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.

 

questions about the mexican UFO incident

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2004 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by egotesticle

You're talking about UFO and what it specifically means. OIMD is talking about it in the ET context.

You say you state your statement "based on logic." The top scientists work for Area 51. Technology where you can become invisible is not something that will ever be made public.


You are SO pulling things out of your butt here. And I can't believe OIMD hasn't called you on it yet. Find ONE place that OIMD has said anything about ET? All I have seen OIMD do to this point is list, in a logical fashion, the things that current technology can not do compared to the characteristics and capabilities exhibited by these crafts.

That's how you logically approach an issue. You identify and eliminate the obvious, and move toward the less obvious. Hopefully arriving at a singular explanation, but at least a minimized number of explanations.

And stop talking about Area-51 like you know what the hell is going on there. I am almost certain there are two or three on this board that know a bit more than you on that issue, and I'm also willing to bet they'd disagree with you.

And a couple of good rules of thumb are to not EVER say EVER, and NEVER say NEVER.




posted on May, 14 2004 @ 06:18 AM
link   
attention with interpretations !

for example:
bob lazar gave a description of a ufo he had seen at sandia lab...
right !
now i have at home a videotape of sandia lab edited as kind a tour of the whole lab and what do i see ??
a giant collidor in the shape of....what looks an ufo !
the ton heavy equipment will for sur never fly because it
was not intended to fly but it for sur looked auwfull sci-fi.
so did bob lazar told lies with the description of an ufo at sandia lab ? no because he never told he had seen it flying but just described having seen an ufo shaped object there
)

above mexiko now one can see on the infra-red footage
"hot spots" moving in a straight line !
no difficult maneuvers...no hard to do flying...
so i think these were even radio controlled unmanned
flying objects in the military uav style.

if one if flying a low speed propellerplane than it is obvious that jet propelled craft go much much faster ofcourse.

btw weatherballon would not or only make a tiny hotspot for the infra red to detects because there is no
heatsource like engines,outlet,exhaust...

please visit the sandia lab for the newest progress in weapons development !
a t t e n t i o n !
i downloaded the whole site and all materials are over 1 giga so you have to burn it on a dvd or on 2 cd-r later on.


www.sandia.gov...



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by egotesticle

You're talking about UFO and what it specifically means. OIMD is talking about it in the ET context.

You say you state your statement "based on logic." The top scientists work for Area 51. Technology where you can become invisible is not something that will ever be made public.


You are SO pulling things out of your butt here. And I can't believe OIMD hasn't called you on it yet. Find ONE place that OIMD has said anything about ET? All I have seen OIMD do to this point is list, in a logical fashion, the things that current technology can not do compared to the characteristics and capabilities exhibited by these crafts.

That's how you logically approach an issue. You identify and eliminate the obvious, and move toward the less obvious. Hopefully arriving at a singular explanation, but at least a minimized number of explanations.

And stop talking about Area-51 like you know what the hell is going on there. I am almost certain there are two or three on this board that know a bit more than you on that issue, and I'm also willing to bet they'd disagree with you.

And a couple of good rules of thumb are to not EVER say EVER, and NEVER say NEVER.


... I am so confused guessing where you're coming from.

First you say Area 51 couldn't produce such a craft. Then you say the craft is not ET. What??? Did Satan make it?? That's the only conclusion I could come to from your post. It's like going into a court room and saying, "Your honor, this man is guilty and not guilty! I rest my case."

The irony coming from your statement. You say that I'm talking about Area 51 as if I know it... isn't that what you're doing? You're saying Area 51 doesn't have the technology I'm talking about. If neither of us know about it, we're both allowed to make theories. You made theories about it. I did too.

