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.


I Need Help......

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:15 PM
I showed the below photos to a friend recently who instantly discredited them.
His argument was that as they came from the internet they could have been doctored at a later date and posted on the web.

I tried to explain that many were famous images and appeared in numerous newspapers during the time so couldnt have been edited at a later date.

To this he said "show me the proof", as in physical evidence. I looked over the web but he said that wouldnt be good enough as anything on the web can be forged.

I just dont know how i can get my point across.
I dont have the relevant knowledge of photography or the editing process and was hoping you guys and gals could give me some intelligent evidence i could introduce to him to show how these old dated UFO images are the best evidence we have.
Thanks Mudman21 for the last link.

Thanks alot.

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:21 PM
reply to post by LiveForever8

There's a GREAT post on the threads asking some of the top ATS UFO contributors for their favorite cases.
The thread is jam packed with great great info.
Let me see if I can hunt up the name of the thread for you.

Here it is - awesome thread.

Click Here

[edit on 11-6-2009 by silo13]

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:27 PM
reply to post by LiveForever8

Maybe you should have him read some threads on here, like one or all of the three in my signature, that is what I made them for- to turn non believers into believers.

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:29 PM
reply to post by silo13

Here it

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:32 PM
The first one on this page is my favourite:
and here is a little more info:
Maybe the Costa Rican government can verify the authenticity

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:33 PM
reply to post by jkrog08

It's a great thread huh!

I hope the OP checks it out.

I know I'm not nearly through the whole thing yet - but I keep going back.

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:38 PM
Thanks everyone, ill be sure to show these to him.
Keep them coming though, the more evidence the better!

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 05:39 PM
It doesn't really matter if those specific images may or may not be real, just ask him the simply question 'do you think all UFOs are objects of terrestrial origin and/or are illusions?'...

The fact is, that out of hundreds and thousands of images, videos, reports, from the past many decades, ranging from credible army men and pilots, to communities of people, only ONE of these accounts have to be valid (as in cannot be explained as something terrestrial) to prove that there is something beyond our measure here.

A claim saying every single one of the infinite reports can be explained as an illusion or something like that, is simply silly when you really do the research.. thus it isn't even worth arguing to one who says it is all fake, because that's simply unacceptable, not by my measures, but by the measure of facts.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Sentry-]

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 05:53 PM
Also you should tell your friend (OP) that if he thinks that humans are the only intelligent life in a universe with an estimated 27 sextillion (21 zeros in that number) stars and possibly infinite alternate realities and near infinite universes within the multiverse (likely true and will be proven), and not tom mention other spatial dimensions he is simply put-ignorant and may need to join this site.

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 05:48 AM
reply to post by LiveForever8

You deserve a small, humble help from me too mate

I dont have the relevant knowledge of photography or the editing process and was hoping you guys and gals could give me some intelligent evidence i could introduce to him to show how these old dated UFO images are the best evidence we have.

Maybe this happens because they are NOT.
In my humble opinion, it's very important how do you pose questions to yourself, and how do you reply to them: you must to be the first debunker if you want to be taken seriously: that compilation includes everything: unexplained cases and explained ones (hoaxes, misinterpretations, glitches, natural phenomena, scratches, reflections, etc).
If you 'd prove to them that you are very careful whenever you look at some evidence, then you would automatically get credit. But don't try to show to them a mix of pictures of most of which you don't know the origin, it WON'T help you, because it's NOT a matter of amount of evidences: on the contrary, the very majority of evidences related to UFOs is a bunch of crocks: if by disgrace they would find out that at least one of them is fake, then your whole point would become very hard to support: so my very friendly advice is: focus on the GOOD UFO cases, and ask to them to provide you with some good explanation about them: a picture by itslef will ever prove NOTHING

I would start here:

[ start of case ]

Flying Triangle, Belgium UFO wave, Petit-Rechain, april 1990

Mass sightings, multiple witnesses, media coverage, military jets that chased UFOs, UFOs spotted by radars making manoeuvres impossible for the (known) terrestrial aircraft, at impossible (for us) speed/accelerations and so on.

1) Object witnessed at Eupen, Wavre, Leige and Brussels
2) Reported in over 2,600 statements to police
3) Photographed by many people on both Video and Camera
4) Detected and Confirmed by radar stations on the ground
5) Detected, Confirmed and photographed on aircraft radar screens
6) Pursued for over an hour by two F-16s.

