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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 



Granted, it might sound kinda silly. But again, what I was trying to point out is that we're making assumptions as to what they can or can't do. Or, even what tools they have to communicate, and whether those tools will be compatible with ours.

To use a contemporary example. Betamax tapes and players. You'd be seriously hard pressed to find one of these now a days. If say, by some mirculous event I was able to travel to the past, and said I have all the information there is to know and it's all on this disc, and I whip out a Blu Ray disc. I'd be having a hard time trying to communicate this information because in this tim people were using Betamax players. That's kind of how I see it. I don't necessarily think that they're not trying to communicate, but there is the possibility they can't do it efficiently due to both technologies not being compatible. It could be the reason why they have to resort to crop circles (again, assuming that some of these crop circles are real and not fakes)




posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Netstriker
 






posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
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.


Okay, I agree to disagree, WITH NOTE.
That note being that I've presented evidence for you here, real and solid evidence. Pictures, newspaper articles, eye-witness testimony, etc.

You have not even attempted a simple filter pass on the image to verify whether or not it was solid (read: REAL, has mass, takes up space).

Had you researched (or even actually read the case file as I requested) you would know that others have already done this homework, and the evidence found in the image analysis flatly refutes your 'beams converging to give the illusion of an object' theory.

Further refuting that evidence is personal testimony from Army personnel there that evening, and from Air Raid Wardens, who can prove who they were and that they were there. These are well trained soldiers you are dismissing outright, without even reading their testimony. The 'greatest generation' of Americans apparently is not worth listening to, even with photographic evidence to back up their claims.

Further refuting your theory are Newton's laws of motion. Specifically, in that an object in motion will remain so unless acted upon by an external force. The force in question was a UFO (which means unidentified flying object). The object(s) in question were the AA shells. The mystery here is how the shells stopped travelling upwards towards the UFO if there was nothing there at all to impact against. Further, incindiary shells of the time were set to explode on impact, by a physical triggering mechanism. In 1942, the US did not have the 'smart' technology it does today, we could not calculate the correct explosion time on a base computer and send the data to the missile via wireless, the shells were 'dumb'. They were also fired by munitions experts who were trained not to fire until they were certain they were sighted upon the enemy.

We agree to disagree at this point. It's now on record how little time and effort you put into studying this fascinating case file. It is now on record here at ATS, how evidence was asked for, then provided, and then ignored without an attempt at analysis.

I will certainly look into your case file as well. Thank you for providing it for relevant study. I'm sorry we can't work through this evidence together, as I'm certain it would meet your requirements if given the chance.

In final reply to your statement:
"and i doubt i will convince you it was nothing."

Sorry, but that's not my style. You absolutely CAN convince me that the Battle of Los Angeles was 'nothing', you simply must do so with evidence. You haven't provided any, and you haven't taken the evidence I've provided and given it your best crack either. You simply attempted to persuade me through your own opinion that 'it was they're imagination... the jitters...' This doesn't convince anyone of anything, it's merely speculation.

Agreed to disagree.

-WitnessFromAfar



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
If the "Battle of L.A." was such great proof, show me what they failed to shoot down. What was it? A funny shaped cloud that blew in over San Pedro that a bunch of hair-triggered goofballs started firing at? First months of the way, everybody was jumpy since the Japanese attacked the oil rig up in Santa Barbara a couple weeks before. One guy fires, another guy fires, pretty soon you're lighting up the whole sky shooting at everybody else's smoke.

I'd be a lot more convinced that it was aliens or whatever if there was even the tiniest little piece of it found. So we got a Point "A," but no Point "B."

Newspaper reports following the incident are interesting, though. The Secretary of War said there were some sightings of up to 15 airplanes (not saucers) flying around that night, and they were investigating the possibility of "domestic agents" causing trouble. This statement might even suggest that a fresh night training flight out of El Toro or something might have gone off track and got shot at, fortunately without getting shot down. Could have easily been a typical Army snafu that got out of hand.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
When ATS gets rid of this part of the forum i'll be satisfied.

