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.

 

The UFOs are gone!

page: 11
13
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by gortex
 
In an interview, Cooper claimed to have held the film reel up and looked at the frames with the craft in them. On that point he was clear. Iirc it was then packed away and sent on.

Hearsay in other words and dependent on how much stock we invest in our claimants.


You are absolutely right on that, he did say that he looked at the film. Sorry about that, forgot that piece.




posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Here's the part I remembered at 1:46 1:25. "It was certainly good film."




edit on 19-2-2013 by Kandinsky because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Here's the part I remembered at 1:46 1:25. "It was certainly good film."




edit on 19-2-2013 by Kandinsky because: (no reason given)


Yes, I wonder which of these situations is more likely:

1) The camera crew saw a balloon that floated by and did not land, which for some reason the crew decided to film in excitement. After being told this mundane story, Cooper's mind somehow exaggerated it into a metallic flying saucer-shaped craft that dropped exactly 3 landing arms and touched down in the dry lake bed, before taking off at a high rate of speed as the crew approached. The film was also readily available, but for some reason Cooper didn't know this and decided instead that it disappeared.

2) The camera crew told Cooper exactly what Cooper is relating, and the film disappeared exactly as he relates. Those who claim the contrary are lying because the subject is highly classified.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by BrandonD
 
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Cooper directly made the claim that he saw the footage and never named the men who filmed it. So I think the either/or conundrum is more like either he was telling the truth or he wasn't.

I've been trying to find a post I made back in ~2009 wherein I tended towards doubting the claim based on changes in the story. It'd be interesting to see if I still agree with the logic. In the same thread, Jim Oberg suggested Cooper was making it up to get his own back on NASA for not taking him on the Apollo moon missions. Who knows what motivates a man we've never met and is no longer here to clarify?

Suspended judgement for me


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 05:18 AM
link   
UFO's are out, meteorites are in



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Hey Kandinsky hows it going .
Yep I remember watching that interview at least a couple of dozen times over the years , Gordon Cooper always struck me as a no nonsense kind of guy not prone to exaggeration or BS and I did give a lot of credit to what he said , to an extent I still do .

Part of me still believes him but over the years little niggles have crept in , why would an ET craft turn up and land in full view then take off again , why would an ET craft with all its fancy systems use physical legs to set down on , why has no one (to my knowledge) backed Coopers story .

Of course there may well be good answers for all of these questions and Coopers story may have happened as he tells it but as you say its just a story of hearsay , its credibility rests on the word of the storyteller and what he meant by "It was certainly good film."




posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 
Yeah mate, I agree with all your points. 'Niggles' is the word.

On top of that, a lot of big stories surfaced in the 70s and 80s of Holoman AFB landings and deals with aliens. This account reminds me of them.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
I've been trying to find a post I made back in ~2009 wherein I tended towards doubting the claim based on changes in the story. It'd be interesting to see if I still agree with the logic. In the same thread, Jim Oberg suggested Cooper was making it up to get his own back on NASA for not taking him on the Apollo moon missions. Who knows what motivates a man we've never met and is no longer here to clarify?

Suspended judgement for me



Understood, there is of course no reason to believe anything he is saying. My initial point with bringing it up was just to counter the argument that other guy was making that all high-profile testimonies are just made up stories circulating on the internet, which of course they are not.

However, if you think about it, if Oberg's theory is correct then that is a pretty poor way to get back at Nasa. There could be many simpler and more effective ways to get back at Nasa, if someone is willing to lie. It really did no damage to them whatsoever, other than preaching to the choir of people who already doubt that Nasa tells the truth with regard to UFOs.
edit on 19-2-2013 by BrandonD because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by gortex
Part of me still believes him but over the years little niggles have crept in , why would an ET craft turn up and land in full view then take off again , why would an ET craft with all its fancy systems use physical legs to set down on , why has no one (to my knowledge) backed Coopers story .


There is no reason to believe the story, but those questions have assumptions buried in them.

For example, there is no reason to assume that the craft, if it existed, was an ET craft.

