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.

 

This is for all the `ufo skeptics` must read

page: 18
29
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Why would a interplanetary spacecraft have lights on it? why cant we use spectrography to determine the type of light emitted? To me, an aircraft or spacecraft with lights on it seems to want to be seen.Why?


i cannot comment on why a spacecraft would have lights, but we know why aircraft do. traffic.

our aircraft have lights to be seen by other aircraft and avoid accidents, in dark conditions.
there may be other reasons to but i think that is the main one.

the u.f.o. i saw was during daytime looked exactly like a star does at night time, so i assume whatever these lights are on u.f.o.'s or spacecraft play a different role to what we use them for. whatever the role is for the lights i have no idea what it could be. if these u.f.o's only appeared to have lights when in dark conditions i would assume they are for the same purpose as our lights on our aircraft. however like i said the sighting i had
was basically a light, a star during daylight.

maybe they want to be seen, or don't care if they are seen, i doubt they doubt their own exsistence if the are alien, why would they hide or need to hide? inncidently if you take the example of my sighting, the light would make great camouflage in night time conditions, it would take someone paying attention to detail to notice it, and who really even looks up that often? not many in comparison to the worlds population.

a bright light if static can easily be passed of as a star, most people only notice when they start moving.




posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   


Originally posted by Badgered1 on 10/22/08 at 07:37
We're on one small, insignificant planet, revolving around a relatively small sun, on an 'unfashionable' end of an immense galaxy, which is one of billions of such galaxies - all with their own solar systems and planets. The chances of us being alone in the universe are slim. Or are we so mind numbingly arrogant that we will continue to believe that intelligent life starts and stops here?

...

Becoming completely shut down to the possibility of other planets having intelligent life is, to me, simply dumb.





Can I ask what "skeptic" is "completely shut down to the possibility of other planets having intelligent life"?

I think your aiming the gun at the wrong argument.

No one (at least not me or any other intelligent person I know) would say that "we" are the only "life" in the universe, intelligent or otherwise, that would be absurd to say the least.

But making the jump from life somewhere else in the universe to beings coming here to probe your uncle Joe is quite absurd.. in fact it's wholly unreasonable, don't you think? (no, don't answer that) The point is that there are NO scientists anywhere, and I mean no REAL scientists who could definitively prove that we have been visited by beings from another planet. There may be some who SPECULATE or BELIEVE so, but as a scientist they cannot prove it.

That’s perfectly OK we are all entitled to our beliefs.. but the burden of proof is on YOU not US (as skeptics)

We (skeptics and scientists) have science on our side.. you (believers) have, well.. nothing so far.

The people who belittle you (or you feel are belittleing you) are just jackasses and you should ignore them, I for one, do not belittle your belief.. I just call it what it is.. a belief. A belief, no matter how strong or widespread, doesn't make it reality.


Do I believe there is life on other planets.. YES.
Do I believe they have been here.. NO.


On a side note to all the recent believers out there who are so smug whenever a video is "proven" to not be cgi.. that’s NOT proof of a otherworldly UFO... Videos "proven" to not be "CGI" or "FAKE" do not equate to being vehicles piloted by aliens no matter how badly UFO believers want it to be so.

Until an Alien lands a UFO comes out and says hi, there is NO proof or any visitation, no proof of intelligent life and believers are basing their beliefs on incomplete and in most cases circumspect data, only believing because they want to believe.

Thats ok, just don't get so beligerant over it.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by lifeform
i cannot comment on why a spacecraft would have lights, but we know why aircraft do. traffic.

our aircraft have lights to be seen by other aircraft and avoid accidents, in dark conditions.
there may be other reasons to but i think that is the main one.


no offense meant, even though it may sound like it, but your arguments after that statement are poor.


Originally posted by lifeform
maybe they want to be seen, or don't care if they are seen, i doubt they doubt their own exsistence if the are alien, why would they hide or need to hide?


Exactly but I am not sure what argument you are defending or promoting here..If they weren't hiding, OR they wanted to be seen, OR didn't care, they'd circle the White House or other areas of interest instead of flying over "Backwater, Kentucky" all the time.


Originally posted by lifeform
inncidently if you take the example of my sighting, the light would make great camouflage in night time conditions


No... camouflage would be NO light there is no need to camouflage what cannot be seen.



Originally posted by lifeform
and who really even looks up that often?


apparently almost everyone on ATS and everyone with a cellphone, or other shaky or grainy camera.




