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.

 

I experienced a "classic" UFO sighting: Nov. 28, 2010

page: 22
218
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by burdenofdreams
So basically, what the OP is saying is:

1. Buy an iPad©.

2. Smoke Nat Sherman's™ cigarettes.

3. Get a Netflix® streaming account.

4. Download the SkyWalk™ app for your new ipad.

5. Buy a six-pack of Tecate™ beer.

6. Be sure to use Google Sky® on your new ipad.

And you, too, could have a UFO sighting.

Am I right?


Well put, it looks a bit like commercial advertising to me, whether intentional or not.
edit on 4-12-2010 by ManInAsia because: spelling




posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I'm not sure if this has come up in the thread, but the classic UFO sighting that I think is most relevant to OPs and other personal UFO sightings listed here is this one.

Paul A.Hill, NASA scientist and authour of an all-time UFO classic, published after his death.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

His 1952 sighting in his words (from Wikipedia listing).

Hill drove out to the beach with his wife hoping to also see something. He said he didn't have long to wait. At 8:00 p.m., just at twilight, they saw two amber lights, looking like traffic lights, streaking toward them from the southern horizon at an estimated 500 miles an hour. From other witnesses and an aircraft spotter, Hill would later triangulate their altitude as 15,000 to 18,000 feet and their size as 13 to 20 feet in diameter. The lights passed directly over their heads, then slowed and turned west. Hill reported:

"They practically came to a stop as they approached. It was then that they started their strange jitter, a surprising phenomenon. First one leaped a little way ahead of the other as fast as or faster than the eye could follow... Then the other seemed to jump ahead. They kept up these odd mincing steps for a few seconds as they passed overhead... Then, after passing zenith, they made an astounding maneuver. Maintaining their spacing of about 200 feet, they revolved in a horizontal circle, about a common center, at a rate of least once per second. After a few revolutions, and without pause, they switched their revolutions into a vertical plane, keeping up the same amazing rate."
Hill said he was "awe-stricken" and blurted out, "Nothing can do that—those are really saucers," adding that it was within his line of business to know that no man-made craft could "remotely approach those maneuvers." He was then convinced "that here were visitors from another world."

Hill then reported that seconds later, an identical spherical light came in from the Atlantic Ocean on an ascending course over Chesapeake Bay and joined the other two. The three started accelerating toward the south, to be joined by yet another amber sphere coming in from the James River. All then flew off in a formation of four. Hill thought that the circling maneuver had been a "rendezvous signal." The entire sighting lasted about 3 minutes. Hill found out afterward that many people in the area reported the amber lights to local newspapers, particularly the third light traveling up Chesapeake Bay. One report was from an Air Force fighter pilot, who agreed exactly with Hill’s estimate of speed.

'



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
After 22 largely off-topic pages, I'm keen to see CHRLZ's analysis of S.O.'s interesting sighting.

I think S.O. has posted enough details for CHRLZ to get started, making certain assumptions. Then S.O. could correct CHRLZ where necessary.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lowneck
After 22 largely off-topic pages, I'm keen to see CHRLZ's analysis of S.O.'s interesting sighting.

I think S.O. has posted enough details for CHRLZ to get started, making certain assumptions. Then S.O. could correct CHRLZ where necessary.



Thanks Lowneck, I'm pleased to see by your response (and a few stars), that some folks are interested.

But I would point out that I still haven't had an answer to anything I have asked, namely:

3-12-2010
1. Will S.O answer my questions about his claim?

4-12-2010 (Several questions, including..)
2. Has he been out since to check the sky for similar events?
3. Has he (or indeed anyone) found any good corroborating evidence, news reports, webcam images?
4. Is his location in Phoenix a well-populated area?
5. Is there anything in the OP that was exaggerated or altered for brevity/clarity/whatever, that he wishes to revise?

and..
6. Is my screenshot of the night sky accurate?

Now, the last of those questions was posted after S.O's last post on the site on the 4th, so I guess I can't complain much about that. But it's going to be a very one-sided analysis if it remains all up to me...



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlagHunter
OK then, instead of "delete" I'll just not sign in again, and cease posting - how's that?


Oh you're such a tease.... waving about that which you know everyone here desires...


Gorgonzola... or is it BlueAngel?

IRM



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Slow response ==> I live in Phoenix, weather was awesome, and it was the weekend.



Your screen-grab seems a bit off from my memory. My recollection is that Capella was about 2-3 degrees off vertical from Menkalinan to the south (right), and not as high in the sky. However, nearby trees may have cause an optical illusion to make it seem as I remember.

Admittedly, the time of initial observation may be off as I didn't make an effort to note the time (at the time I didn't know I'd be seeing something out of the ordinary) and did my best to "back into" the time of first observation after the apparent downward motion and split.

