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: 27
82
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by HolgerTheDane
 


I do not mean to be rude, but I don't want rhetoric, I want evidence for the counter-claims made by those trying to explain the LA UFO case.

I will repeat

1) I want evidence that the video is a hoax
2) I want evidence that search lights can converge and cause an optical illusion of a UFO which then can be captured in a photograph as a large luminous object with a clearly defined outline
3) I want evidence for why approx 30 search lights would be directed at a single patch of sky and then subsequently shot at for a long time, if there is nothing there.

I have long noted how some skeptics here have the luxury of not having their counter-claims tested and I am going to put a stop to that.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]




posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


"3) I want evidence for why approx 30 search lights would be directed at a single patch of sky and then subsequently shot at for a long time, if there is nothing there."

Searchlight troops were trained to converge their lights. The hard part was to train them to converge on actual objects.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


"I have long noted how some skeptics here have the luxury of not having their counter-claims tested and I am going to put a stop to that."

I've felt the same about the believers. They get positively hostile if you say, "can you prove that?"



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I too am anxious to see proof that the video was a hoax.It is one thing to say it,but another thing entirely to back it up.Even us "loony believers" have evidence to back up our claims.Also I want to say that I to respect Armap and Phage as they are true skeptics.Some others one here how ever I do not respect for multiple obvious reasons.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


Um, really, shouldn't you be interested in proof that it is NOT a hoax? That would make a lot more sense.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


I believe there will be a revelation, but not for a couple of years yet.

Disclosure+NWO+2012=Alien contact. There has to be a "one world" representative group; they won't be dropping by every nation's capital to say "Hi."

Anything flying in space (boosters, debris, et c.) that cannot be readily recognized is "unidentified" by definition. UFO does not equal alien; it means unidentified.

If an alien craft was capable of vertical and hovering flight, why would it need a "landing strip" in Peru?

As for Betty Hill, anyone can take eight or ten randomly spaced dots and match them to a place in the night sky.

I lived in Texas most of my life, and the only real evidentiary "encounter" I know of happened outside Houston in the "Cash-Landrum" incident. The occupants of a car were seriously burned by a triangle-shaped craft , one later dying. Her Estate sued the U.S. Govt.(the craft was escorted by 23 Chinook helicopters). The case was thrown out because the Govt. refused to acknowledge the incident based on "National Security."

That's evidence.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I decided to make a drawing to see if the adding of several lights would make an object in their confluence (is this word correct in this context?).

As I could not use lights I used a translucent triangle to simulate the search-lights, and copied it several times, trying to put them in the same positions as those in the photo.

This was what I got.



It shows that the adding of all those lights could create a "fake" object.

But it shows something that I never noticed before, the lights on the photo do not pass over the "UFO" (and at least the light on the right, on the photo, looks strong enough to be visible on "the other side" of the crossing of the lights), so it means that there was something really there (even if we consider that in my drawing the "light" does not loose strength with the distance, as the real light does).

What that object was is more difficult to know, a cloud would be enough to stop the light from passing to the other side.

Too bad there is only one photo, I guess this case could never move from the "not enough data" status.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Here is the ''UFO Hunters'' episode on it.....



Skeptics??How do you explain the helicopters escorting this obvious object that as far as we know is beyond anything we can make on Earth(at least without help).



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Excellent ArMap, somebody that actually does more than talk, and actually is able to support their hypothesis. That is a true skeptic. I am also impressed that through this simulation you have been able to demonstrate to yourself that this was not an optical illusion, but an object was indeed encapsulated by the search lights.

Was it a cloud? Not according to the evidence we have available. Phage already tried the cloud explanation and gave a photo of lights convering to make a circle like shap, but with no definite outline, density and 3D perspective. In the UFO over LA case we have an object which is luminious, but perhaps the illumination is produced by the searchlights cast on it. It has a very clear outline and if you greyscale the image you will see the object and its outline very clearly.

Unless you can provide cases in the past where multiple search lights have been directed on a slowly moving cloud and it has been fired at for a significant duration.

I would be surprised if you can find me such a case. I personally think you cannot, because this not a cloud, but a genuine UFO. This is also supported by witness testimony who saw this thing take direct hits, and that is corrobrated by the explosions all around the craft. This thing has been locked into target and is being shot at for a significant duration.

It is fairly easy if you are willing to go to such lengths to test the cloud hypothesis. Get some powerful spotlights, aim them into a patch in the sky and then take a photograph. Until that is not forthcoming there is no reason to believe that spotlights have these amaziing powers to create images of objects with such a define outline, density and 3D perspective that it fools everyone from people to the military and airforce.

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


"This is also supported by witness testimony who saw this thing take direct hits, and that is corrobrated by the explosions all around the craft."

You do know, don't you, that anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) shells were set to go off at a specific height? So the shells would have exploded even if there was nothing there. [/debunk]

[edit on 13-4-2009 by Gawdzilla]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Folks, THIS is what i am talking about.

ArMaP, if i were a mod you would get an applause for your positive leadership. Excellent, excellent presentation.

And i agree with your opinion. There was something there, but lord knows what it was.

Regardless, the lights, if shone on a cloud base (or some other "screen"), could easily look like a clearly formed, luminescent object.

I hope that others follow your example of how to be skeptical (and how to discuss your opinions in a civil and friendly manner).



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
As it has been stated many times,there is something there that the searchlights are on.It is not a cloud,nor is it nothing.It is not a blimp either.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


You say there is "something"? What do you base that on? The one image from the attack or the photoshopped youtube?



