Please debunk this ---UFO UFO over California Coast 2-9-2004 "Franks Peak", San Marcos, CA"

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 06:44 AM
link   


Google maps "Franks Peak" San Marcos, CA

no building?
no hills?

post your research.

 
Posting videos and video links - ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ

AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of a video, please post the video or a link to the video, a description of the video's content, and one or two paragraphs offering your own opinion on the video. This will help inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.

Mod Note: All Caps – Please Review This Link.
edit on 1/2/2013 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   
franks Peak would mean there is not hills but mountains. looks kike a building to me. Doesn't move and a LONG ways from the camera



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 06:52 AM
link   


South of the spreading suburbs of San Marcos, a scruffy ridgeline scrapes the southern sky. Topographic maps note the obscure names of its various high points: Cerro de las Posas, Double Peak, Franks Peak, and Mount Whitney (not that Whitney, but still the highest of the group). Double Peak lies within a future 200-acre City of San Marcos regional/interpretive park atop the ridge. Already there's public access to Double Peak by way of old fire roads and newly cut trails. Travel is permitted by foot, horse, and mountain bike.


www.sandiegoreader.com...

 
Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.
edit on 1/2/2013 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Looks like EMS and cop cars on a mountain side
to me...
5 or so fire/police/ambulance vehicles on a road at
the scene of a accident or something.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by severdsoul
 







posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:05 AM
link   
1. The elevation is high which would require the lights to be at least the same elevation level.

2. There does not seem to be any other hills or mountains near bye that have higher elevation.

Looking for buildings right now.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   
This is what is ontop of double peak which is near franks peak (where the video was shot from) - so is probably just lights from this building.



edit on 1-2-2013 by homeslice because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   
It looks like a UFO! Correct me if I'm wrong.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by severdsoul
 


Do you mean those floating police cars and flying ambulances that you are talking about?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by homeslice
 


hahahahahhahahaha that was funny

Are you sure you picked the right peak?

no

you picked the wrong peak "double peak" is not "franks peak"

you made another boo boo

edit on 1-2-2013 by CigaretteMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Im going with cars parked ontop of double peak, it looks directly out over San Marco....maybe a hoax, A few guys park their car up there with lights on and someone films it..... and boom, looks like a UFO, and would explain why there is no movement.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by felixjames20
 


Prove it or you fail.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by CigaretteMan
 


Well the guy states he was filming from franks peak - franks peak is very close to double peak if you look at the map.

"The vantage point is from "Franks Peak", San Marcos, CA"

"A" on this map is franks peak.



And also - sure double peak is not as high - but we have no idea if the guy was filming from the top of the hill - he could have been half way up for all we know.
edit on 1-2-2013 by homeslice because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by homeslice
 


Franks Peak is not Double Peak

Double Peak is not Franks Peak

do you understand now?

How can it just be the lights from the house you posted if its not the right peak?
edit on 1-2-2013 by CigaretteMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   
It looks like lights on a hill , it acts like lights on a hill and given the local topography the logical conclusion is lights on a hill .



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by homeslice
 


Maybe you are just having a bad day. Sometimes that happens.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by CigaretteMan
 


Well I can prove the car park simply from google maps street view / you tube...but for the people going up their intentionally then thats going be ticky

Take a look

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by CigaretteMan
 


What? You are the one that doesn't understand. I am saying that ontop of double peak is that building I posted above. Double peak is very close to franks peak. The guy who filmed this states he was filming from franks peak - which means he could quite possibly have been looking in the direction of double peak... which has a building on top of it... which presumably has lights installed in it.


Is 3 times enough? or do u want me to explain it again?

Anyway - thats my theory.
edit on 1-2-2013 by homeslice because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   
I am about to post some information that can prove this is not a building or another hilltop.

1. The lights from the city area is an isolated location. All other views from Franks Peak are of non lighted areas non populated areas.

The city lights tell us the direction the camera is pointing.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by felixjames20
 


That is not close to proof.

Please provide proof or something plausible.

You have yet to show anything plausible.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join