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.

 

ECETI, James Gilliland - Excellent and Controversial Conference

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr
Check out the videos on Google:

Two ships powering up
UFOs in the sky
Another UFO
Close-up of Red Orb in the sky
[edit on 19-8-2007 by MrdDstrbr]


Those videos are some of the most disgusting recordings I've ever seen. Were those people drunk when recording? No wonder some of the aliens don't want to encounter some of us. Those people just continue the stereotype that most humans act stupid. You don't just be all "hey, come down and be our friends lulz!". You have to try and understand the perspective of the other side before you act. For all we know, the aliens might have been commanded by their leader not to make direct contact with us or, as somebody else previously said, the energy field around the ship may be harmful or deadly to us.


Originally posted by Michael Knight
Can I prove this?

Probably not to your satisfaction.

But I do not feel any need to prove anything that I have experienced, seen with my own eyes, and therefore know to be a personal truth.


I guess that beauty is not the only thing in the eye of the beholder. I am not saying that I doubt you. I just cannot believe you without any convincing proof. You have to understand where I, and most other people, are coming from. With all the hoaxes already seen on ATS, it's impossible for an experienced UFO believer to believe everything he or she hears and reads about.

I really don't know what to make of the orb phenomenon. It could be a light trick, dust particles being magnified in a certain way, etc. That's why I'm interested in your claim saying that when the producer flashed his camera at the UFO. If the flash returned was not completely uniform (proving it to not be a reflection of a sort), it could prove that the object was a higher technology.




posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by priloco
 



There are a couple of still pics of UFOs in the area in daylight, but they're at a distance and so detail is not 'detail.'

Also some still shots of UFOs "stepping down" as James calls it from a high frequency to our Hertizan frequency.

The UFOs filmed doing their "power ups" were all shot as they flew over at night, so aside from seeing them expand and contract their light, there is no 'detail' to see - same would apply of you videoed cars coming toward you changing their lights from low to high beam. You'd see the lights change, but no details of the vehicles.

Nevertheless, there are shots of different UFOs giving off quite a range of colors - from white light to some pulsating violet and a blue corona.

I personally spent many night hours trying to capture similar footage on our very expensive camera - but surprisingly, the average consumer camcorder with its "night shot" capability, does a much better job.

The consolation prize was that I did see a number of power-ups on those nights as well.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   
So, I just found the law that makes it illegal for americans to have physical contact with aliens. Title4,Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations, implemented on July 16 1969 can anyone verify this and why isnt it used more often as proof of our governments involvement.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by SonicInfinity
 


James makes no effort to convince anyone of anything. Nor do I.

This is actually a very respectful position, because it recognizes your right to question, assess, and decide for yourself.

Speaking only for myself, this also releases me from any urge to defend what I have experienced.

But I don't mind reporting what happened, and you can decide for yourself whether it answers any questions.

For example, a little digital camera flashlight hardly has the lux power to be seen from 50 thousand feet in the early daylight time does it? That's why we laughed so much - because with each little flash, the overhead UFO increased and decreased its own intensity - as if acknowledging our sense of humor (or sense of the riduculous...two itty bitty humans using a camera flashlight to contact Captain Picard and friends...


...

But I have taken dozens of orb pics on my own digital camera - and having been a lifelong photo-journalist, I know the difference between dust and reflections of various sorts.

If it's legit, I can post alink here to a page on my web site where yopu can see two pics I took ten seconds apart. Same people in each shot. But one has an overlay of orbs, and the other is a perfectly clear background.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by Michael Knight]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr
Also, I noticed that the chief dismisser, torsion, hasn't said anything about the video footage Gilliland shows towards the end of the conference (also available on Google Vid) of orbs up in the sky "powering up" and then dematerializing....


They look like aircraft to me. I live close to an airport and you get the same effect when distant planes are approaching the flight path. A dim light that suddenly flares up - it's just the lights aligning with the observers eyes, nothing extraterrrestrial at all. I don't know where this footage was taken. Gilliland says it was on his ranch but he also says a piece of blu-tack and a rotor kite are ufos so I have little cause to believe what the guy says.


Why is that, torsion? Did you even bother to WATCH the whole conference, or the UFO footage on Google? Or did you think it sufficient to just try to debunk a few photos and be done?


I really didn't want to waste my time after seeing the bogus stuff he presented in his galleries. But I might just take the time to do it to please you, Mill


In return, what are your thoughts on the blu-tack ufo stuck to a pane of glass? I'd like to hear your defence of that.

Also your thoughts on the rotor kite being flown in London. Why would Gilliland try to pretend it's a ufo when you can see the old guy actually reeling it in? Further, why would you trust a person who presents this clearly fake evidence? Your comment, please Millerman.

