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: 24
218
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join
share:
+30 more 
posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Does it really drop to a point where night adaptation is that rapid?

Does your reflexive-denial run so deep that you're unable to fathom something in which you have no direct experience?

Consider -- when it's dark outside, normal screen brightness is too bright, so it's normal to turn it down.




You said the primary purpose was looking for 'nocturnal critters'.

Your context of focusing on stars and and the term "night viewing" was assumed.

Should I not have omitted that we have motion-sensitive exterior lighting?




I don't see where you explain your immediate recognition of something wrong

Perhaps you need to re-read the opening post: "I happened to look up at the stars, as I always do whenever I'm out at night, and noticed a bright star that I don't recall seeing before."




Hmm, I thought we were supposed to be civil?

My, aren't you sensitive.

Okay, let me express the sarcasm in more expressive detail. You're the apparent self-appointed "denialist" from a group of self-exiled debunkers who prefer to sequester themselves away in the safety of a very-quiet corner so that they may be afforded the opportunity to poke fun at those with sightings with all the spiteful and reviling language emblematic of those with limited social skills. In an effort to appear to be a talented denialist, a contrived and unrelated "star puzzle" is presented, along with irrelevant self-indulgent fluffery that comes across as little more than grasping at straw men.




Here I am letting the reader decide for themselves - that's what ATS should be about, no?

You and your merry band of acidic "debunkers" engaged in reflexive-denial have demonstrated an inability to comprehend "what ATS should be about."
edit on 11-12-2010 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-12-2010 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Hello SO
Thanks for sharing

Your experience is similar to a sighting i had a couple of years ago in central cal.

My 2008 sighting

In your initial post you wonder of what interest could we be to such an advanced society, they are interested just because we are here.
Life might be plentiful in the galaxy, but sentient life, might be extremely rare, thereby making us of interest.
Im of the opinion that we are being observed by at least several different ET civilizations, and some have just discovered us, and some have been coming here for a long time.
The JAL sighting and related sightings in canadian and alaskan airspace in the 80's led me to this belief.
In those sightings the UFO's seemed to be very interested in our aircraft, almost like they had just encounterd such things for the first time. And the type of ufo in these sightings is diferent from what has been reported before or since.

For me, I have seen enough unexplainable things in the sky, to prove to myself anyway, that we are being observed. To what end? Only they know and maybe someday we will find out.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Does it really drop to a point where night adaptation is that rapid?

Does your reflexive-denial run so deep that you're unable to fathom something in which you have no direct experience?

"reflexive denial"? Surely it would be better and more productive to simply address, and refute (if possible) the issues? The brightness of the screen seems to me to be an important point, and the fact that you introduced new information after the initial post, invited further analysis...


Consider -- when it's dark outside, normal screen brightness is too bright, so it's normal to turn it down.

Consider - using any light source in front of your eyes when viewing, oh, say ' nocturnal critters' is not a good idea. I note that you haven't yet even acknowledged the concept of night adaptation. If you think it is irrelevant, why not just say so? But the problem remains of Menkalinan being a relatively dim mag 2 star.



You said the primary purpose was looking for 'nocturnal critters'.

Your context of focusing on stars and and the term "night viewing" was assumed.

I would have thought viewing stars, and viewing nocturnal critters, both would be best done without using a backlit lcd screen.



Should I not have omitted that we have motion-sensitive exterior lighting?

Ah.

...
Yes, perhaps you should have provided that sort of detail. It seems a lot of new information is now appearing... The readers will have to judge why that is.



I don't see where you explain your immediate recognition of something wrong

Perhaps you need to re-read the opening post: "I happened to look up at the stars, as I always do whenever I'm out at night, and noticed a bright star that I don't recall seeing before."

And, as I have pointed out (perhaps you need to re-read my posts):

1. I doubt I would be able to do it, unless I was intentionally star viewing, and had a star chart. And I invited others to try it for themselves. Can't be fairer than that..

2. I doubt even more if i could do it immediately after looking up from a (even 50% less bright) backlit LCD, especially if it involved a non-familiar star pattern that included a mag 2 star.

3. No-one, including you, spotted the new stars in my examples, despite at least one being near a famous asterism.



Hmm, I thought we were supposed to be civil?

