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.

 

"Wanna Take A Ride?"

page: 5
24
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Simone, I ask a few questions earlier about the "Tracked from outside our Solar System" quote you said the original memo stated. You posted me some links up without any reason or information about the links...they weren't all that helpful really.
But here's the reason i doubt very much the USA tracked some objects from "Outside our Solar system"..in the 80's

I'm Not suggesting for one minute what you say is Lies, But i do believe you may have failed the test. I believe you were duped by your "Friends" and used as an example by the Agency...sorry, but for me that is a More likely scenario.

Please bear in mind this Object..12 miles wide, has never been seen before, even by Voyager and that flew right by it.

The Hubble space telescope has discovered a new moon orbiting Neptune, Nasa has confirmed.

Designated S/2004 N 1, this is the 14th known moon to circle the giant planet.

It also appears to be the smallest moon in the Neptunian system, measuring just 20 km (12 miles) across, completing one revolution around Neptune every 23 hours.

www.bbc.co.uk...
edit on 16-7-2013 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-7-2013 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Soloprotocol
 


Please bear in mind this Object..12 miles wide, has never been seen before, even by Voyager and that flew right by it.


Thank you for that info, very important.
I've taken a keen interest in something called 'rogue planets' sometime after 2011. There was a small flurry of media reporting for that, it must have been in the spirit of leading up to 2012. But still, there are large bodies loose in the universe, not tethered to a stable system, and one could come by us, apparently, and it's game over, lights out.

My stand on the ufo paper I had, is I am totally open all possibilities. Keep in mind that I was a clerk who rubberstamped things. I had no college education after highschool.

Well, a good reason governments would want to be able to monitor 'deep space' is to be able to see like what you told of, (new (to us) bodies like moons) (and 12 miles wide), and,especially those rogue bodies with the mass of Jupiter, says a team of Japan scientists from 2006 via a NZ telescope. And yeah, it is (per the vid) "not until 2020 that a NASA surveyor will be launched to capture images of them",
much less 32 yrs ago,
unless we speculate about (the mythical) "breakaway" tech of the deepblack budget blackworld, which 'they say' is always more than 25 yrs ahead of what we see. In my previous links it references deep space tracking going back to the 1950's. (Whew, I feel dizzy,...)
I assume there is much which is unfortunately classified from civilian eyes, (by government)
on outer space findings
I wonder how in danger, how much of a sitting duck are we, from these scary and significant things.



edit on 16-7-2013 by misschareesee because: x



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by aHEMagain
 


The documents are still there on page 3. So, Im not sure what you mean.
...


Nope. They were gone again shortly after they went up. I got a few. It's just as well. I suppose I don't really need another rabbit hole that needs mapping.

aHEMagain



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by aHEMagain
 


Dear one, I suggest you click to page 3.


Not trying to be mean.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by misschareesee
Back when I was in the AF, (early in the Reagan Administration) I came into unauthorized possession of a ufo document, who's authenticity remains a mystery. I began to spill about it here, www.abovetopsecret.com...
but this seemed not appropriate.




I genuinely mean you no offense-- you seem cool and all, but I am honestly baffled as to why you even posted this? To tease people? "I started to tell this great story. Here's a link so you can check out what I started to but didn't really say."


You do realize your first intact post, summed up, was "I worked around classified info and saw a classified document, and later I'll tell you about it," followed by four or five posts of "edited by, reason for edit... 'redacted'"


Sorry... I just really dislike when people pull stuff like that. Sounded like a very interesting story, and you don't exactly seem like a liar or an attention seeker-- rather, you seem genuine. But if you didn't finish the story, and refuse to finish the story (which is kind of bad enough that you did it in that thread) why even link to that unfinished story, in another thread? So other people, who didn't see your original post, can end up disappointed too?


I genuinely don't get it....

edit on 16-7-2013 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I'm sorry... re-reading that last post I realize it might have come off as a little grumpy (and it is true my daily meds haven't quite kicked in yet... ha ha)


... it's just that, that kind of thing normally peeves me a bit... doubly so when it might be interesting info that's being elusive. To be honest, at first it almost seemed like it was done this way to force us to listen to a two hour long podcast (as opposed to just reading a few quick posts on ATS.) And who knows... maybe it's a very interesting podcast (I did just download it) but those things are also usually very spam-heavy. Lots of side-chatter, commercials, 5 minutes of playing "White rabbit" and sound effects, and a theme song, and intro stuff, and a shout out to the sponsors, and more side chatter, and all kinds of other crap... as opposed to just getting the story. (At least this is my experience with most podcasts, and four minutes into this one it seems little different) And I'll admit that your initial description of a bad audio connection and "far away tiny tiny voice" were not inspiring confidence in the entertainment / pleasure this would provide. In other words, I hope this isn't a pain to listen to.


That said, what's up with the post-deletion thing? I just noticed you've been doing it in this thread as well. I have to say, I normally hate ATS policy on post editing. (If you're not aware, there is supposedly a "four hour" window in which you can edit your posts, after which they become locked in and permanent, barring deletion by a moderator. In reality, this "four hour" window is sometimes much less than four hours.) I normally hate that. I'm the kind of person who often later thinks of some other point I wanted to add to a long rant, or some better way to phrase things... but I do that in the name of more info, better info, and greater clarity not in the name of deleting what I wrote so people can never see it again, for ever and ever amen.... Point being, as much as I usually hate ATS editing policy / time-limit, you're almost making me appreciate it (if only you weren't so quick on the draw with that delete key)


When you do that it really does interrupt the flow of conversation, and sometimes makes archived threads a pain to read.


And because of ATS edit policy, I know that you changed your mind and made each one of these edits within only two to four hours of making your post!!!! (And between this thread and the other one, it seems like you do this a lot.)


I'm sorry... I don't mean to sound grumpy or like I'm nit-picking, but that really is a peeve of mine. I just wanted to clarify that. Thanks for sharing your story (on the podcast at least) and I hope it's entertaining....
edit on 16-7-2013 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by aHEMagain
 


Dear one, I suggest you click to page 3.


Not trying to be mean.


I don't really mind if you're trying to be mean or not, it doesn't change the facts. The facts are that the docs were deleted from those posts before the 2-4 hour edit freeze. So now even if they wanted to go back and re-add them, they can't.

It's funny though that it's almost like you are compelled to post that the docs are still there. Did you look? For a minute I actually thought maybe there was something wrong with my browser.

Thankfully, in iwilliam's post (.. /thread958841/pg5#pid16675598) mentioned the deletions and indicated that there may be a pattern of that with this OP. I don't even really have an issue with the OP changing their mind (twice) and deleting the docs. It's her right, I simply question what the point of the thread is without them.

aHEMagain

ps. i have to admit to a sick curiosity as to whether the next post from you will be to tell me to just go back to page #3 again.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join