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.

 

UFO reported by workers on Off Shore Oil Rig Supply Vessel in the Gulf of Mexico 21 March, 2017

page: 12
125
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I would go with the position given by the original source, a mariner on a ship. He's probably quite certain of his position.

We all know how repeated information can change.





posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Groot

Yeah, no excuse today everyone ae with a phone has a pretty decent camera.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: face23785




We're talking about a much simpler concept: people on shore (very close to sea level) supposedly being able to see something that's also very close to sea level (40 feet above the water) at a distance of 80 miles. It would be mathematically impossible. The curve of the earth would prevent it. 


I'm sorry...I should have clarified earlier that the reports I skimmed over were of the object in the air, not actually coming up out of the water. They saw it take off. I don't know where the sightings were as far as distance in miles but one report said the witness could see the vessels out there from his or her perspective. I can say for certain that people I personally know heard a loud booming sound as far away as Biloxi, and it was different from a sonic boom...more like thunder. Well, there was a witness report of hearing the boom too and if I'm not mistaken, that person was in the New Orleans vicinity.


It's all good, we're all just trying to clarify the details here. If the 80 miles SE of NO is accurate I have to acknowledge it's a possibility people on shore could have seen it, depending on where they were. It's nice to participate in a discussion where some back and forth can occur without degenerating into petty insults, like another recent thread I was in.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Brainiac
a reply to: Groot

Yeah, no excuse today everyone ae with a phone has a pretty decent camera.


This has literally been explained about 15 times. Please read the thread.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: face23785




We're talking about a much simpler concept: people on shore (very close to sea level) supposedly being able to see something that's also very close to sea level (40 feet above the water) at a distance of 80 miles. It would be mathematically impossible. The curve of the earth would prevent it. 


I'm sorry...I should have clarified earlier that the reports I skimmed over were of the object in the air, not actually coming up out of the water. They saw it take off. I don't know where the sightings were as far as distance in miles but one report said the witness could see the vessels out there from his or her perspective. I can say for certain that people I personally know heard a loud booming sound as far away as Biloxi, and it was different from a sonic boom...more like thunder. Well, there was a witness report of hearing the boom too and if I'm not mistaken, that person was in the New Orleans vicinity.


It's all good, we're all just trying to clarify the details here. If the 80 miles SE of NO is accurate I have to acknowledge it's a possibility people on shore could have seen it, depending on where they were. It's nice to participate in a discussion where some back and forth can occur without degenerating into petty insults, like another recent thread I was in.


Thank you. I wasn't sure if that would have mattered with regard to distance or not...viewing it in the air rather than just above the water. Math is mostly incomprehensible to me so I wasn't sure. I agree about the thread...this is a very welcome change.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: face23785




We're talking about a much simpler concept: people on shore (very close to sea level) supposedly being able to see something that's also very close to sea level (40 feet above the water) at a distance of 80 miles. It would be mathematically impossible. The curve of the earth would prevent it. 


I'm sorry...I should have clarified earlier that the reports I skimmed over were of the object in the air, not actually coming up out of the water. They saw it take off. I don't know where the sightings were as far as distance in miles but one report said the witness could see the vessels out there from his or her perspective. I can say for certain that people I personally know heard a loud booming sound as far away as Biloxi, and it was different from a sonic boom...more like thunder. Well, there was a witness report of hearing the boom too and if I'm not mistaken, that person was in the New Orleans vicinity.


It's all good, we're all just trying to clarify the details here. If the 80 miles SE of NO is accurate I have to acknowledge it's a possibility people on shore could have seen it, depending on where they were. It's nice to participate in a discussion where some back and forth can occur without degenerating into petty insults, like another recent thread I was in.


Thank you. I wasn't sure if that would have mattered with regard to distance or not...viewing it in the air rather than just above the water. Math is mostly incomprehensible to me so I wasn't sure. I agree about the thread...this is a very welcome change.


Well yes, the higher something is above sea level, the further away you can see it. This is why for example, with a distant city skyline with no other objects or terrain in the way, you may be able to see the tops of buildings but not street level. If you move closer, street level will eventually become viewable. If you move further away, the buildings will eventually be below the horizon. The reverse works as well. If you are at street level at the edge of a city like Chicago that faces a lake, and then you go up in a tall building, you will be able to see further.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

Your not alone in the science/spirituality convergence thinking, me too. They look pretty much the same.

ETs or whatevers can be measured by their effects upon us, their actions. If my neighbours scientifically vivisected andexperimented on my children, got my daughters and wife pregnant, buzzed my chickens with drones, and gave my dog missing time episodes, well, if the authorities did nothing about it, I would buy a gun and shoot them. Same with ETs. Criminal behaviour.

