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.

 

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

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

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.




I'm confident I could differentiate between the Leonids and the Goodyear blimp floating 100ft overhead, but that's just me.

I hear you. Same here. You can tell the difference between a picture of a bird and something else too....not everyone can though. There was even video of one of these swarms a couple of years ago and a thread here. I think it was in Russia. Even with the video, some people saw it as a structured object. There is definitely not a one to one relationship in these cases. Not everyone will misinterpret what they are seeing.

As far as this being the case of planes in formation...im having a hard time with that. Its possible but also reproducible. I haven't heard of this happening before or since....




posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
come on folks I know it was 97 and cell phones weren't as prevalent but I know people had cameras then, no one could stop and take a pic if thousands saw it? Besides one video that shows just lights? I mean take a pic of this huge v shaped craft. Nothing? Gotta assume hoax then.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: HorusChrist
come on folks I know it was 97 and cell phones weren't as prevalent but I know people had cameras then, no one could stop and take a pic if thousands saw it? Besides one video that shows just lights? I mean take a pic of this huge v shaped craft. Nothing? Gotta assume hoax then.


I wouldn't.

I've had a couple of sightings myself, pre-digital cams, and wasn't able to get to a camera in time. In one case I had to settle for binoculars. Even now I don't wear my phone when I'm out and about, except at concerts. I posted a photo of something I saw on a motorcycle ride home and the pic turned out crappy - iPhones make everything look miles away.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: draknoir2

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.




I'm confident I could differentiate between the Leonids and the Goodyear blimp floating 100ft overhead, but that's just me.

I hear you. Same here. You can tell the difference between a picture of a bird and something else too....not everyone can though. There was even video of one of these swarms a couple of years ago and a thread here. I think it was in Russia. Even with the video, some people saw it as a structured object. There is definitely not a one to one relationship in these cases. Not everyone will misinterpret what they are seeing.

As far as this being the case of planes in formation...im having a hard time with that. Its possible but also reproducible. I haven't heard of this happening before or since....


Seems that people read what they want me to be saying instead of what I am actually saying. Perhaps human perception is that wildly unreliable after all. [Not referring to your post]

Yes, as I stated some people were doing just that in the Phoenix lights case, but not all accounts could be so simply explained this way without convenient assertions about the perceptual limitation of witnesses ["story doesn't fit so they saw what I say they saw"]. Somehow that provoked a challenge to explain an unrelated case in Kiev. [ignoratio elenchi]




edit on 4-11-2015 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: HorusChrist
come on folks I know it was 97 and cell phones weren't as prevalent but I know people had cameras then, no one could stop and take a pic if thousands saw it? Besides one video that shows just lights? I mean take a pic of this huge v shaped craft. Nothing? Gotta assume hoax then.


I wouldn't.

I've had a couple of sightings myself, pre-digital cams, and wasn't able to get to a camera in time. In one case I had to settle for binoculars. Even now I don't wear my phone when I'm out and about, except at concerts. I posted a photo of something I saw on a motorcycle ride home and the pic turned out crappy - iPhones make everything look miles away.
that's you I'm just saying the law of averages says someone out of those thousands would have had a disposable camera handy. It was 1997 not 1967.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: draknoir2

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.




I'm confident I could differentiate between the Leonids and the Goodyear blimp floating 100ft overhead, but that's just me.

I hear you. Same here. You can tell the difference between a picture of a bird and something else too....not everyone can though. There was even video of one of these swarms a couple of years ago and a thread here. I think it was in Russia. Even with the video, some people saw it as a structured object. There is definitely not a one to one relationship in these cases. Not everyone will misinterpret what they are seeing.

As far as this being the case of planes in formation...im having a hard time with that. Its possible but also reproducible. I haven't heard of this happening before or since....


Seems that people read what they want me to be saying instead of what I am actually saying. Perhaps human perception is that wildly unreliable after all. [Not referring to your post]

Yes, as I stated some people were doing just that in the Phoenix lights case, but not all accounts could be so simply explained this way without convenient assertions about the perceptual limitation of witnesses ["story doesn't fit so they saw what I say they saw"]. Somehow that provoked a challenge to explain an unrelated case in Kiev. [ignoratio elenchi]



yeah human perception is not reliable which is why we can't trust alleged observers with no proof. Why couldn't just one person take a pic!!!!