Until then i'll keep stopping by to read about stuff that is mostly made up ideas from the membership based on horrible photos, videos, or quotes from people who have failed to provide legit sources or crystal clear proof to back up their claims.

I am sure the truth is out there, but until it can't be exploited for money or fame I won't be satisfied. Once it becomes common in every household i'll be happy. By then something else will take its place but at least everyone will finally know the truth about aliens and ufos.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


i find it interesting that you are willing to accept any evidence which confirms your alien spaceship theory but completely disreguard anything else.

Why in the battle of la do most eye witnesses claim to have seen planes or squadrons of planes in the sky? 1 single witness claims to have seen shells bounce of an object- how far away was this person from the incident i doubt you know and i doubt you care- you only care that its a good quote to confirm your alien spaceship.

why are you ignoring the many more people who claimed to have seen planes? do you have an explanation for their testimony. I have put forward my alternative explanation but you havnt.

lets be clear tens of thousands of people in LA saw NOTHING that night

10+ people on record claiming they saw planes

1 claims they saw a balloon or balloons

1 claims they saw a shell bounce of an object, ONE from tens of thousands so either the tens of thousands are wrong or this 1 individual is wrong. whats more likely?

you pick the 1 out of thousands to be accurate becuase thats what you want to believe. I'm willing to look at the big picture and take all versions into account and weigh the possibilities. Whats more objective my method or yours?


[edit on 11-1-2008 by yeti101]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Yeti101! Thanks you for reading a bit on this case!
I honestly don't have a lot of time today, but I'll certainly follow this thread this week and do my best to answer.


Originally posted by yeti101
i find it interesting that you are willing to accept any evidence which confirms your alien spaceship theory but completely disreguard anything else.


Well that's just not true, like I said in my last post, I'm perfectly willing to consider evidence to the contrary. To date I haven't seen much. I've seen a lot of 'rationalization' and circular arguments, I have not seen much evidence or data. Just so I'm being clear, this to me would consist of say, taking one of the images and doing some filter passes on it, then posting that evidence for all to see. etc...

I haven't seen this sort of evidence come out on any debunking site, nor have I seen it at ATS. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'd like to investigate any evidence to the contrary further.

Also, to be fair, I've never called it an Alien Spaceship, I've theorized that it might be, due to it's seemingly indesctructible capabilities, especially when compared with the technology humans had available at the time. This is simply an application of Occam's Razor, it's the simplest explanation for where such a vessel could have come from, if it didn't come from Earth. To date, I'm calling it a UFO, and theorizing that it could be an Alien Spaceship.


Originally posted by yeti101
Why in the battle of la do most eye witnesses claim to have seen planes or squadrons of planes in the sky? 1 single witness claims to have seen shells bounce of an object- how far away was this person from the incident i doubt you know and i doubt you care- you only care that its a good quote to confirm your alien spaceship.


Well, this shows that you've read the Rense.com report on the case. Thank you for doing that. You are correct in this aspect, if your only source on this case is the Rense.com report. There are a lot of other sources of information on this issue, and I'm glad you are interested to begin to seek them out. Check the newspapers first, that's where I had the most luck gleaning details. You can get copies of the original paper from most newspapers as a reprint, or you can always call up the microfiche
There were in fact several witnesses who report seeing shells bounce off of the object. Two of them were AA Gunners. They were within firing range (obviously) and had sights on their guns.

Further, physics has something to say about this issue, and I consider the laws of physics to be extremely credible evidence. There were actual shells remaining, that were unexploded, this is always to be expected in battle. These shells failed, of course, their firing mechanism didn't function properly. But these shells were few and far between, falling to the streets below to damage some civilian property. What is interesting to me is the several hundred other shells that did not fail. These are the shells where the triggering mechanism for the explosive did not fail. These shells impacted something solid, causing the triggering mechanism to detonate the shell. These are the explosions you see in the photograph all around the object, that I highlighted with small red circles in the edited pic I posted previously.

