Classified FBI Documents Uncovered (UFOs)

From document text:

[He advised that it is not entirely impossible that the objects sighted...may possibly be ships from another planet SUCH AS MARS.
....fairly certain these objects ships or missiles are not from another nation in this world....]

Why would someone say.... such as Mars?
It sounds like this person has already heard about life on Mars. Sounds like he accepts this as a real possibility and seems to know the reader will find it plausible also. Otherwise he would have ended "from another planet"

He guesses Mars because he already knew Mars had intelligent life but does not know if their (Martian) craft have been spotted on Earth yet.

reply to post by rusethorcain


Very interesting theory, and probably true. Amazing how much information these documents have given us so far.

reply to post by Traumacrazy


So it was a bird. I guess that theory was debunked.
Interesting how much it resembebled an abduction.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by TimothyMartin]

Still, the other photos still seem legit.

And appearently most of the documents are really from the FBI...

Glad to see that this thread is where it should be, IMO these documents should be 'stickied' in order to allow newcomers to read these before posting. However, it seems unless they are found by a moderator there is not much chance of that.

These documents are fantastic and whoever comes out with silly comments saying that the governement are not aware of this, just hasn't done their research properly. Heres a couple of videos for those such people to get them started.





*You tube is being an arse the title is The Secret Evidence We Are Not Alone






[edit on 18-12-2009 by franspeakfree]

Matthew 3:16

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.

Mark 1:10

As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove.

This is what we see in this painting:


I do see its strange looking as well, but that's just Aert De Gelder's artistic interpretation of a scene (allegedly?) occurred 17 centuries before.
And of course, what's claimed by the evangelists is NOT less out of the ordinary thank some possible UFO sighting, is it? .
Basically, according to them, something very out of the ordinary occurred, but the painting itself just shows a scene based on the accounts of the evangelists.
The very same scene has been depicted in both similar and different ways: every artist tries to see with his own eyes something: Aert De Gelder saw it that way,
Giotto Di Bondone saw it this way,


William Blake saw it this way,


Beato Angelico saw it this way,


Francesco Albani saw it this way.


While many others just depicted a dove above John the Baptist and Christ, like for example Piero della Francesca, Andrea del Verrocchio, Leonardo da Vinci, Guido Reni, etc...
But the point is that in this case, the original scene (if really occurred, I wasn't there at the time so i can't say it for sure) was actually out of the ordinary (and not, not "just a bird"): the evangelists wrote "like a dove" but it was most likely a choice of words based upon the symbolic meaning of the dove: it was a dove that, returning to Noah with a fresh olive leaf in her beak, brought to him the physical proof that the flood had receded, and the heavenly proof that God had taken mercy on humanity causing the flood to end, that's why the dove had been seen as some heavenly messenger:
so, of course "like a dove" makes much more sense than "like a rook" (and sounds way better).
All in all this makes fall the painting in question under some somehow "paranormal" category because of its origional scene, while many other claims about old/ancient paintings are just based on misinterpretations due to lack of knowledge on styles and habits of artists belonging to some specific artistic movements.

Finding information that is meant to be obscured by officials and then believing them when they discredit the authenticity of said document is just plain stupid. I like the quote about not believing anything the government says until they officially deny it.

I can see it now..(Gov official)- "Oh yeah that leaked/declassified document that was found... that is actually real, whoops!"

I'm not saying this particular document is real but I'm definitely not going to base my belief on what the government says. I like to come to that conclusion on my own.

reply to post by franspeakfree



Thanks for the videos, very informative!

reply to post by internos


I see your point, the 'UFO' in that painting was just the dove! Thanks for that!
By the way, William Blake is a great artist....

reply to post by Digital_Reality


That's true, the government never admits something real is...real.

I'm looking for anyone who can translate chinese or japanese?

Here is a ton of FBI Documents on UFOs that the FBI released to the public.
foia.fbi.gov...




[edit on 18-12-2009 by TimothyMartin]

reply to post by TimothyMartin


Just about every picture you have posted are Fakes.
Instead of posting every fake picture just leave a link(which you did) so the reader can makeup their own mind.
This is just a personnel website with pictures and doc the webmaster has picked up on the way.


