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 Tifozi
BTW, it wasn't a personal attack. You're the one viewing it as a personal attack, and you're the one avoiding the subject. You completly ignored my post where I refute that the Horten 229 was the UFO viewed by Arnold.
But you didn't. What you did was take only a fraction of what was said in the video, and you dismissed everything else that was said afterwords.
What you did was attack the craft's capability itself, and then dismissed the logic of technological evolution that spawned from its existence.
Keep in mind that everything has to be looked at in historical context.
If you put this one quote into context, you will realize that the United States and Russia were not the only ones trying to develop the first UFO.
If you put this into historical context, you will also acknowledge the existence of technological evolution. Even though the Horten was a flawed piece of wood, it started a chain reaction towards building the perfect military aircraft. Stealth base technology.
The people in the documentary lived the events. Out of all the documentaries that exist in the ufo world, this one provides testimonials and actual footage by those who were involved with making UFOs. They have a very significant perspective, which all other witness will never-ever achieve. They were involved.
Psychological Warfare. As many-many conspiracy hobbyists know, psychological warfare was an important key element to war. At the end of World War II, we entered into the Cold War era. Everything in the foreign media was based upon psychological fear, which the Americans and other countries help plant to defend against an opposition.
When it comes to witnesses, majority of the UFO witness testimonies are from an uninformed point of view. What some of you guys want us to do is dismiss the logic behind personal perception. If I saw something in the sky that I cannot identify, that does not mean its of alien origin. Since I can only draw a conclusion based upon my limited knowledge, the object I see would be unidentifiable from my personal perspective. It would not be unidentifiable from anyone in the know. As a civilian who is observing objects from a layman's perspective, I could not identify every man made military craft that ever existed. Even though some of the testimonials come from military men and women, they also would not know everything the military is hiding. Logic would conclude that every testimonial given to this day is based upon subjective interpretation.
What the video documentary I supplied does is give everything context. If you stand back and ignore what you already know about, (since all of the evidence in support of UFOs is tainted by subjective interpretation), you will see the 'truth' behind the rich human history of UFOs.
No, he got everything right. It is you who is trying to put the square peg into the round hole.
Originally posted by Pathos
reply to post by Tifozi
You did it again. You dismiss critical information.
You missed everything.
Originally posted by jclmavgNo, he got everything right. It is you who is trying to put the square peg into the round hole.
Originally posted by Tifozi
When it comes to witnesses, majority of the UFO witness testimonies are from an uninformed point of view. What some of you guys want us to do is dismiss the logic behind personal perception. If I saw something in the sky that I cannot identify, that does not mean its of alien origin. Since I can only draw a conclusion based upon my limited knowledge, the object I see would be unidentifiable from my personal perspective. It would not be unidentifiable from anyone in the know. As a civilian who is observing objects from a layman's perspective, I could not identify every man made military craft that ever existed. Even though some of the testimonials come from military men and women, they also would not know everything the military is hiding. Logic would conclude that every testimonial given to this day is based upon subjective interpretation.
If you can't identify the origin of the object.........................you can't identify the origin of the object. Have you heard what you are saying?
If, according to you, we don't know what is in that UFO, you don't know if it is alien or not.
You...don't....know.
All this, are theories. Nothing more.
Originally posted by Tifozi
Psychological Warfare. As many-many conspiracy hobbyists know, psychological warfare was an important key element to war. At the end of World War II, we entered into the Cold War era. Everything in the foreign media was based upon psychological fear, which the Americans and other countries help plant to defend against an opposition.
Now this is just nonsense.
Cold War was about fear. Me fearing you.
I wanted YOU to fear ME. I wanted YOU to fear MY technology, MY knowledge, MY spies, MY astronauts.
YOU FEAR ME.
What part along the military admitting that it was a UFO in AMERICAN TERRITORY goes in favor of "YOU FEAR ME".
So, in your view, this is just fine, psycho wars... It's really good that a country admits "we have something flying inside our borders that we can't control, nor even know what it is"... Really, that should have scared the russians a lot!
Originally posted by Tifozi
The people in the documentary lived the events. Out of all the documentaries that exist in the ufo world, this one provides testimonials and actual footage by those who were involved with making UFOs. They have a very significant perspective, which all other witness will never-ever achieve. They were involved.
Another contradiction of yours.
A documentary called "I know what I saw", and many credential witnesses are "stupid ignorant people" to your eyes... Yet, this guys who show up in a documentary that goes along what YOU believe, are just "fine" and "involved"?
He has made assumptions based upon a subjective interpretation (third hand witness) of what was observed.
I bring you evidence from people who worked on the UFOs
and you guys are bringing evidence based upon third hand experiences.
Do I believe the individual who worked on building American and German made UFOs, or do I believe someone who is a bystander (civilian)?
Both of those posts show a complete abandonment of logic.
You cannot know what you don't know. Unless you have some type of ESP (as a civilian), you wouldn't be able to draw any conclusions (about what the government is doing). Its is impossible and illogical.
As a civilian you cannot identify the origin of an object if you have a limited understanding of what exists within the military.
If I can scare the enemy into staying away, I would use every asset to my advantage.
Should I believe someone's third hand experiences (the civilian's perspective), or should I believe someone who had hands on experiences (the inventor's perspective)?
LOL! First you insult him by basically saying he can't think straight and then you insist you mean no offense!
Originally posted by Pathos
reply to post by Tifozi
I'm going to agree to disagree with you. There is a whole framework of logic I think you are missing. We can be battling about this for decades, and neither of us will concede that the other is right. All I know is that your not able to use abstract thinking. Some people never develop that type of logic, so I'm not blaming you personally. I mean no offense in my statement.
I suggest you suffer from cognitive dissonance if you feel the above truly reflects reality.
Originally posted by Pathos
reply to post by jclmavg
Because you guys haven't made a successful argument against my case. Since I'm the one who opened the thread, that means your responsibility is to debunk or debate about what was put forth. I have answered all of your questions. Its just a mater of reading. Look back through the pages.
Range:
1,970 miles (3170km) at 393mph (635km/h) with two drop tanks
www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org...
All I know is that your not able to use abstract thinking. Some people never develop that type of logic, so I'm not blaming you personally. I mean no offense in my statement.
When you dismiss the revelation made about allied forces seeking to build stealth technology, (as the documentary said), you remove a third possibility to the analysis. Since there were other countries seeking to obtain the German specs, (flying saucer specs), Russia and the United States were not the only ones fighting for air superiority. We don't know what type of experimental technologies other countries have.
If you concentrate solely on the Horten design limitations, and the YB-35 limitations, you again narrow your train of thinking.
Since there is the possibility of a third party, one of the allied forces, you cannot definitively tell us what they have been working on. Its an unknown variable.
If you go back to the documentary, the narrator and one of the interviewed mentioned a revealing fact. While the United States was building a flying saucer, Russia had already been testing one of their own. Instead of using my United States prototype theory, we can consider the possibility of a crashed Russian saucer. Hmmm... Didn't the United States government just change their Roswell excuse to, "Russian made satellite."? Regardless about which story you go by, you cannot remove the logic behind a crashed man made aircraft.
Psychological Warfare has been historically documented. It has a whole history of its own. You can look this information up.
It was also mentioned that Lockheed is about 40 to 50 years ahead of what we know through public knowledge. Hmm...
In short, you did not rebut a single thing. You tap-danced around the hard questions.