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.

 

First Documented UFO Debunked

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
BTW, it wasn't a personal attack. You're the one viewing it as a personal attack, and you're the one avoiding the subject. You completly ignored my post where I refute that the Horten 229 was the UFO viewed by Arnold.

But you didn't. What you did was take only a fraction of what was said in the video, and you dismissed everything else that was said afterwords. That is what you did. You didn't put Horten in historical context. What you did was attack the craft's capability itself, and then dismissed the logic of technological evolution that spawned from its existence.

I will calm down and look at everyone's posts again. I admit that this has become a little heated.

Keep in mind that everything has to be looked at in historical context. Many people who followed in reply dismissed several key phrases that were in the documentary.

Some of the phrases and other logic that has been missed include:
(1) Allied forces fought to become the first to develop stealth technology. If you put this one quote into context, you will realize that the United States and Russia were not the only ones trying to develop the first UFO.

(2) Horten was used as a starting point. If you put this into historical context, you will also acknowledge the existence of technological evolution. Even though the Horten was a flawed piece of wood, it started a chain reaction towards building the perfect military aircraft. Stealth base technology.

(3) The people in the documentary lived the events. Out of all the documentaries that exist in the ufo world, this one provides testimonials and actual footage by those who were involved with making UFOs. They have a very significant perspective, which all other witness will never-ever achieve. They were involved.

(4) Psychological Warfare. As many-many conspiracy hobbyists know, psychological warfare was an important key element to war. At the end of World War II, we entered into the Cold War era. Everything in the foreign media was based upon psychological fear, which the Americans and other countries help plant to defend against an opposition.

When I make my arguments in this thread, I'm not dismissing the smaller details. Most of my opposition is drawing conclusions, which dismiss the logic behind those smaller elements.

What some people are doing is discrediting the Horten's capability, and they are dismissing the logic behind the technological evolution that followed.

When it comes to witnesses, majority of the UFO witness testimonies are from an uninformed point of view. What some of you guys want us to do is dismiss the logic behind personal perception. If I saw something in the sky that I cannot identify, that does not mean its of alien origin. Since I can only draw a conclusion based upon my limited knowledge, the object I see would be unidentifiable from my personal perspective. It would not be unidentifiable from anyone in the know. As a civilian who is observing objects from a layman's perspective, I could not identify every man made military craft that ever existed. Even though some of the testimonials come from military men and women, they also would not know everything the military is hiding. Logic would conclude that every testimonial given to this day is based upon subjective interpretation.

What the video documentary I supplied does is give everything context. If you stand back and ignore what you already know about, (since all of the evidence in support of UFOs is tainted by subjective interpretation), you will see the 'truth' behind the rich human history of UFOs.

UFOs are man made.






[edit on 20-10-2009 by Pathos]




posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 



But you didn't. What you did was take only a fraction of what was said in the video, and you dismissed everything else that was said afterwords.


Can you read my posts?............

Arnold described and object with X, Y and Z characteristics. Maneuvers, speed, size, etc.

The 229 doesn't fit the description. Push from whatever side you want, that plane wasn't the one that Arnold saw.

The YB-35 had propeller engine because they couldn't handle the aircraft at higher speeds. BOTH YB-35 models had crashes, and after recovered were converted to jet-engine, and that was a even worst scenario. Without computers those planes are simply impossible to fly, and you even trying to claim to the contrary is simply ridiculous.

The project didn't went underground, didn't had any "super technology" neither they figured out how to make it work. The project was SUSPENDED (actually cancelled), UNTILL the computer technology became the answer to the avionics needs.

I find it funny that you ridicule everyone that believes in UFO's and aliens, and yet, you make the same guessing about stuff just to fit your own beliefs.


What you did was attack the craft's capability itself, and then dismissed the logic of technological evolution that spawned from its existence.


Do you know what you are saying?

I'm not attacking anything ffs. I gave you a deep analyzation about the aircraft, and just because it throws away what you believe that is the truth, it is an attack.

