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.

 

Omsk UFO Report Aug 22

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Well yeah, exactly. Yet Jim Oberg also believes, and encourages others to believe, that all UFO sightings can be explained as misperceptions of mundane phenomena.
I don't know what he believes but he does encourage people to consider "mundane" phenomena (though I wouldn't consider re-entries to be mundane, I've never been lucky enough to see one) before going to more extraordinary explanations. I do the same thing. Do you think it's productive to assume ET before considering "mundane" explanations?



where the same thing supposedly explains every sighting,
I have never seen him make such a claim. That would seem to be a straw man argument.


In any case, this thread is not really about Oberg, is it?




posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets ...
Well yeah, exactly. Yet Jim Oberg also believes, and encourages others to believe, that all UFO sightings can be explained as misperceptions of mundane phenomena. (Those that aren't lies / hoaxes.)


Let's argue over genuine differences of opinion rather than delusional detours.

I have never argued for that position and have regularly tried to correct those who live in a fantasy world, as you so clearly do.

If you read my essays on the subject you will see my clear elucidation of where I stand on that question [NOT what you claim to believe I think], but I've run out of time for remedial one-on-one makeup tutorials for those who cut class and don't look at the suggested reading.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
Why? is there a requirement to participate in threads that you think are worthwhile?


Nope. However... he encourages ridicule of the topic and spends so much time (god knows why) trying to sell the theory that every UFO which is not otherwise a lie/hoax is simply a misinterpreted natural or man-made event. When a person's thesis is THAT broad, you'd really expect there to be not quite so many cases or topics he'll basically refuse to address. Why refuse or avoid? Not because he's afraid to offer his opinion on topics outside of his area of expertise. He does that all the time. No, I suspect the reason he's silent in so many places where you'd really expect to hear from someone who's that vocal and that prolific is that "misperception" is oftentimes pretty much an absurd explanation. Even more absurd than that wacky 'space aliens' hypothesis. (Which really isn't absurd at all, given that science has been saying for decades that they should be here by now....)

Let me summarize this way: the level of ridicule this gentleman metes out is not commensurate with the percent of cases he'll even begin to try to publicly explain. He should therefore, in my opinion, either reform his overly broad hypothesis, or else go offer some kind of tentative "misperception" explanation in probably a hundred or more threads by Karl12, Isaac Koi, et al., regarding cases where information deficit / reliability is barely an issue. Excellent threads where, curiously, some ATS skeptics who otherwise type out several posts a day barely make an appearance.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets




Excellent threads where, curiously, some ATS skeptics who otherwise type out several posts a day barely make an appearance.

So, you think it contributes something to say, "huh, interesting."
That's sort of frowned upon here.


edit on 9/6/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
Let's argue over genuine differences of opinion rather than delusional detours.

I have never argued for that position and have regularly tried to correct those who live in a fantasy world, as you so clearly do.

If you read my essays on the subject you will see my clear elucidation of where I stand on that question [NOT what you claim to believe I think], but I've run out of time for remedial one-on-one makeup tutorials for those who cut class and don't look at the suggested reading.


Spare me the condescension, Jim. My statements are not even controversial.

Here's the kind of thing I'm talking about, this one from your article "The Black Box Approach To UFO Perceptions":

"The "Null Hypothesis" for UFO reports, of which I am one of a handful of champions, states that no extraordinary stimuli are required to produce the entire array of public UFO perceptions in all their rich variety, wonderment, and terror. Known phenomena have produced all types of what is commonly known as "UFO reports"...."
www.debunker.com...

Many more examples could be found. It's odd that you'd get so upset over my description. Maybe I could've been more clear about delusions and hallucinations being in there (though to me it's obvious that those relate to perception / misperception), but I did account for lies and hoaxes.

UFO witnesses either aren't correctly perceiving ordinary (natural or man-made) events,
OR they're lying about having had a "true UFO" sighting,
OR the witnesses did in fact see a "true UFO" just as they claimed.

Ordinary event, no event, extraordinary event.

Those are the only three options, correct? And it's not controversial to say that you confine yourself to the first two, so I'm not sure what your rant is about.

It looks like you've once again successfully taken focus off the issues people really want to be discussing here in ATS, and the things I raised in my post(s).



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
So, you think it contributes something to say, "huh, interesting."
That's sort of frowned upon here.


