Dan Smith - May 5th - Part One Dan Smith-May5-07-...
Dan Smith - May 5th - Part Two
Dan Smith-May5-07-...



UFO, ALIEN, DISCLOSURE, SERPO, SEINU, PROJECT-CAMELOT - Open Minds Forum - http://www.openmindsforum.com/
« UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jun 9, 2007, 4:14pm





UFO, ALIEN, DISCLOSURE, SERPO, SEINU, PROJECT-CAMELOT - Open Minds Forum - WWW.OpenMindsForum.com :: General :: UFO/ Alien / Exobiology :: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« »    [Search This Thread] [Send Topic To Friend] [Print]
 Author Topic: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed (Read 22,623 times)
MidusTouch
Full Member
***
member is online

[avatar]

[msn]

Joined: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 36
Location: Macau
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #2310 on Today at 6:00am »


Today at 1:12am, 10538 wrote:

Today at 12:27am, italiclikeitis wrote:


That's a great question.


This proves you new people are not reading back through the thread. I believe it was Midas who originally brought up the fact that these objects do not have landing gear. I expanded on it saying that this is proof that these objects are ET.



After spending so many weeks in this forum and one thing I'm 100% certain that these drones don't land whatsoever even they're government built mind control UFOs.
Either there is a huge hook somewhere to catch these drones or they go on and on like a Duracell battery. 8-)
As for landing gear, here are some ideas can make these drones land probably. ;)

[image] [image] [image] [image]
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

no way jose
MOON-MAN
New Member
*
member is offline

[avatar]



Joined: Aug 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #2311 on Today at 6:06am »

form and function note

all of these objects could be stacked offset as not to damage the diodes and hung or attached to a larger unseen object.

internal components are more desirable than external since they are protected from many hazards.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
shmush
News Moderator
*****
member is offline

[avatar]



Joined: Jul 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 447
Location: Minnesota
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #2312 on Today at 7:12am »

This whole debacle is starting to remind me of crop circles. Each one getting more elaborate than the other, and no one is ever able to get one of them on video.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

I believe in the brotherhood of all men, but I don't believe in wasting brotherhood on anyone who doesn't want to practice it with me. Brotherhood is a two-way street.
Malcolm X
ninken
New Member
*
member is offline

[avatar]

Playing before releasing

[msn]

Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #2313 on Today at 9:35am »


Today at 1:12am, 10538 wrote:

Today at 12:27am, italiclikeitis wrote:


That's a great question.


This proves you new people are not reading back through the thread. <blahblahblah>.


As if you'd know? I actually did read it, but I brought it up because a new object came up. The possibility of the other ones being able to land would be bigger than with the big basin "sighting".
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

10538 has been confirmed a stalker.
whoopeddog
Full Member
***
member is offline





Joined: May 2007
Posts: 56
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #2314 on Today at 12:43pm »


Today at 3:02am, organelle wrote:
Personally, I think LMH is a hero. She doesn't claim to know exactly what's going on, but she does a lot of work to organize reports and interview those who claim to be witnesses. I really respect her a great deal, but I don't hold her to standards that she's unlikely to fulfill. I also don't hold her to standards I can't fulfill. Her work has had a profound impact on my perspectives, and has long been a source of fascinating and speculative anomalism.

But personal feelings aside, I think it's important that she publishes material so broadly. Without her, evidence would probably be missing. If she took time to 'verify' (practically impossible in many cases) each witness (by what standards?) before posting, let's face it, she'd post maybe once a year, possibly not at all. I'd rather see the whole mishmash of likely and unlikely evidence all together, in one spot, than to have access only to those elements which had been 'studiously verified'. I think most of us actually share this perspective, no? I mean, sure, there's a spectrum of relatedness, and there's a continuum of chaos beyond which additions to the pool become relatively meaningless. Would any of us want to wait 3 months for her to verify the Yosemite report before hearing about it?

BTW: I have been around long enough to remember the Dr. Reed fiasco. :)


Your comments are well-taken. I guess there is one sense in which it is good to get unfiltered information hot off the press. But I know that it is a standard in journalism to verify sources, and I don't know that it should take 3 months to do it. Otherwise, it makes you very vulnerable to the kind of hoax many of us suspect is going on here.

Another issue here is that in my opinion all information is not the same. Some is closer to the truth than others. Some information is wrong, some information is purposefully misleading. If nobody tries to sort that out, how can we ever get to the truth?

If LMH protects her sources as proprietary information, then it seems that she would have some responsibility to verify what they are saying, at least at the level that they are who they say they are.

