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.

 

Why Hasn't Anyone Debunked James Gilliland?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister E
I've had a look at most of those videos but it looks like they've added more since then. Are there any particularly alien looking things in any of them?


No idea... I don't watch the tabloids
but your OP asked why no one is debunking a topic that has the full attention of the ATS investigation team... so it would seem it is being focused on more than any other claim...


But it looks like this thread is about to become another ego battle

:shk:




posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 


...when you want to have an intelligent and rational discussion, let me know. Until then, lets just defer this thread to the already existing one that Zorgon posted.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Now I may be wrong here, but would attempting to debunk the goings on at the Gilliland Ranch be tantamount to accusing the owners and staff of ATS of deliberately misleading us? I, for one, refuse to accept that would do this to the membership.

I've watched the vids from the recent team ATS investigation and while there is nothing there that is clearly ET in origin or otherwise, there are some interesting things to consider - not debunk. We have not been presented with a crystal clear video of a mothership, for example, have we?

It gives us food for thought - a discussion if you will. Debunking implies a deliberate hoax, and this does not apply here...

Zorgon, I'm with you in thinking that unless we are careful this may descend into an ego-war, but I have faith in the membership that they will be considered and respectful in pointing out that there is nothing to be 'debunked' here, per se.

Peace,

MGGG

[edit on 2-10-2008 by machinegun_go_go]



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Fastwalker81
 



The only thing better than your post is the fact that people gave you stars. The thread starter wrote:

"Just look at the pictures on the opening page of his website. There is a drawing of a Pleiadian called Blajee who doesn't have her photo taken for religious reasons... riiiight."

And you said:

"So this is an indication that this is all a big scam?"

Let me ask you: How many "contactees" claiming direct contact with Pleiadians do you know that weren't scammers or delusional?

How many Pleiadians does it take to come here in open, honest contact to never be seen by anyone but the one person making such claims before you think, 'Mmmmm... maybe there's something fishy going on here.'


[edit on 2-10-2008 by Jeremy_Vaeni]



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Yeh its not that I'm not ready to believe everything Mr Gilliland is saying- infact I'd like to believe a lot of it as his slant on the ET phenomenon gives me cause to feel optimistic and happy that the universe isn't just inhabited by sadistic weirdos (humans and Greys at their worst) but I was expecting to see something conclusive and, well, I just havn't seen much and sadly a lot of it looks and sounds suspect to me.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by starcraft
He claims an ability, and supposedly did it in front of Johnny Anonymous...to be able to recharge batteries by simply holding them in his hand. I started a thread about this. Not rewarming them with his hands to give another small, latent charge...but a full recharge, using his "energy". This could be...and should be, easily proven or debunked. I felt from the start this claim would be/could be the claim that undid his scam.

I'm not saying something isn't going on in the skies above his place, or other phenomenon around the property isn't legit...I just happen to think he may be trying to take advantage of it all. Then again, I may be wrong, and he's the next Messiah too.


I have yet to visit his site, and find where you got this information from about recharging the batteries...so I am only going to comment about your post of his abilities. While some may find that this is highly unlikely, it is probably one of the most logical theories I have heard about an ability.

I have studdied the martial arts for nearly 20 years now. I have read and studdied about chi, and have seen demonstrations of someone powerful enough to control it. Someone who is able to focus thier inner energy is able to do great things if they have an understanding of how this works.

People that do not have an understanding usually associate events with other causes...such as my wife. She is unable to wear a wrist watch because even with new batteries, it will die within a week. Her inner energy is weak and is bringing it in from the batteries, wearing them down quickly. So I helped her understand about chi and how it works...while she cannot yet wear a watch, she is on her way to controlling it better.

While I have no proof of the above, it is the only explanation I have about how our inner enrgy can be controlled. This guy perhaps has found a way to be a conductor for the energy from the earth, and is able to control it to charge a battery...just a thought about the subject.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
But it looks like this thread is about to become another ego battle


Nope. I just ignore people who insult me and then deny it in the same thread.

