It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Look you just contradicted yourself. First you say:
originally posted by: Jay-morris
But that does not explain when pilots actually see the craft. They see the size, shape and colour, only for certain people to brush it off as Venus or some other ridiculous explanation, while saying we make terrible observers.
It's a complete cop out.
I am not saying that pilots have not misidentified something. They could see a bright star (venus) or a metrioite, but they through the same explanations around when the pilot/pilots have clearly seen something that cannot be explained, while saying pilots are terrible observers.
originally posted by: Kandinsky
reply to post by jkrog08
The silver fuselage type (with bright port holes) reflected the tech of the time and sci-fi imagery...
I'm not calling the pilot an idiot, just a human, who is seeing something he can't identify, and he makes a drawing. We can then use our cognitive abilities to compare the pilot's drawing, and description of the object, to the drawings made by others of a fireball swarm over Kiev, and people with reasonable cognitive abilities should be able to see significant similarities in the drawings and descriptions.
Even in 2009 I had some inkling of witness misperceptions, and during the last 11 years of researching UFOs, I have come to place less and less confidence on the accuracy of witness descriptions based on the evidence available that such descriptions are often unreliable in many respects.
In 2014, about 5 years after this 2009 discussion, Jim Oberg presented some information about a UFO sighting over Kiev in 1963. On page 3 of his paper, he says "May constitute a 'Rosetta Stone' for world Studies of human misperception" and indeed it may hold clues for this case in particular. Now, what may have seemed unthinkable in 2009, seems likely, that Hynek's "unlikely" suggestion for an explanation may have actually been correct.
A 50 YEAR OLD SOVIET UFO CASE IS THE KEY TO UNLOCKING THE MYSTERY OF THE GIANT ALIEN MOTHERSHIPS
Look at the two drawings in the middle of that 1963 UFO over Kiev, with the two rows of windows and long fiery exhaust!
Did they see the same space ship? No! It was something burning up in Earth's atmosphere. So now we know that people can perceive things breaking up and burning up in Earth's atmosphere as structured spacecraft, and not just one witness, multiple witnesses. Many things seem to fit, like the long fiery exhaust. Compare that to First Officer Whitted's sketch of two rows of windows from the OP:
So in summary, in 2009 I probably would have thought Hynek's meteor explanation was very unlikely. After looking at the 2014 report on the 1963 Kiev UFO, as well as what happened with the 1996 Yukon UFO where witnesses also saw a structured craft where there was none, I no longer think Hynek's explanation is unlikely, in fact, I now think it is quite likely. I know there are those who refuse to believe that human perception can work this way, but see the evidence that it can work this way, with multiple witnesses seeing "familiar-looking" structured craft when the looked at a fireball swarm, bringing us back this this statement of "The silver fuselage type (with bright port holes) reflected the tech of the time..." which is what the human mind can imprint on observations that confuse us like a fireball swarm.
originally posted by: JimOberg
originally posted by: LABTECH767 ....
Now as for this video remember there were Russian scientists convinced the moon may itself have been an ancient craft or artificial structure, ....
You were doing so well with the latest 'disclosure' tales, then you pulled out that old "Russian scientists and artificial moon theory" hoax, and you blew it. Sad. That was debunked about, oh, forty years ago. Please try to catch up.
Look you just contradicted yourself:
"certain people to brush it off as Venus or some other ridiculous explanation"
and then you say:
"They could see a bright star (venus) or a metrioite, but they through the same explanations around when the pilot/pilots have clearly seen something that cannot be explained"
So can pilots misidentify Venus as a UFO or not?
I'm not saying all UFOs are Venus, or a meteorite,
but I looked at an old case where everyone including me would have ruled out a meteorite, but now, because we have seen other witnesses make similar drawings fireball swarms as structured spacecraft, I think Hynek's explanation it may have been a meteorite the pilots saw makes more sense. It was one of the "big three" UFO cases from the early days of UFOs after Kenneth Arnold's sighting.
I gave you a case, did I say it had to be true? My question is do you still say a meteorite is a ridiculous explanation for that case after comparing the pilot's drawing to other fireball drawings?
originally posted by: Jay-morris
I would like to see those cases. Can you post one? And I mean one that proves it was a meteorite, and not because someone said so, so it has to be true.
Things like the "lightning-fast right-angle turn and zoomed out of sight" really amaze me because we know that is not what objects entering the Earth's atmosphere normally do, so these are very large misperceptions.
"What did the BA captain see? Here is his comment.
" 'I looked ahead and saw, somewhat to my surprise, ahead and to the right and higher than we were, a set of bright lights. One of the lights, the leading one, was brighter than the others, and appeared bigger, almost disklike. It was followed closely by another three that seemed to be in a V formation. As I watched, I heard another aircraft crew also reporting seeing lights.
