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.


Should we attack Earth?...The ATS ET role playing game.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:53 AM
reply to post by snowen20

Dear snowen20

From snowen20 “3. Jesus Christ called himself God. All the Gods of old called themselves god, not leaving it open to interpretation by man. In Babylon for example he visitors clarified that they were not gods.”

Now I am going to pull you on this one, this is true according to the bible but this is the version that was edited by Constantine in 325AD. This was in order to pull together the Roman Empire.

In other words not certainly any more true than ET visiting.

From snowen20 “1. what exactly makes a witness credible?

Ok I call it credible when two airline pilots see it one going east the other going west and it is on ground radar. Too me it just doesn’t get better than that. I thing they described it as the size of two aircraft carriers. That is what I mean about Tech that would change the planet if it were ours.

posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 02:08 AM
reply to post by MAC269

Well whether Christ actually called himself God or not is important to the issue, I would like to know more about that. For example did he not say he was sent from God at the very least?

L. Sprague de Camp put together a list of requirements for UFO authenticity.
(1) The report must be first-hand.
(2) The teller must show no obvious bias or prejudice
(3) The teller must be a trained observer
(4) The data must be adequate and available for checking.
(5) The teller must be clearly identified.

While some may debate whether or not a pilot is considered a trained observer I personally believe it doesn't get any more trained than that. So yes I believe also that airline pilots are quite credible witnesses so long as the reports fit all the above criteria.

Also there are a variety of things that may be considered a UFO many of which are not necessarily of ET origin. Though that is the majority view. I tend to lean in that direction as well.

Consider the following quote from (Robert A. Freitas' book Xenology.)

"Meteorological -- subsun, sundogs (parhelia), moondogs (paraselene), lenticular clouds, noctilucent clouds, mirages, "dust devils", St. Elmo’s fire, grindstone clouds, solar reflections on low-hanging clouds, lightning (ball, streak, chain, sheet), Brocken ghosts, green fireballs(around NaCl crystals or dust), swamp gas flickers (ignis fatuus, methane combustion,"will-o-the-wisp"), large flattened gliding hailstones, sun glint off shiny objects, rainbow-related phenomena, bolides, ducted ground light reflection, ice flakes, coronal effects, tornado lightning, volcano lightning, Earthquake-Associated Sky Luminescence (EASL), AgI used in cloud-seeding, pile d’assiettes clouds(stack of coins), ice halo, pilot’s halo

Astronomical -- meteors, fireballs, satellite reentries, auroras, planets (Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn), stars (Capella, Sirius), objects seen through haze/jet trails or magnified by temperature inversion, Moon, sunspots and solar flares, comets

Experimental and Technological -- balloons sandwiched between dense air layers, test aircraft unconventional aircraft, helicopters with bright lights, high-altitude projectiles, rocket launches, contrails, aircraft reflection or after burners, bomb tests, refueling operations, searchlight reflections, military flares, satellites, blimps, parachutes, radiosondes and pibals, landing lights

Physiological and Psychological -- autokinesis (perceived motion of stationary objects), autostasis (perceived stopping of moving objects), "airship effect"(perceived connection of separate sources), "excitedness effect", hallucination and mass hysteria, afterimages, autosuggestion(seeing what one is looking for), entopic effects(retinal or vitreous humor defects within the eyeball), motes on the cornea(perceived as spots), astigmatism and myopia, failure to wear glasses, reflections from glasses, religious invention

Photographic -- development defects, internal camera reflections lens flare, deliberate fakes (moon, street lamps, garbage can lids, phonograph records, hubcaps, lens cap suspended by thread, straw hat, Frisbee, models, window glass reflections)

Radar -- temperature inversions and ducting effects, ionized gases in upper atmosphere, angels, bogies, phantoms, false returns (ice-laden clouds, birds, insects), "window" (long strips of chaff), ranging/calibration balls, hot-air bubble reflections

Biological -- airborne debris(leaves, feathers, milkweed seeds), "angel hair"(gossamer spider parachutes), birds or flocks of birds, insect swarms, luminous fungi on birds, fireflies, glowing owl eyes, seagulls, moths, tumbleweeds