Jeremy-Have to agree on the Pleadian stuff. if thats truly associated with this case as well, I'd just as soon pass on it.

James however does seem like a nice man, so it might just be his "new age" sense of explaining what he deems odd sightings and occurrences.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister E
The ATS team went there recently and saw nada.

As a member of the ATS team that spent two weeks there, I disagree with you. I witnessed a few things that I have no 'logical' explanation for.

What portion of our preliminary investigation were you reading/watching/listening to?

Johnny



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous
 


You know, all the audio and video has been fantastic, but I have to say, I also find your account of the manual battery-charging fascinating!



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Has anyone here ever just held the leads of a volt/ohm meter and looked at the reading the human body puts out? In most cases I have seen an average of 1.0 to 1.5 volts... some people put out more...

Since a battery can be 'trickle charged" I see no reason why a 1 to 3 volt battery could not be charged by a human.


I wonder if anyone else has ever tried? Like the story of the watch being drained, one of the salesmen in our alarm company in Toronto... every time he would demo a system with an electronic keypad... it died...


We had to stop him doing demos...

Electricity does weird things... we only have the tip of the iceberg in knowledge about it. If you can get a 1.0 to 1.5 reading on a voltmeter... you should be able to power a device that runs on 1.5 volts as long as the amperage required is very low

[edit on 2-10-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


It just so happens I have a multimeter here at my desk, so I tried what you suggested. I held a lead in each hand, and, uh.....got 0.000 volts.

I may have to stick to the old conventional ways of generating electricity...but I can only speak for myself of course.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann

Nope. I just ignore people who insult me and then deny it in the same thread.
.


1) I never insulted you on this thread. I simply pointed out that there's some info. you were missing.

2) Again and again, you derail these threads by steering the topic of conversation back to you and your perception of somehow being victimized by by those who disagree with you, respectfully or otherwise.

3) Please stay on topic and add some kind of insightful angle to the discussion at hand. Its worth it in the long run.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by NightVision
 


Oh please... Instead of backpedaling your ignorant comments, how about concentrating on what points I made back to you about the footage you posted. Or can you simply not grasp anything past disagreement.

If you have detailed information about that snip to qualify it as a genuine UFO, then lets have it, rather then more about how us ATS experts are so staggering in our lack of research. (your words)

So, whatcha got?



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
reply to post by NightVision
 


Oh please... Instead of backpedaling your ignorant comments, how about concentrating on what points I made back to you about the footage you posted. Or can you simply not grasp anything past disagreement.

If you have detailed information about that snip to qualify it as a genuine UFO, then lets have it, rather then more about how us ATS experts are so staggering in our lack of research. (your words)

So, whatcha got?



I'll respectfully ignore your terse remarks and just point out that I never claimed my posted ECETI footage was a UFO. I claimed that it was NOT a satellite. You said it was "obviously" a satellite.

I'm sorry, but satellites do not move like this. It doesn't take much research to understand this. Not sure what else to say here.




posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NightVision
 




Quite staggering really how little of ATS' representative's do their homework, much less the OP. Sure, you can claim it to be something other than a UFO . But to say this piece of footage is a satellite means we have a serious lack of commonly known investigative knowledge on our hands.


IMO, I would have taken that as a knock if I were Jeff.

Anyways... that's not the point. If you read his post it says a satellite or likely natural phenomena. He also throws out the possibility that something might manifest itself because people go there to see it.

I really don't believe Jeff thinks that youtube footage you posted is a satellite. But what is it? Basically it amounts to more blurry dots moving around in the sky filmed with an IR camera by James. A true UFO. I feel the footage Johnny captured is much better anyways because it has a point of reference. Still, IMO it is a true UFO--unidentified.... could be an alien ship, could be space junk.


I just visited the Gilliland ranch two weeks ago. He is a deeply spiritual person who charges no money to stay on his property for "skywatches." Most importantly, he has never been found to be creating weddingcake model hoaxes like Billy Meier. That's why the jury is still out on James Gilliland..