Granted, I am not a munitions expert myself. I've read a few reports about this type of ammunition, and if someone who is a qualified expert would like to show me some flaw in that reasoning, I'd like to hear it, and I'm welcome to considering their ideas. In my view, the physics are congruent with the eye-witness testimony of the gunners.


Originally posted by yeti101
why are you ignoring the many more people who claimed to have seen planes? do you have an explanation for their testimony. I have put forward my alternative explanation but you havnt.


Actually, I did address this issue, I'm sorry you missed it, it was in an earlier post. What I said was that Yes, people reported seeing planes that night. It's a great observation, it's totally relevent, and thank you for adding that, it's totally true. Seeing planes doesn't mean there wasn't ALSO a UFO (especially when the UFO is pictured in an LA Times photo). These are not mutually exclusive terms, the presence of one does not preclude the presence of the other. Also, the flight path described for the 'fleet' of 'planes' in the eye-witness testimony was a different flight path than that of the tracked 'UFO'.


Originally posted by yeti101
lets be clear tens of thousands of people in LA saw NOTHING that night


Okay, lets be clear, I agree. Tens of thousands of people were not interviewed that night, so there is no way either of us can claim that tens of thousands of people did or did not see something, there simply isn't documented evidence either way. Several people were interviewed, and they all reported the activity (air raid, etc) if not a direct sighting themselves.

Also, tens of thousands isn't much in Los Angeles, even in 1942, its a small percent of the overall population.


Originally posted by yeti101
10+ people on record claiming they saw planes
1 claims they saw a balloon or balloons


Indeed, I do not doubt this. I addressed the planes above, the balloon was actually MY original explanation, until I read about the AA shells. No Balloon can withstand such assault. If I were an eyewitness to the apparent UFO in the picture, without having seen the AA shells impacting, I would have said I saw a balloon too.


Originally posted by yeti101
1 claims they saw a shell bounce of an object, ONE from tens of thousands so either the tens of thousands are wrong or this 1 individual is wrong. whats more likely?

you pick the 1 out of thousands to be accurate becuase thats what you want to believe. I'm willing to look at the big picture and take all versions into account and weigh the possibilities. Whats more objective my method or yours?


No, I'm really sorry, but I've never seen such testimony. Please either provide a link to the source where these tens of thousands of people are interviewed, and I will certainly review their reports. I'm perfectly willing to look at these reports if they exist. Also, I'm more interested in the explosions than the bouncing.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
sorry i never read the rense site, incase you didnt know rense are regarded as one of the worst sources of ufo info on the web. They print so much bunk i'd advise you to avoid it.

ive seen alot of stuff over the years on the battle of LA mostly in tv ufo documentaries

alot of the plane reports were by people who claimed they seen them during the actual AA fire. You seem to think the planes were a seperate earlier incident? The los angeles Examiner & Herald Examiner both quote such witnesses, if i remember correctly one even said there were 50 planes! does your rense report mention it?

The US army knows they had no planes up there during the incident and war records (germany/japan) show no trace of of any operation in 1942 plus nobody from those countries has claimed any operation.

do you think there were planes and a ufo there at the same time? why would the witnesses comment on squadrons of planes and not mention a big single object too? how can they miss your UFO and see multiple planes ?

[edit on 11-1-2008 by yeti101]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
sorry i never read the rense site, incase you didnt know rense are regarded as one of the worst sources of ufo info on the web. They print so much bunk i'd advise you to avoid it.


Thank you for your advice. In actuality, Rense.com is a user submitted site, so they don't actually 'print' anything, they publish submitted stories. Really the quality of the case is going to be determined by the Author at a site like Rense.com. I certainly take this into account, and I also verify my data directly with the original sources. You too can also call up old pages of newspapers, in fact, you can even order a hardcopy and have it mailed to you, for usually less than a dollar per article.