So, she's talked to Chad. It would be good to hear more about what Chad has to say. Similarly, Raj has promised to come back and answer more questions. Similarly, Stephen has promised to lead an expedition to Big Basin. I'll be less skeptical when any of those things happen.

I think if LMH puts unfiltered claims out there, she needs to attach a disclaimer of some kind, because it is really not journalism on any level.

I do find it exceedingly frustrating that there seems to be such a low expectation that any of these people show that they exist in the real world and that their photos were really taken when and how they say they were.

If the reporters continue to be just out of reach, I think that tells you more and more as time goes on.

P.S. Is MUFON still investigating this? I wonder how they will post their report? On their website?

P.P.S. I wonder if there has been any more contact between admin and Mark Gonzales of Capitola PD, especially in light of the new photos, which if real, should start to be become a true Homeland Security issue. It seems like that thing could do more damage than a pair of nail clippers on an airplane.
« Last Edit: Today at 12:52pm by whoopeddog » Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
italiclikeitis
Full Member
***
member is offline





Joined: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 39
Location: Ontario, Canada
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #2315 on Today at 1:25pm »


Today at 6:00am, MidusTouch wrote:

Today at 1:12am, 10538 wrote:


This proves you new people are not reading back through the thread. I believe it was Midas who originally brought up the fact that these objects do not have landing gear. I expanded on it saying that this is proof that these objects are ET.



After spending so many weeks in this forum and one thing I'm 100% certain that these drones don't land whatsoever even they're government built mind control UFOs.
Either there is a huge hook somewhere to catch these drones or they go on and on like a Duracell battery. 8-)
As for landing gear, here are some ideas can make these drones land probably. ;)

[image] [image] [image] [image]


The problem is that with many of us, we are still in airplane land. Where everything in our reality needs to land, or have landing gear. Even 99% of sci-fi craft have landing gear.

I think that you might be right on with the idea of not landing. The way it supposedly moves around, suggests to me, that it has good control of its altitude, and speed. So, think anti-gravity. I like the hook theory. Although there is a pretty wide array of possibilities here.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
epo3
Forum Peer-Group Member
*****
member is offline

[avatar]



Joined: Mar 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 380
Location: Up-state NY
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #2316 on Today at 1:44pm »

IMO...besides having possible retracting landing gear, thus hidden in some fashion.

These craft may simply attach to shore power (so to speak) at low levels for maintenance ect...

Also they could land (and hide) in lakes or at sea! In which case it would be a simple buoyancy adjustment.

JMO here.

epo3
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.
Douglas MacArthur
littlehat
New Member
*
member is offline



it just happens



Joined: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4
Location: Europe
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #2317 on Today at 1:49pm »

shmush,

you want crop video..
what about this one here:
http://www.secret.tv/artikel/Kornkreis_2_8688.html
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
onthefence
Medal of Initiative Award
*****
member is online

[avatar]



Joined: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 97
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #2318 on Today at 2:10pm »

Is there any way that this could be a hologram or mirage and still be validated by photographs and testimonies?

The only features that I can think of matching a hologram are:
  • No reports have indicated it casting a shadow.
  • It appears and disappears.
  • It makes virtually no sound.
  • It moves faster than we can see, and is jerky.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

"Only the puny secrets need protecting. Big discoveries are protected by public incredulity." Marshall McLuhan
whoopeddog
Full Member
***
member is offline





Joined: May 2007
Posts: 56
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #2319 on Today at 2:17pm »


Today at 2:10pm, onthefence wrote:
Is there any way that this could be a hologram or mirage and still be validated by photographs and testimonies?

The only features that I can think of matching a hologram are:
  • No reports have indicated it casting a shadow.
  • It appears and disappears.
  • It makes virtually no sound.
  • It moves faster than we can see, and is jerky.


I think before you can get anywhere figuring out what the objects are, you have to have some crumb of confirmation that these reports are credible on any level.
« Last Edit: Today at 2:17pm by whoopeddog » Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
italiclikeitis
Full Member
***
member is offline





Joined: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 39
Location: Ontario, Canada
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #2320 on Today at 2:49pm »


Today at 1:49pm, littlehat wrote:
shmush,

you want crop video..
what about this one here:
http://www.secret.tv/artikel/Kornkreis_2_8688.html


That's great video. I had never seen that one before.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
spf33
Medal of Initiative Award
*****
member is online





Joined: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 187
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #2321 on Today at 2:58pm »


Today at 2:10pm, onthefence wrote:
Is there any way that this could be a hologram or mirage and still be validated by photographs and testimonies?

