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.

 

Beyond Bigelow & BAASS, After AATIP and on To the Stars...

page: 284
90
<< 281  282  283    285  286  287 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: ConfusedBrit


Did Springer ever say WHY? Or when this ban will be lifted? 


Not that have read, maybe Springer can call by?




posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Baablacksheep

He commented on another thread a while ago, the new owner wanted privacy and that we should respect that.

Although, it is the "Secret" that no-one dare say but almost everyone knows. Some interesting previous business partners too...I dont like it, most don't like it but hell, it's springers website, he can do what he wants with it I suppose.

I can only guess that his trip to the ranch, of which he commented he was going back to last December that we never heard anything else about, was in part an agreement that the owners name wasn't shared on ATS.

If that was the price of admission, fair enough.
edit on p14614192400 by pigsy2400 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: pigsy2400

I cant remember Pigs. So I guess its the secret everyone knows then. Okay.....




posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: coursecatalog
a reply to: mirageman

Yes. And when people who should know better keep saying we don't have this level of technology capable of such speed and maneuvers are they being purposely deceptive? Are they parsing their language so they are not technically lying? "We don't have aircraft that are capable of doing these things - but we do have sophisticated technology that can make it appear that we are doing these things."


We don't. And sure as heck didn't have it operational in international waters almost two decades ago.



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublant

originally posted by: coursecatalog
a reply to: mirageman

Yes. And when people who should know better keep saying we don't have this level of technology capable of such speed and maneuvers are they being purposely deceptive? Are they parsing their language so they are not technically lying? "We don't have aircraft that are capable of doing these things - but we do have sophisticated technology that can make it appear that we are doing these things."


We don't. And sure as heck didn't have it operational in international waters almost two decades ago.


How do you know? Do you have Cosmic Clearance?



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: coursecatalog

originally posted by: Sublant




We don't. And sure as heck didn't have it operational in international waters almost two decades ago.



How do you know? Do you have Cosmic Clearance?


No, I don't. For the Tic Tac to be ours, operating like it did and where it did in 2003, the program would from the '90s. Maybe even '80s. The research the program would be drawing from would be from the '80s and '70s. That wasn't our technology level then and as far as we know, it's not now either. There's nothing to indicate RD programs, let alone results, that would have the Tic Tac running circles around our frotline units in 2003. If you know of any, I'd be very interested to see them.
edit on 9-11-2019 by Sublant because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-11-2019 by Sublant because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-11-2019 by Sublant because: Messed up the quotes



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sublant
No, I don't. For the Tic Tac to be ours, operating like it did and where it did in 2003, the program would from the '90s. Maybe even '80s. The research the program would be drawing from would be from the '80s and '70s. That wasn't our technology level then and as far as we know, it's not now either. There's nothing to indicate RD programs, let alone results, that would have the Tic Tac running circles around our frotline units in 2003. If you know of any, I'd be very interested to see them.
I made a thread about a tic-tac being tested at area 51 in 1989 that could run circles around any aircraft, even posted the video. How they would get that over international waters I'm not sure but could be a variant of that seen in 2004 though I'm not sure exactly what Fravor saw. In the area 51 test and Fravor's encounter the witnesses described a "jittery" motions, apparent lack of inertia in the maneuvers etc which could be consistent with this type of tic tac.

Was "Bob Lazar's" Area 51 technology related to Fravor's 2004 UAP sighting?



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: pigsy2400

I can only guess that his trip to the ranch, of which he commented he was going back to last December that we never heard anything else about, was in part an agreement that the owners name wasn't shared on ATS.

If that was the price of admission, fair enough.


It's irritating (no doubt also for Springer himself, I imagine) but, yes, fair enough.

If only we were all middle-aged hipsters sporting ludicrously giant beards, excess tattoos, four-barreled names, and wandering around barefooted.