Originally posted by lifeform
a bright light if static can easily be passed of as a star, most people only notice when they start moving.


and NO light can pass for nothing a lot easier.


so which is it?
An inferior plan to hide.. or a brilliant plan to be seen by ATS'ers?


again, I am not ridiculing you.. I am just saying your making things fit your belief. Lights on a alien craft have no business being there. If they want to be seen they can BE SEEN, if they need them for collision avoidance or guidance, thats just silly on so many levels it takes a leap just to wrap your mind around it and if you dont see "why" you have no business speculating in the first place.

There is no viable reason for a alien craft to have lights.. in fact anytime I see a video with flashy colors or blinking lights the first thing that comes to mind is HOAX.

(but maybe that plays into the genius minds of the aliens and I'm the fool ??)



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Can I pose a question to all the "believers?" Why do you believe that UFOs are piloted by aliens? For the purpose of my question let's say that some UFOs are piloted by non-humans. The only evidence ever provided to say they are extraterrestrials is from people who claim to have contact with them. Now, once again, let's say at least some of these people have had contact. From what I've read it doesn't seem like these entities are very truthful. Time and again they make predictions of some sort and they never come to pass. And let's take past experiences. Throughout history there have been accounts similar to modern close encounter stories yet in these cases these beings referred to themselves as fairies, or angels, or demons, or a wide variety of other things, but almost never as beings from another world. So, if these beings have a history of deceit and trickery why do you believe them when they say they are from another planet?



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by gormly
 

Your exactly right even are military aircraft are smart enough to turn out there lights when flying at night. So Apparently aliens are not as smart as we thought if if there ships light up like Christmas trees. Unless of course they want to be seen then you have to ask why? The idea of ufos is not being suppressed but I believe its being encouraged by governments. Makes it easier to hide those top secret aircraft doesn't it.

If you ever noticed just when people start to look at ufos as a hoax we get a government to release something about ufos. Case in point after this big ufo let down that was all over the net what does the British government do release a bunch of files on ufos do you think that was a coincidence?



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
Can I pose a question to all the "believers?" Why do you believe that UFOs are piloted by aliens? For the purpose of my question let's say that some UFOs are piloted by non-humans. The only evidence ever provided to say they are extraterrestrials is from people who claim to have contact with them. Now, once again, let's say at least some of these people have had contact. From what I've read it doesn't seem like these entities are very truthful. Time and again they make predictions of some sort and they never come to pass. And let's take past experiences. Throughout history there have been accounts similar to modern close encounter stories yet in these cases these beings referred to themselves as fairies, or angels, or demons, or a wide variety of other things, but almost never as beings from another world. So, if these beings have a history of deceit and trickery why do you believe them when they say they are from another planet?


aliens piloting u.f.o's is simply a possibility, not a given. what makes you think the only evidence that hints at aliens is people who have had contact?

how about the way the military act when they encounter a u.f.o.? what about history? has anybody in the past ever seen one? how about in periods our technology was primitive? www.ufologie.net...

i remember reading a document somewhere, talking about how they did'nt know who's technology it was, but they wanted to try and get it, to advance aviation. i must try and refind it.

my point is there are plenty of hints at aliens being responsbile for some sightings and certainly earlier time period sightings, if only people spent some time researching and fine combing what hints at them not being ours, it would be easy to see.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Aliens are not the only non-human explanation. There's extradimensional theories, there's celestial and demonic theories, Carl Jung even suggested that they were simply manifestations of the collective unconscious. Just because humans aren't piloting them does not automatically that they're extraterrestrial in nature. You're right that people need to take time to research if you think extraterrestrial is the only theory that can fit the phenomena.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
i apologise in advance im unsure how the quote function works here.

GROMLY SAID:
"no offense meant, even though it may sound like it, but your arguments after that statement are poor. "

they were not arguements just some suggestions, but thats unimportant.

GROMLEY SAID:
Exactly but I am not sure what argument you are defending or promoting here..If they weren't hiding, OR they wanted to be seen, OR didn't care, they'd circle the White House or other areas of interest instead of flying over "Backwater, Kentucky" all the time.

www.alienationsam.com...

can you give links to all the sightings over backwater kentucky? according to you it happens all the time?

GROMLEY SAID:
"No... camouflage would be NO light there is no need to camouflage what cannot be seen."

like i said they were suggestions, but both would work in night time scenerios, if you see a star why would you assume its a alien craft or manned u.f.o., which ever takes your fancy?