My, aren't you sensitive.

Again, rather than address the issue, you wish to imply attributes to me. So far I'm timid, shy, now sensitive... Do you understand the concept of ad hominem? Even at a low level such as this, it reflects more upon the person posting it, than the 'sensitive' one, I think. But again, others will decide.


Okay, let me express the sarcasm in more expressive detail.

Oh, please do!! Let's see if it is on topic, or ad hominem.


You're the apparent self-appointed "denialist" from a group of self-exhiled debunkers

I'm a "self-appointed denialist"? On what basis do you claim that? And shouldn't someone who is 'exhiled'[sic], umm.. well.. sorta.. not be here?


who prefer to sequester themselves away in the safety of a very-quiet corner so that they may be afforded the opportunity to poke fun at those with sightings with all the spiteful and reviling language emblematic of those with limited social skills.

First, now who's 'sensitive'?
Second (trying to keep this on topic), what 'spiteful and reviling' language have I used HERE? And do feel free to reveal what I used elsewhere if you think it's ontopic... personally, I think we should be addressing what this thread is about, but that's just me..


In an effort to appear to be a talented denialist, a contrived and unrelated "star puzzle" is presented

Contrived? Yes. Unrelated? You claimed the ability to immediately recognise an out of place star, and it is a key point in your claim. When presented with 4 examples of exactly that, neither you or anyone spotted them. Again, I'll let the readers decide.


along with irrelevant self-indulgent fluffery that comes across as little more than grasping at straw men.

That's a little ironic... What, specifically, were the 'straw men'? The puzzle about being (un)able to recognise out of place stars?



Here I am letting the reader decide for themselves - that's what ATS should be about, no?

You and your merry band of acidic "debunkers" engaged in reflexive-denial have demonstrated an inability to comprehend "what ATS should be about."


Again, I'm happy for the readers to decide that, especially the 'acidic' bit..



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks10
Life might be plentiful in the galaxy, but sentient life, might be extremely rare, thereby making us of interest.

That's been part of my issue with considering the validity of "alien visitation." While I tend not to think sentient life is extremely rare, but rare... and compounding that rarity (in our case) is that we've only been emitting detectible singles for a few decades.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


+6 more 
posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
The brightness of the screen seems to me to be an important point,

Can you explain how?

Are you proposing that an iPad screen you think is too bright, without ever using one yourself, could cause one to see a stationary bright spot in the sky? Really?




If you think it is irrelevant, why not just say so?

I would have assumed that someone interested in actualities, rather than seeking justification for denial, would have surmised from my previous responses that I believe it to be irrelevant.




both would be best done without using a backlit lcd screen.

It's boring just sitting idle for a couple hours. Seriously.




It seems a lot of new information is now appearing... The readers will have to judge why that is.

OH! Sound the skeptical sirens of debunking! New and important information has come to light! This is ultra-critical folks, and sheds serious light on SkepticOverlord's ability to see points of light in the sky -- he has lights in his yard!

Seriously.




I doubt I would be able to do it,

I'm beginning to think so as well. It seems as though you'd grope for a list of irrelevant reasons to explain away seeing something you didn't expect to see.




I doubt even more if i could do it immediately after looking up from a (even 50% less bright) backlit LCD,

Your direct experience with a "backlit LCD screen" outside in the evening hours is... what?




No-one, including you, spotted the new stars in my examples, despite at least one being near a famous asterism.

Oh... your little game? Perhaps no one bother to spend more than a couple minutes, at best.

It's irrelevant to the description of what I saw.




And shouldn't someone who is 'exhiled'[sic], umm.. well.. sorta.. not be here?

(I said self-exiled.)




personally, I think we should be addressing what this thread is about, but that's just me..

Please feel free to begin discussing something of relevance at any point.

Perhaps you might consider beginning with an attempt at helping to examine a potential mundane explanation in my post here.




When presented with 4 examples of exactly that, neither you or anyone spotted them. Again, I'll let the readers decide.

Sound those skeptical sirens again.



What, specifically, were the 'straw men'?

LCD screens with which you have no experience
Low-res star field "game'
What movie I was watching
-etc-



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Are you proposing that an iPad screen you think is too bright, without ever using one yourself
...
Your direct experience with a "backlit LCD screen" outside in the evening hours is... what?

