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.

 

Where did the flying saucer go?

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Erno86
 


How long did it take you to figure that out ?

I like your theory


edit on 26-1-2012 by judus because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by Mianeye
reply to post by chaztekno
 

A lot of the pictures are fake, so it's not to discuse if they are fake or not, but thanks for the notice


Why isn't it to discuss if they are fake? The battle of LA photo shows no object (manipulate it all you want in photoshop, but the original doesn't and absolutley no contemporary reports speak of one), some of those you post are clearly streetlamps and others frankly are obviously there for fun.

Why no more saucers though? Hmmmm, could it be popular culture? I'm guessing that's the case. Flying saucers are so passe as people move more into new age thinking (at least those that believe) so we know have glowing orbs.

What i meant was, individualy pictures, sorry if i didn't make that clear.
Everything else you say is the point of this thread, and i agree with you.

If you travel through the univers to visit earth, you propably not showing up in something that looks like a streetlamp.

The look of UFO's change as times go by, and that dosn't make sense, if they are really existing.
They should more or less look the same within a short time span, over thousend years they might change, but within a hundred years, i dont think so.

So the question is, did the flying saucer exist, or was it just imagination, and hoaxes.
That question could ruin a lot of the older UFO reports, because they most of the time describe UFO's as some of the pictures, which is hard to believe, as they look like streetlamps or whatever they decided to throw in to the air and take a picture of.
How does a real UFO look like, is it a disc shape, flashing light or both?

The flying saucer is dead, and glowing orb's are in, that's the strange thing.

edit on 26-1-2012 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mianeye
So the question is, did the flying saucer exist, or was it just imagination, and hoaxes.

The question isn't as simple or obvious as it may seem, because it depends on what you mean by "exist." Because as it turns out, nothing really exists unless there is somebody there to experience it and comprehend it. If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, it doesn't make a noise. It doesn't really even exist. It's a hypothetical, or virtual tree. UFOs and a lot of other odd anomalous phenomena can be seen as kind of "half existing." They only exist in our particular variety of reality if somebody is there to see them and give them shape. They exist enough to interact with us, and we can take their photos and get abducted by the "aliens" inside, but after that's done they just tend to vanish into non-existence. That's why as many reports as there have been over the past 70 years or so, there's no hardware to be studied. They don't linger. It's hard to understand because we generally like to think our reality is a solid, kick the tires kind of thing. But it turns out like so many other things to be a little more complicated than that.

How does a real UFO look like, is it a disc shape, flashing light or both?

Discs, orbs, triangles, whatever you perceive them as. The observer is the critical component in how they appear.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by judus
reply to post by Erno86
 


How long did it take you to figure that out ?

I like your theory


edit on 26-1-2012 by judus because: (no reason given)



Thanks judus,

My cloaking theory? ----Approx.15 minutes.... after I had read the OP's thread.

Photon engined flying saucer's? ---- Approx. 20 years ---- Due to my UFO sighting one night back in 1976, approx 40 miles west of Washington D.C.


Cheers,

Erno86



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Mianeye
 



I believe that Hollywood based their flying saucer movies like: The Day the Earth Stood Still and Earth Versus the Flying Saucer's on true flying saucer report's.

Has some of Earth's civilizations advanced to a technological status, where some country could have the ability to shoot down a flying saucer?

This could be the reason why we are not seeing so many flying saucer's lately. Only the alien's know.... by Gaod.


Cheers,

Erno86


edit on 26-1-2012 by Erno86 because: typo



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Left my specs elsewhere so cant read all the post at the moment so if this has been said already then ignore me.

In the early days very few people had camera's and even fewer with a camera capable of night vision, that might explain why we see so many LIGHT UFO's these days. Even my phone can take night shots.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
sorry but them old pics look like the crafts were built by us,the 1s at the time they didn,t want u 2 know about,seriously the pic from 1964 looks like a tank but constructed into a flying machine.........i,m the first to believe that we r deffo not alone in the universe but seriously u can,t tell me they traveled vast distances in what we,r looking at in them pics.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Mianeye
 


What about foo fighters? They were way before flying saucers.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Making the assumption that the pictures show intelligently controlled physical machines not of an earthly origin then it would be also reasonable to assume that the time taken to arrive here may be significant - tens if not hundreds of years.

