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.

 

On to something huge here! (UFO HOAX)

page: 19
9
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frozenthought


Also I am still wating for your answer/guess as to what you think the aircraft alt was... I posted it back one page

I have said repeatedly and in the footage itself, I don't know what they are.


Did you read and understand what I said?

I was asking you where the answer to my question I asked you in this post was......

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Based on what you see; in the above what alt. (Altitude) is the flight at in that picture. That is what I asking.

As for UFO news I did not state you had anything to do with them what I stated was they were talking about you (the author of this thread)


[edit on 2/13/2007 by shots]




posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Did you read and understand what I said?

based on what you see; in the above what alt. (Altitude) is the flight at in that picture. That is what I asking.


No I didn't understand your question, I didn't see the Aly there, anyhow, I have said repeatedly I believe they were 50 to 100 feet off the water



[edit on 13-2-2007 by Frozenthought]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I know this is all heresay, but I was talking to my sister about a month or so ago, while she was driving home to Shaker Hts., Ohio, and she freaked out saying that she saw these giant lights circling around and around. My guess is that they looked similar to this, but no one can be sure

I am not sure where the DavidSerda? clip was shot at, but it has to be semi close to the same area (Lake Erie). I think that these craft are scoping out several areas of interest to them, or who knows maybe it is just black craft on a joyride from Wright Pat.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Don Wahn
I know this is all heresay, but I was talking to my sister about a month or so ago, while she was driving home to Shaker Hts., Ohio, and she freaked out saying that she saw these giant lights circling around and around. My guess is that they looked similar to this, but no one can be sure

I am not sure where the DavidSerda? clip was shot at, but it has to be semi close to the same area (Lake Erie). I think that these craft are scoping out several areas of interest to them, or who knows maybe it is just black craft on a joyride from Wright Pat.


This was shot very close to Shaker Hts, In Eastlake.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frozenthought


No I didn't understand your question, I didn't see the Aly there, anyhow, I have said repeatedly I believe they were 50 to 100 feet off the water


What you see there is google earth GPS locations with line the end of the line would be the alt of the aircraft which as you can see is under the horizion not over and in this case the flight in question shows it was at 1900 feet. The other lines that are much higher and above the horizon were above 28,000 or higher.



Note the arrow pointing to the flight
which was



Now here ia the google identifier showing it was at 01900 feet



As you can see at that distance they are in reality right over the water under the horizon which proves that the objects you saw would in fact be at around 30,000 if not higher and also farther apart then you think.


[edit on 2/13/2007 by shots]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frozenthought
As you can see at that distance they are in reality right over the water under the horizon which proves that the objects you saw would in fact be at around 30,000 if not higher and also farther apart then you think.
[edit on 2/13/2007 by shots]