I entertain the possibility, as there is evidence to support it, that many UFO sightings might represent a civilization of human beings that broke away from our civilization at some point and advanced beyond it. Which means their technology is developing as well.

I also entertain the possibility that this separate civilization is in contact with certain high ranking organizations in our "ordinary" civilization. There is an overlap.

Considering this possibility, all those niggling things don't seem quite so odd.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 



Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

If you actually read and studied the facts of the case for yourself, rather than view it through the eyes of biased reporting, you would have known he described these other incidents in the actual FAA interview.



Let's take a gander at some examples of biased reporting, shall we?


Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

All of these lights, as pointed out by the crew in the real-time transcript, happen to be the same color and share the same characteristics as regulation aircraft navigation lighting. What an incredible coincidence that a "spacecraft(s)"(as Terachui later claimed they were) just so happened to display the same color lighting and same actions as Earthly aircraft navigation lights.



You've already lost all credibility. Their collective descriptions of these lights did not match traditional aircraft lights, neither in color, nor configuration, nor behavior.

They initially thought they were looking at conventional 'aircraft' lights, as one would expect. But as they seemed out of place, and seemed to be pacing their 747, and when no other traffic was supposed to be around them, they started observing them more closely:

The copilot made sure to point out that these lights didn't exhibit the behavior of traditional aircraft lights - instead of blinking on and off, they pulsated, "different from strobe lights" (of traditional aircraft). He described them as "very strange," as there were "too many lights" and they were too bright - in other words, they didn't appear to be normal aircraft lights at all.

In a subsequent interview, he describes the lights as yellow, amber and green. And of course yellow and amber aren't the colors of traditional aircraft.

The captain, who had a better view, described the lights as two rectangular configurations of bright lights. He also described the colors as amber and white, almost like the color of a burning white-hot flame. The flight engineer's description also corroborates this description. He also described the lights as rectangular, amber and white. Again, not at all the colors or configurations of traditional aircraft lights.

The captain's description of the movement of the lights is also totally inconsistent with those of traditional aircraft lights: "Then the two lights began to move in a manner different from ordinary aircraft maneuvers, like two bear cubs playing with each other." They were described as "undulating" and dancing around. The flight engineer also described the lights as "clusters" of "undulating" lights.

There goes your "incredible coincidence".

And yes, they tracked these craft on their onboard radar. And all three crew members confirmed this.

Moving along...


Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

It seems more likely that the crew initially saw some type of experimental aircraft or some other military aircraft they didn't recognize, than a spacecraft from another world, dimension, or where ever.



No, it doesn't seem likely they saw experimental aircraft, because what professional in their right mind piloting a top-secret experimental aircraft would be pacing and then toying around with a commercial 747, or any aircraft for that matter?


Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

The above incident could have set the scene for captain Terachui to misidentify lights and carry this into seeing a massive "mothership". Something that only he saw.



Yeah, something that only he and at least three other radar installations 'saw'.

Not only did he see it well and continuously enough to describe it in great detail, after he radioed ground radar to check for an anomalous object following him, both AARTCC (Anchorage) and ROCC (Elmendorf Regional Operational Control Center) and NORAD (forgot that one, didn't you?) got "primary returns" on the object following them. (A "primary return" is kind of like a 'raw hit' of an aerial object that doesn't have a traditional transponder on it - often a sign of enemy or simply unknown craft, hence the military controller saying "I don't know if it's erroneous or whatever," as such a hit would be unusual as it wasn't transmitting its aircraft identification number and alititude.)

And since you quoted that excerpt, let's take a look at the response from AARTCC that you conveniently left out:



ROCC: "I don't know if it's erroneous or whatever, but..."

AARTCC: "Negative, it's not erroneous."


Kind of paints a more accurate picture when you include a few relevent facts, doesn't it?

Continued...



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Ectoplasm8
 


It's interesting to note that in the actual transcripts, the military radar operator keeps referring to "some other equipment" that they're using to track the craft:



ROCC: "Yeah, this is one dash two again. On some other equipment here we have confirmed there is a flight size of two around. One primary return only."

