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.

 

What proof will satisfy you?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by GeeGee
 


If I remember correctly, it wasn't in broad daylight though... The reason why it would need to be important to happen in broad daylight, is so that the craft can actually be seen and not hidden in darkness of night.




posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by daniel_g
I need to see either a live coverage about it, or good high quality pictures/video of the incident as long as it doesn't look like a bunch of balloons with candles or an out of focus helicopter. The testimony of the millions of New Yorkers that saw the incident would help.



You go and dismiss the incident while you OBVIOUSLY do not know any of the facts. They were definetlly not "balloons with candles" (are you even serious when you said this - if you are then Im sorry for you).
Why dont you research the incident before making stupid allegations. Here, I will help you: en.wikipedia.org...

I am in no way saying that it was UFO's for sure, but to say that they were balloons with candles is simple...ludicrous. Read on.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   


EDIT: that was at night, but there were still thousands of witnesses.


GeeGee you need to get up to speed on the pheonix lights incident. Those lights that thousands of people saw and filmed were flares dropped by the military. It has been proven beyond doubt even ufologists like stanton friedman say they were flares.

whats in question is the supposed sighting earlier in the evening of a black triangular craft. But nobody got any photos.... this is the craft your governer claims to have seen, again no pictures. Sorry the ufo on the day of the phoenix flares is just another story with no evidence.

far far short of my broad daylight city swoop that i would like.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by yeti101]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by daniel_g
I didn't miss it. You are assuming that there is solid evidence, therefore I should believe.
I'm saying there is no such 'solid evidence'. If there is, point me to it.


Okay, EVERYBODY LISTEN UP. This is the fifth thread THIS WEEK, where this question of 'solid evidence' has come up, and the fifth time I'm going to reply with the 'solid evidence' you all seem to be looking for. Let's see if this thread dies out like the other four, or if one of the "I want them to come to my backyard" crowd has something to actually say about this case...

It's called The Battle of Los Angeles.
It happened in 1942, over Santa Monica and West L.A.
It was in every major LA paper, including the LA Times, and was also covered in the national newspapers of the day.
12 inch incindiary shells (over 1300 quantity) were fired at the UFO.
We could not shoot it down.
There is photographic evidence of the craft being lit up by several Army spotlights as it HOVERED over the city.
An air raid blackout was activated, and the entire city's citizenry was alert to the situation.
Multitudes of eye-witnesses reported the event, including Policemen, Firemen, and Army Personnel.
This was during the buildup to WW2, when the west coast of the US was lined with Anti Aircraft Artillery, the best weapons available on our planet at that time for taking out aircraft of any terrestrial nature.

In the 66 years since this event, NOT ONE NATION (including the USA) has demonstrated an aircraft with the capacity to take such a beating and not fall out of the sky. These 12 inch (incindiary means explodes on contact) shells BOUNCED off the craft. They fell to the ground below, damaging houses and cars, and causing heart attacks and injury.

You can find information on this case in Gazrok's Compilation on UFOs, linked in my signature.

To the OP, my sincere congratulations on the distinguished difference this thread has, setting it apart from the other four I've mentioned. You are really working through these issues in a logical way, and you have my full support and congratulations. Don't let people who can't even be bothered to read the sticky threads at the top of the forum get you down. ATS is about denying ignorance, and people who can't even read the sticky threads display willful ignorance in abundance!

I'm flagging and starring this thread, specifically because I'm proud of you for attempting to determine a standard for 'proof'. It's a worthy attempt, and if you get a result (that everyone can agree upon) please let me know so I can source it.

Personally, I've seen enough with my own eyes and through my own research to be convinced we're being visited by something/someone not of this world. I challenge ANYONE to debunk the Battle of Los Angeles before demanding further 'proof'. One case is all it takes, even if there IS a TON of crap out there. One real case is enough. The Battle of Los Angeles is that case.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Here is a photograph of an airplane made on earth:

Find me a photograph of an airframe not built on earth that is as good as this one. Then I (and many) will be satisfied.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by Netstriker]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
sorry for me the battle of la isnt good enough. At a time of war where the threat of another pearl harbour is real i think it was a case of the jitters

were talking about early radar technology subject to things like tempreature inversions. Most witnesses claim to have seen planes or groups of planes in the searchlights. Amazing what the power of suggestion can do. Air raid sirens , AA fire & searchlights plus the debris from the shells getting caught in the lights- plenty room for the human brain to interperate things wrongly.



