It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Proof of intelligently controlled unknown spacecrafts with probable extra-terrestrial origin

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 05:55 PM
reply to post by pupetmaster


the "thether" incident was and has been debunked 100's of times before.

It was solar ice that made the lenses pick up distortion.

two, MANY astronauts have said there are "things" out there..

however, those "things" could very well be man-made? agreed?

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 05:58 PM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

the place you want to look is at the Rosicrucian order...

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 05:59 PM
reply to post by mrjenka

Hmmm ,first you say if the aliens surounded the Tether they must be dumb to be so many to investigate it, then you say they are possible man made saucers, ?? why so many to investigate the tether , when we put it there ? you so funny sir.

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:00 PM
reply to post by mrjenka

Too simple.

I still think you are deviating the convfersation Mr. Jenka.

Are you saying that all these 100s of NASA videos proving the manifestation of "intelligently controlled unknown spacecrafts" are discredited because they are in your words "regurgitated internet crap".

I agree that some UFOs on earth might be man made crafts however that the "intelligently controlled unknown spacecraft" as demonstrated in the NASA footage are of probable extra terrestrial origin and years of government studies agree with this assessment.

Some are not ready to accept it. I understand that.

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:01 PM
reply to post by pupetmaster

I Offer you alternative theories to these stories...what if they are man made, space debris...meteorites. I stopped listeing to Mitchell after his stories became more and more bigger. He found an audience who believes anything and now his stories have become wilder. Classic case delusions of grandeur. You offer nothing new to the are rehashing the same old tired "evidence" that others have used. Offer us something new...if this crap wasn't good enough the first time around, what makes you think it is better now, because you bunched it all together

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:04 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:04 PM

Originally posted by pupetmaster
years of government studies agree with this assessment.

So where are these government studies that you offer as proof to help with your argument. Can we all read them?

[edit on 22-2-2009 by riggs2099]

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:08 PM
reply to post by pupetmaster

you see what "they" want you to see..

nasa is a muti-billion dollar enterprise.... you think they will "release" something they weren't supposed to..


only "real" nasa release has been made through the soho-lasco mission.

where "ufos" are pictured and than took of the database seconds later.

the lasco camera takes a picture of the sun every 30 mins. and is posted live on the nasa site.

sometimes there is some "ufo" and the picture is subsequintly removed seconds later.

do you research and come correct. stop regurgitating information from 30 years ago..

talk about something new sir..

what does pupetmaster bring to this thread??

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:08 PM
Sorry, but you blew it when you cited the Walter Reed case, and his "Medical Examiner"friend that analyzed the supposed tissue samples.

The tether incident is amazing at first glance, but when you see hundreds, and hundreds of photos takes by everyday people that when go out of focus, bloop, theres the signature circle, with the notch cut out of it. It's a lense abborition.(sp?)

The alleged implants are also up for debate, as well as this "disclosure project" that never seems to happen.

I still see ZERO concrete evidence here, just words.

Until I see it5for myself, I have to remain skeptical. I'm open to any and all ideas, as Time and Space are infinite, one would be a fool not to believe anything that can happen probably has already happend, and/or will happen.

But again I need solid evidence, in front of me, I cannot trust just hearsay. There's a reason this is not allowed in our judicial system.

I also don't like all the copy and pasting in your posts, I'd rather read your own personal thoughts on the matter. But please use spell check, when you aren't copying and pasting
Mine seems to be not working at the moment, ironic, huh?

It makes it much easier to read. When your useing the words can, when it's obvious you meant can't, it confuses me, and makes for a rather trying read. Because the supposed Lockheed employer said nothing about ET's, he say the proof WAS out there if we looked. Not that is wasn't, although this may have been another typo.

His point was mostly all if not all UFO sightings can be attributed to new man made military propulsion systems and a huge advance in technology that WILL be revealed to the public in the 3rd or 4th quarter of this year. I won't hold my breath. But I will remain hopeful.

