Sign in to follow this  
Starjumper

Aliens among us

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Marblehead said:

The terms "UFO", "Flying Saucer", etc are the creation of Orson Wells and H G Wells at their roots.

 

The creations, which were imaginary, were greatly expanded upon by many.  Aliens will never go away.  We are at their mercy.

 

 

 

 

 

Not sure about at their ' roots   '  but the term flying saucer was coined by a  journo  and UFO by US air force

 

" the first recorded use of the term "flying saucer" for an unidentified flying object was to describe a probable meteor that fell over Texas and Oklahoma on June 17, 1930. "Some who saw the weird light described it as a huge comet, a flaming flying saucer, a great red glow, a ball of fire."[1] The term "flying saucer" had been in use since 1890 to describe a clay pigeon shooting target "

 

" The term was coined in 1930[1] but has generally been supplanted since 1952 by the United States Air Force term unidentified flying objects or UFOs. "

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_saucer

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Starjumper said:

 

Hi Marbles, with this thread I have no intention of trying to convince anyone of something that they disagree with.  My purpose here is to present some additional information or evidence to those who are searching and wondering about such things.  I've seen and heard enough so that for me there is no doubt, and mind is made up, but I always find it pleasant to encounter some good solid evidence that shines a light more brightly on this subject, both for and against.  So the challenges and sarcasms in your earlier posts are seen as sarcasm and trolling, which is no problem, I understand the sentiment.

 

 

Cool. Then I will pose this, I was not going to as I didnt want this to get conflictual .... but in the context of ...

 

good solid evidence for or against I would like to address an earlier post of yours here in this thread  ;

 

" Fossil evidence indicates that humans have been around a half million years or so.  However there is some other interesting evidence, which are ancient artifacts that have been discovered in rock and coal that is older than modern humans are supposed to be.  If those things are in fact real that indicates that there was some kind of technology back then.  But who manufactured such things?  Intelligent dinosaurs, extraterrestrials, another kind of intelligent mammal or reptile? "

 

Name or show any one of these things and we shall discuss its veracity   ( ie.   " ...  If those things are in fact real ... "   )   as this seems the crucial part of your statement . If those things can be shown not to be real, fake, made up and fraudulent , then we can assume that it does not indicate there was some kind of technology back then  - agree ?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Starjumper said:

 

This is not the same vehicle as the one you first posted.  I'm quite familiar with the one above, it was developed to be able to land and takeoff from aircraft carriers. Here's a short video of it : 

 

 

probably, I did a quick pic search to show different angles, some pics were tagged with taranis , some not.  I cant seem to find the  pic now of the angle I saw it from that led me to recognise it as my sighting.

 

10 hours ago, Starjumper said:

The above one is subsonic, while the one below would be supersonic.  I don't recognize it and I suspect it may be a computer drawing.  I'm a member of an aircraft design forum so I'm going to post the picture there and ask about it.

 

Cool .

 

10 hours ago, Starjumper said:

 

 

 

Those drones ARE airplanes.  Ones with a large wing area and low wing loading can make sharp very high G turns at lower speeds because there is no pilot, these turns may appear to be right angle from a distance but up close you will see that the turn does have some radius.  Planes with pilots can't turn at much more than 9 Gs because it could kill or damage the pilot, even then they need special high compression suits to even tolerate 9 Gs.

 

Thats a relevent point and relates to my points about observations , especially by people that do not realise this stuff . Even if one does, there is always 'optical illusions'  ... I got done by a doozy once !  I thought I knew about that stuff, but boy was I fooled !

 

10 hours ago, Starjumper said:

 

On the other hands, the sharp right angle turns seen performed by 'UFOs' are done at thousands of miles per hour and are done with no visible means of support, no wings.  Also they have been seen to be done by vehicles with windows in them, which implies there are occupants.  If there are occupants in them, that means that the propulsion system needs to act upon all the matter in the vihicle, otherwise the extreme G forces would kill them, turn them into little puddles.  This type of propulsion is sometimes referred to as a field drive.

 

 

 

or a warp drive  :D  

 

Now, IMO we are entering the 'other type' of sightings .  I am well familiar with them having a GF that saw them all the time .

 

Now there is a story !  (I talked about this before but maybe you were not in on conversation )  ; 'UFO Girl'  - saw 'em everywhere !  Gave me a really convincing description once (portholes, peeps inside, etc ) I asked when where . and she 'Last night , in the back yard ."

 

"Ooooohhhhh kay  then  ....   "

 

" And I swa you in there ! "

 

" Allllll righty then ....   "      :D

 

But then she would come home with a friend that was 'white and electric ' .... 'My God, we just saw this huge UFO following in a plane to land at Sydney airport ! "   ... and GF is skipping around casually ' Thats another one ! "

 

and I am whhaaat ??? !

