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.
Thanks , I've learned a lot from your posts too, but Jim Oberg is really the one to thank, he's done a lot of good research on pilot misperceptions. I wasn't sure if I agreed with his "null hypothesis" until he clarified it:
Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
but thanks to you, I have a very good example that proves the point.
I can't find the quote on ATS but somewhere I think he expressed a view like mine, that he doesn't rule out ET visitation as a possibility for unexplained cases, but he doesn't know of any where that seems to be the most likely explanation. And as he so well demonstrates in that article, things which seem to be not of this world, can in fact be very much of this world once you understand the many ways we don't correctly interpret what we observe.
The "Null Hypothesis" for UFO reports, of which I am one of a handful of champions, states that no extraordinary stimuli are required to produce the entire array of public UFO perceptions in all their rich variety, wonderment, and terror. Known phenomena have produced all types of what is commonly known as "UFO reports", including apparitions of flying disks, radar and radio interference, terrifying chases and "intelligent maneuvers", telepathic messages, "missing time" and hypnogenic narratives, recollections of participation in military UFO retrievals, actual "secret documents", and so forth. There seem to be no types of reports which have not been, on record, produced at some point or another by prosaic stimuli and/or circumstances.
Link
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Do you consider a pilot taking "violent evasive action" to avoid a collision with an object that is nowhere near a collision course to be mundane? I hope I'm never on any such "mundane" commercial flight!
Yes I think that's accurate. But what about the shape of the object being different than the pilots perceived? And the maneuvering capabilities? That's not just one but three different parallels between the cases.
Originally posted by Orkojoker
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Do you consider a pilot taking "violent evasive action" to avoid a collision with an object that is nowhere near a collision course to be mundane? I hope I'm never on any such "mundane" commercial flight!
I wouldn't say that the pilot's behavior is mundane, but understandable considering what he thought he perceived. However, I only stated that the "collision course" aspect of the Coyne sighting was relatively mundane in comparison with the close encounter portion of the report. Wouldn't you say that is an accurate statement?
Yes, that was part of my point. I think we agree on a number of key points. One point it seems we disagree on, is that you apparently don't seem to think extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or did I misinterpret what you said?
As far as defying the laws of physics, Paul Hill notes in his book Unconventional Flying Objects that it is possible to account for many reported UFO maneuvers - such as apparently "instantaneous" starts and stops - by way of explanations that are well within our current knowledge of physics. As you have repeatedly pointed out, human perception is fallible. Therefore, the fact that we see something that appears to violate the laws of physics is no indication that it actually is doing so.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
For example I find the claim that the helicopter was ascending rapidly when the collective was in the full descent position to be an extraordinary claim, since the helicopter apparently didn't appear to have any mechanical malfunction after it returned to base. Which is more likely, that this was an actual event, or was it a misperception issue?
Originally posted by Erno86
Hello C.H.U.D.,
BLKMJK:
I'm sorry, but you are just going to have to wait, on my other ET and U.F.O. related events.
Dealing with a U.F.O. debunker is enough for one day. [Not meaning you]
Later,
Foofighter's forever,
Erno86edit on 23-3-2011 by Erno86 because: typoedit on 23-3-2011 by Erno86 because: DITTOedit on 23-3-2011 by Erno86 because: added a few wordsedit on 23-3-2011 by Erno86 because: ditto
So you never saw it hit the ground?
Originally posted by Erno86
It seemed to have landed just beyond the mountain range in front of us, as we saw the foofighter disappear over the top of the ridge at the mountain in front of us.
My party chief said the fiery object was a meteorite. If that was a meteroite, it would have left a crater a thousand feet deep, and the impact would have shaken the Spinx.
This is a very odd response, you start out by saying CHUD is wrong and then quote intformation that proves he is right. The party chief shouldn't have called it a meteorite if it wasn't on the ground. That was CHUD's point. You proved it. Why do you then say he's wrong?