Glons radar confirmed the sighting of an unidentified object at an altitude of 3,000 meters. Semmerzake radar confirmed the Glons detection and passed its confirmation onto the Air Force. The radar scans were compared with the previous Eupen radar sightings (see Eupen Case) by Semmerzake and Glons and were found to be identical.
Several police patrols had witnessed the same phenomenon before. It was a massive triangular shape with the same lighting configuration as seen at Eupen four months earlier.

Colonel Wilfred De Brouwer, Chief of the operations section of the Air Force, said: "That because of the frequency or requests for radar confirmation at Glons and Semmerzake - and as a number of private visual observations had been confirmed by the police - it was decided that as these parameters had been met, a patrol of F-16 aircraft should be sent to intercept an unidentified object somewhere to the south of Brussels"

As a consequence, two F-16 aircraft of the Belgian Air Force - registration
numbers 349 and 350 = flown by a Captain and a Flight-Lieutenant, both highly qualified pilots, took off from Bevekom.
Within a few minutes - guided by the Glons radar - both pilots had detected a positive oval-shaped object on their on-board radar at a height of 3,000 meters, but in the darkness saw nothing. This oval configuration, however, caused the pilots some concern. It reacted in an intelligent and disturbing way when they attempted to 'lock-on' with their on-board radar.

Changing shape instantly, it assumed a distinct 'diamond image' on their radar screens and - increasing its speed to 1,000km/h - took immediate and violent evasive action.

This is what has been disclosed by the military, it wasn't a single witness
making wild claimings

Photographs of the actual on-board radar of the F-16s recorded a descent of this object from 3,000m to 1,200 in 2 seconds, a descent rate of 1,800km/h. The same photographs show an unbelievable acceleration rate of 280km/h to 1,800km/h in a few seconds. According to Professor Leon Brening - a non-linear dynamic theorist at the Free University of Brussels - this would represent an acceleration of 46g and would be beyond the possibility of any human pilot to endure.
It was noted that in spite of these speeds and acceleration times there was a marked absence of any sonic boom. The movements of this object were described by the pilots and radar operators as 'wildly erratic and step-like', and a zigzag course was taken over the city of Brussels with the two F-16s in pursuit. Visual contact was not possible against the lighting of the city.
This same procedure was repeated several times, with this object - whenever an attempt at radar 'lock-on' was made - pursuing a violently erratic course at impossible speed and losing its pursuers.

Colonel De Brouwer added "Immediatley after the operation, the pilots said they had never seen anything like it. Certainly the flight pattern and echo on their screens was in no way that of a conventional aircraft"
The Belgian Minister of Defence in the Belgian parliament stated that "The
Government did not know what they were".

I think that the explanation (as said based on ZERO evidences) that it was a military craft does not make sense, especially if we look at the data:

Acceleration data

Radar data

Colonel W. De Brouwer, Belgian Air Force, with the radar videos of one of the F-16s at the press conference of July 11th

Blow-up of the image on the bottom screen above.
The 990K is the speed of the object in knots.
990K = 1830 kilometers per hour = 1.5 Mach.

Clearly, some radical manuvers are occurring:

Speed changes of up to 410 knots in one second.
Heading changes of up to 70 degrees in one second.
Altitude changes of up to 3000 feet per second (1,777 knots) maintained for one second or less and typical ascent / descent rates of 1000 feet per second (592 knots).
That these manuvers are radical can be seen by comparing them to some
representative figures for commonly available fighter aircraft. For instance, the F-4 Phantom is known be able to turn at only 11.5 degrees per second, less than 1/6 as fast as the observed UFO profile.

The nature of these manuvers and their coincidence in time is also visible in this graph, which only shows the value of the changes:

Text file of the radar contacts of one of the F-16s

Sources, more infos and references:

Original article related to the pics (recovered)

[ end of case ]

Try to start some discussion about this case (which is an example) and try to find out whether they are open minded enough to distinguish what can't be explained according to general knowledge from what can be dismissed by just screaming "CGI". Basically, ask to them to debunk this case: i would be very interested in their explanation.
If they'll try to drive the discussion to physical evidences, then we'll talk about the Height 611 UFO crash. No need to hurry, plenty of very good cases out there

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 06:01 AM
reply to post by LiveForever8

The very first picture isn't a UFO.
It's a piece of wood!

new topics

top topics


log in