It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by OoTopNotchoO
reply to post by Diplomat
You posted the earthfiles link, so didn't you read the entire page, he had three seperate incidents at three seperate times, one was that he was being asked about the cone description with respect to the holes he saw and his perception was 8-10 feet from end to end yet he was actually seeing 16-20 feet with the middle of the cone being 3 feet and each end being 6 feet. No body has defined this and you say that there has been many people defining this and the sightings are the same so your wrong with your perception, I suggest you go back to earthfile page and read about his definition again and see that his cone is not possible. What you want me to do draw you a cone so you see what I am showing you with respect to his definition of the same cone, both are different. When you look into a cone which is 16-20 feet long you do not see the other end being 6 feet wide what you see though is the middle being 3 feet wide and he was saying that the entire length of the object thickness was 8-10 feet while when you are seeing the middle you are preceiving the length of the middle not to the end so he did not see on the exterior sides of the cone as that was covered by a Gray Skin what he did see was a hole and this is the cone he defines, so the actual length of the cone was 16-20 feet and to the middle of it from either end is actually what he was seeing 8-10 feet now this makes the objects length actually 16-20 feet not 8-10 as he defined it so his perception is in correct (the cone he defines to someone does not exist as it exists as a 16-20 length knowing this you know how to figure the area of the cone inside, right. If then there are nine cones the entire area of nine cones would tell you something mathematically. If this is a method to control ions and or magnetic field strengths within and outside of the cones then he has seen a object that defys gravity but if does not mean it is extraterrestrial in origin and could be a manmade object non-defined.
Originally posted by commodore64
I think Larry King is a clever man. He purposely called such an ignorant skeptic. Mcgaha was more funny than a clear, reasonable man. I am mostly on the side of sceptics, but this time Friedman, the other James and the witnesses were just cool enough. Something is changing slowly?
I found it strange that James Fox was acting a bit skeptical and then play both sides, but overall it was one for the books
"It would take more energy than all of the oil all of the coal all of the nuclear fuel wouldn't even be close to enough to create the kind of ship moving at that kind of speed" says doctor Ted Forringer of the Letourneau university physics department.