 

and next night news on tv has story, all these people saw it , airport radar picked it up . Air force says radar was not working properly. Traffic control says 'yes it was or we would have been having things smash into each other , air force says  no, because .....

 

and I am    WHAAAATTT !   

 

and the only time I seen those unexplained UFOs I was with her  ..... UFO girl - fascinating !

 

( are you sure we havent had this discussion before ?   If so I would have referenced you this book ;

 

something  MORE THAN   Ufos is going on here ! 

 

http://www.harpur.org/PJCHdaimonicreality.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Starjumper said:

 

As I thought, this is a computer drawing, doesn't exist.  In fact even as a computer drawing it's poorly done.  The perspective is off and the exhaust is upside down.  Not to mention the lack of an intake.

 

Okay, I was just trying to find a shape like I first saw in the sky . But due to other evidence I was pretty sure it was

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Taranis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Starjumper said:

 

As I thought, this is a computer drawing, doesn't exist.  In fact even as a computer drawing it's poorly done.  The perspective is off and the exhaust is upside down.  Not to mention the lack of an intake.

 

I dont know much about this subject , but 'no air intake ' ?  

 

Whats that big hollow triangular thing on the front ?

 

image.png.1a0cbde834753f5029e7b263192051f5.png

 

If its a drone it would not need a cockpit

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wells said:

 

I remember having the hots for Raquel Welch as a young boy.

I even carried a picture of her from some wild west film with me in my wallet...

 

 

 

 

0e7a8cd46f8c44f2bffbb02f59c4750d.jpg

 

certainly an improvement  ! 

 

2739-1688-2968-1-annie-oakley-and-tag.jp

 

and I certainly wouldnt be wearing  that vest in a shoot out ! 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Nungali said:

Whats that big hollow triangular thing on the front ?

 

image.png.1a0cbde834753f5029e7b263192051f5.png

 

If its a drone it would not need a cockpit

 

You're getting way ahead of me there, Nungali.

 

I used a graphic converter to manipulate that image and could still see no opening at the front, however the part that looks like it could be a cockpit could be the top of an intake, so that is possible.  At first the perspective seemed way off but then I saw it as having an extreme amount of dihedral (like a deep V in a boat), way more than any other aircraft; and such extreme dihedral, along with the forward sweep of the trailing edge, would make it a very inefficient flier.  Unlike in the world of bozos, efficiency is of paramount importance for airplanes, so that's a big strike against it and does imply that some child was playing with their computer graphics.  It's true that at supersonic speed that type of inefficiency is not as strong as in subsonic flight, so if that's a real vehicle it would probably not be able to take off and reach supersonic speed unless it was rocket assisted or launched from a high speed carrier vehicle at altitude.  It has another glaring inefficiency which would cause a lot of drag, which is the biggest no no for high speed aircraft.  All the 'experts' in the aircraft design forum could only make snide remarks about it, the best one was "Dunno, but someone was flying in fornation to take that Photoshop. Err, picture."

Edited by Starjumper
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Nungali said:

But then she would come home with a friend that was 'white and electric ' .... 'My God, we just saw this huge UFO following in a plane to land at Sydney airport ! "   ... and GF is skipping around casually ' Thats another one ! "

 

and next night news on tv has story, all these people saw it , airport radar picked it up . Air force says radar was not working properly. Traffic control says 'yes it was or we would have been having things smash into each other , air force says  no, because .....

 

Typical Air Force response.  There are some hilarious responses from the US Air Force.  The thing is, in the US the 'official' Air Force response, however ridiculous, was the one always reported by the news, so the public was misled into the realm of intense bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2018 at 10:58 PM, Nungali said:

Fake ... of course ! 

 

 

2b7c0d5ccfb1d852de767cc3b5ae36fa.jpg

 

I like the 'before' much better.  The fake advertising and the fake smile turn me off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Aetherous said:

 

The footage being discussed was recently officially declassified by the DOD.

 

Thank you for sharing that, that's one thing that is very good about the information and internet age, that there are other ways to get our news and information rather than from the mainstream news liars ... who are in cahoots with:

 

cia_psyops_deception_william_colby_casey

 

cia.lies.truth.jpg

Edited by Starjumper
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning the internet and information age, there are deathbed confessions by former employees of Area 51 and the CIA concerning the UFO/alien thing.  There are reports by various government officials (not US, of course), but Americans have been programmed to assume that things said by foreign governments are not to be taken seriously.  What's funny about that is the following:  "when your politicians are in the pay of foreigners it's exactly the same as having your generals in the pay of the enemy." and so on and so forth.