Also, I only said "never" only to emphasize that technology like this will not be released anytime soon. It could erupt all-out war and it's too dangerous.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cardu
Really so area51 got thousands of Hightechnology Flying spheres that flies over the world every day and follow planes do impossible maneuvers thousands of mph Not to mention they travel trough space and time faster than light travel?? or whatever What are you dreaming or something?? Everything is easy to think but in reality its a bit harder area51 is about 40 years old? (not sure) they got B-2 SR71 F117 Aurora and so on, Its money made! For war...(Stupid Gov) Compare these to the UFOs its laugh able..
Edit:
UFO Sightings have occurred thousands of years Are51 isnt that old Why do you blame everything on Area51?

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by Cardu]


okay... this is coming from a person that's pro-UFO. it is clear in your post that you're talking about UFO in the ET context. so... if you're going to believe in ET, then you're going to have to believe in Area 51 and how we don't know jacksh!t about how advanced they are.

you cannot believe in ET 100% and believe in Area 51 00%. it just doesnt make sense.

why blame it on area 51? because thats the only thing that stands as a barrier to ET. if we break that barrier, then ET is fact. but we always blame it on area 51.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 05:07 PM
link   
By the way, this is not an isolated incident. There have been similar sightings for the last 50 or 60 years.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   
This is a very odd thread you created, egotesticle. You started it as a means of being able to shoot back information at people you were going to talk with, which I assumed meant not here on ATS. Yet this thread turned into your own skeptic thread regarding this latest Mexico UFO case. It really should have stayed in the other thread instead of being brought out here if you aren't going to be using this information elsewhere.

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by heelstone]



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by egotesticle


First you say Area 51 couldn't produce such a craft. Then you say the craft is not ET. What??? Did Satan make it?? That's the only conclusion I could come to from your post. It's like going into a court room and saying, "Your honor, this man is guilty and not guilty! I rest my case."

The irony coming from your statement. You say that I'm talking about Area 51 as if I know it... isn't that what you're doing? You're saying Area 51 doesn't have the technology I'm talking about. If neither of us know about it, we're both allowed to make theories. You made theories about it. I did too.

Also, I only said "never" only to emphasize that technology like this will not be released anytime soon. It could erupt all-out war and it's too dangerous.


You just absolutely can't read can you.

I'll type slow.

I said "AS FAR AS WE KNOW" this technology is too far ahead of even the technology in the black projects.

BUT, I'm getting hope working with you, because now you're starting to use deductive reasoning! WOW! and in only a couple of short days. Good work.

The process is thus:

You eliminate what it can't be - right now, unless you can pull evidence out of your arse, there is nothing to support that this is a man-made craft.

but watch what conclusion you jump to next, because I'm still not convinced it's ET.

Being logical blows your mind, doesn't it.



posted on May, 14 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   



okay... this is coming from a person that's pro-UFO. it is clear in your post that you're talking about UFO in the ET context. so... if you're going to believe in ET, then you're going to have to believe in Area 51 and how we don't know jacksh!t about how advanced they are.

you cannot believe in ET 100% and believe in Area 51 100%. it just doesnt make sense.

why blame it on area 51? because thats the only thing that stands as a barrier to ET. if we break that barrier, then ET is fact. but we always blame it on area 51.


You really should read what he said again, and make sure you understood what he was saying....as you apparantly didn't from what I can see. Egotesticle, I am confused as to exactly what you are saying here. People can believe in ET's 100%. Whether they should or not is another matter. People can also, at the same time "believe in" Area 51 as much as they want. To not believe in Area 51's existance is rather absurd, I would say, if one is aware of the evidence of its existence. Now, what is being developed in Area 51 is another matter. Some believe it involved ET's and/or ET technology, some believe it does not.

Really, egotesticle, you need to convey your ideas more effectively as it is difficult to understand what you are trying to communicate here. Or maybe I just don't understand... "if you're going to believe in ET, then you're going to have to believe in Area 51 and how we don't know jacksh!t about how advanced they are." I am confused. Why would one have to believe in Area 51 if they believe in ET's?

you cannot believe in ET 100% and believe in Area 51 100%. it just doesnt make sense. " Is it just me or did you just contradict yourself?

