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.

 

"I Know What I Saw" airs October 4 on the History Channel

page: 5
41
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Excellent show!!! This was great docu with extremely credible high ranking people. It shows how the world powers are becoming impatient with America IMHO.

DISCLOSURE IS ALREADY HAPPENING; YOU JUST HAVE NOT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION. IT STARTED ARROUND 2002.

It first started little by little, now it is coming by the ton. Get ready for when they drop the bomb, the big one, and if you don't believe me, then wait and see.




posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by EsSeeEye
 


thanks for that. Jamie said that the film will move the debate from the existence of these things to who exactly is flying these things as some people will conceed there is the phenomena but believe its military and the like.


Hasn't that always been part of the debate?

Like the documentary said 15%(I think thats the right number) are unexplainable.

Could they be secret military aircraft?

Sure they could.

Could they be actual ET controlled aircraft?

Sure they could.

I'm leaning toward that 15% being a mix of the two and we aren't being visited near as much as we think we are.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


He was refering to people who at present dont' believe in the phenomena of structured advanced craft flying through our skies, people who believe it is either planes or balloons or hoaxes. Not to people who believe there is this going but aren't sure who is behind it.

He said that after this docu the debate will move to "who is behind these craft."



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
I liked the documentary, but nothing new was learned. It was nice to get accounts from the eyewitnesses, but those looking for something new or an earthshaking revelation will be very disappointed.

I did notice something that could put a big hamper on the Rendlesham Forrest case. The notebook Sgt Penniston flips through is yellowish from age. The page with the alleged "writing" is whiter than the other pages. There is also a question about the case I have: Why didn't Sgt Penniston put anything about the writing he saw in the original reports? It looks like a case of embellishment to me.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


I agree, nothing earthshattering, but this was an awesome documentary that didnt pan off to photos of little green men ever minute or two like they have been showing on national TV. It was well put together with cases that were witnessed by a lot of people, some obviously not, but the most important I believe were mentioned. It was awesome to see that UFO video taken on a plane, with the orbs shooting out. The young girl asked if spaceships "grow", lol, "no honey, that spaceship just came 50 miles closer to us in 1 second."



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ziggyproductions05
reply to post by kidflash2008
 

It was awesome to see that UFO video taken on a plane, with the orbs shooting out. The young girl asked if spaceships "grow", lol, "no honey, that spaceship just came 50 miles closer to us in 1 second."


that Colorado video was pretty remarkable...



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Like the reviews.

Sounds like it's not just another typical UFO documentary.
Of course im not expecting anything new though.

Will definitely try and get a hold of this.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
If you are a UFO enthusiast (either terrestrial or non terrestrial) you will *love* this show.

We as humans always love to listen to what we already believe.

What *IS* the NPC (National Press Club) and *WHY* should I think just because it is in Washington DC it is important?

Most of the NPC video shown were *never* aired on news networks, despite being a "national press club" ...

I bet most of these retired people are counter intel, being paid on both sides to perpetuate the "Alien UFO" mythos.

It's nice to have a show on television that reinforces one's beliefs. People don't want to hear about how they are wrong... they tune into shows/radio/media tailored to fit their current belief structure.

I am "on the fence" -- and this program for me was, "propaganda for those that already are fanatics"

It's better than "UFO Hunters" -- that show is a joke. The old guy with the glasses is the most obnoxious son-of-a-beeotch!

It's also better than most "Docu-propaganda" shows on the Gov. controlled media circuit.

Nice summary of the same stuff we've all been discussing and debating for years on ATS. That's all it is....with "UBER HYPE" behind it.

The advertising and hype behind this show should send off red flags. The truth won't be leaked out via a gov. controlled media outlet.

Take it for what it is -- but the cursory reactions from members here firmly cements my thought that this show is just, "pandering to the believers".

Oh, and I have personally seen a "UFO". I call it an "Unidentified Flying Object" -- the word "Alien" never crossed my mind.