In this case of the sighting, and using the captain and crew as a target, I can't pick up anything "conscious" or "organic" or indeed familiar about the object of the sighting, so a mechanical drone would be my guess. Fuel-less, no shielding I can pick up. If indeed the sighting was a definite phenomenon external to the witnesses, then I would call it a MAP (Magnetic Aeriel Phenomenon).

We get MAPs down in the south of Western Australia, but one can pick up life in those, usually three, plus simple organic machinery within the MAP.

One odd thing about this thread, I received a non-physical "hostile visitation" last night after posting.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: face23785




We're talking about a much simpler concept: people on shore (very close to sea level) supposedly being able to see something that's also very close to sea level (40 feet above the water) at a distance of 80 miles. It would be mathematically impossible. The curve of the earth would prevent it. 


I'm sorry...I should have clarified earlier that the reports I skimmed over were of the object in the air, not actually coming up out of the water. They saw it take off. I don't know where the sightings were as far as distance in miles but one report said the witness could see the vessels out there from his or her perspective. I can say for certain that people I personally know heard a loud booming sound as far away as Biloxi, and it was different from a sonic boom...more like thunder. Well, there was a witness report of hearing the boom too and if I'm not mistaken, that person was in the New Orleans vicinity.


It's all good, we're all just trying to clarify the details here. If the 80 miles SE of NO is accurate I have to acknowledge it's a possibility people on shore could have seen it, depending on where they were. It's nice to participate in a discussion where some back and forth can occur without degenerating into petty insults, like another recent thread I was in.


Thank you. I wasn't sure if that would have mattered with regard to distance or not...viewing it in the air rather than just above the water. Math is mostly incomprehensible to me so I wasn't sure. I agree about the thread...this is a very welcome change.


Well yes, the higher something is above sea level, the further away you can see it. This is why for example, with a distant city skyline with no other objects or terrain in the way, you may be able to see the tops of buildings but not street level. If you move closer, street level will eventually become viewable. If you move further away, the buildings will eventually be below the horizon. The reverse works as well. If you are at street level at the edge of a city like Chicago that faces a lake, and then you go up in a tall building, you will be able to see further.


Ah...I did not know that. I've learned something new, thank you! I see things all the time in the sky and it's so hard to gauge size or distance of what I'm looking at. I find it very confusing.

Like where the report says the object was 1/4 mile from their position...well that sounds like it would be too far away for them to have seen it in any detail. But looking that distance in the open water would probably be quite different than say, me looking 1/4 mile away down a city street or something.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: csimon




The OP link story says sighting took place 80 miles SE of New Orleans and the video above says 80 miles SW or New Orleans. Just an observation, there is quite a bit of difference in the two locations. The second location is most definitely shallow shelf as opposed to a deep water possibility originally stated in the link.


Just a thought: was one sighting a B2 and the other sighting a UFO? Then it could be a case of the military "shadowing" the UFO. Either as an escort or perhaps hunting the UFO.

Do those B2 contraptions carry air to underwater missiles?

Maybe someone's oil rigs are too close to someone else's deep water home. The "Abbyss" movie plot comes to mind. Someone (USA gov?) might owe some ETs a sincere apology. . . .



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Do you mean a drone in the sense that it's unmanned? Because that's one hell of a whopping drone if it was five times the size of the supply vessel. And if it's not an occupied craft, what would its purpose be? Regardless of whether it's ours or not, what would the purpose be for such an enormous drone?



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I would be good to know more about the area in question. Gauging from a map, isn't a very long way off shore. I would think there has been oil activity there for many decades.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: tigertatzen

If there are non terrestrial craft in the Earth's oceans, I have to believe the US Navy knows "of" them. That is a big part of what the navy does, knowing what is out there and where.

Of course, it is possible they might be very quiet and hard to track.


I'd find that difficult to believe honestly. Both because they could probably easily evade radar (and sonar), but more so because the ocean is.. well, flipping huge. Which may be why they'd hide there in the first place. We aren't close to having been every place under the ocean. 139 million square miles.. not seeing anyone cover that area easily.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

I would think the navy would have encounters something at least a time or two. Submarines have been sailing a long time.

Now about cover up, 100% there.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

Well, it is difficult to be sure of anything 100% especially when snooping clairvoyantly. If one can't find "life" one must think of alternatives like "unmanned", "Radio-Controlled", "Drone", etc.. At least untill a new concept arises.

But really this is a case where one begins with the assumption that an object was there, that it did happen and then focus on a target. The captain of the vessel has a name, one begins there. Look for an event like the description of the sighting. A "black shape in darkness". Bingo! Now technically speaking, that may have been a past experience that fits the description, no matter, let's trust it is the object in question. Why not? It is not national security, well maybe it is . . . But one can't take things too seriously, especially oneself.

