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.

 

The Three Clinchers for Proof of Alien Life

page: 25
82
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


You are obsessed with that Savior person. Mods? Can you dissuade this member of that delusion? Probably not, but that wouldn't be surprising.




posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


To bring this discussion back on track. I have to say Roswell and Battle of LA cases are true clinchers for me. I was telling my mother about Roswell and Battle of LA, and she knows next to nothing about UFO and even she saw right through it. Here is how I framed it:

Battle of LA: A giant UFO caught in between approx 30 search lights is seen in 1941 by tens of thousands of people. It is photographed and reported on the radio and tv. It is bombarded by artillery for about 1 hour and intercepted by fighter planes.

First official explanation: It was nothing
Second official explanation: It was a weather balloon.

Roswell: Something is heard to have crashed. When investigation it is found that metal debris is found scattered all around the crash site, a UFO is found along with its other-wordly occupants. This is confirmed by the official and hits headlines, "FLYING SAUCER FOUND" A few hours later the story is retracted, "WEATHER BALLOON FOUND" hundreds of witnesses who claimed to have seen the "flying saucer" are silenced. The entire area is cordoned off and troops from neighbouring states are airlifted in. Newspaper offices are raided and the old new item is confiscated - for a -ahem- weather balloon.

She saw right through both of them and she knows next to nothing about UFO's.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Who is this 'savior" person?????????


Oh yea,for all you "HYPERPSEUDOSKEPTICS"


www.rense.com...

So is that "War hysteria"????????Did all thousands of civilians and military personal ''make believe that up"?



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


LOL,You mean like what I (the BS THREAD MAKER) just posted above?I wonder why the exostate troops were called in?

[edit on 4/12/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


That's the point, these brash dismissive proclamations of supposed "debunking" of such evidence heavy cases are every bit as absurd and invalid as the bold proclamations of those who claim that every obvious CGI UFO vid is definitely of real ET craft.

They are equally as ridiculous, equally as illogical and irrational. They are two sides of the same silly coin.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


I totally agree,did that u2u help you BTW?(u2u me to let me know).That picture should shut up any debate on the legitimacy of UFOs.(I know it wont though,lol)



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Jkrog keep up the good work my friend!

You continually post great threads filled with great information that should be helping those who are interested in the truth!

It's unfortunate that so many here are only interested in defending their self appointed ego, and you know exactly who you are, it matters not if they disagree with this, because their energetic responses tell many of us the truth behind their assertions.

Simply ignore those who you can tell are only here to weaken your resolve and distort the truth. In the end, their belief systems will crumble, and it will be their own fault for not letting go sooner. Stay focused and address those who extend equally respectful frequencies.

You've done a wonderful job, and that message you will carry with you forever. This is something you will leave behind, remain with clarity at all times.

Be In Peace



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Malcram
 


I totally agree,did that u2u help you BTW?(u2u me to let me know).That picture should shut up any debate on the legitimacy of UFOs.(I know it wont though,lol)


This is fairly conclusive evidence though and the irony is it has existed since 1941. So who is to blame the government, or people for being stupid enough to let their governments lie to them and let them get away with it. The same story has been repeating on absolutely everything the government lies to us about: foreign policy, paranormal research, shadow government, depopulation agendas etc. This is why these darker and secret power structured have formed and this is why what I forecast for 2012 is going to pass.

Here is what should have been happening as far as back as 1941 and earlier. Civilian groups should have formed by networking between people and then the government should have been confronted on issues like UFO's, paranormal research, secret unconstitutional structures and the issue kept alive in the media and in the public sphere. There should have been constant discussion on it out in the open.

Sadly there wasn't. And ever today when anti-constitutional moves are made by the government they are still not questioned or confronted. If they build concentration camps all over the country and develop non-lethal weapons to fight enemy-combattants(err, you) still no questions asked.

Is there any surprise why we have got ourselves into the mess we are in? I don't know if I should be angry at such sheep or feel immense pity for them.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


If I was a MOD or FSME I would applaud that last post..........There are WAY to many SHEEPLE,and I think we see a few on this and your thread.Feel free to refer members of this thread to yours,as it is another level of this really.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

Battle of LA: A giant UFO caught in between approx 30 search lights is seen in 1941 by tens of thousands of people. It is photographed and reported on the radio and tv. It is bombarded by artillery for about 1 hour and intercepted by fighter planes.