AARTCC: "Okay, Where is - is he following him?"

ROCC: "It looks like he is, yes."

AARTCC: "Okay, stand by."


In other words, on the more advanced military radar (using "other equipment" - whatever that means), they've got a positive return on the object following the 747, and this object appears not to be conventional, in that it's not transmitting any standard aircraft ID or altitude.

Anchorage also got several "primary return" hits on the craft following the 747, but they were weaker than the military radar (as one would expect).

And NORAD also tracked the large craft following them on radar. During an FAA interview conducted by agent James Derry, he states that:

"Upon completion of my discussion with the crew, I called Capt. Stevens, Duty Officer to NORAD, and asked if he had any questions other than what I had asked. He said he had no other questions, but they also showed two targets on radar (one was JAL). He stated that they would give all data to Intelligence in the morning. I then asked Bobby Lamkin by phone if the Air Force was holding the data and he said yes."


Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

The later review of this radar data by "FAA experts using identical equipment at the FAA’s research technical center in Atlantic City, New Jersey, revealed that the radar system was receiving what is called an 'uncorrelated primary and beacon target.'"



It's interesting how you're not focusing on the more technologically advanced and reliable radar systems - those of the ROCC and NORAD, but rather on what was essentially an FAA press release. And they wouldn't lie, would they? And nothing seems fishy about that, does it? Considering that two other radar installations were also getting primary returns on this same object at the same time that they were? You'd have to be pretty naive to believe that their's just 'malfunctioned' over that same exact time period, in that same exact location, wouldn't you? Or maybe just biased?

Furthermore, here's what Dr. Bruce Maccabee has to say about the FAA's 'explanation':

"The press release did not mention that the "split return effect" was contradicted by the fact that the extra echo did not come back with every sweep of the radar and by a statement by an airtraffic controller who said that they rarely, if ever, get a split image in the area where the JAL jet was flying."

Furthermore, these radar operators were so concerned that they were ready to immediately scramble military aircraft to intercept the unknown craft following the 747. Does that sound like the behavior of radar operators who are looking at ambiguous radar data?


Originally posted by Ectoplasm8

Unfortunately, many believers get their information by reading the sensationalized UFO stories online. And that seems to be enough for many of them. Many cases are posted and quoted here without any personal research. The facts themselves need to be studied, not the "facts" through someone else's biased eyes.



The reality that we're confronted with here is that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's hilarious that you assumed that I wasn't familiar with this case. Well, you're free to unassume that now.

edit on 19-2-2013 by Brighter because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-2-2013 by Brighter because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   
They do exist, always have always will.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrandonD

Understood, there is of course no reason to believe anything he is saying. My initial point with bringing it up was just to counter the argument that other guy was making that all high-profile testimonies are just made up stories circulating on the internet, which of course they are not.


Other guy here. Never said that, sorry.



Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by BrandonD
So high ranking officials in the military, government, and Nasa, all saying that ufos are real and are taken very seriously, as well as having demonstrated abilities beyond the capability of our flying machines of the time - that amounts to no credible evidence?

Most people who say there is no evidence, simply have not looked.
i think there are a lot of bogus stories circulating about. People that believe them simply have not looked harder than they should.


"i think there are a lot of bogus stories circulating about. "

does not equal:

" all high-profile testimonies are just made up stories circulating on the internet"

If I wasn't clear with my follow up comments with what I meant, I object to this comment you made:

"Most people who say there is no evidence, simply have not looked. "

You are the one that brought up Cooper as your one example of many as the poster child of your above comment.

At any rate, I am glad you considered the alternate viewpoint and reconsidered the Cooper story. Do you have another example you wish to discuss?



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chrysalis
This silly war skeptics are waging against the rest needs to stop.
I know it won't stop like that but still.

UFOs have been, and still are a strong force driving people to places like this one.
Even if skeptics have problems admitting it, the reality of this site is :



In my world, 55.8+25.8=81.6% of ATS visitors believing they are out there.

