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.

 

Anyone who thinks UFOs don't exist read this!!!

page: 9
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by Beavers
 


So Beavers you don't believe the UFO incidents in the Cometa report and the 1952 Washington UFO incident constitute excellent credible evidence of extra terrestrial craft visiting this planet?


No Jim, I do not 'believe'.

I want to... it's a great story. But believe is a strong word.

I wasn't there and I don't know these people and there are many more PROVABLE options that have still yet to be discounted. E.G: hypnosis, hallucinogenics, military test tech, or just good ol' fashioned lying through their teeth for money or attention.

It's all second hand information and no evidence




posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Such an object with maneuvers and such. Yes. I have no trouble understanding this concept perfectly. Perhaps it's my background in military aviation.
edit on 22-8-2012 by JimTSpock because: spelling



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
In addition, our very good friend, esteemed poster and friend of mine, DocLottalove, posted additional and much stronger corroborating information regarding what really happened to the reports from the Colares Flap.

I suggest you review this page on the previous ATS thread to get essential background information.

Read page 3 Doclottalove's post

Here is the video again, for reference



edit on 22-8-2012 by Jaellma because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by JimTSpock
 

Oh, you mean a hypothetical object performing "impossible" maneuvers.
I don't know what I would think. If I see something like that I'll be sure to let you know. But I don't think I would assume it was an alien spacecraft. I would be more likely to think that my eyes were deceiving me. Because they do that sometimes.
edit on 8/22/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Exactly maneuvers that are impossible with our current aerospace technology.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by Phage
 


Exactly maneuvers that are impossible with our current aerospace technology.


You mean something which appeared to perform such maneuvers. Appearances can be deceiving.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 8/22/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I guess some people just won't buy into things at all no matter what. Maybe if they saw it with their own eyes they still couldn't believe it.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by JimTSpock
 


Maybe if they saw it with their own eyes they still couldn't believe it.

Some people don't believe that their eyes can fool them. See the video above.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by JimTSpock
 
That much is true.

I remember reading a report where a UFO flew up from sea level to the same level of a small passenger aircraft (20k + feet) in a matter of a couple of seconds and maintained that level in front of the aircraft while zooming around it. The passengers freaked out, the co-pilot went back to calm them and although there was a priest on board, he reportedly was on his knees praying and muttering "his religion does not permit him to believe in what he just saw."

Point being that it doesn't matter if credible and capable witnesses report of incidents such as the 1976 Iranian UFO or the Peruvian UFO with pilot Oscar Huertas, there will ALWAYS be folks to say they will never believe it.

Even if a UFO came down from above, split into 10 pieces, changed shapes, then regrouped, did 90 degree turns at 10,000 mph, some witnesses will say atmospheric conditions or government technology.

You will never win those arguments.




posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Jaellma
 


Great post. It's not even an argument really. Just some guy saying but that's not possible in my world.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by smurfy
 


It was also certainly a document for the French government, since it was sent to them.

That's like saying if I write an article for a magazine and send it to the White House its "for the government".
Please read the linked article in this post. Sending it to Chirac was a publicity stunt.



edit on 8/21/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


No, it's not a bit like that. If at least one head of a major interior ministry is part of such a report, it is going to be taken seriously, unlike some wallyburger coming off the street. The report was for the French government, and other groups. The report was not solicited by the French government.

The committee list is quite impressive, and they are a serious, not for profit grouping. As for publicity stunts, everyone is good at that including NASA and associates, even with NASA's great achievements. And it should be reminded that the technology that is available now is everything that the Robertson report did not have, when they DID assume that UFO's were bunk.

General Bruno Lemoine, of the Air Force (FA of IHEDN)
Admiral Marc Merlo, (FA of IHEDN)
Michel Algrin, Doctor in Political Sciences, attorney at law (FA of IHEDN)
General Pierre Bescond, engineer for armaments (FA of IHEDN)
Denis Blancher, Chief National Police superintendent at the Ministry of the Interior
Christian Marchal, chief engineer of the national Corps des Mines and Research Director at the National Office of Aeronautical Research (ONERA)
General Alain Orszag, Ph.D. in physics, armaments engineer

The committee also expresses its gratitude to outside contributors including Jean-Jacques Vélasco, head of SEPRA at CNES, François Louange, President of Fleximage, specialist in photo analysis, and General Joseph Domange, of the Air Force, general delegate of the Association of Auditors at IHEDN.

And there were more in contributions in these areas,

Radar detection in France
Observations by astronomers, one I think is Jean-Claude Ribes, a radio astronomer.

So your usual personal attack, (in this case remarkably en masse) is hard to swallow don't you think.
You should support something like this, rather than first hand trying to rubbish it. BTW, kinda risky that the VSD [magazine] made that special edition on the report, they must have took it seriously enough.




edit on 22-8-2012 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
The paradox is this:

UFOs even if aircraft, does not necessarily mean alien. There is no evidence in public to prove that aliens are visiting the Earth. There is no reason to think there may be not be some clearer information about them in secret.

