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.

 

UFO Video, Brewster, New York, July 24, 1984

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


karl 12 said: [Easynow you're not wrong about that - Kandinskys done a great thread
here about the Hudson Valley sightings

Theres also some interesting eyewitness testimony which appears to completely refute the idea that the unknown object was 'just a group of planes':]

Why should it be one of the other? Why not sightings of possibly real UFOs and the planes? Planes especially after alleged UFO sightings? Playful people create agri-glyphs (crop circles) so why not playful aerial people? There's room for both. The video is of planes. Unless there are videos NOT of the planes, which I haven't seen. If you have a link(s) to videos of Hudson Valley/Connecticut UFOs, please provide them.




posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by converge
 


You seem to have a problem with yourself. Look at the OP's video. It's on YouTube. YouTube is on the internet as are most if not all of the reports pro and con regarding this case. You seem to be looking internally at your insides!



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical Ed
 

I'm talking about your double standards, not whether the Internet should be used or not. The Internet is a resource not a source.

The OP, besides the video you mention, also provided a link to a NICAP document with a timeline of the events which included all the respective sources.

The article you use to support your claim that what's seen on the video are airplanes flying in formation is from a University newspaper written by Aaron Sakulich, a student.

Interesting quotes from the article:


Like all UFO reports, each eyewitness seems to have seen something different.

Like all UFO reports? He probably means all UFO reports except the ones he isn't even aware of or decided to ignore. Either situation is unacceptable for someone who sets out to debunk something.



Some of you reading this are, I'm sure, terrified, but worry not: gigantic alien spaceships are not roaming the skies of New England.

Here is the first hint that this person is a denialist, the argument from personal incredulity.



Unlike this portion of the UFO enthusiast community, I will admit that there are some witness accounts that don't support the aircraft explanation. All of these accounts, however, have explanations.

The author, then, proceeds to 'explain' that the accounts that don't support the aircraft explanation were all due to hysteria and nothing more. After all, the author already established that there could be no other explanation.



The UFO enthusiast makes the claim that sightings occurred in weather that would have grounded small planes, or on days when no aircraft took off from the Stormville airport. This was verified, apparently, by crack UFO enthusiast reconnaissance teams that camped out near the airport. These observations can be explained by remembering two things. First, more airports than just the Stormville airport exist in the world. Perhaps the pilots flew from somewhere else. Perhaps they took off from several airports, met together in the sky, formed up, and after scaring the hell out of some people, dispersed. This would also explain why the local airports did not report six or seven modified aircraft taking off or landing simultaneously.

Aww and the pseudoskeptics like to mention Occam's razor so much. Is it really the simplest explanation that the fact that no local airport reported the aircraft taking off or landing simultaneously because they "took off from several airports, met together in the sky, formed up and after scaring the hell out of some people, dispersed"? Or is the simplest explanation that no local airports report several aircraft taking off or landing simultaneously, because there weren't any aircraft?



The rest of the accounts that cause concern can be easily explained. Some witnesses report that the craft moved absolutely silently: this could be a slight exaggeration on the part of the witnesses; it could be that the planes were flying at a higher altitude; it could be that the air was more humid and hampered the travel of sound waves. Any number of things can explain these accounts.

Another typical denialist position. Since nothing can fly silently, the witnesses exaggerated, the planes were flying at higher altitude, etc etc. "Any number of things can explain these accounts" says the author. Any number of things, except apparently, the possibility that the witnesses actually witnessed something silent flying.



[The UFO proponents] also assume that the vast majority of witnesses are not exaggerating at all, were not duped by copycat hoaxers, and are not themselves mistaking natural phenomena.

The author also fails to notice that for his theories to hold water one has to assume that all witnesses exaggerated or misidentified natural phenomena, or witnessed hoaxes which required special weather conditions and were perpetrated by people who were so reckless to the point of flying over a nuclear power plant.



It's absolutely certain that pranksters in airplanes were responsible for a portion of the sightings

Such certainty for someone who:


I admit my research on the issue is somewhat lacking. Due to, I suspect, limited productions, a number of books written about this incident are hard to track down. (...)

All of this information comes from books about UFOs in general that mention this case, or information written by UFO enthusiasts on the internet.


In sum, the author is certain there isn't anything unexplained regarding this case, although, admittedly, his research was "somewhat lacking". The author also cites his sources as "books about UFOs in general" or "information written by UFO enthusiasts on the internet".

We're left without knowing, objectively, what his sources are or were.

Like what most pseudoskeptics and denialists expect people to do when confronted with unusual events and cases, we have to take their word for it that their reaching 'explanations', assumptions and personal disbelief are more acceptable than the true believers' assumptions and personal beliefs.

Another case closed!


edit: links

[edit on 17-10-2009 by converge]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I came across the dateline video yesterday on YouTube regarding the Hudson Valley UFO's.

I lived in the valley, in Hopewell Jct during that time and I have an amazing story to tell about what happened that night. Ever since that day I have been interested in UFOs, I also became very religious as a result of seeing the UFO live.

Can anyone suggest a good person to contact about my experience? I'm 38 yrs old now and live in MA. I would like to get my story down on paper to someone who can add it to what happened in the Hudson valley. There were three other witnesses that night as well, one is dead but the other two are still alive.

thanks!

-Andrew



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join