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: fredrodgers1960
So, I've had this theory for a while now. These objects can slip into and outside of our dimension. It's the only thing that makes sense.
Take atmospheric drag. If these objects can slip just outside of this dimension, they could then speed up, slow down, basically do whatever, and not be "in contact" with the physical laws here.
The one that 60 minutes did their report on, with the 2 fighter pilots, would be a great example, when the object had enough of them, it literally, slipped completely out of our dimension, then popped right back in, ~60 miles away.
Fred..
originally posted by: fredrodgers1960
So, I've had this theory for a while now. These objects can slip into and outside of our dimension. It's the only thing that makes sense.
Take atmospheric drag. If these objects can slip just outside of this dimension, they could then speed up, slow down, basically do whatever, and not be "in contact" with the physical laws here.
The one that 60 minutes did their report on, with the 2 fighter pilots, would be a great example, when the object had enough of them, it literally, slipped completely out of our dimension, then popped right back in, ~60 miles away.
Fred..
He not only says that, he shows a side by side comparison and it sure looks like a match. This is from time index 46 seconds in his video showing Jupiter and four stars, before the video gets out of focus so they don't look triangular yet:
originally posted by: Lucidparadox
He even argued that the "pyramids" were in the exact formation of Jupiter and 2 other big stars from that location on that night. Im not making that up, its straight from him.
I would say there is either some kind of miscommunication or you're lacking some comprehension skills. Watch the video and see if you can understand what he says in the video, it makes perfect sense.
Im telling you the guy is just looking for any reason to shoot stuff down even if it makes 0 sense.
originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: Lucidparadox
Two points:
First, The report confirms that these were, in factSolid Objects. That is hugely important! Solid objects MUST conform to the laws of physics...Or those laws will have to be re-written.
Second, the report states that the "spherical object" descended into the water, no debris was found at the point of entry, and that a submarine was unable to locate the object under the water.
Which brings to my mind the question, "was Both Active and Passive SONAR utilized?"
I can easily imagine how some sort of special absorbent coating could be employed to reduce, perhaps even eliminate returns from an active sonar "ping".
But cavitation alone, from an object entering the sea from the air should have made it a piece of cake for a modern submarine to locate and track.
originally posted by: Lucidparadox
a reply to: Mantiss2021
Correct!
Another importabt note, this wasn't just the Omaha. There were at least 3 other Navy ships in the group being swarmed at the same time over the course of 3 days.
What's also interesting, is that we now know the Navy knows ALOT more than what we see here. Corbell dropped the news that since the NYT article.. the Navy has used the SNOOPIE teams.. and now the special COBRA team to come in and specifically catch and record data on this phenomena. Apparently the Cobra team was called in to the Omaha because the events escalated and continued.
So we know this.
-The objects can hover, fly, accelerate and decelerate for HOURS without battery recharges or refuels. Much longer than any known or even possible with known and classified drone tech.
-These specific objects can travel fast, and hover in the air, as well as underwater. The speed they have displayed underwater (based off radar) is beyond our tech.
-These objects resisted direct energy weapons, as well as an EW arsenal.
-These objects appeared and disappeared without any other known boats or subs in the area.
-A classified submarine search occurred and turned up nothing.
It's getting REALLY hard now for people to debunk this.
** One last thing.. it was CONFIRMED that the objects in question (despite Mick West arguing they may not be anymore) remain unidentified, and are included in the briefing report.
Can anyone prove conclusively it’s not military tech?
so what does that mean, to you?
originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Rob808
Can anyone prove conclusively it’s not military tech?
The " TicTac " with it's incedible speed was filmed 17 YEARS AGO. That in many cases would make it old technology.
So if that was man made technology, what is it actually being used for ? It still takes 4 hours to reach The ISS by conventiomal means.
originally posted by: Rob808
so what does that mean, to you?
originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Rob808
Can anyone prove conclusively it’s not military tech?
The " TicTac " with it's incedible speed was filmed 17 YEARS AGO. That in many cases would make it old technology.
So if that was man made technology, what is it actually being used for ? It still takes 4 hours to reach The ISS by conventiomal means.
So to answer my question you responded to, you cannot conclusively prove this is not military tech. Thank you for affirming your beliefs.
originally posted by: alldaylong
originally posted by: Rob808
so what does that mean, to you?
originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Rob808
Can anyone prove conclusively it’s not military tech?
The " TicTac " with it's incedible speed was filmed 17 YEARS AGO. That in many cases would make it old technology.
So if that was man made technology, what is it actually being used for ? It still takes 4 hours to reach The ISS by conventiomal means.