I have:
- digital cameras (3) - all with backlit LCD screens
(I love night photography)
- notebook PC - with backlit LCD screen
(sometimes used in a darkened room with brightness way down for image processing - I trust you know why (hint - 'true' blacks))
- GPS - with backlit LCD screen
(used at night while driving long trips, inc the odd stop for a bit of stargazing)
- portable DVD player - with backlit LCD screen
- MiniDVD camcorder - with backlit LCD screen
(used for filming objects like Jupiter.. that would be.. at night)
All of them have adjustable screen brightness, but I would only normally play with the cameras, PC or camcorder, as the GPS has an excellent automatic night mode and I rarely use the DVD player.

What's more, if you check out my youtube account or my numerous photography-related posts here, you can see the evidence of much of that.



I would have assumed that someone interested in actualities, rather than seeking justification for denial
...
OH! Sound the skeptical sirens of debunking!
...
This is ultra-critical folks
...
sheds serious light on SkepticOverlord's ability to see points of light in the sky -- he has lights in his yard!
...
Seriously.
...
you'd grope for a list of irrelevant reasons to explain away seeing something you didn't expect to see.
...
Oh... your little game? Perhaps no one bother [sic] to spend more than a couple minutes, at best.
...
Please feel free to begin discussing something of relevance at any point.
...
Sound those skeptical sirens again.



Do I detect an 'attitude'?



And shouldn't someone who is 'exhiled'[sic], umm.. well.. sorta.. not be here?

(I said self-exiled.)

No, you said self-exhiled. You misspelt it - I notice you have fixed it now, well done. But next time, take note of that little line that says you MUST explain the reason for your edits - you ignored it twice in that post alone. I'm sure the site owner put it there for a reason...


Perhaps you might consider beginning with an attempt at helping to examine a potential mundane explanation in my post here.

Why? You are doing just fine.




LCD screens with which you have no experience

Well, I've dealt with that one above. But if you like, I'll post examples of night use of my equipment, however I wouldn't want to be accused of going off topic or promoting other sites... Call me.. "timid".


Low-res star field "game'

Low-res? What, you couldn't see the bright stars in sharp relief? They seem pretty clear to me. Anyone else?


What movie I was watching

You still don't get that? Here, let me elucidate.

A movie like, oh, Flight of the Phoenix.. is mostly very BRIGHT. Shot in a desert under the burning sun, you know... It would destroy your night adaptation in short shrift..

A movie like Batman -The Dark Knight, is mostly rather DARK. If you were watching one of the many film-noir/ low-key scenes, it might not be quite so destructive. Interestingly, it would have a greater effect, I'll wager, than turning the brightness down - I could test that and give you some numbers if you want...

And you thought the screen brightness thing was important enough to mention... can't have it both ways..

Anyway, it's pretty clear this is a dead end, in all respects. So I'll vanish now and let the readers work it out for themselves.


+10 more 
posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
I have:

But no iPad? No direct experience with using an iPad; turning down the brightness outside then looking up?

What movies do you watch on your miniDVD player? Those might effect your cognition when considering a denial strategy.



Do I detect an 'attitude'?

Finally -- you've interpreted one of my posts accurately.



And you thought the screen brightness thing was important enough to mention... can't have it both ways..

You still have not explained how watching (any) screen outside would cause someone to see a singular stationary bright "dot" in the sky, remains in-place for several minutes, then moves apparently of it's own volition.



Anyway, it's pretty clear this is a dead end, in all respects. So I'll vanish now and let the readers work it out for themselves.

Going back to your little corner of "watching" glad-hands in self-exile so you can denigrate people attempting to honestly portray unexplained experiences from a safe and unchallenged distance?



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Just to pick up on a point that was raised about the LCD screens.
You say you had it down to 50% power, for what reason? Was it to protect the eyes? I don't really get why you would do that. Of course it could be personal preference which is fair enough but simply turning the brightness down will have little effect on your night vision, your eyes will still need time to adapt, so even if it wasn't the main reason the brightness was turned down it still would of caused a signifigant effect to your night vision.