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Well,here we are some 27 pages into this thread and here is what I see.......The constant arguing of non relevant issues between believers and non believers,some skeptics have realized that in a lot of these cases something truly unknown happened.We still have some who maintain terminally that they have an excuse for everything and that every single account of UFOs or ETs is false.Mainly it has been resorted to name calling and irrelevant semantics.Believers have the only proof that is possible while the skeptics ignore it or become illogical and demand more,using highly unlikely scenarios or nothing at all to explain these cases with their evidence.All in all I will say this thread has served a great purpose as I wanted.It exposed the multitudes of clear cut UFO cases to the general masses and proved again that skeptics dont have any reasonable explanations so they just get mad and thus become pseudoskeptics or worse.What is evident from the post of some members here is that no matter what happens they will have an excuse however ridiculous it is because they simply,internally refuse to accept facts and refuse to acknowledge we are not alone in space.We have presented multiple accounts in addition to the three clinchers and still can not swade some,even when it is obvious it is ET related,or that even an object is a UFO(non ET or not).So that makes me think that some members are unwilling to accept something they cant explain and unwilling to acknowledge that they dont know everything there is to know,and that some things are above them.They do not want to shift their paradigm and will at all costs defend it to the last.To discount everyone of these cases that have been presented in this thread(and countless others not)is to truly be ignorant and stupid.Some member suggested I made a "garbage,false thread".........we will let the other members decide that.Us believers will continue fighting on and trying to swade skeptics,rather work with them to find the truth that is so obvious and expose it.This thread has been a classic example of the division today on Ufology and related topics,really it showed me more than anything the refusal to believe what is cold hard facts right in front of you.It matters not,these events are happening,some are hoaxes,most are not and eventually rather it be tonight,tomorrow,or 3000 years from now the truth will be known and I can and will proclaim I was one of the believers that never waivered and knew the truth and accepted it.I will say I was one who wanted to spread it throughout this planet we call Earth,so that all will know.That is my legacy on this subject.~JKrog



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


You haven't provided three clinchers you spoke of in the OP. You just provided warmed over nonsense that has been debunked.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by jkrog08
 


You haven't provided three clinchers you spoke of in the OP. You just provided warmed over nonsense that has been debunked.


Do you have this word combination saved in a hot-key on your keyboard? You HAVE said it several times already. It was noticed when you first said it. We spent several pages trying to explain a more rational mindset to you (one in which you ignore semantics in the thread title, and instead pay attention to the intended meaning).



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
Skeptics??How do you explain the helicopters escorting this obvious object that as far as we know is beyond anything we can make on Earth(at least without help).

This shows the only problem I have with "believers", the inclusion of the "is beyond anything we can make on Earth".

Where, in those statements, was said anything about the object that makes it impossible to make on Earth?

Unless it was something I did not understood, nothing was said about unusual behaviour, just unusual looks.

If that is true, then by "classifying" the object as beyond Earth technology, you are not just interpreting the data, you are adding properties that were not seen by the witnesses.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I decided to make a drawing to see if the adding of several lights would make an object in their confluence (is this word correct in this context?).

***SNIP***



Commendable effort.




This was what I got.



It shows that the adding of all those lights could create a "fake" object.



Just as described by a number of people.




But it shows something that I never noticed before, the lights on the photo do not pass over the "UFO" (and at least the light on the right, on the photo, looks strong enough to be visible on "the other side" of the crossing of the lights), so it means that there was something really there (even if we consider that in my drawing the "light" does not loose strength with the distance, as the real light does).

What that object was is more difficult to know, a cloud would be enough to stop the light from passing to the other side.



Indeed.
The real clouds and the smoke clouds created by a huge number of shell bursts would stop the light from penetrating further.

Also we must consider that even for the light to show up like that as huge spears into the sky, there must be something in the air like a mist or particles.
One of the key features of light is that it is invisible unless it hits something and reveals its presence by allowing us to see what it hits.

Just for arguments sake consider three or four searchlight converging on the underside of a cloud. That would easily account for the "UFO-shaped" outline.

Not proof of an object. I'm sure we can agree on that.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by jkrog08
Skeptics??How do you explain the helicopters escorting this obvious object that as far as we know is beyond anything we can make on Earth(at least without help).

This shows the only problem I have with "believers", the inclusion of the "is beyond anything we can make on Earth".

Where, in those statements, was said anything about the object that makes it impossible to make on Earth?

Unless it was something I did not understood, nothing was said about unusual behaviour, just unusual looks.

If that is true, then by "classifying" the object as beyond Earth technology, you are not just interpreting the data, you are adding properties that were not seen by the witnesses.


Next thing is that it will be quoted somewhere on the net and it will have Professor E. P. Gesundheit of the Instititute Cayman Research and the Advanced Paranormal trying to explain to us mere mortals how the radiation level was way up hight and that NASA and NSA refuse to answer his calls and deny everything. What are they hiding?

This is exactly what happens in the books and on the net.
They just call it "new information recieved".



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Interesting Hypothesis Armap...

However, It is not possible for the the light beam hypothesis to account for the radar contact that was tracked to within three miles of Los Angeles from 120 miles away.

*The Object was initially spotted on Radar at 120 miles away before being 'coned' by the searchlights and fired upon; such lights do not have a range of 120 miles and could not possibly account for the radar contact that was tracked on radar. ;-)

*Also, since the anti-aircraft guns did not start firing until the object was almost over Santa Monica, we know that anti-aircraft fire cannot possibly account for the unknown object tracked on radar prior to that point where they began firing. ;-)

Furthermore, there exists no scientific evidence or literature would support the idea that the amount of photons projected by those searchlights would ever create an area of density that would present itself as a radar contact of the sort observed in 1942.
(Modern lasers capable of causing reactions in the atmosphere can create radar contacts - searchlights cannot, even modern ones....)

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Exuberant1]



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join