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.

 

UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!! First ever video footage!

page: 38
656
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


Well, he also said "To illustrate what I mean with a mundane example... ".

So I think it is an illustration of what he mean and not a form of evidence.




posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akezzon
reply to post by JScytale
 


Well, he also said "To illustrate what I mean with a mundane example... ".

So I think it is an illustration of what he mean and not a form of evidence.


a computer generated image is not evidence of a physical principle. if it were this case would make sense:

"dragons are real!"
www.65millionand1bc.com...

the principle he was describing also is plainly recognizable. light distortion in the air for whatever reason, such as heat, causes heavy fluctuation that you will recognize immediately - NOT fuzziness.

example of light refraction in air:

this is not blurriness, this is light visually bending.

[edit on 6-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 



OK stretched a bit, but visual, radar, infrared, multi-spectral, having dinner with it, bearing it's child.... What is proof?

We have no proof for anything in reality and all can be discounted determined by a to subjective or a overly objective position.

Gravity, Light, Time can all be reduced to a holographic experience in a multidimensional universe.

Split a hair you get hair parts, split that a few more times and you get molecules, split that and you have atoms, split that you have subatomic, split that you have quarks, quantum foam and on and on. Choose a context and someone will reference another. No winning if someone wants to best you.

Empirical Def was actually always direct experience, but now even that designation can be squelched by new technologies and other questions inclusive of neurochemical, subconscious and similar perceptive alternate qualifications of the "experiencer".

We can in fact now prove we don't exist.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorems

I used the term (without a PhD) to comment on the infrared signature as opposed to light that can be more easily explained. The FLIR has specific bands isolated from visible light. The operators are law enforcement and go on record, and the video is officially a real video. "Empirical" was used in that vein.

Actually, aircraft have IR prints, just not ones that stop, turn or otherwise. A flare would drop hot particulate too, but I have empirical for myself and I was only exhausted from a trip. But my wife was there and saw the same craft and dropped flare from a very big UFO. THAT is appropriate reference for the use of the word too.

ZG


[edit on 7/6/2009 by ZeroGhost]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
These UFO videos need to show some object other than the SKy and the UFO.

Either stay behind some bars or show the top of a car because that helps to determine if the "UFO" is moving or the camera man is moving or the camera is moving.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
reply to post by JScytale
 



OK stretched a bit, but visual, radar, infrared, multi-spectral, having dinner with it, bearing it's child.... What is proof?


I covered that. Even provided an example.
www.ufologie.net...
this case has ground radar confirmation, airborne radar confirmation, ground visual, air visual, all observers are reliable, and there is minimal variation. that is essentially proof that something was in the air, and to deny that is to assume a large group of people all hallucinated consistently at the same time that several independent electronic devices all backfired identically at the same time. what it was is entirely up for debate, but something was there period.



Gravity, Light, Time can all be reduced to a holographic experience in a multidimensional universe.




We can in fact now prove we don't exist.


Not scientifically
philosophy is a different case, and is not a pursuit of truth but a pursuit of meaning.

[edit on 6-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by guidanceofthe third kind
reply to post by Phenomium
 


abridgment of emotions?


Ref: Dictionary.com

1----
2----
3----
4. reduction or curtailment.

I guess I could have used "curtailment"
but as you see, it is really one in the same, as abridge is also used in the definition of curtailment.

Definition of curtailment - abridge is used as an alternative

So yes, abridgment of emotions would be a lessening of or a curtailment of or a reduction of emotions. I did not use this improperly, it is just a term that many would not choose to use as there is a greater possibility that someone will come along and try to question your vernacular acumen or try to correct you or something. It was a risk and I seem to have paid for it. Ignorance, truly is bliss.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JScytale

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
reply to post by JScytale
 



OK stretched a bit, but visual, radar, infrared, multi-spectral, having dinner with it, bearing it's child.... What is proof?


I covered that. Even provided an example.
www.ufologie.net...
this case has ground radar confirmation, airborne radar confirmation, ground visual, air visual, all observers are reliable, and there is minimal variation. that is essentially proof that something was in the air, and to deny that is to assume a large group of people all hallucinated consistently at the same time that several independent electronic devices all backfired identically at the same time. what it was is entirely up for debate, but something was there period.



Gravity, Light, Time can all be reduced to a holographic experience in a multidimensional universe.


Not scientifically, it can't


OK but I challenge that someone would care that much about such a point. I would rather understand what someone's intent is than do forensic on every word, sentence or punctuation. You made a good point. I mistakenly retorted because it was an interesting challenge. I beg forgiveness.

Sometimes it is good to consider what someone means other than what they say. Now you know what I mean-meant-intended.

This is thread dandruff. Can we not beat this innocent slightly inaccurate off the cuff, comment to a bloody pile of hamburger?

No one told me there would be a test on this!


ZG



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
OK but I challenge that someone would care that much about such a point. I would rather understand what someone's intent is than do forensic on every word, sentence or punctuation. You made a good point. I mistakenly retorted because it was an interesting challenge. I beg forgiveness.

