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 DerbyCityLights
reply to post by TheFlash
I do but Im not sure you do so I am providing the definition here:
noun
1.
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2.
a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3.
the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4.
reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5.
convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.
You continue to ignore an excellent investigation that has proven facts based on LOGIC.
Originally posted by TheFlash
Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
Ok, let me try this one more time for you...
Originally posted by TheFlash
No, my previous analogy was just not completely valid.
Which means you used failed logic.
Here is another one. Let's say that a UFO behaves like a Chinese lantern or balloon. The 1991 Mexico eclipse UFO is a good example.
So since you cant fundamentally argue against my proof you have to move on to another video? Interesting...
If you study the case you will find that it is very unlikely the the object video taped by many people was not a balloon or lantern,
So if it is unlikeley the object is not a balloon then it would be a balloon...
yet I'm sure that someone could make and float a balloon that looked similar when viewed for a few seconds.
The characteristics of a high altitude balloon are hard to recreate with any kind of metallic objects of enormous size.
That does not mean that the object filmed was not a metalic, solid object.
No, it means that only the ones associated with the object can every truly know what it was.
A 'real world' example. Logic passes.
No, your logic is still quite lacking. I mean no offence, but you are just not using any common sense here. Man, I believe we are not alone. I believe there is life out there, but you can not say that the video associated with this thread is proof. It has been proven to be a failed missile test at white sands. If you continue to ignore the facts given as opposed to the opinions without any facts, then again your logic is destined to fail you.
Do you know what logic is??
Where is the proof that the "video associated with this thread" has been "proven to be a failed missile test at white sands"? Are you saying that the TV show you clips you posted are that proof? Where is the proof that the video was even taken at White Sands?
the real mystery is why it took ATS regulars 10 pages to figure it out
Originally posted by TheFlash
Originally posted by TheFlash
Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
Ok, let me try this one more time for you...
Originally posted by TheFlash
No, my previous analogy was just not completely valid.
Which means you used failed logic.
Here is another one. Let's say that a UFO behaves like a Chinese lantern or balloon. The 1991 Mexico eclipse UFO is a good example.
So since you cant fundamentally argue against my proof you have to move on to another video? Interesting...
If you study the case you will find that it is very unlikely the the object video taped by many people was not a balloon or lantern,
So if it is unlikeley the object is not a balloon then it would be a balloon...
yet I'm sure that someone could make and float a balloon that looked similar when viewed for a few seconds.
The characteristics of a high altitude balloon are hard to recreate with any kind of metallic objects of enormous size.
That does not mean that the object filmed was not a metalic, solid object.
No, it means that only the ones associated with the object can every truly know what it was.
A 'real world' example. Logic passes.
No, your logic is still quite lacking. I mean no offence, but you are just not using any common sense here. Man, I believe we are not alone. I believe there is life out there, but you can not say that the video associated with this thread is proof. It has been proven to be a failed missile test at white sands. If you continue to ignore the facts given as opposed to the opinions without any facts, then again your logic is destined to fail you.
Do you know what logic is??
Where is the proof that the "video associated with this thread" has been "proven to be a failed missile test at white sands"? Are you saying that the TV show you clips you posted are that proof? Where is the proof that the video was even taken at White Sands?
I asked "Where is the proof that the "video associated with this thread" has been "proven to be a failed missile test at white sands"?" as shown above. You failed to answer the question. You said I lied about it. You were wrong about that also.
I asked " Where is the proof that the video was even taken at White Sands?" You failed to answer the question also.
Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
reply to post by charlyv
Watch the videos I posted. They clearly prove that rockets can in fact take that kind of an impact and become airborne again.
originally posted by: 1355AM
First off this is definitely NOT a missile. Missiles are like arrows, they have no strength against a sideways force. No missile that big could hit the ground and bounce undamaged and it was pretty big, not an air to air. Only a couple small air to air missile could even possibly hit the ground like that without damage.
originally posted by: Orkojoker
I've always thought this was an interesting video. Can someone please explain the apparent luminosity of the object, or is that something that doesn't fit into the missile/rocket theory? Is it typical for missiles to give off light like that when they're flying close to the ground?
The earliest penetrating munitions were developed in rudimentary
form during World War II. Allied forces used powerful “bouncing bombs”
that skipped across the surface of waterways and over torpedo netting
to penetrate the concrete structures of dams in Germany’s Ruhr region
in 1943. By collapsing the dams, the Allies hoped to flood important
industrial and agricultural areas, hampering Germany’s war effort.
Although the bombs did breach some dams, the predicted
widespread damage did not occur.