"why blame it on area 51? because thats the only thing that stands as a barrier to ET. if we break that barrier, then ET is fact. but we always blame it on area 51. " Now I think I get what you are saying here, but I am not certain. Why blame it on Area 51? Because some people find it to be them ost logical explanation for the phenomenon. Area 51 is not the only explanation, as you seem to think. There are many other explanations for various phenomenon. Somehow disproving that Area 51 projects are not to blame for the UFO phenomenon does not make it a fact that the UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin, either.


That is what I got out of your argument. I am not certain on any of it though, because as I said, you don't communicate your ideas well. Now I am not trying to flame you, I am just demonstrating to you that you need to communicate your ideas more clearly.



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by egotesticle


First you say Area 51 couldn't produce such a craft. Then you say the craft is not ET. What??? Did Satan make it?? That's the only conclusion I could come to from your post. It's like going into a court room and saying, "Your honor, this man is guilty and not guilty! I rest my case."

The irony coming from your statement. You say that I'm talking about Area 51 as if I know it... isn't that what you're doing? You're saying Area 51 doesn't have the technology I'm talking about. If neither of us know about it, we're both allowed to make theories. You made theories about it. I did too.

Also, I only said "never" only to emphasize that technology like this will not be released anytime soon. It could erupt all-out war and it's too dangerous.


You just absolutely can't read can you.

I'll type slow.

I said "AS FAR AS WE KNOW" this technology is too far ahead of even the technology in the black projects.

BUT, I'm getting hope working with you, because now you're starting to use deductive reasoning! WOW! and in only a couple of short days. Good work.

The process is thus:

You eliminate what it can't be - right now, unless you can pull evidence out of your arse, there is nothing to support that this is a man-made craft.

but watch what conclusion you jump to next, because I'm still not convinced it's ET.

Being logical blows your mind, doesn't it.


um... okay. you said i didnt know area 51 so i said you dont know either. simple as that. but it is clear your post was designed to have a lot of runons and incomplete sentences so i have no clue what your argument is based on now.

what a way to come back...



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by spngsambigpants



okay... this is coming from a person that's pro-UFO. it is clear in your post that you're talking about UFO in the ET context. so... if you're going to believe in ET, then you're going to have to believe in Area 51 and how we don't know jacksh!t about how advanced they are.

you cannot believe in ET 100% and believe in Area 51 100%. it just doesnt make sense.

why blame it on area 51? because thats the only thing that stands as a barrier to ET. if we break that barrier, then ET is fact. but we always blame it on area 51.


You really should read what he said again, and make sure you understood what he was saying....as you apparantly didn't from what I can see. Egotesticle, I am confused as to exactly what you are saying here. People can believe in ET's 100%. Whether they should or not is another matter. People can also, at the same time "believe in" Area 51 as much as they want. To not believe in Area 51's existance is rather absurd, I would say, if one is aware of the evidence of its existence. Now, what is being developed in Area 51 is another matter. Some believe it involved ET's and/or ET technology, some believe it does not.

Really, egotesticle, you need to convey your ideas more effectively as it is difficult to understand what you are trying to communicate here. Or maybe I just don't understand... "if you're going to believe in ET, then you're going to have to believe in Area 51 and how we don't know jacksh!t about how advanced they are." I am confused. Why would one have to believe in Area 51 if they believe in ET's?

you cannot believe in ET 100% and believe in Area 51 100%. it just doesnt make sense. " Is it just me or did you just contradict yourself?

"why blame it on area 51? because thats the only thing that stands as a barrier to ET. if we break that barrier, then ET is fact. but we always blame it on area 51. " Now I think I get what you are saying here, but I am not certain. Why blame it on Area 51? Because some people find it to be them ost logical explanation for the phenomenon. Area 51 is not the only explanation, as you seem to think. There are many other explanations for various phenomenon. Somehow disproving that Area 51 projects are not to blame for the UFO phenomenon does not make it a fact that the UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin, either.


