Next on unidentified,ufo shoots down helicopter

silvarecord.com...







Something tells me that the "shoot down" is going to turn into a near brush with said helicopter.Because ufos arent interesting and exciting enough,a shoot down will do the trick.Any italians here that know something more?

So apparently the "shoot down" was a mini air collision with something that damaged a rotor blade and the pilot was forced to land obviously









The "shoot down" got shot down



Also its prolly The canneto di caronia case, Thanks wookiebill for the heads up

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't trust anything on the History Channel. Have had personal contacts with some of their shows before their airing, and showed them direct sources and information that has been completely discarded and ignored before episodes were aired. The Moe Howard incident was one of these.

a reply to: IMSAM

I'm going with collision with a drone

Is this project Bluebeam 2.0?

At least it provides a different focus for the military rather than it's own species.

originally posted by: dubiousatworst
I don't trust anything on the History Channel. Have had personal contacts with some of their shows before their airing, and showed them direct sources and information that has been completely discarded and ignored before episodes were aired. The Moe Howard incident was one of these.

It's TV, TV people don't do "truth", they do TV, "truth" doesn't get ratings

NASA's official explanation: It was shot down by ice crystals.

So TTSA is running out of cash and seeking desperately for public attention.

Nothing new here it seems...

This is the guy people are hoping will be doing disclosure. haha.

How about a person who just states the facts. Oops. There aren't any in the UFO field.

a reply to: roadgravel

It's because UFOs are their "Pale Horse". I'm not saying UFOs and aliens don't exist, I'm saying false disclosure is their means of advancing their goals.

I am totally hooked on this series. I will be watching this next episode. I realize many don't believe this, but I I do, and that's saying something, since I'm a skeptic.

Things are not looking good for TTSA.......Tyler's new article was devastating for them.

I still don't understand Chris Mellon's agenda...

There won't be any disclosure in 4 months as I predicted.

The data simply is not adding up and their story is beginning to fall apart.

I blame the NYT's for this. They did not do their homework..people should lose their jobs or sued over this.

ChiefD:

I realize many don't believe this, but I do, and that's saying something, since I'm a sceptic.

Contradiction. You cannot be both a believer and a sceptic at the same time on the same subject. It is not a logical stance.

You just have to accept the reality of the situation. Surely, you cannot seriously believe TTSA will be the conduit for so-called disclosure? This is a small entrepreneurial outfit who have made a series on a ufo incident and sold it to History Channel. In themselves, they lack credibility and gravitas...presenting nothing but a pop culture show.

Real, genuine disclosure will only come when authorities are forced to admit extraterrestrial presence due to the behaviour of said extraterrestrials in open and very public displays that are impossible to debunk. The fact that we are still discussing when disclosure may occur clearly implies that no ufo event has occurred that could not be debunked. It all feels like a long-running psy-ops to me, and I speak as one who had their own sighting back in the 1970's.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There must now be hundreds of thousands of sightings and experiences in the annals of ufology, not one has led to the requirement of disclosure. If an extraterrestrial presence wanted to let us know it was here, it would do so in a way that would be utterly in our faces and presented globally. It wouldn't limit itself to one country, gliding silently over its territory for many witnesses to gape at in subdued awe.

If many of the reported sightings, especially in the early days, were of genuine extraterrestrial presence, we can say that they were here merely to make non-interactive observations of us, and in finding us wanting, buggered off without actually saying hello...maybe? True disclosure won't come from our authorities, it will come from the extraterrestrial presence itself, when it decides to openly (and very publicly) interact with us. Until that time, it is all psy-ops.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
True disclosure won't come from our authorities, it will come from the extraterrestrial presence itself, when it decides to openly (and very publicly) interact with us. Until that time, it is all psy-ops.

You mean a MASS sighting? Can't see it happening any time soon, and there are precious few examples to date that come close - the 1997 Phoenix case is a contradictory mess (not helped by USAF flares being dropped). Washington 1952 springs to mind, despite some elaborate sexing-up by the History Channel's recent, brazenly fictional but diverting 'Project Blue Book' series.

Sort of off-topic but just wondering - was the December 2017 Times article (albeit written by UFO geeks) the first time since the 1952 Washington flyover that UFOs have been taken *absolutely* seriously in the US press? As in no subtle giggling between the lines or some kind of comedy punchline therein?

It would make for an interesting ATS thread to trace the history of 'straight' UFO reporting in the 'serious' US press. In the UK, it's been pretty much a continuous tongue-in-cheek affair, aside from the initial Rendlesham Forest article in late-1983, but even that was by the 'News Of The World' - hardly the most reputable rag here (now closed down in disgrace), while the broad sheets were mildly rattled before reverting to type within days.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
ChiefD:

I realize many don't believe this, but I do, and that's saying something, since I'm a sceptic.

Contradiction. You cannot be both a believer and a sceptic at the same time on the same subject. It is not a logical stance.

Oh yes I can. Many others are, so you are wrong.

I can believe what I want to believe. So I guess you care not a whit about the fact that high ranking military officers, pilots, and DOD civilian personnel saw these craft? What was that - a mass hallucination? Seriously, I don't get it

I've seen a gazillion posts on the company that sold this to the History Channel i don't give a damn about any of that, and wish people would stop harping about it. The episodes of this series are well done and credible. You can think what you want, and I will think what I want.

You will not change my stance. I stand by everything I say.

a reply to: IMSAM

Hola mate, there's also this article about Catalina Island.


mysteriousuniverse.org...

Just more fabricated clickbait from an organization that's in business to make money selling 'entertainment product' to people who thought The X Files was real.

The Unidentified show is incredible, its life changing stuff.

Anyone who says otherwise has either:

A: Not watched it
B: Doesnt understand it
C: Doesnt want to believe it
D: A paid shill

Lucidparadox:

The Unidentified show is incredible, its life changing stuff.

Anyone who says otherwise has either:

A: Not watched it
B: Doesnt understand it
C: Doesnt want to believe it
D: A paid shill.

Or E: intelligently discerning. I, of course, come under E, and think it is a load of twaddle!

You see...I have watched it, fully understand it, cannot believe it, and not paid a dime as I am no shill. I'm just an intelligent nobody who doesn't brook any nonsense.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox

Anyone who says otherwise has either:

A: Not watched it
B: Doesnt understand it
C: Doesnt want to believe it
D: A paid shill

You forgot E: Chicken