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.


Are UFO's

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:21 PM

Originally posted by GLDNGUN
Uh, no, it doesn't "render my point mute". First, even if I was talking about every reported UFO, the question still stands as to why there used to be so many "saucer" sightings, and why they are in such the minority now. Secondly, I'm talking about the ones that can't be easily explained. The ones we read about. Are you suggesting that 90% of those are proven false? I don't think the majority of those are "proven" to be anything, so I think you're simply pulling a number out of thin air.

I clearly mention I do not know the precise figures. Saucer sighting are not any less or more common, they are just referred to as saucers far less often.

The older drawings may appear different to modern drawings, but that's often only found with regards to 'saucers' by the Movie industry. And no, I am not suggesting 90% of the 10% are false, any fool can surely see I suggest exactly the opposite.

If they want us to see them and are "allowed" to do so, then why don't they park in Times Square for an hour, day, or week, so we can get close-up photos, videos, etc. Are you suggesting they want us to see them, but they don't want us to get a really good look or have any sort of proof or documentation? What's the point in that?

You entirely miss the point, the entire point is it's more than likely not an issue to any more technologically advanced species whether a lower advanced species can see them.

Also again you mention time square, where you come to this point god only knows. Just because they have no fear of us seeing them does not suggest in any way shape or form, "hey because they don't want to avoid our sight that means they should show up in times square."

Use your head for a second, how do you reach the conclusion they must want us to see them in great detail just because we have seen them at a distance?

Well, thanks for taking the time to set us all of us idiots straight on this "pointless" thread and doing all of the thinking for us. Obviously, with your lion analogy you have a complete and thorough understanding of a very complex issue. With your help, I can now see it's as simple as a lion and an AK-47.

Yes, even a childish analogy isn't good enough for some "idiots," seriously, breath deeply, take a second and think over what you have said. I'm sure even you will have a chuckle.

Einstein has a rival!

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:47 PM
i smell a thread fight a'brewin...

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:58 PM
reply to post by dkman222

Lol, never been one to turn down a bit of fisty cuffs mate, but In all seriousness I just fail to understand how he comes to his conclusions.

"Why don't they land on times square then" well, the only bloody answer anyone can give him is... I don't know, obviously they don't want to, just because we see them doesn't mean that they HAVE to give us a closer sight.

I can't see the thinking leading up to that conclusion, "why don't they land in times square then," perhaps I'm being dumb but it just isn't clicking in my mind.

We see them, they are there, so they should land in times square because we can see them anyway... no, still the penny isn't dropping how that works.

new topics
<< 1   >>

log in