GROMLEY SAID:
"apparently almost everyone on ATS and everyone with a cellphone, or other shaky or grainy camera."

ATS is not even a drop in worlds population, and what do you expect people to film them with? do you think everybody can afford expensive equipment? or they get a u.f.o appointment time so they can set up a film set with all the best stuff?

GROMLEY SAID:
"and NO light can pass for nothing a lot easier."

maybe, but we don't know the purpose of the lights do we? no lights are still detectable, the dark outline will block out stars and be clearly visable on the face of the moon, but like i said we don't know the lights actual purpose, i was merely suggesting possibilities, not claiming that i KNOW why.

GROMLEY SAID:
"so which is it?
An inferior plan to hide.. or a brilliant plan to be seen by ATS'ers?"

i have no idea which it is or if it is either, do you?

GROMLEY SAID:
"again, I am not ridiculing you.. I am just saying your making things fit your belief."

no, somebody asked "why the lights" i merely offered a few possibilities, i never claimed it as fact or as something i know or want to believe, but the fact remains these u.f.o's have lights, i was not fitting anything to any belief. i don't know what the lights are for.

GROMLEY SAID:
"Lights on a alien craft have no business being there. If they want to be seen they can BE SEEN, if they need them for collision avoidance or guidance, thats just silly on so many levels it takes a leap just to wrap your mind around it and if you dont see "why" you have no business speculating in the first place."

thank you for telling me what i can and cannot do, i'd love to know how you know all this when nobody can say what the lights are for. the question that was asked, which i replied to was inviting speculation, there was no other way to answer it. but i did make it clear i was uncertain what the use of the lights were.

GROMLEY SAID:
"There is no viable reason for a alien craft to have lights.. in fact anytime I see a video with flashy colors or blinking lights the first thing that comes to mind is HOAX."

and?.....does that mean you are right?





[edit on 22-10-2008 by lifeform]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
Aliens are not the only non-human explanation. There's extradimensional theories, there's celestial and demonic theories, Carl Jung even suggested that they were simply manifestations of the collective unconscious. Just because humans aren't piloting them does not automatically that they're extraterrestrial in nature. You're right that people need to take time to research if you think extraterrestrial is the only theory that can fit the phenomena.


i don't think it is the only alternative if they are not manned craft, i said it is one of the possibilities, and there are things that hint at that scenerio being one of them. you asked why do people think e.t.'s, i answered that.
i did'nt feel a need to go into any other possibilities when you specifically asked why people think e.t.'s.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
As i've said in my previous post, some analysis indicated that it was a reflection, but i've never seen the analysis: in my opinion, whatever it is, doesn't look to be consistent with the movement of the camera, but i may be wrong.



This official British Airways film, was taken in June 1976 during one of Concorde's
test flights over southern England. The video depicts a strange white light or probe type object,
which seems to descend from above Concorde to below the aircraft and then back up again in front
of the fuselage. What makes it puzzling is the fact that the light goes vertically downwards
all whilst Concorde is travelling horizontally and at great speed.

However, a later analysis of the images presebnted in a UFO documentary indicated that the
small object was really a relfection of sunlight within the camera lenses.
The camera has an image stabilizer, which produced the effect of an apparent independant move of the reflection.

ufologie.net...

On topic, one case worthy to be discussed would be this one:

1976 Tehran UFO incident
This is one of mt favourite UFO cases: too sad that there aren't
some visual evidences like photos or videos...



The 1976 Tehran UFO Incident was a radar and visual sighting of an
unidentified flying object (UFO) over Tehran, the capital of Iran, during the
early morning hours of September 19, 1976. The incident is particularly notable for the electromagnetic interference effects observed on aircraft in close proximity to the object: two F-4 Phantom II jet interceptors independently lost instrumentation and communications as they approached, only to have them restored upon withdrawal; one of the aircraft also suffered temporary weapons systems failure while preparing to fire upon the object.
The incident is well-documented in an U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report with a distribution list that included the White House, Secretary of State, Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security Agency (NSA), and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Various high-ranking Iranian military officers directly involved with the events have also gone on public record stating their belief that the object was not terrestrial in origin.

en.wikipedia.org...



