The "Lonnie Zamora" case

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Egotosum
It's entirely possible that Zamora had the general details of the event committed to memory (the shape and characteristics of the craft, and the general look of the figures), but not the finer details of, for example, the height of the figures.


OK. For the last time, Zamora saw the figures standing upright next to a bush, and noted that they were no taller than it. When the bush was measured, its height was found to be approximately 5ft.

I don't know why you cannot get this, or work it out. A figure standing upright right next to a 5ft bush that is no taller than the bush is 5ft tall or less. It does not take a scientific qualification to understand this principle.




posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by Egotosum
It's entirely possible that Zamora had the general details of the event committed to memory (the shape and characteristics of the craft, and the general look of the figures), but not the finer details of, for example, the height of the figures.


OK. For the last time, Zamora saw the figures standing upright next to a bush, and noted that they were no taller than it. When the bush was measured, its height was found to be approximately 5ft.

I don't know why you cannot get this, or work it out. A figure standing upright right next to a 5ft bush that is no taller than the bush is 5ft tall or less. It does not take a scientific qualification to understand this principle.


Zamora wasn't exactly up and close to the figures or the craft itself - which would go some way to explain how Zamora might have miscalculated how close the figures were to the bush that he measured them against. It's all about angles and proportionality.

Since there's no photographical evidence of the footprints, there's no way of knowing exactly where the figures were standing.



posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
This is going around in a circle.

Even if they are human...which I can accept for argument sake. You now have to explain the craft. The reason for why the craft was there. Why they were testing the craft during the day (since you say these US anti-gravity craft are hidden so well). And why the government was willing to draw attention to it by investigating it. I assume if they knew it was ours and it was top secret, you wouldn't send out people to draw attention to your anti-gravity aircraft. You would just discredit Zamora or play it off as a wayward test aircraft...end of story.

Nick Cook's book is interesting, but you need more that explains the actual event. If you are going to reinterpret what Zamora saw then you better introduce some facts to explain why we should. As far as being in a state of "shock"...I've been in shock myself and I can tell you that I didn't make up things and there were two people with me that told the same story I did as they rushed me to the hospital. Real "shock" is extremely debilitating...I question if Zamora ever was.

Here is a nice link to read more about reported UFO occupants, change the facts and reinterpret them how you wish

www.nicap.org...



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atomic
This is going around in a circle.

Even if they are human...which I can accept for argument sake. You now have to explain the craft. The reason for why the craft was there. Why they were testing the craft during the day (since you say these US anti-gravity craft are hidden so well). And why the government was willing to draw attention to it by investigating it. I assume if they knew it was ours and it was top secret, you wouldn't send out people to draw attention to your anti-gravity aircraft. You would just discredit Zamora or play it off as a wayward test aircraft...end of story.


If the general public's come to accept that "out-of-the-ordinary" objects, that they might see in the sky, are probably "UFOs", then why wouldn't you risk testing out your hardware in broad daylight? I see little point in limiting one's testing abilities, of advanced military systems, when you've got the ultimate cover-story at-hand.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Egotosum
If the general public's come to accept that "out-of-the-ordinary" objects, that they might see in the sky, are probably "UFOs", then why wouldn't you risk testing out your hardware in broad daylight? I see little point in limiting one's testing abilities, of advanced military systems, when you've got the ultimate cover-story at-hand.


Because, as the USAF found out in Bosnia, one mistake, one lucky shot, human error, unforseen malfunction, pilot illness etc and the whole stack of cards comes falling down.

No military commander in their right mind tests a top-secret project in the public view because it sure as hell isn't going to stay secret for very long.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by Egotosum
If the general public's come to accept that "out-of-the-ordinary" objects, that they might see in the sky, are probably "UFOs", then why wouldn't you risk testing out your hardware in broad daylight? I see little point in limiting one's testing abilities, of advanced military systems, when you've got the ultimate cover-story at-hand.


Because, as the USAF found out in Bosnia, one mistake, one lucky shot, human error, unforseen malfunction, pilot illness etc and the whole stack of cards comes falling down.

No military commander in their right mind tests a top-secret project in the public view because it sure as hell isn't going to stay secret for very long.

