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.
iv) UFOs (i.e Unidentified Flying Objects) are actually a genuine phenomena. We are probably dealing with a number of different things of which ET spacecraft remains a possibility.
v) I have still not seen anything to convince me beyond reasonable doubt that UFOs are alien spacecraft.
Like I said I still think there's something at the bottom of it all but I am yet to be convinced there are aliens amongst us.
originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE
i) There are aliens
ii) They have the means to reach Earth from wherever they reside
iii) That means is used to visit Earth, and that the aliens choose, for whatever reason, to routinely mutilate herd animals.
I don't think I need to prove any of these three points to come up with overwhelming circumstantial evidence that some of these are being done by aliens, but I will try to remain unbiased, I realize that is important. Look at your ii) point - how do aliens get here? Don't you think there is a logical flaw there? If I come home and my house has been ransacked, money and appliances stolen......do I have to know the burglars means of conveyance to my house to make the logical connection that they were burglars? Or another one, if I get sick, have a fever, cough, chills - do I have to know how I caught the disease to validate me having the disease? If I don't know how I caught it does it invalidate it? If I don't know how the burglars got to my home does it invalidate the burglary?
originally posted by: jordan77
originally posted by: Gianfar
a reply to: TrueMessiah
One of the best posts on this topic ever! You did the homework and that's grand.
No offense to the OP, but had he done his homework, he would have included where the statements in question were made. Sometimes, that's a big problem with UFO quotes is they're attributed to somebody without any context as to specifically where or when they were made. Which to me, makes them useless. An unsourced quote by itself next to somebody's name doesn't do anybody any good cuz you can't verify it.
Are you disputing that government officials believe that some UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin or that you doubt the veracity of the statements made by said officials named in this post?
No offense to the OP, but had he done his homework, he would have included where the statements in question were made. Sometimes, that's a big problem with UFO quotes is they're attributed to somebody without any context as to specifically where or when they were made. Which to me, makes them useless. An unsourced quote by itself next to somebody's name doesn't do anybody any good cuz you can't verify it.
originally posted by: DarthFazer
a reply to: TrueMessiah
Inb4 the debunkers claim "there is no proof of aliens"
Anyway those are some great quotes op. I think it is safe to say we have been visited by a higher intelligence for a very long time. We cant afford to ignore the elephant in the room. We need to get to the bottom of this phenomenon once and for all. We need to cut off the black budget and stop funding entities suppressing the truth and tech if we are ever going to get the disclosure we deserve.
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Gianfar
Are you disputing that government officials believe that some UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin or that you doubt the veracity of the statements made by said officials named in this post?
C. Statements that cant be verified are worthless.
Case in point is your response to the person you quoted which had nothing to do with his quote. Even though you phrased it as a question, you are leading people to think that he is
A. "disputing that government officials believe that some UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin "
B. "doubt[ing] the veracity of the statements made by said officials named in this post?
Can you explain which part of the post even comes close to A or B? Here, I will help. Highlight the text.
No offense to the OP, but had he done his homework, he would have included where the statements in question were made. Sometimes, that's a big problem with UFO quotes is they're attributed to somebody without any context as to specifically where or when they were made. Which to me, makes them useless. An unsourced quote by itself next to somebody's name doesn't do anybody any good cuz you can't verify it.
This is, in essence, how misappropriated quotes are propagated.
I would say that both of you are engaged in semantics, since the OP's post includes enough information enabling anyone to find the associated references. I did my homework and found enough sources on this topic to satisfy my need for verification. I would assume that both of you are capable of doing this as well
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Gianfar
I would say that both of you are engaged in semantics, since the OP's post includes enough information enabling anyone to find the associated references. I did my homework and found enough sources on this topic to satisfy my need for verification. I would assume that both of you are capable of doing this as well
Semantics? How so? I didn't find any sources. Do you mind sharing yours? the "Semantics" comments followed by the "do your own research" comments leads me to believe that you really dont have much other than deflection.
public psychoneuroses
Expecting others to provide such information is rather lazy and disingenuous if trying to convince me you're real.
originally posted by: 111DPKING111
OP should source where the quotes came from .
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Gianfar
public psychoneuroses
What do you mean by that exactly?
Expecting others to provide such information is rather lazy and disingenuous if trying to convince me you're real.
Why? If you have convincing information, just provide it or just say you don't really have anything. Its not that big of a deal. I haven't come across anything convincing. If I did, I would share it and offer it up for scrutiny and discussion because that's what we do here. The whole point of this forum is to sort out information like this, not make it more confusing. Yes, I expect people to provide information and links and sources, otherwise, I have no clue what they are basing their assertions on.
And what makes you think that I didn't come across the same exact info you did? Maybe, to me, it was obviously bogus. Either you don't have anything worth sharing or you would just rather not give someone the opportunity to point out something that invalidates your beliefs. Maybe you read something somewhere and forgot where? Who knows? since you aren't sharing. I can only guess as to why and you can deflect and call me names if you want I guess. Not much of a discussion is it? It really has nothing to do with me being lazy or disingenuous. That is your projection of your own faults.
originally posted by: TrueMessiah
originally posted by: 111DPKING111
OP should source where the quotes came from .
This is like the third time I've seen this in the thread. Please click the link I provided in the OP.
General Nathan D. Twining, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1957-1960). As Lieutenant General in charge of the Air Force Air Materiel Command at Wright-Field, Ohio, he reported in 1947 on his investigation of UFO sightings to date:
"a. The phenomena reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious.
b. There are objects probably approximating the shape of a disc, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as a man-made aircraft.
c. There is a possibility that some of the incidents may be caused by natural phenomena, such as meteors.
d. The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and action which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically, or remotely." (Letter to the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces, September 23, 1947.)
www.roswellfiles.com...
e. The apparent common description is as follows:-
(1) Metallic or light reflecting surface.
(2) Absence of trail, except in a few instances where the object apparently was operating under high performance conditions.
(3) Circular or elliptical in shape, flat on bottom and domed on top.
(4) Several reports of well kept formation flights varying from three to nine objects.
(5) Normally no associated sound, except in three instances a substantial rumbling roar was noted.
(6) Level flight speeds normally above 300 knots are estimated.
f. It is possible within the present U.S. knowledge -- provided extensive detailed development is undertaken -- to construct a piloted aircraft which has the general description of the object in sub- paragraph (e) above which would be capable of an approximate range of 7000 miles at subsonic speeds.
g. Any development in this country along the lines indicated would be extremely expensive, time consuming and at the considerable expense of current projects and therefore, if directed, should be set up independently of existing projects.
h. Due consideration must be given the following:-
(1)The possibility that these objects are of domestic origin - the product of some high security project not known to AC/AS-2 or this Command.
(2) The lack of physical evidence in the shape of crash recovered exhibits which would undeniably prove the existence of these subjects.
(3) The possibility that some foreign nation has a form of propulsion possibly nuclear, which is outside of our domestic knowledge.
3. It is recommended that:-
a. Headquarters, Army Air Forces issue a directive assigning a priority, security classification and Code name for a detailed study of this matter to include the preparation of complete sets of all available and pertinent data which will then be made available to the Army, Navy, Atomic Energy Commission, JRDB, the Air Force Scientific Advisory Group, NACA, and the RAND and NEPA projects for comments and recommendations, with a preliminary report to be forwarded within 15 days of receipt of the data and a detailed report thereafter every 30 days as the investigation develops. A complete interchange of data should be affected.
4. Awaiting a specific directive AMC will continue the investigation within its current resources in order to more closely define the nature of the phenomenon. Detailed Essential Elements of Information will be formulated immediately for transmittal thru channels.