Speaking of which, there's a new Doorbell docu on the horizon that will surely reveal the current owner in full - not just a shot of him from the neck down in a Skinny Bob polo neck and an Orson Welles voice-box.


edit on 9-11-2019 by ConfusedBrit because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Sublant
No, I don't. For the Tic Tac to be ours, operating like it did and where it did in 2003, the program would from the '90s. Maybe even '80s. The research the program would be drawing from would be from the '80s and '70s. That wasn't our technology level then and as far as we know, it's not now either. There's nothing to indicate RD programs, let alone results, that would have the Tic Tac running circles around our frotline units in 2003. If you know of any, I'd be very interested to see them.
I made a thread about a tic-tac being tested at area 51 in 1989 that could run circles around any aircraft, even posted the video. How they would get that over international waters I'm not sure but could be a variant of that seen in 2004 though I'm not sure exactly what Fravor saw. In the area 51 test and Fravor's encounter the witnesses described a "jittery" motions, apparent lack of inertia in the maneuvers etc which could be consistent with this type of tic tac.

Was "Bob Lazar's" Area 51 technology related to Fravor's 2004 UAP sighting?


The problem is, there is no RD or programs to track the lineage for such an groundbreaking program. That would be a cold war program(s) of which the Soviets seemingly knew nothing about. They knew about all major ac research programs, but this one, which seemingly has materialized from thin air with technology we don't understand or aren't supposed to have, they knew nothing about.

Everything is possible, but to me the evidence for a US made "Tic Tac" is less likely than a reverse engineered ET craft.



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: coursecatalog

How do you know? Do you have Cosmic Clearance?


Is Tic Tac a NATO program? I say it's canadian. You don't think so? Prove me wrong, it's not my job to give evidence to my extraordinary claims.



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sublant

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Sublant
No, I don't. For the Tic Tac to be ours, operating like it did and where it did in 2003, the program would from the '90s. Maybe even '80s. The research the program would be drawing from would be from the '80s and '70s. That wasn't our technology level then and as far as we know, it's not now either. There's nothing to indicate RD programs, let alone results, that would have the Tic Tac running circles around our frotline units in 2003. If you know of any, I'd be very interested to see them.
I made a thread about a tic-tac being tested at area 51 in 1989 that could run circles around any aircraft, even posted the video. How they would get that over international waters I'm not sure but could be a variant of that seen in 2004 though I'm not sure exactly what Fravor saw. In the area 51 test and Fravor's encounter the witnesses described a "jittery" motions, apparent lack of inertia in the maneuvers etc which could be consistent with this type of tic tac.

Was "Bob Lazar's" Area 51 technology related to Fravor's 2004 UAP sighting?


The problem is, there is no RD or programs to track the lineage for such an groundbreaking program. That would be a cold war program(s) of which the Soviets seemingly knew nothing about. They knew about all major ac research programs, but this one, which seemingly has materialized from thin air with technology we don't understand or aren't supposed to have, they knew nothing about.

Everything is possible, but to me the evidence for a US made "Tic Tac" is less likely than a reverse engineered ET craft.
It's not groundbreaking at all in my opinion. They could have done that much earlier, the technology is not that complicated and has been around for decades. You can buy these things off the shelf for research purposes, (I posted a picture of an off the shelf unit you can buy in my thread), but most people don't use them in the air like they were doing at area 51. Using it in the air is pretty dangerous in general, but not so dangerous at area 51 where airspace is restricted, so they can test things in the air all they want.

Also I don't think a reverse engineered ET craft or any kind of craft fits the descriptions or what is seen in the video in my opening post as well as the technology described in my thread which can fit the descriptions and the Area 51 tic tac video from George Knapp pretty well.

edit on 2019119 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sublant

originally posted by: coursecatalog

originally posted by: Sublant




We don't. And sure as heck didn't have it operational in international waters almost two decades ago.



How do you know? Do you have Cosmic Clearance?


No, I don't. For the Tic Tac to be ours, operating like it did and where it did in 2003, the program would from the '90s. Maybe even '80s. The research the program would be drawing from would be from the '80s and '70s. That wasn't our technology level then and as far as we know, it's not now either. There's nothing to indicate RD programs, let alone results, that would have the Tic Tac running circles around our frotline units in 2003. If you know of any, I'd be very interested to see them.