You know what, you asked me a question, I gave you my answer, your pictures mean nothing to me, I was there, I know what I saw and the video reflects that, What exactly are you trying to prove ?

````````````````````````
Fixed quote (I think)

[edit on 13/2/07 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frozenthought

You know what, you asked me a question, I gave you my answer, your pictures mean nothing to me, I was there, I know what I saw and the video reflects that, What exactly are you trying to prove ?




Means nothing to you
You were there yes but what you saw was not at the altitude you thought they were :shk:


It is obvious by the evidence I have proven what you see is not what you think it is at those distances. That is the point I was making.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   
LOST MIND WROTE:
This is not in my eyes a "crucifixion" here. *My* sole intent is to see if Frozenthought is willing to at least concede that it is possible that these are no more than aircraft as has been ascribed by some here.


SOUTHPAW RESPONSE:
I appreciate all that you wrote... I feel ya. I think we can all agree that FrozenThought can concede it COULD have been and aircraft... otherwise he wouldn't be here in the firstplace, no?

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it might make sense if we looked at each other as a "team" of sorts... loosely bound... yet at a more than significant point. Take the time to say... "okay bro... This is what I've got that is counter to our theory that this could be a legit sighting."

REMEMBER that the witness testimony IS significant. This is not someone who is off in lala land. This is obviously someone with a history HERE, and has been "briefed" on what to look for.

Does that mean this is ET's Taxi? Nope. Not at all.

I again defer to the questions I left above...

WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE SIGHTING?

Here's a secret... I can tell if he's LYING.


And if I have a problem... if it's border line for ME, personally... I just defer to the AH. He's pretty much got it down... And even HE has questions. Even HE has "holes" in the "whole nine yards".

After FORTY YEARS of investigation... And NO that does NOT mean he's a "poor" investigator... Again... research him. go check it out.

As far as Frozen goes...

I wanna know what came AFTER. THAT is where we will know what's going on... They might not even know they are describing attributes of an event...

It's the same thing as the look people get on their faces when I ask them "what monsters lived in your bedroom when you were a kid?". VERY Interesting... sometimes ya gotta stop yourself from chuckling cuz they don't quite get it yet...

Anywho...

SPout.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southpaw11
.....cuz they don't quite get it yet...


No fooling......I like your style, but I'm in the dark trying to figure what the heck your yammerin' about.

Maybe bring it down a few notches..K?



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
As you can see at that distance they are in reality right over the water under the horizon which proves that the objects you saw would in fact be at around 30,000 if not higher and also farther apart then you think.

As I said before, I believe those were airplanes.

But, seeing that is impossible to know their size it is impossible to know at what distance they were. Also, as we do not know the distance, it's impossible to know their size.

So, I think that this discussion about they being airplanes or not could be endless, unless some of the members involved in the discussion looses his/hers temper and gets banned from ATS.

The video was posted to all to see.

The only witness says the objects were near, although he does not have any means of really measuring the distance and size of the objects.

Many proofs were presented that they could be airplanes and it was shown how they behave in a way that airplanes may behave when approaching an airport.

But I think that, unless we get any new evidences, it is useless to continue just saying they were airplanes/they were not airplanes, that leads us nowhere and only brings to the thread people who like this type of confrontation.

So, why don't we just relax a bit and try to find different ways of proving our points, the ones used so far do not get us closer to the truth than we already are.



posted on Feb, 13 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Agreed, Peace!

````````````````````````
Trimmed quote of post directly above

[edit on 13/2/07 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   
i think when you start putting the pieces together, that is what is rememarkable, Is my video mindblowing, well yes, but i actually have much better than this but, What are the odds the exact same objects are also being video'd over another Great Lake? Lake Ontario? This is the beginning of world wide evidence that will all backthe other up, showing the reality of the same ET phenomenon world wide, look already...People all over are seeing these single & double plasma spheres

www.abovetopsecret.com...

More & more people are going to start reporting and investigating the subject themselves, more & more video will be captured, answers will be demanded.

That is what I think



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 12:37 AM
link   
SHOTS WROTE:

As you can see at that distance they are in reality right over the water under the horizon which proves that the objects you saw would in fact be at around 30,000 if not higher and also farther apart then you think.




SOUTHPAW RESPONSE
I don't know that this is necessarily the right way to approach this. Does it REALLY "prove" anything other than another POSSIBLE explanation? Is not the possiblity of THAT solution just as plausible as that of FrozenThought?

Atmospheric distorition... etc... When you look at that vid. Those craft made contact. They were not two like sized aircraft... the lighting patterns, first of all... are NOT nav lights.

Landing lights? Hmmm.... perhaps.

But ...

DEFINTELY NOT the "anomoly"?

Too fast.

RESERVE JUDGEMENT.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgainstSecrecy
Those new members that are coming here the last few days and trying to debunk nearly everything could be sockpuppets. it's a common debunker tactic to use sockpuppets to convince people. like "yeah if so many people say they're aircraft lights, they have to be." If it's made a bit smart then the sockpuppets are hiding behind proxies/webproxies to not be idendified as beeing the same poster.


If you go back and look, just as many of the “new accounts”, or “sock puppets” as you put it, have been supporting the video, not debunking it. I have been watching this bit closely myself, since I started posting on this thread, as I am always suspect when I see a new account come up post one way or the other then disappear. Checking several of these new accounts though, shows this is not the only thread they have posted too, so it’s questionable if they are sock puppets or just new members.