All the information stated about that aircraft is a fact, not an attack. Please, you're being ridiculous.

The plane was a nightmare to fly, and very dangerous.

For the part "technological development afterwards" read the part above the quote. Computers....computers....


Keep in mind that everything has to be looked at in historical context.


It's the historical context that throws some of your arguments to the ground. At that time, there wasn't any way of making those models fly with the effiency that you claim them to be able to...


If you put this one quote into context, you will realize that the United States and Russia were not the only ones trying to develop the first UFO.


Don't mix things. That is just wrong.

They weren't making "UFO's"... They were making aircrafts that when spotted by civil people, or even military, COULD be called UFO's. That doesn't mean that ANY UFO in the air is a military aircraft in top secret phase.

Stealth has nothing to do with this case.


If you put this into historical context, you will also acknowledge the existence of technological evolution. Even though the Horten was a flawed piece of wood, it started a chain reaction towards building the perfect military aircraft. Stealth base technology.


Yes, a starting point. You start, and then you make a path untill you finish that path.

German technology was the start, the inspiration. BUT you don't solve all the difficulties in 10 years, not even in 20 years.

The project was started, and they cancelled it because it was too hard to fly without crashing, being exhausting for the pilot to do long missions (that are the ones that bombers actually do...).

Only after the computer revolution this project was picked up again under the name of B-2, using stealth technology. Since they couldn't make the B-2 supersonic and very fast, they made it invisable.

But that project was started well after the 50's. So, it doesn't explain the Arnold case.


The people in the documentary lived the events. Out of all the documentaries that exist in the ufo world, this one provides testimonials and actual footage by those who were involved with making UFOs. They have a very significant perspective, which all other witness will never-ever achieve. They were involved.


Another contradiction of yours.

A documentary called "I know what I saw", and many credential witnesses are "stupid ignorant people" to your eyes... Yet, this guys who show up in a documentary that goes along what YOU believe, are just "fine" and "involved"?

Again, they didn't make "UFO's"... Use a dictionary if you have to.


Psychological Warfare. As many-many conspiracy hobbyists know, psychological warfare was an important key element to war. At the end of World War II, we entered into the Cold War era. Everything in the foreign media was based upon psychological fear, which the Americans and other countries help plant to defend against an opposition.


Now this is just nonsense.

Cold War was about fear. Me fearing you.

I wanted YOU to fear ME. I wanted YOU to fear MY technology, MY knowledge, MY spies, MY astronauts.

YOU FEAR ME.

What part along the military admitting that it was a UFO in AMERICAN TERRITORY goes in favor of "YOU FEAR ME".

So, in your view, this is just fine, psycho wars... It's really good that a country admits "we have something flying inside our borders that we can't control, nor even know what it is"... Really, that should have scared the russians a lot!



When it comes to witnesses, majority of the UFO witness testimonies are from an uninformed point of view. What some of you guys want us to do is dismiss the logic behind personal perception. If I saw something in the sky that I cannot identify, that does not mean its of alien origin. Since I can only draw a conclusion based upon my limited knowledge, the object I see would be unidentifiable from my personal perspective. It would not be unidentifiable from anyone in the know. As a civilian who is observing objects from a layman's perspective, I could not identify every man made military craft that ever existed. Even though some of the testimonials come from military men and women, they also would not know everything the military is hiding. Logic would conclude that every testimonial given to this day is based upon subjective interpretation.


If you can't identify the origin of the object.........................you can't identify the origin of the object. Have you heard what you are saying?

If, according to you, we don't know what is in that UFO, you don't know if it is alien or not.

You...don't....know.

All this, are theories. Nothing more.
(continues)



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 


(part II)

If you believe that all of the cases are misidentified top secret projects... Fine. That is your opinion and your point of view.

But doesn't mean it's true.

Your theory has flaws, and from the point that flaws exist, that means that you can't possibly hold the truth about everything.


