 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 4, 2020 - 2:48 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Last Child
(Member)
|
There's one "explanation" for one visit to Earth, as outlined in an OUTER LIMITS episode. A monstrous alien arrives in the old west of 1872 and adopts human form to grant some cowboys superpowers which causes mayhem. His final observations spoken in an "old west" diction and tone:
"You know, we may look different, but your people and mine got alot more in common than you think. We're both conquerors, boy. We're just alittle better at it than you. If a planet looks like it's gonna be trouble down the line, why, we just destroy it then and there. Before it poses a threat. That's my job. Scout ahead. Assess the threat.
You see the fate of a world isn't determined by its best examples, but by its worst. It takes a few to destroy the many. Especially when even the best of you can be dragged down into the mire.
Judging from your example, brother against brother, friend against friend, you people have such a potential for violence, for shear unvarnished wickedness, I've got every confidence you'll destroy yourself before you build your first interstellar engine.
We got nothing to fear from you."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry I posted a bit lazily -- I should have said something like the NY Times reported on some of this in 2017, etc. I remember thinking at the time that the released vids seemed uncannily like the radar room scenes in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". I've wondered since the release of the vids if Spielberg was given permission to view them back in the day before he made the film?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 5, 2020 - 1:06 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Warlok
(Member)
|
Internet ads suck, and prevent me from viewing the second debunk video. But the third one, I'm not buying it. The debunker's own control videos showing debris breaking apart in the atmosphere is different from the objects the pilots are tracking in the third video. There is no debris. There does not appear to be any breakdown of the object... breakdown which is clearly visible in his (smarmy/condescending) control shots.
Does not appear the same.
Also, gimbal rotation would rotate the camera, which means the entirety of the image - including background - would rotate, would it not? The object is rotating relative to the frame and the background. And yes, object shape is kind of important - that was a dumb statement by the debunker, that shape did not matter.
EDIT: An additional point of logic. Would a pilot not be able to discern a general trajectory of an object falling to the Earth? Would such a thing not be somewhat obvious? In the video, the object looks like it is flying level, not in an arc however shallow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
) watch the first debunk video, and I found the commentary to be interesting. Maybe compelling.
