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.

 

30 ft Cone-Shaped Object Lands on California Ranch...

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pathos
I love this part of the article. How can you see a 30 ft. wide/20 ft. tall cone and not know it's color?


Actually, if you knew anything at all about witnesses and the types of things that can be remembered accurately and the things that cannot, all this stuff you question is exactly what makes this more believable.

It is MUCH easier to remember the size of something but not it's color.

Look it up.




posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Yeah, because I'm sure they wouldn't remember the color after looking at it for FIVE MINUTES.

But I could be wrong.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by daveinok]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
unless there is pictures. this event never happened



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by daveinok
Yeah, because I'm sure they wouldn't remember the color after looking at it for FIVE MINUTES.


LOOK IT UP.

Holy crap. This is exactly the reason why eyewitnesses are not considered reliable. It's all to do with how the brain processes unexpected things. There's been considerable study on this. You are wrong. It's that simple.

If they were going to make it up, don't you think they'd have just said "it was grey"?

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Clickfoot]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeddun
reply to post by dmorgan
 


Ya or MAYBE its more true to form and easier to believe that the original poster did in fact watch Signs, thus this report...all fabricated..isn't that more likely????!

christ almighty people will believe like..anything with ZERO proof..nothing more than a written report. LOL

PT Barnum had a great saying for people like this...how does it go again? hehe


You have to start somewhere, no?

While I agree in principle with what you are saying, would you not also agree that observation is the start of the process?

So lets see where it goes from here.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by daveinok
 
sorry no pics, no cell phone and on a borrowed laptop. lost everything because of the "rabbit hole." lost my digital camera to a family member strung out on dope. things happen..........strange things...............things that go "click" in the night............to me it was real and what i experienced and saw and believe happened. what's your story?

as one poster put it:


Do you believe that in real life people get to take photos and video and post them on websites while the PTB just twiddle their thumbs? Not saying that proof isn't awesome but not always available and doesn't discount things shared that aren't on the discovery channel.
by interestedalways on 1/3/08 here www.abovetopsecret.com...

i am convinced all that happened at harper valley was the result of an underground infrastructure.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by daveinok
Yeah, because I'm sure they wouldn't remember the color after looking at it for FIVE MINUTES.

But I could be wrong.


Actually this is an interesting subject. I first started looking into this after I was witness to a car crash right in front of me at around 3am one morning. It was at a 4 way junction, and these two cars were the only ones on the road. It was fairly nasty, and they both span and ended up in odd positions.

The police turned up and started asking me questions, and I was amazed at how much I couldn't tell them. Pretty much nothing. I couldn't even tell them which direction the cars were coming from, nor which one of them had skipped a red light, even though I was waiting to cross the damn road.

And, yes, if he'd have asked these questions a few days later, I wouldn't have been able to tell you what color they were.

The woman in one of the cars (the only one not injured) couldn't even say which direction they were going! The direction she thought they were going did not agree with where they were supposedly headed.

Look into it. It's surprising


[edit on 19-8-2009 by Clickfoot]

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Clickfoot]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
So this witness, who has spent 20 something years as a detective and can relate where exactly the glowing portals are in relation to each other at a distance of 300-400 ft, can't remember the color? And for five minutes nobody thought to get ANY kind of camera. Interesting.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jeddun
 


My... we are jumping to conclusions a bit too quickly don't you think?

Read my post again, and point out the part were I said I believe this story 100%. Having a bit of trouble? Yeah, I thought you would, that's because I didn't say anything along those lines. I'm open minded, and cases like this need to be investigated and recognised.

"PT Barnum" might have a great saying for people like you, too.




posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by daveinok

As I said, it's possible. Maybe his brain didn't register the color because there were so many other things going on that were more interesting. Maybe he never thought about the color until he was asked, at which point he realised he couldn't remember that. Rather than take a guess, he admitted he didn't know.

The brain does process things in an odd way, particularly when you're seeing something unexpected.

As I said before, anyone faking it would have 'known' what color it was. It gives the story more credibility, rather than the other way around.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Clickfoot]

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Clickfoot]

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Clickfoot]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jeddun
 


Your attitude is repugnant lighten up a little ?

Take care.

Regards
Lee




posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Hey all, been long time ATS reader but just now finally made an account so i could post something that everyone has somehow overlooked.

I live on a large field and when an object is 400+ ft away (i would assume it was even farther away, distance is hard to judge usually) and has multiple bright lights on it, you cant distinguish its color. Its like a truck in a field, u can see its lights, but have no idea the color when its night time. Its the same concept, your eyes just cant focus in on the color while theres a bright light being emitted



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder103001
 


Good information, some of the posters in this thread should take note.

I bet everyone who is bashing the witnesses because they can't state the colour, have never been in a situation like this.

It's easier to say it's all a hoax than to actually use your brain huh... well it seems like that's the case for half the people on this board anyway.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Its rare enough to see a large ufo at close range in the daylight.Its even rarer to see a ufo enter hyperspace and dissapear.What a shame it was not filmed on video.I have seen videos of ufos vanishing very quickly but that was because they moved very fast from a standing position,you can just see what direction it traveled in.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Regarding the debate about the color, it may be possible that what ever was witnessed didn't have a color that could be defined as we might know and interpret. I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, that there have been several encounters where they could not describe a "color."



