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.

 

Mexico UFOs

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MasonicFantom
 



Yes those texts could be interpreted in many way's, extra extraterrestrials is but one of those ways. And I really don't see why people would think that these ET's just happened to come on by this planet in the 1940's. But who really knows I could see it in many ways, but if they just showed up in the 1940's then it's more likely that we would of been welcoming our alien overlords and we would all be able to see them and know they exist. So whatever is going on is more down low, and low key then the movies like to show.

But people always want prof, and all that. But this is all just speculations, and trying to rationalist some things that have happened in history and are happening now. But if they really want prof, then how about this....Put a human on a pedestal for all to see, and wave your hands around a little then say "behold a talking hairless monkey", does anyone want to disprove what I just said? Then lets hear your opinions on how this matter came to be. Some would say evolution, some god. And all things have holes in them if you look real close. But yes I am pretty sure the world and the universe existed for a very long time before the 1940's. ET's could of been around since before the creation of our galaxy for all we know, since we are not by any length the only galaxy around or the oldest.




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Yay, more Jaime Maussan balloon footage!


If you ever see this guy talking about his fleets of UFOs (i.e. balloon releases)...just run the other way...
Gazrok is right!

OK at the coaxing of others, I got past Maussan's hoaxing face, and what did I see? Balloons!

I don't know whether the original intent of the release of these balloons was a hoax or some other event, the event itself may not have been intended as a hoax.

But I'm calling hoax because Maussan and company have original footage from both photographers of this event, and they won't release it, it appears to be carefully edited, though not carefully enough to hide the fact they are balloons, just carefully enough to not make it too obvious. So it's a hoax of editing, and not releasing all the footage.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull
Interestingly enough, Nuremberg was one of the centers of European centers of gunpowder research.

So, according to you, they had weapons that looked like cannons that shot out intelligently controlled spheres for over an hour? The woodcut was from a few years later, but the town newspaper recorded it soon after. They also recorded it in their town paper the day after it happened with much religious connotation (will post a vid below regarding that)


Originally posted by WingedBull
Nothing here says it was reported in the newspaper the day after. And it is very doubtful that it would be; there we no daily gazettes during that period. By coincidence, the broadsheet describing the Nuremberg event was produced the same year as the supposed Basle event.

Incorrect: Each town had their own gazette. The Switzerland event was recorded right after the event took place. The woodcut of the Switzerland event happened the same year. I will post a video explaining all this. www.altereddimensions.net...


Originally posted by WingedBull The lights in the video are not actually moving.It is an optical illusion caused by the movement of the clouds between the plane and the lights. Cover the clouds in the video and you will see the lights are moving.

This statement is contradictory.

At any rate, the lights in this video are surpassing the jets. That means they are not stationary. If they were 'following' the jets then it's possible. I will take the Air forces's opinion on this one as I'm sure they know what their pilots saw better than anyone here & trust me, if they could explain it away as oil rigs (lol) then they would have used that explanation instead of admitting to UFOs, no government ever wants to admit to that so it's interesting they would. This is part of a disclosure process that has been popping up these last few yrs all over (England releasing UFO files to the public, Vatican announcing it's 'ok' to believe in ETs etc.).



edit on 19-1-2011 by MasonicFantom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasonicFantom
So, according to you, they had weapons that looked like cannons that shot out intelligently controlled spheres for over an hour?


Nope. You obviously did not read my previous posts or were incapable of comprehending them. Why are you commenting when you are so ill-informed?

Go back, read my previous comments. Read carefully.


Originally posted by MasonicFantom
The woodcut was from a few years later, but the town newspaper recorded it soon after. They also recorded it in their town paper the day after it happened with much religious connotation


It was not recorded in the town newspaper the next day as daily newspapers did not exist and the newspaper itself would not be invented until the next century.

Also, the woodcutting was published along with the broadsheet. Meaning they were published at the same time.

Broadsheet and Woodcarving

Why are you commenting when you are ill-informed?


Originally posted by MasonicFantom
Incorrect: Each town had their own gazette.


Where was I incorrect? Please point to where it states it was published the next day. Provide proof it was printed the next day.

Each town may have had a gazette, but they were not daily publications. They were monthly affairs. (Though there may have been hand-written bills).

