The Three Clinchers for Proof of Alien Life

page: 29
82
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Ever see "flak" bursts? Do you think aliens really build spaceships that look like exploding artillery shells?


....No one is saying that aliens build spaceships that look like exploding artillery shells. Enjoy the images. ;-)

Anyhow...

You must have missed the portion of my first post that covered this matter.

I addressed the artillery issue here:

"*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. ;-)"


Cheers!

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Exuberant1]




posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I was referring to the pretty pictures, both positive and negative, posted earlier. They very much resemble explosions of AAA shells.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I was referring to the pretty pictures, both positive and negative, posted earlier. They very much resemble explosions of AAA shells.


...Perhaps it is because there flak shells exploding in the image. ;-)
(Over 1400 were fired)

The image also contains an unidentified object that was tracked by radar for almost 120 miles...



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


No, you assume that's an object and not an artifact. You have no proof that it was an object other than your own biases. Your biases are no more "proof" than mine are, but I admit that.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


The radar contact was lost several miles offshore. The firing started 45 minutes after contact was lost. Neither the searchlights nor the anti-aircraft guns were radar directed. There is no indication that an object (or any airplanes) was being tracked by radar over Los Angeles.

What is known is that a Japanese submarine had shelled an oil refinery near Santa Barbara two days before. The I-17 was a type B1 submarine which carried a reconnaissance seaplane. The radar return may have been from that aircraft or it may have been a false contact.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



its interesting to see how the ufo crowd mould events to suit their desires. The vast majority of people saw absolutely nothing in the sky except search lights and AA flak.

some poeple reported seeing a V shape formation of up to 20 planes.

A police station reported a downed plane falling into a street. When the army got there there was nothing at all.

The commander of the artil thought he saw planes then realised it was just smoke playing tricks.

A few people reported seeing a balloon/blimp.

UFO folkes like to be selective about wintness testimony in this case. I think people seeing planes/balloons is a result of the power of suggestion. And the photo in the la times, the paper never claimed there was an object in the picture nor did the photographer.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage,can you present a source which dictates that "radar contact was lost a few miles off shore"?I am anxious to review it,thanks~JKrog



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 

www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil...
p. 283

Radars picked up an unidentified target 120 miles west of Los Angeles. Antiaircraft batteries were alerted at 0215 and were put on Green Alert—ready to fire—a few minutes later. The AAF kept its pursuit planes on the ground, preferring to await indications of the scale and direction of any attack before committing its limited fighter force. Radars tracked the approaching target to within a few miles of the coast, and at 0221 the regional controller ordered a blackout. Thereafter the information center was flooded with reports of “enemy planes, ” even though the mysterious object tracked in from sea seems to have vanished.


The shelling of Ellwood had put the Army into a high state of alert. They were jumpy to begin with.

Loyal Japanese-Americans who had predicted that a demonstration would be made in connection with the President's speech also prophesied that Los Angeles would be attacked the next night.74 The Army, too, was convinced that some new action impended, and took all possible precautions. Newspapers were permitted to announce that a strict state of readiness against renewed attacks had been imposed,75 and there followed the confused action known as "the Battle of Los Angeles."


From p. 280:

The many alerts of this period reflect the inexperience of both the public and the defense forces. To some critics they indicated a deliberate attempt by the Army to frighten the public in order to stimulate interest in war preparations. Before accepting this view, however, it should be noted that many of the reports of unidentified aircraft, leading to precautionary blackouts, resulted from mechanical difficulties with new radar equipment and from the understandable mistakes of inadequately trained personnel.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 04:59 AM
link   
The NASA tapes blew me away and gave me the chills. Dont get me wrong, I do believe there is something else out there, but as far as the Nazca lines go; I have seen on more than one occaison that the OP forgets to add some anthropological context to go with the mystery of the lines.

If someone has mentioned this before I apologize (its a very long thread!)

This is purely from memory but when I was in grade 5 (i'm 19 now) i went to Peru and specifically went on an air craft tour of the lines complete with a tour guide.

What I recall him saying was that they believe the lines were made by the Nascan civilization (pre-dated the Incan empire by about 600 years) and were part of spiritual ceremonies and processions the people would do as a sort of worship to their deities. The Nascans would organize processions that follow the lines of what we see now today, they would repeat this over and over and eventually make a trench which is visible from an aerial view. I remeber the area being mostly flat-land which raises the questions of how they knew what they were doing (these things were massive, from ground it looked like some small path leading off to nowhere) However, there were small mountains in the area and, in fact, the "moon-man" was on the side of one such small mountain!

As to why they were made there is a common theme among cultures to have some sort of sky god or god that resides in the heavens. It is reasonable to assume that the Nascans were making a sort of offering or sign to a god; specifically a water god.

The "spaceport" as it is dubbed is thought to be a sign to the gods that they need water (a river) and the widening at the base of the formation indicates direction of where they want the water. If you dont know, the Nasca lines are out in a very dry region (essentially a desert) and I believe the Nascan civilization is generally thought to have disappeared due to persistant drought.
The other lines and shapes are thought to of held similar religious symbolism to the Nascans.

There are still many mysteries surrounding the why and how these lines were created but with the inception of the recent insight into this ancient civiliazation, I dont think the Nasca lines specifically indicate that ancient cultures were aware of extra-terrestrial life.

The precision with which the lines were created is baffeling, but hey, this is the area where several hundred years later they were making stone temples with no seams between the slabs! And this was before they had proper tools to do so.

cheers



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by threeAMprocastinator
 


Welcome to ATS!

That was an excellent first post you just made - it brings up many ideas that I will include in future investigative efforts.

You have just received your first star.* ;-)



[edit on 15-4-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I think you left a very importiant piece of info out of your "proof". Have you seen fire in the sky (the movie) you cannot make that crap up.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boxygirl
I think you left a very importiant piece of info out of your "proof". Have you seen fire in the sky (the movie) you cannot make that crap up.

It was a movie. Not a documentary. And not a very good movie either. How does that prove anything at all?



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Oh my friend you have so much to learn about UFOs.The movie fire in the sky was a documentary and those events happened in REAL TIME.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boxygirl
Oh my friend you have so much to learn about UFOs.The movie fire in the sky was a documentary and those events happened in REAL TIME.

You have the report of a single person, who was confirmed as being at a different location after realizing he was defaulting on a government contract. Sounds like a source to me.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
okay that is just not true. Travis spen some time on board an alien vessel and they had fishbowl like helmets. Find me your source that he was "confirmed" being at a different location. Don't push your politics off on me pal



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boxygirl
okay that is just not true. Travis spen some time on board an alien vessel and they had fishbowl like helmets. Find me your source that he was "confirmed" being at a different location. Don't push your politics off on me pal


I would give you the sources, but you wouldn't read them, your mind is made up.



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Strange request, but there you are. I could have told you without looking. I visit there occasionally.

Mod-Note: Quote removed for T&C Violation.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
But why do you believe him?

Mod-Note: Quote removed for T&C Violation.

[edit on 17-4-2009 by Skyfloating]





top topics
 
82
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join