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.

 

"TEAM ATS" Is in Roswell, New Mexico TODAY, 11/29/2007

page: 10
136
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAvenger
 


People are easily derailed from a train of thought. I have no doubt that our intrepid team of explorers into the realms of the hidden word are on a solid footing. It is their nature to remain focused.

Now if I could only make the waiting seem less a burden for me.


[edit on 6-12-2007 by NGC2736]




posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   
the assumption that it pertains to Roswell is probably due to the fact that we were in Roswell. We could have been in Newark, wouldn't have mattered. Well, Roswell is preferable to Newark, even with the horrific travel time I had to endure to get there and back.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
These docs are all FOIA docs but there's a distinct connection that has not yet been picked up on and there's a lot more to the docs we have than you'd ever imagine and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that some of the docs might now be unattainable via the FOIA request. Can't say much more than that but, suffice it to say, I went into Roswell with the mindset that I always have, this is nonsense and I'm going to get a headache reading ancient texts that are mostly illegible.


Cool...yeah, to hear that you've been convinced (or even partially convinced) of anything says a lot - and the above is very good to hear. The "now unattainable" part does give me pause - because how can you know those docs are authentic... But then - if there are enough FOIA docs and surrounding corroborative materials...

I guess we're getting ahead of things - no need to bias things prematurely... I'm very much looking forward to reading the connections you guys have made.

Best,
-Ry



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by rdube02
 



Because we understand what a chain of evidence is? We can tell genuine post mark stamps on original envelopes? We have all the supporting back up including corroborating letters from U.S. Senators?

You're right it'd be best not to try to bias this, it serves no purpose other than to later be shown to have jumped the gun with false assumptions (again)...


Springer...


[edit on 12-7-2007 by Springer]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 




You see, it is my personal opinion that it's not the public who isn't ready, it's the MSM, the people who have careers and reputations on the line. No serious news person is going to risk their job and credibility on anything that can't be vetted.


This point seems obvious but it is extremely important.


To All The Skeptics- This is a big problem, not just with the MSM, but also within the scientific community. Scientists are like the rest of us... they need a PAYCHECK. If no one wants to give you grant money for research because there are rumours of you being involved in "kooky" things like UFOs/Aliens you can kiss your grant money goodbye.

Also... back on topic... good news from TEAM ATS



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Scramjet76
 



BUT!

More often than one can whistle the theme from "The Twilight Zone", what seems "kooky" today is often regarded as "common" tomorrow.


Twenty-some odd years ago the idea of an inflatable spacecraft would have gotten you laughed out of most "serious" aerospace firms.


Today.

Read the article in Air & Space magazine on what Mr Bigelow is up to.


Springer, I don't know if it would be of any help, (You probably have lots of media contacts drooling already!) but if/when you guys come up with something showing solid provenance, I'd be happy to vouch you to a local TV anchor I'm on first name basis with.

We spent several days on the high desert together while he was covering our rocket launch. He was eating a cold can of Vienna sausages for dinner; I offered him one of my Courvoisier-marinated grilled lamb chops, hot off the hibachi...

The rest, as they say, is history.



But he does represent a network affiliate in my state capital, and he has won at least one Emmy for his work, so he might have some clout.


Let me know if I can be of assistance. (U2U if you prefer)



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
Springer, I don't know if it would be of any help, (You probably have lots of media contacts drooling already!) but if/when you guys come up with something showing solid provenance, I'd be happy to vouch you to a local TV anchor I'm on first name basis with.


I too have quite a few MSM media-contacts, although in Europe. You guys should use crowdsourcing more often



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:07 AM
link   

You're right it'd be best not to try to bias this, it serves no purpose other than to later be shown to have jumped the gun with false assumptions (again)...



Excuse me? Care to explain that little "again" comment? Why so defensive?

**Then again..never mind. Whatever axe you've got to grind, I'm not interested. If you guys have something substantial here, I'd be one of the first to jump on it as positive evidence of some kind of disclosure - finally.

If you've got the chain-of-custody down pat...that's cool then - carry on.

No need to try to pick a fight for pete's sake.

By the way, I think what you mean is "provenance", not "providential"...unless you believe the documents to be from a divine source...

-Ry


[edit on 7-12-2007 by rdube02]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
please for the sake of credibility drop roswell.

in a recent survey of 10 ufologists only 1 of them named roswell as an important ufo story- that ufologist was stanton friedman which says it all.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


....Roswell is just where Stone happens to live, it doesn't really matter much to this situation -- it's not truly about Roswell -- but the man who happens to reside there.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
please for the sake of credibility drop roswell.

in a recent survey of 10 ufologists only 1 of them named roswell as an important ufo story- that ufologist was stanton friedman which says it all.


Earlier in this thread they've stated already that this doesn't specifically have to do with Roswell... see Crak's post above.

-Ry

[edit on 7-12-2007 by rdube02]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Roswell is old news because there is no new news from there. I can feel safe in betting the farm that if new revelations that could be PROVEN came to light on Roswell, it would be # one on all the radar screens once more.

Credibility comes with proof, not location.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   
oh ok thanks guys, glad to hear its not about the roswell incident



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by rdube02
 



No "axe", no "fight" Ryan, just historical facts, if you don't recall that's probably a good thing. I see zero benefit in dragging it up again.

My point was simple, let's wait until we can reveal what we have and THEN make judgments rather than speculating as to whether we are savvy enough to know what we have and casting doubt before anyone even sees it.


Thank you for pointing out the "providence" issue.

In any case, the evidence will speak for itself and that's the BEST part of the whole deal.

Springer...



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   

No "axe", no "fight" Ryan, just historical facts, if you don't recall that's probably a good thing. I see zero benefit in dragging it up again.


Yeah...well based on the perspective of certain people in regards to certain "history"....all too often one person's "history" is another's opinion - and inaccurate at that.

Doesn't matter either way - if you have an issue with me you should just send me a PM directly rather than taking odd public jabs at me, I thought we were cool... but you clearly got your wires crossed somewhere.



My point was simple, let's wait until we can reveal what we have and THEN make judgments rather than speculating as to whether we are savvy enough to know what we have and casting doubt before anyone even sees it.



Fair enough.



In any case, the evidence will speak for itself and that's the BEST part of the whole deal.

Springer...


As I said - I would be one of the first to cheer on the findings in the case where the evidence speaks for itself.

-Ry



[edit on 7-12-2007 by rdube02]

[edit on 7-12-2007 by rdube02]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 




BUT!

More often than one can whistle the theme from "The Twilight Zone", what seems "kooky" today is often regarded as "common" tomorrow.

Twenty-some odd years ago the idea of an inflatable spacecraft would have gotten you laughed out of most "serious" aerospace firms.


A good point. Well, let's hope it takes less than 20 years for attitudes to change toward UFO/Aliens.

But keep in mind... If the UFO phenomenon were on par with inflatable spacecraft none of us would be on this site talking about it.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by rdube02
 


Cool beans.

(check your U2U inbox)


Springer...



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Out of curiosity is this going to be as anticlimactic as Coming Soon: ATS & The O'Hare UFO On TV?

Still waiting on that and it's been 10 months.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Stockburn
 



It was on tv a couple of months ago, you must have missed it.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Crakeur
 


Dang! Do you have it archived anywhere to watch?



new topics

top topics



 
136
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join