 

I've also seen two videos of Aliens, on is of one which is on an operating table at Area 51 and the other is of one being interrogated and threatened by the 'officials'.  Of course all those who believe the mainstream media must assume that those videos are fake.  I like the last video where the alien gets furious after being threatened by the morons.  If the video is not fake then that means that the authorities are abusing captured aliens in the same way they abuse and torture prisoners of war, some of who are innocent.

Edited by Starjumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Nungali said:

" Fossil evidence indicates that humans have been around a half million years or so.  However there is some other interesting evidence, which are ancient artifacts that have been discovered in rock and coal that is older than modern humans are supposed to be.  If those things are in fact real that indicates that there was some kind of technology back then.  But who manufactured such things?  Intelligent dinosaurs, extraterrestrials, another kind of intelligent mammal or reptile? "

 

Name or show any one of these things and we shall discuss its veracity   ( ie.   " ...  If those things are in fact real ... "   )   as this seems the crucial part of your statement . If those things can be shown not to be real, fake, made up and fraudulent , then we can assume that it does not indicate there was some kind of technology back then  - agree ?

 

They were shown in the video that I included in that post.  In the video it says that scientists who examined the rock the tools were embedded in said that the rock was older, and in some cases way older than human occupation of Earth.  The thing is that someone can say that scientists said something but that the someone could be lying.  Check out the video to see for yourself.  One is a hammer and another looks like an electrical plug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Nungali said:

probably, I did a quick pic search to show different angles, some pics were tagged with taranis , some not.  I cant seem to find the  pic now of the angle I saw it from that led me to recognise it as my sighting.

 

OK, my mistake, the Tarnis and the X-47B are not the same.  Similar but not the same.  The Tarnis is British and the X47 is US.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Starjumper said:

 

They were shown in the video that I included in that post.  In the video it says that scientists who examined the rock the tools were embedded in said that the rock was older, and in some cases way older than human occupation of Earth.  The thing is that someone can say that scientists said something but that the someone could be lying.  Check out the video to see for yourself.  One is a hammer and another looks like an electrical plug.

 

Please post the video again and cite the relevant part with a time code , to make sure I got the right ones .  eg ,   @ 12:45 .

 

'Scientists' can say whatever they want .  Was he a geologist ? I have seen people also cite stuff about ancient Egypt from 'scientists' one was even a geologist, but he was wrong as he was not an Egyptologist .... just like an Egyptologist should not comment on engineering  and say whether a bridge will hold up or not .

 

But whatever ,  lets look at the 'London  Hammer'  ;

 

 

 

Abstract

An iron and wooden hammer, sometimes called the "London Artifact" or "London Hammer," found by local hikers in a creek bed near London, Texas in 1936, has been promoted by Carl Baugh and other strict creationists as an out-of place artifact. They maintain that the hammer, which was partially embedded in a small, limy rock concretion, originated in a Cretaceous rock formation (or an Ordovician or Silurian one, depending on the account), thus contradicting the standard geologic timetable. However, the hammer was not documented in situ, and has not been reliably associated with any specific host formation. Other relatively recent implements have been found encased in by similar nodules, and can form within centuries or even decades under proper conditions (Stromberg, 2004). The hammer in question was probably dropped or discarded by a local miner or craftsman within the last few hundred years, after which dissolved limy sediment hardened into a nodule around it. Although a brief rebuttal to Baugh's hammer claims was made by Cole (1985), Baugh and a few other creationists continue to promote it. This review provides further analysis of the hammer and creationist claims about it.

 

...

 

Conclusions

As with all extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on those making the claims, not on those questioning them. Despite some creationist assertions that the hammer is a dramatic pre-Flood relic, no clear evidence linking the hammer to any ancient formation has been presented. Moreover, the hammer's artistic style and the condition of the handle suggest a historically recent age. It may well have been dropped by a local worker within the last few hundred years, after which dissolved sediment hardened into a concretion around it. Unless Baugh or others can provide rigorous evidence that the hammer was once naturally situated in a pre-Quaternary stratum, it remains merely a curiosity, not a reliable out-of-place artifact.

 

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm

 

Electric plug in a rock

 

"There’s a fascinating story posted over at Ghost Theory on Wednesday. According to writer Henry Paterson, a New Mexico man is asking for $500,000 for a rock he claims is evidence of extraterrestrial visitation on earth 100,000 years ago. The round rock features three small metal prongs poking out from the center of an indented perfect circle inscribed in the rock. According to John J. Williams, who claims to have found the object sixteen years ago, the rock is made of granite and was discovered in an undisclosed location “in rural America” that is either completely untouched by human settlement (in one version of his story given to The Viral Post) or in desperate need of protection from frequent human visitation (in the version on his website).

