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.

 

Ex-Obama pilot describes lengthy UFO encounter

page: 4
43
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueMessiah

So basically 20/20 vision is baloney
Visual acuity doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. It's perception that's problematic.


It may not be known what the unfamiliar phenomena is but to say the average person can't tell you what it may look like based on what is known is absurd IMO.
Let me tell a little story. Again.


While walking down to the beach one fine summer day I came upon a group of people looking up with their hands shading their eyes from the Sun and pointing at the sky. I looked up but couldn't see anything. As I got closer to them I could hear comments; "It's huge!", "Look how fast it's going!"

Really curious now, I asked what they were looking at. One of them said, "It's a UFO. Look, right there." I looked. I saw. A black toy balloon about 10" in diameter and maybe 100' in the air, drifting with the wind.

An object isolated in the sky, with no points of reference, can fool the eye. The observers had made the assumption that this was a very large object. Going from that assumption, because it looked so small, it must be very high in the sky. From there, its motion must be very fast instead of just drifting with the wind, the way balloons do. As a group, they had come to the wrong conclusion about what they were looking at. Their excited chatter feeding the illusion.

I said, "Um, I think it's a balloon." There was an immediate, "Yeah, right. Look how big it is." But then there were some abashed giggles as the observers' perspective changed. The group dispersed as the balloon passed under a cloud, making it obvious what was being seen.

And the same thing can happen with "trained observers". If an airplane pilot is trying to identify an airplane he can probably do a good job of it but if it isn't an airplane, if it's a meteorological or astronomical phenomenon with which he has had no prior experience, all bets are off. It happens, documented, confirmed cases.


And no, I'm not saying the pilot saw a toy balloon. I'm saying that our eyes (more correctly our brains) fool us more than many are willing to admit.




edit on 5/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 17 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Phage

But that's one of the problem with eyewitness reports, we didn't see what the pilot saw. All we have is his description and eyewitness descriptions are not very reliable. Especially when it comes to eyewitness reports about unusual or unfamiliar things.


That is what drives me crazy... We have about 6000 years of nothing but eye-witness reports with no further advancement in proof and people feel one more eye witness report is some how is a game changer.


And yet one only needs to be an eyewitness once of something so odd that you are personally convinced it is not of this world.

Which is why it is virtually impossible to prove an unknown without substantial evidence to go on. By design.

I don't believe there is a "they" rather, I believe there are no beings or ET currently visiting our world. There are autonomous craft, drone like. I believe this as a result of a personal experience and a connection. An unsubstantiated belief.

The only way any of this can be proven is when or if they/it/whatever wants it to be, or acts out in a way that is so obvious to so many people that it will be undeniable proof... Until then?




posted on May, 17 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TrueMessiah

So basically 20/20 vision is baloney
Visual acuity doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. It's perception that's problematic.


It may not be known what the unfamiliar phenomena is but to say the average person can't tell you what it may look like based on what is known is absurd IMO.
Let me tell a little story. Again.


While walking down to the beach one fine summer day I came upon a group of people looking up with their hands shading their eyes from the Sun and pointing at the sky. I looked up but couldn't see anything. As I got closer to them I could hear comments; "It's huge!", "Look how fast it's going!"

Really curious now, I asked what they were looking at. One of them said, "It's a UFO. Look, right there." I looked. I saw. A black toy balloon about 10" in diameter and maybe 100' in the air, drifting with the wind.

An object isolated in the sky, with no points of reference, can fool the eye. The observers had made the assumption that this was a very large object. Going from that assumption, because it looked so small, it must be very high in the sky. From there, its motion must be very fast instead of just drifting with the wind, the way balloons do. As a group, they had come to the wrong conclusion about what they were looking at. Their excited chatter feeding the illusion.

I said, "Um, I think it's a balloon." There was an immediate, "Yeah, right. Look how big it is." But then there were some abashed giggles as the observers' perspective changed. The group dispersed as the balloon passed under a cloud, making it obvious what was being seen.