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2

Yes, as I stated some people were doing just that in the Phoenix lights case, but not all accounts could be so simply explained this way without convenient assertions about the perceptual limitation of witnesses ["story doesn't fit so they saw what I say they saw"]


Definitely a pitfall. Can't say because it happens sometimes that it happens every time. I think the best anyone can do in this case is say that its possible it was planes and I don't think its unreasonable to reject the planes as an explanation either.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: HorusChrist

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: HorusChrist
come on folks I know it was 97 and cell phones weren't as prevalent but I know people had cameras then, no one could stop and take a pic if thousands saw it? Besides one video that shows just lights? I mean take a pic of this huge v shaped craft. Nothing? Gotta assume hoax then.


I wouldn't.

I've had a couple of sightings myself, pre-digital cams, and wasn't able to get to a camera in time. In one case I had to settle for binoculars. Even now I don't wear my phone when I'm out and about, except at concerts. I posted a photo of something I saw on a motorcycle ride home and the pic turned out crappy - iPhones make everything look miles away.
that's you I'm just saying the law of averages says someone out of those thousands would have had a disposable camera handy. It was 1997 not 1967.

The law of averages? If there were actually such a thing, this would be a giant alien spaceship. ...because of all those people that saw a giant spaceship, one of them has to be correct.
Since there is no such thing as the law of averages, you're speculating. Unless you have stats on how many people carried cameras in 97.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: draknoir2

Yes, as I stated some people were doing just that in the Phoenix lights case, but not all accounts could be so simply explained this way without convenient assertions about the perceptual limitation of witnesses ["story doesn't fit so they saw what I say they saw"]


Definitely a pitfall. Can't say because it happens sometimes that it happens every time. I think the best anyone can do in this case is say that its possible it was planes and I don't think its unreasonable to reject the planes as an explanation either.


I don't think the answer is limited to planes, though they are part of the answer.

I think there were at least two, and perhaps three distinct things being witnessed.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: draknoir2

I don't think the answer is limited to planes, though they are part of the answer.

I think there were at least two, and perhaps three distinct things being witnessed.


That's possible. The argument against is that people only saw one or the other and not two things together. what I am stuck on right now is why planes in formation would be seen like this. Could it have been done intentionally? Planes fly in formation all the time and at night without causing such a fuss. What makes this formation so special? Are there restrictions on planes flying in formation so they aren't perceived as a giant mother ship invasion?



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Yes military planes fly in formation, it's not easy to do, especially in perfect symmetry, and especially perfect symmetry at night. Not even the Blue Angels fly formation at night although they are the best of the best. Civilian planes we call gaggle flights in formation flying, unless they have the training and are performers. Civilian formation flight at night is dangerous, unprofessional, and looks not even close to perfect symmetry. Civilian planes lack formation IR lights military planes have. So what I'm trying to say is, to fly a perfect symmetrical V shape formation THAT BIG flight at night is damn hard to do in military scene, and darn impossible in GA (general aviation civilian).
edit on 4-11-2015 by 38181 because: (no reason given)
Edit again, you also have to have the PROPER LIGHT the witnesses saw, so, in order to do that, would require special lights that military and civilian planes don't have. All miItary and civilian aircraft have the traditional red, green, and white nav lights, the white nav light being at the tail. All 12-24 volt bulbs the same size as in the tail light of any modern vehicle on the road. Made by GE. FYI
edit on 4-11-2015 by 38181 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: HorusChrist

I remember a few stories about some very good videos that were kept quiet by the videographers themselves as they were not at all interested in going public, or, if the craft was military, getting into trouble with the govt... if I recall, there were at least two I heard about... and I bet there are many more.

Many of the folks I spoke to actually had phones with cameras and one actually had a video camera set up on a tripod, taking sunset shots... but the enormity and weirdness of what they were seeing (or something- perhaps they were mind-zapped, heh) just made them incapable of thinking of anything rationally, especially about recording this reality shattering experience.

