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.

 

You want proof of flying saucers? This is it!

page: 15
236
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk

No i think he/they were saying that the light beam got bent. I see your point about the magnetism pulling the car about. That my explain the fatal crash two days earlier. Ron sullivan managed to stop his car so may have avoided something that the other car didn't.


Light is not affected by magnetism because photons don't have a charge. So I guess it would have to be gravity but then all sorts of things like trees etc would have been ripped out. The light bending story is fantasy in my opinion.




posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by VoidHawk

No i think he/they were saying that the light beam got bent. I see your point about the magnetism pulling the car about. That my explain the fatal crash two days earlier. Ron sullivan managed to stop his car so may have avoided something that the other car didn't.


Light is not affected by magnetism because photons don't have a charge. So I guess it would have to be gravity but then all sorts of things like trees etc would have been ripped out. The light bending story is fantasy in my opinion.


I think your right about that.
Another posibility. A fatal accident did happen there when a driver hit a tree. Maybe what Ron Sullivan actualy saw was his lights being pointed to the side because his whole car was being pulled by a magnetic/whatever field. I know we can all be decieved by people but Ron did seem quite genuine and had nothing to gain from making this up.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


So basically your proof...is their word against everyone else's? Nice.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


So basically your proof...is their word against everyone else's? Nice.


Who's everyone else?
edit on 11-7-2012 by VoidHawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


People that say they don't exist. They say they do other people say they don't...I'm suppose to take who's word? Really?

I believe in flying saucers, but I don't believe that aliens are behind the wheel.
edit on 11-7-2012 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

No i think he/they were saying that the light beam got bent. I see your point about the magnetism pulling the car about. That my explain the fatal crash two days earlier. Ron sullivan managed to stop his car so may have avoided something that the other car didn't.



Light is not affected by magnetism because photons don't have a charge. So I guess it would have to be gravity but then all sorts of things like trees etc would have been ripped out. The light bending story is fantasy in my opinion.


I agree that it wasn't magnetism. It had to have been a similar effect that is happening at Gold Hill Oregon, which screws with your vision. The other guy who crashed probably got a distorted eye full and went off the road.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


People that say they don't exist. They say they do other people say they don't...I'm suppose to take who's word? Really?

I believe in flying saucers, but I don't believe that aliens are behind the wheel.
edit on 11-7-2012 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)


While I dont discount that they could have been alien, I have said throughout this thread and in the OP that I think they were most likely man made. I was not suggesting it was proof of aliens, I was saying its proof of flying saucers. Too many witnesses, government iterference, newspaper reports etc etc. It happened! but like I said in the OP, its a question of who owned them. Theres been some good theories in this thread, I believe a few people have nailed it.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Light is not affected by magnetism because photons don't have a charge. So I guess it would have to be gravity but then all sorts of things like trees etc would have been ripped out. The light bending story is fantasy in my opinion.


I'm right with you on this one. Anything I can't figure out is fantasy.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Awesome thread.

I'd love to see the bastards try and silence me with their "We will kill your mother and all your loved ones if you dare go public" scare tactics. They would have to kill me first, and they would be doing me a favour really. I cant wait to be free and out of their evil, manipulating, controlling, scaremongering clutches!

UFO's exist. Et's exist. The world governments are scum. I don't need no proof. I have seen and experienced enough to be 100% sure of this.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
It's difficult to compare eyewitness testimony in a court of law and witnesses seeing a UFO. The results for said testimony are quite different. But for arguments sake, let's compare the two. In a court of law for some countries, you must have more than eyewitness testimony to reach a conviction, although evidence along with eyewitness testimony, this becomes easier. In others, a single witness can convict someone. Before due process and laws so complex that a burglar can sue a home owner for more than he was stealing, common sense ruled, and eyewitness testimony counted for more. Keep that in mind.

But in the courts, previous convictions or accusations can count against someone. It is easier to convict someone who has previous counts or suspicions of theft, rape, murder, etc., with the same amount of eyewitness testimony.

So.. does the preponderance of previous sightings, photos and video have the same weight of a person who has previous convictions? I sort of think so, yes. A mountain of evidence, as Stanton Friedman calls it. How many mountains of evidence are needed before it is proof? Apparently, we need the Swiss Alps when it comes to UFOs.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
It's difficult to compare eyewitness testimony in a court of law and witnesses seeing a UFO. The results for said testimony are quite different. But for arguments sake, let's compare the two. In a court of law for some countries, you must have more than eyewitness testimony to reach a conviction, although evidence along with eyewitness testimony, this becomes easier. In others, a single witness can convict someone. Before due process and laws so complex that a burglar can sue a home owner for more than he was stealing, common sense ruled, and eyewitness testimony counted for more. Keep that in mind.

But in the courts, previous convictions or accusations can count against someone. It is easier to convict someone who has previous counts or suspicions of theft, rape, murder, etc., with the same amount of eyewitness testimony.