[edit on 9-1-2008 by yeti101]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Netstriker
Here is a photograph of an airplane made on earth:

Find me a photograph of an airframe not built on earth that is as good as this one. Then I (and many) will be satisfied.


Here ya go:
From the battle of los angeles...


Source:
www.rense.com...
www.rense.com...

ATS Thread by Gazrok:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seriously, READ THE CASEFILE. Pretty Please? I'm dying to have an intelligent conversation about this REAL ESTABLISHED EVIDENCE...

Are you all (the skeptics) just refusing to acknowledge this incident?




posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
sorry the battle of la isnt good enough. At a time of war where the threat of another pearl harbour is real i think it was a case of the jitters

were talking about early radar technology subject to things like tempreature inversions. Most witnesses claim to have seen planes or groups of planes in the searchlights. Amazing what the power of suggestion can do. Air raid sirens , AA fire & searchlights plus the debris from the shells getting caught in the lights- plenty room for the human brain to interperate things wrongly.


So you're saying the AA shells bounced off of a temperature inversion?
And that pic in the paper I just posted, it's a temperature inversion?
And the US Army, confirming in the paper that it was real???

Yeah, sorry you're not being logical.
Air doesn't deflect bb's, let alone bullets, let alone AA shells.
Seriously, that was the weakest attempt at a 5 second debunking I've ever seen in my entire life.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
AA fire & searchlights plus the debris from the shells getting caught in the lights- plenty room for the human brain to interperate things wrongly.


Note, I've added an edited image here for comparison.
In red you will see the AA fire.
In blue the object.



They are different in every way, but most notably of which is size.
Also, you can clearly see an object (UFO) lit up in the spotlights.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


sorry but for me the picture is extremely poor, low quality black and white search lights converging in the sky. It could easily be an effect on the film caused by the overbrightness of the search lights at that point.

The army i think wanted to beleive they were planes too, they look a bit silly over-reacting to a false radar reading and killing innocent civillians. How do you explain most witnesses said they saw planes like squadrens of fighter planes or bombers? i think maybe they reported that becuase thats what they expected to see during an air raid.


Air doesn't deflect bb's, let alone bullets, let alone AA shells

shells would be exploding at all diffirent heights, a witness could interperate that as a shell hitting something. Witness error/imagination



[edit on 9-1-2008 by yeti101]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by darius19
You go and dismiss the incident while you OBVIOUSLY do not know any of the facts. They were definetlly not "balloons with candles" (are you even serious when you said this - if you are then Im sorry for you).
Why dont you research the incident before making stupid allegations. Here, I will help you: en.wikipedia.org...

I am in no way saying that it was UFO's for sure, but to say that they were balloons with candles is simple...ludicrous. Read on.

Where, in the paragraph you quoted, do you see me relating the 1952 lights to balloons with candles? In other words, what made you think I was referring to that specific incident?



You can find information on this case in Gazrok's Compilation on UFOs, linked in my signature.

Ok, so there was something in the sky. How do we know it was an alien craft?

The best picture of the incident is rigth here: www.rense.com...

rense claims it shows a huge UFO.
I claim that all we see is the light from 9 spotlights converging at a single point. We can't see what it is, but we are free to believe what we want, aren't we? So on personal opinion, it looks brigth because it's bouncing off a cloud - I know there is a cloud because 12 pound, high explosive shells, specially 2,000+ of them are going to leave a huge one. Seems to me that your personal opinion is that this was an alien space craft(please, do correct me if I'm wrong). Leave it at that - a personal opinion.



[edit on 9-1-2008 by daniel_g]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


sorry but for me the picture is extremely poor, low quality black and white search lights converging in the sky. It could easily be an effect on the film caused by the overbrightness of the search lights at that point.

