The Awful Truth About UFOs (long) -- not for believers!

Originally posted by noslenwerd
Ignorance has taken over.
We gotta take the power back!

Nice signature. We could try a different approach, though:

Give ignorance all the power, and sit back until ignorance learns it is ignorant all by itself, while supplied the power by us. Sometimes i think that is what is going on, to be truthful.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Nice signature. We could try a different approach, though:

Give ignorance all the power, and sit back until ignorance learns it is ignorant all by itself, while supplied the power by us. Sometimes i think that is what is going on, to be truthful.

Haha nice, I like that theory. The lyrics were from Rage Against the Machine. My favorite band ever . Lyrics can be found Here

Anywho back on topic. Yes I agree there are many sightings that are well documented BEFORE we or anyone on earth was able to fly. For instance the Texas UFO crash of 1897.

Believers: Ones belief, like religion does not require empirical, incontrovertible, and scientific data or evidence to enforce or support their ideals. That is perfectly fine. Many who are believers are also content not to have to prove anything which is also fine.

Where belief starts crossing the proving boundary is when it presents itself as fact without the weight of evidence described above. A majority of hearsay accounts, lore, and simple anecdotal evidence don't hold up. No amount of faith or belief; however heavy handed can substitute delivery of the truth. The danger in discounting tough measures runs the risk of accepting deceit which is another channel for promoting ignorance.

[edit on 2-1-2006 by nullster]

Originally posted by rand

Do you have a link to a sighting which really was identified as a blimp?

This is the point I'm trying to get across. There should be thousands and thousands of UFO cases which end with the object being positivly identiied as a blimp, but they are just not there.

Nobody ever WANTS to see a blimp

This may be true (Nobody ever WANTS to see a blimp), but I, for one, have had a blimp sighting...

Many years ago, I was flying a small, single-engine aircraft at about 5000 feet, when I had a large, dark, object suddenly appear directly in front of my flight path. The conditions were hazy that day, and with no useful references to determine either the distance or the closure rate, I made a hard right turn and decided to get out of its way.

Fully expecting the bogey to shoot right past my course-line, I kept on scanning in its general direction for the next several minutes, but nothing happened...

Curious.

In all my flight hours I had seen many different things in the air (military aircraft at different ranges, balloons, birds, bright reflections, stars, Venus, Jupiter, kites, even RC models at high altitudes) but never anything like this.

The unknown object intrigued me, so I changed course once more and decided to get a closer look at it.

And guess what?


It was nothing more than the innocent little HOOD Blimp doing a little advertising...


Needless to say, I had a quick, little, chuckle at my own expense, but at no time did the thought of Extraterrestrials ever enter my mind (and as my presence here clearly demonstrates, I do consider such things).


So even though I sure didn't want to recognize it, here is a genuine blimp sighting.

[I see them fly over my house from time to time, too.]


In addition, USAAF pilots were reporting many unknown objects and formations in Alaska (and elsewhere) for some months prior to Arnold's sighting. This fact is little known, but I do have the De-classified Docs to support it.

You didn't mention any lighter-than-air units as being stationed in AK during early '47....


Just my thoughts,

Serpentime

Here's an idea. Maybe there aren't any UFO sightings with an explanation of blimp because people dont report blimp sightings as UFOs.
Just a thought.

Rand, you said UFO sightings have mostly been blimps, but call us childish when your theory is BLATANTLY contridicted by things like reports from 1909 and behind, abductions and Foo Fighters. It was a nice theory, but its time to face the facts. 95% of UFO sightings are hoaxes, mistaken objects, aeria phenominon, etc. But 5% arent, and a hefty chunk of those are 'blimp proof'.

A UFO sighting in medival sweden said a UFO cut holes in glass, brick, and metal. The 1942 'battle of LA' wasn't a blimp, the numerous abduction cases cant all be hoaxes, and while were at it the 1909 and behind sightings aren't blimps either. It was a good try, but a failed one.

Alright. Aside from this conversation. Rand, why would you put this title "The Awful Truth About UFOs (long) -- not for believers!" on ATS which is a forum that PROBABLY has more believers than you think? Thats like posting "The Awful truth about God, not for believers!" all over Vatican city. What do you expect? What are you looking for out of this?

Originally posted by sleeper

I've had a few run-ins with ET but I can't prove it so it doesn't count.


If a cherry tree full of cherries represented a galaxy and you picked a cherry from one side of the tree and examined it, who would think that the cherries on the other side of the tree are different?

Perhaps that analogy is difficult to follow, which leads to my next clue---human intelligence.

Humans have yet to hatch from this planet----space exploration; humans are clueless to everything about this planet like what are atoms, photons, electricity, fire, gases, and matter.

Sure we play with that stuff and use it but what is it? -----no one knows.

And like a child unaware of the world its parents live in, humans are unaware of the galaxy they live in.

Now you've pissed me off. Your analogy is simple, somewhat like yourself. I never stated that everything in our galaxy is like us (Pick one cherry of the tree and assume all are the same) I never said anything near that. Read what I write not what you want to read. You are a prime example of what you call Low intelligence.

[edit on 2-1-2006 by the_renegade]

Hmmm. I figured you would start with the 1942 Blimp over Los Angeles. If any sighting would match the
locale, trajectory, etc...that one does.

Excepting the fact that either one of the following must then be true....
1. The gunners were all cross-eyed and missed their target despite firing hundreds of AAA rounds...or
2. The CIA blimp was so super duper, it was impervious to mere AAA fire of the time...