The photos of mass 'orbs' were most likely taken during a light rain. The people are looking up at the stars, not the out of focus rain drops that have been caught in the camera's flash.

The notion that the digital camera can pick up frequencies that the human eye cannot see is a device used by the naive or by the charlatan to deceive the unwary. Spiritualists pretend they are ghosts, contactees pretend they are extraterrestrial craft.

In a nutshell Gilliland's website has much evidence of deception and zero evidence of et contact.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 03:11 AM
link   
I dont know of any planes that change colors while pulsing and have the kind of intensity these objects have and in one of the videos they show a plane and it looks completely different and is much smaller with the flashing red light on the bottom.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 04:40 AM
link   
oh those ´well informed´eso.
in the video he claims taht a 7000 year old petroglyph shows an ´alien´ with ´space ship´, then a disc with a spiral that´shows a evolutional graph.

this was a known hoax! it was a graphic copy of a sputnik space ship in the sixties!
(google dropa stones)

then he shows an Abados stone graph, which was also a missunderstood SCRIPT, NOT a sign that shows ancient helicopters or tanks.

pure B.S. sorry.


[edit on 20-8-2007 by anti72]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by priloco
I dont know of any planes that change colors while pulsing and have the kind of intensity these objects have and in one of the videos they show a plane and it looks completely different and is much smaller with the flashing red light on the bottom.


You say you don't know of any planes that change colour, do you know of any extraterrestrial craft that change colour?

The colour change is probably due to the underperformance of the ccd in the camera and not a representation of reality. Such technology flaws are often misconstrued as special attributes of the camera - people think the camera can see things the human eye cannot.

Sadly it is just a technology defect exploited by the fraudsters.

Still no one has come forward to defend Gilliland's blu-tack ufo!! It won't go away by ignoring it!!



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
You have to try and understand the perspective of the other side before you act. For all we know, the aliens might have been commanded by their leader not to make direct contact with us or, as somebody else previously said, the energy field around the ship may be harmful or deadly to us.


Yes this is what I think too. They seem to have policies in place where they can put on a show for us in the sky and things like that, but they will not land and meet with people (yet).

Of course, there's still the possibility of meeting with them in lucid dreams or OBEs, atral projections and things of that nature.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Knight
But I have taken dozens of orb pics on my own digital camera - and having been a lifelong photo-journalist, I know the difference between dust and reflections of various sorts.

If it's legit, I can post alink here to a page on my web site where yopu can see two pics I took ten seconds apart. Same people in each shot. But one has an overlay of orbs, and the other is a perfectly clear background.
[edit on 20-8-2007 by Michael Knight]


Yes please do! That would be an excellent way to demonstrate that the Orbs aren't "dust".



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by Areal51
Anyway, he basically came clean about why he made fun of the whole thing by dressing up as an Alien during a press conference addressing the Phoenix Lights.


No, he did not dress up. It was another official, I think his Chief of Staff. He said he did that to lessen the tension. He felt at the time that people were getting much too worked up about it. When interviewed he said in hindsight he thought that might have been a mistake and he wasn't sure he would make the same decision had he to do it over again. He then went on to say how he had seen the lights. He was interviewed very thoroughly in the movie, Out of the Blue.


Yes, you're right it was his Chief of Staff, Jay Heiler, but as you've already said, Symington approved of the act. I guess, perhaps, together they felt that only one person representing his office needed to dress up as an alien in order to make their point of not taking the Phoenix Lights event too seriously. Because Symington approved, in my mind it just as well had been him who wore the alien costume even though in fact it was not. I didn't mean to give the impression that I was giving a report, just offered my impression of the interview I heard on C2C.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by torsion
They look like aircraft to me. I live close to an airport and you get the same effect when distant planes are approaching the flight path. A dim light that suddenly flares up - it's just the lights aligning with the observers eyes, nothing extraterrrestrial at all.


Ordinary aircraft have to fly in fairly straight trajectories, they don't hover and zip around erratically like these do, plus they can't dematerialize in the space of a few seconds....

And what did you make of this one, where he zooms in on a blue/pink Orb that is VERY obviously NOT an aircraft, that hovers, changes colors and pulsates, AND dematerializes?

There is NO way that you can realistically say that this is an ordinary aircraft....




Why is that, torsion? Did you even bother to WATCH the whole conference, or the UFO footage on Google? Or did you think it sufficient to just try to debunk a few photos and be done?


