It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Phoenix Lights - UFO witness summary (11/3/2015)

page: 11
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 02:14 AM

originally posted by: klassless

originally posted by: billydebunker
a reply to: klassless

You come here, lay your crap and you think you're achieving something worthwhile. Eventually you're going to drive members away.

Oh, come on. How could I think I'm achieving something worthwhile talking to you?

Drive members away? There's the door.

I'm over your infatuation with me.

I avoid stepping on you as I walk down the sidewalk. Careless dog owners!

Yet every post you write produces more of it.

posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 03:23 PM
Planes don't float slow like that.

posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 06:53 PM

originally posted by: wickd_waze
Planes don't float slow like that.

You're absolutely right. The truth isn't as complicated or "elusive" as most of these phonies would have you believe.

Think about it for one second: These disinformation ninnies say that on one night, and ONLY on that one night, thousands of witnesses thought that airplanes were a mile-wide triangular ship traveling silently at less than 1,000 feet. At less than 30 mph, no less.

How stupid do you have to be to take their cover-up explanation seriously?
edit on 8-10-2016 by billydebunker because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 01:14 AM

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: JimOberg

I agree with you on your study of the fireball swarms. Human perception is not at all intuitive or as clear cut as we generally think.

Thanks. My biggest surprise was the realization that this does not represent a 'malfunction' of the human perceptual process, but its baseline, desirable functioning. Identification of visual stimuli must be delivered rapidly enough to provide time, in case of mortal danger [or food access], to react constructively when split-seconds count. Run way, or grab it -- right now.

Based on past perceptions, jumbled and incomplete visual clues are automatically matched against most expectable interpretations. A successful system leads to organisms that avoid being eaten, or alternately, eat well.

Such a system can't WAIT for 'certainty', it must be hair-trigger to actionable interpretations -- and this inevitably will lead to 'false positives' It's not a 'bug', it's a 'feature', as software geeks preach.

This is acceptable because 'false positives' are usually LOW cost -- run away when you didn't have to, grab at something that isn't there. Some lost energy, some embarrassment. No big deal.

'False negatives', however -- NOT reacting while still uncertain -- can have extremely serious consequences. You can wind up as tiger turds. Or at least, very, very hungry, and weakened.

So both through evolution [who lives long enough to procreate] and life training [what specific significant visual objects you're used to], our autonomous perceptual system serves up to our conscious minds a vivid perception that provides survival-positive interpretations and reactions.

It's not stupid people, or children, or the drunk or mentally impaired, who exemplify this process. It's the most intelligent, experienced, and educated. Because the process is in general over the long run survival-positive.

But it does have second-order consequences, and sometimes seeing a giant UFO 'mother ship' when you're watching a silent pattern of bright lights pass across the sky could well be one of those consequences.

Sure, the brain might be making up things when the eyes make no sense.
But suddenly you twist it and have it backwards as you go on, no?
The brain would fill in things you are familiar with for unknowns.
That means, filling in a picture of planes in formation for a gigantic mothership is what it would do.
According to you it makes up perfectly well knowns with something completely unfamiliar.
Seriously, wouldn't you have to at least consider the people who saw the planes really saw something out of the ordinary? Even if the mothership is much less likely, it is more likely that this is what the brain would do here.
edit on 14-10-2016 by derpif1 because: (no reason given)

top topics
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in