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 Quotes From High Ranking Individuals and Credible Eye Witnesses

page: 4
82
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Azureblue



There is no point in trying to "convince' anyone of anything because we cannot make people believe anything. Simply place information in front of them, point them to it and leave it at that.

IMO many some of the people on this forum who try to reduce other peoples belief in aliens and ufos are paid to do it, others do it because they think they are doing gods work.


There are people out there who actively encourage belief in aliens in spaceships and government conspiracies who really do earn their money convincing people of these very things.

There are a lot of people on these forums spouting these same views, trying to convince everyone that their belief that ET is visiting us is correct. But when asked for some real proof of even one UFO being extra-terrestrial in nature what do we have?

So maybe there are people paid to encourage belief in an alien conspiracy?

The CIA Director William Casey said in 1981,


"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false".


While not so long ago the CIA brazenly announced they'd been the source for multiple UFO reports in the 50s and 60s.

So who is really fooling who?



Good point and you would be correct in saying the CIA makes BS reports. I'd say they make BS reports in both directions.

I was coming at this from the persective of having read a number of threads on this site, over the years, by people who beleieve in aliens and UFOs and they spend a lot of energy trying to get others to belevie in them too.




posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 03:27 AM
link   
Havnt read all pages but still, i can say without doubts:

Doesnt matter who or what you are...

If you cant back up your statements with HARD evidence,
it wont matter what you say.....



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 05:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

? Your thread is about credible witnesses and lists off "engineers, scientists, generals, admirals" followed by examples of those. That seems to suggest status has a bearing on veracity of a claim. Given the many thousands of claims of alien abductions and interactions, it's actually more likely that a "regular" citizen would come forward with scientific evidence, if this is in fact really happening. The only conclusion UFOlogists can come to is that unidentified objects are an observable phenomena.

It's more about expertise and experience with regards to UFO cases. Some of the quoted individuals happen to also be "high ranking" and could be seen as an authority in their field, which is not a bad thing IMO. Hence the thread title.


It wasn't a fully rigged Mogul balloon train, a classified cold war project, or some type of Soviet craft. After researching it, I believe it was an in between Mogul service/research flight that was launched that day and crashed. I'm not going to go further with it other than to say if interested I created a long thread about it HERE.

A well researched and detailed thread, I have to say, which provides a "theory" for the official explanation given in the 1990s following a congressional inquiry. But in a way it's also based on confirmation bias, which we're all subjected to, at least to some extent. So the transitional balloon experiment incl. a simple gear with radar targets was expendable and not recovered, left behind for everyone to find. Yet the final project was wrapped in secrecy and details could only be provided decades later upon official inquiry? That seems to be quite a leap IMO. As you say in your thread, it's "your belief" of what happened and it nullifies other testimonies.


The FAA concluded that it was a split radar image, a ghost image of JAL which is a frequent occurrence. Direct PDF link to the FAAs 377 page report HERE

As regards JAL 1628, I think it may be a good idea to also consider John Callahan's assessment of the case, at about 4:46 in the clip below he explains why some of the radar information has been interpreted differently:



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 05:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: karl 12
a reply to: jeep3r

Great thread Jeep3r and really do like that quote from Dr James E Mcdonald.

There are plenty more statements about the UFO subject (which have been substantiated in books, interviews, articles, letters, magazines, scientific reviews or open congressional hearings) here and I´ve always been intrigued by this one made by the Pentagon´s Al Chop.


Thanks for chiming in, Karl 12. This is definitely not the "be all end all" list of noteworthy UFO quotes, that's for sure. And I did notice that your older thread contains even more examples which definitely deserve appreciation.

I hope I'll soon get the chance to look into the other material you posted and thanks again for the reference to Peter A. Sturrock.



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Miccey
Havnt read all pages but still, i can say without doubts:

Doesnt matter who or what you are...

If you cant back up your statements with HARD evidence,
it wont matter what you say.....


Mathematicians sometimes use a method called "proof by contradiction". Applied to ufology this could mean to phrase our hypothesis like this: "All observed UFOs are natural phenomena acting in accordance with the known laws of nature and physics".