One of us is reaching, and I don't think it's me....

Originally posted by the_renegade

Originally posted by sleeper

I've had a few run-ins with ET but I can't prove it so it doesn't count.


If a cherry tree full of cherries represented a galaxy and you picked a cherry from one side of the tree and examined it, who would think that the cherries on the other side of the tree are different?

Perhaps that analogy is difficult to follow, which leads to my next clue---human intelligence.

Humans have yet to hatch from this planet----space exploration; humans are clueless to everything about this planet like what are atoms, photons, electricity, fire, gases, and matter.

Sure we play with that stuff and use it but what is it? -----no one knows.

And like a child unaware of the world its parents live in, humans are unaware of the galaxy they live in.

Now you've pissed me off. Your analogy is simple, somewhat like yourself. I never stated that everything in our galaxy is like us (Pick one cherry of the tree and assume all are the same) I never said anything near that. Read what I write not what you want to read. You are a prime example of what you call Low intelligence.

Let me put it another way----

The cherry represents intelligent life on earth and the cherry tree---our galaxy filled with other stars (cherries) represents planets circling other star systems.

If one cherry has life on it isn’t it likely that many other cherries (planets) have life on them also?

Could be very well Sleeper. But I said intelligent life, advanced, not life. Mercury could be filled with heat resistant hamsters for all I know, I've never been there.

[edit on 2-1-2006 by the_renegade]

Wow, this is fun.

Notice how all the kiddies get really upset if you even hint that there is no Santa Clause.

But surely you knew that and the "not for believers" thing was a magnet to draw them. OK, either you are
baiting or you have something more to say. Now that everyone has had a chance to verbalize their knee-jerks,
please continue, rand.

So far, this appears novel, and a fresh look. I would place this in the "hide in plain sight" category.

Blimp is a funny word. That's all it is. Funny. It relates to fat - because its so round. I think the UFO sightings are a little more complicated than: Blimps. Its a funny word though. You have to admit that.

Originally posted by nightwing

Notice how all the kiddies get really upset if you even hint that there is no Santa Clause.

There is a Santa Clause!!!!
-First astronaut to the far side of the moon

Interesting, how many moons are there in the solar sytem? Do they not spin as well, in a way that if you were observing them from the planet's surface you could see the entire surface of their moons from the surface of their orbiting world?

Not sure, just asking ... . . . . .

Wow, that hit like a brink wall Teacher.
So Nightwing, what kind of blimp do you fly?

[edit on 2-1-2006 by the_renegade]

considering you took so long to write up your theory, with pics etc. It has become obvious, your working for them. Are you getting payed for this?

Do all of you people bashing rand have some sort of intellectuall retardation or something?

i havent seen him say any where that there is no extraterestrials, or that every unexplained sighting is a blimp.

he said it could account for most of them.

there is an awfull lot of ufos being seen, i think there is more then enough room for a hell of a lot to be explained by blimps, and there stil left over some to be real or watever.

my self i think it is a really good idea.

i really think every one yelling at him now,being very closed minded, saying, well wat about this and that? stop and think maybe sighting A isnt able to be a blimp, or sighting B, but sightings C through to K can be, if ya get wat im saying.

i got this sort of reaction when i tried to post a imagery hypothesis for alein abductions. no one stoped and thought, well maybe this can explain some of the cases. they just said how about this and that. no one ever said they were trying to apply it to every single thing, just its another possible explination

This is an interesting, smart theory that is, some would say sadly, wrong. And people who are presenting counter points (en masse at that) aren't bashing him. They're giving reasons why his theory dosen't work, just like he gives them reasons why it does.

Some people are bashing him, but I had a good chuckle when he got my hopes up for something like evidence of no roswell, or proof that the russians had flying saucers.. And I get blimps. He has repeatedly made experianced AA gunners and radar operators seem like cross eyed civilians, and expressed his belief in the incompotence of all of these individuals who have reported UFO sightings through radar. So yeah, a mostly inteleligent debate is bashing now.. So he was bashing UFO belivers by making a point against THEM, so every theory on UFOs is bashing..

I've been reading this thread from the beginning and I dont think anyone was actually bashing rand. Just presenting alternate viewpoints.
This is an interesting discussion and I look forward to further intelligent posts, but come on now.....retards? Because they don't believe as you do?
Isn't that a tad harsh?
An open mind is a terrible thing.

Hypothesis are a dime a dozen.

My last hypothesis would be correct no matter if you were talking about UFOs or CIA Blimps.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"Do all of you people bashing rand have some sort of intellectuall retardation or something? " == tiddly54

Actually not, tiddly54. As in the Santa Clause example, most people have a naturally adverse reaction when they
percieve their beliefs are being challenged. Relax and watch. rand may even be doing this on purpose as I can tell
he knows something about the group he has as an audience. Besides, nobody has attacked his statements with
facts. Only hear-say, testimony, and misrepresentations and outright beliefs. Some of what he is saying is factual,
worth listening too. It is striking a nerve and folks strike back without considering their own lack of ammo.
Apology Gunman, but one of your statements is the best example of no ammo.

"He has repeatedly made experianced AA gunners and radar operators seem like cross eyed civilians"

Where did he do this ? Where are the experianced AA gunners? Where are the experianced operators that are made
cross-eyed ? And what is an experianced radar operator anyway? In a way it looks like a cross-reference to Gaz's post
but I am not going to get locked into an off topic debate until I hear more from rand.

So go ahead rand. So far in 4 pages, you appear to be the only one who has fired off any live rounds.