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.

 

The Awful Truth About UFOs (long) -- not for believers!

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   
As a UFO believer who has seen UFOs himself, I respect this theory of yours, since it can explain many sightings attributed to cigar or oval shaped metallic crafts. But what many people here try to tell you is that you're missing one major aspect of the many serious UFOs observations out there... The first being, as others noted, the ability of these crafts to fly at tremendous speeds, even faster than the fastest scramjets and other hypersonic man-made crafts known to the public; and not only that, but also with accelerations and decelarations which defies many laws of physics... I mean objects that seem to go from 15 miles and hour to like Mach 17 within only one or two seconds. And some observations talk about crazy random manoeuvers that only small flying insects are able to do. Why does'nt Goodyear makes blimps like that??? The Superbowl would rock, once again!


The other aspect is that many UFOs that have been observed are not objects of a solid or metallic color, but luminescent objects. How could blimps be so luminous that people see bright orange, blue of white lights in the skies at night? Because they're phosphorescent? For what purpose would the government built blimps with glow-in-the-dark hulls!?


[edit on 3/1/06 by Echtelion]

[edit on 3/1/06 by Echtelion]

[edit on 3/1/06 by Echtelion]




posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion

The other aspect is that many UFOs that have been observed are not objects of a solid or metallic color, but luminescent objects. How could blimps be so luminous that people see bright orange, blue of white lights in the skies at night? Because they're phosphorescent? For what purpose would the government built blimps with glow-in-the-dark hulls!?




Don't dismiss everything so fast!

Blimps can be internally lit. So yes this can happen and does on occasion. However , not often.

Its just like I said earlier , any case that may have been a Balloon or Blimp is already considered to have been a balloon or Blimp. Nothing is changed and the truth about UFOs is still elusive.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by rand
Did I say "radar operators"? I was talking about the general population, people like yourself But, yes, it's quite possible for a radar operator to be fooled by multiple targets.

See now this is when I really get leary. Once someone starts backpedaling then the whole thing kinda takes on a bad vibe for me. Write down your facts or statements so you can refer to them in the future. And you dont get caught with your pants down so to speak.
Radar operators don't get fooled by multiple targets. They are trained to watch thousands of objects a day on their radars. If they got fooled by multiple targets then you'd have a lot more planes crashing. I've been in a radar room and trust me if those guys are the least bit confused about what they see it doesn't show. Each and every air borne object within their sphere of responsiblity is catelouged and noted. There are strict guidlines to this process.
At first i gave your blimp theory some consideration but now I'm not so sure. Seems like an awefullot of gas bags in the air.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 02:06 AM
link   
nightwing,

If Rand is the only one lobbing "Live" shells... Why are we talking about "CIA" balloons instead of "CIG" Balloons?

I have stated that ATI at Wright Field had opened an office to study "UFOs" as early as July '47.

The National Security Act went into effect on Sept. 18 '47 . Thus, the CIA was created.

Who would best know about "CIA" Balloons? Air Technical Intelliegence at Wright Field?

Don't take my word for it look at what the Air Force say's about ATI.

www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil...



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 02:20 AM
link   
I'll agree that Rands points are not intended to explain all. There is an element that is quick to jump to defensive posture as Nightwing has suggested. For the most part though, the counter points are just that "counter points" and they are easy to read as such.

On the other hand as a skeptic, I will admit it is hard for me to read certain believers accounts, suggestions, or presumed factual statements. Just the word Believer makes me leary. There is an implied non objective side built into it.

As for ATS, I think this forum is set around getting to the truth and everyone working to get there. Our problem with evaluating TRUTH is that many people have such varying degrees of event plausibility. As a forum if we could nail down what is practical and justified and can be classified into degrees of evidence, we could begin to seperate the Wheat from the Chaffe.

[edit on 3-1-2006 by nullster]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   
"Why are we talking about "CIA" balloons instead of "CIG" Balloons? " == l_s

You got a mouse in your pocket ? Who is we, cause I am not. I am looking at the Blimp idea.

"I have stated that ATI at Wright Field had opened an office to study "UFOs" as early as July '47. " == l_s

And I once reminded you that credibility requires accurate context if you know it. Your statement as written is
not credible if for no other reason than the term UFO was coined in 1952, rendering your statement of questionable
credibility.