I've previously stated I've been out at approximately the same time, and saw no such bright object in the same place.

My location near the Phoenix/Scottsdale border is well-populated.

Also, as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, no corroboration other than several eye-witness accounts of varying degrees of similar objects.


And as has been previously noted, the animation mock-up is not intended to be accurate, but a video "sketch" of what I saw.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
So, S.O. - we never did get to the bottom of our debate. How can you prove to me that you didn't make this story up to get flags?



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFlagHunter
 


The "bottom" was reached when I stopped discussing something that is absurd.
edit on 6-12-2010 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Fine, we don't have to discuss it anymore. But I thought you would at least like to know that : at least there are people on ATS that like to think of every possible angle to any story. - And surely that is the purpose of ATS? Surely at ATS everyone should encourage all possible angles to any story? That is surely what makes ATS great? That no stone is left unturned?

Anyway, Thank-you SkepticOverlord - For what it's worth.. ..your story is entertaining and thought provoking and I for one, would love to experience something similar.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Slow response ==> I live in Phoenix, weather was awesome, and it was the weekend.


No problem. As I live in an opposing timezone, there will be delays from that too. But it would have been nice to have the earlier questions answered when you *were* here.

As it happens, I am heading for work now, so will only deal with the first couple of (minor) points.


Your screen-grab seems a bit off from my memory. My recollection is that Capella was about 2-3 degrees off vertical from Menkalinan to the south (right), and not as high in the sky.

All the objects in that sky region are moving with an upward and anticlockwise motion as the night progresses (rotating around Polaris off to the North, obviously) so if Capella was more to the south of Menkalinan that would seem to indicate my screen grab is a little late, which also fits in with it being too high. I don't think that issue materially affects the analysis but if it becomes important later, I'll re-do it.


However, nearby trees may have cause an optical illusion to make it seem as I remember.

And on the other hand, planetarium viewers have to 'bend' the scene to fit on flat screen, so unless the objects are lined up exactly in the centre of the captured image, the angles may be misleading. So like I said, I don't think the issue of exact timing and exact angles is of major importance at the moment.

I'll leave it there. The next part requires a bit more elaboration. Hopefully I'll have time tonight (but it's a very busy time for me too, not just because of the season)...



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   
I want to slow down the analysis here to post some images - 4 in fact.

Up front, I apologise for taking up a fair bit of space with these - if the moderators would prefer I reduce them to links, just say the word (or make it so!). I don't wish to explain too much about the images yet, except to say they are relevant, although the relevance won't be clear initially...

I've made the view angle approximate a naked eye view, but one where you are concentrating on an area of sky and your brain sorta 'zooms in' a bit - it's about 40°. Here's a view roughly East-South-East:


Here's an adjoining view roughly South:


I'll be posting 2 more in a short while, and I'll be explaining the point (or rather, I'm hoping some other folks will work out why these 4 images are relevant, before I fully explain...)

I'm sorry to be obscure, but come on, admit it - don't you just love puzzles?



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
..continued..
Here's a view roughly South-West:

And finally a view North-North-West:


Now here's the rub - something is wrong with one (or more) of these images. I'd like to know if anyone reading this forum can spot what it is. The puzzle is open to all-comers, including highly avid astro-heads ( I only class myself as a mediocre astro-head..).

But FAR more importantly, it is NOT enough to simply spot the issue/s. You must explain in detail HOW you spotted it.

I'd prefer that if you get it quickly (eg less than 24 hours from the posting time), you don't give it away immediately (please PM me if you want verification, and I'll happily give you credit later), but of course I can't prevent it from being blurted out if someone decides to shorten the length of the 'puzzle'.

I'll still be able to make my point, I think..



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I'd define a "classic" UFO sighting as something akin to Adamski/Meier/Trent et al. A sighting where the object has a clear definition of form. Now I don't for one minute believe the claims of Adamski or Meier and many others but I'd consider an obvious craft as "classic".

A light in the sky sighting I'd define as "contemporary", or perhaps, "YouTubean".

I has a sighting a few years ago that lay somewhere between "classic" and "Youtubean".



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by torsion
Now I don't for one minute believe the claims of Adamski or Meier and many others but I'd consider an obvious craft as "classic".


Far too many "obvious crafts" have been proven to be hoaxes or something terrestrial to be considered a "classic" sighting in my mind. To me, there are -- at best -- a handful of photos/videos of a "craft" that defy explanation as something man-made and terrestrial in origin, and have not been obviously contrived as a hoax.