Look.., many of these sources are trying to sell you something. Books,Videos,ideals, or just plain fear mongering. You must take this into account.

I'd suggest you drop the Walter Reed case from you repetoire(sp?)(sorry my spelling is also suspect I guess I'm a hypocrite there). But really, citing his case might get youl laughed off the forum. Just some friendly advice.

But yea, the Reed case was a flim flam scam, it's not even the guys real name, he's not a Doctor as he first claimed to be, and his Latin Medical examiner is also under question, as to his credentials.

Just because it's on Coast to Coast, or he got an interview with George Nory doesn't immediatly make him credible. that radio show is nearly turning into the Enquirer, or the Sun, or internet radio. It's like Tabloid Radio at this point.

In closing although I may not agree here, I am glad your trying to revive that thread, cause it was interesting, and I was sad to see it locked down. However, I wonder where that OP went? MrJenka..., if I remember correctly. Or is this you, under a new Screen name. I did happen to notice similarities in writing style. As it was looked at in the original thread, how poorly this supposed Lockheed employee in charge of monies and other things could be such a poor speller, and have terrible grammar. But that's gonna get this topic off I leave it at that.

But again, I remain open ,and hope you can provide something concrete. Which unfortunately you can't over the internet. Especially when serious people want to see things in person in order to believe them. Images can be faked, as well as video, and audio. Eyewitness testimony, is unfortunately, VERY, VERY bad. I've seen studies on it.

This debate will continue until the old cliche comes to pass, you know when "They land on the White House Lawn".

EDIT* Wow, My apologies Mr.Jenka, I see you've been posting in this thread all along. That huge Homer Simpson Avatar, just mesmerized me, I didn't even see your name. *DOH!*

[edit on 22-2-2009 by Nola213]

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:08 PM
reply to post by riggs2099

I'm sorry it didn't convince you to modify your current world reality & perception.

I understand that in your current framework of thinking some of these ideas cannot be accepted and that's where you are blocking however all of you debunkers dismiss the information so quickly that's it's almost become an art form. No one here is talking about this implant analyzed at 3 different laboratories are the pilot's cockpit voice recordings or the astronaut's voice recordings.

It seems like the only statement required to discredit all these immense FACTS is to label them "already debunked" or explained previously or crap without explaining why. I've posted hubble space telescope pictures and there are many more available.

As china, Japan, India and the European space agency grow their operations disclosure will eventually become inivitable or unintented however it is my opinion that it will happen.

Now back onto the main topic please:

"proof of intelligently controlled unknown spacecrafts of probable extra-terrestrial origin"

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:13 PM
totaly agree, its coming bit by bit and we have some great minds linking all this slow seeping infomation together the picture is getting clearer for most people,

the hasa footage & tapes was enuff proff in my eyes but then again i didnt need it after my sighting, personally i think the mexico sighting by there airfocre was solid proff, and i cant belive that wasnt seen as proff to the world and wasnt taken fether its just amazing footage,

we have the proff now but no government is going to back it up or tv station but the proff is out there for you all to see

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:19 PM
Don't forget that through reverse engineering alien technology from crash sites before roswell we also managed to figure how to build

The wheel
Bog roll
12" Vinyl Discs
Bin Bags
Paper clips
Cling film
Paper cups
Ironing boards
Carrier bags
Hamster wheels
Coats hangers
The bicycle
and many many many other products that you lot stupidly thought that man himself could come up with...... come on people do you think this species has the collective ingenuity to come up with the Abacus.... you fools... you idiots, it's all ET

By the way that was all sarcasm, I always find these type of posts extremely irritating, to label the rest of humanity stupid because someone can't see the basic principles of how things work really boils my blood.

Mankind collectively created these technologies, we came up with them because a small minority of this species devote their lives to an idea and make it happen. Nothing to do with ET and his buddies.

