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.

 

Exellent UFO footage out of Utah taken in 2016 just now posted Clear What do you think ATS?

page: 14
79
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: vimanaboy

I'm simply laying out my thought process based on what's observable in the video.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone to change their beliefs here.

"2) if we are dealing with exotic propulsion technology there is more than enough theoretical basis for the possibility that it would not use an engine based on action/reaction or displace air."

But that is my point: even if the engine has no effect on the surrounding air, the craft itself has mass and it displaces air.


edit on 28-1-2019 by TheTruthRocks because: Because I can't spel.




posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
And what have we learned?


If something is too good to be true, it's probably isn't; if it is too bad to be true, it probably isn't; if it's too good to be true but a bit bad around the edges, it's probably more likely to be true but probably isn't; and if it is just about good enough to be true, we probably would never believe it is anyway, and it probably isn't.

Glad that's sorted.



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTruthRocks

The Dulce Base conspiracy occurred around 1979, and its likely the alien human hybrids have new craft by now.
Nice antique show though..



edit on 28-1-2019 by Slichter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Slichter

I don't know what that means.

The OP asked a question ("What do you think ATS?") and I gave my views on what I think about it.

Whether I'm right or wrong in immaterial. We're kicking around the possibility of some unknown aircraft capabilities. Is it possible that this is an actual aircraft of some kind? Absolutely it's possible. It's also possible that an elephant could wander into frame while all this other stuff is happening.

But is it *probable*? Not to me. We can agree to disagree and I'm okay with that.



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTruthRocks
a reply to: vimanaboy

even if the engine has no effect on the surrounding air, the craft itself has mass and it displaces air.



You would ASSUME that it does, you mean. And all of your assumptions for what -should be happening based on what we see are based on our publicly known current levels of technology, their observable characteristics and the way we operate them.

Those of us who have observed these craft up close and in-person testify over and over and over again that there is no sonic boom associated with them going from a standstill to over the horizon in the blink of an eye, or indeed often any sound at all (as in the case of what I and my family observed in 1978- and note that I do not assume the origin whatsoever).

Again, there is plenty of theoretical speculation by PhD scientists such as Hal Puthoff & Jack Sarfatti (among others) as to how this is possible.

edit on 29-1-2019 by vimanaboy because: redundancy removed



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 04:57 PM
link   
If this is the real deal I would suspect some sort of forcefield in place that separates the craft from its surroundings. You can't accellerate at those speeds without tearing the place up.

My bet is on some sort artificial gravity, reduce your mass to zero. Maybe enter some alternate dimension where you don't have to obey our rules of physics.
They could be folding space-time itself and sliding right through and all we see is some kind of light phenomenon, who knows.

Facinating stuff



posted on Jan, 29 2019 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: vimanaboy

"There is more than enough theoretical basis for the possibility that..."

You removed that line from your post above, because you realized you're making assumptions based on those possibilities.

And then,

"You would ASSUME that it does, you mean."

I understand now. You're allowed to make assumptions and I'm not.

Seems legit


I'm not trying to convince you you're wrong, so don't take my observations so personally. The OP asked what we thought about the video.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: TheTruthRocks

If you go to some of the forums on ATS that talk about electrogravitics, they mention the reduction of mass as being the key to how they move so fast and change direction without g forces. They also show patents to this technology registered decade ago, its all in the black world slowly getting out.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: myss427

I'm aware of all that. If a practical application of electrogravitics actually existed, corporations in bed with the federal government would've monetized the technology. Amazon and Dominos wouldn't be fumbling around with inefficient propeller-powered 'drones' to deliver goods to customers. Anytime there's a money-making opportunity, it gets taken--which is one of the top five facts of life.

I'm just not buying the video as having captured an actual craft flying through the atmosphere as claimed by the guys that posted it.

"...reduction of mass as being the key to how they move so fast and change direction without g forces." If this were the case, there would be no reason to bank the craft in a smooth turn like a conventional aircraft. It would have simply changed directions from one vector to the next, like a bullet that ricochets from a hard surface.

I would be more inclined to believe the video as being real if the craft behaved erratically or in an unconventional manner. Instead, it behaves just like a conventional aircraft, except it's silently moving at an impossibly high velocity with no disturbance of the surroundings.

Like I stated in a previous post, it is possible this video captured the real thing.

But it's not probable. That's the difference.



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 03:33 PM
link   
The guy who originally posted the video has posted several more, including interviews and analyses:










edit on 30-1-2019 by vimanaboy because: corrected video URL

edit on 30-1-2019 by vimanaboy because: re-ordered videos to put speed analysis on top



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTruthRocks

You are being totally disingenuous in your argumentation. Pointing out your assumptions merely leaves -room for possibilities other than prosaic. I did NOT state any conclusion based on any assumption.
edit on 30-1-2019 by vimanaboy because: clarity



posted on Jan, 30 2019 @ 09:11 PM
link   
CGI. Very good one but not enough.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: belkide

Well still no one has shown a tiny bit of evidence its CGI, more evidence so far to it being real. Watch the Youtube clips with the guys who took the footage, very open about it and willing to go through all tests to prove its un touched footage, would kill their business if proved they lied.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: TheTruthRocks

"...reduction of mass as being the key to how they move so fast and change direction without g forces." If this were the case, there would be no reason to bank the craft in a smooth turn like a conventional aircraft. It would have simply changed directions from one vector to the next, like a bullet that ricochets from a hard surface.

Then why does the Military clip above with the TicTac UFO bank? and the pilot said it took off like a bullet (crazy speed) and went straight up? Obvious the technology is far ahead of your beliefs in physics.



posted on Jan, 31 2019 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Metabunk currently have a thread. Of note is the analysis of the frames where the object is said to have been behind the ridgeline. Consider that the object is NOT actually behind the ridge line or vegetation?

Consider that is simply down to noise and compression?

See from post number 17 in following thread.

Metabunk thread

Could it have been footage of a bird of prey called a Gyrfalcon?

See following video.

Gyrfalcon analysis from 1:45



Wiki Gyrfalcon
edit on 31/1/2019 by tommyjo because: Additional info added



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Interesting thread!

Just doing my part to fix ats.



posted on Feb, 3 2019 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: tommyjo

What a load of tosh. Looks nothing like it.

Just look at the examples he shows. Even if it flew at 2000mph it still wouldn't blur like that.

Still not been debunked as anything conventional.



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 12:10 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 12:11 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 12:12 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join