Why are you commenting when you are so obviously ill-informed?


Originally posted by MasonicFantom
This statement is contradictory.


Ah, right you are. A typo on my part. I'll correct it. It should be they aren't moving. My apologies.


Originally posted by MasonicFantom
At any rate, the lights in this video are surpassing the jets.


Please tell us at which point in the video they surpass the airplane.

Have you never been chased by the moon?


Originally posted by MasonicFantom
if they could explain it away as oil rigs (lol) then they would have used that explanation instead of admitting to UFOs


Unless the explanation slipped them. It is possible, more than possible.
edit on 19-1-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by WingedBull
 

Lots of sarcasm & arrogance.

Your points are so diluted it's hard to even address them.

Clearly a primitive gazette did exist. You must have not bothered watching the educational video I took the time to put in my post for you.



Please tell us at which point in the video they surpass the airplane. Have you never been chased by the moon?

Throughout the vid the lights can be seen above the clouds, even dark clouds in some cases. If it were below it would not penetrate a dark cloud whereas lighter clouds are blocking it = these are objects above or in the clouds. The pilot even mentions the UFOs were tracking them. The defense secretary and an entire country's air force backs that they were UFOs & if you know anything about on-board aircraft telemetry measurements on the video itself, you'd see these objects are moving just as fast and in some cases faster than the jets. So are they all idiots & the video is a fake, due to your extensive expertise of online trolling?

The moon is not a stationary object. This actually hurts your claim of it being an oil rig. As I said though, your points are so diluted it's difficult to make sense of.

There is something called "critical thinking" that entails a set of skills. When you acquire those skills, as well as an understanding of basic physics, then you will be ready for proper discussion like a grownup.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
Yes those texts could be interpreted in many way's, extraterrestrials is but one of those ways. And I really don't see why people would think that these ET's just happened to come on by this planet in the 1940's. But who really knows I could see it in many ways, but if they just showed up in the 1940's then it's more likely that we would of been welcoming our alien overlords and we would all be able to see them and know they exist. So whatever is going on is more down low, and low key then the movies like to show.


That is a good point, I don't see why the 40s were any different for interstellar beings to suddenly discover us as opposed to far earlier times. Some of the ancient texts are eerily similar to an atomic weapon and it's after effects of radiation (view it from a modern perspective--because they did not have words for 'atomic missile' etc.). Observe this quote for example, which there are many like this:


“Gurkha, flying in his swift and powerful Vimana [flying craft], hurled against the three cities of the Vrishnis and Andhakas a single projectile charged with all the power of the universe. An incandescent column of smoke and fire, as brilliant as ten thousand suns, rose in its entire splendor. It was the unknown weapon, the iron thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death, which reduced to ashes the entire race of the Vrishnis and Andhakas. The corpses were so burnt they were no longer recognizable. Hair and finger nails fell out, Pottery broke without cause. ... Foodstuffs were poisoned. To escape, the warriors threw themselves in streams to wash themselves and their equipment.”

& there's physical evidence of earth vitrification & irradiated corpses at cities found around that region... dating back thousands of years.


Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
But yes I am pretty sure the world and the universe existed for a very long time before the 1940's. ET's could of been around since before the creation of our galaxy for all we know, since we are not by any length the only galaxy around or the oldest.


This
The universe is literally incomprehensibly massive & complex.
edit on 19-1-2011 by MasonicFantom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasonicFantom
Clearly a primitive gazette did exist. You must have not bothered watching the educational video I took the time to put in my post for you.


And you must not have watched your own video. It shows the broadsheet printed with the woodcarving. It was not published the next day. There is no proof it was published the next day. The earliest anyone can verify the broadsheet is five years after the fact.


Originally posted by MasonicFantom
Please tell us at which point in the video they surpass the airplane. Have you never been chased by the moon?

Throughout the vid the lights can be seen above the clouds, even dark clouds in some cases.

Above the clouds? That is meaningless.

If it were below it would not penetrate a dark cloud whereas lighter clouds are blocking it = these are objects above or in the clouds.

Or behind them, at least to the observer. Funny how the lights are exactly where the horizon would be.