Check my posts, I have an over 10,000 view youtube video of a "UFO" -- I still have no idea what it was...but I am open to all any any explanation.

Glad that the tailored-to-feel-good (yay we were right!) media spin seems to work so well!




posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   
I thought it was a good show. Given the time limitations all he could do was give teasers about so many different cases, not enough time to cover them in detail.

He made it look like the US is one of the few countries that has NOT decided to go public with its UFO files. Well the UK and France are releasing files. One issue for the US is that at least a portion of the sightings could be military projects and they won't release those secrets until they're ready to release them. But I think they should release the other files like the UK, people can handle it.


Originally posted by PhotonEffect
that Colorado video was pretty remarkable...


You mean the one from Salida? Yes I agree it's quite impressive. They didn't show the video of the boomerang shape but I have an idea what that video might be showing:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   
I just saw this, and I honestly think it was pulled of very nicely.

I don't understand how a skeptic can watch this and still have a problem believing.

There are too many credible people explaining the same thing, and that's what I liked about how this show was put together.

All of these people can NOT be lying...

And is this disclosure? Of course not - come on. Disclosure would be the MSM saying, "We are not alone because the White House (or something similar) says so".

I think Nick Pope said it the best. There is Disclosure with a capital "D" and there's disclosure with a lowercase "d". I think we're getting the lowercase "d", but obviously some countries (......) are seriously dragging their feet.

And even the lowercase "d" is still not full disclosure in my eyes. Releasing UFO docs is one thing, but releasing docs about actual ET CONTACT is disclosure, IMHO. Am I right here?


[edit on 10/5/2009 by impaired]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:15 AM
link   
It's online :

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   
The show was mostly interviews and I was hoping for more UFO sightings videos. For instance, I have seen the Japan Airlines incident documentary on the History Channel previously that was much more compelling because of it's graphics and the way the cockpit tapes were played. I was also hoping the Chicago O'Hare sighting and video footage would be released.

Overall, it was a nice job. It lacked the WOW factor. I'm concerned how interested non-believers would be in watching interviews and a press conference, or would they change the channel.

James Fox had a difficult task in producing a more compelling documentary than Out Of The Blue. The first 20 minutes of "I Know What I Saw" (IKWIS) was a little slow and confused, and hopefully didn't lose a lot of viewership as a result.

For what it was, IKWIS was very compelling and based on it's content, anyone watching this intently trying to find the truth has some credible information from which to draw a conclusion.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   
I was expecting more, oh well.

btw there's a new video of NASA cams from the International Space Station where they recorded objects in space, again, in the last trip from the shuttle, I saw it on Jaime Maussan's show that airs every sunday here in Mexico, it was pretty good, I have yet to see it online.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by impaired
I just saw this, and I honestly think it was pulled of very nicely.

I don't understand how a skeptic can watch this and still have a problem believing.

There are too many credible people explaining the same thing, and that's what I liked about how this show was put together.

All of these people can NOT be lying...


Well, here's one way: if you are familiar with any specific case, you can detect how the very professional style presentation is slanted to omit contrary points of view, and even to falsely deny that such views exist. This isn't fair and it isn't honest.

Example: Calling the astronaut Cooper story (Edwards AFB, 1957) one for which no explanation has ever been given.

One can disagree with suggested explanations, but to state that no such explanations exist shows either horrible research incompetence, or deliberate deception.

Cooper's story differs in fundamental details (e.g., a structured craft with tricycle landing gear that touched down) with every other witness account, including from Jack Gettys, the man with the camera who was on the scene. Gettys also has testified that he never met Cooper, had no idea he was even on base that year, and wonders why HE is now talking as if HE had been in charge of the camera team. The case was also investigated by James McDonald, who described it in detail during congressional testimony (no landing gear, no touchdown, and NO Gordon Cooper), and in testimony by Hubert Davis, the AF engineering officer who happened to be on Blue Book duty the afternoon Gettys came into the office.