So.. does the preponderance of previous sightings, photos and video have the same weight of a person who has previous convictions? I sort of think so, yes. A mountain of evidence, as Stanton Friedman calls it. How many mountains of evidence are needed before it is proof? Apparently, we need the Swiss Alps when it comes to UFOs.


Simmilar to what I've been saying all the way through this thread. How many people have to say they witnessed a particular event before a non believer will believe, so far EVERYONE has refused to answer the question.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker

Originally posted by cripmeister

Light is not affected by magnetism because photons don't have a charge. So I guess it would have to be gravity but then all sorts of things like trees etc would have been ripped out. The light bending story is fantasy in my opinion.


I'm right with you on this one. Anything I can't figure out is fantasy.


Did you steal that one from Stanton Friedman?



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
They made the number one mistake?
Don't give your footage out to anyone unless you have a backup of it.
Limbo



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Limbo
They made the number one mistake?
Don't give your footage out to anyone unless you have a backup of it.
Limbo





posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Evanzsayz
 


Just so you know, he never said that it was necessary aliens. Could be, who knows. But he plainly said in his OP that one of the scenarios is man made. It was about the saucers themselves. The pilots of said craft were never the issue of this thread. Just a reminder, that's all.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I've always found it peculiar that the cases with the most believable evidence are the ones that we never hear about. I mean, with that many witnesses what is there really left to refute?



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Proof? Like an 'asteroid' coming from an alleged alien implant?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No. I don't even want truth. I would want truth but since I know you aren't going to give it to me, I won't worry about it.

I know what is truth and not, 'want' isn't involved at all.

www.topfoto.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by VoidHawk

No i think he/they were saying that the light beam got bent. I see your point about the magnetism pulling the car about. That my explain the fatal crash two days earlier. Ron sullivan managed to stop his car so may have avoided something that the other car didn't.


Light is not affected by magnetism because photons don't have a charge. So I guess it would have to be gravity but then all sorts of things like trees etc would have been ripped out. The light bending story is fantasy in my opinion.


I wonder what, if anything, (that we are aware of) actually could attract or manipulate photons?



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


PATHETIC !




June 26 and June 27, newspapers first began using the terms "flying saucer" and "flying Herbert Strentz, who reviewed U.S. newspaper accounts of the Arnold UFO sighting, and concluded that the term was probably due to an editor or headline writer: the body of the early Arnold news stories did not use the term "flying saucer" or "flying disc."[15] However, earlier stories did in fact credit Arnold with using terms such as "saucer", "disk", and "pie-pan" in describing the shape.





Years later, Arnold claimed he told Bill Bequette that "they flew erratic, like a saucer if you skip it across the water." Arnold felt that he had been misquoted since the description referred to the objects' motion rather than their shape.[4] Thus Bequette has often been credited with first using "flying saucer" and supposedly misquoting Arnold, but the term does not appear in Bequette's early articles. Instead, his first article of June 25 says only, "He said he sighted nine saucer-like aircraft flying in formation..."


To be very honest with the sheeple of this world...I wonder what the populace would be looking for if 'BILL Bequtte' had never misquoted what Arnold really saw.

It is sad that he had to do that...its sad how he him self ,destroyed every disclosure situation in life with just those few words.


Years later, Arnold claimed he told Bill Bequette that "they flew erratic, like a saucer if you skip it across the water." Arnold felt that he had been misquoted since the description referred to the objects' motion rather than their shape.



The world will never get real disclosure looking for something that was misquoted.



www.altereddimensions.net..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>
en.wikipedia.org...


The first highly publicized sighting by Kenneth Arnold on June 24, 1947, resulted in the creation of the term by U.S. newspapers. Although Arnold never specifically used the term "flying saucer", he was quoted at the time saying the shape of the objects he saw was like a "saucer", "disc", or "pie-plate", and several years later added he had also said "the objects moved like saucers skipping across the water." (The Arnold article has a selection of newspaper quotes.)





Years later, Arnold claimed he told Bill Bequette that "they flew erratic, like a saucer if you skip it across the water." Arnold felt that he had been misquoted since the description referred to the objects' motion rather than their shape.[4] Thus Bequette has often been credited with first using "flying saucer" and supposedly misquoting Arnold,

I use to laugh at sites and people who actually believe in flying saucers, but now, its just to painful to read or watch any more...down right pathetic and really embarrassing.
edit on 11-7-2012 by LastProphet527 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-7-2012 by LastProphet527 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-7-2012 by LastProphet527 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-7-2012 by LastProphet527 because: Because of embaressment to keep talking about somthing that never exsisted



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Hey, Void! Great thread! Now that I am hooked in after reading all 15 pages I think Ill venture off to the related threads to fish for more info. I'll start with Chads


I wasn't going to post a reply initially. But after realizing how many people here mis-interpret something so simple as the title claiming proof of SAUCERS.... NOT ALIENS... I couldn't help but laugh and laugh the more I read!


Compelling case indeed. One that definitely deserves a bump and more looking into


Thanks!



new topics

top topics



 
236
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join