When trying to validate that hypothesis, you end up with all those reports, testimonies and data that contradict this statement. It would seem to indicate that something else is going on here.

edit on 16-12-2017 by jeep3r because: spelling



posted on Dec, 16 2017 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: jeep3r

originally posted by: Miccey
Havnt read all pages but still, i can say without doubts:

Doesnt matter who or what you are...

If you cant back up your statements with HARD evidence,
it wont matter what you say.....


Mathematicians sometimes use a method called "proof by contradiction". Applied to ufology this could mean to phrase our hypothesis like this: "All observed UFOs are natural phenomena acting in accordance with the known laws of nature and physics".

When trying to validate that hypothesis, you end up with all those reports, testimonies and data that contradict this statement. It would seem to indicate that something else is going on here.


One egg and one car....

No it does not....



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 02:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: jeep3r
A well researched and detailed thread, I have to say, which provides a "theory" for the official explanation given in the 1990s following a congressional inquiry. But in a way it's also based on confirmation bias, which we're all subjected to, at least to some extent. So the transitional balloon experiment incl. a simple gear with radar targets was expendable and not recovered, left behind for everyone to find. Yet the final project was wrapped in secrecy and details could only be provided decades later upon official inquiry? That seems to be quite a leap IMO. As you say in your thread, it's "your belief" of what happened and it nullifies other testimonies.

Service/research flights weren't transitional. They were being launched with the program in between full Mogul arrays. Flight #4 was cancelled do to weather and a service flight was launched where Charles Moore used the opportunity to continue testing of radar reception using multiple radar targets. Yes, they were expendable and not recovered. Full 500+ foot Mogul arrays had return-to and reward tags attached. If they were to get into the wrong hands, their equipment could threaten to expose the military's secret Soviet nuclear test detection program.


As regards JAL 1628, I think it may be a good idea to also consider John Callahan's assessment of the case, at about 4:46 in the clip below he explains why some of the radar information has been interpreted differently:

I know JAL 1628 fairly well and I've seen Callahan's interviews and his testimony in the Disclosure Project. If you look at the 377 page PDF I linked, you can see for yourself in the transcript that the radar signal was not consistent with a solid object following them. It was spotty and the same as a split radar image as explained.

What can be said about both of these above is that an Earthly explanation has to be considered for both. It's not all UFO and aliens as the sellers of these stories want you to believe. I think bringing this to light is an important part of the process. I understand I won't change yours or anyone else's mind. But hopefully it will get some to look deeper into the claims.



posted on Dec, 20 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

I know JAL 1628 fairly well and I've seen Callahan's interviews and his testimony in the Disclosure Project. If you look at the 377 page PDF I linked, you can see for yourself in the transcript that the radar signal was not consistent with a solid object following them. It was spotty and the same as a split radar image as explained.

What can be said about both of these above is that an Earthly explanation has to be considered for both. It's not all UFO and aliens as the sellers of these stories want you to believe. I think bringing this to light is an important part of the process. I understand I won't change yours or anyone else's mind. But hopefully it will get some to look deeper into the claims.


The report pretty clearly states that:

1. The pilot, his flight engineer and his first officer saw head-on traffic and lights they couldn't explain, this is mentioned in the interviews. I don't know where the myth originated from that only the pilot saw it.

2. The UFO was interpreted as "weather" on radar, it was seen live on screen but wasn't recorded (as J. Callahan testifies) and therefore couldn't be reconstructed in the aftermath based on the computer data.

3. Air Traffic Control Specialists Carl E. Henley, Samuel J. Rich and John L. Aarnink confirmed in separate statements that they saw the reported traffic on their screens that day, and they were familiar with split-radar returns.

Apart from that, I think looking at single cases is a bit like looking at individual prime numbers, to once again use a math analogy. One prime for itself doesn't tell us much about the distribution of prime numbers in the number space or about the upper and lower bounds of divisors. When investigating many primes, however, certain patterns start to emerge (like twin primes, triplets, k-tuples and so on).

Similarliy, UFO reports also say more about the phenomenon when looking at many cases and identifying the underlying patterns.



posted on Dec, 23 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons


I'm sure they know the worlds governments are all dishonest, corrupt and controlling. If they're working with them in secret, their purpose may be a threat to humanity.


