point in the space/time of the multiverse. Everything exists at once in all 11.
2) I believed in aliens and the relation to UFOs . Up to a while back. I asked myself why would a race(or races) of super-mega-intellect want to cross a gazillion miles of space to visit this dust speck called Earth. There was absolutely no logical answer for that.


I'd imagine that they would be using portals, gateways or somekind of instantaneous transportation between space. The reasons may vast and wide. It may just be curiousity. It may have something to do with the spiritual nature of humankind. We may be an experiment. It may be something that no human of us have thought of.

I think it's purely out of human ego that we pretend our logic and intellect can think of, or comprehend, every reason why another race would interfer with us.

For example, we think of space travel, alien races and higher technology based on our current understanding of existance. As our tech and science grows, our sc-fi books and movies change.

Extraterrestrials that are centuries beyond us probably have tech that would seem absurd in a modern sci-fi movie. Their knowledge, society and ways of thinking would likely be completly differnt.

So, how can we pretend to put our feet in a higher civilization's shoes?



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: blueman12

This all sounds good, and I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying it's unlikely. Please, refer to my previous posts about size/time. Many people pretend to have an open mind (not saying it towards you), yet seem to completely disregard 1 - size of the observable Universe, 2 - time (not length of travel to Earth but age/era - we're talking about billions of years when it comes to the Cosmos), 3 - the fact we haven't heard from ET so far doesn't mean it's not there, but it most certainly means something - ET isn't all over the place and ALL OVER THE TIME. I not only perceive the Universe to be carrying the components of life (recent studies suggest that about comets) in many places, but I perceive it as being alive, on its own, it's just our understanding is a bit off-axis, when it comes to life, and still abide what ancient Greeks stated about living and dead matter. Anyhow, whole different topic. The fact that the components are all over the place, obviously, mean that life might occur more often than originally thought, but then again, people seem to be a whole lot egocentric - we forget that we've been here merely a fraction of a second in cosmic time, yet, we seem like running on a blade already.

And there was all the time in the Cosmos for life as we call it to evolve and then die out many times in many places. And judging by the cosmic silence, it won't be as easy to find surface life similar to Earth's from a distance. Funny thing is, if we were to detect intelligent signals from some star, lets say 5000 light years away. Just to realize we're looking at an alien civilization but 5000 years in the past. And it turns out it's already gone by the current moment (something we will know 5000 years later).

EDIT TO ADD - to cover the fact you mentioned some sort of wormholes, etc, that don't require time or resources to travel - this is highly speculative, but nevertheless, possible to some extent. However, time and size still remain an issue, for even locating life in the Cosmos. Many people say by default "We can't know how they might be capable of detecting life from distance to send probes there". And once again. I don't see a need for a connection here between these speculations and UFOs. And just because in '47 the military had a really good reason to say it was an alien craft, before changing it to a meteorological balloon. Of course, prior to that, the human imagination was in the works in such a direction, either way. And thus, given the social engineering minds not one or two ideas.
edit on 27-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: GothmogStop being pedantic as to how I spell anything, read the material.
The WW2 reference was not stated for you to say you did not mention WW2. It was an allegory to your assumtion that technology takes hundreds if not thousands of years from your cave man to man on the moon reference.
The statement was used to show you that technology can and does move in leaps and bounds by people not being stuck in the prevailing thinking (like believing everything that einstein uttered) like the Wright brothers. Before them it was postulated man can never fly an heavier than air machine, but from one week of no flight to the next week flying. The reference to WW2 was that the technology came from it from the Germans who were pulling their guns with horses to Werner Von Braun and his rocket technology and from there to putting a man on the moon was30 odd years, not hundreds of years.
Quite as easily someone could have a eureka moment ,as you call it, tomorrow with a completely out of the box travel or energy idea and we could be sitting on Mars within two years not hundreds. That's innovation not natural progression.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed

To put my perspective on technology leaps - the fact that people decided to basically explode enough TNT below a rocket and expect to shoot it out into space (cause that's what conventional spacecraft do) isn't all that novel, imo. What's novel is the people who have done the math to make this rocket return. With that said, I do agree to a point with the notion of leaps being a part of our species' evolution, but I can think of just a few examples of grand leaps. Like the acceptance of the roundness of Earth and its revolving around the Sun, fire, discovery of the wheel, applicable electricity, electromagnetics, flight. Only two of these totally discredit the previously accepted paradigm (that Earth is flat, and that fire is evil and has no use. Also, I'm not entirely sure that people thought flight is a ridiculous idea before it was invented.), the rest are mostly revelations that provided us with further capacity, which logically introduced us to the possibilities of the next leaps. So in other words, these leaps are bound to happen, but are more like keyframes on an incrementally growing graph, either way.

In other words, you're right to a point, your example is bad, though (simply because there were tanks and pretty decent air craft in WW2, not just some horses pulling guns).

A wholly different thing is the fact that these leaps occur more and more often with our own advancement (feedback loop
)
edit on 27-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: crayzeed




assumption that technology takes hundreds if not thousands of years from your cave man to man on the moon reference.

It however did . And it is current thinking that natural progression rules discovery. Yes there can be short bursts , but as sated , the questions get progressively harder to answer.
The "portals" you speak of (and I hope you are speaking in terms of space/time in the universe and not dimensions) would be even more progressed than the speed of light . Theoretically speaking , you would have to create a self sustaining black hole. Then you would have to "spin it up" to the speed of light. Know how much energy that would take ?

edit on 5/27/16 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ch1n1t0

Forgot to mention the greatest technological leap of all time - the invention of the toilet seat.


edit on 27-5-2016 by ch1n1t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: ch1n1t0

Just on the time issue - there are numerous contact reports where individuals have been "abducted" for several days, even weeks (there are a few that involve decades), mostly unverifiable in terms of absolute proof on an individual basis but taken as a whole evidence of a recurring theme.

The amount of time that has passed for the subject has been considerably less than that of the observer, reputedly evidenced by the subjects physical appearance.

If taken at face value is this explainable through relativity (thereby accepting a physical ET explanation - and travel at or even faster than light speed) or that there are aspects of time not understood and able to be manipulated ?



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join