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.

 

Apollo 10 gets Glimpse of an Extra-Terrestrial Monolith in Space

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigredenquirer
There is surely no merit in this post. Surely you could have at least come up with something more original than a monolith? Come on...


um, how can you say that? didn't we send a monolith out in space? And no one saw that in telescopes. When you really think about it, it's not that hard to believe.

Edit: I'm trying to start a good argument on this.

Here's pics of this suposed monolith:

galactic2.net...

galactic2.net...

Here's the webpage were found the photo's

galactic2.net...

[edit on 9-2-2005 by malakiem]




posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 05:20 AM
link   
The monlith story is deeply unoriginal, and there is no supporting evidence, at least there is none presented here.

I'm afraid I can't make anything out of those photos, they seem to have been enlarged greatly and I have no idea about their provenance. It could just be fluff on the lense for all I can make out.

I can't read the Dutch(?) from the site, so I've no idea what they are going on about.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Yep, some of those astronauts have a great sense of humor...



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jonna
It brings up an interesting idea though. If the best place to hide something is in plain sight, then why not make a movie about it and then anyone attempting to come forward with secret information will be seen as a nut-job who saw the movie one too many times.

Darth Vader is after me! I swear!


whear can i get monolith vidio



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I agree that the lack of originality in the story here is truly distressing, as well as the quality of the photographic material used to back it up. Very disappointing. Better stories were told in 1950's alien invasion movies, and I've seen better looking images on toilet paper.

But I guess this is what happens when people use a story's similarity to some other dubious story or work of "fiction" as a kind of odd proof of its truth. Like if I made up a story about an ET blob that devours living flesh, some would say, "It's just like that Steven McQueen movie, so it must be true! The movie was just a cover to hide the fact that a real Blob did land and kill a lot of people in a small California town, and the government hushed it up!"

Can't somebody for once put some real effort into one of these stories and come up with something a bit more unique and entertaining? Something other than just endlessly recycled nonsense?

Oh, I forgot. I'm on the Internet. The place where nonsense goes to be endlessly rehashed.






posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by beyondSciFi

Originally posted by AboveTopSecret.com
U.S.
Government's old gravity-control formula:

phi(x) = + &phi(x), where
is the vacuum expectation value, and m2^^2 represents
the particle's density of the ground state in the non-realtivistic
limit. The action of this field in the presence of gravity is...intrinsic
gravitational cosmological constant Lambda/ 8piG receives a contribution
(1/2) m2^^2



Can any who know physics really well tell me if this really makes any sense?

[edit on 6-2-2005 by beyondSciFi]


hi im a prof. of physics at omaga tech indiana theoreticaly this formula could work given that you could find an enclosed air tight area where pi is at a factor of 7.36 such a place would need to be cooled down to 8*c and you would need a large thermal constrictor which has the same sucseaden force as an atom bomb but if pi is miss callculated by as much as 0.1 you would in fact create the exact opposit of zero g and would have a force intence enougth to crush the human body



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
...strange thread from over a year ago, I'm still in these Alien/Ufo archives and see about 100 pages of threads yet to go, had to space this out more.... anyway, says people get cancer from being near the thing and some die? It's underwater around the Bahamas -- all of it, I can totally believe.

This is why 'disclosure' seems odd to me, *they* spend countless dollars on movies, some friendly, some not -- to gauge public reaction? I think so. . . .

. . .. does that mean there's unfriendly ET out there? Maybe and what if there's a Star Wars like galaxy out there? W/ people like us and less like ET laughing at us cruising around in spacecraft? Never know.

Back to the point -- should it be this or that way, the countless threads about a spotted Ufo, realizing how much time people put into looking at something that can't really be proven true or false -- isn't this the infamous "false flag" invasion? Like everyday? I refuse to open Ufo stuff unless the headline is catchy beyond belief, it's pointless, boring and a waste of time personally.

ATS should break up Aliens/Ufo -- maybe people would go through all these threads more often if it was divided into categories a little more directed to ONE specific topic. Otherwise, like this thread, right off the bat, they were "no way" to the OP without even questioning any of it, I see how there's dumb-downed middle America w/ some technology, but after awhile on various threads -- I can't stomach the negativity.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   
You've got quite an impressive imagination. I admire you for having that, I think it's better if you become a writter or something.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Yeah, you had me right up to the point were you said, "......reliable confidential informant.......". Now all I have to do is wait for the Oct 14th UFO fly by that another ‘informed’ poster has proclaimed will most certainly happen.

If its not religion that the masses follow, it’s an alternative or even better a complementary to it and what better than the elusive non-human ET coming to save us from ourselves?

Freud was spot on when he say's that we humans are so afraid of our seemingly pointless existence that we need to invent anything to exalt us to something that we are not i.e. mere animals with big egos.


[edit on 26-9-2008 by mlmijyd]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com
 


Your formula is utter rubbish. I'm a theoretical physicist working in Quantum field theory in Curved spacetime. You say is an expectation value. What vacuum are you using? If you put a field into a curved spacetime there is no one preferred vauum- the vacuum depends entirely on the situation. So are you talking about a Unruh Vacuum, a Boulware Vacuum a Hawking-Hartle Vauum or what?

Moreover your comment " represents the particle's density of the ground state in the non-realtivistic " is also nonsensical- why wpould you be working with particles not fields?

One final point, how could Gagarin see this object on the Moon? He only went in orbit around the Earth. To see it on the Moon it would have to be massive- far to large for a retrieval in the 70s!



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by beyondSciFi

Originally posted by AboveTopSecret.com
U.S.
Government's old gravity-control formula:

phi(x) = + &phi(x), where
is the vacuum expectation value, and m2^^2 represents
the particle's density of the ground state in the non-realtivistic
limit. The action of this field in the presence of gravity is...intrinsic
gravitational cosmological constant Lambda/ 8piG receives a contribution
(1/2) m2^^2



Can any who know physics really well tell me if this really makes any sense?

[edit on 6-2-2005 by beyondSciFi]


I can assure you, it's complete rubbish (see above)



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
some people need to stop wasting other people's time with made up stories. if you want to make up a story about this space monolith, write a novel and you can hopefully make some money from it, but don't spam this forum with time-wasting nonsense from 'an unnamed source'. people come to this forum to find some interesting and challenging discussions and evidence, must people really take it upon them to abuse that interest by putting out made up nonsense. it really is very childish



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by shrike2000
 


Funny... the opposite approach is what you debunkers always use isn't it? That if they were so good at covering things up, why would leaked documents and photos ever get out? Gimme a break, it's nice you take things with skepticism, but don't outright debunk something for superficial theories.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join