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.
Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by jclmavg
because that video sealed the deal for me. i see more analysis on that video by "hoaxkiller" than the alleged people mentioned in the article did - which is almost zero from what has been released and who still have not released any updates on this amazing sighting!
Originally posted by RSF77
If there was people coming on here saying it was an alien spacecraft I would say the same thing to them.
Originally posted by pla123
CEFAA has nothing to do with the "inside government" (the true government which takes care of these type of things) ,therefore their opinion only matter to themselves , yes you can have your own opinion always but that neither make your opinion a fact nor it invalidates the possibility that Aliens have being visiting us constantly for a long time and that there are currently military underground bases & Alien underground bases & also Intraterrestrials living underground the true owners of this planet which the true name is SHAN , so when the Aliens speaks about the SHAN civilization they are refering to the Intraterrestrials not humans they consider us humans to be barbarian apes living on the surface, nothinhg more nothing lesss and believe me or not someone that works for the US airforce told me this personaly because he is my friend.
About books , well , I never purchased not one single book about this and if anyone is making this up to sell books , it is not working very well they should change their strattegy....
Geez, ask and you shall receive I guess. Ten fold.
Not hard to see the blatant disruption being caused here.edit on 19-3-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by jclmavg
One can presume you did not bother to read any of it.
Originally posted by jclmavg
According to Hoaxkiller (lol, what is in a name, eh?):
Originally posted by jclmavg
Thus, to Hoaxkiller only slow speeds "make sense" because he is considering only insects as a viable explanation. Not a fast moving flying machine which he dismisses merely by waving hands.
Originally posted by jclmavg
The fact that the object passes in front of the hills does not exclude extraordinary speeds.
Originally posted by jclmavg
Hoaxkiller seems to ignore the fact that the object was picked up on multiple cameras.
Originally posted by jclmavg
He has merely assumed his conclusion: bugs.
Originally posted by DrDil
Nice video UFOGlobe, do you know who this YouTube user is?
Originally posted by DrDil
I’ll be honest when I read one of your earlier comments about *elevenaugust* and myself having been around the block as it were, coupled with your ‘special’ style of posting l was fairly certain I recognised your writing style…..
Testing, one, one, one, one…..?
Originally posted by UFOGlobe
However, the fact that it passes in front of the hill does throw many things into question. Before everyone assumed one of the objects came from over the hill in the background, but now in light of new evidence found, it turns out that object came from somewhere in the foreground. This actually supports the bug theory that the objects are small and close, and not big and far.
Before, everyone assumed the objects were big and far and fast, because they were in the sky. However, now with the evidence of the objects passing in front of the hills it means the objects are more likely small and close to the camera.
Originally posted by jclmavg
What part of it is compelling? On Youtube he writes "The fact that they appear in front of the hills means the objects are fairly close". Is this the compelling part? Let's assume his estimation of the distance to the hills is accurate, that would be 12.500 feet. Is this "fairly close"? Is this the compelling part?
Originally posted by jclmavg
Hoaxkiller (sheesh)
Originally posted by jclmavg
himself comments that at this distance "755 feet per 100 milliseconds" translates into a speed for the object of "5147 Miles Per Hour". Is this compelling?
Originally posted by jclmavg
Hoaxkiller then begs the question by saying the only speed which makes "sense" (within a framework of prosaic causes, obviously) would be the lower velocities. Higher velocities do not make "sense" because I suppose Hoaxkiller does not expect to find higher velocities since they can't be true. But wait a minute, that is not evidence, it is an assumption. Is that the compelling part?
Originally posted by lost_shaman
So how do you know that Hoaxkiller1 isn't just pointing out the "birds" that Barrera said where present and in some of the videos?
Originally posted by primetime2123
the bug posters still haven't shown me any proof that this is a bug...there is about as much proof as ET phone home is piloting that UFO as it is a bug
Originally posted by UFOGlobe
Now that they have been found to appear on top of the hills, this supports the idea that they are small, close, and not-so-fast bugs in the foreground.
Originally posted by UFOGlobe
Three, one of the objects which was assumed to have come from beyond the hill tops has now been confirmed to come from somewhere in front of the hill tops. Since the origin of the object is now somewhere below the horizon, this massively supports the idea that these are bugs flying in the foreground and not spaceships flying in the atmosphere.