I really didn't want to waste my time after seeing the bogus stuff he presented in his galleries. But I might just take the time to do it to please you, Mill


There were a few other posters that did this too, they stopped reviewing the material as soon as they saw or heard something they didn't like. Why would you want to keep yourself in ignorance like that? Why wouldn't you check out ALL the available material before you start jumping to conclusions?




In return, what are your thoughts on the blu-tack ufo stuck to a pane of glass? I'd like to hear your defence of that.


Well, the picture is being taken through a window, so I suppose somebody could have stuck something to the window and tried to pass it off as a UFO. Though I don't know why they would bother, when legit sightings are happening on a daily basis there.



Also your thoughts on the rotor kite being flown in London. Why would Gilliland try to pretend it's a ufo when you can see the old guy actually reeling it in? Further, why would you trust a person who presents this clearly fake evidence? Your comment, please Millerman.


I really don't know, why don't you ask Gilliland that question?

That one didn't happen at his own ranch, I guess he included it because he thought it was interesting and didn't realize it was just a kite?
(A kite spinning really, really, REALLY, abnormally fast..........)



The notion that the digital camera can pick up frequencies that the human eye cannot see is a device used by the naive or by the charlatan to deceive the unwary. Spiritualists pretend they are ghosts, contactees pretend they are extraterrestrial craft.


Nope, Trevor James Constable even talks about this in UFO : Greatest Story. It was discovered back in the 50s already that cameras set to the Infra-red pick up UFOs that normal cameras and the naked eye do not. This is demonstrated in the film, plain as night and day.



In a nutshell Gilliland's website has much evidence of deception and zero evidence of et contact.


Please make the jump from Gilliland's website to the video footage available on Google. Especially the two conferences that I linked to. I know it's about 3 hours total, but there's a lot of excellent stuff to discuss in there, and if you refuse to watch them, you'll be deliberately keeping yourself in ignorance.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   
My GF and I have seen a craft power up like the gilliland video (we live out on the fringes of the desert) and I can tell you that whatever it is doing that, it is not a conventional craft. The thing became so bright it illuminated the entire street we were on. Then it literally vanished in a couple of seconds. It was incredible.

We have also seen these things 'flash' in sequence, a series of 3-4 bright flashes that look like explosions in the sky, then they slowly move off and disappear. We have also seen them stop and hover in one spot, and take off at unreal speeds, as well as pull 90 degree turns at high speed.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by DimensionalDetective]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr

Originally posted by Michael Knight


Yes please do! That would be an excellent way to demonstrate that the Orbs aren't "dust".


FYI - It was not raining and there was no dust around when I took
these pics


One of the most fascinating lectures at James' ECETI conference this year was by Dr Miceal Ledwith. He has over 100,000 orb pics, and a book on the subject will be coming out in October...complete with an in-depth explanation of the physics involved.







[edit on 20-8-2007 by Michael Knight]

[edit on 20-8-2007 by Michael Knight]

[edit on 20-8-2007 by Michael Knight]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Michael Knight
 


Thanks very much Michael, BTW your link didn't quite work, it needs to be edited to

www.buycontacthasbegun.com...

I love it though, hundreds of Orbs one moment, absolutely none ten seconds later.....


[edit on 20-8-2007 by MrdDstrbr]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr
And what did you make of this one, where he zooms in on a blue/pink Orb that is VERY obviously NOT an aircraft, that hovers, changes colors and pulsates, AND dematerializes?


You're right, it's not a plane. It's Venus or some other bright star. It isn't hovering, nor is it moving - only the camera moves. The colour may not be natural but a ccd effect. The 'dematerialisation' is caused by a thin cloud, not visible at such a zoom, that gradually obscures the star.

Sorry, still no evidence of extraterrestrials. Think outside the confines of the Greerian box, Mill, and do some personal experimentation! I got similar result filming a bright star with my video camera. I could have easily spoken some mumbo jumbo narration over the footage like Gilliland does in order to dupe the easily fooled but my integrity won't allow that.

I'll check out Gillilands entire movie over time. I can only take these charlatans in very small episodic doses!

In my estimation he currently stands as a 100% fraud!



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by torsion

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr
And what did you make of this one, where he zooms in on a blue/pink Orb that is VERY obviously NOT an aircraft, that hovers, changes colors and pulsates, AND dematerializes?


You're right, it's not a plane. It's Venus or some other bright star. It isn't hovering, nor is it moving - only the camera moves. The colour may not be natural but a ccd effect. The 'dematerialisation' is caused by a thin cloud, not visible at such a zoom, that gradually obscures the star.


ROFL, you are really, REALLY reaching now, in order to try to dismiss these phenomena....

Remember, Michael Knight said that he and his co-producer went through MANY hours of this sort of footage to produce their documentary.