Now you're confusing me. Did you read the article? It doesnt say we have Tic Tac ships that can defy gravity, it says we have a suite of technologies that when used together can create the illusion of gravity defying ships. That's a whole different thing.
edit on 9-11-2019 by coursecatalog because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2019 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: coursecatalog

originally posted by: Sublant

originally posted by: coursecatalog

originally posted by: Sublant




We don't. And sure as heck didn't have it operational in international waters almost two decades ago.



How do you know? Do you have Cosmic Clearance?


No, I don't. For the Tic Tac to be ours, operating like it did and where it did in 2003, the program would from the '90s. Maybe even '80s. The research the program would be drawing from would be from the '80s and '70s. That wasn't our technology level then and as far as we know, it's not now either. There's nothing to indicate RD programs, let alone results, that would have the Tic Tac running circles around our frotline units in 2003. If you know of any, I'd be very interested to see them.


Now you're confusing me. Did you read the article? It doesnt say we have Tic Tac ships that can defy gravity, it says we have a suite of technologies that when used together can create the illusion of gravity defying ships. That's a whole different thing.


But the article does not account for what Lt. Commander David Fravor witness...



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Its ours......


Former US Air Force Intelligence Specialist Mike Turber discloses that the “Tic Tac” shaped UFO’s recently shown in videos released by the US Navy are in fact US Aircraft able to fly at speeds at least 10 times faster than anything achieved before because they have learned how to defeat gravity.


www.stitcher.com... vOtJ1vwSOVTc



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Sublant

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Sublant
No, I don't. For the Tic Tac to be ours, operating like it did and where it did in 2003, the program would from the '90s. Maybe even '80s. The research the program would be drawing from would be from the '80s and '70s. That wasn't our technology level then and as far as we know, it's not now either. There's nothing to indicate RD programs, let alone results, that would have the Tic Tac running circles around our frotline units in 2003. If you know of any, I'd be very interested to see them.
I made a thread about a tic-tac being tested at area 51 in 1989 that could run circles around any aircraft, even posted the video. How they would get that over international waters I'm not sure but could be a variant of that seen in 2004 though I'm not sure exactly what Fravor saw. In the area 51 test and Fravor's encounter the witnesses described a "jittery" motions, apparent lack of inertia in the maneuvers etc which could be consistent with this type of tic tac.

Was "Bob Lazar's" Area 51 technology related to Fravor's 2004 UAP sighting?


The problem is, there is no RD or programs to track the lineage for such an groundbreaking program. That would be a cold war program(s) of which the Soviets seemingly knew nothing about. They knew about all major ac research programs, but this one, which seemingly has materialized from thin air with technology we don't understand or aren't supposed to have, they knew nothing about.

Everything is possible, but to me the evidence for a US made "Tic Tac" is less likely than a reverse engineered ET craft.
It's not groundbreaking at all in my opinion. They could have done that much earlier, the technology is not that complicated and has been around for decades. You can buy these things off the shelf for research purposes, (I posted a picture of an off the shelf unit you can buy in my thread), but most people don't use them in the air like they were doing at area 51. Using it in the air is pretty dangerous in general, but not so dangerous at area 51 where airspace is restricted, so they can test things in the air all they want.

Also I don't think a reverse engineered ET craft or any kind of craft fits the descriptions or what is seen in the video in my opening post as well as the technology described in my thread which can fit the descriptions and the Area 51 tic tac video from George Knapp pretty well.