First official explanation: It was nothing
Second official explanation: It was a weather balloon.


What was caught in searchlights was nothing but smoke and/or clouds. Similar to this:

Searchlight beams strike the base of the cloud ceiling, creating an effect resembling a flying disc.
Source

There are not reports from tens of thousands of people, but the reports that are available are so varied that to select the only the ones that sound they are describing "a giant UFO" is absurd. Why not select the ones that said there were hundreds of bombers but said nothing about "a giant butterfly" (yes, that description was published).

There is one (1) very poor photograph.

There is an alleged recording of an radio broadcast the morning after the incident.

Please provide more information about television reports. What was shown? What was said?

There was anti-aircraft artillery fire throughout the Los Angeles basin. Were there "giant UFO's" throughout the area?

There is no indication any American planes were launched. Which, under the circumstances is reasonable. Here is a quote from one of the pilots of the 94th Fighter Squadron. Maj.Jack M. Ilfrey, an Ace.

We pilots prayed to the Good Lord above that we wouldn't be sent up in that barrage, enemy or not. Most everyone saw, or imagined something - Jap Zero's - P43's, Jap Betty Bombers. We were not sent up.

But by the time the sun rose and the smoke cleared, it was noted that nary an enemy bomb had actually fallen upon the balmy shores of Southern California. Thus the whole shooting match was soon dismissed as a grandiose false alarm.

Source

First explanation was actually that it was Japanese aircraft.

Second explanation was that it may have been nothing (but the Army really did not want to admit that), the sighting of a balloon probably started the barrage.

[edit on 4/12/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I do not mean to be rude, but the photograph you posted has absolutely no resemblance with the photograph of the LA UFO. In the latter, it is clearly visible that a luminious object(with a clearly defined outline) is encapsulated by multiple search lights.

Your explanation also fails to explain the available data. To demonstrate this lets substitute "cloud" for "UFO" into the account:

A slowly moving cloud is surrounded by approx 30 search lights, it is seen by tens of thousands of people, many of whom which report an actual physical object of approx 100m size. The cloud is bombarded for more than an hour with artillery fire and intercepted by fighter planes, then glides out and disappears into the horizon.

Sorry the cloud explanation does not work. Try again.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I respect you Phage....lets not go where you are going,okay?



In the early morning hours of February 25th, Katie's phone rang. It was the Air Raid supervisor in her district notifying her of an alert and asking if she had seen the object in the sky very close to her home. She immediately walked to a window and looked up. "It was huge! It was just enormous! And it was practically right over my house. I had never seen anything like it in my life!" she said. "It was just hovering there in the sky and hardly moving at all." With the city blacked out, Katie, and hundreds of thousands of others, were able to see the eerie visitor with spectacular clarity. "It was a lovely pale orange and about the most beautiful thing you've ever seen. I could see it perfectly because it was very close. It was big!"

The U.S. Army anti-aircraft searchlights by this time had the object completely covered. "They sent fighter planes up (the Army denied any of its fighters were in action) and I watched them in groups approach it and then turn away. There were shooting at it but it didn't seem to matter." Katie is insistent about the use of planes in the attack on the object. The planes were apparently called off after several minutes and then the ground cannon opened up. "It was like the Fourth of July but much louder. They were firing like crazy but they couldn't touch it." The attack on the object lasted over half an hour before the visitor eventually disappeared from sight. Many eyewitnesses talked of numerous "direct hits" on the big craft but no damage was seen done to it. "I'll never forget what a magnificent sight it was. Just marvelous. And what a georgeous color!", said Katie.
The fire seemed to burst in rings all around the target. But the eager watchers, shivering in the early morning cold, weren't rewarded by the sight of a falling plane. Nor were there any bombs dropped. "Maybe it's just a test," someone remarked. "Test, hell!" was the answer. "You don't throw that much metal in the air unless you're fixing on knocking something down." Still the firing continued, muttering angrily off toward the west like a distant thunderstorm. The targeted object inched along high, flanked by the cherry red explosions. And the householders shivered in their robes, their faces set, watching the awesome scene.