Oh c'mon Phage, don't be disingenuous. Your views are well documented here, and despite the skeptical-yet-open-minded stance you usually portray and claim, it's apparent that when really pushed you're not at all above heaping ridicule on the whole idea of aliens and their UFOs being here. Even very recently, no? So, hate to say it, but the idea of some of the skeptics here reading an old ATS UFO thread and concluding "huh, interesting," in the genuinely open-minded and "wow maybe they really are here" kind of way, seems a bit far-fetched. That's not an indictment. You have your views and that's fine, but my gosh, please just own it and let's call it all what it is.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

's apparent that when really pushed you're not at all above heaping ridicule on the whole idea of aliens and their UFOs being here.
Please provide an example.


in the genuinely open-minded and "wow maybe they really are here"
Why? I don't think it's the case. You want me to lie about?



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets


"The "Null Hypothesis" for UFO reports, of which I am one of a handful of champions, states that no extraordinary stimuli are required to produce the entire array of public UFO perceptions in all their rich variety, wonderment, and terror. Known phenomena have produced all types of what is commonly known as "UFO reports"...."

This is absolutely correct and there is plenty to support this if you happen to venture outside of ufology. I read it as you cant rule out misperceptions and other related phenomenon. To date I have not come across ANYTHING that rules this out. In fact the range of perceptions the human mind CAN produce seems to far exceed what is described in "UFO reports". What this means to me is that if there is something to these reports, its buried behind this range of perceptions. Refusing to acknowledge current research in these areas and instead relying on a 40+ year old analysis only helps to obscure things even more.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Nope. However... he encourages ridicule of the topic

Heh, yeah well I think I have seen you dish out some ridicule. You are projecting again. I'm sure of it.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg





I have never argued for that position and have regularly tried to correct those who live in a fantasy world, as you so clearly do.

If you read my essays on the subject you will see my clear elucidation of where I stand on that question [NOT what you claim to believe I think], but I've run out of time for remedial one-on-one makeup tutorials for those who cut class and don't look at the suggested reading.


Wow. This guy says Tea and Strumpets is living in a fantasy world?
Tea and Strumpets understands the UFO situation far more accurately than Oberg.
In fact, Oberg could learn a great deal from Tea and Strumpets, not the other way around. And not just about the Alien situation, either, his criticism of Oberg's behavior and tactics are right on the money.

I was accused of trying to damage Mr. Oberg's sterling reputation, but the damage is entirely self-inflicted, by statements like " I've run out of time for remedial one-on-one makeup tutorials for those who cut class and don't look at the suggested reading."

What class is it he's teaching? Wrong 101?

It's Tea and Strumpets who sounds scholarly.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   
The degree to which rocket launchings, around the world and over the decades, have been reported as UFOs -- including as alien spaceships -- is well documented and is trying to tell us something about the human perceptual/mnemonic process. That insight, if we open our minds to it, may teach us a lot about the potential stimuli behind MANY similar UFO reports.

I can see why people who have already made up their minds are so terribly afraid about what those lessons may turn out to be.

These particular flights of what I call the "KYSST" missions -- "Kapustin Yar to Sary Shagan on Topol" -- are an example. They reached 500+ miles altitudes where they created startling triangular plumes and a brief spiral, and were usually made in evening twilight allowing sunlight illumination while ground regions were in darkness. One of the early shots in this series happened to be the day after the 2009 Norway spiral. Another was widely seen in the Middle East. Another, from aboard the ISS. Many were imaged and reported from a wide swath along the ground track in central Russia and Central Asia.

When witnesses saw these apparitions and called them UFOs, they weren't reading from some book definition meaning "gee, somethning I don't understand", they were often expressing what the public generally thinks a 'UFO' is -- an alien visitation. It was an entirely understandable reaction, and it was incorrect. Live with it, and learn from it.







edit on 7-9-2015 by JimOberg because: add pix



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Let me elaborate on the theme of people mistaking rocket launches for UFOs, and not just run-of-the-mill witnesses, but jet pilots.

I refer you to www.narcap.org... case 49

NARCAP is a reputable scientific study effort, which proclaims:



This preliminary report presents the findings of a comprehensive review of over fifty years of pilot reports in which permanent or transient electro-magnetic (EM) effects occurred on in-flight aircraft systems allegedly as a direct or indirect result of the relatively near presence of one or more unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP).