A declassified document related to the famous Teheran UFO and jet fighter encounter in 1976.
Please read the page I wrote about this for details.
This is a capital case, aknowleged by a US intelligence agency, where a UFO encountered an aircraft,
and reacted in a superior ant intelligent manner to the aircraft's interception attempt by shutting
down temporarily the aircraft's weapons system.
The DIA evaluation termed this "An outstanding report.
This case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of the UFO phenomenon."
The analysis called the UFO performance "awesome," noting that the objects displayed "an inordinate
amount of maneuverability."

ufologie.net...


Full size:
upload.wikimedia.org...


Full size:
upload.wikimedia.org...


Full size:
upload.wikimedia.org...

The entire report, in its original format, can be found here:
/38mn3c (.PDF file)


The text of the teletype report to the Pentagon and other Federal agencies
appeared in International UFO Reporter, January 1978, pp. 6-7.


French newspaper (Le provencal) article:

Translation (courtesy: Ufologie.net ufologie.net... )

Two Phantom 4 fighter-bombers of the American air force chased two unidentified flying
objects in Iran in 1976, indicates documents of the C.I.A. made public following an action in
court by the association "Ground Saucer Watch" based in Phoenix (Arizona).
"Ground Saucer Watch" used an American law on the freedom of information to obtain 1000 pages
of documents of the intelligence agency.
According to Mr. William Spaulding, responsible person of "Ground Saucer Watch", these documents,
which contain several detailed descriptions of encounters between the United States Air Force
and the flying saucers, prove the existence links and common patterns to all the UFO appearances.
Mr. Spaulding estimates that the UFOs are on mission of monitoring of the earth.
The responsible person of "Ground Saucer Watch" also stated to have in his possession two statements
under oath by colonels of the United States Air Force in retirement revealing that two UFOs that crashed
on the ground had been recovered.
According to the two retired officers, who saw the corpses of the passengers of the flying machines,
the extraterrestrials have a size of approximately 1 meter 20 and a skin of silvery color.
The small chaps also wore metallized suits which seemed to have melted with their body under the effect of heat.



DRAWING BASED ON A SKETCH AND DESCRIPTION BY PIROUZI





(Courtesy: Bruce Maccabee)
brumac.8k.com...


Sources, references & more infos:

en.wikipedia.org...
www.ufocasebook.com...
ufos.about.com...
ufologie.net...
www.iiaf.net...
www.nicap.org...
www.mufon.com...

Relevant entry in IsaacKoi's thread: Top 100 UFO Cases - Revealed!

Bruce Maccabee's detailed report from interviews & documents, with UFO sketches
[.pdf and .doc files]
brumac.8k.com...



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Certainly a very interesting case and well presented, Internos.

Im particularly interested in the "court" aspects of it. Seems unusual that a US court would rule against the intelligence officials, I mean if they really wanted the case silenced they would probably have threatened to bump off the judge!

Also interesting to note that they have a sworn confession under oath of alien bodies, its strange this case hasnt had more coverage.

Do you know what happened to the case? I mean where did all this lead in the end because its the kind of thing that would scream coverup and yet it seems to have petered out somewhere along the line.

Nice report, hadnt seen any of that before.

[edit on 22-10-2008 by silver6ix]



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by silver6ix


Do you know what happened to the case? I mean where did all this lead in the end because its the kind of thing that would scream coverup and yet it seems to have petered out somewhere along the line.

Nice report, hadnt seen any of that before.

Thank you, silver6ix


Honestly, i have no idea what did they concluded: i was researching on this specific case, but one day i've learned that Scramjet76 was planning to start a thread about it, so i stopped my researches: of course, the involvement of White House, Secretary of State, Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security Agency (NSA), and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are at least a clue that something could have been hidden, with the same old "alibi" of the national security issue; i mean, this is one of those cases that actually would scream cover up, as you pointed out: i'll try to see if there's something new about it



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


en.wikipedia.org...

You wanted another source on the battle of LA so here it is, the most common one. Riddled with credible sources and stating the fact that no conclusive evidence was found either way, and that the eye witnesses that they questioned all said they saw multiple objects moving at differed speeds. Sounds to me like a cover up and sounds to me like your going to have to prove roosevelts memo wrong.