The following are excerpts from the primary front page story of the LA Times on February 26th. Note that there is not a SINGLE description of the object even though is was clearly locked in the focus of dozens of searchlights for well over half an hour and seen by hundreds of thousands of people:



Army Says Alarm Real
Roaring Guns Mark Blackout

Identity of Aircraft Veiled in Mystery; No Bombs Dropped and
No Enemy Craft Hit; Civilians Reports Seeing Planes and Balloon


Overshadowing a nation-wide maelstrom of rumors and conflicting reports, the Army's Western Defense Command insisted that Los Angeles' early morning blackout and anti-aircraft action were the result of unidentified aircraft sighted over the beach area. In two official statements, issued while Secretary of the Navy Knox in Washington was attributing the activity to a false alarm and "jittery nerves," the command in San Francisco confirmed and reconfirmed the presence over the Southland of unidentified planes. Relayed by the Southern California sector office in Pasadena, the second statement read: "The aircraft which caused the blackout in the Los Angeles area for several hours this a.m. have not been identified." Insistence from official quarters that the alarm was real came as hundreds of thousands of citizens who heard and saw the activity spread countless varying stories of the episode. The spectacular anti-aircraft barrage came after the 14th Interceptor Command ordered the blackout when strange craft were reported over the coastline. Powerful searchlights from countless stations stabbed the sky with brilliant probing fingers while anti-aircraft batteries dotted the heavens with beautiful, if sinister, orange bursts of shrapnel.

City Blacked Out For Hours

The city was blacked out from 2:25 to 7:21 am after an earlier yellow alert at 7:18 pm was called off at 10:23 pm. The blackout was in effect from here to the Mexican border and inland to the San Joaquin Valley. No bombs were dropped and no airplanes shot down and, miraculously in terms of the tons of missiles hurled aloft, only two persons were reported wounded by falling shell fragments. Countless thousands of Southland residents, many of whom were late to work because of the traffic tie-up during the blackout, rubbed their eyes sleepily yesterday and agreed that regardless of the question of how "real" the air raid alarm may have been, it was "a great show" and "well worth losing a few hours' sleep." The blackout was not without its casualties, however. A State Guardsman died of a heart attack while driving an ammunition truck, heart failure also accounted for the death of an air raid warden on duty, a woman was killed in a car-truck collision in Arcadia, and a Long Beach policeman was killed in a traffic crash enroute to duty. Much of the firing appeared to come from the vicinity of aircraft plants along the coastal area of Santa Monica, Inglewood, Southwest Los Angeles, and Long Beach.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In its front page editorial, the Times said: "In view of the considerable public excitement and confusion caused by yesterday morning's supposed enemy air raid over this area and its spectacular official accompaniments, it seems to The Times that more specific public information should be forthcoming from government sources on the subject, if only to clarify their own conflicting statements about it."

"According to the Associated Press, Secretary Knox intimated that reports of enemy air activity in the Pacific Coastal Region might be due largely to 'jittery nerves.' Whose nerves, Mr. Knox? The public's or the Army's?"



rense.com

What did you say again???A cloud??I highly think NOT....



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 

Like I said, why use "Katie's" report rather than the ones that said they saw waves of bombers and hundreds of planes? Reports of "bombs dropping everywhere"? What makes her report more valid than others?
www.bookmice.net...

I don't really get why you're posting those other reports. You take the fact that "there is not a single decription of the object" as proof that there was a single giant object? There is nothing there that says anything about a "giant UFO". One just repeats what I said (more or less); the Navy said it was a false alarm and the Army said there were unidentified aircraft. The other seems to confirm that it was probably a false alarm.

A radar contact which disappears (not uncommon and possibly a submarine launched Japanese reconnaissance aircraft). A blackout, about two months after the attack on Pearl Harbor. A bunch of green guys manning the anti-aircraft batteries (remember, they have never seen battle). One battery opens fire, the rest follow suit. Yeah, I think they were shooting at nothing. That's why they didn't hit anything. Ask someone who's ever been in battle if they ever started shooting at something they thought might be there.


[edit on 4/13/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by jkrog08
 

Like I said, why use "Katie's" report rather than the one's that said they saw waves of bombers and hundreds of planes? Reports of "bombs dropping everywhere"? What makes her report more valid than others?
www.bookmice.net...