What the video documentary I supplied does is give everything context. If you stand back and ignore what you already know about, (since all of the evidence in support of UFOs is tainted by subjective interpretation), you will see the 'truth' behind the rich human history of UFOs.


You realize that you also use subjective interpretation, right? You make things up to fit what you don't know..

Your documentary is exactly that. A documentary. It proves nothing.

If I show you the "I know what I saw", will it affect you? No.... So why do you keep presenting your jewel?

The historic context shows us that they couldn't make any of the many crafts spotted in the skies, using the known technology at the time.

If there was any unknown technology, we don't know it was alien or not.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 

You did it again. You dismiss critical information.

You missed everything.



[edit on 20-10-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
reply to post by Tifozi
 

You did it again. You dismiss critical information.

You missed everything.
No, he got everything right. It is you who is trying to put the square peg into the round hole.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavgNo, he got everything right. It is you who is trying to put the square peg into the round hole.

No, he is not thinking logically. Even though I wish for a day where I could say alien UFOs have been visiting Earth, I don't abandon logical reasoning to prove my side of the facts. He has made assumptions based upon a subjective interpretation (third hand witness) of what was observed.

I bring you evidence from people who worked on the UFOs, and you guys are bringing evidence based upon third hand experiences. Who should I believe? Do I believe the individual who worked on building American and German made UFOs, or do I believe someone who is a bystander (civilian)?

Who do you want people to believe? The inventors or the civilian?

=================

Before you take anyone's side on this issue, I would reexamine what he had said. Both of those posts show a complete abandonment of logic.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi


When it comes to witnesses, majority of the UFO witness testimonies are from an uninformed point of view. What some of you guys want us to do is dismiss the logic behind personal perception. If I saw something in the sky that I cannot identify, that does not mean its of alien origin. Since I can only draw a conclusion based upon my limited knowledge, the object I see would be unidentifiable from my personal perspective. It would not be unidentifiable from anyone in the know. As a civilian who is observing objects from a layman's perspective, I could not identify every man made military craft that ever existed. Even though some of the testimonials come from military men and women, they also would not know everything the military is hiding. Logic would conclude that every testimonial given to this day is based upon subjective interpretation.


If you can't identify the origin of the object.........................you can't identify the origin of the object. Have you heard what you are saying?

If, according to you, we don't know what is in that UFO, you don't know if it is alien or not.

You...don't....know.

All this, are theories. Nothing more.

Its not. It is logical. You cannot know what you don't know. Unless you have some type of ESP (as a civilian), you wouldn't be able to draw any conclusions (about what the government is doing). Its is impossible and illogical.

After re-reading your statement, I can see clearly that you have abandoned the logic of what was said. As a civilian you cannot identify the origin of an object if you have a limited understanding of what exists within the military. Do you have ESP?


[edit on 20-10-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi


Psychological Warfare. As many-many conspiracy hobbyists know, psychological warfare was an important key element to war. At the end of World War II, we entered into the Cold War era. Everything in the foreign media was based upon psychological fear, which the Americans and other countries help plant to defend against an opposition.


Now this is just nonsense.

Cold War was about fear. Me fearing you.

I wanted YOU to fear ME. I wanted YOU to fear MY technology, MY knowledge, MY spies, MY astronauts.

YOU FEAR ME.

What part along the military admitting that it was a UFO in AMERICAN TERRITORY goes in favor of "YOU FEAR ME".

So, in your view, this is just fine, psycho wars... It's really good that a country admits "we have something flying inside our borders that we can't control, nor even know what it is"... Really, that should have scared the russians a lot!

Hmmm... George Bush and Bill Clinton both used Psychological Warfare. I have no problems with its usage. If I can scare the enemy into staying away, I would use every asset to my advantage. FYI - Within the contents of the documentary, one of the people involved with black-ops mentioned its usage.

Our opinion over if it should or should not be used is irrelevant.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi

The people in the documentary lived the events. Out of all the documentaries that exist in the ufo world, this one provides testimonials and actual footage by those who were involved with making UFOs. They have a very significant perspective, which all other witness will never-ever achieve. They were involved.