This particular case is described as follows:



In Northern China on June 18, 1982, many sightings were reported from Heilongjiang Province, between 21:10 and 22:53. One of the most interesting case is that reported by five Chinese Air Force pilots on patrol over north China’s military frontier. At about 21:57 the jet fighter’s electrical systems malfunctioned ; communications and navigation systems failed. Suddenly the pilots encountered and UFO of a milky yellowish-green luminous color, about the size of the full moon. The object grew larger and picked up speed, at which point it looked « as big as a mountain of mist ». Then black spots were seen in the interior of the phenomenon. One pilot stated in his report : « When I first saw the object, it flew toward me at a high rate of speed as it whirled rapidly. While it was rotating it generated rings of light. In the center of the light ring was fire. In ten seconds the center of the ring exploded, then the body of the object expanded rapidly The planes were forced to return to base because of the equipment failures. The other four pilots also prepared reports. It is not known if gun-camera film was taken. After 30 seconds, the beam of light disappeared completly and replaced by a yellow sphere with clear edges. This sphere climbed rapidly and increased its size and brightness………The instruments returned to normal when the pilot went down to 500 meters altitude. At 22:01, One of the pilot arrived to his first turn at Cong Huei. Then after he flew for 3 mn toward his second step when his radio began to jamm : big noises resounded in the receiver, as if rain clouds and thunderstorm were in front of him, and the voice of the control tower operator became less audible. The radio compass instead of giving the direction of the tracking station direction gave a direction 30° on his right. He climbed to 6,000 then 7,000 meters, then he flew horizontally but the unusual noises continued to be heard in the receivers and the radio compas was still indicating a wrong direction 30° on the right. The pilot saw a bright object above the horizon. Very quickly this object became a beam of yellow light like a car headlight This beam of light was directed vertically toward the ground, in the same direction indicated by the radio compass.


It is my theory that the pilots were observing the simultaneously-occurring launch of a Soviet satellite out of Baykonur, and that their excitement and anxiety combined with ordinary equipment malfunctions that far from base. Result: solid-sounding high-quality UFO report.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I think this Failed Debunking thread has gone on long enough. Time to let this thread fade away and be forgotten. I won't respond any further. Rest in peace, rocket launch.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
As part of ongoing research around this particular aspect of the UFO phenomenon, I've just come across a remarkable document about the relationship between Soviet space/missile activities with UFO reports in that country since the very beginning of the space age. It's going to take a lot of reading and context research to fully assess this major new source of insights from inside Russia itself.

Here's the report:
bookitut.ru...

Of course, it's in Russian, but google-translate and other online service give good approximations of what the author is reporting And there are dozens of illustrations that also give a good idea of the subject matter.

Essentially, Gershteyn is describing how the springtime of Soviet UFO studies under Feliks Zigel in 1967-8 was aborted by Kremlin military brass when they realized many of the stories he was collecting and publishing actually were top secret military missile tests or spy satellite launches. Moscow clamped down a total blackout on Soviet media UFO reports in the spring of 1968 -- which, ironically, was misinterpreted by Western ufologists as proof the Soviets were way ahead of the West in unraveling the secret of the saucers, and the US needed to spend more money to catch up.
edit on 8-9-2015 by JimOberg because: complete message



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

It is my theory that the pilots were observing the simultaneously-occurring launch of a Soviet satellite out of Baykonur, and that their excitement and anxiety combined with ordinary equipment malfunctions that far from base. Result: solid-sounding high-quality UFO report.

Interesting. I would even argue that the equipment malfunction could have been a perceived malfunction...unless these types of malfunctions are recorded somehow. Its pretty well known that adrenaline can cause some pretty profound perceptual distortions:
en.wikipedia.org...

Adrenaline response

Upon being stimulated by fear or anger, the adrenal medulla may automatically produce the hormone epinephrine (aka adrenaline) directly into the blood stream. This can have various effects on various bodily systems, including:
Increased heart rate and blood pressure. It is common for a tachypsychia subject's pulse to rise to between 200 and 300 beats per minute (bpm). Increased heart rate (above 250 bpm) can cause fainting, and the body may adduct all limbs, adopting fetal position, in preparation for a coma.
Dilation of the bronchial passages, permitting higher absorption of oxygen.
Dilated pupils to allow more light to enter, and visual exclusion—tunnel vision—occurs, allowing greater focus but resulting in the loss of peripheral vision.
Release of glucose into the bloodstream, generating extra energy by raising the blood sugar level.

It is common for an individual to experience auditory exclusion or sensitivity. It is also common for individuals to experience an increased pain tolerance, loss of color vision, short term memory loss, decreased fine motor skills, decreased communication skills, or decreased coordination.

Psychological response[edit]

The most common experience during tachypsychia is the feeling that time has either increased or slowed down, brought on by the increased brain activity cause by epinephrine, or the severe decrease in brain activity caused by the "catecholamine washout" occurring after the event.

It is common for an individual experiencing tachypsychia to have serious misinterpretations of their surroundings during the events, through a combination of their altered perception of time, as well as transient partial color blindness and tunnel vision. After the irregularly high levels of adrenaline consumed during sympathetic nervous system activation, an individual may display signs and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and it is common for the person to display extreme emotional lability and fatigue, regardless of their actual physical exertion.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join