Originally posted by UFOGlobe
Four, I'm guessing you completely ignored the object that was found below the horizon by itself. In an attempt to find insects that were not flying in the sky but in the foreground, one was actually found, and it looks identical to the other objects, and moves at appears and disappears at the same speeds as other objects. This is devastating to the theory that they are spacecraft...
Originally posted by RSF77
Originally posted by UFOGlobe
Now that they have been found to appear on top of the hills, this supports the idea that they are small, close, and not-so-fast bugs in the foreground.
What difference does it make?
Originally posted by RSF77
Originally posted by UFOGlobe
Three, one of the objects which was assumed to have come from beyond the hill tops has now been confirmed to come from somewhere in front of the hill tops. Since the origin of the object is now somewhere below the horizon, this massively supports the idea that these are bugs flying in the foreground and not spaceships flying in the atmosphere.
And what evidence supports this?
Originally posted by UFOGlobe
If I have to explain that then I don't think you would understand what I said if I did explain it.
Originally posted by RSF77
It better be real evidence because you have done this over and over again through the whole thread, I better had missed something somewhere in all this besides your opinion.
Originally posted by RSF77
Five, the last three of your points are the exact same one.
Originally posted by RSF77
Link?
Originally posted by RSF77
Regardless of whether it is above or below the horizon, it still doesn't prove one thing or another. Look at the size of the jets, they are also closer than the hills on the horizon. You seem more interested in coming to a quick conclusion (bugs) than you do anything else.
FYI jets are much bigger than bugs.
Originally posted by UFOGlobe
I see you edited your post mid way, so I will continue the reply...
Originally posted by RSF77
It better be real evidence because you have done this over and over again through the whole thread, I better had missed something somewhere in all this besides your opinion.
You know what you have done over and over again? Continually attack me and my involvement in this topic. Never once, until now, have I pointed out just how useless you have been in this entire topic doing nothing but denying and nagging over little things.
Learn to read... that is all I can say. Half of the things you accuse me of are caused by your own inability to read and comprehend what people are saying.
Originally posted by RSF77
Five, the last three of your points are the exact same one.
No they were not the exact same. They were both regarding multiple objects. One of those objects being spotted by no one until recently.
Originally posted by RSF77
Link?
www.youtube.com...
Originally posted by RSF77
Regardless of whether it is above or below the horizon, it still doesn't prove one thing or another. Look at the size of the jets, they are also closer than the hills on the horizon. You seem more interested in coming to a quick conclusion (bugs) than you do anything else.
FYI jets are much bigger than bugs.
Wrong... it proves the objects could be smaller than we think. It also supports the idea that they are bugs in the foreground. It actually really hurts the idea that these objects are flying 4000 to 6000 MPH when they are close to the ground. It actually makes the claims look insane.
Originally posted by UFOGlobe
just how useless you have been in this entire topic doing nothing but denying and nagging over little things.
Originally posted by RSF77
Okay, how does that prove the object is right in front of the camera as opposed to a distance off and in front of the hill? The jet's are also bigger than bugs and they are no doubt closer than the hill, if they flew between the observer and the hill would that make them bugs as well?
Originally posted by UFOGlobe
Originally posted by RSF77
Okay, how does that prove the object is right in front of the camera as opposed to a distance off and in front of the hill? The jet's are also bigger than bugs and they are no doubt closer than the hill, if they flew between the observer and the hill would that make them bugs as well?
Now you are just being silly.
These are just analyses. The analyses confirm the objects are closer than previously considered.
Obviously you didn't realize that the "spacecraft believers" had the upper hand because the objects would only appear to be in the sky, so you could make any claim as to their height and distance.
But now "bug believers" got a break because the objects were found to appear in front of the hills. This means the objects could be closer. Now you "spacecraft believers" have a limit in some places as to how far you can claim the objects are.
Man, I can't believe I have to explain this like I would to a child.
I'm done babysitting... see ya.
Originally posted by RSF77
Also, how do you know the hill is 400ft? Or is that just an assumption as well?
Again we cannot calculate the size and distance so cannot know how close the object is to the planes.
Supposedly there are six other videos of this incident but unless these other videos are shown along with the scientific analysis there's nothing much to go on as to how 'scientific' conclusions were reached.