"Don't take my word for it look at what the Air Force say's about ATI. " == l_s

As I said before, I do not want to launch into a debate without hearing more from rand. Seems he is developing cold
feet. I just hope all you folks in the tin hats didnt frighten him off.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Balloons ,... Blimps ,.. Lighter than Air . I'd consider these to be in a category.


Originally posted by nightwing

And I once reminded you that credibility requires accurate context if you know it. Your statement as written is
not credible if for no other reason than the term UFO was coined in 1952, rendering your statement of questionable
credibility.



Don't worry , I took the Air Forces lead on that .

I think the "Generic" term , "UFO", is well established enough for us to be able to use it in this and further discussion's.

Edit:

And why should I say " Flying Saucer" to maintain credibility?

Because that was the "Generic" term used by the media after the " Kennth Arnold " sighting?

The military used the term " Disc". Just as seen in the " Ramey Memo".



[edit on 3-1-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 03:34 AM
link   
OK, you diverted me for one post. Short and simple. When you change the verbal context of the original, you convey a
new meaning. In your case, a desire to communicate your own understanding to other believers. If done intentionally, I
would suspect an agenda. Here is an important insite. There are parallels between changing verbal context and visual
context, and even mixing the two. And this topic area of ATS is a good lab to watch the results.

"I think the "Generic" term , "UFO", is well established enough for us to be able to use it in this and further discussion's. " ==l_s

My answer to that is to quote you from the forum topic "UFO's are real is an irritating misnomer"
www.abovetopsecret.com...
quote "I find that very frustrating also."==l_s

You cant have it both ways, as I once told Gazrok.

And as long as I am drifting,

"Our problem with evaluating TRUTH is that many people have such varying degrees of event plausibility." == nullster

Very close. Our problem with evaluating truth is...........people.

Apology rand. Please respond and end the intermission popcorn fight.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing

In your case, a desire to communicate your own understanding to other believers.



So where did that come from? Other believers? ...



"I think the "Generic" term , "UFO", is well established enough for us to be able to use it in this and further discussion's. " ==l_s

My answer to that is to quote you from the forum topic "UFO's are real is an irritating misnomer"
www.abovetopsecret.com...
quote "I find that very frustrating also."==l_s

You cant have it both ways, as I once told Gazrok.



Since rand is MIA and we are having Popcorn,...

Why is it a matter of having things both ways? I only quote what the Air Force's own History said . It said " an office to study "UFOs" .

The term "UFO" does not mean E.T.

I have not used it as such to my knowledge.

Even if I had done that , it would not change the fact that the Air Force History states that " T-2 opened an office to study "UFOs" in July '47".



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   
I'm not sure an issue of semantics is going to help us solve this either way...


Even skeptics have to admit that the attempt to label ALL UFO sighting as one thing (in this case, CIA blimps), is doomed to fail from the outset.

The reason for this is that there are already many IDENTIFIED UFOs, or IFOs in the case files. And these identifications run the gambit from stars, balloons, planets, meteors, conventional aircraft, etc., etc.

The other issue, as has been stated, is that even so called CIA superblimps are not capable of the maneuvers reported in many UFO sighting cases...even considering the stretch of multiple blimps, radar anomolies, etc. etc., as many such sightings are by trained military and/or pilots, with way more flight hours logged than any of us I'd imagine...so they are far more qualified observers of aerial phenomenon.

True, such blimps may indeed be the cause of some sightings, but to assume that they are the cause of ALL, and that the idea of them "closes the case", is painting the issue with an EXTREMELY broad brush...and that paint simply won't stick....



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

True, such blimps may indeed be the cause of some sightings, but to assume that they are the cause of ALL, and that the idea of them "closes the case", is painting the issue with an EXTREMELY broad brush...and that paint simply won't stick....


And the theory that blimps are behind alien abductions.......



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   
all i know is that while rummaging through my head for theories regarding ET crafts functionality, i look up at the sky and low and behold a bright light streaks across the sky. as though they were saying "he is talking about this!" and turned their light on and quickly made way in their due direction keeping on schedule and on task.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   


Blimps over the Capitol in 1952? Funny how those Blimps outran our fighters everytime we gave chase. Then would return has we landed. Blimps? I don't think so!!!



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jeddyhi
www.ufotoday.bizhosting.com...

Blimps over the Capitol in 1952? Funny how those Blimps outran our fighters everytime we gave chase. Then would return has we landed. Blimps? I don't think so!!!