81.6%

Taken from ATS Real Poll

And that is from about 20000 people responding.

Of course, several skeptics have put up their own polls to try reflect the results they wish to see here, and conveniently ignore this big effort put forward by ATS Staff.

Instead of facing the reality of this poll, all we get is noise, and more noise.

Don't let the vocal minority fool you, be comforted in your feelings.


According to your bar chart: They're Here !

It has been very quiet lately.
That's because the War of Liberation is over. It lasted about 11 years.
Started around October 2002 --- Ended October 2011

The Domain and the Draco Reptilians have been removed.
The last Draco Reptilian Base was found in the Gulf of Aden.
It was cartwheeled shaped with 6 spokes. 11,000 reptilians were on board.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TauCetixeta
 





According to your bar chart: They're Here !


According to the bar chart a high percentage of ATSers who partook in the poll Believe we are or have been visited ...that doesn't mean they are or have been , its a poll based on belief .



That's because the War of Liberation is over. It lasted about 11 years. Started around October 2002 --- Ended October 2011

The War of Liberation again , is there any evidence for this ?



The last Draco Reptilian Base was found in the Gulf of Aden.

Any evidence of this not from Tolec ?



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 


A poll based of belief? Some of us have learned to read.




Eisenhower didn't move into the White House yet.
July 28, 1952




posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by TauCetixeta
 





A poll based of belief? Some of us have learned to read

Its good that you've learned to read
, are you saying that because a poll of ATS members says they think they've been here that means they have
...ATS is cooler than I thought .

Why bring Roswell into it , that happened at a time when ET may have been here ....but it isn't proof they were .



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by TauCetixeta
 





A poll based of belief? Some of us have learned to read

Its good that you've learned to read
, are you saying that because a poll of ATS members says they think they've been here that means they have
...ATS is cooler than I thought .

Why bring Roswell into it , that happened at a time when ET may have been here ....but it isn't proof they were .


Members of ATS have read about the crash at Roswell, NM in July 1947.

Most of us have read a few books with revealing information.
A guy named Professor Barnett showed up at another crash site near Magdalena,NM.
Other civilians were there.
Crash at Corona

Revealing Table of Contents on Page 6.
Civilians find 2 dead Domain ETs, 1 injured and the 4th was just fine.
Another book reveled her name to be Airl. She was an officer, pilot & engineer.

Wreckage description is found on page 117.
Fiber Optic cable was seen blowing in the wind. The civilians say it looked like horse hair.
Consoles inside of the spacecraft were blinking.
It was over 100 degrees fahrenheit that day in July but the spacecraft was ice cold.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I have never seen one nor have I ever met anyone credible that says they have. I knew a guy that was schizophrenic that screamed about how they were real for whatever that is worth.

My grandparents lived right outside of Roswell when the incident supposedly happened and according to them they never even heard about it until Hollywood started to make movies about it.

I think aliens are a cool idea but the idea that they are interested in us is being kind of self-important in my opinion. When I think about the odds of finding and traveling to a solar system the distance and time it would take kind of lowers the probability odds.

I still remain open to the idea but I need more than faked footage or firsthand accounts I need something that can stand up to scrutiny to make me believe.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 

About the Gordon Cooper UFO landing story, that was in 1957 or 1958, which could have been in the timeframe for an early test of the Avrocar, although the location might make that questionable. Also, Hiller Aircraft Corporation built six prototype 7'-diameter flying discs, most or all with four (not three) landing legs fixed in place (not folding). capable of carrying one person (a standing pilot). All of those were pretty much just ground-effect craft, not capable of getting more than a meter off the ground. And it was too early for early prototypes of the lunar lander.

Hiller VZ-1 and 1031

Why would a UFO have landing pads? Good question, maybe, but pad marks have been found in some physical-trace cases. Maybe using them instead of main propulsion causes less damage to the environment. Or maybe if a landing is for repairs the pilot may have to shut the engine off before tinkering, just as we do with cars.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join