Originally posted by MasonicFantom
The pilot even mentions the UFOs were tracking them.


Ever been chased by the moon?


Originally posted by MasonicFantom
The defense secretary and an entire country's air force backs that they were UFOs


The "entire air force"? Hardly. You the opinions of some people. Not the "entire air force". If you want to say it is the entire Air Force, please provide a poll demonstrating that the entire air force agrees this was a "UFO".

You are making an argument from authority. They are human, they are still capable of making mistakes.


Originally posted by MasonicFantom
if you know anything about on-board aircraft telemetry measurements on the video itself


Given your bluster then outright refusal to back up your claims, I suspect our level of knowledge is about the same.



Originally posted by MasonicFantomyou'd see these objects are moving just as fast and in some cases faster than the jets.


Please point to where the objects move faster than the jet.


Originally posted by MasonicFantom
So are they all idiots & the video is a fake


I did not say that. You are putting words in my mouth.

Please point to where I made any sort of claim. Obviously you did not read my posts or were incapable of comprehending them. Why are you commenting when you are so ill-informed?


Originally posted by MasonicFantom
due to your extensive expertise of online trolling?


Disagreement is not trolling. If you are unable to comprehend that, why are you commenting when you are so ill-informed?


Originally posted by MasonicFantom
The moon is not a stationary object. This actually hurts your claim of it being an oil rig.


Wow...you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about do you? None at all.

Of course the moon is not a stationary object. No one is making a claim that it is.

Do you understand why it appears to an observer that the moon is "chasing" them?


Originally posted by MasonicFantom When you acquire those skills, as well as an understanding of basic physics, then you will be ready for proper discussion like a grownup.


Such as insulting people when they disagree with you? Those are quite bold words, considering the behavior of who they are coming from.
edit on 19-1-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
I guess wingedbull thinks the entire Air force, Secretary of Defense, those pilots & physical video evidence means less than his 'expert' opinion.

lol.

& in general, your post and logic doesn't make sense. I think you need to calm down kiddo. Don't get offended just cuz someone is smarter than you. You should do more research is all.
edit on 19-1-2011 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLegend
I guess wingedbull thinks the entire Air force Secretary of Defense, those pilots & physical video evidence means less than his 'expert' opinion.


Hello, sock-puppet.

Are you saying that they are infallible and incapable of making mistakes, even egregious ones?


Originally posted by TheLegend
in general, your post and logic doesn't make sense. I think you need to calm down kiddo


You are again making very broad statements but not giving specifics. Can you tell us what doesn't make sense?
edit on 19-1-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
I'm saying they know more than you about the subject & have video evidence showing it.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLegend
I'm saying they know more than you about the subject


You are relying on an appeal to authority argument.


Originally posted by TheLegend
have video evidence showing it.


They have video evidence showing oil-rigs in the distance.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
So, Wingedbull, when someone e.g. the Air force or Secretary of Defense doesn't agree with you, it's because they're the misinformed ones (as you imply)? Or you rely on semantic arguments (e.g.

Show me a poll of the entire air force!
to try and debunk the fact an air force of a nation is backing the UFO claim?

When a video is not what you want it to be, you simply change what it is? So I suppose oil rigs fly the same speed as jet aircrafts in your world.

You should be an author, it would make great fantasy writing.


edit on 19-1-2011 by MasonicFantom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasonicFantom
So, Wingedbull, when someone e.g. the Air force or Secretary of Defense doesn't agree with you, it's because they're the misinformed ones (as you imply)?


That could be the case. Their position of authority does not make them infallible. Do you agree with every politician and bureaucrat?

Do you think Jews are a threat and must be destroyed?


Originally posted by MasonicFantom

Show me a poll of the entire air force!


You are not quoting me. You are making up quotes. Bad form.


Originally posted by MasonicFantom
to try and debunk the fact an air force of a nation is backing the UFO claim?


Again, an appeal to authority.


Originally posted by MasonicFantom
When a video is not what you want it to be, you simply change what it is?


When did I do that?


Originally posted by MasonicFantom
So I suppose oil rigs fly the same speed as jet aircrafts in your world.


Now, I certainly did not make that claim either. It is an optical illusion. Much like when the moon appears to be chasing an observer.