It sounds like a lame excuse and a mass hoax.. .I know.

As one put it (aptly), "Who would believe this s**t even IF I had managed to record it?"

And as mentioned, former member Astr0 sure made me wonder if he, indeed, had the answer that a secret breakaway group was responsible... as this sighting was certainly a show of some sort.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Baddogma

Another consideration is whether to experience it, or interrupt the experience to go find a camera in the hopes it'll still be there when you return.

If it were something truly strange I'd probably opt for the former, but that's me.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
The idea that a formation of planes could have been mistaken for a huge triangular craft is fairly ridiculous. People act as if formations of planes is an uncommon thing. It's quite common, and if it was that simple to fool people into thinking planes were something else, we'd get these sorts of mass sightings quite frequently. To suggest that a formation of planes were mistaken for something else in the span of 5 hours and 300 miles is ludicrous. If they were flying through a particular light at a particular place and a group of witnesses thought they saw something else, I could buy that.

People don't give witnesses enough credit. When you even glance at a plane for a moment.. even if it were a dot in the sky.. what is the first thing you think? "Look.. a flying saucer!?" No.. you probably think it's a plane. And typically you could identify it as such within seconds. But apparently, hundreds of people were fooled into thinking planes were a UFO.

And that's simply ignoring of course, the witnesses that saw it flying much closer overhead.

And it's curious that the military decided to drop flares in clear sight of the city for the first and last time, just that one night.. hours after the first sightings were reported. In a triangular pattern. What a staggering, lottery-winning coincidence.

I also don't think "putting to rest" one of the most solid sightings is a good idea. It needs to be discussed and dissected at every opportunity.

I also am amused by the "black project" defense. Because we'd openly fly such a thing over cities and towns with no escort, and even need a diversion of flares to draw attention away from the truth.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

Still with the Black Project skepticism, I see. You're consistent.

In this particular case, assuming all of the testimony was on the up and up, that would be my go to explanation. Way better fit than ETH. And as for flying a stealth craft out in the open, what better opportunity to test its effectiveness or engage in social/psychological experimentation?


edit on 4-11-2015 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: fleabit

Still with the Black Project skepticism, I see. You're consistent.

In this particular case, assuming all of the testimony was on the up and up, that would be my go to explanation. Way better fit than ETH. And as for flying a stealth craft out in the open, what better opportunity to test its effectiveness or engage in social/psychological experimentation?



There are black projects, and they are tested in deserts far from public view. I knew a retired Colonel who had a bit of a plane on a plaque - one of the original B17 failed tests. Which is the reason they are rested in the desert.. in case of failure, the last thing they can risk is our tech falling into the public sector. And if they were testing a massive, silent craft (which is still impossible, unless it's a blimp), they would have at a minimum, had escorts. And I don't believe for a moment they'd fly it for hours over public lands.

And that is disregarding the diversion. If they were testing a huge craft, they'd not need a flare diversion as a possible excuse. It doesn't even make sense.

And I'm only consistent in that I think it's a convenient fallback to point at the unprovable "black ops" when something unexplainable comes along. Large unexplainable craft? Must be black ops! Because apparently it's impossible to believe in the alternative.. or even consider it for investigation.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Interesting discussion, clear expositions, good original observations, thanks all. Also, pretty adamantine resistance to anyone doubting their existing positions, nothing surprising here. I've put in my two cents worth, but his isn't my hill to die on, so take it from here, friends. Think about how a swarm of bright lights at night can be perceived under special circumstances -- what is the data trying to tell us, stop telling the data what it should be saying. Or imagining it has nothing to say for insight into this classic event.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

I didnt see the witness testimony i was looking for in the OP video but the issue is observation time and proximity. I simply dont see how someone could watch this fly directly over their house while observing it for minutes and be mistaken. Ive never read anything to make me think this is a good ET case(imo probably a black project), but I personally have a hard time with the A10s completely explaining everything.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
Think about how a swarm of bright lights at night can be perceived under special circumstances -- what is the data trying to tell us, stop telling the data what it should be saying. Or imagining it has nothing to say for insight into this classic event.