[edit on 22/2/2009 by spitefulgod]

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:22 PM
Affidavit describing aliens at Roswell base (from wikipedia)
Yes his story is debated read the link

Origins of the term extraterrestrial hypothesis are unknown. It was used in a publication by French engineer Aimé Michel in 1967[2] and again by James Harder, while testifying before the Congressional Committee on Science and Astronautics, in July 1968[3]. In 1969, physicist Edward Condon defined ETH as the "idea that some UFOs may be spacecraft sent to Earth from another civilization, or on a planet associated with a more distant star," while presenting the findings of the much debated Condon Report.

Immediately following the great UFO wave of 1952 and military debunkery of the radar and visual sightings plus jet interceptions over Washington, D.C. in August, the CIA’s Office of Scientific Investigation took particularly interest in UFOs. Though the ETH was mentioned, it was generally given little credence. However, others within the CIA, such as the Psychological Strategy Board, were more concerned about how an unfriendly power such as the Soviet Union might use UFOs for psychological warfare purposes, exploit the gullibility of the public for the sensational, and clog intelligence channels. Under a directive from the National Security Council to review the problem, in January 1953, the CIA organized the Robertson Panel [17], a group of scientists who quickly reviewed the Blue Book’s best evidence, including motion pictures and an engineering report that concluded that the performance characteristics were beyond that of earthly craft. After only two days review, all cases were claimed to have conventional explanations. An official policy of public debunkery was recommended using the mass media and authority figures in order to influence public opinion and reduce the number of UFO reports.

[edit] Evolution of public opinion

The early 1950s also saw a number of movies depicting flying saucers and aliens, including The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), The War of the Worlds, Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956), and Forbidden Planet (1956).

Despite this, public belief in ETH seems to have remained low during the early 1950s, even among those reporting UFOs. A poll published in Popular Mechanics magazine, in August 1951, showed that 52% of UFO witnesses questioned believed that they had seen a man-made aircraft, while only 4% believed that they had seen an alien craft.[14] However, within a few years, belief in ETH had increased due to the activities of people such as retired U.S. Marine Corp officer Maj. Donald E. Keyhoe, who campaigned to raise public awareness of the UFO phenomena. By 1957, 25% of Americans responded that they either believed, or were willing to believe, in ETH, while 53% responded that they weren't (though a majority of these respondents indicated they thought UFOs to be real but of earthly origin). 22% said that they were uncertain. [18] [19]

During this time, the ETH also fragmented into distinct camps, each believing slightly different variations of the hypothesis. The "contactees" of the early 1950s said that the "space brothers" they met were peaceful and benevolent, but by the mid-1960s, a number of alleged Alien abductions; including that of Betty and Barney Hill, and of the apparent mutilation of cattle cast the ETH in more sinister terms.

Opinion polls indicate that public belief in the ETH has continued to rise since then. For example, a 1997 Gallup poll of the U.S. public indicated that 87% knew about UFOs, 48% believed them to be real (vs. 33% who thought them to be imaginary), and 45% believed they had visited Earth. [20] Similarly a Roper poll from 2002 found 56% thought UFOs to be real and 48% thought they had visited Earth. [21]

Polls also indicate that the public believes even more strongly that the government is suppressing evidence about UFOs. For example, in both the cited Gallup and Roper polls, the figure was about 70%.

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:24 PM
I have spent the last 40 plus minutes cleaning this thread up, I suggest those who have received U2U notification of Off Topic or Ill Mannered posts GET WITH THE Terms and Conditions of this site ASAP.

Nobody here is permitted to talk down to or outright insult anyone else. A quick review of the previous pages of this thread will identify who is having difficulties with civility, it ENDS NOW.

This thread is as valid as any other thread and is MOST WELCOME here in the SKUNK WORKS FORUM (hint hint).


