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: 6
1
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 



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'm not going to respond to personal attacks.

I'm just going to make you see how much of an "educated" man you are.

Portugal is in Europe. I live in Porto, that is in the North region.

You said "who didn't know American military bases were located in his own country"...

Well, Puerto Rico is in the other side of the Atlantic.

You can't even get your geography straight, so I'm not even respond to you anymore.

[edit on 22/10/09 by Tifozi]




posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 

I went back and did some rechecking. I admit I messed up on the location. Even though the base is not in your country, it is common knowledge to the world that its location is in Puerto Rico.

Everything else I said still stands.

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

From this time forward.

If anyone else wants to get into this debate, the first words I want to see is an acknowledgment of the design fundamentals between the Horten, YB-35, and Arnold's sketch. Its a fundamental observation. Everything else does not mater unless this acknowledgment is made. Don't waste my time otherwise.




[edit on 22-10-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Pathos
 


Well it is certainly possible that what Arnold saw were secret aircraft it is highly ambiguous and misleading to call this case "debunked". There are other aspects to this story that don't fit well with the German theory.

I agree with your first statement. Saying that this story has been 'debunked' was a mistake. After I opened this thread, I was not able to edit that from the title. Do you or do you not agree that the German Horten, YB-35, and Arnold's sketch have design similarities?

[edit on 22-10-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   
German Horten:
channel.nationalgeographic.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

XB-35, XB-49, YB-35:
www.aviation-central.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

Kenneth Arnold's Sketch:
www.ufoevidence.org...

Some very distinct similarities I see include:

(1) Curved frontal wingspan.
(Some angles show the XB & YB series almost triangular, but from a topical point of view it looks curved.)

(2) Cockpit hatch design and location.

(3) Horten and Arnold's back section are expressed in the same manner.

Look at space, line, shape, and form.



[edit on 22-10-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
After we successfully make the design comparisons, we will move forward to the next question. Sorry for spoon feeding people this information; however, almost (not all) of the replies jumped over the first fundamental question.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Pathos
 


The similarities between the Horten and the Arnold illustration have been acknowledged I think. Although IMO, there is no striking resemblance to the XBs and YBs.

However, I think people haven't commented much on this because, as interesting as the resemblance may be, it seems virtually impossible that the Horten accounts for his sighting, for reasons that have already been given many times, so what's the point discussing an interesting resemblance further? Lot's of things look rather like other things. That doesn't mean they are the same thing. That's my take on it so far anyway.


[edit on 22-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Malcram,
I went back and looked at everyone's explanations. I can understand that people are looking at craft comparison through capability. Several of them are very good observations. Before we get to that point, there are some possibilities to be considered.

Could we not say that, "The Horten design could have inspired the design for the XB, YB, and B2 planes?"
(As it has been documented.)

Could we also say that, "The Horten design could have inspired the design of other unknown military planes, which other allied countries could have developed?"

Could it be possible that Arnold saw an unknown military craft, inspired by the Horten design, but create by an unknown third military party?"




[edit on 22-10-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by PathosBefore we get to that point, could we not say that, "The Horten design could have inspired the design for the XB and YB planes?" (Like it has been documented.)

Could we also say that, "The Horten design could have inspired the design of other unknown military planes, which other allied countries could have developed?"

Could it be possible that Anrold saw an unknown military craft, inspired by the Horten design, bu create by an unknown third nation?"

[edit on 22-10-2009 by Pathos]


As I said, I don't think that the XBs and YBs look particularly like the Arnold illustration - but I don't think that's your point here. Your suggestion is that the Horten could have inspired the design of other unknown craft, created by an unknown nation?

That's a lot of unknowns and coulds so far. What about evidence?

My problem with this explanation is that we have to basically ignore Arnold's description of what he saw - except the craft design - and then make several assumptions about unknown craft by unknown nations, apparently without any evidence.

And any such craft would still fall far short of the flight characteristics Arnold described.


[edit on 22-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
My problem with this explanation is that we have to basically ignore Arnold's description of what he saw - except the craft design - and then make several assumptions about unknown craft by unknown nations, apparently without any evidence.

And any such craft would still far impossible short of the flight characteristics Arnold described.

As someone who has extensive knowledge in design history and art, the universal understanding of sketches is through subjective interpretations. Other words, you and I can see the same painting, but we would have alternate interpretation of what it means. Since I have extensive knowledge about artists, art history, and social issues surrounding a piece of art, I will have a more informed view of the piece.

When an artists drew the design based upon Arnold's description, he drew it according to Arnold's perspective of the craft. Angle, sunlight, distance, and other elements determined the shape, line, and form that Arnold saw. Correct? Could sunlight and distance change how an object looks from his vantage point?