Making another assumption in that whatever controls these machines has a similar logic to humans then take the moon as an example. We have had the technology to visit for decades but have not done so lately. Too much effort for too little gain.

If we suspected Uranus had sentient lifeforms inhabiting it and we had the means to visit then maybe we would keep it somewhat secret from the indigenous population simply on a personal safety basis. Also given the effort I doubt we would visit often. Even less often if it was a system a million times further away.

Now, having accepted that the machines are intelligently controlled by a sentient being, we also accept that mankind is not alone. Once a second sentient race is accepted then the odds dictate that many more should also.

My point being that therefore could we not be being visited by several different sentient races, at different times but in blocks, hence the slightly vague correlation between "UFO types" and different eras.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Mianeye
 


In my opinion....the classic flying saucer interstellar starcraft, is the most aerodynamic and hydrodynamic craft in the Universe. Just look at people playing with frisbee's, and the ease of frisbee flight dynamics. Edge on.... even our spiral galaxy's have a disc shape.

I believe, that it would it be wasted energy to have a continuous lighted orb starcraft during long interstellar voyages.
The starship would have to have to have an inner magnetic shield also, to protect it from the fusion plasma.

The saucer shape should be the most perfect shape for maneuvering in meteoroid and asteroid fields.

If a plane's tail or wing is shot off, it loses it's ability for flight, however...a flying saucer does not have a tail or wing's either; making it the most defensible Foofighter in the Universe.


Cheers,

Erno86
edit on 27-1-2012 by Erno86 because: spelling

edit on 27-1-2012 by Erno86 because: ditto



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Mianeye
 


one issue I have is, look at the evolution of cars, aircraft, television, cellphones, they start out looking like pieces of junk, but now they look amazing, like first computers would take up a room, for 15mb, now we got an 11 inch computer that can run 10 games at once.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Still, the question remains; Why do we have so few good pictures these days of UFOs close-up?

There are even less with multiple witnesses (with cameras) taking close-up shots of UFOs. (pictures that can be verified with EXIF data from multiple cameras)

There are millions (perhaps billions) of multi-megapixel cameras out there. Many are embedded in mobile phones. Yet, clear, close-up shots of UFOs seem to be at an all-time low.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


Pardon Me But May I Add To Your Comment?

Time As We Know It Means Nothing To Them.

They Perhaps May Have Advanced In Our One Year To Many Years.

Therefore Substantial Technocology Increases In A Very Short Time.

Just A Thought



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Mianeye
 



I was going through some old UFO report's and noticed something strange.

Back in the days, when people started to report UFO's, they started to call them flying saucer's.

The term "flying saucer" came from this.

The Kenneth Arnold UFO sighting was an incident on June 24, 1947, where private pilot Kenneth Arnold spotted a string of nine, shiny unidentified flying objects flying past Mount Rainier at then unheard of supersonic speeds that Arnold clocked at a minimum of 1,200 miles an hour. This was the first post-War sighting in the United States that garnered nationwide news coverage and is credited with being the first of the modern era of UFO sightings, including numerous reported sightings over the next two to three weeks. Arnold's description of the objects also led to the press quickly coining the terms flying saucer and flying disc as popular descriptive terms for UFOs.


Kenneth Arnold did not describe "flying saucers" and what he drew did not resemble "flying saucers". Even his report is questionable for no human could have the type of vision that Arnold seemed to exhibit. Even the reporters' comment was wrong for no one skipped a saucer over water, you simply picked up the flatest stones you could find and threw them. No one walked around with saucers to skip them over water! And as you know, not all aerial objects looked like "flying saucers".

And since they were a mystery they graduated to Unknown or Unidentified Flying Objects, or UFOs.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Most likely our visitors are well aware of our current consumer technology,
and our ability now to capture them easily on video.
It is abundantly clear that,
whoever our visitors are,
they WANT to stay hidden from us.
Hence little or none daytime sightings in recent times.
In spite of this, I still carry a small HD video recorder everywhere,
just in case



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join