I hate to again bring up the old freemason threads, but I got into the habit of watching for this type of activity on those threads. We would often be in a heated debate when some perspective new member would show up and start posting how great masonry was and how much they wanted to become a member, to derail the thread.

I would suspect though that if such behavior was going on the Mods are more aware of it then us members, and keeping an eye on the situation. I was glad to see both Springer and Masqua post on this thread as I know that the situation is now being monitored by mods that have been fair on this stuff in the past.


Originally posted by AgainstSecrecy
These people are "on the job" or running a personel agenda. They simply have to do it.


You really need to stop accusing people of this, just because they don’t agree with you. It shows a lack of proper objectivity on your part, and really annoys folks that maybe have a different opinion then you do. You know that folks DO have a RIGHT to disagree with your analysis WITHOUT having to be some type of government dis-info agent. I mean I have been on this site for 3 years before you ever registered, and yeah I tend to be a skeptic, but my post history does not show anything that would indicate that I work for the government. Most of my posts are about subjects on aviation, theology, ecstology, electronics, sleep disorders, and things like that. I generally tend to avoid Ufology like the plague, now would a government agent that is being paid to debunk UFO’s act in that manner?

I would like to know what right you have to come in here and make accusations against a member like myself that has been here far longer then you and has a proven track record that shows the opposite of what your saying?

Even in this topic, I only got involved because it was so obvious to me that he filmed aircraft landing in the same manner that I have seen thousands of times before. If it had not been for that fact, I would have never posted on this thread as UFO’s are not really a subject I have much interest in. I normally only post when I have something useful to add to a subject and avoid the rest, so in what way does this fit the bill of my having an agenda, or being paid to do this?

Tell me how long would a government agent have a job if he posted something like this?


Is America the Antichrist
Originally posted by defcon5
Look up historicism. The levels of the statue in Daniel each relate to a form of world controlling government at their time period, so do Daniels beasts. Paul says that there will be many Anti-Christ’s, even in his day and age. Check my other posts and read them. The US or whoever controls the US is the final beast named in revelations, the one that enforces the mark, and follows closely with the beast before it.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frozenthought
It is interesting that your partner is a pilot as well, There have been other pilots here at ATS as well who have stated these are not planes but some people here think they know even more about planes than actual pilots it seems :-)


I would not say that I know more about aircraft then a pilot, but I know different things about them. To be honest there are many levels to being a pilot and just because someone is a pilot does not make them an expert at all things aviation. For example, I had a Ramp Agent, who I was pretty good friends with, and he was a pilot. I knew far more about commercial fight ops then he did though, despite the fact that he held a commercial license and was a flight instructor. Having a commercial license does not qualify you to fly for commercial airlines; it only qualifies you to fly for money. You need a certain level of air transport certification (I could have the wrong name on this, but I am pretty sure this is what is called) to fly for an airlines.

Does being a pilot make someone qualified to be a mechanic? No…
As a matter of fact many mechanics hold higher qualifications then pilots do, a Chief mechanic not only holds his mechanic licenses, but also often a specialist mechanic license, and is qualified to fly the aircraft on test flights.

Being a ramp supervisor made me quite adept at identifying aircraft lights, as I had to know exactly when my flights would be landing so I could shift man-power to that flights gate to marshal it in, park it, and begin unloading it. Aircraft on approach radio flight ops when they get "in range” of the airport, this is relayed to all the ground teams and the PSA’s (passenger service agents). The supervisor then has to be watching for that aircrafts approach so they know when its “on the ground” to signal that over the radio so the PSA’s and ramp team can head for the gate to meet the aircraft. Because of this I was quite adept at counting back lights. I could tell you which aircraft was mine when it was only a single light, then when it turned on its landing lights verify that it was the correct aircraft type, and then based on what runway it landed on how many minutes it would take for it taxi to the gate. Once I would see it land I would signal that on the radio, grab a set of night wands, and shift a tugger plus three or four ramp agents to the gate.