Now, Arnold saw something in the sky, and he gave his personal opinion about the events. From his personal perspective, the air-craft moved in a particular manner that didn't match his understanding of aviation. Correct? Now, how can we come to the conclusion that he saw an alien made flying saucer if we go by his perceptions? Could we not say that there is a possibility that another individual (in the military in some country) knew what they were? Could we also say that there is a possibility that another person (in the military in some country) knows how they work? Could Arnold have made a mistake in his testimony based upon his vantage point, angle of the sun, and distance?

We will get to the proof in a minute. We are first focusing on the logic of possibility, perspective, and perception.



[edit on 22-10-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
According to Arnold's testimony, he saw flashes of lights 25 miles away. Could the reflection of the sun on his craft (windshield and nose) and on the other crafts cause such a flash of light? Could the combination of sunlight reflections, reflective surfaces, and distance create an unearthly illusion of maneuverability and capability?



[edit on 22-10-2009 by Pathos]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
that test dummy explanation is the worst explanation I have ever heard..I literally laughed at loud....I bet some guys were thinking yeah lets puts some test dummies in something that will fall thousands of feet from the sky free falling....this is totally not pointless..*sarcasm*

[edit on 22-10-2009 by primetime2123]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:40 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos

When an artists drew the design based upon Arnold's description, he drew it according to Arnold's perspective of the craft. Angle, sunlight, distance, and other elements determined the shape, line, and form that Arnold saw. Correct? Could sunlight and distance change how an object looks from his vantage point?


Your linking this sighting to the Horten and possible derivatives of it depends on Arnold seeing almost perfectly and without distortion, because the illustration is very similar to the Horten. If he hadn't overseen the drawing of something that looks very similar to the Horten, you wouldn't be talking about the Horten and you would have no case. So why are you invoking the idea of distortions of perception at this point? That seems self defeating.

This is rather like someone saying they saw a car and giving you it's registration number. You accept that the registration number is completely accurate but say he was mistaken about seeing it on a car, it must have been on a boat or suchlike. But if someone is close enough to read the reg. number you can be damn sure that they were close enough to know if it was on a car or a boat! If you accept the accuracy of the reg. you have to accept the description that it was on a car. You either accept or reject both. Likewise, if you accept Arnold's design description - which you do, to build your case - then you have to accept his description of it's flight characteristics and speed, which are far easier for an observer to discern than the specifics of it's design. See what I mean?


From his personal perspective, the air-craft moved in a particular manner that didn't match his understanding of aviation. Correct?


Yes, Arnold, a pilot, reported seeing craft that moved in a a manner and at a speed that no man made craft could match. If he is wrong about their manner of flight and speed, then his description of the design of the craft would be pretty much worthless too - in fact, far more so, as it's easier to discern speed and motion than it is specific design details - yet your case hangs on the design details described by Arnold being highly accurate. But I don't think you can reasonably accept one without the other. Again, it seems to me that your argument is self defeating.


Now, how can we come to the conclusion that he saw an alien made flying saucer if we go by his perceptions?


Easily. He did. They flew like no man made craft.



Could we not say that there is a possibility that another individual (in the military in some country) knew what they were? Could we also say that there is a possibility that another person (in the military in some country) knows how they work? Could Arnold have made a mistake in his testimony based upon his vantage point, angle of the sun, and distance?


Is it possible that Arnold got everything wrong? Sure, it's highly unlikely IMO, but possible. Almost anything is possible. In that case you need to forget about the Horten and other such explanations because the illustration he oversaw is worthless and the connection you are making based upon it become worthless too. You can't use his specific aspects of his account as evidence to build a hypothesis and then dismiss the rest of his account as distortion of perception.



We will get to the proof in a minute. We are first focusing on the logic of possibility, perspective, and perception.


Yes, anything is possible - including a fleet of ET craft. Yes, perspective and perception play a part. But you can't logically accept and use his design descriptions and yet dismiss the descriptions of flight characteristics, including speed.

So, what I think you need to do at this point, is either decide if you are claiming his perception was grossly distorted, and consequently stop talking about possible links to Hortens, XBs and YBs, which is based on his perceptions, or, you need to accept that if his specific design descriptions are reasonably accurate then logically the speed and flight characteristics he observed must be accurate too, because they are actually easier to discern.

Then you have to explain the entire Arnold sighting - design, flight characteristics and speed as well as the 8 other unusual craft - conventionally. Not just from possibility - anything is possible - but with evidence.

If that can't be done, it remains a legitimate UFO, and a likely ET craft.


[edit on 23-10-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by jclmavg
 

It was in the contest of, "For an example..."

Thanks for going off topic.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
- Mistake double post
- Sorry for the error

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Pathos]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join