One such image I like best is here on ATS: More "Anonymous" Chicago UFO images


The reason I opted for the term "classic" in this case is that accounts of unexpected star-like lights in the sky, inexplicable motion from those "lights," and/or sudden disappearance of the "lights" are relatively common. Especially in the case where people, like myself, didn't know they were initially looking at something that would soon be extraordinary, thus had no thoughts of grabbing a camera. And by the time something stunning happened, it was too late to document it with a photo or video camera.


This is perhaps the most confounding aspect of UFOlogy: accounts of this nature with no substantiation, but which do not contain sensationalist components and are essentially rather mundane observations of "lights" that move in unexplained ways.

My "skeptical side" wants to explain this sighting as "something" entering the atmosphere either directly toward me or so nearly perpendicular to my position that no "tail" was observed. Then, at some point when the heat was so great, it broke up into two major pieces with significant energy and my "brain" processed that into believing the two pieces split off at right angles to the original path. It's a good explanation.

However... it seemed to be stationary for too long and the "breakup" velocity too fast for that explanation.

On the other hand... our brains like to fill in blanks where blanks exist. The mystery continues.
edit on 7-12-2010 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

This is perhaps the most confounding aspect of UFOlogy: accounts of this nature with no substantiation, but which do not contain sensationalist components and are essentially rather mundane observations of "lights" that move in unexplained ways.


What puzzles me is the change from "classic" sightings of the mid to late 20th Century - ie the claims of seeing nut-and-bolts flying machines with port holes, ladders and ramps, weird occupants etc- to the 21st Century distant specks and lights in the sky. I bet you'd be hard pushed to find reports of tiny lights in, say, the early issues of Flying Saucer Review, all the crafts had big mechanical substance!

Now that we have the means to record these events it's like the telescope has been turned the wrong way round.

We know that many of the vintage and famous saucer photos are fake, indeed, I know of none that could be classed as a definite genuine photo. Could it be that every claim of a close-up craft was a hoax or misidentification?



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by torsion
Could it be that every claim of a close-up craft was a hoax or misidentification?


That's what I tend to think.

The other important aspect, when reviewing photos and/or accounts of close-up encounters, is that they all seem to reflect the design aesthetic/sensibilities of the time in which the account takes place -- meaning that those concocting fakes (Billy Meier for example) do so based on contemporary design/technology.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Maybe we need to rethink and revise Hynek's Close Encounters terminology as closeness seems to be a thing of the past.

If, indeed, it ever was!



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlagHunter
Personally, I don't believe the OP. I think he made it up to get flags. I'm entitled to my personal opinion. And in my honest opinion, I think he is a liar.

You're wrong to call the OP's account a lie.

You have no evidence to prove this. (CHRLZ might but thats another matter!)

The only thing that can be said with any certainty about his claim is that it is utterly inconsequential to any debate about, or investigation into, the UFO phenomenon.

No other witnesses. No video. No photos. No radar reports. Just an anectdotal account.

There is no corroborative evidence to support his sighting so it should be consigned to the wastebin. As a self-proclaimed skeptic he should know this.

That this thread reached 22 pages is an utter farce.

Perhaps the motivation for the site-owning OP was post counts and advertising revenue rather than stars and flags?

Just a thought.
edit on 7-12-2010 by MiTS65 because: Typo



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by torsion
We know that many of the vintage and famous saucer photos are fake, indeed, I know of none that could be classed as a definite genuine photo. Could it be that every claim of a close-up craft was a hoax or misidentification?


Well to answer your question, to infer that based on the fact that some vintage saucer photos are fake, is a logical error.

I don't see how people can view things so conservatively. Hundreds of pilots have seen them close up, many times on radar too, sometimes by multiple modes as Kaku terms it. Flying saucers are IMO, indisputably real physical objects. Their origin is the big mystery. I don't see any reasonable grounds to the idea that flying saucers are all explainable as hoaxes and misindentification of "known" objects. There are no known objects that operate in the way some UFOs have been observed to maneuver. I'm fully prepared to accept there is classified aerospace tech that makes an F-22 look like a WW1 fighter, but I don't think that explains incidents like the disabling of strategic weapons during UFO events.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MiTS65
No other witnesses. No video. No photos. No radar reports. Just an anectdotal account.

How many "sightings" in the MUFON database are nothing more than that? (I would think, the vast majority)



That this thread reached 22 pages is an utter farce.
Perhaps the motivation for the site-owning OP was post counts and advertising revenue rather than stars and flags?

Given the high-end professional video-editing suite available on two company-owned top-of-the-line Macs, I would think we could do better than one person with a story if our intent was to gain traffic. However...

Since this was posted, it received 31,691 views (according to Google Analytics).

As compared to 6.1 million page-views of all threads... for a whopping total of 0.525% of all thread pages viewed in the period since it was posted.

If the goal was to attract traffic (it wasn't), it was a rather feeble attempt.




top topics



 
218
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join