Originally posted by Erno86
Hello C.H.U.D.,
Seems like my party chief and you were wrong on both counts: On being an false ET Starship or a meteorite; in my co-witnessed UFO event.
Look-up: Starchild:Meteoroids
" A meteoroid, is a piece of stony or metallic debris which travels in outerspace. The fastest meteoroids move about 42 kilometers per second.
When the meteoroid hits our atmosphere and starts to glow. This streak of light is known as a meteor.
If the meteor does not burn up completely, the remaining portion hits the earth and is then called a meteorite.
Tell me C.H.U.D., when is a meteor "still"?
Debunk? Your party chief was there and he said it was a meteor (or something like that), right? As CHUD said, this idea that the meteor was close is a well known perception issue, that simply means your powers of observation are normal for a human. We all see the green dot that isn't there in the animation I posted, and we all think meteors are way closer to us than they really are.
Originally posted by Erno86
The fiery plasma foofighter had to be very close to us, because it just appeared beneath the low cloud cover, when it lit up the Eastern sky, going straight down, very slowly with no fiery tale or smoke. It also appeared to not fly towards the horizon. Let me tell you truthfully, C.H.U.D., those U.F.O. sightings we saw that night were up close and personal; and I wish you were there that night so you could debunk me in front of my face.
Originally posted by Orkojoker
As for the apparent probability of a given event being the primary basis for our judgment of its having occurred, consider the phenomenon of a single person being struck by lightning on multiple separate occasions, which is reported to have happened. The odds of such a series of events must be extraordinarily low, I would think.
"That a particular specified event or coincidence will occur is very unlikely. That some astonishing unspecified events will occur is certain. That is why remarkable coincidences are noted in hindsight, not predicted with foresight."--David G. Myers
The law of truly large numbers says that with a large enough sample many odd coincidences are likely to happen.
For example, you might be in awe of the person who won the lottery twice, thinking that the odds of anyone winning twice are astronomical. The New York Times ran a story about a woman who won the New Jersey lottery twice, calling her chances "1 in 17 trillion." However, statisticians Stephen Samuels and George McCabe of Purdue University calculated the odds of someone winning the lottery twice to be something like1 in 30 for a four month period and better than even odds over a seven year period. Why? Because players don't buy one ticket for each of two lotteries, they buy multiple tickets every week (Diaconis and Mosteller).
Some people find it surprising that there are more than 16 million others on the planet who share their birthday. At a typical football game with 50,000 fans, most fans are likely to share their birthday with about 135 others in attendance. (The notable exception will be those born on February 29. There will only be about 34 fans born on that day.)
You may find it even more astounding that "In a random selection of twenty-three persons there is a 50 percent chance that at least two of them celebrate the same birthdate" (Martin).
On the other hand, you might say that the odds of something happening are a million to one. Such odds might strike you as being so large as to rule out chance or coincidence. However, with over 6 billion people on earth, a million to one shot will occur frequently. Say the odds are a million to one that when a person has a dream of an airplane crash, there is an airplane crash the next day. With 6 billion people having an average of 250 dream themes each per night (Hines, 50, though I don't think I've ever had more than 5 or 6 dream themes a night), there should be about 30,000 to 1.5 million people a day who have dreams that seem clairvoyant. The number is actually likely to be larger, since we tend to dream about things that legitimately concern or worry us, and the data of dreams is usually vague or ambiguous, allowing a wide range of events to count as fulfilling our dreams.
Roy Cleveland Sullivan (February 7, 1912 – September 28, 1983) was a U.S. park ranger in Shenandoah National Park in Virginia. Between 1942 and 1977, Sullivan was hit by lightning on seven different occasions and survived all of them. For this reason, he gained a nickname "Human Lightning Conductor" or "Human Lightning Rod". Sullivan is recognized by Guinness World Records as the person struck by lightning more recorded times than any other human being. He died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound at the age of 71 over an unrequited love.