I only say this because, well, it's true. That is why when I am out at night with my laptop observing if the programs available have the setting I always switch it to the red screen setting and I only use red LED flashlights to see what I am doing. It is the only way you can protect your night vision, brightness really has less to do with it than colour does.

I would say the point raised was a more than valid point, no need to be so defensive about it.

This link explains a lot about night vision.
www.aoa.org...
www.flashlightreviews.com...
edit on 13-12-2010 by pazcat because: added links.

edit on 13-12-2010 by pazcat because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I think it's great that you copped the same as everybody else does in here and DID go off topic with attacks on the poster..
It shows you're human and hopefully understand why some other members sometimes do the same thing..
We too get frustrated and sometimes post things in haste and anger..
Though I don't see any of your posts being marked off topic like other members have..



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by CHRLZ
I have:

But no iPad? No direct experience with using an iPad; turning down the brightness outside then looking up?


Respectfully; how is the iPad's LCD display any different to other backlit displays, size not withstanding? Is it 'special' in some way that it cannot be compared to other examples given by CHRLZ?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here Bill.

IRM



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by pazcat
You say you had it down to 50% power, for what reason? Was it to protect the eyes? I don't really get why you would do that.

In the dark, it was simply uncomfortably bright at full-brightness.




Originally posted by InfaRedMan
how is the iPad's LCD display any different to other backlit displays, size not withstanding?

The reason I asked specifically about the iPad is that, in many circumstances, it's a casual/passive device -- especially when watching a long video such as a movie. It was propped on a table about 3 feet from my eyes, making it a relatively small zone of somewhat dim light in my entire field of vision such that I could still see objects in the dark with clarity. In fact, it likely took up less "area" in my field of vision than a typical TV would when watching from your sofa -- an in that situation, your eyes don't create permanent dots of light elsewhere in your living room.

This is why I asked, someone with direct iPad experience would know how/if it might effect one's eyes while watching a movie.
edit on 13-12-2010 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Whatever happened to: "Nice sighting looks good. Wish I could see something like that sometime S&F"?
edit on 13-12-2010 by naraku because: (no reason given)


+10 more 
posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
I think it's great that you copped the same as everybody else does in here and DID go off topic with attacks on the poster..

I apologize to everyone reading the thread (including CHRLZ) if that's how my response was interpreted -- which was not and is not the intent. I feel the conversation drift that became somewhat personally focused is an important illustration of where "debunking" has gone wrong on ATS; and thus, my terse words represent an on-topic exchange for our Aliens and UFOs forum.

(Which is not to imply my sighting was posted for such a purpose.)


While supporting "smart debunking" is important to the study of potential extraterrestrial phenomena, ATS has experienced an unfortunate progression where a handful of appreciated and helpful smart-debunkers evolved into boastful deniers.

The difference can be subtle, but exceptionally important -- and recently illustrated in the last few pages of this thread.

Smart-debunkers, which are of assistance to the identification of UFOs, focus on interpreting the phenomena and either find a mundane explanation (a cluster of balloons) or find flaws in the evidence (Photoshopped/altered photograph).

Deniers have developed a reflexive rejection that most-often takes the form of discrediting the person coming forward with an unexplainable experience, or shifts the discussion into that of deception well before a full examination.


While "debunkers" have certainly contributed their share of pithiness, as have "true believers," the "denialists" have been responsible for most of the indignation in our members, and hesitation by new members reluctant to share their experiences.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   
u saw a chinese balloon
lol



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Looks like we are all human after all.
edit on 14-12-2010 by RSF77 because: Except me of course, I'm a dog.



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
Looks like we are all human after all.
edit on 14-12-2010 by RSF77 because: Except me of course, I'm a dog.


omg what a beautiful doggie in your avatar... I used to have a dog similar to that. she was such a good girl.

are people in here still arguing about the authenticity of this sighting?



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaosMagician

Originally posted by RSF77
Looks like we are all human after all.
edit on 14-12-2010 by RSF77 because: Except me of course, I'm a dog.


omg what a beautiful doggie in your avatar... I used to have a dog similar to that. she was such a good girl.

are people in here still arguing about the authenticity of this sighting?


Its funny but,he said he had a [classic UFO SIGHTING] not a flying saucer or a flying triangle.It wasnt even debatable from the get go.



new topics

top topics



 
218
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join