Originally posted by yeti101
ive seen alot of stuff over the years on the battle of LA mostly in tv ufo documentaries


Really? I've never seen it on a single one, and I watch a lot of them. Could you please cite one for me? I'm not doubting you, I'd love to watch the episodes for myself. Perhaps some evidence is brought to light in them that I am unaware of? If so, I'd like to factor that evidence into my analysis thus far.



Originally posted by yeti101
alot of the plane reports were by people who claimed they seen them during the actual AA fire. You seem to think the planes were a seperate earlier incident? The los angeles Examiner & Herald Examiner both quote such witnesses, if i remember correctly one even said there were 50 planes! does your rense report mention it?


A seperate incident yes, an earlier incident no. Sightings of planes commenced after the original UFO was tracked on Radar to within 3 miles of Santa Monica (for those who don't know, Santa Monica is along the western edge of Los Angeles, South of Malibu). After the initial sighting of the UFO and radar verification, the AA batteries were placed on Green Alert. A blackout was ordered. Radar then lost sight of the original UFO, but it had been visually acquired as a target by the AA Batteries. Shortly after the blackout, and later during the AA barrage is when the 'planes' were sighted.

Also, I feel inclined to point out that it was not MY 'Rense Report'. I did not write the article for Rense, and in fact, I didn't even recommend it. The Rense.com article happens to be the primary source quoted in Gazrok's Compilation on UFOs, where I referred readers to initially investigate the event.

But I'm not going to attempt to call the Rense.com report hogwash either, mostly because it is primarily based upon information obtained in the original article from the LA Times. The LA Times has this tendency to fact check, you know, like a newspaper should. They are the only source I've cited, and the only source I've pulled information from to present to you. Simply because the LA Times photo was posted and analyzed at Rense.com does not mean that Rense.com is the source for the photo.

I only mentioned the Rense.com article because (from the information you replied with in your last post) it seemed to be what you had read. If you'd like another source, try this one:
brumac.8k.com...

This guy does some intense analysis on the image itself, and has transcripts available from many of the original print articles of the day. Eyewitness testimony is also included.


Originally posted by yeti101
The US army knows they had no planes up there during the incident and war records (germany/japan) show no trace of of any operation in 1942 plus nobody from those countries has claimed any operation.


Yep, that's right. Sort of strengthens the case for these UFOs not being airplanes, doesn't it? Especially when taken in context with the fact that none of the UFOs were shot down.


Originally posted by yeti101
do you think there were planes and a ufo there at the same time? why would the witnesses comment on squadrons of planes and not mention a big single object too? how can they miss your UFO and see multiple planes ?


They didn't miss the UFO, it was also reported. When the sighting wasn't accompanied by AA fire, it was reported as a 'balloon'. When the sightings were associated with the AA fire, it was reported as 'unidentified'.

Also, [speculation] There have been several reports in UFOlogy (and even some video) where UFOs have been documented entering and exiting other UFOs. I'm not willing to associate this evidence with the Battle of LA, but it's food for thought. It's also common knowledge in the Aerospace Industry that seperate vehicles should be used for different tasks. An example of this found in our own Apollo missions, where we designed a 'Carrier' specifically to get the Astronauts to the moon, and a 'Lander' to get them to the surface and back to the 'Carrier' vehicle.
Of course this last speculative paragraph proves nothing, but it does make a logical argument for the events witnessed, a Theory, if you will. In all science, theories need to be tested against the given data.
While I can't prove that it was an Alien mothership from another world that (upon reaching California's largest city) released smaller recon craft to study the area, neither can the Theory be refuted by the given evidence.

If it can, I'd like to know about it please, I really am open to alternate theories, provided they fit the evidence of the case.

In closing this post, I'd just like to remind everyone reading that I initially jumped into this thread to answer SEVERAL posts about why have 'they' never flown low over a major city. Regardless of the debate Yeti101 and I seem to be engaged in here, I'm very pleased that we seem to have moved beyond that question, and into the realm of evidence examination.