That was a combat operation - the Serbians knew what was coming and just happened to have an interconnected SAM-system advanced enough to shoot down a lone F-117A.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Egotosum

If the general public's come to accept that "out-of-the-ordinary" objects, that they might see in the sky, are probably "UFOs", then why wouldn't you risk testing out your hardware in broad daylight? I see little point in limiting one's testing abilities, of advanced military systems, when you've got the ultimate cover-story at-hand.



I understand the promotion of UFOs to help use as a cover story, and I'm sure there is the occassional need to fly them once in a while in daylight...but to land a top secret anti-gravity aircraft near a small town in New Mexico in 1964 with unrestricted access is crazy! This is just two years after the Cuban Missle Crisis! Then the military is dumb enough to draw more international attention by sending photographers and investigators to the landing of your top secret aircraft AND disclose the contents of the burnt material that was left after the supposed anti-gravity craft "blasted off"?

So on one hand we are keeping this technology deep in secret areas to hide from foreign countries but we have no problem with test flights that land in public areas and put on a spectacle with bright lights, little men in spacesuits, and showing off how incredible these craft are? Was this the pattern with US Stealth technology? I don't remember a lot of public viewings of these craft and they aren't even anti-gravity, they just absorb and reflect radar!

Why is the military so reckless with the anti-gravity craft, yet I don't know of a single picture taken or personal encounter with the Aurora type craft that we all know exists? Sure they loved using UFOs to cover for SR-71 flights but landing your top secret aircraft near civilians makes no sense and I see no past pattern of the military ever doing this.

I think you are right about there being anti-gravity research, but I don't understand how you can say one thing and then turn it around and ok the blatant demostrations of these secret aircraft.



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Atomic

Originally posted by Egotosum

If the general public's come to accept that "out-of-the-ordinary" objects, that they might see in the sky, are probably "UFOs", then why wouldn't you risk testing out your hardware in broad daylight? I see little point in limiting one's testing abilities, of advanced military systems, when you've got the ultimate cover-story at-hand.



I understand the promotion of UFOs to help use as a cover story, and I'm sure there is the occassional need to fly them once in a while in daylight...but to land a top secret anti-gravity aircraft near a small town in New Mexico in 1964 with unrestricted access is crazy! This is just two years after the Cuban Missle Crisis! Then the military is dumb enough to draw more international attention by sending photographers and investigators to the landing of your top secret aircraft AND disclose the contents of the burnt material that was left after the supposed anti-gravity craft "blasted off"?

So on one hand we are keeping this technology deep in secret areas to hide from foreign countries but we have no problem with test flights that land in public areas and put on a spectacle with bright lights, little men in spacesuits, and showing off how incredible these craft are? Was this the pattern with US Stealth technology? I don't remember a lot of public viewings of these craft and they aren't even anti-gravity, they just absorb and reflect radar!

Why is the military so reckless with the anti-gravity craft, yet I don't know of a single picture taken or personal encounter with the Aurora type craft that we all know exists? Sure they loved using UFOs to cover for SR-71 flights but landing your top secret aircraft near civilians makes no sense and I see no past pattern of the military ever doing this.

I think you are right about there being anti-gravity research, but I don't understand how you can say one thing and then turn it around and ok the blatant demostrations of these secret aircraft.

Who's to say that the craft didn't run into trouble and was forced to land so it's crew could do a cursory inspection? On the off-chance that they were spotted, on the ground, what's the most likely story to be spun by the press and believed by the general public? That an advanced military weapon's system was spotted, on the ground, by a police officer, or that Zamora spotted an alien spacecraft?

As for why, in other instances, the military might want it's weapon's systems buzzing commercial and other military aircraft - they could simply be testing out the stealthiness, or lack thereof, of these advanced craft. These sort of tests would be helpful in redesigning these craft to more successfully allude the attentions of aircraft and ground-radar systems.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Ok we have hundreds of UFO encounters that claim before and after 1964 that strange craft that have landed and had occupants that are very odd looking and in behaviour. This is reported worldwide (supposedly one just happened last month in North Dakota with 9 foot beings that I posted on).

You contend the best way to avoid attention to your top secret craft is to say "UFO-aliens" instead of "crashed test aircraft"? Which do you think has lasted in most people's memory longer? Is there a "Crashed Test-Flights" board on ATS I'm missing or TV shows talking about this? Why not just trot out another weather balloon story or scientific "hot air" balloon type thing and say: "Zamora is a great police officer, but what he saw was just a mishap of an off course test aircraft that works like a hot air balloon. For security reasons we can't go into details, but the craft is not dangerous". Why pull out a cover story about a UFO that is going to make international news, since similar stories had been reported around the world? There's no need to spin the story...it could of ended the next day, instead of still being talked about to this day and as we are doing right now.