You also can go look up the Air Force reg that describes Blue Book reporting procedures, the reg that Cooper claims he followed. But the steps he reportes taking are wildly at variance from the prescribed steps.

Lastly, you can also look up the actual Blue Book case file on the incident, and obtain images from the film -- all properly indexed and publicly available for decades. So when Fox states that the pictures vanished and were never seen again, he is misinforming his viewers.

Cooper's account is part of a corpus of late-in-life stories that include how he saved the space shuttle program from a fatal design flaw by relaying to NASA a telepathic message from space aliens, how his Gemini-5 spacecraft was pelted by meteor impacts that left its hull pockmarked by deep dents (nobody else ever saw these dents after it returned to Earth), how he used a super-secret hand-held Pentagon spy camera that took pictures showing readable auto license plates, from orbit, and how he saw those photos with his own eyes (talk about magical thinking), how his favorite aviation technology breakthroughs would make fortunes for investors (people forked over more than two million dollars, and lost every cent), and other tall tales well designed to amuse his audiences, but far beyond the fringe of even marginal credibility.

Most sad is Fox's lost chance, when talking with astronaut Edgar Mitchell, to ask Mitchell what HE thought of Cooper's stories. Mitchell and Cooper trained together on an Apollo moon landing backup crew in 1968-9, and probably talked about a wide variety of topics including UFOs... until Cooper was booted from the program by his fellow Mercury-7 buddy (and astronaut boss) Slayton when his performance fell short of requirements. He left the program mighty annoyed at NASA, understandably. Mitchell might have had useful insights into Cooper's experiences and views, but we didn't get to see them because Fox didn't ask (of maybe he did, and won't tell us what he learned).

This example indicates to me the production is smooth propaganda, not unbiased exposition.


ADD: Links to supporting research, here:
Link, www.jamesoberg.com...
Scroll down to “Gordon Cooper UFO-related stories”



[edit on 5-10-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Until the documentary last night, I had no idea the lengths United Airline went to in order to conceal what happened at O'Hare. We had a nobject in our protected airspace and nothing, absolutely nothing, was done about it.

I really liked the show. It was well thought out, full of evidence, and provided testimony from some of the most experienced men and women in the fields of aviation and aeronautics.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



What did you think of the other cases? The one that interests me is the JAL 1628 encounter over Alaska.

Are there ANY cases that you find interesting?



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2
reply to post by JimOberg
 



What did you think of the other cases? The one that interests me is the JAL 1628 encounter over Alaska.

Are there ANY cases that you find interesting?


Indeed, yes. I find THAT case -- and the missile base incidents -- HIGHLY interesting and I have no evidence to offer supporting any prosaic explanations.

There's stuff happening out there that deserves closer investigation, and jumping to the 'UFO explanation' may short circuit genuine inquiries -- which may be to the liking of those behind some of those activities.

Life's like that.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Excellent show. Positively and undeniably excellent. What fools those people are who contend that there is positively no reality to UFOs.

Even if the technology is of human origin, it shows beyond question that mainstream science is thoroughly in the dark with respect to this technological reality.

Bravo.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by draknoir2
reply to post by JimOberg
 



What did you think of the other cases? The one that interests me is the JAL 1628 encounter over Alaska.

Are there ANY cases that you find interesting?


Indeed, yes. I find THAT case -- and the missile base incidents -- HIGHLY interesting and I have no evidence to offer supporting any prosaic explanations.

There's stuff happening out there that deserves closer investigation, and jumping to the 'UFO explanation' may short circuit genuine inquiries -- which may be to the liking of those behind some of those activities.

Life's like that.


I'm not ready to assign the label "extraterrestrial" myself, but I am comfortable with "UFO". I've seen a couple of UFO's, but not a single extraterrestrial, AFAIK.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by triklops
It's online :

www.youtube.com...


Thank you was trying to find it



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join