 

Williams charges $19 for a CD of photographs of his rock, but on his website he posted some x-rays that show that the three metal prongs connect to nothing and are simply embedded into the rock.

 

one could, theoretically, form limestone caliche of quite similar appearance artificially in a few months. You can also find instructions all over the internet for how to use mortar or concrete to cast fake rocks. If the rock really does contain quartz and feldspar as claimed, the superficial appearance of “granite” could be created by using ground quartz and feldspar in the mortar to make the concrete.

There are of course other possibilities: The rock may be natural, and the electronic component added later as a hoax. Also, the rock could have formed recently around an electronic component, as occurred with the infamous Coso Artifact, in which a concretion of iron oxide solidified around a 1920s Champion spark plug,

 

By his own admission, he says that he makes “nonfunctional” imitation electronic devices and “realistically-looking (sic) models, mockups, replicas and novelties.”

 

This, of course, contradicts claims in the Viral Post that the rock was geologically analyzed and found to be 100,000 years old. In turn, that claim contradicts the claim that the rock is granite, since the youngest granite on earth is more than a million years old.

 

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/the-petradox-the-rock-that-plugs-in

 

 

Got any more ?

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Starjumper said:

 

OK, my mistake, the Tarnis and the X-47B are not the same.  Similar but not the same.  The Tarnis is British and the X47 is US.

 

 

Yes, it was tagged as a 'joint British and Australian' exercise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Starjumper said:

 

 

 

... come on now  .... 

 

its even tagged real or fake   .... this stuff is just 'click bait'  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Nungali said:

its even tagged real or fake   .... this stuff is just 'click bait'  

 

Real or Fake is a good series.  Anyway, it explains that the original video is fake ... just in case anyone thought it was real.

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nungali said:

Please post the video again and cite the relevant part with a time code , to make sure I got the right ones .  eg ,   @ 12:45 .

 

Good detective work you did there.  This video only has one other one worth looking at. from 7:53 to 9:28

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No probs !

 

 

" There are numerous mechanisms by which the figurine could have worked its way into the Pliocene-Pleistocene clay (through fissures, through mining activity and so on). It need not have lain at the 90 metre depth reported, but could have been pushed there by the drill. It is also interesting to note the clay balls found at the same general depth, close to the solid bedrock. This might suggest that a variety of material had descended fairly rapidly through the deposit, by a mechanism currently unknown but by no means mysterious or supernatural, to end up at a boundary through which it could not pass. This is familiar enough at a much smaller scale in archaeological stratigraphy: worms are responsible for slowly burying objects ever deeper as they undermine them when burrowing.

 

"While this explanation may sound like special pleading, one important point does remain. There is not one other single artefact of human manufacture from the whole of North or South America that is anywhere near as early as this, by a factor of one hundred! If the Nampa figurine were genuinely as ancient as the claims for it, then there ought to be similar objects from the same geological era. Although there have been claims for such objects, they are mostly even less convincing than in this instance.
 

It is also not true that this figurine resembles figurines from the European Palaeolithic. As can be seen from the so-called ‘Venus of Willendorf’, the typical figurine of this type has exaggerated female sexual characteristics, with enlarged breasts, broad hips and enormous buttocks; others have prominent vulvae. Although there is considerable variety among the figurines, all of them have this exaggerated femininity and none has the stick-figure quality of the clay model from Nampa."

 

and a LOT more @   http://www.badarchaeology.com/out-of-place-artefacts/very-ancient-artefacts/the-nampa-figurine/

 

and this   http://hotcupofjoe.blogspot.com/2007/08/forbidden-archaeology-nampa-image-hoax.html

 

Here is some more for you  ... this strange stuff is all over the place ! 

 

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/ooparts.html

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few others ;

 

Puma Punku ( 3:38 ) The Pyramids ( 22:41 ) . Baalbek, ( 37:40 )  Incan sites ( 55:33 )  Easter Island ( 1:01:33 ) Pacal's rocket ( 1:05:36 The Nazca Lines ( 1:13:10 )  Tolima "fighter jets ( 1:21:16 )  Egyptian "light bulb" ( 1:27:01 ) Ufo's in ancient art ( 1:36:08 ) . The crystal skulls ( 1:46:38 )Ezekiel's Wheel ( 1:58:17 ) hAncient nuclear warfare ( 2:11:16 )  Vimana's ( 2:20:50 ) . Anunnaki ( 2:32:52 ) .. Nephilim ( 2:54:37) Conclusion ( 3:07:10)

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Starjumper said:

 

I always enjoy the astronauts eyewitness testimony.  Seems to be some of the most credible reports out there. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this