The only features that I can think of matching a hologram are:
  • No reports have indicated it casting a shadow.
  • It appears and disappears.
  • It makes virtually no sound.
  • It moves faster than we can see, and is jerky.


whenever someone mentions ufo's and holograms, i immediately think of project blue beam.

and not quite as fringe; a patent search for "holographic projector"
« Last Edit: Today at 3:04pm by spf33 » Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
onthefence
Medal of Initiative Award
*****
member is online

[avatar]



Joined: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 97
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #2322 on Today at 3:08pm »


Today at 2:17pm, whoopeddog wrote:
I think before you can get anywhere figuring out what the objects are, you have to have some crumb of confirmation that these reports are credible on any level.


What harm is there in exploring all possibilities? Is someones pride going to be hurt if this is proved to be a hoax?

Why stall in waiting for someone else to prove this?

I am trying to draw a line around this phenomenon to identify it and predict its behavior. Since multiple reports have come forth, a better understanding can predict the next report and possibly prove it's reality or hoaxality. In my mind I have started to put some possibilities inside the line and others outside that line.

I think that we can work in parallel to define all possibilities of how it can be a hoax or real. An active role may speed up the process of discovery rather than the passive role of waiting.

This is an unsolved puzzle to which might only be solved by exploring all possibilities.

My question about being a mirage or hologram may very well help to prove that this is a hoax.

The "crumb" you speak of is not an integer value, it is a variable that is defined in each of our minds differently. Your "crumb" may be seeing a video or watching the witness interviewed on TV. Another persons "crumb" may be touching the object. And some people will never be able to recognize the crumb even if it crushed them. And then for others, the crumb is a photo with a corroborating story.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

"Only the puny secrets need protecting. Big discoveries are protected by public incredulity." Marshall McLuhan
testmonkey
New Member
*
member is online





Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 5
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #2323 on Today at 3:09pm »

IMHO all this talk of landing gear is irrelevant. For instance, lets say (by some miracle) we know for a fact these ‘drones’ are real, and are indeed made by an advanced race. We have no idea what their tech is like… everything we say is completely speculation… the possibilities are endless on ways it could land. For all we know the ‘drone’ reverts into a goo and they store it in a jar somewhere. :P

Go back a hundred years and show people a pic or vid of a b-2 bomber in flight… then ask them how it lands… that’s only one hundred years… for all we know we are looking at a races tech that is 45,000 years ahead of us. :o
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
whoopeddog
Full Member
***
member is offline





Joined: May 2007
Posts: 56
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
« Reply #2324 on Today at 3:17pm »


Today at 3:08pm, onthefence wrote:

Today at 2:17pm, whoopeddog wrote:
I think before you can get anywhere figuring out what the objects are, you have to have some crumb of confirmation that these reports are credible on any level.


What harm is there in exploring all possibilities? Is someones pride going to be hurt if this is proved to be a hoax?

Why stall in waiting for someone else to prove this?

I am trying to draw a line around this phenomenon to identify it and predict its behavior. Since multiple reports have come forth, a better understanding can predict the next report and possibly prove it's reality or hoaxality. In my mind I have started to put some possibilities inside the line and others outside that line.

I think that we can work in parallel to define all possibilities of how it can be a hoax or real. An active role may speed up the process of discovery rather than the passive role of waiting.

This is an unsolved puzzle to which might only be solved by exploring all possibilities.

My question about being a mirage or hologram may very well help to prove that this is a hoax.

The "crumb" you speak of is not an integer value, it is a variable that is defined in each of our minds differently. Your "crumb" may be seeing a video or watching the witness interviewed on TV. Another persons "crumb" may be touching the object. And some people will never be able to recognize the crumb even if it crushed them. And then for others, the crumb is a photo with a corroborating story.


Point well taken about all avenues being up for exploration. My point is just that there is a common thread through these sightings of a certain unavailability of those who post these stories. It leads me to think that these images are well-produced computer graphics, and they exist on somebody's hard drive somewhere, and nowhere else.

It's just a working assumption or hypothesis, but no new information so far has tended to contradict it. We have Whitley Strieber saying that Chad has spoken with LMH, but we don't know that Chad isn't Raj or Stephen or even Alabama guy for that matter.

Of course, Stephen has promised a hike to the site at Big Basin, so I can wait on that.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
« »    [Search This Thread] [Send Topic To Friend] [Print]

The Alien Seeker News

Click to discover what is: - 'Exempt From Disclosure'


Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Click Here To Make This Board Ad-Free



This Board Hosted For FREE By ProBoards
Get Your Own Free Message Board!