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.

 

Alien Cigar Shaped 'Spaceships' In The Solar System? Try Debunking This!

page: 7
101
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
It seems as if more and more anomalous images are showing up every day. I saw one article that was titled NASA tether seen near Saturn I don't remember where I saw it. The article went on to state that it couldn't be the tether. It looked like it but if it was the thing would have to be thousands of miles long and NASA's was 12 miles long. At any rate it is one more huge object around Saturn. Also with regards to the Sun SOHO is imaging plenty of weird things. At any rate excellent post (as usual) Thanks again Mike. Cheers




posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 


That's no alien craft!

That's a fully operational Lunar Orbiter!




posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The truth from what I have been told, is that the 'aliens' are human in origin. In other words, aliens are our race but from the future. These crashes on earth like Roswell are from humans thousands of years advanced from us. The exact date is not well known, but they are human. Humans are always interested in the past. So they are coming back to study the planet as it was and correct issues that became known in a time farther ahead from now. This is all that I know.

Only two problems I have observed about the future human theory (Dan Burisch, etc.); the recorded experiences of Phil Schneider and others, and the Multi-verse theory (most recently discussed by Dr. David Deutch). I don't see how paradoxes could be avoided any other way (time paradoxes are the subject of many books and films). I am not stating that you are wrong--as an open-minded skeptic I can honestly state 'I don't know'.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


interesting post . did the astronaughts take photos of the cigar shaped objects or did they appear on development. also going off the subject a bit . the other morning while drivin to work i was listening to the local radio when the presenter started reading out an email/text about a woman and her daughter who were drivig past a field and saw a large cigar shape with lights on in a field next to the road . they claimed the cd player started to play up then fail ,they got scared so floored it out of the area. unfortunatley the dj treated dismissed it as a joke . if it was true then its the second ufo sighting in 18 months in the area.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Mikesingh

Did you saw the supposedly "yanked" photo?

And what other images were "yanked" from NASA's site?



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Let me get this straight, are you saying that a PROP plane dragging a target is able to outrun a fighter jet in a banking right-hand turn?




There is ALWAYS an explanation, but it never quite works.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by Phage
 


Let me get this straight, are you saying that a PROP plane dragging a target is able to outrun a fighter jet in a banking right-hand turn?


No.

I'm not saying that. The poster I quoted said that aerial targets are towed by jets and that this object resembles those targets. I don't know if the object is indeed a target but the poster seems to be pretty knowledgeable about that sort of thing.

Since you mentioned the right hand turn though, let's talk about it a bit. If it is a target this makes perfect sense. In aerial combat the ideal position for the attacker is to be at the six o'clock position of the target. In order to get to that golden position, the attacker in this video would reduce his rate of turn in order to move in behind the target. I think that is what's going on. The object does not outrun the fighter, it leaves the field of view to the right because it has maintained its turnrate while the attacker has reduced his.

Remember, the video is allegedly from the Russian military. It is established that the attacking aircraft is not a Mig but an F15. The premise is bogus. The narration is bogus and is to be ignored.




[edit on 2/16/2009 by Phage]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aleilius
I can vouch for the Triangle UFO image taken in Westwago, LA 2005. This is exactly what they look like.

It's a perfect equilateral triangle with three semi-bright lights at each end. They are steady, and do not blink. These are the only lights on the craft (there are no blinking FAA signal lights).

It's absolutely silent, and makes no noise. It does "fly" very slow, and hovers in some instances. Conventional airplanes cannot perform this feat. They will simply stall and fall out of the sky.

I've had a chance to see one of these in person. It happened in Texas back around nine years ago (2000).

It's of my opinion that they seem to be observing and studying our race. I should also mention that it was not being chased by any military jets. I've come up with three theories: 1) they have the ability to cloak radar; 2) the military knows, and they do not pursue it; 3) the military knows, and have an agreement with them.



They have the means to avoid radar detection, yet they choose to fly low and slow, completely observable, flashing their lights over heavy populated areas?

Why would they want to hide from radars and nothing else? They wouldn't. So why bother even mentioning these cloaking devices? They obviously weren't trying to "hide" from anything if you could clearly see them.




Originally posted by Aleilius
reply to post by andolin
 

Yes, I suppose that's also quite possible. I've considered that too, but I didn't mention it because we're not supposed to have this kind of technology. Right? If these are our crafts, then they must be from the blackest of black projects!

With this being said, I do not believe these are our crafts. The triangle UFO I witnessed did not act like a black military craft. These things fly fairly low, and slow. It seems as though they're not all too worried about being spotted by civilians. Wouldn't super classified projects try to avoid all means of detection? Wouldn't they fly fast and high, instead of slow and low?

I honestly think they're observing & studying us. These are most likely the benevolent extraterrestrials.

EDIT: Oh, one more thing, why would a super classified black military craft have three semi-bright lights? I would assume they would be void of all light in order to avoid detection.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by Aleilius]


To the contrary, if the military were trying to "avoid all means of detection" regarding thier "super classified projects," why would they "have an agreement" with extraterrestials allowing them to fly these unidentifiable craft so low and slow over heavily populated areas?