I agree partially with your second paragraph. But you don't need to fly around in public to test an aircraft, you do that on the test range. The commercial public is unlikely to have unknown radar to test against that you probably couldn't do safely on the test range. Plus the feedback would be extremely sketchy since you would only be going off press clippings. And even if they did have something that showed a flaw in your craft...would you want that flaw to be exposed in front of the public and possibly exposing your top secret craft to a crash or emergency landing on Main Street USA?

What you do eventually test against is foreign military like Eisenhower did against the Soviet Union by making flights into their country and then seeing what reaction they got. I'm sure the US does this with test flights today by first flying into Canada, the UK, and Australia before moving on to someone bigger like NATO, then the small unfriendlies, and then the big dogs like China and the Soviet Union.

I"m not sold that this craft is alien. It could be military or it could be a couple guys fooling around, like the guy in LA with the lawn chair and balloons. An anti-gravity craft that blasts off seems kind of odd to have and I have my doubts that aliens would have a rocket propelled/anti-gravity hybrid scout ship either. I just don't know what it is. But if you want to latch on to it then you better show some supporting evidence why we should believe you enough to change Zamora's testimony other than "what if's". You can use Nick Cook's book, but someone can just as easily hide behind a book from Richard Dolan, Timothy Good or Stanton Friedman. Let's see some more evidence.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atomic
Ok we have hundreds of UFO encounters that claim before and after 1964 that strange craft that have landed and had occupants that are very odd looking and in behaviour. This is reported worldwide (supposedly one just happened last month in North Dakota with 9 foot beings that I posted on).

You contend the best way to avoid attention to your top secret craft is to say "UFO-aliens" instead of "crashed test aircraft"? Which do you think has lasted in most people's memory longer? Is there a "Crashed Test-Flights" board on ATS I'm missing or TV shows talking about this? Why not just trot out another weather balloon story or scientific "hot air" balloon type thing and say: "Zamora is a great police officer, but what he saw was just a mishap of an off course test aircraft that works like a hot air balloon. For security reasons we can't go into details, but the craft is not dangerous". Why pull out a cover story about a UFO that is going to make international news, since similar stories had been reported around the world? There's no need to spin the story...it could of ended the next day, instead of still being talked about to this day and as we are doing right now.


Because who's going to question or, at the very least, critically analyse the notion that it wasn't an alien spacecraft? No-one, apart from anorak UFO-ologists and people like ourselves who frequent forums like this.

It's the perfect cover - hide what you're doing, in plain-sight. Most of the general public's never seen a "UFO" - and the message the mainstream media's been sending out for quite a while now, is that these sightings of UFOs and their "occupants" are either explained by natural phenomena, conventional commerical and military aicraft, hoaxes, sightings by fantasists or by the mentally-deranged.

My personal view on the matter of abductions and sightings of "aliens" is that we're dealing with people who are either attempting to get noticed by the wider world, who get a hard-on from making stuff up, out and out fantasists or individuals with psychological conditions - but I'm not comfortable with dismissing, out of hand, the thousands of sightings, since the late 1940s, of "UFOs", by individuals ranging from pilots (both commercial and military), police officers like Lonnie Zamora to the John and Jane Doe's of this world.

Since there's little to no verifiable evidence to suggest that we're not currently alone, in this neck of the Universe, i'm more inclined to believe that these "UFOs" are purely of terrestrial origin. Hell, we know for a fact that the Nazis were pouring money and other resources (even in the closing stages of WWII) into exotic-weaponary research (including anti-gravity research) and that in the late 1940s, people all over the US suddenly started seeing all types of UFOs in the skies.



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Egotosum

Because who's going to question or, at the very least, critically analyse the notion that it wasn't an alien spacecraft? No-one, apart from anorak UFO-ologists and people like ourselves who frequent forums like this.


Oh come on. Who is going to critically question the minds of those who think the Nazi's were some kind of quasi-gods who managed to develop anti-gravity while the rest of the world were struggling with crude jet engines?