Another contradiction of yours.

A documentary called "I know what I saw", and many credential witnesses are "stupid ignorant people" to your eyes... Yet, this guys who show up in a documentary that goes along what YOU believe, are just "fine" and "involved"?

Who said anything about stupid ignorant people? I was talking about perspective and credibility. Should I believe someone's third hand experiences (the civilian's perspective), or should I believe someone who had hands on experiences (the inventor's perspective)?

[edit on 20-10-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 



He has made assumptions based upon a subjective interpretation (third hand witness) of what was observed.


I have a brain. I can judge the information given by witnesses.

On the other hand, you seem to see everything in black OR white.


I bring you evidence from people who worked on the UFOs


You bring a documentary about some projects that are known for years.

Do you know what UFO stands for? By the way you use the acronim, I seriously doubt.

Your evidence means has been partially refuted, and it has been refuted in another posts. You just keep talking about the same thing whitout refuting the arguments presented earlier.

I refute the points that you use from the documentary...and you say "documentary" again.


and you guys are bringing evidence based upon third hand experiences.


Third hand? He was the one who saw the damn thing! Without him, there wouldn't even be a case about this!


Do I believe the individual who worked on building American and German made UFOs, or do I believe someone who is a bystander (civilian)?


This is where you fall on your face.

You claim that the UFO presented by Arnold IS the same aircraft that you present on several posts.

You're wrong. And you're in denial...

Just saying "no no no" doesn't refute the arguments (the technological arguments) posted before.

...but your point keeps falling, since you are giving so much credit to a documentary. In case you didn't notice, you have all kinds of documentaries in ATS (posted...), and many of them are trash.

Yeah, you found a documentary about a nice aircraft and black project. So? You fail to make the connection (funny, since you claim to "connect the dots").


Both of those posts show a complete abandonment of logic.


Them use logic and refute me. Haven't seen that happen.

reply to post by Pathos
 



You cannot know what you don't know. Unless you have some type of ESP (as a civilian), you wouldn't be able to draw any conclusions (about what the government is doing). Its is impossible and illogical.


You realize that you are saying to me what I said to you, right?

And you also realize that you're bringing your own theory to the ground, right?

Just to make sure...


As a civilian you cannot identify the origin of an object if you have a limited understanding of what exists within the military.


Can you please introduce me to the person who "knows it all"? Thanks.

Have you ever heard the expression "years ahead of us"? Well, that is used on situation like those.

You can see traces of human technology... Jet sound, wings, flight path, all sorts of things. And a pilot knows this even better.

Anything that goes out of that, can be from this world...being "years ahead of what we know". But there are limits... LOGICAL limits.


If I can scare the enemy into staying away, I would use every asset to my advantage.


You fail to understand the most basic things.

A country admitting that there are areas inside their borders that they can't control, or that flying objects can pass through their defenses............doesn't scare the enemy. It actually does the opposite.


Should I believe someone's third hand experiences (the civilian's perspective), or should I believe someone who had hands on experiences (the inventor's perspective)?


...again...

I build a Dodge Viper. That uses a "standard" V12. I build the chassis, I keep it a secret, and I drive it around in places that possibly nobody is watching. I'm the inventor of that car.


Someone, spots a really fast car... A Formula-1 car. It has nothing to do with my Viper. But it's also a car... It also has four wheels. People call it "UFO".

You're saying on this thread, that "I" (in this analogy) know all about the Formula-1 car, and that it was built by me, just because I have built ANOTHER car.

Using an analogy, that is what you are saying. Just because those guys worked with the basis of the 229, means that all UFO's that have that sort of shape come from them?

That is so full of flaws that it should be obvious to you.