That is what I got out of your argument. I am not certain on any of it though, because as I said, you don't communicate your ideas well. Now I am not trying to flame you, I am just demonstrating to you that you need to communicate your ideas more clearly.


i understand what you're saying. if you were confused, i apologize.

i see why you were confused. you misread a statement. i said, "you cannot believe in ET 100% and believe in Area 51 00%. it just doesnt make sense." not 100%.

and what i meant by the statement was this: usually if you find someone who thinks ufos are true, you also find that they think bigfoot or locknest or devilboy (list goes on) is true. they're usually very open minded about these kind of things. area 51 is a very close cousin to UFO (i say this in ET context). so it just came off odd to me that the guy believed in ufos but didnt believe in how advanced area 51 was. he completely shut the idea out. it wasn't even like, "hmm... its a possibility." it was more like "no area 51 doesnt have that technology." then he tells me that i don't know anything about area 51 as if he does..

i think area 51 (or any other government secret organizations from different countries) is the only explanation whenever we see things that we cannot explain with technology we currently know about. how else can it be explained? that it was a weather balloon? no... its not going to work.

also, i know i come off as a real big skeptic. my honest position is that ET does exist. im a big believer. the reason why i come off so tough in this thread is because i want to believe this mexican ufo incident isnt something fake. you saw me question a lot, and you guys have answered everything for me. the only thing i had to have answered was whether it was area 51 or not. if this was certain, then i could add this mexican ufo incident to my archives of credible fool-proof phenomena that ET exists.

obviously we have no true verification that these were not area 51 or some other high tech government organization so we'll never know. but thats good enough for me. usually when area 51 or some other government is the only barrier to answering the truth, it's good in my book. if it can be proven it was not area 51 for sure, it's even better. i guess i was wishing that one of you guys would give me a really good explanation to why it couldn't be a government organization other than "we don't have that technology." nobody knows whats in area 51... at least not for sure.

many thanks to everyone for their comments.



posted on May, 15 2004 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone
This is a very odd thread you created, egotesticle. You started it as a means of being able to shoot back information at people you were going to talk with, which I assumed meant not here on ATS. Yet this thread turned into your own skeptic thread regarding this latest Mexico UFO case. It really should have stayed in the other thread instead of being brought out here if you aren't going to be using this information elsewhere.

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by heelstone]


i will use this information in the future. whether im writing a report or someone really pummels me with the idea the ET doesnt exist.

the reason why i wanted to take it out of the other thread is because 1. it is way too long and my questions can easily go unanswered because of the complexity of them. people get lazy and the pages just keep going on and on about other stuff regarding the mexican ufo incident that i dont usually get much out of.
2. if i made this separate thread strictly about questions, then it would be easier for people to get what they need more quickly. kind of like a resources for skeptics-typa thread. you dont get the same questions answered over and over again. you get new ones and maybe its the one you wanted answered.
3. the other thread had too much of, "i think this is true blah blah blah," "in my opinion, i believe that blah blah blah." im not saying your opinions dont count. i just wanted answers and i didnt want to go through pages and pages to find the question i had went unanswered. i usually just skim through big threads and try to get the main gist of what people think on it.

thanks for the help.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I can first tell you that Mexico has long been a hot spot for UFOs through the years. I have seen amatuer home video from people who live there and I gotta tell you....I am not crazy, in my own world or dillusional...UFOs and their occupants are real. What you saw on the video a few days ago shot by the mexican airforce pilots was real. If you read their story, they allude to the lights moving in an intelligent way and away from their pursuit. It happens all the time all over the world and nearly everyday. After all I have seen over my military career, I know that we have visitors all the time.



posted on May, 17 2004 @ 08:02 PM
link   
mmm your point is intreging.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join