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Also this is quite funny that in the air force records they state that it was an unidentified object.
1983: Office of Air Force History
“The Battle of Los Angeles”

During the night of 24/25 February 1942, unidentified objects caused a succession of alerts in southern California. On the 24th, a warning issued by naval intelligence indicated that an attack could be expected within the next ten hours. That evening a large number of flares and blinking lights were reported from the vicinity of defense plants. An alert called at 1918 [7:18 p.m., Pacific time] was lifted at 2223, and the tension temporarily relaxed. But early in the morning of the 25th renewed activity began. Radars picked up an unidentified target 120 miles west of Los Angeles. Antiaircraft batteries were alerted at 0215 and were put on Green Alert—ready to fire—a few minutes later. The AAF kept its pursuit planes on the ground, preferring to await indications of the scale and direction of any attack before committing its limited fighter force. Radars tracked the approaching target to within a few miles of the coast, and at 0221 the regional controller ordered a blackout. Thereafter the information center was flooded with reports of “enemy planes, ” even though the mysterious object tracked in from sea seems to have vanished. At 0243, planes were reported near Long Beach, and a few minutes later a coast artillery colonel spotted “about 25 planes at 12,000 feet” over Los Angeles. At 0306 a balloon carrying a red flare was seen over Santa Monica and four batteries of anti-aircraft artillery opened fire, whereupon “the air over Los Angeles erupted like a volcano.” From this point on reports were hopelessly at variance... more on the wiki page.



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
First off I believe in UFO's but one big question that's been on my mind is why dont they use cloaking technology? For god sakes we even have cloak tech in development lol... Can someone please tell me why their are soo many sighting when these UFO's I'm guessing don't want to be spotted????



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Lokey13
 


It's kind of hard to miss a wikipedia entry if you're searching for anything on the web and I didn't miss it, thank you though. I was asking for another source of the supposed movie of the attack. The one that is featured in the disclose.tv video. Disclose.tv implies that it is from the Battle of LA. Since, as far as I know the only visual evidence of the attack is the newspaper picture, I was asking for the source of the video.

"Flares and blinking lights near defense plants" early in the evening. OK, unidentified objects, not described as flying. We get a lot of reports like that right here on ATS. An "unidentified target" on radar is not an object. Unidentified radar targets are not unusual often appear and disappear. In 1942 radar technology was not well developed. The radar target disappeared before the barrage started. There is no indication that there was a radar target during the barrage.

There were eyewitness reports from the people of LA that there were; at least two waves of bombers (200 planes, dropping bombs), one wave of planes (couldn't tell if they were American or Japanese), a "giant butterfly" that might have been a blimp, bombs dropping everywhere, a plane or planes were shot down, the planes were high, the planes were low, the planes were fast, the planes were slow. If you want to select just one of the reports and throw the rest out, be my guest, but it's not a very good way of doing "research".

The Navy department first said it was a false alarm.The Army then insisted there were aircraft. The Secretary of war then said (using a report from the Army) that there were 5 to 15 aircraft. A coverup maybe, but it was a matter of "covering your ass" to not look like idiots by shooting at nothing.

This incident occurred less than three months after the attack on Pearl Harbor. People on the west coast were expecting another attack. People, including the military, were very much on edge. The most likely scenario is that someone thought they saw something and the shooting started, then another battery opened fire. Next thing you know there is smoke and explosions filling the darkened sky.

If you're talking about the memo from Marshall to Roosevelt, note that it says "unidentified airplanes", not objects, meaning that their nationality was unknown. If you're talking about the supposed MJ-12 memo, please note that the wikipedia article says that its authenticity is questionable.

[edit on 23-10-2008 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
To be honest I do not fully understand someone who says that there is no life outside the earth. To make my point clear look at what universe looks like 300 million light years away - galaxies like stars there





[edit on 23-10-2008 by FIFIGI]

[edit on 23-10-2008 by FIFIGI]

[edit on 23-10-2008 by FIFIGI]



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by FIFIGI
 


I have not seen anyone here say there is no life in the universe. Did I miss something? I have only seen claims by believers that skeptics say that. I am a skeptic about UFO's being alien in nature, but I believe there is life elsewhere in the universe.

[edit on 23-10-2008 by Phage]



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FIFIGI
 


I have not seen anyone here say there is no life in the universe. Did I miss something? I have only seen claims by believers that skeptics say that. I am a skeptic about UFO's being alien in nature, but I believe there is life elsewhere in the universe.

[edit on 23-10-2008 by Phage]


We are here, watching you, considering options and deciding what to do with you



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by FIFIGI
To be honest I do not fully understand someone who says that there is no life outside the earth...


You are confusing a disbelief with in extraterrestrial visitation with a disbelief in extraterrestrials. They are not mutually inclusive ideas. The only people who do believe that are the caricature of skeptics that exists only in the minds of the true believers.




top topics



 
29
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join