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: Baddogma
I guess it could be a drone... but why and how it could do the maneuvers you saw leaves me feeling it is one of our "overlords."
Despite the noise and debate on what they are, where they come from and what they're doing here... the basic fact remains we have an unknown (to most of us) intelligence around us on Earth.
This was a daylight sighting, so the usual "Chinese lantern" won't fly. There will be the usual "you were drunk," "you were seeing a heli from a strange angle..." etc. and of course mis-identification happens all the time, but for those of us who have bothered to read the material and perhaps been lucky enough to see something that has no business flying around (from our human perceptive, anyway) it is a closed case... there IS something going on beyond our common knowledge.
I'd love to know what, exactly, that something is.
…at some point another object shot out from the original object and stayed stationary while the original object moved of and descended behind the trees…
originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat
a reply to: [post=17880024]mysterioustranger
Whats silly is your explanations.....
"I would think that if it were a court case, as long as there was truly concise evidence in the photos being presented as evidence, the judge would most likely heed such evidence regardless of the state of mind of the photographer. That's just silly."
1. "I would think a judge..." Your opinion... and wrong.
2. "As long as there was ...truly concise evidence..." Its not provable by the OP's own admission...that he cant establish the times photos were taken, and he's admitting he's not a very reliable witness, because he was "quite drunk" as well.
3. In that court, the photos cant be established as to when they were taken, and the photographer cant establish that he admitted...because he was too drunk then....so much so that later, he posted he couldn't remember the time.
So what do we have? Something that isn't provable/acceptable as truly (its unknown that its true-anything)good and concise (concise ...hardly , because the source is suspect)...Judges all the time throw things like these photos out FOR that very reason. Cant establish time and the creator of that evidence was under the influence, therefore tainting it.
Hey...they aren't my rules on reliable and credible witness testimony (and that would be flawed too), and under what condition they were obtained. (Drunk)
originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat
They weren't anything. Taken by someone who admitted he was "quite drunk", and had no conscious clue as to even what time it was.
"Evidence" presented under those conditions, totally discredits that evidence. And wont hold up to any scrutiny because of the conditions it was obtained under.
"Yes Judge. The witness who took these photos doesn't know what time it was when taken, and admitted voluntarily to the court he was "quite drunk" at the time."
This is'nt a court of law its a court of the people. it does'nt matter that the OP was drunk at the time, the evidence stands for itself. The photo's are there, they were'nt affected by the OP's drunkeness so the evidence is good.
originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat
They weren't anything. Taken by someone who admitted he was "quite drunk", and had no conscious clue as to even what time it was.
"Evidence" presented under those conditions, totally discredits that evidence. And wont hold up to any scrutiny because of the conditions it was obtained under.
"Yes Judge. The witness who took these photos doesn't know what time it was when taken, and admitted voluntarily to the court he was "quite drunk" at the time."