If the military is willing to put so much effort into hiding their own classified technology, isn't it quite safe to assume that they'd want to keep such a secret as low flying ET craft out of public view as well?

Please, help me understand the logic behind your assumptions.




- Strype



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


The only thing that I saw that negated the idea that this was actually a Mig (now remember we actually saw the migs in the video before the alleged incident) was that there was a camera mounted co-pilot in the mig. Then we had some hearsay that the cockpit isn't similar. (as if it is some sort of miracle to mount said camera in ANY plane anyone deemed fit)

Aside from that, I would like to quote you HERE... > "In order to get to that golden position, the attacker in this video would reduce his rate of turn in order to move in behind the target."

In fact, in that turn, I would state just the opposite. The attacker would INCREASE his rate of turn because the target is dropping below and to the right. If he increased, he could "cut him off", so to speak.

Please, continue.



[edit on 16-2-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Not only that, but all I saw from you was that the story was inaccurate. Here, I think we have reached an agreement.




posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
But maybe you meant to say he was letting up. Letting off the attack.

If so, clarify.


Otherwise, I'm surprised that we didn't see him firing before hand. Also that we didn't ever actually see this supposed target.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Strype
 


Pretty simple really. They don't want to be hassled by neandrethals and their pea-shooters.

I'm sure those vehicles are probably quite fast, if they want to be.
However, if they are on a recon, they want to be stealthy. But why would they give a damn if you or I saw them? We don't command a squadron of F15's.

To add - The one thing that is for sure is that they're somewhat concerned with our defense capabilities... Either that or it is deemed that they can just slip under to avoid the hassle of the defense.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by Phage
 


The only thing that I saw that negated the idea that this was actually a Mig (now remember we actually saw the migs in the video before the alleged incident) was that there was a camera mounted co-pilot in the mig. Then we had some hearsay that the cockpit isn't similar. (as if it is some sort of miracle to mount said camera in ANY plane anyone deemed fit)

No.

There is a statement from an ATS member as a fighter pilot who has flown F-15's and Mig's that this is the view from the rear seat of an F-15. You can also compare the video to this video from the rear seat of an "admitted" F-15 on a training mission against another F-15.


If this is a training target, and this is a training mission, there are specific tasks and skills to be worked on and developed. As I said, if the attacker were attempting to get to the six of the target he would reduce his rate of turn. If this was a true air combat situation rather than a training mission, he may do something different.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I'll watch the video to compare the cockpits in a second, but I disagree that reducing the turn would gain him the "six"... In fact, it would drop him below, probably more towards the eight (IF the Mig is able to match the speed of the target), as it is already beyond his field of view. Remember, he is already pacing the "target" for quite some time before it speeds out of view. If at that point, he decides to reduce his rate of turn, it will drop him beyond the other side of the "meridian" of the target.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I will admit that the video vantagepoint will remind one of the F-15... But that basis is ONLY on the fact that the rear of the Pilot's seat looks that way. In fact, we have NO view of the instrumentation. No basis for comparison other than the back of a seat.

This isn't enough, as I'm certain these jets utilize similar designs. I'll take contention with your claim that you can gain an advantage point on an object that is obviously moving much faster than yourself in a turn by LETTING OFF your turn.

And excuse me while I laugh at the appeal to the authority of a fellow ATS member.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I'm honestly not familiar with the design specifics of the MIG 21 as it applies to dogfighting against something faster, but I would assume that by "letting off" of its combat trajectory in order to fall directly behind its target, it would lose a lot of ground maintaining air-flow. If it didn't, it would fall out of the sky in a tail-spin stall.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


There is no indication that the object is moving much faster than the jet. Only that there are different rates of turn. The object is demonstrating a higher turn rate, not a higher speed. It leaves the field of view of the camera, it does not disappear into the distance.

Do you routinely disregard all statements made by all ATS members or only the ones that conflict with your point of view?



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Phage, Put yourself in the other-sides shoes for just one second.
You have to realize that you relentlessly argue on a double-standard.

This is the perfect example. You are trying to argue against video evidence based on the hearsay testimony of a fellow ATSer and using shotty physics to support yourself.

If the shoe were on the other foot you probably wouldn't even "dignify the question with a response."



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
I'm honestly not familiar with the design specifics of the MIG 21 as it applies to dogfighting against something faster, but I would assume that by "letting off" of its combat trajectory in order to fall directly behind its target, it would lose a lot of ground maintaining air-flow. If it didn't, it would fall out of the sky in a tail-spin stall.


Any aircraft gains energy by reducing its turnrate. The harder the turn, the more G's. The more G's the more energy is drained. The harder the turn, the closer to a stall the aircraft gets.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Actually, this isn't true.

As seen in the video, the MIG matches the turn rate for quite some time until the object bugs out.
Either the object INCREASED its turn-rate to out maneuver a MIG-21, or it is simply faster.

And you still miss the point that having the MIG decrease its turn-rate will manuever it WAY out of position and WAY BEHIND the mig for any sort of attack.



new topics

top topics



 
101
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join