No they wouldn't. When I wrote orders for my flight crews, we had very specific rules of engagement on top of the extreme amounts of regulations we follow. EVERY exercise is highly scripted. In fact, our large scale exercises didn't have winners and losers. The exercise was to artificially induce teaching experiences, not to "win". For example, some of our international partners have "won" battles against our more advanced fighters in order to teach them certain tactics. We cripple some capabilities sometimes. In any case, there is nothing really to be gained by testing anything against mainline forces. There would be too many variables that are unspecified, unidentified, and unmeasured, making it a really bad experiment. In terms of testing the technology itself for things like RADAR reflection, we have highly sophisticated test rigs on land. There's a ton of documentaries on YouTube about testing all kinds of stuff. That's done because it's a highly controlled experiment, which is the only useful way to do engineering. Therefore, it's not utilitarian to test UAPs against mainline units. As far as the testing of new weapons systems goes, even these are highly scripted and well choreographed. The type of encounter discussed by Cdr Fravor, for example, would not be consistent with every DoD program in existence. What people here don't seem to understand is the extreme amount of legalisms involved. It's simply too dangerous to have a new system interacting with mainline units. During exercises, fighters don't carry live weapons because of mistakes that have been made in the past. Nevertheless, it's still possible for one of these UAPs to trigger a "real world" scenario which would involve weapons. What if radios failed and the last thing the pilots knew was "fire if fired upon"? Either the UAP knocks down one of our fighters or vice-versa. What if someone slips and falls (e.g. two aircraft collide). There would also be chain of command issues and military law issues with unscripted inter-service tests. If the DoD tests anything, all players involved are given some kind of briefing with restrictions. NOTHING about these encounters gives the hint that it's all being orchestrated by the DoD.

Credit:AUPelement115 reddit user
www.reddit.com...



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: celltypespecific
Its ours......

"Former US Air Force Intelligence Specialist Mike Turber discloses that the “Tic Tac” shaped UFO’s recently shown in videos released by the US Navy are in fact US Aircraft able to fly at speeds at least 10 times faster than anything achieved before because they have learned how to defeat gravity."

www.stitcher.com... vOtJ1vwSOVTc
So "UFO’s recently shown in videos released by the US Navy are in fact US Aircraft able to fly at speeds at least 10 times faster than anything achieved before", but they don't fly any faster than any other aircraft, don't show any unusual acceleration. He could claim they can fly 100 times faster than anything else, the videos don't show that either. Whatever the capabilities of the UFOs in the three videos actually are, the videos don't show any unusual capabilities so I don't know why he bothers to refer to the videos.


originally posted by: celltypespecific
Credit:AUPelement115 reddit user
www.reddit.com...
I don't find his arguments compelling at all. Nobody said live testing would be done to the exclusion of more controlled testing, so that completely invalidated his "testing must be controlled" argument since controlled testing would be done too. But I think he's clueless if he doesn't see the advantage of performing other tests besides the highly controlled tests, to see how real pilots would deal with something they aren't familiar with when they encounter it. When you look at the long history of testing in the military, they have done plenty of tests which involved risk and danger, and the risk wouldn't be that high anyway if Fravor's UAP was what my thread suggests it could be. The threat is more one of misdirection and confusion instead of any capability to directly damage Fravor's aircraft.

edit on 20191110 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 03:14 AM
link   
It'd be easy to forget that aside from some EWT....there is no actual evidence of anything occurring in the so called tic tac event.

Videos show nothing weird/have no provenance, we dont have any telemetry and the people involved can't/wont provide a consistent narrative covering the chain of events.

Like the Navy Patents and TTSA.. once you strip away the self promoting vaporware...there's nothing to investigate because the evidence is none existent.

...except Justice's presence....which is a "definitely real" mystery that gets overlooked due to the rest of the sideshow.



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 07:35 AM
link   
A single article on the internet, which gives no provenance or lineage of programs and doesn't really even address what was seen by Cmdr. Fravor and others, is all that you need? For proof of something that's not supposed to exist and which has baffled experienced military observers. Okay.
edit on 10-11-2019 by Sublant because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-11-2019 by Sublant because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-11-2019 by Sublant because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublant

A single article on the internet, which gives no provenance or lineage of programs and doesn't really even address what was seen by Cmdr. Fravor and others, is all that you need? For proof of something that's not supposed to exist and which has baffled experienced military observers. Okay.


The article does not explain the entire history of UFOs. No one said it did. That would be absurd.

But such technology may account for some UFO sightings, including the ones TTSA has chosen to concentrate on.



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 09:53 AM
link   

edit on 10-11-2019 by celltypespecific because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
90
<< 281  282  283    285  286  287 >>

log in

join