It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


This thread is my case for the existance of manmade (American) discs/saucers

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:44 PM
Well if man made and we know we made perhaps thousands then
perhaps one was tested to go under water.
The tether video shows these Foos roaming around in the upper
atmosphere where they glow even brighter, as predicted by the
suspected inventor in his gas experiments.
So saucers work in the air as we know.
The only good reports are for above the water in which the
upward electrical forces can agitate the surface and bring up
some water just as dirt was scattered in New Mexico for
an observed landing and takeoff.
ED: So we can't tell perhaps of under water or outer space works
for the saucer.

[edit on 10/8/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 01:26 AM

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by tauristercus

Ever seen a Stealth Bomber? For all effect and purposes, that plane is an American UFO. It uses a gravity accelerator to create a bubble around the plane and the covering of the plane I hear can only be made in space. I don't know anything about the fuel it uses, but again have heard it is exotic.

As a matter of fact, I *have* seen a Stealth bomber. I've been a visitor at Whiteman AFB, and as a member of the Confederate (now Commemorative) Air Force, I'm a regular fixture at air shows. I've seen the B-2 on the ground, at takeoff, doing low-altitude flybys, and I've watched them land.

Do you have any evidence at all that the B-2 uses a 'gravity accelerator' (whatever that might be) to fly? If so, I'd love to see it.

As for the B-2's skin, the panels are carbon-reinforced plastic, over a largely titanium structural skeleton. No outer-space fabrication required, Northrop-Grumman could and did build it in very terrestrial factories.

The fuel isn't particularly exotic, either. The B-2 uses General Electric F-118 engines (four of them). The F-118 is a non-afterburning derivative of the F-110 used (in various models) to power the F-14, -15, and -16. Given its well-documented ancestry, the fuel is pretty much bog-standard USAF jet fuel...a supposition supported by the fact that B-2s refuel from the same tankers as the above mentioned smaller aircraft.

That being said, look at your history. The Nazis were in contact with ET, that much is clear now. I am certain that at least some of the photos of the Nazi disks are real. Phil Schneider and Bill Cooper both said that the triangle shaped ones are ours. Here are a few sites on this...

The Nazis were in contact with ET? Evidence, please.

As I've mentioned in other 'napkinwaffe' threads, I find it interesting that the Nazis (if one believes all of the BoScat tossed about on the interweb) seem to have had atomic bombs (which weren't used in defense of Berlin or any other major German city, or for the destruction of vital Allied supply hubs like Antwerp), death rays (that somehow failed to inflict any casualties on Allied troops), and a space program that could build a base on the Moon (but couldn't build an ICBM that could reach the continental US).

posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 12:48 AM
I would like to personally congragulate you on finding out what I found out years ago. Yes, the United States made their own flying saucers. They made alot of them during the Cold War. Why? To freak out the Russians, that's why. There was an entire episode about it on the History Channel.

posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 05:25 AM
I've taken another look at your images and also took a very close look at the originals on GE.
I'm in complete agreement with you regarding the apparent "artificiality" of the object. The thing that cinched it for me was the geometrical indentation in the rear hull area as well as the raised hatch close by. Those 2 items are more than clear enough in my opinion to dispel any kind of natural explanation such as a water hole.
And whilst I'm at it ... how can so many people insist on such a lame and obviously inadequate explanation as a water hole ... and one in the middle of mountainous terrain ... get real !!

posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 10:59 AM
It's a cattle grazing area. The watering holes are not natural formations. They were made to provide a water source for the herd. Look at the pictures. It's pretty obvious, especially when you compare the features to other known watering holes.

posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 12:08 PM
If they are waterholes, where is the vegetation that springs up around them?

And if a long term waterhole, they'll have considerable brush around them as well as tree's.
Man-made or not.

We explore a lot of the desert in N/W Arizona and long-term waterholes are easy to spot from a distance.

When dried up, you won't see a solid patch of green in the center.

It could be algae, but most times the water is brown and muddy looking.

Is this particular location where the purported saucer is open to the public?

If so, perhaps a trip of exploration is indicated.

It would be interesting to shoot some photo's with an infra-red light setup or infra-red film.

I did some searching in the Red Lake (dry lake) area north of Kingman, Arizona via Google Earth.

I couldn't find a couple of waterholes due to they weren't green, but that could be due to the time of year the aerial photo's or satellite views were shot.
One small man-made water hole - called a tank - does have small trees and the like isn't too far from the east side of the dry lake and west of the road on the east side of the lake.
Antares Road is the name.

One thought I did have about the OP's 'saucer' photo is that it could have artificial camoflauge covers over it.

Regardless, interesting and well written post.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in