And the same thing can happen with "trained observers". If an airplane pilot is trying to identify an airplane he can probably do a good job of it but if it isn't an airplane, if it's a meteorological or astronomical phenomenon with which he has had no prior experience, all bets are off. It happens, documented, confirmed cases.


And no, I'm not saying the pilot saw a toy balloon. I'm saying that our eyes (more correctly our brains) fool us more than many are willing to admit.



So everybody got it wrong except you who figured it out in a matter of seconds. How convenient a story to support your stance here. Pardon me for believing this story was concocted to add weight to your argument.

The difference in your story and this case is the people on the beach gave no element to compare what they saw with anything. They just thought this was something unidentified. No "it looks like a [fill in the blank here]", as in this case with the pilot. To add, the pilot observed this object for 30 to 40 mins. In that kind of time frame, the people on the beach would've most likely came to the same conclusion as you did being that it only took you seconds. Cool story though.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueMessiah

Pardon me for believing this story was concocted to add weight to your argument.
It was not concocted and it's an anecdote which often bears repeating when someone claims that eyewitness reports are infallible.


The difference in your story and this case is the people on the beach gave no element to compare what they saw with anything. They just thought this was something unidentified.
No, they thought it was a spaceship. But you missed the point entirely, even though I specifically stated it. You also demonstrated how people fill in the blanks in their own mind. I never said the people were on the beach. Your brain provided that erroneous detail.

Ever watch a show called Brain Games? It's pretty cool.


edit on 5/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage


No, they thought it was a spaceship. But you missed the point entirely, even though I specifically stated it. You also demonstrated how people fill in the blanks in their own mind. I never said the people were on the beach. Your brain provided that erroneous detail.

Ever watch a show called Brain Games? It's pretty cool.



Doesn't matter what they thought it was or where the exact location of that sighting was. That story has no relevance to this case because the pilot was able to make a comparison of the UFO to an object that was clearly in view at the same time on the other side of the flight. And this is a guy used to seeing celestial bodies (stars, moon, sun etc.) during flight. Your observation turned out to be right so why can't the pilots for a change, especially in this case? No reason to completely dismiss his observation as unreliable.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueMessiah



No reason to completely dismiss his observation as unreliable.

I did not dismiss his observation. I have no doubt that he saw something he was unfamiliar with. From his description it was highly unusual. But, because of the known failings of our perceptions and memories, his description alone is of little use in determining what it was he saw. Nor can his description be considered to be completely accurate. That problem is inherent in any eyewitness report, particularly when it concerns something unusual or unfamiliar. Would you like me to say it again?

edit on 5/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I'm so curious about the flashing effect in the clouds. Is that like part of interstellar travel? How he said the clouds tore apart slowly then just as they separated fully the thing jumped to somewhere or somewhen else, the entire process of something that amazing drives me mad with curiosity! It's a trend I'm seeing with the environment somehow seeming apart of the ufo. Why did only the clouds flash? Why not the space around the clouds too? Could it be reacting with the cloud because it's more dense than the air? Crazy stuff. I wish I get lucky enough to see what he saw one day or be alive when we finally figure it out. Good thread!



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername

And yet one only needs to be an eyewitness once of something so odd that you are personally convinced it is not of this world.


It is truly a personal experience type of event, like seeing a ghost, so people can't really blame those that haven't.

Machines make sense since we are most likely talking a lot of time that needs to take place, so either machines or generations. I feel there is none at all, otherwise we would know. When you look how this social phenomenon has matured from the 1950s until now there is no way we would have simple shinny saucers back then and now complex space crafts without it being human imagination at work.


(post by yourignoranceisbliss removed for a manners violation)

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

I can only speak for myself here. I can tell you that what I experienced two weeks ago was absolutely not my imagination. Whether there was some natural cause for it, or it was actually something not of this world in the sky is still open to debate and interpretation.

Unfortunately, not for me.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: yourignoranceisbliss




Oh, it's one of "those" people. You know, the ones that wouldn't believe an alien intelligence was around if it landed on their front lawn and relieved itself.