The army i think wanted to beleive they were planes too, they look a bit silly over-reacting to a false radar reading and killing innocent civillians. How do you explain most witnesses said they saw planes like squadrens of fighter planes or bombers? i think maybe they reported that becuase thats what they expected to see during an air raid.


I'm not sure that you understand the concept of debunking. You see, you have to actually provide evidence to prove things. I'm glad you've rationalized this case for yourself, but to believe it debunked is just plain ridiculous.

Explain some of these aspects:
1) show me a similar picture, from ANYTIME in history, where converging spotlights have created a 'not real' object that turned up with solid edges on photographic film.
2) show me a single vehicle (that was in existence in 1942) that could hover over the city for a half an hour (at least) in one spot.
3) show me a single vehicle that can withstand 3 12-inch incindiary shells, let alone over 1300...

Further, there were several sightings that night, the fleet of aircraft was reported in conjunction with the large object that received fire. These are the facts according to the newspapers. The one sighting does not dismiss the other.

I'm sorry, but you aren't addressing any of the actual characteristics of the UFO. This was witnessed by Policemen, Firemen, and Army Personnel.
This testimony (in my view) is valid. These aren't folks who are frightened by 'the jitters', these are people (the Army guys at least) who are firing weapons at an enemy. The Army doesn't waste money and supplies by firing at the air, not with a possible invasion on the horizon. Every shell was needed for defense of the West Coast. Yet we fired for HOURS.

Please actually read the case file. Then respond. Otherwise I'm just re-writing newspaper articles here for you, and I don't really have the inclination to spoon feed anymore today.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


im sorry but the picture tells us absolutely nothing, if it convinces you thats fine.

Lets agree to disagree on the battle of LA becuase it doesnt even come close to satisfying me and i doubt i will convince you it was nothing. My personal favourite is the 1986 ufo over alaska www.youtube.com... what do you think? this is a toughy even for me to explain.


[edit on 9-1-2008 by yeti101]



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Question
 


I agree with you on the "White House lawn" scenario, but I don't think it's because they aren't smart. If they're out there at all. Would they really want to see our leader? It's not a matter of intelligence that would prevent them from knowing our leader lives in a big white house. Most of our celebrities live in bigger houses than that. They'd do better to land at Brad and Angelina's place instead. They could at least go to the beach after. We live on earth with millions of animals and we don't even understand a fraction of their motivations, decisions, etc. You can't figure out why a dog prefers a blue ball over a red one. I doubt if there are lifeforms studying us, they would want to dumb themselves down to figure out why we prefer convertible BMWs to driving tractors on the highway.
Anyway, there's going to be people saying they study our television, our thoughts or a million other theories. Proof just doesn't make sense because we wouldn't have anything to do with it once we had it. How would we even recognize it?
Cat: Meow.
Person: I work in a building far away from here, employed by a person I don't like in order to get money so I can buy your food and pay for your shots. Let me know you understand this and appreciate it, please.
Cat: Meow. (falls asleep)
If they are here buzzing around in saucers, they could be trying to tell us every second of every day, but we don't relate on the same level.
What proof will satisfy me? The proof that I need to have proof to begin with would suffice.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   
can you say "straw man"....if not how about "set up" or "gop plant" !

God some of you will fall for just about anything...anything other than healthcare, freedom, peace, justice, efficiency, and retirement for you and your children...god if it was a frozen fish and hit you square in the jaw could be more obvious? Quit the GOP and the Religious right....and though I'm not religious I might say "Jesus, please protect me from your followers!"

For the love of god, quit voting Republican!



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 04:11 AM
link   
My bad, I thought I responded to "voter fraud" post...somehow I ended up over here...could it be another conspiracy? LOL....sorry, I'll re post over there.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 04:50 AM
link   
The Battle of LA is a fascinating case indeed.
I don't know how 'doctored' that newspaper picture might have been at the time but what I see there is the hint of a huge triangular craft and the 'lights' on it possibly mistaken for individual craft against the dark night sky. These things are still being reported and I've seen one myself (no lights on that one).

