Massive UFO; my experience with invisibility

I hate to put an alien twist on this but frankly someone has to. I've read an account where a group of kids where camping in the woods and above them was a starry sky that cast a huge shadow. Anyway long story short these supposedly belong to the Mantis type. Most accounts you will find on the mantis type are abduction attempts / successes. They are described by most abductee's as the rulers of the galaxy, which is what they claim to be.

There is a lot of speculation whether this type actually exists, however the mantis alien accounts match in the description of these beings making the idea plausible. However since there is no solid evidence I guess they don't exist. That's how things work around here. Google them you'll find some info.

Originally posted by DaMod
I hate to put an alien twist on this but frankly someone has to. I've read an account where a group of kids where camping in the woods and above them was a starry sky that cast a huge shadow. Anyway long story short these supposedly belong to the Mantis type. Most accounts you will find on the mantis type are abduction attempts / successes. They are described by most abductee's as the rulers of the galaxy, which is what they claim to be.

There is a lot of speculation whether this type actually exists, however the mantis alien accounts match in the description of these beings making the idea plausible. However since there is no solid evidence I guess they don't exist. That's how things work around here.

Google them you'll find some info.

"Speculation whether this type actually exists" Sorry, I'm just thumbing through the literature on various types of alien species known to be haunting the Earth. (Fortunately Wonderwoman and the Green Lantern seem to have the situation well in hand.)

reply to post by cloudbreak


Given the technologies clearly . . . errrr and unclearly . . . operative in our era . . .

I have no trouble accepting your narrative as you've written it.

It's quite plausible, believable, understandable.

I appreciate the great description you gave to the setting and to the moments of the event. Good writing in your narrative.

However, i suspect the assaultive shredders will shred your account every way their over-inflated egos allow them to, compel them to.

Ignore them.

Seems to be one of the few ways they get their jollies.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by cloudbreak

 

Given the technologies clearly . . . errrr and unclearly . . . operative in our era . . .

I have no trouble accepting your narrative as you've written it.

It's quite plausible, believable, understandable.

I appreciate the great description you gave to the setting and to the moments of the event. Good writing in your narrative.

However, i suspect the assaultive shredders will shred your account every way their over-inflated egos allow them to, compel them to.

Ignore them.

Seems to be one of the few ways they get their jollies.

Another is watching people reject reality.

I once seen a UFO about that size.

Absolutely amazing experience, be glad you seen one, the big ones are the rarest.

Incredible no one has ever been photographed.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
However, i suspect the assaultive shredders will shred your account every way their over-inflated egos allow them to, compel them to.

Ignore them.

Seems to be one of the few ways they get their jollies.

Very well said, BO XIAN, and I am in strong agreement. Star.

As readily evidenced by my sig below, I lean more toward healthy skepticism than blind acceptance; however, I do find a Fanatical Skeptic to be as bad (or worse) than the Fanatical Believer. I would much prefer to hear one recount an ordinary experience with extraordinary reference than listen to one arbitrarily attack that experience based on nothing save the description.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla

 


Have you researched meteorological phenomena to rule out plain old weather?

Tell you what, at least, in meteorological phenomena it is very unlikely what he saw falls into this category.

en.wikipedia.org...

As far as pre-loading, well, that's like saying I've wanted to see a UFO every single day of my life, for along time, and I haven't seen another one yet. The guy doesn't seem delusion, but, in retrospect how do we know what his story is?


Honestly, I don't think he came here for a debate because he obviously isn't becoming angered by you, more prominent you are displaying 'searching' strategies to disprove him, which so far have failed inevitably, nothing more than retrospect to an event none of us can compilation to more than a story. Why people find it fun in their time to dismember stories, I do not know, I'd rather believe them if they sound fathomable enough. Hell, makes for a good scene in the old imagination.

Anybody not up to a challenge is free to ignore me. It will be a good measure of how many people here really believe what they talk about.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Do you know the difference between belief and knowing? Rhetoric question.

He apparently knows what he saw.

What he believes it was, is something he does not know, which he has made apparent. He has not said it isn't meteorological phenomena, he just doesn't credit it a heap of credibility as you so sparingly do. If you had seen exactly what he had seen, I'm sure it'd take you awhile to come to grasps on a logical explanation of a extraordinary event, if not, then you are believing without knowing what you saw.