I don't really get why you're posting those other reports. You take the fact that "there is not a single decription of the object" as proof that there was a single giant object? There is nothing there that says anything about a "giant UFO". One just repeats what I said (more or less); the Navy said it was a false alarm and the Army said there were unidentified aircraft. The other seems to confirm that it was probably a false alarm.

A radar contact which disappears (not uncommon and possibly a submarine launched Japanese reconnaissance aircraft). A blackout, about two months after the attack on Pearl Harbor. A bunch of green guys manning the anti-aircraft batteries (remember, they have never seen battle). One battery opens fire, the rest follow suit. Yeah, I think they were shooting at nothing. That's why they didn't hit anything. Ask someone who's ever been in battle if they ever started shooting at something they thought might be there.


[edit on 4/13/2009 by Phage]


Unfortunately your explaination/s are unreasonble because they contradict the available evidence. You cite that variance in witness testimony is "proof" that it was not a single object. Nope, it just means there is variance in witness testimony and this is statistical norm in all witness testimony; variance is to be expected. The testimony of seeing multiple bombers can be explained by the fighter planes intercepting the UFO's, which were reported by people. They also reported it took direct hits and explosions appeared around it. If these were bombers they should have been coming down crashing onto the ground. Moreover where the are bombers bombs?

It seems to me you're saying to us, "This is what I believe it is, and I'm sticking with it" That is fine, but it is hardly rational. If you wish to attempt explain this UFO you need to be consistent with the available evidence.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 

Consistent? Yes it is consistent (struggling here to get enough characters).
Please see my post above. A quote from a member (an Ace) of the squadron defending Los Angeles. No fighters left the ground during the incident. Is he lying? Can you provide evidence that he is?

My point is, there were no bombers or any other aircraft. It was a false alarm.

[edit on 4/13/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
First off I want to make clear that in no way am I trying to debunk anything. I do tend to lean towards the ancient astronaut theories, that early humans saw more action back then than we could imagine. I also believe that NASA is hiding more than its fair share of information, but when it comes to the Nasca Lines I tend to think of something more simple than trying to communicate with an ET. There was a study that linked the lines to underground water ways that were unknown to the naked eye, but every major well was found to have a "marking" above it. Could it be that something so complex to us to understand was actually something so simple back then? That these lines didn't mean anything else but a way to mark where water could be found? Just a thought.

P.S. I didn't mean to change subject from the LA sightings!

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Chucktah]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Here is where we differ Phage.....I say that aircraft DID leave,so did witnesses(hearing the 'roaring of aircraft').....you say they didn't.I say the gov. covered it up.I mean if you were the prez would go around saying in the midst of a world war you had a thread over a major US city but couldn't do anything about it/How would that look to the Japanese,the Germans?Also if you look at the pic clearly there was something up there.Artillery shells dont explode off of clouds now do they?



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 

Would you, if you were the Secretary of the Army, at the beginning of your involvement in a war, admit that one of your commands opened fire on nothing, over a major city? You mention the President. Can you tell me exactly what President Roosevelt said about the attack?

Anti-aircraft shells are set with timers to detonate at a selected altitude. They rarely, if ever, actually hit a target. It is the shrapnel which brings planes down.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I guess THIS will be the super clincher for number two......

From MY post in ANOTHER thread.......


Yea there was one discovered in 2001(HD23079B),and it appears capable of supporting life.............here is the link.............home.xtra.co.nz...


HERES THE LINK......home.xtra.co.nz...
A likely habitable planet found in the Zeta system?OH MY,SKEPTICS BEWERE!!!



[edit on 4/13/2009 by jkrog08]

[edit on 4/13/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 

Consistent? Yes it is consistent (struggling here to get enough characters).
Please see my post above. A quote from a member (an Ace) of the squadron defending Los Angeles. No fighters left the ground during the incident. Is he lying? Can you provide evidence that he is?

My point is, there were no bombers or any other aircraft. It was a false alarm.

[edit on 4/13/2009 by Phage]


That is an appeal to authority fallacy I'm afraid. Moreover the army officials actually contradict your explanation that it was a cloud, they did actually engage a craft but the army officials said that it was a weather balloon.

As this explanation does not fit the available the data the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that the army officials are lying. Now fancy that, officials lying, can you imagine it?

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join