Also Yeti101, I'd like to re-iterate my thanks for reading up on the case. This conversation would not be nearly as productive had we both not begun to focus on the evidence. Please check out the site I linked above when you get the chance, the image analysis there may help you to answer some of your questions about the 'solidity' of the initial UFO.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Coincidentally, I've just checked my U2Us. A member here at ATS that I trust incidentally pointed me to the same site I just linked. If that member would like to reveal themselves in this thread, that's fine, but since it was a private message I'll leave them anonymous.

Just wanted to point out that this source (the link in the above post) comes recommended not just from me, but from other ATS members who have been studying this case for some time.

Also Yeti101, thanks for your patience, I've not had much time for the computer today, and might not in the next few days either, but I assure you I'll keep checking this thread and answering as best as I can.

-WFA



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   


They didn't miss the UFO, it was also reported


not by the witnesses who are quoted by the la examiner and observer examiner. How could they possibly miss it? there is no mention of a big object during the AA fire by those witnesses. only planes,


did you know a police station even reported a downed plane in the vicinity. turned out to be false. That shows just how bad eye witnesses are during an extreme moment such as an air raid.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by yeti101]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101


They didn't miss the UFO, it was also reported


not by the witnesses who are quoted by the la examiner and observer examiner. How could they possibly miss it? there is no mention of a big object during the AA fire by those witnesses. only planes,


did you know a police station even reported a downed plane in the vicinity. turned out to be false. That shows just how bad eye witnesses are during an extreme moment such as an air raid.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by yeti101]


I must say I'm severely disappointed. It has been over 2 days since I last had time to check this thread. I was really excited to come back to it, to continue this debate, and to continue examining the evidence of the case.

This is what I come back to find? I'm sorry, did you even read the post I spent (a lot of) time preparing? You are quoting 2 sources I'm not even discussing? Yes I see that you posted them earlier, as your primary sources of information on the case, but surely after I recommended to you FURTHER sources with ADDITIONAL testimony, you looked right?

I'm sorry, but have you even read the LA Times article?
How about the Wikipedia?
We are looking at the same photo right, you know, of the large UFO, caught in spotlights, being pounded with AA fire.
The picture taken printed in the LA Times?

I really am disappointed here. You can't simply ignore evidence that doesn't fit your theory. I'm not doing that, I've answered your question about the 'planes' thoroughly. I even submitted a more accurate timeline of events detailing the 'planes' sighting vs. the UFO sighting.

There was radar data on the original large UFO.
There was photographic data on the original large UFO.

I don't need to rely on interviews with people who didn't see the UFO to determine whether or not it was there, there is ample evidence of it's existence in the forms listed above. Especially when (cross-indexing is your friend) the witness you are citing were in different locations than where the original UFO was reported!

There is also eyewitness testimony avaible through other sources (start with the LA Times) that DOES describe the UFO, but of course you'd have to look in the locations (Santa Monica) where it was sighted on Radar to get that testimony (From The Army itself, I might add).

Los Angeles is a big place, you know? Not everyone sees the same thing in the sky at the same time. Santa Monica (where the original UFO was lost to Radar) is several miles from Culver City, and several miles more from Long Beach. Check a google map man, it's not classified information.

Are you actually paying attention to this conversation?

Wow. I guess this thread wasn't worth the excitement. I was just having a conversation with myself. I'm going back to agreeing to disagree with you Yeti101, mostly because I don't believe you care to examine the data.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
"What proof will satisfy you?"

Such evidence that Christians would be like…huh…we got it wrong after all……aint that a bitch……and Muslims would be like….wow…so Allah’s three feet tall with big scary eyes…..never saw that coming….




[edit on 14-1-2008 by andre18]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
hi WitnessFromAfar

what you must realise is pro ufo websites will only present one side of the story and include only the details that fit their UFO angle.

lets look at the details they decided to ignore.