[edit on 2-22-2009 by Springer]

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:28 PM

Originally posted by pupetmaster

"proof of intelligently controlled unknown spacecrafts of probable extra-terrestrial origin"

You are declaring proof of these things...which means you must have something new and not the same old drivel being spewed on the net. So where is your proof? Showing us linkas to others supposed proof is nothing orginal and do some for will be surprised and how easy it is to look at this other junk and with a ratioanl that it does not make sense. I was like you...looked on the net, read others biased researched and said wow
this is so true. But once you do your own and leave your bias at the door, you realize how full of BS most of these people are. SO give us something new and be more links your own research

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:33 PM
reply to post by riggs2099


Again if the current proof does not suffice to prove these careful words

"intelligently controlled unknown spacecrafts of probably extra terrestrial origin"

Then i feel nothing short of them landing on the white house lawn to discuss the Iraq war with Barack will suffice for you and your ideologically aligned friends.

You keep saying i have nothing new, I haven't seen any credible argument (a very strong logical argument) that argues why the NASA footage showing manesfestations of intelligently controlled unknown spacecrafts is not valid.

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:39 PM
2005: NASA changes story to "Russian satellite"

In December 2005, just before the 40th anniversary of the Kecksburg crash, NASA released a statement to the effect that they had examined metallic fragments from the object and now claimed it was from a re-entering "Russian satellite". The spokesman further claimed that the related records had been misplaced. According to an Associated Press story:

The object appeared to be a Russian satellite that re-entered the atmosphere and broke up. NASA experts studied fragments from the object, but records of what they found were lost in the 1990s.

As a rule, we don't track UFOs. What we could do, and what we apparently did as experts in spacecraft in the 1960s, was to take a look at whatever it was and give our expert opinion," Steitz said. "We did that, we boxed (the case) up and that was the end of it. Unfortunately, the documents supporting those findings were misplaced.
—Steitz, [5][6][7]

This new explanation from NASA contradicts the official Air Force explanation in 1965 of the fireball being from a meteor and of nothing being found.

Furthermore, the claim contradicts what journalist Leslie Kean was told in 2003 by Nicholas L. Johnson, NASA's chief scientist for orbital debris. As part of the new Sci Fi investigation, Kean had Johnson recheck orbital paths of all known satellites and other records from the period in 1965. Johnson told Kean that orbital mechanics made it absolutely impossible for any part of the Cosmos 96 Venus probe to account for either the fireball or any object at Kecksburg. Johnson also stated there were no other man-made satellites or other objects that re-entered the atmosphere on that day.

Thus, this raises the question as to what "Russian satellite" could account for the debris that NASA now admits they examined. Furthermore, Kean and others deem it highly questionable that NASA could actually lose such records. In December 2005, a lawsuit was filed to get NASA to search more diligently for the alleged lost records.

On October 26, 2007, NASA agreed to search for those records after being ordered by the court.[8][9] The judge, who had tried to move NASA along for more than 3 years, angrily referred to NASA's previous search efforts as a "ball of yarn" that never fully answered the request, adding, "I can sense the plaintiff's frustration because I'm frustrated."[10] During the hearing, Steve McConnell, NASA's public liaison officer, admitted two boxes of papers from the time of the Kecksburg incident were missing. Stan Gordon, principal investigator of the Kecksburg incident for several decades, stated "I have no doubt the government knows a lot more about this than it has revealed to the public."[11]

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:48 PM
reply to post by pupetmaster

If you looked further than your believers sites. You will see arguments about why your proof is not good enough. As you say about we just push it to the side because it does not compute with us...the same is said for you believers,,,your not interested in hearing about how these things can't possibly be ETs. Your only interested in the points that validate your beliefs. Read up on what debunkers, scientists and experts have to say about this junk. But you won't..because if it doesn't go along with your beliefs.

Here is of many explainations that make absolute sense:

Look hard enough, you will find valid arguments for everything you have linked us. See what happens when you open your mind to every possiblity that can be. Living in the believer box will never get you anywhere

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:54 PM
reply to post by pupetmaster

The information this offers is just as valid as the ufo thoery. Read it.

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 07:01 PM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in