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.
How many pictoral representations recorded in ancient art all the way through to midevial and rennaisance times do we require?
[
How much video recorded evidence of strange ariel phenomenon performing bizaare and seemingly impossible manuever's does the general public require before we stop ridiculing the phenomenon
Originally posted by tristar
What is the best way to disprove something.
Originally posted by tristar
Its protocol, there is nothing unusual about it being reported by state controlled media
All kinds of reporters of the Western medias furrowed the city. They heard to say that in addition to the four children, there had been hundreds of adult witnesses. They found none, except if you count the mother of one of the children who stated that at a certain time whereas she went to a family celebration, she saw a flickering of red, green and yellow lights above the roof of a
Among certain Russian ufologists, delirium reached new heights, however. "I think that this flying saucer was nothing other than the appearance of Christ", told Alexandre Mosolov, "Member of the special Commission of investigation of the incident of Voronezh." Why? Because only children, "innocent spirits", were witnesses.
Three joined factors attracted the French, US resident ufologist Jacques Vallée towards this doubtful story: first of all, he had often maintained the position that they are "military personal" or mysterious "secret agencies" which are behind the UFO phenomenon.
In his book "The Invisible College", he had written fifteen pages on the Ummo case. He repeated faithfully what was known about it, and concludes as if all that were proven, by one of its favorite theses initially: "the phenomenon systematically lies to exceed logic", seeing a "psychic bond" between Ummo, Uri Geller, the UFOs and all the field of the paranormal.
Voronezh turned into a Mecca for foreign journalists accredited in the USSR. Local authorities organized trips for the representatives of the press. In spite of the fact that all the witnesses are children and that the only scientist, persuaded of the reality of the event, uses of very particular research methods for the demonstration
Also, he knew that he would find in Russia sympathetic ears to his paranormal and other "psychic aspects" or "interdimensional" worlds thesis. Where a judicious ufologist would have smiled at "the scientific apparatus" of the famous Russian "experts" supposedly proving a "biomagnetic activity" on the alleged spot of the landing of Voronezh through what was nothing else than the good old divination rod, Jacques Vallée rather heard resound a peasant paranormal tinkling. And these aliens "too absurd to be extraterrestrial" thus "lures of aliens" product of some "higher intelligence" was probably also irresistible for him.
As for Jacques Vallée, he would come out with a new book, "UFO Chronicles of the Soviet Union" and would boldly describe the case of Voronezh like that of a dozen adults
in addition to the children, of a round spacecraft, and giants with three eyes, and a robot who accompanies them,
he would write on "engineers" who examined landing traces of the craft, which would have weighed 11 tons.
He would tell that Ajaja confirmed the "abductions of the witnesses of Voronezh".
He would even publish a list of so-called witnesses coming from a doubtful gazette.
Originally posted by summerdreary
You obviously know what your talking about. I don't really; I just found the video interesting.
Originally posted by summerdreary
At least I admit I'm ignorant. Trust me, I'm trying to fix that.
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Originally posted by tristar
What is the best way to disprove something.
You can't. You can only prove an alternative.
Originally posted by tristar
Its protocol, there is nothing unusual about it being reported by state controlled media
You are trying to have it both ways; on one hand the KGB was trying to cover it up, explaining the lack of evidence. On the other, it was not unusual for them (inexplicably) to release information they wanted covered-up in the state-media.
[/quote
What exactly are you not understanding , that the news did leak and could be kept under control. Is this so hard for you to understand. This a practice performed by the U.S. main stream media with the open blessing of the military.
Also to take parts of my post and quote a particular line and not post from start to finish for the only purpose to create momentum is not the best thing to do. Its something politicians do and im way to familiar with that style of dialogue or should it be monologue.
Either way, you have your beliefs and opinions and so do i. In closing to try and approach me with methods that date back to the 50's id re-think your strategy
Originally posted by tristar
What exactly are you not understanding , that the news did leak
and could be kept under control. Is this so hard for you to understand.
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Originally posted by tristar
What exactly are you not understanding , that the news did leak
and could be kept under control. Is this so hard for you to understand.
Yes, because it makes no sense. You are trying to have it both ways again. You say the KGB tried to cover it up by confiscating the evidence, yet somehow the story was leaked, despite the vice-grip the Soviet authorities kept on the media. There were no leaks unless they wanted there to be leaks. If they were trying to cover it up, as you claim, then there would not have been a leak. So...which is it? Was there a cover-up or not?