1. LA observer witness testimony claiming they seen only planes
2. LA examiner witness testimony who also claimed they seen only planes no big single object
3. four downed planes were reported to the army one by a police station they all turned out to be false!! thats not a small error
4. Army captain who at first claimed to see planes in the sky but quickly identified it as only smoke, he reported nothing else not even the big "obvious" object resnse claims is in the photo.
5. some witnesses claim the objects were moving at over 200mph others claim they were moving very slowly almost hovering.

if their interpretation of the photo is correct how in the world could anybody NOT see that giant object being lit up? this is a problem for the ufo story. They dont address that issue they just ignore it becuase it doesnt fit their ufo angle.

In summary we have completely contradicting accounts from many sources about what was in the sky & falling out the sky that night and we mustn't discount the high anxiety/stress factor invloved in a perceived air raid.. I could construct an arguement that is was a false flag psychological experiment by the government using planes and it would sound just as convincing provided i ignored some of the other diffirent testimony.

if your being truely objective confusion reigns supreme in the witness testimony- i find it just as easy to believe there was nothing in the sky than a ufo that night. So for me its not a very interesting UFO case, you are free of course to draw your own conclusions


[edit on 14-1-2008 by yeti101]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Personally, I've already seen enough proof that UFO's do exist.
But if you really want to see *Hard Evidence* go to the thread below.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

One of our own *Springer* is having the Bob White Object investigated and tested!
Some information will be released around the 17th of January, with more to follow.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Proof?

Well first of I believe all things are possible - the question really is (at least for me) what is already happening. And for that it is limited to what I know. (which obviously is very limited and colored by my grid system formed by input (among other things) from my collective, surrounding milieu as I grew up.

So there is so much I do not know, so much I misunderstand -
There is a lot out there. And then what is possible beyond that surpasses the imagination.
It is truly quantum in nature, if I can put it that way.

As for believing that which is beyond what I know now, it depends on the source telling me as well as for my own personal experience. Personal experience speaks the loudest. Even though this too could potentially be manipulated from an outside source.

Good post

peace

dAlen



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
"What proof will satisfy you?"

Such evidence that Christians would be like…huh…we got it wrong after all……aint that a bitch……and Muslims would be like….wow…so Allah’s three feet tall with big scary eyes…..never saw that coming….




[edit on 14-1-2008 by andre18]


That will never happen, you know as well as I do that Christians will come up with some excuse to include the UFO phenomenon. That's what christianity has done over the ages. They included "sanitized" forms of paganism to increase number of worshippers and even now with creationism, they're trying to include dinosaurs and a "sanitized" version of evolution into their curricula to try and attract the atheists. I'm sure they'll come up with the "UFO's were a part of god all along." excuse. The problem with religion in general, is that the extremists don't like to be wrong. So they'll never accept it because they think they're going to look silly for believing something somebody has proven to be false.

Which, incidentally is why you'll usually hear the "yeah? well... we'll see when you die and have to face the almighty himself" it's a cop out excuse for them. If you die and you find out that the truth is something else. What can you do? you can't prove the extremist wrong. They think they're slick when they say this, but really it just shows how much they have in common with a 2 year old.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by Question]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Proof that would satisfy me is mass media coverage and thousand eye-witnesses plus tangible evidence - unknown technology which performs. Or they could just give me superpowers/lots of money with no strings attached.


Janine Melnitz: Do you believe in U.F.O.s, astral projections, mental telepathy, E.S.P., clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full-trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster, and the theory of Atlantis?

Winston Zeddemore: If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say.


you know as well as I do that Christians will come up with some excuse to include the UFO phenomenon.


I don't doubt they'll try and do that. I also don't doubt many of them will think they're evil (demons in disguise or something).