[edit on 20/10/09 by Tifozi]

[edit on 20/10/09 by Tifozi]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
I haven't read this thread all of the way through; so I apologize if I am repeating what someone else said, but I thought that the first documented UFOs were in the Bible.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 

I'm going to agree to disagree with you. There is a whole framework of logic I think you are missing. We can be battling about this for decades, and neither of us will concede that the other is right. All I know is that your not able to use abstract thinking. Some people never develop that type of logic, so I'm not blaming you personally. I mean no offense in my statement.

(1) When you dismiss the revelation made about allied forces seeking to build stealth technology, (as the documentary said), you remove a third possibility to the analysis. Since there were other countries seeking to obtain the German specs, (flying saucer specs), Russia and the United States were not the only ones fighting for air superiority. We don't know what type of experimental technologies other countries have.

(2) If you concentrate solely on the Horten design limitations, and the YB-35 limitations, you again narrow your train of thinking. Since there is the possibility of a third party, one of the allied forces, you cannot definitively tell us what they have been working on. Its an unknown variable.

(3) If you go back to the documentary, the narrator and one of the interviewed mentioned a revealing fact. While the United States was building a flying saucer, Russia had already been testing one of their own. Instead of using my United States prototype theory, we can consider the possibility of a crashed Russian saucer. Hmmm... Didn't the United States government just change their Roswell excuse to, "Russian made satellite."? Regardless about which story you go by, you cannot remove the logic behind a crashed man made aircraft.

(4) Psychological Warfare has been historically documented. It has a whole history of its own. You can look this information up.

(5) It was also mentioned that Lockheed is about 40 to 50 years ahead of what we know through public knowledge. Hmm...

My intentions were to present another set of puzzle pieces, which back up the logic behind man made flying saucers. During my initial presentation of facts, I did not quite understand the connecting points. Once I found the six part documentary, everything fell nicely into place.

Analytical and abstract thinking will get you to consider other possibilities, which are not currently on the table. You are able to consider the evidence, and then pull logical and sound pieces together. Some pieces are black and white, and other pieces are a little more complex. What you were missing in your analysis is the consideration of those pieces. Even though I ended up changing my original story, I didn't change it to such an extreme. All we have to do is move my pieces around, and you get the real story behind man made flying saucers.

When it comes to my use of the acronym UFO, Unidentified Flying Object, I agree that I should have used the phrase flying saucer. I was trying to keep everything within perspective. If an individual saw an unidentifiable object in the air, from that person's perspective it would be unidentifiable. However, that does not mean no one can identify the object. Sorry for the mix up.

You dismissed a lot of logic in your analysis. You are a good person, and I don't mind the debate. I just don't think you have developed abstract thinking. Not everyone does.

Also, within my first argument, I mentioned the similarities in design between the Horten and Arnold's sketch. If you do not see the similarities, (and don't consider possible alterations made to the plane's capabilities), you are dismissing another logical possibility. Could a third country be involved? If they are making a flying saucer, what type of capabilities did they put into the ship?

Before we draw the conclusion that is based upon alien intervention, we have to eliminate all the possible human elements. At this point in our understanding of what has been man made, we cannot remove human ingenuity from the equation.

Its not just a question about what you know, but it is also a question about what you don't know. You are dismissing or don't understand what you don't know.




[edit on 21-10-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Wow! Since I wrote the above earlier this morning, I must have been way too tired. I went back and cleaned things up. Sorry for the mess up. Now the post reads the way it should.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
reply to post by Tifozi
 

I'm going to agree to disagree with you. There is a whole framework of logic I think you are missing. We can be battling about this for decades, and neither of us will concede that the other is right. All I know is that your not able to use abstract thinking. Some people never develop that type of logic, so I'm not blaming you personally. I mean no offense in my statement.
LOL! First you insult him by basically saying he can't think straight and then you insist you mean no offense!

Ridiculous!

As for being able to reason abstractly... You seem wholly unable to assess the strength of your own argument. You did not even really rebut any of the criticisms thrown your way. What does this tell us?



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 

Because you guys haven't made a successful argument against my case. Since I'm the one who opened the thread, that means your responsibility is to debunk or debate about what was put forth. I have answered all of your questions. Its just a mater of reading. Look back through the pages.