And besides, it HAS been questioned, and all you have done is stonewall it. We have mentioned that there is no need to test an airframe out in the US without taking it anywhere near the borders of a restricted area, and asked why anyone in their right mind would need to fly it so close to a populated area.

We have pointed out the size of the occupants, and the correlating bushes that size meaurements were taken against. We have referred to the physical ground trace evidence that was measured by Zamora's colleagues in the police force. We have told you about the corroborating witness stories and yet you still dismiss it all and go back to your theory.



It's the perfect cover - hide what you're doing, in plain-sight. Most of the general public's never seen a "UFO" - and the message the mainstream media's been sending out for quite a while now, is that these sightings of UFOs and their "occupants" are either explained by natural phenomena, conventional commerical and military aicraft, hoaxes, sightings by fantasists or by the mentally-deranged.


Yes! the perfect cover. Have you new super-secret technology that is unproven malfunction and land in a shopping mall car park where no one will see it and it can be easily explained away.



My personal view on the matter of abductions and sightings of "aliens" is that we're dealing with people who are either attempting to get noticed by the wider world, who get a hard-on from making stuff up, out and out fantasists or individuals with psychological conditions - but I'm not comfortable with dismissing, out of hand, the thousands of sightings, since the late 1940s, of "UFOs", by individuals ranging from pilots (both commercial and military), police officers like Lonnie Zamora to the John and Jane Doe's of this world.


You are scared of it aren't you? Thats what it appears to boil down to. What you are saying is that you need to find something else to believe because the actual thought of extraterrestrial phenomena is so weird it freaks you out. To deal with it you would rather believe in super-secret nazi technology that you have no proof of at all other than a book written by Nick Cook who may well have been spoon fed and duped by a Nazi supremacist with an agenda.



Since there's little to no verifiable evidence to suggest that we're not currently alone, in this neck of the Universe, i'm more inclined to believe that these "UFOs" are purely of terrestrial origin. Hell, we know for a fact that the Nazis were pouring money and other resources (even in the closing stages of WWII) into exotic-weaponary research (including anti-gravity research) and that in the late 1940s, people all over the US suddenly started seeing all types of UFOs in the skies.


What we're dealing with is a closed mind here. There is plenty of evidence of UFO's, and science accepts the fact that there is a high percentage that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe. We do not know that the Nazi's were researching anti-gravity at all. Its hearsay. Yes they had a lot of things on the drawing board and alot of it was impressive but you appear to be indulging in some kind of fantasy about how far ahead they were.

And finally, if you think the UFO subject only started after WW2, you are - once again - sadly mistaken, and very ignorant of the subject. Sightings of objects in the skies goes way back through history. What Kenneth Arnold saw in 1947 was the beginning of the modern UFO era in the information age. It wasn't the start of the UFO subject at all.

[edit on 7-11-2006 by neformore]



posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Oh come on. Who is going to critically question the minds of those who think the Nazi's were some kind of quasi-gods who managed to develop anti-gravity while the rest of the world were struggling with crude jet engines?

And besides, it HAS been questioned, and all you have done is stonewall it. We have mentioned that there is no need to test an airframe out in the US without taking it anywhere near the borders of a restricted area, and asked why anyone in their right mind would need to fly it so close to a populated area.

We have pointed out the size of the occupants, and the correlating bushes that size meaurements were taken against. We have referred to the physical ground trace evidence that was measured by Zamora's colleagues in the police force. We have told you about the corroborating witness stories and yet you still dismiss it all and go back to your theory.


If the general public's readily come to accept that the unidentifiable objects they're seeing in their skies, are UFOs (possibly of extra-terrestrial origin) what are they most likely to think about cases such as the Lonnie Zamora one? That Zamora saw some sort of classified military craft, or a craft of extra-terrestrial origin? Plus, to argue that "there is no need to test an airframe out in the US without taking it anywhere near the borders of a restricted area" belies the fact that it's done all the time. Ever heard of "Aurora". The 1980s and 1990s were filled with sightings of a triangle-shaped craft flying over the European continent (in one case, spotted by an RAF-trained observer who alleged that the triangle-shaped craft was being escorted by F-111s).


What we're dealing with is a closed mind here. There is plenty of evidence of UFO's, and science accepts the fact that there is a high percentage that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe. We do not know that the Nazi's were researching anti-gravity at all. Its hearsay. Yes they had a lot of things on the drawing board and alot of it was impressive but you appear to be indulging in some kind of fantasy about how far ahead they were.


