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.
originally posted by: draknoir2
Example of what?
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: draknoir2
Example of what?
Example of someone who totally disregards one theory and finds it silly, but will embrace another that lacks as much in evidence as the one that is looked at as silly.
Personally I find them both with equal silliness...
originally posted by: draknoir2
Which theory do I "embrace" again? Please link to an example.
originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: Xtrozero
I consider neither a theory. I consider them both beliefs, one religious and one speculative. But since this is an Aliens and UFO forum, one is on topic while the other is not. Also, the discussion of radar returns from unifentified flying objects is perfectly reasonable while the same can't be said regarding characters from religious mythology.
Does that clear things up?
originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Aquariusdude
That's a really nice color photograph of 1952 DC... you do realize that is a bit problematic. Unless all those saucers posed for the picture and stayed still while the exposure took place, it's likely a bs photograph.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: draknoir2
Which theory do I "embrace" again? Please link to an example.
Do you ever type more than one or two line lol....
You felt the need to express that the forum has dropped to an all time low with posting Are you really debating the radar cross section of angels? Is that what this forum has come to?
But you seem to not feel the need to express the same sentiment with alien speculations too, why is that? My whole point with angels is that they are as plausible as aliens, and it seems you did not pick up on that...
originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Aquariusdude
That particular photo? Yes...note that I did not comment regarding the event, nor other photos. That particular photo IS bs. Does not mean that the event did not happen. I am 60...heard about that event long ago and have seen some photos. That photo has been manipulated or is a total fabrication.
Think about it: 1952... night time picture. You can clearly see that it was a timed exposure, if you know what to look for. The fact that the "UFO"s do not show any tracer or signs of movement then either A) they stayed motionless during the whole exposure, or B) the pic is bs.
I got into photography pretty heavily in the 70s... the fastest film I could get my hands on was 400. Not saying that the pros could not access faster speeds, but rather that I took my fair share of timed exposures using the 400 speed films. I have no idea what speeds were available in 52...was a bit before my time. I would testify in a court of law that the picture shows definite signs of a long exposure. A long exposure (I dont think minutes, but likely seconds) would result in anything that was moving, such as the well lit UFOs, showing on the film as tracers or smears of movement. Hence...my comment about the UFO's must have "posed" for the shot.
At 11:40 p.m. on Saturday, July 19, 1952, Edward Nugent, an air traffic controller at Washington National Airport (today Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport), spotted seven objects on his radar. The objects were located 15 miles (24 km) south-southwest of the city; no known aircraft were in the area and the objects were not following any established flight paths. Nugent's superior, Harry Barnes, a senior air-traffic controller at the airport, watched the objects on Nugent's radarscope. He later wrote:
We knew immediately that a very strange situation existed . . . their movements were completely radical compared to those of ordinary aircraft.[1]
Barnes had two controllers check Nugent's radar; they found that it was working normally. Barnes then called National Airport's other radar center; the controller there, Howard Cocklin, told Barnes that he also had the objects on his radarscope. Furthermore, Cocklin said that by looking out of the control tower window he could see one of the objects, "a bright orange light. I can't tell what's behind it."[1]
At this point, other objects appeared in all sectors of the radarscope; when they moved over the White House
originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
a reply to: draknoir2
i'm not sure but, if that were the case then wouldn't there be a "lens flare" for each light there and not only some of the lights?
And were the radar pings determined to be real? if so wouldn't that discount the lens flares?
curious...