Depends on what form of communication the Aliens have with humans. If there is irrefutable proof of their existence established but no communication then the Christians would be free to speculate and find somehow to incorporate them into Christianity. This is still quite problematic for Chrisitans because they'd be desperately finding biblical text to explain their existance in their world view. It won't be easy to convince others they're correct if there is no backing for it. Since God is omnipotent and cannot lie, yet here are Aliens much more advanced than humans (whom the bible states are very special and the center of God's interests) with technology that can perform "miracles", and yet there is no explanation in the bible. They'd be running around not knowing what to do. Why doesn't the bible say anything about them? Is the bible just a bunch of edited stories? Is God a liar by not telling us about Aliens?

OTH if there is communication, what the Aliens say about Jesus being "the way" (when asked of course) would put minds at ease or create mayhem.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
There really isn't any 'hard' evidence is there?
There's photographs of 'things' in the sky, there's reports
from people who inject their theory of what happened to them
into the report.
There are lecture circuits that a person can pay to listen to
so-called experts who tell you how the 'real' world is being
hidden from you... and that Ufo's are commonplace.

Photo's can be faked, even if the photographer says it isn't...
people lie.
Situations can be imagined or wrongly interpreted, people lie.

The idea that we're not alone and that there may be a race of
aliens looking over us, watching our atomic growth, feeding
on our bodies and consorting secretly with our leaders, is the
same as it's always been.

Our trust and faith in a God has diminished over the years and
we're blindly searching around looking for another one. We need
to be able to sleep knowing the world is in safe hands, we've lost
faith in our leaders and so we can cast them as mere bit-players.
We need to divide the aliens up in groups... bad ones and good ones.
Er... I know, lets call 'em Angels and Demons.

Anyway, news outlets show fuzzy/crystal clear images, citizens
report anal probing and baby-stealing, websites debate whether
Reptilains work for Grays or visa-versa, but still nothing.

The answer... our leaders are in on it of course! we must trust know
one.
Only you and you alone know the truth, it must be that way
because nothing is getting done, there's no revelation, there's no
show-and-tell, there's nothing... you are powerless,
you're a nobody.

Although... I can chat to like-minded folk about possibilities on sites
such as these, I can indicate that I have some background
knowledge of reports made, hell!... I can even pretend to be an
alien!

I just find it odd that after all thses years, the Governments of
all the countries of the world have always, always managed to
collect all the debris of crashed/shot-down craft, stifle reports
of encounters and abductions and that the very least, make the
folk who persue this subject, look like fraudsters and fools.

No evidence... I know somebody here, will say "hang on a minute,
what I saw was a craft" or "what about the shuttle's filming of
space craft buzzing away from a 'laser-like' beam from Earth?"

If it was what you or others who have access to the media believe
to be StarWars, wouldn't something be done? or are they all in on it?

There's no Ufo's, there's no Batman, there's no guiding alien who's here
to protect you from yourself, there's just you... alive and walking upright.

With that said, I'm off to find Elvis... I'm leaving the building.


[edit on 15-1-2008 by IronMan]

[edit on 15-1-2008 by IronMan]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
To Yeti101
I'm going to give this one last try, and then if you want to further debate it we should start our own thread. (Even though I believe your refusal to consider sources other than the Examiner and Observer answers the Ops question about "What Proof" will satisfy you...)


Originally posted by yeti101
hi WitnessFromAfar

what you must realise is pro ufo websites will only present one side of the story and include only the details that fit their UFO angle.


And what you must realise is that I'm not sourcing a 'pro ufo webiste'.
I've been sourcing the Los Angeles Times, consistently, throughout this entire debate.

The only other source I gave you was one where a photo analyst analzed the LA Times photo, doing the filter passes and presenting them as evidence, since you refused to actually do that for yourself, even after I recommended it (attempting to have you do the same tests I did to verify this man's work).



Originally posted by yeti101
lets look at the details they decided to ignore.

1. LA observer witness testimony claiming they seen only planes
2. LA examiner witness testimony who also claimed they seen only planes no big single object


Yes, that's true, and it DOES NOT PRECLUDE other people seeing other things in other places in the sky at the same time, and reporting them to other major newspapers. Check a map, like I said in my last post, Santa Monica, Culver City, and Long Beach are not close to each other.