Overall, he is a very nice person and the scenery out there is fantastic. There is hiking, whitewater rafting etc to do nearby. If you are ever in Washington/Oregon area I recommend you check it out. It's really not that far from Portland.



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyAnonymous


Originally posted by Mister E
The ATS team went there recently and saw nada.

As a member of the ATS team that spent two weeks there, I disagree with you. I witnessed a few things that I have no 'logical' explanation for.

What portion of our preliminary investigation were you reading/watching/listening to?

Johnny


Oh brilliant thanks for the input. I only saw a few videos with no sound. What I saw wasn't indicative to me of ETs but I guess I must have missed some important things. I'll be looking at the original thread and the new one much more closely.

(starred)

[edit on 2-10-2008 by Mister E]



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 04:56 AM
link   
I think the answer to the original question is because there is actually something unexplainable there. Unexplained phenomenon has been occurring in that area way before James Gilliland. The native Americans in that area have a great deal of lore on it as well. He simply claimed it and began shouting it. It seems he may have peppered the stew after he realized he could turn a buck......

A similar and far more interesting story is the "Sherman Ranch" in Utah.(also an area with native American lore) The book about it "Hunt for the Skin Walker" (true or false debate aside) is one of my favorite reads in a few years. If I recall correctly the government purchased it and it is now in lock down. Trust me , this book keeps you turning the pages !!!

~Hyp


[edit on 3-10-2008 by HypnoAsp]



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by NightVision
 


Right. So, short of it is, you don't have anything to qualify the snip as, well...anything.

Scramjet is absolutely right, that it's simply 2 or 3 dots moving about on black. There is not any real verifiable way to see the object "not moving" because there is no point of stationary reference.

Could it be a sat? Yes. Do sats slow down at times. Yes. If the sat was in a decaying orbit, drag slows it. This is why some have small thrusters, to correct that. If it was corrected, they speed up as drag is reduced.

Is it likely? Who knows. Speed? How far is the cam zoomed in? We don't know. Thats going to effect it's perceived speed to the POV of the camera and relation to stationary objects. Can sats be quick? Yes, as I've personally watched them, and some are rather quick in the relative distance they cover.

The more likely answer? Small space junk in re-entry burn. As it's in orbit, it's slow, and as it brightens (burns), then enters air, it speeds up in it's drop and burn.

But in the end, it's an inconclusive piece. There's simply not enough information. And you, certainly don't have enough information to knock someone with a more plausible explaination, which is now blatantly obvious.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann

But in the end, it's an inconclusive piece. There's simply not enough information. And you, certainly don't have enough information to knock someone with a more plausible explaination, which is now blatantly obvious.



You can't have it both ways. You can't say the explanation of the footage is blatantly obvious and yet inconclusive at the same time.

See a pattern here?



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by NightVision
 


I didn't say anything was "blatantly obvious" except for your lack of information to knock anyone's opinion of a more plausible explanation.

Yes I do see a pattern. You read what you want to, or pick out whatever random sentence that makes it appear that you actually have a point, whether it applies to the actual issue seems not to matter to you very much.

I'll say it again for everyone else:
I have not seen a substantial amount of footage from this case, but what I have seen from direct dubs is obviously sats, or likely natural phenomena.

To clarify that, I have not seen abrupt angle changes, coupled with stops and varied altitudes, which might suggest intelligent control. What I have seen has been...well, rather mundane straight line flight. Nothing with structure or definitive form.

I do not have John's footage he shot there, but it will arrive to me soon, and some of what I've seen posted seems somewhat interesting, but it's very hard to tell unless I get it on a big screen and can go through it methodically.

Unlike some would portray, I am not hostile to the case or the possibility of a genuine enigma at the Ranch...as I said in my first post. There's always the idea that these things show up, because people are there to see them.

As of yet though, I can't say I'm all that intrigued by what I've seen of it. If there's better, I hope to see it.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join