Ask yourself, what's the most likely explanation for the "Foo-fighter" phenomena and the sudden explosion of UFO sightings in the 1940s (sightings quite different in nature to one's in previous centuries that can, in large part, be explained away as natural phenomena such as shooting stars and other astronomical events)? That little green men (if, indeed, we are not alone in this neck of the universe) inexplicably started taking interest in us Earthlings? Or that the Nazis tinkered with anti-gravity technology, developed test craft (partially automated UAVs) and that the US built on that technology throughout the mid to late 1940s?



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Egotosum
If the general public's readily come to accept that the unidentifiable objects they're seeing in their skies, are UFOs (possibly of extra-terrestrial origin) what are they most likely to think about cases such as the Lonnie Zamora one? That Zamora saw some sort of classified military craft, or a craft of extra-terrestrial origin? Plus, to argue that "there is no need to test an airframe out in the US without taking it anywhere near the borders of a restricted area" belies the fact that it's done all the time. Ever heard of "Aurora". The 1980s and 1990s were filled with sightings of a triangle-shaped craft flying over the European continent (in one case, spotted by an RAF-trained observer who alleged that the triangle-shaped craft was being escorted by F-111s).


What Chris Gibson saw in 1989 was interesting, but really has no relevance to this. Why? Because he saw it being refulled by a KC-135 and accompanied by two F-111's, which kind of points to the fact that it is/was a USAF project.

That having been said, other than the shape there was nothing to point out that the object was anything but conventionally powered. It may have been an extension of the F-117 technology that is subsonic (i.e. the often rumoured Black Manta). Even if it was even more interesting than that - in the case of Aurora - powered by PDE Engines (and he never reported an unusual sound, or a donuts on a rope contrail from it by the way), then that type of engine, whilst exotic, is a logical extension of technology currently in use. Its not anti-gravity.

As for flight testing, speed dictates that a larger area is required. When the U2 was tested civilian radars could not see that high. When the SR71 was tested air traffic controllers were briefed on the fact that there may be high speed traffic. I'm sure that similar things happen today with high-speed projects. In both cases the vehicles themselves were never seen in public. Tacit Blue, the F-117, and the B2 were not seen in public until such time as the military wanted them to be seen. You however are arguing about a case from 1967, using - so you say - a vertical takeoff anti-gravity craft powered by captured nazi-technology, which the US military decided to land in a publicly viewable area to have a look at. Your argument simply doesn't make sense.



Ask yourself, what's the most likely explanation for the "Foo-fighter" phenomena and the sudden explosion of UFO sightings in the 1940s (sightings quite different in nature to one's in previous centuries that can, in large part, be explained away as natural phenomena such as shooting stars and other astronomical events)? That little green men (if, indeed, we are not alone in this neck of the universe) inexplicably started taking interest in us Earthlings? Or that the Nazis tinkered with anti-gravity technology, developed test craft (partially automated UAVs) and that the US built on that technology throughout the mid to late 1940s?


Foo fighters were not just seen in the European theatre, or just by allied pilots. They were seen by US forces in the Pacific, and by Axis pilots following their aircraft too. Again, you have not researched the issue before trying to mould it into your theory - in fact what you are now suggesting is that the technology was so advanced it was able to be minaturised and radio controlled from the ground.

Damn. Those Nazi's must have been bloody clever. No nuclear weapons, piss poor jet engines that had to be serviced for 25 hours after a 2 hour flight, rocket powered interceptors with a 3 minute burn duration that could either work or blow themselves to pieces and yet they had minaturised anti-gravity disks sent to harrass planes that served no purpose at all.

Your knowlegde of historical UFO sightings is appalling if you think that they can be explained away so easily, but again, you chip in with the "little green men" jibe, like it means anything. Its just a cheap shot bought up by skeptics to try and ridicule a subject they know very little about and can't be bothered to investigate properly. I'm sure you would be offended if people referred to your preferred explantion as a "nazi worshipping", wouldn't you?