If they're piloted by ET and prior to 1942 they didn't know how the natives would greet them - well after that they could have no doubts IE we'd shoot first and ask questions later. They probably observed millions of humans killing each other over the decades (possibly centuries) so who could blame them for staying out of sight or well protected from the primitive weapons that would certainly be used on them.

I won't be arrogant enough to suggest there are no other civilisations out there and if they have the technology to get here and observe us largely un-noticed we'd just be a primitive curiosity to them, something like visiting the zoo to see the animals fighting at meal time.

They're welcome to drop in at my place for dinner as long I'm not on the menu
(I won't shoot at them).



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:28 AM
link   
It's a very good question, this one, and it has troubled me for some time - more so since I first started treading these boards, certainly.

As a quick aside, my problem with the LA story is the fact that it happened in LA. For some reason I'd find it more credible if it happened in a desert village in the Sudan. Before you attack me for that point of view, I'd like to point out that I am aware that I'm being absurd, and I can see all sorts of reasons why ETs would be more interested in LA than a desert village in Sudan. But that is how I feel, nonetheless.

More generally, I'm pretty sure I won't be alone in saying that my scepticism has actually grown since I became an ATS member. Not that that is necessarily unhealthy, but it wasn't what I expected. I came here looking for more evidence and perhaps even proof, thinking it possible that the information was here for all and just hadn't been allowed out, so as to speak.

That hasn't happened for me. The sad truth is that unless I see it on the BBC on the 10 o'clock news, I probably won't be convinced. That's not a reflection on the quality of the posts here, or even the evidence that has been presented - I fully respect those people who consider that they have seen enough already to be sure - but not me. The sad thing is I find my mind less open now than it was when I "started my ATS journey" - probably because the more evidence I am presented with the less inclined I am to accept it. Which again I acknowledge to be absurd.

One thing would, of course, over ride all else - a personal experience. I am satisfied with the reliability of my own eyes and ears, such that I am confident if I had my own ET experience, I would believe it had happened, and not that my mind had deceived me.

LW



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:28 AM
link   
It's a very good question, this one, and it has troubled me for some time - more so since I first started treading these boards, certainly.

As a quick aside, my problem with the LA story is the fact that it happened in LA. For some reason I'd find it more credible if it happened in a desert village in the Sudan. Before you attack me for that point of view, I'd like to point out that I am aware that I'm being absurd, and I can see all sorts of reasons why ETs would be more interested in LA than a desert village in Sudan. But that is how I feel, nonetheless.

More generally, I'm pretty sure I won't be alone in saying that my scepticism has actually grown since I became an ATS member. Not that that is necessarily unhealthy, but it wasn't what I expected. I came here looking for more evidence and perhaps even proof, thinking it possible that the information was here for all and just hadn't been allowed out, so as to speak.

That hasn't happened for me. The sad truth is that unless I see it on the BBC on the 10 o'clock news, I probably won't be convinced. That's not a reflection on the quality of the posts here, or even the evidence that has been presented - I fully respect those people who consider that they have seen enough already to be sure - but not me. The sad thing is I find my mind less open now than it was when I "started my ATS journey" - probably because the more evidence I am presented with the less inclined I am to accept it. Which again I acknowledge to be absurd.

One thing would, of course, over ride all else - a personal experience. I am satisfied with the reliability of my own eyes and ears, such that I am confident if I had my own ET experience, I would believe it had happened, and not that my mind had deceived me.

LW



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by LoneWeasel
 


fair enough, you make some valid points. At some point, if the news is also aiding the govt. in secrecy it might try to help cover up the story. But they can't do it forever. Eventually there will be a massive event that even the media won't be able to cover up. The problem I see with this though, is that it will take a while for them to do so. I think I'd rather take the word of other professionals (not just ufologist, but scientists in other fields) and skeptics as well. That being said though. What is your take on the disclosure project? this was a big media event showing in a number of media sources. What was your reaction to the media's reaction? (the media poking fun at these high ranking, sane individuals). Does this convince you one way or the other?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join