Whistleblower Speaks on Area 51

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   
So, let me try to understand this thread a bit.

A) The OP discovers and watches approx 1/10th of a video on Area 51 (7mins of 60 mins)
B) The OP, feeling positive about his short time viewing it, and impressed in its length, creates an ATS thread linking to the video
C) The OP itself gives no real synopsis or review of said video (against T&C's)
D) A discussion ensues which the OP still fails to discuss the merits of the video posted, but makes numerous posts about and in reference to the merits and subtleties of the English language (an ATS faux-pas itself)
E) Various ATS members take it upon themselves to provide the thread content and breakdown of the video
F) We still have no synopsis or personal opinions of the OP about the posted video or the ATS members comments on the video.

Am I following the vaporous thread accurately so far?

IMO, I say, nothing to see here, move along. At least until the OP actually provides some semblance of real content that is both on-topic and valuable.




posted on May, 21 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Im sorry was this thread about area 51, or the OP trying to correct himself against other ATS members. If I wanted to watch a soap opera full of bickering, I would have. Boring move along



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 


Thanks for posting this. I thought I had watched this months ago, but now I see I never did.
I will watch the whole thing and get back to you.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


I never said that. You made it up, it is your own words.

I said I was not completely sure, thus it did not completely assure me.


That's why I said "rather convincing" and not convinced.
That's why I said "assuring" and not "assured"
That's why I said plausible.

That's why I asked whether or not you're an idiot.


Got a bad case of ( ODD ) or
or your just a definition NAZI

just keep your eye on the ball not the player.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trillium

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


I never said that. You made it up, it is your own words.

I said I was not completely sure, thus it did not completely assure me.


That's why I said "rather convincing" and not convinced.
That's why I said "assuring" and not "assured"
That's why I said plausible.

That's why I asked whether or not you're an idiot.


Got a bad case of ( ODD ) or
or your just a definition NAZI

just keep your eye on the ball not the player.


But the player has brought ball in a bag and has yet to take it out to see if we can actually play, to see if there is actually a ball and not a bag full dirty laundry.

Look I support what nevertheless has been saying even though it was getting to the point of derailment but the OP did that themselves with whats posted as the OP as Krakatoa pointed out in the first post of page 4.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
astonishing display of thread derailment there. well done guys, you really are special.



and to the OP. thanks.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by RoScoLaz
astonishing display of thread derailment there. well done guys, you really are special.



and to the OP. thanks.


To be honest, the thread was never ON a rail, so how could it be DErailed?



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Clear! Buzzzt bump, clear! Buzzzt bump, clear! Buzzzt bump. Dam. I'm sorry sir, your thread is dead.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by gortex
 


Classic example of a person derailing a thread.


This isn't a 2 minute clip. It's not 5 minutes. Nor 15. It's over an hour long. Before you subject us to what could be a total waste of our lunch hour at work
it's always wise to watch it yourself completely, and tell us whether it is worth the watch. Otherwise if it's trash, then your question of "what say you, ATS?" will be met with criticism vehement beyond imagination, instead of the type of feedback and possible intelligent discussion you had hoped for. We're not here to watch a movie together and post together in real time, rofl.

Don't be stubborn. T&C states it. Others stated it. Just do it.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
What a waste of time this has been, the thread should have disappeared into oblivion once it left the new topics list.. and I guarantee the 7 flags came from members who got in early with their comments and we're hunting for stars.. sigh.. ats is just not the same place anymore..



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
4 Pages !!!!




posted on May, 21 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Not wishing to derail here but, George Knapp has done some profiling on Dan Burisch aka Dan Crain aka Dan Catselas,

www.8newsnow.com...

That's not to say that it is definitive, but it seems that Knapp doesn't view him as much as he did Lazar.

Also I will post a video, (when I find it) of Michael Schratt the whole of which is based on the same Dr Dan Burisch... whatever.



Here's the video and the detail is incredible, no wonder Knapp calls Burisch a "smart guy" ironically some of the stuff could be related to Lazar, but then he is pretty smart too, that they might both be chancers, that could also be true. BTW, Edward Teller gets a mention, he was a smart cookie too, and perhaps a bit way out there also.
So it's time to "walk the line".
edit on 21-5-2013 by smurfy because: Video.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Don't mind the trolls they are government shills anyways.

BACK ON TOPIC

Thank you for sharing this information must be thrown at the public. Project Looking Glass is a topic I am really interested in even thinking about trying some tests with electromagnets and different noble gasses (such as argon.)


The Commentary that follows is from my [Bill Hamilton's] source that linked with inside sources and took notes on Project Looking Glass (LG) and Time Travel experiments:



With regard to LG (Looking Glass): As I understand it, this device (at least 3 to 4 years ago) could not focus on a detailed sequence of activities in the future. In other words, you could not see exactly what would happen, like a series of events. I was told to consider the multiverse (5) idea combined with work by Richard Gott on cosmic strings (6). The multiverse apparently is accessed when the forward mode is set. I was also told to consider the views provided by LG as one of many potential realities (at least in the future view mode). I have also been told that recently there has been an effort made to outfit videotape recorders to be sent forward through the apparatus, thereby allowing the dark project people to gain some insight into what may take place. When I heard about this several questions came to my mind. The most pressing of which was: if a camera were sent forward in time/space, would it be able to record anything other than what was immediately in front of its lens? I mean, what if LG were located in the middle of the Groom Lake facility, and the operators wanted to gain insight into the outcome of a conflict, say in the Middle East. How could a videotape recorder, set to record what was right in front of its lens at that location gather any data on the Middle East if it were still stuck in the middle of the Mojave desert when it got to the future??? Hell, something important could be happening right behind the camera and it would miss it - a couple of degrees change in camera direction allows one set of events to be seen while another set is completely overlooked, much less events half a world away. To answer this question, my contact was not specific, saying only that cameras did not move, as mass does not change in its perspective to space time. However, such an item placed into the injected atmosphere, might experience a different time, if only briefly. And cameras could film within the gas or see images in the injected atmosphere as though it were a lens reflecting events in and around the column. I was given to understand that the tilt or positioning of the electromagnets would allow different views or positions in the environment to be reflected in the gas column.

Full interview here

Let the truth set you free!!!



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   
You DID ask me what I think... so

I stopped reading your thread when I got to the line "I found this video", seen it was a Youtube video (noted the duration), but since I am and open-minded person and was bored, I clicked on the video link anyways to see what was up, seen the username and skimmed the details section for a very brief 4 seconds, and then I proceeded to casually X out the Youtube window after approx. 16 seconds, and then I went to type this reply to you.

Honest truths. I will even take a polygraph.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


Explain how time doesn't exist, smart guy!



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by RothchildRancor
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


Explain how time doesn't exist, smart guy!


It is something that we use to keep track of the [rate of] change in our world.
Thanks to Einstein, we realized that this is a relative concept, so if we think in terms of time, the universe becomes very weird and is a bit difficult to wrap one's head around considering how we experience "time".
"Traveling into the future" which is possible, only means that the rate of change is slower locally relative to whatever it is you want to over-live.
And that's why you can't travel backwards, because there is no such thing.
edit on 22-5-2013 by Nevertheless because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Did we ever get a final ruling on the definition of "credible"?



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2
Did we ever get a final ruling on the definition of "credible"?
The debate over whether Garner is credible doesn't even make any sense to me, because the OP description of the video is not correct; he's not a whistleblower as he doesn't claim to have first-hand knowledge.

He is just marketing the alleged first-hand witnesses he mentioned like Burisch and Lazar, so if we were to discuss whether anybody is a whistleblower, or credible, it seems to me like the topic would be Burisch, or Lazar, or the other guy he mentioned.

Why anybody wants to hear Garner repeat what Burisch allegedly told him is beyond me. If you're interested in what Burisch has to say, isn't it better to hear it from Burisch directly, without the middleman? There was a long interview project Camelot had with him with him posted here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

After the interviews, there are numerous posts, some of which expose issues with the credibility of Burisch. To me Burisch is neither credible nor convincing.

Even debating whether Garner is credible or convincing makes no sense to me, since mostly what he does is repeat what Burisch and others told him, though I suppose there could be some debate about how accurately he repeats the stories. But that's more of a debate on how good a "parrot" he is.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Originally posted by RothchildRancor
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


Explain how time doesn't exist, smart guy!


It is something that we use to keep track of the [rate of] change in our world.
Thanks to Einstein, we realized that this is a relative concept, so if we think in terms of time, the universe becomes very weird and is a bit difficult to wrap one's head around considering how we experience "time".
"Traveling into the future" which is possible, only means that the rate of change is slower locally relative to whatever it is you want to over-live.
And that's why you can't travel backwards, because there is no such thing.
edit on 22-5-2013 by Nevertheless because: (no reason given)


Even if science in the future proves with no shadow of doubt that traveling backwards in time is impossible does not mean that it doesn't exist.

you didn't answer my question. All you did is formulate an opinion on whether or not it exist based on our current understanding of time and space.

I am willing to bet you would shy away from any physicist worth their salt in a real debate.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by RothchildRancor

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Originally posted by RothchildRancor
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


Explain how time doesn't exist, smart guy!


It is something that we use to keep track of the [rate of] change in our world.
Thanks to Einstein, we realized that this is a relative concept, so if we think in terms of time, the universe becomes very weird and is a bit difficult to wrap one's head around considering how we experience "time".
"Traveling into the future" which is possible, only means that the rate of change is slower locally relative to whatever it is you want to over-live.
And that's why you can't travel backwards, because there is no such thing.
edit on 22-5-2013 by Nevertheless because: (no reason given)


Even if science in the future proves with no shadow of doubt that traveling backwards in time is impossible does not mean that it doesn't exist.

Well, it does. Unless you speculate that we live in the Matrix and someone outside can just decide to "suddenly expose it", or God doing the same thing, then yes, but those two things should also come to light in that case. If those things do not happen (God / simulation-guy won't expose it), then it doesn't exist in this world. Just like Iphone 8 doesn't, regardless of if it will appear later or not.



you didn't answer my question. All you did is formulate an opinion on whether or not it exist based on our current understanding of time and space.

I'm sorry, I didn't mention that we have "invented" time by defining it, and we defined it because we found it possible, we could agree that we could measure the rate of change accurately. Then Einstein came along and explained to us idiots which implications that has on the observable universe.
Since plenty of physics is based on the definition of time, our calculations have become slightly...annoying...thanks to the theory of relativity.




I am willing to bet you would shy away from any physicist worth their salt in a real debate.

No, we would most likely agree, as we usually do?





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join