As for your questioning of extraterrestrial motives, I'm sure that a society taking the step from being able to wipe out a few hundred people in one go using explosives and/or gas to having the technology to obliterate all intelligent life on the planet by using nuclear weapons would be of significant study interest to a more advanced race who had been observing the development of life on this planet, in the same way that humans observe interactions between animals or research our own history.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

What Chris Gibson saw in 1989 was interesting, but really has no relevance to this. Why? Because he saw it being refulled by a KC-135 and accompanied by two F-111's, which kind of points to the fact that it is/was a USAF project.

That having been said, other than the shape there was nothing to point out that the object was anything but conventionally powered. It may have been an extension of the F-117 technology that is subsonic (i.e. the often rumoured Black Manta). Even if it was even more interesting than that - in the case of Aurora - powered by PDE Engines (and he never reported an unusual sound, or a donuts on a rope contrail from it by the way), then that type of engine, whilst exotic, is a logical extension of technology currently in use. Its not anti-gravity.

As for flight testing, speed dictates that a larger area is required. When the U2 was tested civilian radars could not see that high. When the SR71 was tested air traffic controllers were briefed on the fact that there may be high speed traffic. I'm sure that similar things happen today with high-speed projects. In both cases the vehicles themselves were never seen in public. Tacit Blue, the F-117, and the B2 were not seen in public until such time as the military wanted them to be seen. You however are arguing about a case from 1967, using - so you say - a vertical takeoff anti-gravity craft powered by captured nazi-technology, which the US military decided to land in a publicly viewable area to have a look at. Your argument simply doesn't make sense.


Au contraire - you said, and I quote, "And besides, it HAS been questioned, and all you have done is stonewall it. We have mentioned that there is no need to test an airframe out in the US without taking it anywhere near the borders of a restricted area, and asked why anyone in their right mind would need to fly it so close to a populated area." That's simply incorrect - as Chris Gibson's 1989 sighting of a triangle/delta-shaped craft over the North Sea clearly demonstrates.

There's also the case of an F-117, in the 1980s, that crashed near a bunch of campers who were quite a distance from any restricted areas.

Whatever the nature of the airborne weapon's project, there's little reason why you wouldn't test it outside of restricted areas - such relatively small "test" areas end up restricting testing of the operational capabilities of your weapon's platform.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Egotosum

Au contraire - you said, and I quote, "And besides, it HAS been questioned, and all you have done is stonewall it. We have mentioned that there is no need to test an airframe out in the US without taking it anywhere near the borders of a restricted area, and asked why anyone in their right mind would need to fly it so close to a populated area." That's simply incorrect - as Chris Gibson's 1989 sighting of a triangle/delta-shaped craft over the North Sea clearly demonstrates.

There's also the case of an F-117, in the 1980s, that crashed near a bunch of campers who were quite a distance from any restricted areas.

Whatever the nature of the airborne weapon's project, there's little reason why you wouldn't test it outside of restricted areas - such relatively small "test" areas end up restricting testing of the operational capabilities of your weapon's platform.


I wouldn't call the North Sea a densely populated area - would you? And if it hadn't been for the one in god knows how many chance of a former member of the Royal Observer Core being present on an oil rig, no one would have batted an eyelid over the aircraft passing overhead. You are, however, correct that the craft was seen outside a testing range - but maybe it was operational and not being tested?

You see, I can believe that the US has operational black aircraft in its inventory - I love all things aeronautical which is why I got into this subject in the first place. What I can't believe is that the US was operating oval shaped craft powered by Nazi- technology anti-gravity devices and piloted by midgets in and around populated ares in 1967.

As for the F-117 incident to which you refer, theres a bit of a difference between a crash and a controlled landing of an object that took off and flew away unhindered under its own power at incredible speed.

I'm sorry but you are clutching at straws by arguing moot points. You ignored the rest of my post because it didn't suit your argument and pulled this bit out in the vague hope of getting some ground back.

You seem to be under the impression that you are the only person who has looked into this angle or this argument before. You aren't. I've been through it myself, which is why I'm pointing out the discrepances in it to you as logically as I can as and when I log onto ATS.

[edit on 8-11-2006 by neformore]



posted on Feb, 8 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strawberry_Icecream
One cannot ignore the size of the occupants reported by Zamora…

Zamora stated that the humanoids he saw were “two small figures in what resembled white coveralls”. He states that they were “the size of boys”, and noted that the heads of the figures fell noticeably below the bushes that were around the landing site. Among the indentations found at the landing site were small footprints.


Interesting reply! Well done! That deserves a flag in itself!





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join