Yes, exactly: stop telling the data what it should be saying, Jim. I couldn't agree more. Stop it with respect to this Phoenix Lights case, and with UFOs in general.

Here's the problem with your "misperception theory," Jim, as written by someone with much more knowledge than either of us. (Nevermind that Blue Book Special Report #14 basically disproved your misperception hypothesis over 60 years ago....)


It is in Close Encounter cases [sightings at close range, under favorable visibility conditions] that we come to grips with the 'misperception' hypothesis of UFO reports... [I]t becomes virtually untenable in the case of the Close Encounter. Accepted logical limits of misperception are in these cases exceeded by so great a margin that one must assume that the observers either truly had the experience as reported or were bereft of their reason and senses.... Do we then have a phenomenon in which several people suffer temporary insanity at a given instant but at no other time before or after? If so, we have to deal with a new dimension of the UFO phenomenon. But the DATA of the problem -- the subject of this book -- would remain unaltered. Simply, the problem of their generation would need to be attacked from another direction.


So, what you're suggesting here, Jim -- what you constantly suggest here at ATS -- falls short not just in individual UFO cases like the Phoenix Lights. It actually fails to explain entire categories of UFO cases. Thousands and thousands of cases.

And you're here once again urging people to "stop telling the data what it should be saying"?

How much witness testimony are you prepared to throw out just because you already 'know' the one thing those witnesses couldn't possibly have seen?

From the same source as above:

No scientist who examines the subject objectively can claim for long that UFOs are solely the products of simple misidentification of normal objects and events.


Seems like a pretty radical statement... but it's not. It's all been said before. That particular statement was about 40 years ago. By Hynek. A scientist whose integrity, by the way, has not been questioned even by skeptics, even though he spent the better part of his life studying the UFO topic. And there he is, saying that it's basically intellectually dishonest to pretend that this misperception hypothesis can explain what we're seeing at the core of the UFO phenomenon.

And here you are Jim, 40 years later, still doing exactly that.

Doesn't that make people wonder? I've honestly never understood it.

You're not just telling witnesses that they're mistaken. You're telling a good many of them that they actually must be lying, or must be going insane. Because misperception isn't always a viable possibility.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying that people are silly or whatever if they disagree with the almighty Hynek. No way, not at all. He wasn't right about everything.

What I am saying is simply this: those people out there who are tempted to write off the entire phenomenon as witness misperception... first, maybe you owe it to yourselves to examine the serious history of the topic and see how this misperception theory that some people keep pushing has basically been disproven. It's not even that it's merely wrong; it's that it is so incorrect, its explanatory reach so limited, that any person who keeps promoting that hypothesis even after they claim to have seriously studied the topic has actually either not seriously studied the topic, or has ignored inconvenient data.

Yet it is Jim Oberg that keeps urging people to take a closer look at "the data"? Isn't that interesting? Yep. Don't people want to know more about how such divergent opinions can exist? I hope they do. Is "witness misperception" always a viable alternative hypothesis? No, actually, it isn't. But don't trust my word. To see what I mean, go read "The UFO Experience," a classic book in its category.

Once you lose the absolute barrier (armor?) that the misperception hypothesis provides, you've finally got to truly entertain the possibility that an intelligence we can't yet identify is somehow involved. And once you entertain that possibility, things like what these Phoenix Light witnesses claim to have seen are really not all so unbelievable. It'll become easier to cut through all the nonsense (on both sides) once you allow yourself to honestly consider other possibilities.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
in the very place of credible witnesses

I stopped reading right there. Witnesses are never credible. EVER. Unless they have corroborating evidence to support their claims.



If a person has no aptitude for listening and discerning witness testimony, and no understanding of sociology as it pertains to how people communicate their experiences, then I can understand how you would feel when you hear someone tell their sighting experience. It would be like a witness giving a 7 year old a lecture about subatomic particles using collegiate level nomenclature.
In that regard for you, witnesses are indeed non-credible. But that doesn't really sink the ship either.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join