Oh. It's one of "those" people who don't understand the concept of critical thinking and skepticism.

I don't happen to think that we are being visited but I sure as hell would get pissed of if ET took a crap on my front lawn. It would also change my point of view.

edit on 5/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
And no, I'm not saying the pilot saw a toy balloon. I'm saying that our eyes (more correctly our brains) fool us more than many are willing to admit.


As much as some of the skeptics here go on and on about how unreliable human perception is, you'd think it amazing that any of us poor human fools can drive a car, or even walk to the neighbor's house, without placing ourselves in peril.

That sounds absurd, doesn't it? But it's not so much more absurd than the lengths some of you are willing to go in order to deny that 'true UFOs' exist. This idea some of you peddle -- that UFOs are nothing more than misperceptions and hoaxes, and that any sighting could be solved if only we had more complete data -- was laid to rest long ago. I don't know if it's amusing or downright pitiful to see some of you toiling, day in and day out, in order to deny this reality.

23rd century sociologists are going to have a field day with 20th/21st century UFO "skepticism".



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets

As much as some of the skeptics here go on and on about how unreliable human perception is, you'd think it amazing that any of us poor human fools can drive a car, or even walk to the neighbor's house, without placing ourselves in peril.


You need to read the book The Invisible Gorilla to truly start to understand just how limited we really are. But all of that really does not matter because this whole phenomenon has not progressed pasted the eye witness stage. I think there lies the real issue.

edit on 17-5-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets




That sounds absurd, doesn't it? But it's not so much more absurd than the lengths some of you are willing to go in order to deny that 'true UFOs' exist.

True unidentified flying objects? I don't deny that they exist.
But that's not the same thing as saying that they represent extraterrestrial visitation.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: yourignoranceisbliss




Oh, it's one of "those" people. You know, the ones that wouldn't believe an alien intelligence was around if it landed on their front lawn and relieved itself.

Oh. It's one of "those" people who don't understand the concept of critical thinking and skepticism.

I don't happen to think that we are being visited but I sure as hell would get pissed of if ET took a crap on my front lawn. It would also change my point of view.


I dunno, Phage. So, what do you think about the Zimbabwe UFO school incident?

Was it mass hallucination? Did they all make it up? What was there to gain? Mind playing tricks? Unknown human mind failure?

Please do tell because folks need to understand if your stance extends to all UFO related contact stories.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: yourignoranceisbliss





Oh, it's one of "those" people. You know, the ones that wouldn't believe an alien intelligence was around if it landed on their front lawn and relieved itself.


I don't happen to think that we are being visited but I sure as hell would get pissed of if ET took a crap on my front lawn. It would also change my point of view.



They've been doing it on your lawn for quite some time ....
www.abovetopsecret.com...





posted on May, 17 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Jaellma



Please do tell because folks need to understand if your stance extends to all UFO related contact stories.
Pretty much.
If you pay close attention to the questions put to the children it might be instructive. Especially keeping in mind that children can be quite highly suggestible.

Maybe they did meet aliens. Maybe not. Probably not.

edit on 5/17/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Now a days everyone have cameras in their pockets in the form of smart phones so I believe these E.T sightings should have increased than the past.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

Ideally what we need is corroborating testimony from the other pilot "Bruce" to match against the account of Andrew Danziger , if they both tell the same account then we may have something interesting , I don't doubt Danziger's story that he saw something.

I did a check yesterday and according to Linkedin Danziger has a solid work history as a pilot and instructor , he is also currently listed as still employed by North American Airlines.

I also read yesterday that the story was brought to the fore by Richard Hains from Nicap , I respect Hains and don't think he'd be promoting something he didn't feel had merit.
More digging needed.



posted on May, 18 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
The interviewer was quite unprofessional and a little annoying at times. It's unfortunate it couldn't have been done with someone more professional because it's likely to effect the integrity of the report.




top topics



 
43
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join