According to your analysis of my reply, you dismiss it because you are looking for a specific answer. Since I am not giving the answer you want to hear, you are saying that I haven't provided one. I have. Sorry that my answer doesn't fit into your narrative.

FYI - I didn't insult him. Its a matter of questioning if he has developed the necessary skill for such a debate. Its not an attack on his intelligence, for you can have a high IQ and still not have developed analytical thinking.

If you think about how I have been answering, I have been avoiding certain questions for one reason. I don't believe in the original Roswell story. What that means is that I don't believe in any of the original story. I don't believe there were 4 foot bodies, and I don't believe in the eye witness testimonials. I completely threw the entire original testimonials out, for the majority of the evidence was through subjective interpretation. It was based upon a limited understanding of events. Since it is impossible for any of the witnesses to have ESP, they drew conclusions based upon their limited experiences. You have to approach Roswell and Arnold's sketch with a different set of tools.

As you may have noticed from what has been posted, there was another story unfolding in the background. God only knows how many other UFO events are attached to the aftermath of World War II.

We may never know.






[edit on 21-10-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
reply to post by jclmavg
 

Because you guys haven't made a successful argument against my case. Since I'm the one who opened the thread, that means your responsibility is to debunk or debate about what was put forth. I have answered all of your questions. Its just a mater of reading. Look back through the pages.
I suggest you suffer from cognitive dissonance if you feel the above truly reflects reality.


The fact of the matter is that you were (and still are, apparently!) oblivious to the most basic details of the Arnold sighting. Which is bad enough. You can couple that with your total disregard for the lack of any historical evidence for your hypothesis. It ain't a pretty picture for sure.

In short, you did not rebut a single thing. You tap-danced around the hard questions.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Not sure if this was posted yet or not but i found this interesting


Range:
1,970 miles (3170km) at 393mph (635km/h) with two drop tanks
www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org...

I think a lot of more people would have seen this. Are there any links with info about the Air force rebuilding these things by 47?
A nice theory but saying Ken Arnold made it all up would have been a better conclusion.



[edit on 21-10-2009 by zaiger]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Wow. I didn't know German technology had craft that could fly an alleged 1400 MPH? Wasn't the ME262 jet fighter the fastest plane they had? Kenneth Arnold saw silver disks flying thousands of MPH. While the sketch is spot on for the Horton, the rest doesn't jive. I'm actually more inclined to believe that German aircraft manufacturers were trying to copy what they too had seen. The same flying saucer thingys. But who knows



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 



All I know is that your not able to use abstract thinking. Some people never develop that type of logic, so I'm not blaming you personally. I mean no offense in my statement.


Actually, you're the one that can't seem to be able to think outside of his own beliefs.

"abstract thinking" ? I think about everything, and think about everything again, before making up my mind. Actually, I haven't made up my mind about this case. But I know that the objects reported aren't the objects that you claim them to be. You fail to understand that.

I have seen you point fingers at believers in other threads because some people rather believe in something, although with lack of evidence, while you claim "to use logic and reason".

...and now look at you. Telling me to do "abstract thinking". Funny how things work out when you know you can't refute arguments (WHICH I HAVEN'T SEEN YOU DO. I want your technological arguments refuting my arguments. Not that philosophical talk that you are doing for the past 2 pages, that left everybody out of your thread).


When you dismiss the revelation made about allied forces seeking to build stealth technology, (as the documentary said), you remove a third possibility to the analysis. Since there were other countries seeking to obtain the German specs, (flying saucer specs), Russia and the United States were not the only ones fighting for air superiority. We don't know what type of experimental technologies other countries have.


You're holding to that documentary like it's your life savior.

Also, you're not claiming that the hypothesis of a Skunk Work project was spotted. You opened this thread claiming that you know the truth, that you found out what Arnold saw. Well, after some pages you haven't shown one single object the fits the description.

And saying "oh, you don't know what the USAF has" is as pathetic as a blind-believer saying "oh you don't know what photographs of aliens NASA has".