The citizens of these areas report to different local news outlets, just like in every other major city (metroplex is a better example, like the Bay Area in CA or the Tri-State in the NorthEast).

Draw the flight paths up on a google map, and look up 'mutually exclusive', it's a term you're not seeming to grasp. For your claim to refute my 'Theory' that it was an Alien mothership that dispatched several smaller craft (not my only theory I might add, but the one under discussion here) your claim must EXCLUDE the theory in some way. Claiming that some people saw planes does not do so, the sightings were not mutually exclusive.


Originally posted by yeti101
3. four downed planes were reported to the army one by a police station they all turned out to be false!! thats not a small error


Indeed it isn't. Unfortunately it also does not refute my Theory. Just like neither of us know what prompted those reports, neither of us have seen a follow up report, stating anything other than the 'downed objects' were not there when the human 'authorities' showed up to investigate. This does not preclude something having actually been shot down, as reported (multiple times) nor does it preclude the downed object(s) recovering and flying away, or being claimed by either the theoretical 'EBEs' or our military itself. I'm not saying that happened, I'm saying the evidence doesn't give us enough to make the conclusions you've come to. All we know is there were reports of downed craft, and that the craft wasn't there when firecrews arrived on scene.


Originally posted by yeti101
4. Army captain who at first claimed to see planes in the sky but quickly identified it as only smoke, he reported nothing else not even the big "obvious" object resnse claims is in the photo.


Wow, an Army Captain thought he saw something, and then changed his mind. That doesn't refute the other sightings, it just means this particular Captain didn't see anything himself.

Also, it isn't just Jeff Rense that claims there is an obvious object in the photo. It's pretty much everyone with eyes that looks at the photo, the analysis I posted earlier shows the object is solid. Analyze the photo yourself, let's see your results.

I'm willing to bet you'll find that something is there, because I've seen the analysis, reproduced it for myself, and am willing to also wager that the cameraman and the army gunners (not to mention the spotlight Ops who 'co-incidentally' all had their beams focused on a single 'imaginary' point in the sky according to you) actually SAW something.


Originally posted by yeti101
5. some witnesses claim the objects were moving at over 200mph others claim they were moving very slowly almost hovering.


Once again, this evidence does nothing to refute the multiple EBE Craft theory. These characteristics are common in UFO film, and NOT common in Human designed and manufactured aircraft of 1942. Once again I must also point out that there were Multiple Sightings of Multiple Craft, none of which were human planes according to the Governments of every nation on earth.


Originally posted by yeti101
if their interpretation of the photo is correct how in the world could anybody NOT see that giant object being lit up? this is a problem for the ufo story. They dont address that issue they just ignore it becuase it doesnt fit their ufo angle.


Los Angeles is a big place, plot the flight paths of the sightings on a map, you will answer your own question. Nobody is ignoring anything on this end.


Originally posted by yeti101
In summary we have completely contradicting accounts from many sources about what was in the sky & falling out the sky that night and we mustn't discount the high anxiety/stress factor invloved in a perceived air raid.. I could construct an arguement that is was a false flag psychological experiment by the government using planes and it would sound just as convincing provided i ignored some of the other diffirent testimony.

if your being truely objective confusion reigns supreme in the witness testimony- i find it just as easy to believe there was nothing in the sky than a ufo that night. So for me its not a very interesting UFO case, you are free of course to draw your own conclusions


Just as easy to believe that 'nothing' was the focus of those searchlights and AA fire, and 'nothing' caused those self actuated incindiary shells to detonate on impact with the supposed 'nothing'.

Intersting logic you propose. For me, it doesn't hold up to the evidence presented for you in well analyzed photographic print.

If you'd like to continue this debate, using the actual evidence of the case, let's start a new thread, so the Op can have his for his question.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by WitnessFromAfar]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join