Industrial -- detergent foam, soap bubbles, refuse from defective filter in chemical-industrial plant (milk, rayon), smoke plumes

Miscellaneous -- kites, firefly trapped between window panes, radio astronomy dish, plastic bag with candles or flares, searchlight & headlight reflections off clouds, flashing ambulance light, tossed lighted cigarette, fireworks displays, reflection off building’s windows, airborne loose paper, beacon lights and lighthouses, water tanks, lightning rods, TV antennas, weathervanes, hoaxes "

When one takes all these phenomenon into context they must then rule out beyond a shadow of a doubt all of these aforementioned examples before you can surely say it was of possible ET origin. I think this is why so many have a hard time believing in UFOs as being strictly and or solely ET.
edit on 19-10-2010 by snowen20 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 02:27 AM
reply to post by snowen20

Dear snowen20

I think the particular event that I was referring too over Alaska by a Japanese fright pilot covers all of this.

As you say I think it is right that 95% of supposed sightings can be ruled out by what you have mentioned.

What we have to think about is the last 5%.

Did you watch the last press conference a little while back??

Just two many credible people no matter how skeptical you wish to be.

Our biggest problem is too many COOKS & CROOKS as well.

posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 02:57 AM
reply to post by MAC269

Ill be honest, I have never really looked into UFO reports so much. Not because I don't believe them but because to me alien life is a given so it comes as no real shock to me.
One of the things I think when I hear people say they DON'T believe in UFOs is that perhaps they are mentally delusional, as admitting to UFOs only implies that you believe an object to be unidentified not that it is of ET origin.

I for one believe that what I am seeing is one of two things. Only after all the previously mentioned is ruled out
(1) An alien craft/probe.
(2) A Human Craft or probe, of present construction and design or otherwise.

I don't tend to agree that they are of psychic origin as some have stated. But I have seen things that can not readily be accepted as anything other that intelligently controlled craft of superior and advanced design.
This is what leads me to believe that UFOs can most certainly be of off world origin.
edit on 19-10-2010 by snowen20 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 03:10 AM
reply to post by snowen20

Dear snowen20

I do not know if you would call me a credible witness but this is what I saw a long time ago

posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 04:32 AM
reply to post by MAC269

It is definably a bona fide UFO. Is it ET based? I can't say. Star and flag for your story though.

Now as far as you being a credible witness, first let me say this.
I don't like the way it is implied that unless a person is a trained observer and "credible" (whatever that means) that what they say should be taken with a grain of salt.

Personally I believe what you say because what would it benefit you to lie about what amounts to a very mundane UFO event? This in my mind at least makes you just as credible as any one else.
It would have been just as easy for someone to lie and make it more interesting saying that it shot a blue arc in the sky which made your ears buzz.

Honestly the story is very interesting and I'm leaning toward it being 2 satellites in parallax movement with earth as seen from the ground at night. Or a flying craft of off world invention.

Either way it is sightings like this which can not be ignored and moreover the time period in which it occurred can not go unanswered.

Im not saying it was parallax movement, just throwing out a possibility. It happens sometimes if you see a plane landing while driving and the plane appears stationary in the sky.

ed it on 19-10-2010 by snowen20 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-10-2010 by snowen20 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 08:37 PM
reply to post by snowen20

Dear snowen20

2 satellites??

Remember this was back in 1966 and there was not that much up there then. However this is certainly what they looked like.

I remember going out side to see Telstar when it was first flying over the UK years before and yes it look just like that only two of them side by side. That was till the one on my left stopped and the other made an arc around it and the two disappeared off at about a 30°angle.

Sadly I never thought to look to see if it obscured other stars as it flew between my and them.

Was it ET as you say who knows but we do not have anything that we know of today that could do that.

So the implication of this is just as bad because if it was from here we could most likely reach the stars back then all those years ago. Meaning that us the white mice are securely locked in our cages.

edit on 19-10-2010 by MAC269 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 04:49 PM
If I were ET, I'd just secretly have all the cameras of all the world stream to a massive editing operation, and make Earth an intergalactic reality show....but that's just me (and apparently the creators of South Park)...

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in