I don't think he'll ever believe what he saw he or anyone else can explain, without some serious quantifiable proof. I know I wouldn't.

Also, I don't think anyone on this thread is as weak-minded as you offer them to be, so, don't expect any of the participants to ignore you.

"Also, I don't think anyone on this thread is as weak-minded as you offer them to be, so, don't expect any of the participants to ignore you."

Not even the guy who thinks the farside of the moon is always in darkness?

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Well maybe him,

Anyways, I'll rest my case for now until we have a few more opinions.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
You have to rule out the mundane before you can start on the extraordinary.

Wrong. Mundane events require mundane explanations. Extraordinary events such as the sky going dark and seagulls going bezerk allow for extraordinary considerations...such as cloaked aircraft.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
You have to rule out the mundane before you can start on the extraordinary.

Wrong. Mundane events require mundane explanations. Extraordinary events such as the sky going dark and seagulls going bezerk allow for extraordinary considerations...such as cloaked aircraft.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

Speaking slowly: You have to rule out mundane events as the cause of the phenomenon.

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Well maybe him,

Anyways, I'll rest my case for now until we have a few more opinions.

A salute to you, sir, for not running from the debate.

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
Speaking slowly: You have to rule out mundane events as the cause of the phenomenon.

Being open for the extraordinary does not rule out being open for the mundane.

You can think in more than black and white, cant you?

What the OP is sharing is extraordinary...something I have NEVER witnessed before. Contrast that to the 100000000000000000000000000000000000000 things we have all witnessed before.

reply to post by Gawdzilla

Extraordinary events such as the sky going dark and seagulls going bezerk allow for extraordinary considerations

He said allow for extraordinary considerations, he did not say a mundane explanation isn't plausible.

For someone who spent 20 years studying weather, your comprehensive skills are questionable.

Also, watch out for one liners

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Extraordinary events such as the sky going dark and seagulls going bezerk allow for extraordinary considerations

He said allow for extraordinary considerations, he did not say a mundane explanation isn't plausible.

For someone who spent 20 years studying weather, your comprehensive skills are questionable.

Also, watch out for one liners

I am merely challenging him to give a clear and coherent story. That is far trickier than most people believe.

What part of my weather knowledge do you find wanting?

One year the government took away my birthday and sent me to Vietnam, all in the same flight. I doubt ATS could do worse.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Once again your comprehensive skills prove questionable, who are you talking about? Sky or the writer?

I'm not saying your meteorological knowledge is questionable, I'm saying your ability to read what people write is.

There is NO quantifiable data that this event ever occurred, let alone what it might have been. It is ALL speculation, and if you make of your time debating something that might well be the works of a over active imagination, then you my friend, are the one I doubt.

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Once again your comprehensive skills prove questionable, who are you talking about? Sky or the writer?

I'm not saying your meteorological knowledge is questionable, I'm saying your ability to read what people write is.

There is NO quantifiable data that this event ever occurred, let alone what it might have been. It is ALL speculation, and if you make of your time debating something that might well be the works of a over active imagination, then you my friend, are the one I doubt.

I see you've lost track of the thread. I've been consistently referring to the aerial phenomenon from the OP.

And, you are right, there is no data that the event occurred. However, I'm willing to give the OP the benefit of a doubt that he saw SOMETHING, and am offering possibilities as to what it could be. And suggestions about how likely some of the proposed "explanations" are for the event. In other words, I won't call the OP a liar. I wasn't there, I didn't not see it. So I comment on the available information. The scenario itself is interesting, and we've been debating the possible causes. Care to join in or would you rather "harrumph"?

reply to post by Gawdzilla


I'd rather not speculate about something that can't be proved.

I find it funner to pick apart posts like yours, you'll see me doing it all the time.

Lots of people hate me around here, lots of people find me outrageously hilarious.

Just know when I chose to, I can bring some heavy points onboard, which I've found no reason to bring so far.

Since you're new to the board, from what it appears, I'll go easy on any posts you make, for now. Just be forewarned, if you start making stupid assumptions like Phoenix Lights = Flares = Reasonable Proof, You will anger me, and I will lurk until I find a point you make that is completely wrong, then I will dismember your post.

[edit]

And his story was coherent, and in depth enough. I don't think he needs to reiterate, unless you need some brail printed out for you.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Revolution-2012]