Zelong.

reply to post by Zelong


I'm afraid I agree with you Zelong.
Most of the photos do appear fake, however many of the documents seem to be authentic. Although some of them are available on the FBI's official page, many of them I have never seen before.
I believe the first one is the only auctual top secret one that really was stolen. As for the rest, I think they were made available long ago.

@TimothyMartin
I do, however, understand you posted all of these so we wouldn't have to risk downloading the rar.

I gave you a S&F, the first post was very informative, though I believe you could have done without all the photos.

Still an interesting thread, I think it should be made 'sticky'

By the way, Timothy, are you Agent Fox Moulder?

Originally posted by TimothyMartin
I'm looking for anyone who can translate chinese or japanese?

I can translate Chinese if it is Mandarin or Shanghainese, but not Cantonese

I haven't gone through the entire thread yet, so I'm not sure if anyone else pointed this out, but several of these documents were released in the late 70s or early 80s under the Freedom of Information Act and are included and discussed in the book Clear Intent, which, coincidentally, I am currently reading. In fact I read one or two of these documents just a couple hours ago.

I recommend the book; very well put together.

interesting.
not sure if this has been requested or done, but would anyone mind uploading this to some other site than the one in the first post?

when i try downloading it, it says that the slots for downloading from my country is currently being used or something like that, pretty wierd..
anyone?

edited for spelling.

[edit on 19-12-2009 by makkerskilap]

I know this is a dumb question, but where would I be able to obtain more Government related documents? Looking more for around UFO's, Projects, etc. The FOIA documents and non-FOIA documents. Need for further research. I'm new, so I have to wait a little until I can post a topic related to my question.

Originally posted by virraszto
I just found this thread and have started reading it, but haven't finished. I just wanted to make a quick comment on this photo.



I've seen this photo before and every time I see it, I don't see a ufo. I see what looks very much like a bubble behind some tree branches. Like a kid just blew a bubble and while it was floating off, someone took a photo of it.

I'm anxious to finish reading this thread.

Edit:I'm adding this photo of a bubble for comparison.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e0d6ce34580b.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 17-12-2009 by virraszto]

The photo itself looks fake, if you look closely at the bottom left light it appears to be in front of the tree branch when the rest of the UFO appears behind the tree.. now if the UFO is as far away as it looks, how is it possible?

Originally posted by Maximus187

Originally posted by virraszto
I just found this thread and have started reading it, but haven't finished. I just wanted to make a quick comment on this photo.



I've seen this photo before and every time I see it, I don't see a ufo. I see what looks very much like a bubble behind some tree branches. Like a kid just blew a bubble and while it was floating off, someone took a photo of it.

I'm anxious to finish reading this thread.

Edit:I'm adding this photo of a bubble for comparison.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e0d6ce34580b.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 17-12-2009 by virraszto]

The photo itself looks fake, if you look closely at the bottom left light it appears to be in front of the tree branch when the rest of the UFO appears behind the tree.. now if the UFO is as far away as it looks, how is it possible?

There isn't much light outside, but you could also be right. Interesting conclusion you have though. It's really hard to trust photos of UFO's today. It's sad that anybody is willing to take a photo of anything and claim it to be something that it isn't just for attention.

Originally posted by Maximus187
The photo itself looks fake, if you look closely at the bottom left light it appears to be in front of the tree branch when the rest of the UFO appears behind the tree.. now if the UFO is as far away as it looks, how is it possible?

You obviously havent noticed the rather common visual effect where strong light sources can drown out thin foreground objects effectively appearing in front of the object or eating into the outer shape of the objects. Especially given that it was taken on a rather dark and over cast day... as such sun light wouldnt be able to drown out the crafts light as much as it normally would. The lights arent in front of the tree branches, but are so bright they are drowning out and obscuring the thing foreground branches. Given the lighting most cameras would need slightly longer exposure times as well, which would increase a lights strength in a picture.

Also i find it a little annoying that virraszto posts a 'photo' of a bubble... when it isnt a photo but a 3d render of a sphere using refraction/reflection... a photo and a artistic depiction are very different things... not to mention... if it is a bubble... its a damn big one.



[edit on 23-12-2009 by BigfootNZ]

reply to post by antideceit


I'm sorry but I have to ask.

Where the hell is your avatar from? People falling into a hole?

What the crap!