Reason, logic and even common sense, are things that are NOT present in this arguments.


If you concentrate solely on the Horten design limitations, and the YB-35 limitations, you again narrow your train of thinking.


Yes. I narrow it down to what was(IS) known to be the technological pick at the time. If those models don't fit, then maybe it's possible that they could be alien/alien-technology-based.


Since there is the possibility of a third party, one of the allied forces, you cannot definitively tell us what they have been working on. Its an unknown variable.


So you can't explain what it was. You say that there is a section of USAF technology we don't know... So the "logical" step next is to assume that "it could be anything. Anything but aliens, because I don't believe in them"?

Your logic has more flaws than Vista...


If you go back to the documentary, the narrator and one of the interviewed mentioned a revealing fact. While the United States was building a flying saucer, Russia had already been testing one of their own. Instead of using my United States prototype theory, we can consider the possibility of a crashed Russian saucer. Hmmm... Didn't the United States government just change their Roswell excuse to, "Russian made satellite."? Regardless about which story you go by, you cannot remove the logic behind a crashed man made aircraft.


You are just throwing things up in the air, hoping that one falls into someones good graces.

Get this:

In the Cold War, both countries wanted to have the most technological stuff, and they wanted to avoid pilots/spies being captured.

One thing you CAN'T do in a "information/cold/fear war" is throw a prototype into ENEMY territory, allowing to crash, and letting the enemy get all your most advanced technology.

You, who claim to use logic, reason and "abstract thinking" can't figure this little aspect out?

But yes, it could be a man made aircraft....And it also could be alien aircraft. YOU DON'T KNOW, so don't claim you do!


Psychological Warfare has been historically documented. It has a whole history of its own. You can look this information up.


...You're the one who needs to get his reading up to date, not me, mate.


It was also mentioned that Lockheed is about 40 to 50 years ahead of what we know through public knowledge. Hmm...


Is this real? A pseudoskeptic using a believer argument? No way... Amazing. This is a first.

(and btw, if you knew anything about aviation history, you would know that the giant technology leap that you talk about, was made around some of the most famous UFO cases ever, and AFTER a lot of years of researching of jet technology... Again, you fail at "connecting the dots")

As for the rest of your post...

Well, it's late, and I'm tired of this debate. Not because I wouldn't keep a debate for hours around the technological issues posted before... But simply because a lot of people posted important info to a healthy debate about this case, and you simply do, what jclmavg said best:


In short, you did not rebut a single thing. You tap-danced around the hard questions.


Peace.

[edit on 21/10/09 by Tifozi]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 

Coming from someone who didn't know American military bases were located in his own country?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If I have to make a guess, I'm about ten years ahead of you in education and knowledge. Quite possibly an extensive amount of years added on-top of that number. Since my father and his brothers were in the military, I knew the answer to that question. Did I mention that I live in the United States?

I couldn't figure out why your not comprehending this thread, so I took a page from your book and looked at profiles. You have problems in comprehending what is in your own environment let alone in the sky.

I presented some very fundamental details, and I didn't understand why basic shapes and forms were quickly dismissed. Even though Arnold's sketch matched the Horten, you couldn't make the connection in design. I understand Arnold also talked about other designs, but the one he is showing wasn't processing into your argument. You couldn't make the connection.

We can talk about craft maneuverability for days, but you still wouldn't understand the details if a foreign element is added. You want me to move beyond my clips, images, and analysis because you cannot comprehend them. Since they are in direct contradiction to what you know, you can't fight against the argument being made. Its impossible for you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
You don't understand photography? When it comes to our education and knowledge gap, you still have a long ways to go.

Don't make an argument where you cannot understand basic information. That is three times in these forums where basic knowledge eluded you. Don't talk to me about complex issues if you can't get basic ones straight.

What maters at this point is why you cannot see the fundamental similarities in design between the Horten and Arnold's sketch.




[edit on 22-10-2009 by Pathos]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join