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.

 

Your "Ufology" Is Lacking. Can You Handle the Truth (Evidence)?

page: 6
39
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
to conclude you then could possibly design a craft place it within some type of outer shell that causes it to resonate like a massive tuning fork on high frequency inside the shell somewhat like movie CONTACT. And as its frequency speeds up it begins to appear to dematerialize
and as it seems to disappear its moving thru time space, not the outer shell or launch device and when slowed it appears in new location, until the outer shell redistributes its, the craft and pilots AI or droid if not being, original frequency pulling it them back. Outta box place tuning fork tech inside structurally stable craft, be careful...
edit on 7/3/13 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Well all you can believe what you want but I am going with an ex-navy friend and business partner that tells me he personally was involved in the examination of a saucer that was retrieved by the Navy from somewhere. He said the most powerful x-ray device they had was incapable of penetrating it, and the metal upon neutron interrogation had multiple unknown elements in the alloy.

I have known him for over 20 years and he is not one to spin fairy tales.

He says it was not from this Earth and that the Navy has retrieved several "objects" over the years that are extra-terrestrial..



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I think the time traveler theory needs more careful consideration as well.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


But is it not true that when you increase an object's vibrational frequency to very high states you are also increasing the object's temperature?

I could be wrong, but if true, the human body may not survive a phase change.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


But is it not true that when you increase an object's vibrational frequency to very high states you are also increasing the object's temperature?
[color=cyan] perhaps the GLOW feature of UFO...

I could be wrong, but if true, the human body may not survive a phase change. [color=cyan]to 1 depends on suit human is wearing and Craft materials. Suit needs to be able to take vibrations on max scale and potential heat generated if not using non heating vibrating materials from? Which 1 feels is important where is the material that can do this in craft as well as suit hence AI based androids or avatars...

edit on 7/3/13 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SubSea
He said the most powerful x-ray device they had was incapable of penetrating it, and the metal upon neutron interrogation had multiple unknown elements in the alloy.




Would make sense as Xray is in cosmos and deflection would be evaluated and techs placed upon to prevent exposure, if data shared is true.


NAMASTE*******



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SubSea
 


It makes sense that any advanced space craft would be impervious to radiation.
But then begs the question why the same craft would GENERATE high amounts of radiation itself.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by SubSea
 


It makes sense that any advanced space craft would be impervious to radiation.
But then begs the question why the same craft would GENERATE high amounts of radiation itself.


to 1 JayinAR, could be from fuel or engine exhaust or even plasma like energy field surrounding it if not from some device that generates wormhole access to get thru all the debris/planets etc. in the way. Like you aim it in a direction and for so many distances it reads and detects matter & best what area or direction thru less /matter mass is best to travel. So in ANTI matter worm.hole. mass objects my slow depending if star or planet moon asteroids in way. But ante matter wormhole should eliminate direct mass matter interferences as they would not be on w.hole frequency...
edit on 7/3/13 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


Yeah.
The only way that makes sense to me is if the craft is disrupting the very fabric of space in the entire area that the craft is occupying. Otherwise, any radiation created by the craft should be contained WITHIN the craft.

Wormholes.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR

Wormholes.





posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


And wormhole travel brings us back to ETH, and moves away from EDH.

In my opinion.
Of course I am no physicist, so I am sure some of the more learned folks here probably think I sound like an idiot.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


And wormhole travel brings us back to ETH, and moves away from EDH.


To 1 it can kind of be both JayinAR


Originally posted by JayinAR

In my opinion.
Of course I am no physicist, so I am sure some of the more learned folks here probably think I sound like an idiot.

not 1, you seem to have some understanding..


NAMASTE*******



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
A Psychologist would NEVER say

"I have thoroughly studied this set of data and can find no psychological condition that would explain such experiences."

A Religious person would NEVER say:

"I have thoroughly studied this set of data and can find no church accommodation that would explain such experiences."

One key sign that you are dealing in The Art of the Elegant Lie, is that to the fabricator, everything has an answer.

They ALWAYS would have an accommodation, which would be obligatory and consistent with the core theme of their respective religions - that is the essence of each salesmans' pitch, in each respective discipline. If they did not possess a ready explanation it would invalidate the supposedly authoritative core of their philosophical premise. This is why it was disingenuous to appoint a Psychologist to represent the Skeptic movement. There is ALWAYS a fall back excuse as to why we are free to sidestep the burden of having to do any actual science on a number of issues.

They can always be easily explained away by means of inerrant psycho-religious woo pitches; without having to apply the scientific method. A game.

And why, regardless of ahem...'credentials' held, their slant on the issue would each only constitute religious opinions.




edit on 3-7-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
I love threads like this.

I believe people all too frequently toss any sort of speculation towards their views out the window, when in fact, it would seem we know very little about what said entities or crafts are. Mind boggling stuff this.

Thanks for the enlightening post.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


They could well have built entire societies, however, as they exist in more than the 5 dimensions that we occupy, we would have no comprehension of their society, there could very well be one of their cities built on the same site, as say, New York,however,we would be unable to interact with this city because of the dimensional disparity and the associated frequency differences.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla

All incidents and reports are questionable enough such that they're questionable, and at best maintain a value of X = UNKNOWN.