Sometimes it is good to consider what someone means other than what they say. Now you know what I mean-meant-intended.


dude, no need to apologize, there were no hard feelings at all.
also, i love your sig. i absolutely loved reading those books, castaneda's story was enthralling.

but about people caring - they absolutely should. don't accept something as evidently true unless it stands the test of science, or you will very quickly be chock full of nonsense beliefs.

[edit on 6-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Phenomium
 


you gotta relax dude. i was just asking what you meant and i may fall under the category of people who curtail their emotions cause i dont have many. so i dont know what you would have people like me do but it wont change the behavior of yellow spinning space diamonds.




posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   

i dunno about ufos now this videos confuses me. i want to believe in alien life. plzz expand on the video.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by spartan002
 


well first, ultratech computer services does not have that logo or any other so i am going to assume that video is crap. besides if watching it without sound gives me the impression that they are using that guy with the bullhorn for filler also means they do not really have something important to say, just trying to give it that edge.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   
OK, back to the video subject....

The sphericals have been seen by literally millions. Some very close quarters, but their nature is a complete mystery other than observed.

I imagine there are many different configurations and event particular effects, but there seems to be some basic uniformity we can classify.

I, myself have seen these objects on many occasions over the year, with others who are sharp and technically informed. I have video, stills and I have heard several others on ATS who claim similar.

This posted particular video is interesting in that it demonstrates a possible source for the sky full of such seen in videos common it seems.

Here are other videos that could have been preceeded by such an event, yet not observed before the massive group is seen and videotaped.





And, the odd analogs.



I've seen many similar and observed their impossible manuvers with respect to their rotating around each other, transiting and changing direction, and I have no clue what these could be.

In some instances I have thought about gravitational drives cloaking by wrapping their field around them leaving a "hole" we see. Yet that won't explain many other things.

Are these energetic probes? Robotic virtual connected cameras? We can only guess, but they have flocking behavior that seems to have intelligence. Not like birds or fish, but something else.

If living beings, they are far enough outside our experience that even good video would not answer our questions. Cutting them open (if in fact they are made of anything we CAN cut), might only reveal more mysteries.

Now I've seen this and see that whatever these are have some sort of dimensional functional distribution, so like a portal that is dynamic itself but can serve to be an entrance point for many others.

I remember seeing wood cuts of skies filled with cylinders and spheres from very early times in Europe. But, there are too many variations of too many unclassifiable objects such as this to say with any certanty what these are. Speculation is still in the realm of Sci-Fi conceptual play.

We have miles to go, so just enjoy the show huh?

ZG

[edit on 7/6/2009 by ZeroGhost]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


Circumstancial Evidence...the last time i checked a jury can put you away for the rest of your life based on it
The video is great and and as far as light reflections shoot a video and prove it...I want to see dancing lights just like the ones in the video.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jammer2012
reply to post by JScytale
 


Circumstancial Evidence...the last time i checked a jury can put you away for the rest of your life based on it
The video is great and and as far as light reflections shoot a video and prove it...I want to see dancing lights just like the ones in the video.


i was pointing out zorgon's argument absolutely does not explain the reason the object is out of focus. and the shortcomings of the american legal system shouldn't be an excuse for relying on incomplete evidence when trying to prove an extraordinary claim.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


Internos applauded this thread, I dont know if he'll post



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akezzon
The discussion has changed along with the increasing number of flags here. I bet we see nude pics of Zorgon here soon when we reach the 400 flag mark.


If so...ah nevermind...let's not go there.

I can't say I buy the reflection theory either. There is no indication that it would be a reflection, if it was you would most likely see other refelctions to. But that is just what I believe.

And watching the closeup pics our little elfy with teh sexsymbol avatar....our little.....our Freelunch posted earlier makes me even more convinced it is not a CGI work. Ofc the youtube compression destroys alot and the RAW footage would be really good to have.

Still, this is still unknown. BUT...I CHOOSE to believe it is a critter having 200 pairs of tripplets.

I can imagine for a human woman to be in labor, must feel like pooping out a lounge suite, I don't wanna know what it feels like for that poor critter to eject babies in 300 mph

[edit on 6-7-2009 by Akezzon]


I just woke up and read this post and literally LOL'd, thanks for making me smile



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yummy Freelunch
reply to post by tallcool1
 


I tend to lean that way, too


No, its not me, Im really an elf.



Lol, then I wanna meet elves like you IRL - having seen yer pics





posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by badw0lf
 


How did you see my pics?
OH, lemme guess, you googled me..lol



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yummy Freelunch
reply to post by badw0lf
 


How did you see my pics?
OH, lemme guess, you googled me..lol


Hehe, well you did tell people to, in the What does your av say about you, thread




*slinks off into the corner now*



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
IMHO, the objects to NOT appear spherical, and look much more angular or even diamond shaped. The thought that comes to my mind is some fancy kites possibly accompanied by some balloons. I am NOT convinced this is anything from outside this world. Interesting footage, sure, but in the word of Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and this just isn't good enough. NEXT!



new topics

top topics



 
656
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join