Most who ask "Where is the evidence?" has it ever come through your mind that besides what you see on the internet, there are documents that are not on your beloved sites and blogs? And not on the net at all?

Based on the noise around the topic and I can add, real cases of chasing and murdering people who have had something to do with the topic, least of all you cannot absolutely exclude the lack of evidence, just because you have no access to it. Is there such information hidden at all? No one from the randoms on ATS can tell but you shouldn't exclude - one can only speculate their existence,

But tell me, why should you exclude the possibility of such documents... considering we see even minor documents like the one released by CIA in 2010 and now the UK in 2012... about UFOs when such exist?

Why were they classified at all? It's not like they change or reveal anything, Hmm?
edit on 22-8-2012 by Imtor because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
It's a video of a guy who can't make his mind up which way to look when recalling information with sub-titles on it.

What makes you believe him? Do you believe everything you see on you tube, or is it cause he's pretending to be a Colonel?

Pretend he IS a Colonel (maybe he is?). How do you know what he said to the UFO mag wasn't your big bold fact, and he's just decided to lie in front of the cameras for money or attention? How do you know he wasn't hypnotised by one of his companions? How do you know he wasn't drugged, then goaded into think he'd seen it? How do you know the whole area wasn't caked in '___' from a secret gov military test? How do you know it wasn't our government's tech? All of the things I've mentioned are potential science-fact, how can you discount them and all and tell me I'm wrong for wisely saying 'it might not be true'?
edit on 22-8-2012 by Beavers because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimTSpock
I guess some people just won't buy into things at all no matter what. Maybe if they saw it with their own eyes they still couldn't believe it.


Come on now, that's not fair. I want to believe. It's nearly become a mantra.

I've just seen lights and been given second hand info.

Hungry for facts if you have any



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Beavers
 

How do you know when you wake up you are actually awake?

How do you know you have 10 fingers instead of 20. Maybe they lied to you.

How do you know everything you have read before posting on this subject was real? Maybe they were all lies.

At some point, my friend, you have to look at what is being said and make a rational decision as to what is fact or fake. Take your pick. 50% of the time, all of us are probably wrong, anyway.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


So your usual personal attack, (in this case remarkably en masse) is hard to swallow don't you think.

Personal attack? Where? Where have I disparaged any of the COMETA members?

Did you read what Jacques Vallee said about it? The report was hyped as a government report. It wasn't.

VSD magazine. Great. They also took the "alien autopsy" video seriously. Maybe COMETA could have made a better choice.

edit on 8/22/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Beavers
 


Well unless your going to conduct your own extensive investigation second or third hand info is all you're going to get just like everything else you think is true. Have you ever been to Mongolia? How do you know it really exists then?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by JimTSpock
 

Oh, you mean a hypothetical object performing "impossible" maneuvers.
I don't know what I would think. If I see something like that I'll be sure to let you know. But I don't think I would assume it was an alien spacecraft. I would be more likely to think that my eyes were deceiving me. Because they do that sometimes.
edit on 8/22/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


The fact of the matter that no one can ignore is that there are numerous well-documented incidents of craft performing seemingly impossible maneuvers, by multiple witnesses (both air and ground), and simultaneously caught on radar. The chance of every single person in these events having had their 'eyes play tricks on them,' in addition to the radar's own 'eyes' playing tricks on it, is nothing short of absurd. Governments and militaries around the world take these sightings very seriously, and by all accounts are at a loss to explain them. And when I say "are at a loss to explain them," I mean that, although they know they are under intelligent control, they don't know who or what is controlling them, or how they are doing what they are doing. In the end, the only people that seem not to take the issue seriously or that haven't yet ruled out misidentification in the good cases are the under- and uninformed.
edit on 22-8-2012 by Brighter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Brighter
 


The fact of the matter that no one can ignore is that there are numerous well-documented incidents of craft performing seemingly impossible maneuvers, by multiple witnesses (both air and ground), and simultaneously caught on radar.

There are some verified instances of visual sightings seeming to be directly related to radar sightings. Cases of both visual and radar displaying "impossible" maneuvers are harder to come by. There are also many more cases of visual sightings with no radar sightings and vice versa.
edit on 8/22/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by Beavers
 


Well unless your going to conduct your own extensive investigation second or third hand info is all you're going to get just like everything else you think is true. Have you ever been to Mongolia? How do you know it really exists then?


Been lurking in the background, but Mr Spock, your approach to this seems to have changed a lot during the thread. First of all you say the COMETA report is irrefutable proof. Then a little later you say your own career means you have no doubt, then you say you had an experience (which you didn't mention before). Then you throw in the ancient strawman of " how do you know ( insert country) exists if you haven't been there" - what is your real view?

....and how come you haven't done what most people do which is bring in the battle of LA at this point which is probably the lamest claim of ET visitation ever? (and.... stands back and awaits the flames)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join