I would say that "at best" many reports maintain a value of X = UNKNOWN NATURE + KNOWN CHARACTERISTICS, which in my opinion is significantly better and more interesting than simply X = UNKNOWN. There are certain subsets of reports that have been dubbed by one author "unambiguous flying objects" - those in which the objects in question are neither distant nor fleeting and can be observed in appreciable detail for an extended period. There have been enough reports of this kind investigated well enough (in my opinion) to justify the belief that some of the objects described (frequently by multiple independent observers) actually exist and possess the (sometimes fantastic) characteristics attributed to them.

For example, the kind of event described in the video below involving large, silent, low-flying, triangular objects with very bright lights - objects that are reported to hover, accellerate rapidly and execute flat, horizontal turns - has been reported many times. Personally, I feel it's safe to say that such objects exist. What they are is another matter, but it seems clear they are real and that their appearance and behavior is rather well-established.






posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Double post...whoopsy doodle.
edit on 3-7-2013 by bigfootgurl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES
What always bothered me about my personal encounter (besides the experience itself) was the ship design resembled a variation of the ships in the original "War of the Worlds" and the first thing that went through my head was "Oh great, everyone is just going to think it's some latent layover from watching that movie."

Once again, thank you for bringing these insights to attention.

Yeah, the "absurdity" factor. Doc Jock (Vallee) has written quite a bit about it. Shows up in a lot of high-strangeness incidents.

On the one hand, folk that come from Druscilla's perspective could make the argument that such "absurdity" has a parallel in dream states. On the other hand, the reports that contain such detail often seem as if there's a reason for them.

Seems to me that this aspect of the enigma certainly points somewhat away from the ETH, but lends itself more readily to either the "psychological" explanation or to the "trickster" explanation.

I would be very interested in hearing about your experience. Have you related it on the boards? Thanks for sharing your thoughts here and the encouragement.


Btw, have you read The Trickster and the Paranormal by George P. Hansen?

It's certainly not light reading, but it is one of the best books I've ever read on these subjects. Peace.

Trickster Book Home Page



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   
There is an essential flaw with the whole idea of "Ritual and Magick", ritual is merely that ritual. It,really means nothing to anyone who any real good at "Magick". "Magick" only happens to you, one could even extrapolate that, that's why they use the term "Magical thinking" although, the shrinks et al, are are staring down the wrong end of the telescope on this one. You can learn every ritual a sportsperson or artist has and you will never be like them as there is that darned thing that marks all out as individuals. That transfers to the world of whibble and weirdness every bit as much as it does for anything that is based wholly in the individual.

There are reams and reams written about Crowley, almost on a daily basis, and they are all guilty of a huge omission. That being, Crowley himself said, in his later years, words to the effect of. "It's all utter bollocks really, I just totally enjoy seeing people scrabble around hoping to find a key without any true realisation of what it is they seek. Everything |I have written about ritual means nothing it's simple, you either can or you can't and those who can;t it is usually completely down to their own foibles, as to why they can't".

Remember this about Crowley, he was, ultimately thwarted in his true ambition. He saw himself as a poet and writer not some esoteric pick and mix The fact is, he really wasn't a very good writer or poet what he did have was a prodigious talent for physical endurance and a sublime understanding of some of the layers we inhabit that most, simply either, choose to ignore, or simply are not aware of.

If theirs one thing that makes me chortle about the debunkers and die-hard sceptics it's that they do not see the contradiction at the heart of their own psyche. It essentially runs like this. I can;t cope with this idea, therefore, as it worries me and ergo. logic dictates that, I am in fact, scared of what I might not know, then, everyone else should be.The desperation for it to all be, "utterly mundane" in its' source, is exactly the same emotional response of those who wish everything to be "weird".

There is no route, no map, no journey's end, no destination, there are no demons no angels, there is simply a huge great part of the creation with live in, many simply do not explore. It's amazing how, so many people who have never had the "experience" others have had, are so sure of being able to recreate that experience. Really now? I suggest you read that again. Yes, these people, often with no personal experience at all, are absolutely sure they know what another human being feels in circumstances that can only be described as "super normal".

If you're looking for "strange" then look for those incidents where, if anything, a person's cultural and social bias, is challenged. When a extremely experienced pilot says... "Mate there's what looks like a rock flying past me at 17,000 feet".... "Errr well the object i saw, it was at least 1000 feet wide". At least here you know, they are, in reality saying, "I saw something that, I had no model for its' existence and yet, I know it was there and there's data to back my sighting up"

In, short, sceptics rarely see what they don't want to see, believers only ever see what they think they want to see, the rest...... well maybe, they just simply accept what comes their way and deal with it. As the old saying goes.... "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"....
edit on 3-7-2013 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CallYourBluff
Haha, this made me laugh. "A very balanced look" in his article titled "FLYING SAUCERS FROM HELL"


Anyway interesting stuff.

Balanced because Dr. Clarke wasn't validating the belief in any way. His title was tounge-in-cheek. I'm pretty sure he isn't on board with the theory. He actually managed to poke some fun at it.

Having said that, Creighton and some of the other blokes aren't exactly lightweights in the ufological arena.




top topics



 
39
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join