Hours and hours and hours of "Venus" and ordinary aircrafts? Giant clouds of "dust" that are there one second and completely gone ten seconds later?

I don't think so.....




Sorry, still no evidence of extraterrestrials. Think outside the confines of the Greerian box, Mill, and do some personal experimentation!


Well, it seems that no matter what sort of evidence is presented or how much of it, you just find some absurd way to dismiss it all away, "nope, sorry, still no evidence....."

Hundreds of photographs, many hours of video footage, thousands of eyewitnesses going there for FREE and verifying these things, one of the co-producers of Gilliland's documentary personally coming to ATS to verify that these things are true.... I'd say that's fairly solid evidence!!



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by MrdDstrbr
 


Thanks for the URL fix. That's what I have been trying to edit for the past few minutes.

Have only been doing this internet thing for a few weeks so it takes some getting used to.

Y'know - on the subject of orb pics - it would be so easy for anyone to use their own camera, take a lot of shots under different conditions, and see for themselves what they get.

Dr Ledwith (who happens to have five PhDs) has consecutive pictures of a dimensional torsion field forming - a time/space 'hole' - or doorway perhaps.

He also points out that unlike the older film cameras (which did indeed pick up some phenomena in the infra red frequency - digital cameras collect data which is recorded at the time the pic is taken.

That meta-data travels with the image through every subsequent production step. So you can backtrack a shot and see whether or not it has been manipulated in any way.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Michael Knight
Y'know - on the subject of orb pics - it would be so easy for anyone to use their own camera, take a lot of shots under different conditions, and see for themselves what they get.


Personal experimentation is something I've always advocated. The 'orbs' seen in Gilliland's photos are easily replicated. Take a picture in the rain/snow, in a dusty environment and you'll get masses of orbs. Take a series of random snapshots and chances are you'll get a solitary orb - remember that the camera is held up at face level - perfect for a stray dandruff particle! It's best if you use an older digital camera as the higher resolution ones of today don't create the anomaly as effectively.


Dr Ledwith (who happens to have five PhDs) has consecutive pictures of a dimensional torsion field forming - a time/space 'hole' - or doorway perhaps.


This man I presume. Again, he is adding his own pseudo-scientific interpretation to an embarrassingly mundane phenomena. Regardless of qualification, people can be wrong.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by torsion
 


Your quick research and the link to the site that presents Dr Ledwith's orb information in his own words and pictures is excellent evidence - and proof - that there is much more to learn about orbs.

As Dr Ledwith says "We are poised on the brink of a fascinating sphere of discovery about the nature of the universe in which we live and how we relate to other phenomena that make it up."

-- Dr. Miceal Ledwith"

As for your continually dismissive comments about these matters....oh well, if any of his pics (and mine) are dandruff, rain spots, dust etc, then dandruff, rain spots and dust obviously have a phenomenal ability to masquerade as other things.

Apparently after using dozens of different types of cameras since 1960 I also have failed to grasp the fact that dandruff, raindrops, snow and dust are somehow visible to my digital camera when they are not visible to my naked eyes.

Each of these little flakes and microscopic particles is apparently also able to magnify itself and appear as a plasma field at will, a spinning torsion field, or as orbs of different colors shapes sizes and configurations...as can be seen in Dr Ledwith's pics.

Obviously, since he only has something close to 150,000 such photographs - many taken by remote control on a tripod with him in the shot - he hasn't got a clue. I mean, five PhDs must do something to screw up a person's mind, right?

When I interviewed James for the documentary he used the term "cognitive dissonance," which I questioned him about.

He said those who suffer from this disorder accept no evidence (no matter how much is presented) beyond what they find comfortable within their little box.

I asked "Does this translate into a closed mind? And how many suffer from it?"

He laughed and said "I'd say most of the world...."

Next I said "Is there a cure for this affliction?" To which he replied ..."Yes. Approach life with an open mind a loving heart and pure intent and allow the universe to teach you things."

Personally, as I have said earlier, I have no need to defend myself, or others. But it is rather pathetic to see honest input from honest people constantly described as the work of frauds and charlatans.

An opinion is one thing - it's fair to say "despite the evidence, I don't believe it." That's a choice. It's a very limited and limiting choice. But why argue with it?

You can't argue with such a closed mind. But to continually slander and vilify those who present their experience in a truthful manner is to indulge in pompous judgmental self-righteousness. There is no integrity in that.

And when you're on the receiving end it makes it rather hard to continue with the open mind and loving heart:-)

But then again as long as the ignorant continue to question, they'll eventually get over their cognitive dissonance.

I know...from experience:-)




top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join