Another problematic factor with clairvoyant snooping is that one is looking for familiar patterns, feeling for emotions, tasting what you find, some things leave a taste in your mouth, especially metals and organic life. Once you have smelt something you recognise it instantly, taste and smell are very accurate senses, better then eyes and ears.

Purpose? Only the owners would know that. I would suggest unmanned equals no one gets hurt or captured if things go wrong. So caution? Big can mean empty too. I am sure a big aeroplane can be piloted or remote controlled these days.

Footnote on clairvotance: If one uses one's whole body to perceive and not just a third eye, vision or hearing, it is harder to be fooled by the experience. The downside is you can get hurt, injured or worse if you get into a fight at the time. You also need to know how to hurt them in return.


edit on 28-3-2017 by Whatsthisthen because: added footnote



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Ok, so in the sense of it being not under manual control...when I hear "drone", a craft the size of the object in question isn't the first image that springs to mind, lol.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

Sorry, my poor choice of words.

Snooping further takes one into a fairly gut wrenching place that suggests a one sided, three way relationship of sentiences.

If you want to know, I can describe.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Springer


Oval Shape the Article Says
close too 1,000 feet

Meanwhile Back in the 1940s in Science Fiction Pulp Mags

there was a Back cover in Amazing Stories

Talking about a USO!


November, 1947, back-cover illustration of Amazing Stories magazine



The Mystery of
THE BALL OF FIRE

By
Pete Bogg
ON NOVEMBER twelfth, 1887, a British steamer, the Siberian, was proceeding at moderate speed past Cape Race. Suddenly the crew was startled to observe an enormous ball of flame rise from the sea, and float into the air. It moved against the wind, proceeding toward the Siberian, as though a contact were inevitable, to the horror of all aboard. But at the last moment it moved away, and within five minutes was lost from sight.

What was this fantastic thing? How could a ball of fire come up out of the sea? How could flame move against the wind? Was it flame? Was it perhaps something radioactive? We may never know what it really was, but we do know that it really happened!

If you care to scan the record, here is a bibliography: Nature, 37-187; the Meteorological Journal, 6-443; Thunder and Lightning, p. 68; L'Astronomie,1887, p. 76; The Books of Charles Fort. All competent sources.

It is impossible, but it is true!

www.saturdaynightuforia.com...


edit on 32017WednesdayfAmerica/Chicago387 by Wolfenz because: change date


UFO Foo Fighters



Hey Springer

Check my Thread if you want to see more interesting UFOS in Pulp mags
from the 1920s 30s and 40s

Ufos & Foo Fighters in Pulp Mags before 1950s
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 32017WednesdayfAmerica/Chicago387 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Describe away...it's very fascinating to me. I've been checking to see if anything else has come popping out to say hello that might match the description of this thing but nothing so far.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

Warning: disturbing content!

First point is that the target is not an easy one to zero into. There is an element of trust in the reporter of the sighting. If we go with that, there is a dark shape.

So, looking into the dark shape, we enter an undefined enclosure. It is degrees of black with a grey light in the distance.

There also, sloped, almond shaped shiny black eyes starring at you close up. You start to fall asleep on the spot. There is a very reassuring voice devoid of kindness speaking in English. That is an attack, so skewer him between the eyes in his subtle anatomy towards base of skull. More come, same thing. Eventually they stop comming.

Look about,the atmosphere is very yellow, aetheric glow? below the floor is a big pile human body parts, limbs, etc..The nervous system is still working. Feel for consciousness in amongst the parts, instant physical about to vomit sensation in belly. No one there in that pile.

Look about upper section has the organic Operating System. A naked human female in crouched position, long black unkept hair vacant look on her face, catatonic? One of three human females. They are augmented in the head region in a way that gives an impression of horns growing sideways. Above the head is a shared sphere of awareness. That is where their consciousness is focused.

We don't disturb them.

Look further, find some very terrified fair haired lanky people.

We leave, they don't want to fight further.

That is it.

My own thoughts is there were two posible scenarios here.

1. The greys(?) and body parts were real and the lanky people were in control.

2. The greys(?) and body parts were simply defensive projections to scare away/deal with intruders.

One walked away because the lanky people had their own small children there.



edit on 29-3-2017 by Whatsthisthen because: typo



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: LiberateEarth

I got to page 7 before I thought I'd chime in on the phone/pic question. Yes, taking selfies and being on FB would be dangerous while working on a rig, but the real answer is most likely that it's company policy (strictly enforced, ie on the spot termination) to operate a cell phone while on the platform because the device is not "intrinsically safe". It is not approved for Class I, Div I use, therefore it cannot be used in that environment. It can and will cause an explosion when the LEL (Lower Exposure Limit for hydrocarbons in the air) has been exceeded. This happens virtually any time a rig is drilling, especially if they are using oil based mud to drill. OSHA standard as well as virtually every drilling company in the industry.

Hope that helps.




top topics



 
125
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join