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.
but you did
originally posted by: billydebunker
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
originally posted by: billydebunker
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
originally posted by: billydebunker
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: billydebunker
A flying saucer stopped all air traffic in the middle of the day at the nations busiest airport, O'Hare, in 2007. Not expectations, simply tangible reality. It is impossible to pretend otherwise.
Someone reporting they saw something that wasn't there would have the same effect. Try screaming "FIRE!" in a movie theater.
Let me get this straight with you too.
Are you saying that a flying saucer did NOT hover over O'Hare airport?
My point was that lots of things can cause air traffic to "stop". So of course, something unidentified in flight paths would cause air traffic to be diverted or whatever. It's not proof something was actually there.
Was that yes or no quesion too difficult for you?
Let me put it this way. Perhaps maybe but not necessarily. My answer is as vague as any ufo. You make what you want from it. But yes. what does it matter anyway? and no.
Empty and meaningless post. Can't waste my time.
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
but you did
originally posted by: billydebunker
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
originally posted by: billydebunker
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
originally posted by: billydebunker
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: billydebunker
A flying saucer stopped all air traffic in the middle of the day at the nations busiest airport, O'Hare, in 2007. Not expectations, simply tangible reality. It is impossible to pretend otherwise.
Someone reporting they saw something that wasn't there would have the same effect. Try screaming "FIRE!" in a movie theater.
Let me get this straight with you too.
Are you saying that a flying saucer did NOT hover over O'Hare airport?
My point was that lots of things can cause air traffic to "stop". So of course, something unidentified in flight paths would cause air traffic to be diverted or whatever. It's not proof something was actually there.
Was that yes or no quesion too difficult for you?
Let me put it this way. Perhaps maybe but not necessarily. My answer is as vague as any ufo. You make what you want from it. But yes. what does it matter anyway? and no.
Empty and meaningless post. Can't waste my time.
originally posted by: billydebunker
originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: billydebunker
Tsk, Tsk, mirageman, mirageman. Please don't play dumb, you know as well as I do that the entire stretch of road where this happened, and the earth beneath it, and the shoulders of the road, was completely dug up and replaced by the Army Corps of Engineers within a day of the incident. So really, man, you're a better debunker than that.
Where did you get the information that the Army could get a whole load of asphalt and a team of engineers out just before New Year's Eve and resurface the road? The road section was entirely repaved in 1982 when major expansion work was undertaken in the area.
Am I trying to debunk the case? Absolutely not. There is still something being covered up now and it's not the road surface. What was the craft? What caused symptoms of radiation poisoning to the witnesses? There are still unanswered questions in this case over 3 decades later.
Please. Maybe the british army can't get their sh*t together like that, but ours can and did.
And don't pretend you haven't read that is what happened in the Cash-Landrum case.
"I have photographs of a 15- to 25-foot area where even the center stripe was wiggly," he said.
Houston Chronicle September 15, 1991
originally posted by: mirageman
originally posted by: billydebunker
originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: billydebunker
Tsk, Tsk, mirageman, mirageman. Please don't play dumb, you know as well as I do that the entire stretch of road where this happened, and the earth beneath it, and the shoulders of the road, was completely dug up and replaced by the Army Corps of Engineers within a day of the incident. So really, man, you're a better debunker than that.
Where did you get the information that the Army could get a whole load of asphalt and a team of engineers out just before New Year's Eve and resurface the road? The road section was entirely repaved in 1982 when major expansion work was undertaken in the area.
Am I trying to debunk the case? Absolutely not. There is still something being covered up now and it's not the road surface. What was the craft? What caused symptoms of radiation poisoning to the witnesses? There are still unanswered questions in this case over 3 decades later.
Please. Maybe the british army can't get their sh*t together like that, but ours can and did.
And don't pretend you haven't read that is what happened in the Cash-Landrum case.
So you actually agree with Vallee then? Even though you've been bad mouthing his ideas throughout the thread.
Here's what Monsieur Vallee had to say about the Cash Landrum case in his book : Forbidden Science page 197-198.
You're getting a bit muddled in your old age my old chum.
Anyway I don't agree with that because although the road was resurfaced it was certainly not the next day. Firstly the witnesses did not report anything initially so how would anyone know to resurface the road?
Secondly investigator John Schuessler who did not pick up the details and investigate the site until well into 1981 claims
"I have photographs of a 15- to 25-foot area where even the center stripe was wiggly," he said.
Houston Chronicle September 15, 1991
So although I think we both probably agree this is a good trace evidence case (as did Mr. Vallee) I think you need to check facts with more than one source. That Vallee bloke, in this case, is just a "charlatan" who had to ignore data to reach his unsupported claim.
originally posted by: Dan00
a reply to: Willtell
One thing is for sure, if a guy like Vallee couldn’t find the truth likely nobody will.
That is a universal accepted truth which may be asking too much.
You are fired. Jack's spin on UFOs, or his lack of ability to spin UFOs, is not a "universal truth". You're fired Will.
a reply to: Blue Shift
we just don't have the right kind of perceptual or intellectual abilities to make reasonable (to us) sense out of it.
I know, right, because how could the same apparatus that doesn't understand be the same apparatus that is "experiencing" UFOs?
You are also fired.
Sheesh.
originally posted by: Blue Shift
originally posted by: Dan00
You are also fired.
Where can I pick up my severance check?
originally posted by: billydebunker
I'd imagine SCICOP just mails them out to you.
originally posted by: Blue Shift
originally posted by: billydebunker
I'd imagine SCICOP just mails them out to you.
I thought you were with them!
originally posted by: billydebunker
This is pure nonsense too, I'm afraid. Your psychologist friend should stick to telling teenage girls not to cut themselves.
If this were "psychological", then flying saucers would not show up in photographs. Use that brain.
I'm only pretending to be deeply offended every time Jim Oldberg tries to smear the reputation of heroic U.S. Astronauts. I'm secretly totally cool with it.
originally posted by: billydebunker
If flying saucers were not physical craft, they couldn't show up in photographs.