You still have not shown (as you claimed) that the objects in the video were moving faster than the jet. Please show us when exactly this occurs in the video.
edit on 19-1-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   


Their position of authority does not make them infallible.

It's not common for secretary of defense or the armed services to back/support UFO existence. If's actually common to do the opposite. Given the recent disclosure all around the world within a year from that incident (Vatican, England, Brazil, India, etc.) it's quite evident there's a disclosure process taking place. Even next week world business leaders are meeting to discuss "ET & UFOs" & their impact on business. Don't you keep up with world events? Look at the big picture.



You are not quoting me now. You are making up quotes. Bad form.

I paraphrased (tho keeping exact same meaning). Here's what you said, yet again, you are arguing semantics here for no reason.


If you want to say it is the entire Air Force, please provide a poll demonstrating that the entire air force agrees this was a "UFO".




When did I do that? [regarding changing what a video is to fit what you want it to be]

When you said


They have video evidence showing oil-rigs in the distance.


Thus leads to the last point of the flying oil rigs. Because to you, they are oil rigs in the video, despite telemetry showing the objects are not stationary & the lights moving within the clouds. Do you have any idea how ridiculous your notion even sounds? An online troll arguing against a nation's air force, their secretary of defense, video evidence and pilot confirmation!? & even someone else online pointing this out to you?

G'night, remember what I said earlier regarding the skills involved in the critical thinking process. Acquire them & keep in mind it's just some friendly advice for you.
edit on 19-1-2011 by MasonicFantom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull
I believe the1561 "UFO battle" over Nuremberg was actually a fireworks display, misinterpreted and exaggerated in the intervening five years when the broadsheet and woodcarving were produced.


I agree, fireworks and chinese lanterns can account for a majority of sightings and videos on youtube. A person sees something in the sky, they tell someone else or tells someone else and by the time its reached the 20th person the orginal experience becomes convoluted and something entirely different.

Hu-man nature to make something big out of something so little.

BTW - The video was proven as a hoax, it just so happened that the person filming this sighting actually became a regular on the show and apparently he had 'regular' sightings and whenever he had a video camera there were ufo's and spheres. This is why the presenter cannot be trusted as reliable.
edit on 19-1-2011 by franspeakfree because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   
True, humans like to exaggerate.

Unfortunately for this hypothesis is both the Germany and Switzerland event were recorded in writing directly afterwards which survived intact till this day (in the Switzerland case, it was even did on a broadsheet the same yr), not by word of mouth. The only claim that could be made about exaggeration is the Germany broadsheet which was made 5 yrs after.

Wow, "sock-puppet". What a clever kiddo.

Edit: show proof/link the vid is a hoax please (video analyst preferably), I would like to show it to my professor/mentor as he's intrigued with the video.
edit on 19-1-2011 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLegend
show proof/link the vid is a hoax please (video analyst preferably), I would like to show it to my professor/mentor as he's intrigued with the video


I have nothing to prove, however, if you show my tangible proof that it is indeed real then I will not show it to anyone.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drustew
Why is he a fraud? Ive seen a few UFO conference's that he's done and he always seem to present some very good information, photo's, video's etc. Why the fraudster?
Check out this thread:
The Jaime Maussan Metepec Creature Confirmed as a Hoax See this post in particular from that thread: www.abovetopsecret.com... for lots of examples such as claiming that a commercial done by the Sci-fi channel was a UFO, etc.

A few posts up I explain my reasons for suspecting he's even hoaxing us with the edits he made to the video in the OP. I doubt we will ever see the unedited video, even though an ATS member has it, he's never been given permission to share it with us.

edit on 19-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Why doesn't the member post that vid in RATS?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 
The raw footage has been shared with the member, but the member doesn't have permission to share it with anyone else.

This was discussed at some length in the main thread.

I would really like to see it.

Actually, Springer posted in that thread that he'd like to see it too in spite of Maussan's involvement, and he would have it analyzed by some experts if it were made available.

As an aside he also mentioned that the raw footage if converted from videotape to digital would far exceed what any upload service could provide. However Springer might be able to work something out with him to host it on ATS if they could get past the "no permission issue", which apparently never happened.


edit on 19-1-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join