The same as most sensible people.
We just don't know the answer. That's why an investigation is occuring.
thanks for the moot conversation. Did you learn anything about yourself and how you process information?
originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Rob808
So to answer my question you responded to, you cannot conclusively prove this is not military tech.
Can you prove it is ? I will answer that for you. NO.
originally posted by: Rob808
thanks for the moot conversation. Did you learn anything about yourself and how you process information?
originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Rob808
So to answer my question you responded to, you cannot conclusively prove this is not military tech.
Can you prove it is ? I will answer that for you. NO.
so why investigate as you suggest if we already know the answer? Could you provide some sources that confirm what you attest?
originally posted by: alldaylong
originally posted by: Rob808
thanks for the moot conversation. Did you learn anything about yourself and how you process information?
originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Rob808
So to answer my question you responded to, you cannot conclusively prove this is not military tech.
Can you prove it is ? I will answer that for you. NO.
I tell you what i did learn. Those who think whatever it is is actually man made, are living in cloud cuckoo land.
I will add you to that list.
originally posted by: Rob808
so why investigate as you suggest if we already know the answer? Could you provide some sources that confirm what you attest?
originally posted by: alldaylong
originally posted by: Rob808
thanks for the moot conversation. Did you learn anything about yourself and how you process information?
originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Rob808
So to answer my question you responded to, you cannot conclusively prove this is not military tech.
Can you prove it is ? I will answer that for you. NO.
I tell you what i did learn. Those who think whatever it is is actually man made, are living in cloud cuckoo land.
I will add you to that list.
Thanks for putting me on a list, could you also quote where I stated what I did or didn’t believe?
originally posted by: alldaylong
originally posted by: Rob808
so why investigate as you suggest if we already know the answer? Could you provide some sources that confirm what you attest?
originally posted by: alldaylong
originally posted by: Rob808
thanks for the moot conversation. Did you learn anything about yourself and how you process information?
originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Rob808
you haven’t gotten back to me on my questions, why should I answer yours? Who is the “theirs” you are referring to?
So to answer my question you responded to, you cannot conclusively prove this is not military tech.
Can you prove it is ? I will answer that for you. NO.
I tell you what i did learn. Those who think whatever it is is actually man made, are living in cloud cuckoo land.
I will add you to that list.
Thanks for putting me on a list, could you also quote where I stated what I did or didn’t believe?
Let me ask you a serious question.
How do you know that these incidents are not also happening around the world and not being openly reported ?
If they are happening, would that be their military tech also ?
originally posted by: Rob808
originally posted by: alldaylong
originally posted by: Rob808
so why investigate as you suggest if we already know the answer? Could you provide some sources that confirm what you attest?
originally posted by: alldaylong
originally posted by: Rob808
thanks for the moot conversation. Did you learn anything about yourself and how you process information?
originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Rob808
you haven’t gotten back to me on my questions, why should I answer yours? Who is the “theirs” you are referring to?
So to answer my question you responded to, you cannot conclusively prove this is not military tech.
Can you prove it is ? I will answer that for you. NO.
I tell you what i did learn. Those who think whatever it is is actually man made, are living in cloud cuckoo land.
I will add you to that list.
Thanks for putting me on a list, could you also quote where I stated what I did or didn’t believe?
Let me ask you a serious question.
How do you know that these incidents are not also happening around the world and not being openly reported ?
If they are happening, would that be their military tech also ?
You haven’t answered any of my questions, why are you expecting me to answer yours? Who is the “theirs” you are referring to?
originally posted by: alldaylong
originally posted by: Rob808
originally posted by: alldaylong
originally posted by: Rob808
so why investigate as you suggest if we already know the answer? Could you provide some sources that confirm what you attest?
originally posted by: alldaylong
originally posted by: Rob808
thanks for the moot conversation. Did you learn anything about yourself and how you process information?
originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Rob808
you haven’t gotten back to me on my questions, why should I answer yours? Who is the “theirs” you are referring to?
So to answer my question you responded to, you cannot conclusively prove this is not military tech.
Can you prove it is ? I will answer that for you. NO.
I tell you what i did learn. Those who think whatever it is is actually man made, are living in cloud cuckoo land.
I will add you to that list.
Thanks for putting me on a list, could you also quote where I stated what I did or didn’t believe?
Let me ask you a serious question.
How do you know that these incidents are not also happening around the world and not being openly reported ?
If they are happening, would that be their military tech also ?
You haven’t answered any of my questions, why are you expecting me to answer yours? Who is the “theirs” you are referring to?
" Theirs " doesn't mean " Yours " Is that clear enough ?