That right there. Nailed it. They're training us up to eliminate each other, like in that movie 'The 5th Wave'. Or they're fomenting phony conflicts in order to keep us divided, distracted, subservient through fear of their tightly controlled, darkened hidden hand activities.


For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.


Now of course, Kennedy was - in the exoteric manner of his speech - referring to the machinations of the USSR & the various spook networks which were in operation at that time. But it is my considered opinion that he also was referring, for those who would read between the lines, to either one or possibly two more layers of conspiracy.. Firstly, the 'Gehlen Organisation', a Nazi spy network operating in Eastern Europe, which was literally transplanted from Nazi control in WW2, to nominal control (in whole cloth, totally identical command structures - Nazis in charge - remained the operational reality) by the Americans in the decades after the war ended. He would have been indicating also the covert infiltration, by Nazi scientists & political stooges, into the workings of the US federal government, a la Operation Paperclip, and other similar transplants of 'former' Nazis, as assets to be slotted into the governmental & corporate machinery of the United States of America.

Additionally, it is my sincere belief that there is a strong chance that he was also referring to a third layer of threat/danger: the 'Other'. They walk among us, are able to take on human form - or are indeed humans from a race which has been in some way separated from Humanity, as its hidden masters, for many tens of thousands of years, perhaps even longer. It could be that Kennedy was exposed to information which made him realise how deep & dark the control system of Humanity is extant in actuality, although largely hidden behind various veils of illusion, legends, myths, fear. The place beyond success at the highest level, is where humans become subservient to vampiric overlords - because they have no choice, having been baited through soul-destroying hoops of sin-laden Hobson's Choice scenarios 'to the power of thirteen'.. through which, having worked themselves through, return by the way they came is made impossible. The only way forward is subservience, or death (& the threat of torture & death for one's beloved relatives if there is any word of the matter made known to the world..)

And so..?

..we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy, that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice..

The question is - what can be done about it? I suspect many, many very intelligent & morally upright people have been considering this question for over seventy years, at minimum - WW2 was when 'they' came out of the Prussian woodwork, riding on the tide of Germany's collective delusion, a 'folie a million' which prepared the world for the final mad dash to the insane conclusion, with our knowledge increasing exponentially, and the risks too, along with the opportunities which drive us.

I am unsure of where this is/ has been leading. "As for me & my house, we will serve the LORD", and "In Him will I trust". I truly hope the angels are with us too, because this present darkness is getting blacker by the day.



posted on Dec, 23 2017 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: jeep3r

originally posted by: humanoidlord
some good people there but also a few weeds ( jesse marcel,john mack, leslie kean,stanton friedman,nick pope)




AndI know there's a camp favoring the project mogul explanation or other cold war/black ops arguments that may have led to the secrecy surrounding the crash. But I'm still not sure if that's what really happened back then.


Have you read Nick Redfern's "The Roswell UFO Conspiracy?" (1. Nick Redfern- I know. But the book was really well documented and 2. How do underline text in this place?) Has anyone on this site read that book? It's one of those Cold War/black ops theories of which you speak, and it convinced me as a good explanation. Better explanation and more evidence for it than "aliens!"



posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: JourneymanWelder
this was posted many times and while it is good proof, I sometimes feel even a craft landing would not be enough proof for skeptics on here like Phage.


You know, this mantra and its numerous cute little variations gets on my nerves. "This skeptic doesn't believe what I believe is evidence of aliens, therefore even if aliens land they won't believe in aliens."

Is this a way for ET believers to make themselves feel better, when a skeptic challenges their "evidence?"