Those blimps has NAAWWWWSSSSSSSSS man... Vin Diesel and Paul Walker were driving them.




posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   


"I can assure you that flying saucers, given that they exist, are not constructed by any power on earth."
— President Harry S. Truman, 1950.




"With our obsession with antagonisms of the
moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. I occasionally think how quickly our differences, worldwide, would vanish
if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world." .. Former President Ronald Reagan, while sharing the stage with former Russian leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, 1988.




"It is true that I was denied access to a facility at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton,
Ohio, because I never got in. I can't tell you
what was inside. We both know about the
rumors (concerning a captured UFO and crew members). I have never seen what I would call
a UFO, but I have intelligent friends who have."
US Senator, US Air Force General, and
candidate for President, Barry Goldwater,
quoted from a letter he wrote dated April
11, 1979.




"Well, Slim, (McClelland's knick name by
Astronaut friends), I was flying a P-51 Mustang
at about 12,000 feet over Minneapolis in 1951.
I thought it was a simple kite. As I flew closer to
it I looked at it and thought it was a weather balloon. But as I got behind it I could tell it wasn't
a balloon. It looked like a disc."
NASA astronaut, Donald "Deke" Slayton.




"While flying with several other USAF pilots over Germany in 1957, we sighted numerous radiant flying discs above us. We couldn't tell how high they were. We couldn't get anywhere near their altitude."
"While working with a camera crew supervising flight testing of advanced aircraft at Edward's Air Force Base, California, the camera crew filmed the landing of a strange disc object that flew in over their heads and landed on a dry lake nearby. A camera crewman approached the saucer, it rose up above the area and flew off at a speed faster than any known aircraft." ... NASA astronaut, L. Gordon Cooper.


Source/Link:
www.qtm.net...

If they were ALL blimps, I'm going to have to see some credentials that rival or match astronauts, senators, and presidents of the USA, please.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Esoteric Teacher - Quotes from important people can be cool. I like them because it shows that the UFO phenomenon captures the imaginations of people of all types. But in the end, most are simply opinions on the subject. Opinions do not fortify missing facts or offer up physical tangible evidence that can be evaluated.

On quotes, some opinions are taken out of context to support ideals the speaker never intended. Shuttle Astronaust Story Musgrave comes to mind.
Bottom line is "quotes" aren't evidence regardless of how important a person is.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sleeper



There are those who know about extraterrestrials and then there are those who are jealous of those who know about extraterrestrials.

Those who claim to know what others have seen or not seen are simply arrogant or naive.

It takes intelligent life to recognize intelligent life.

There are millions of non-human species on earth, animal, insect and plant life.

All co-existing----all unaware of the other---for the most part

Many humans fall into that category----believing they are king of the hill.

However, humans are only one in billions in a crowded galaxy, and at the lowest level of the food chain concerning intelligence.



High 5, and truer words were never spoken..



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Plain and simple they weren't blimps.

Satelites, meteors, and hallucinations or tricks of the eye make better sense than blimps.

Blimps are extremely slow moving and highly flamable craft, since they compose of helium.

If you put some sort of an accelerator on them, they'll just explode.

Its common sense.

Common why are people so stupid to say it's blimps.

Blimps of all things... why don't we call all aliens that have visited the earth to actually had been little children in halloween customes while we are at.

My god... the stupidity is overwhelming.

Grey 1: This is bad.

Grey 2: You are telling me, now they are going retarded.

Grey 3: We better bring out the big guns.

Grey 1 and 2: Aye aye sir.

Grey 3: Let them have it men! (The greys start shooting intelligence beams in hope of increasing the intelligence of the idiots on this forum that consider an alien craft to be actually a human made blimp)

A blimp of all things... that's beyond need of going to an asylum.

Hallucinations make better sense than blimps.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   
i think a blimp can go at 1000 mph, and im going to prove it.

so there

just wait



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Lord Tumuhab,

It's not "Stupid" to think that some "UFO" reports have been Blimps.

My argument against it is that most of these are written off already.

Rand,

Let me throw you a bone, there is a video of a "UFO" that looks like it is actually an internally lit Blimp. I believe it may be on one of the Nat. Geo. Channel's series , "Is It Real".


[edit on 3-1-2006 by lost_shaman]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join