" 'I watched the objects intently as they moved across my field of view, right to left, ahead and high. It was then, on hearing the report from the other aircraft, that I realized I was watching something much further away than I had first thought. The other report came from France.'
"Was it a satellite re-entry? The pilot stated: 'It certainly didn't look like that to me. I have seen a re-entry before and this was different.'
"But it was the BA captain's further comments that are causing amazement and intense interest. SIGAP has released the information to UFO researcher and writer Tim Good, and we hope to have more comprehensive details this year.
"That same night, a colleague of the captain, in another BA aircraft, reported two 'very bright, mystifying lights' while flying over the North Sea. Two days later, an RAF Tornado pilot told the captain that on the same evening (5th November) his Tornado -- while flying with another squadron aircraft, had been 'approached by bright lights'. The lights, he reported, 'formated on the Tornadoes'. (This expression 'formate' is apparently used to indicate a deliberate intent)
"The accompanying Tornado pilot was so convinced that they were on collision course with the lights (apparently nine of them were seen) that he 'broke away' and took 'violent evasive action'. This same pilot later added that he thought he was heading directly for a C5 Galaxy, a giant US transport plane. The formation of UFOs carried 'straight on course and shot off ahead at speed -- they were nearly supersonic. Some C5!', he said, indicating that they were going faster than the speed a C5 can achieve.
"The pilot known to Paul Whitehead commented, 'This is all a good true story, and could do with an explanation. All the pilots are adamant that what they had seen was definitely not satellite debris -- and they should know,'"
Further details were reported in the National Enquirer, March 12, 1991, page 50: "Airline pilot in chilling brush with giant UFO", by Fleur Brenham. Has photo of "Veteran pilot, Capt. Mike D'Alton. He's convinced it came from outer space."
"A massive glowing UFO stunned a veteran British Airways pilot and his crew when it shot in front of their Boeing 737 on a night flight from Rome to London -- then zoomed out of sight at fantastic speed"
The newspaper quoted the pilot: "This thing was not of this world," declared Capt. Mike D'Alton. "In all my 23 years of flying I've never seen a craft anything like this."
More: "Capt. D'Alton says he's convinced the mysterious craft came from outer space because: It was traveling at tremendous speed, but caused no sonic boom. . . it had a bizarre shape like nothing he'd ever set eyes on . . . and it made a sharp turn while flying at high speeds -- an impossible maneuver that would rip any man-made aircraft to bits. Just as incredible, when Capt. D'Alton checked with area air traffic controllers, they hadn't detected a thing! 'There was nothing on the radar screens of any of the control towers it was flying over,' he said."
According to the article, "The encounter began at 6:03 p.m. last November 5 as Capt. D'Alton's airliner was flying over Genoa, Italy. 'The rest of the crew saw it, too,' he said. 'What we saw was one large, fairly bright light. Ahead of it was a formation of three fainter lights in a triangle. Another faint light was behind the large light and was slightly lower.'
D'Alton continued: "The craft was flying level, going much too fast to be a man-made aircraft. I've flown all over the world, and I know this thing wasn't a shooting star, space debris or the northern lights."
Said Bob Parkhouse, the flight's chief steward: "The UFO was moving from left to right across the horizon. It was a sight I'd never seen before!"
"The crew watched the craft for two minutes, said Capt. D'Alton. 'Then it took a lightning-fast right-angle turn and zoomed out of sight.' Other pilots, including a Lufthansa German Airlines captain, reported a UFO sighting around the same time. Capt D'Alton said. 'It had to be something from another planet -- because it was definitely not man-made!' "
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: neoholographic
Who are you saying is immune from misperception?
The answer is nobody.
I said it because all the evidence points to that being true. As Hynek's data shows, some classes of observers have higher misperception rates than other classes, but none of the classes of observers had zero misperception rates. Indeed, I think lots of evidence shows that it's the very way we humans are made that makes all of us susceptible to misperceptions.
originally posted by: neoholographic
The independent objective truth is that people are not very reliable observers, and no, not even pilots.
I have yet to meet an eyewitness that I trust more than myself, and I don't even trust myself to be 100% reliable because I'm only human too, and even if I may have less misperceptions than pilots, I can still have misperceptions. So I can't say that because I don't believe it to be true, and I think people who believe that is true are overlooking much evidence to the contrary.
You can't simply say, YES, SOME EYEWITNESSES ARE RELIABLE!
originally posted by: beyondknowledge
For the record. I do believe in aliens. I just have not seen any credible evidence of such.