We haven't been presented, yet, with a craft landing. We haven't even been presented with a good clear video, in this day and age of constant surveillance. So why don't you wait to see what the skeptics do say, if a craft ever does land?
edit on 24-12-2017 by KansasGirl because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: KansasGirl

there's only truth, of which we all feel..

so it's strange when someone (either me or you) argues for something that is non-true.. especially when you can litterally feel it

it suggests that you aren't truly arguing for that belief, but for an alter narrative of what arguing for that belief gives you, perhaps a sense of power.. a sense of putting something you disagree with down..

because we both feel the vibrations of existence, and when one argues that it isn't so, it is questionable

i think it's using persuasion to influence power and dominance over the spirit



posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: makalit
a reply to: KansasGirl

there's only truth, of which we all feel..

so it's strange when someone (either me or you) argues for something that is non-true.. especially when you can litterally feel it

it suggests that you aren't truly arguing for that belief, but for an alter narrative of what arguing for that belief gives you, perhaps a sense of power.. a sense of putting something you disagree with down..

because we both feel the vibrations of existence, and when one argues that it isn't so, it is questionable

i think it's using persuasion to influence power and dominance over the spirit


That's what ET believers are doing when they say "skeptics won't even believe if a craft lands in front of them?" Is that what you're saying?



posted on Dec, 25 2017 @ 10:01 PM
link   

a reply to: jeep3r

1. The pilot, his flight engineer and his first officer saw head-on traffic and lights they couldn't explain, this is mentioned in the interviews. I don't know where the myth originated from that only the pilot saw it.

There's no myth. What you're describing is the first part of the incident where Terauchi initially contacted the tower to identify two aircraft seen 1 mile in front of his flight. These are the lights that the three men saw. In the FAA transcript during the flight, the tower asked for a description, Terauchi said: "ah we can see ah, navigation lights and ah strobe lights." Navigation and strobe lighting is exactly what you'd expect and what's required of Earthbound craft. Therefore it cannot be dismissed as the answer.
Later during the FAA ground interview, exhaust was described as: "amber and whitish color, came closely it seems like all the output exhaust position of the jets, all of these Challenger." Again, far too similar to propulsion of human aircraft to dismiss this as the explanation. You have to also keep in mind testing of the Stealth and other top secret aircraft programs were in effect during this period. Aircraft using supersonic afterburner propulsion.
The gigantic mothership was the second part of the description which neither of his crew saw.
From Terauchi's transcript:
"...this is just small spaceship, this one size of carrier, two times carrier so mothership, so ah they flew with us three uh five minutes like home mission, then move to a mothership. So then I found mothership light, but this is not light, all engine, because we ah have contact seven or eight mile here, so we saw this first lights, so um after light contact ah they move behind so we saw this pairs of light, so we really saw this light same size this one same size."
With this statement, you can get an idea of the pilots overall mindset.

Re Radar Data - You have to read the transcript (p43-49) with the towers at the moment of the incident. There was clearly confusion and not a consistent signal with the towers involved. You see where they are fighting with finding a good track. When one tower had a radar signal it would disappear within 2 minutes. Throughout the exchange, the air traffic controllers were resorting back to asking JAL if he still had a visual on the object because they did not. In fact, when JAL 1628 flew directly over the Fairbanks Airport, they did not see the "mothership" on radar at all. When United Airlines #69 flew within sight of JAL, visually they did not see this gigantic mothership:
"Japan Airliner is silhouetted against a ah light sky. I don't see anybody around him at all. I can see his contrail but I sure don't see any other airplanes."
When a military C130 flew within sight of JAL, visually they did not see this gigantic mothership. So you there's a lot of inconsistency with the radar data portion of this claim. Combined with the complete lack of even single visual confirmation by anyone else but in the mind of Terauchi has to make you question what was seen. Of course any kind of rational questioning goes against the sellers of this tale.



Apart from that, I think looking at single cases is a bit like looking at individual prime numbers, to once again use a math analogy. One prime for itself doesn't tell us much about the distribution of prime numbers in the number space or about the upper and lower bounds of divisors. When investigating many primes, however, certain patterns start to emerge (like twin primes, triplets, k-tuples and so on).

So you're trying to associate the study of mathematical principles with the study of UFOs/aliens? Um... no. If you want to give it a relative comparison to make a point, do so with a similar subject. Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, ghosts, etc. are all phenomena steeped in legend with decades of stories, photographs, videos but also lack the physical evidence that should reflect their existence. This is the pattern that emerges: No convincing evidence where there should be.



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join