Now, do pilots do that?

No they only need to be aware that there is a light in their immediate vicinity so they don’t close to interfere with it, they do not need to be adept at identifying what type of aircraft it is. I am sure that many do get good at it, but its not a mandatory thing, even more so with non-commercial pilots.

Let me give you an example:

A Dehavland Dash-8 would be easy to spot because it has distinct landing lights on its tail, also because it approaches from a higher altitude then a jet does. While a jet makes a gradual descent into the airport, the Dash-8, seem to approach above the jets glide-slope and make a swooping decent onto the runway, very distinct once you have witnessed it a few times.
A 727 has 4 landing lights, plus a red and green nav light visible on approach. AA 727’s only use two of the four…
A 737 also has four landing lights, but only three are ever visible (plus the red and green nav light) as two are at the wing roots and sandwiched between the engine and the fuselage, so only three can be seen unless you were standing right on the center line of the runway.
All of your DC-9 and MD-80 variants have the three lights and dim nav lights that we see in many black triangle photos. And so on…
Now some airlines vary these lights somewhat, such as the AA 727’s above, but on standard this is 100% accurate. .

Bring your pilot in here and tell me this is incorrect?
Of course I am going to want to make sure I am speaking to a REAL pilot, so I am going to have some questions of him too…


[edit on 2/14/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Don Wahn
and she freaked out saying that she saw these giant lights circling around and around. My guess is that they looked similar to this, but no one can be sure


Here is your circling around bit in this map provided by mythatsabigprobe…


Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe


Now my aircraft map reading is a bit on the rusty side, but the thing that looks like a pill shaped race track with the two compass headings of 057 and 237 degrees, is a holding pattern used to stack aircraft on approach into CLE..

Maybe Snafu can double check me on this though , as I said I am rusty at reading these things.

[edit on 2/14/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southpaw11
I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it might make sense if we looked at each other as a "team" of sorts... loosely bound... yet at a more than significant point. Take the time to say... "okay bro... This is what I've got that is counter to our theory that this could be a legit sighting."


I would like nothing more then there to be a team effort at this stuff, but I don’t see it happening. The reason is that the second someone disagrees that every speck of crap on a piece of film is a UFO there are members that start making accusations and calling folks professional debunkers. These same folks cannot even admit when there is a “reasonable doubt” that should disqualify a piece of evidence as a potential misidentification, let alone an outright hoax.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   

These same folks cannot even admit when there is a “reasonable doubt” that should disqualify a piece of evidence as a potential misidentification, let alone an outright hoax.


Everybody decides for them self what there own level of “reasonable doubt” is? How do we decide who'd definition is correct?

It is all a personal perspective and it is all just opinion. The only thing that is left to do is resepct each others opinion even if it if different than your own.

That is hard though for most.



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 02:46 AM
link   
New Great lakes UFO info

ufonews.tv...
Scroll down to bottom

[edit on 14-2-2007 by Frozenthought]



posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frozenthought
Everybody decides for them self what there own level of “reasonable doubt” is? How do we decide who'd definition is correct?


I would hope to most; that filming into known, marked “jetways” would be a huge disqualifying factor…
I mean folks have shown this to be flightpaths on Flight Tracker, Flight Explorer, and conventional air maps.


Originally posted by Frozenthought
It is all a personal perspective and it is all just opinion. The only thing that is left to do is resepct each others opinion even if it if different than your own.


I cannot necessarily disagree with this, but again, when your shooting your footage straight into mapped flight paths, doesn’t that at the very least throw up a few warning flags to a rational person?


Originally posted by Frozenthought
That is hard though for most.


Yes it is, on that we can agree.
For whatever reason UFO’s are almost a faith based religion unto themselves, and I fear that throws a lot of objectivity out the window; same as any religion. I truly wish it could be otherwise, but I fear that it can never be…

You know they started a group here called “Fair Skeptics”, but no-one that is a believer is going to believe any doubts put forth by such a group. Immediately they are “government debunkers” withholding this pseudo-religions messiah of “disclosure”.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join