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.

 

You Wanted Disclosue, You Got Disclosure

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by tristar
Even is someone was to present a document or image of what may very well be authentic, it would easily be discredited by the appropriate people supplying all the relevant url's, with backed up language to make sure the authentic is seen as a fake/hoax.


AH I see...

sooo if I told you I found a nuclear powered laser that send electricity to the Moon people would just laugh and call it a hoax?



Hmmm problem is, not sure its declassified yet


Stay tuned...




posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


How ever hard or should say, however compelling the evidence is, its really boils down to people who understand, understand.

At this very moment in time, we have robots on mars being controlled from Earth, at this very time, we have medical science that can look at any deformed cell prior to vitro fertilization and inform us if our off spring are to be healthy or not. Lets not forget the UAV's, were fighter pilots are conducting battle missions from half way across the world.

Technology has leaped frog so far ahead that if we ever were to place these new advancement's in a manner which we could measure it would make 1950 seem like 1750.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Well in that case we should stop wasting time educating the lemmings and spend it building a space craft



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by tristar

Denial of Disclosure is Disclosure





a lack of proof is not proof of lacking.
this is known as an argument from ignorance.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   
what if the govt is hijacking the ammo in shiping to the stores trying to take our guns away building fema camps pulling the armed forces out of iraq cause they going to need them here when they enforce Martial law so they can control the chaos when they discolse and what if that so called planet thats on its way here is an alien mother ship coming to invades us and govt tries to convince us to get chiped so they can track us if the aleins abducte us and we are at war with them and everyone is going to need to chip in and go to work making advanced weapons and tech that we stole from the aliens to fight them and we had to pretend to be weak until the last moment so they did not try to kill us all until the mother ship got here just my theory.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by tristar
Here is a little question,

Why are the majority of reports about Black triangles only at night ?

Of course I don't know for sure, but since I was just talking about black projects like the F-117, let's look at that example here:
F-117 retires

Lockheed's Skunk Works built 59 F-117As, seven of which were lost - one breaking up in flight during an airshow and one being shot down by Serbian forces. The aircraft were flown in secret, and only at night, on the Tonopah test range in Nevada until late 1988, when their existence was acknowledged so they could begin training and integrating with other USAF aircraft.

So we have some reason to think that flying a secret craft at night would be one way to help keep it a secret until it is declassified, and it's a method which has been used on known black projects before like the F-117. So, would it be a good guess to think maybe more recent black projects yet to be declassified would follow a similar protocol of flying mostly at night to help keep their secrecy?

Of course we have this sighting of a triangle not at night, but one poster speculated they were trying to use cloud cover to hide the craft, but that leaves it a little exposed in the clearing between the clouds and the ground.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Without having any further data regarding the three photos i could not say if this happened at all. Data can be considered, long+lat , nearby defence facilities etc.



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


I wouldn't say or call them lemmings, as everyone is entitled to knowledge to a certain degree.

As far as space ships are concerned, naturally we have been building and continue to build them with great results.

If and when this becomes available to the public, well, thats not for me to judge.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by tristar]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by tristar
If and when this becomes available to the public, well, thats not for me to judge.


meh... don't know about YOU but I will find me a ride



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by tristar
If and when this becomes available to the public, well, thats not for me to judge.


meh... don't know about YOU but I will find me a ride


In my opening post i put something there for a purpose...


"Exits are .............................................."



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale

Originally posted by tristar

Denial of Disclosure is Disclosure





a lack of proof is not proof of lacking.
this is known as an argument from ignorance.


Proof, well there's and abundance of that, were would one start from, that is what creates the confusion. As i tend to recommend , just begin from the year 2000 and work your way back.

Similar to what you may have read occasionally as "reverse engineering", same process but different materials.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by tristar]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   



sooo if I told you I found a nuclear powered laser that send electricity to the Moon people would just laugh and call it a hoax?



Hmmm problem is, not sure its declassified yet


Stay tuned...


I have documents that I could post about that one until the all-clear is given to present the more modern stuff. All non-classified material, obviously.


Just to give everyone an idea of what is 'theoretically' possible:


The primary objective of [secret] is to provide energy for operation of geosynchronous satellites including steady-state power for operations, periodic low-power for station keeping, periodic high-power during ecclipses, and high power for transfer orbit apogee burn. [secret] will also provide energy for operation at middle and high earth orbits of 3000+ kilometers, Another possible usage [secret] will be to provide energy to a laser-augmented solar-electric orbit transfer vehicle wherein a low earth orbit (LEO) vehicle transfers to geosynchronous orbit (GEO) through a spiral trajectory path. Finally, [secret] will provide continuous steady-state energy for operation of a lunar base.
-trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov...



-This is just a teaser nor am I not going to say the name of the thing here. You must find that on your own.

As Zorgon says: Stay tuned...








[edit on 3-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 3 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by tristar
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Without having any further data regarding the three photos i could not say if this happened at all. Data can be considered, long+lat , nearby defence facilities etc.

Sorry to sidetrack you with the daytime sighting, could even be a hoax though I think it's probably real.

I thought you might tell me the REAL reason most triangles are sighted at night after I answered your question?



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Hullo from Oz

The final report of the Disclosure Australia Project is available in Newsletter 31 at

disclosureaustralia.freewebpages.org...

Happy reading.



posted on Jul, 5 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Using the cover of night is very important as seeing such an object are slim to none.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by tristar
 




Using the cover of night is very important as seeing such an object are slim to none.


I would suggest to you that this approach is not working too well, since so many have been observed at night.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienCarnage
 


Comparing to how many are sighted, i would say that its very successful. Oh you might mention the various photos floating around the net, but compared to how many have actually recorded them in another light spectrum is zero.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by tristar
 


You would have to take in to account how many of the sightings there are total recorded and unrecorded/unreported, then take that and figure out how many there actually are. If there are even a third of the things sighted, then using the cover of darkness is a failure, unfortunately there is no way to determine how many have been sighted and unreported. There are many people who see lights in the sky and think, airplane, helicopter, military craft, to which the latter may be correct, but many people see no need to report such things if the military would more than likely already know. This still points to using cover of darkness not working, I would think that even if you only have 2 pictures and 4 videos, that is too much exposure.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale

a lack of proof is not proof of lacking.
this is known as an argument from ignorance.


You are incorrect..

Its more like a criminal taking the Fifth Amendment



posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by AlienCarnage
 


Using the cover of darkness is extremely successful, those random eye's tend to be either asleep or just not interested in the night sky. Lets fast forward a simple test.

Do you think it would be possible to spot a so called negative color object at an altitude of 5,000 feet compared to the drones during the night ?

It's far more easier to spot these elusive craft on the darkest cycle of the calender with a clear sky so you can use the stars as the backdrop. ( try that out ). Even if there is slight cloud cover you only need to adjust your camera to focus above the 5,000 mark. Well thats what i was told some time ago, obviously since then we have no contact...i wonder why!




top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join