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
Excellent, thank you for sharing. This definitely sounds like a very interesting case. I am just glad those people reported it to MUFON and did not keep it to themselves for fear of ridicule. S&F......


Maybe its Blue Origin's Test Module



spaceports.blogspot.com...







[edit on 19-8-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jeddun
 



There has remained a percentage of the total, in the order of twenty percent of the reports, that have come from credible observers of relatively incredible things..." Major General John A. Samford USAF, Director of Intelligence
www.world-mysteries.com...

for those like myself who have witnessed incredible events continue to relieve these events and seek out each other for there is a bond and i consider what happened at harper valley quite amazing.


Dr. J. Allen Hynek, astronomer, foremost proponent of UFOs, and the one who came up with the expression "close encounters of the third kind," defines a UFO as:

The reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behaviour of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible.

What Hynek considers to be "all available evidence" may be much less than what a skeptic would require. For example, the evidence appealed to by UFOlogists consists of (1) the testimony of people who claim to have seen aliens and/or alien spacecraft; (2) facts about the type of people who give the testimony; (3) the lack of contrary testimony or physical evidence that would either explain the sighting by conventional means (weather balloon, prank, meteor shower, reflection of light, etc.) or discredit the reliability of the eyewitness; and, (4) alleged weaknesses in the arguments of skeptics against the UFOlogists. The last item is irrelevant to the issue, yet it plays a disproportionately large role in UFOlogy.
www.world-mysteries.com...








[edit on 19-8-2009 by musselwhite]

[edit on 19-8-2009 by musselwhite]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Yes that is interesting... but if you read the testamony carefully, the witnesse says that the object didn't make a noise or didn't disturb the ground.

"As I watched, I noticed that it was apparently hovering and made no noise."

"I found absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever."

The video you posted sounded like it could wake up people in China and give lung cancer with all the smoke it did.

[edit on 19/8/2009 by Guru88]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by spyder103001
I live on a large field and when an object is 400+ ft away (i would assume it was even farther away, distance is hard to judge usually) and has multiple bright lights on it, you cant distinguish its color. Its like a truck in a field, u can see its lights, but have no idea the color when its night time. Its the same concept, your eyes just cant focus in on the color while theres a bright light being emitted


It's a good possibility, yes. But you would think instead of saying 'unknown' they'd explain it in a similar way.


Originally posted by savageheart
Regarding the debate about the color, it may be possible that what ever was witnessed didn't have a color that could be defined as we might know and interpret.


I don't really buy that. If it was outside the range of colors we know, we probably wouldn't be able to see it. Although I did once have a 'fun' time trying to explain the color 'green' to a colorblind friend


There's plenty of reports with multiple people seeing flashing lights, but they don't always agree on the colors they see. It would appear it's of low importance to the brain. How many people can, without question, remember the color of all their friends eyes? I know I can't



Originally posted by daveinok
who has spent 20 something years as a detective


...which would mean he knows you should not give evidence of something you're not absolutely sure about.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Clickfoot]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Hmm nice report, as to the people saying how could you not know the color of something youve just seen for a protracted amount of time... this was at night (from what i can gather, sounds like it was around 9pm) as such its often quite hard for the human eye to see clear color in such situations, especially at such a distance. most things are shades of grey or so badly desaturated one color can look like another, not sure if it was moonlight or not but that tends to make it even worse, everything gets that grey-blue tint to it. Although from how I read it they where talking about the porthole color, since they mention it was blueish so it might have been to bright to definitely say they were blue.

As for the Cell phone camera argument... hey I dont have a cell phone and I refuse to use them anyway, so why make it out like everyone should have instant access to some form of camera, not to mention most cell phone cameras are absolute rubbish in low light let alone dark. Trying to use that as an excuse to dismiss it is digging deep. Thing is if they had a picture of it im sure those saying 'why no photo?' would say 'beh thats fake'...

One thing I find interesting is that recently (a day or two ago ) I saw a story on teletext that said that NASA was saying that a number of UFO sightings people where having in America (not sure which area) where attributed to its cone shaped balloon it was testing for some mars lander. Not saying it was this since it doesnt sound like it apart from the shape.

TVNZ

Looks like the NASA balloon was in Virginia, completely the opposite side of the country
my bad. Still interesting.

I think the story in the OP is pretty credible though. Cant slam it completely just because it has nothing beyond eyewitness testimony. If that was the case you'd have to dismiss huge swaths of historical UFO sightings.

Edit:- Hmm when I think about it in a way its good they said 'unknown' color since if they couldnt agree or couldnt determine it or be fully sure of it, isnt it better to say unknown than picking a color which could latter make your evidence sound like it was inconsistant? Especially if latter on someone else saw the same thing and described it with a completely different color to yours. Better to be safe and honest than having your evidence questioned latter thanks to a guess.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by BigfootNZ]



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join