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.

 

FEMA Admits to UFO's

page: 2
47
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Very interesting.

This tells you that the probability is high that extra-terrestrials exist. This is one reason why I debate these things within reason. Reason weighs the evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

I think when you weigh eyewitness accounts, trace evidence, mass sightings, abduction cases, videos, pictures and more it's easy to reach the conclusion that extra-terrestrials and extra-dimensional beings are the most likely explanation for these things.

Do they have a plan for bigfoot?
Do they have a plan for the loch ness monstor in case he shows up in lake erie?
Do they have a plan for Santa or the Easter bunny?

I think this speaks volumes about their position regarding extra-terrestrials. They don't make plans for things that don't have a chance of occuring.

They don't make a plan about Santa and the reindeer entering our air space.




posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

First, this UFO chapter is old news, it's not even original to FEMA.


What does it's age have to do with anything?



Second, has anybody answered my question? Would FEMA publish a smoking gun?


The question makes no sense unless you are disputing what has been reported as appearing in the manual. Are you disputing that? If not, then what is your point? It is what it is, it says what it says. It's always possible for people to argue that black is white and to make excuses. Therefore, yes, I have no problem comprehending that FEMA would publish something like that and later know that they could argue black was white and, despite the obvious facts, some people would swallow such a nonsensical "rationalization" of their statements, acceptable to those who are paying little attention or who are already biased against the ETH. It happens here every day. There is no "smoking gun" for those who are determined not to accept the ETH, no matter the facts or the evidence. It also fits in with the idea of a gradual, controlled disclosure.


[edit on 14-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


If you pause it at 1:49 it shows more "alien type" drawings

there are what some would expect on the right, but the 2 Humanoid

types would ne Nordics , if i am corrcet



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


You haven't answered my question. Inquiries about what makes sense are just a dodge. So answer the question, please.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Seany
 


Yes, I hadn't noticed the 'Nordic" type before, although the artist seems to have made them look a little threatening
I wouldn't like to bump into either type on a dark night, judging by the artists impression LOL.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Malcram
 


You haven't answered my question. Inquiries about what makes sense are just a dodge. So answer the question, please.


I answered it in considerable detail as far as I understand it. Perhaps if you are clear about what you are disputing then we can answer your elusive "question". I more get the impression that you have little to say and aren't actually disputing anything in particular but the reflex to debunk is still kicking in regardless.


[edit on 14-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


Thanks for expanding and elaborating on my earlier remarks... you've saved valuable minutes of my life in having to retort... which I've just spent acknowledging that they have been saved...

On Topic: well it makes as much sense as them printing this in the first place.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I made a thread a while ago about the same types of implications,

I stated why would NASA send the Mercury Probes witha map to our planet

Cryptic impressions of man and woman, and a speech from the UN leader

These are smoking guns IMO



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Excuse my ignorance, but why is FEMA in this case?

Is FEMA the responsible for the writing or editing of that book?



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
The book is written by 2 retired firefighters. And, it seems like they are trying to explain what MIGHT happen if this event EVER happens. Where is FEMA involved in this?

Two retired firefighters writing a book with a chapter on the possibility of a UFO crashing does not explain anything, it doesn't disclose anything, it is essentially just an idea that probably popped into their heads.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by hikix
The book is written by 2 retired firefighters. And, it seems like they are trying to explain what MIGHT happen if this event EVER happens. Where is FEMA involved in this?

Two retired firefighters writing a book with a chapter on the possibility of a UFO crashing does not explain anything, it doesn't disclose anything, it is essentially just an idea that probably popped into their heads.


No, no, no, "somebody" it was FEMA. That video is ABSOLUTE PROOF the government knows about aliens. (Checking the bona fides of the video or the facts behind it aren't an option, you know.)



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by hikix
 


well i guess they could have put in a chapter for Santa Clause to crash

also, but they didn't , .... They also state what may happen to electricals

and power sources , what are they basing that on



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seany
reply to post by hikix
 


well i guess they could have put in a chapter for Santa Clause to crash

also, but they didn't , .... They also state what may happen to electricals

and power sources , what are they basing that on


Exactly, does the Navy have a plan in case ships run into the Loch Ness monster?

All it takes is a little reason.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by platosallegory]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Well that's interesting seeing as YOU spoke of FEMA being involved in it's publication more than once Gawdzilla.


This information is several years old. FEMA develops protocols for the unknown.


And your heavy use of sarcasm is not only inappropriate, seeing as you did the very thing you are accusing others of here, but is also indicative of having nothing of any real substance to say. See "sneering scoffers" and the definition of pseudo-skepticism at the links in my signature.


[edit on 14-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Well that's interesting seeing as YOU spoke of FEMA being involved in it's publication more than once Gawdzilla.


This information is several years old. FEMA develops protocols for the unknown.


And your heavy use of sarcasm is not only inappropriate, seeing as you did the very thing you are accusing others of here, but is also indicative of having nothing of any real substance to say. See "sneering scoffers" and the definition of pseudo-skepticism at the links in my signature.


[edit on 14-4-2009 by Malcram]


"This information is several years old." That's a sentence. Capitalized at the beginning. Period at the end.

"FEMA develops protocols for the unknown." That's a sentence. Capitalized at the beginning. Period at the end.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Gawdzilla having a bad day.

Capital at the beginning , period at the end.



???? whats your point ,

SMOKING GUN

As it is written

so it shall be done



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Seany
 


You bring us back to my point. Why would FEMA publish a smoking gun?
"Let's keep the aliens a top secret. And while you're at the printers, have them run off a bunch of copies of that top secret and we give them away."



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


That's really silly Gawdzilla/SaviorComplex. You are in danger of squandering the last few fragments of credibility you might have left over this minor issue. You are trying to claim that you weren't defending FEMA's publishing of this material - which means you accepted that they published it - in this sentence? Very silly.

And what about the other sentence you used:

"It's not even original to FEMA", meaning, FEMA published it but it didn't originate with them.

Obviously you accepted that FEMA published this material and were arguing from that position. That's as clear as crystal and it just makes you look silly to deny it. You did as you sarcastically and hypocritically accused others - you were arguing without having done the research.


[edit on 14-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


I gave the subject all the research it needed, and easily more than the OP. Does this all confuse you? Sorry.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Seany
 


You bring us back to my point. Why would FEMA publish a smoking gun?
"Let's keep the aliens a top secret. And while you're at the printers, have them run off a bunch of copies of that top secret and we give them away."


I already answered this question. Reread it.



[i[Originally posted by Malcram
It's always possible for people to argue that black is white and to make excuses. Therefore, yes, I have no problem comprehending that FEMA would publish something like that and later know that they could argue black was white and, despite the obvious facts, some people would swallow such a nonsensical "rationalization" of their statements, acceptable to those who are paying little attention or who are already biased against the ETH. It happens here every day. There is no "smoking gun" for those who are determined not to accept the ETH, no matter the facts or the evidence. It also fits in with the idea of a gradual, controlled disclosure.


The rationalization - which argues that black is white - is actually contained in the video in the OP. Predictably, it doesn't stand scrutiny, as already discussed.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Malcram]







 
47
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join