The odds of being struck by lightning for an ordinary mortal over the period of 80 years have been roughly estimated as 1:3000.[8] If the lightning strikes were independent events, the probability of being hit seven times would be 1:30007, or 1:22x1024. These numbers do not quite apply to Sullivan, however, who by the nature of his work was more exposed to storms than the average person. Virginia, where he lived, averages 35 to 45 thunderstorm days per year, most of which fall in June, July, and August. Between 1959 and 2000 lightning killed 58 people and injured at least 238 people in Virginia. In the United States, 3239 people were killed and 13,057 injured by lightning in the same period. Most of those were males between 20 and 40 years old caught outdoors.
When Sue Hamilton was working alone in her office in July 1992 when the fax machine broke down. Unable to fix it, she decided to call her colleague Jason Pegler, who had set off home a little earlier. Finding his home number pinned up on a notice board, she called him and began to explain the problem. But Jason quickly stopped her: "I'm not at home", he explained. "I just happened to be walking past this phone box when it rang, and I answered it!" .
The number Sue found on the notice board was not Jason's home number at all. It was his employee number - which was the same as the number of the phone box he was walking past when she called. It was a bizarre coincidence, one of those that fascinate and perplex us. From a chance meeting with a long lost friend to weird parallels between world events, coincidences hint at "spooky" laws in our universe.
Last year an amazing set of coincidences put Paula Dixon in the headlines - and saved her life. On a flight from Hong Kong to London, she began to feel ill. A call went out to any doctors on board the plane, and two - Professor Angus Wallace and Dr Tom Wong - duly emerged.
Originally posted by Orkojoker
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
Wow. I stand corrected, and my example is totally invalidated. Thanks for the very interesting info!
Originally posted by Erno86
" A meteoroid, is a piece of stony or metallic debris which travels in outerspace. The fastest meteoroids move about 42 kilometers per second.
When the meteoroid hits our atmosphere and starts to glow. This streak of light is known as a meteor.
If the meteor does not burn up completely, the remaining portion hits the earth and is then called a meteorite.
Originally posted by Erno86
Tell me C.H.U.D., when is a meteor "still"?
Originally posted by Erno86
After we saw the speeding white light, above the thin low lying cover [I'm surprised that you did not call that ball lightning.] I guess you took it as fact, that it was "an owl flying across the van 10 feet away."
Originally posted by Erno86
The fiery plasma foofighter had to be very close to us, because it just appeared beneath the low cloud cover, when it lit up the Eastern sky, going straight down, very slowly with no fiery tale or smoke. It also appeared to not fly towards the horizon. Let me tell you truthfully, C.H.U.D., those U.F.O. sightings we saw that night were up close and personal; and I wish you were there that night so you could debunk me in front of my face.
It seemed to have landed just beyond the mountain range in front of us, as we saw the foofighter disappear over the top of the ridge at the mountain in front of us.
Since he was only 15 kilometres away from the airport, he thought it might be a plane falling out of the sky, and had to check with colleagues at the office.
Although many witnesses who contacted The Journal claimed to see something land, that was likely an optical illusion, said Chris Herd, an associate professor in the University of Alberta's department of earth and atmospheric sciences, and curator of the university's meteorite collection.
"What we probably saw was a fireball, which is the result of a rock coming into the atmosphere," he said.
Though the fireball was a bright light several kilometres up in the sky, it would have appeared much closer to anyone who saw it.
"What we know about fireballs is that they're bright burning up for a certain amount of time in the atmosphere, but then they stop burning brightly. If there's a rock that continues after that, it's falling in dark flight," Herd said.
And locals at the Red Pheasant First Nation, 100 kilometres northeast of Saskatoon, said the walls of their band office shook when the fireball streaked overhead.
Originally posted by Erno86
Still, I can't prove a thing, but there were many U.F.O. sightings back in 1976.
Originally posted by Erno86
Get the book, titled: The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, by, Edward J. Ruppelt, who was involved in project Blue Book. The writer tried to stage survey witness sites for a fiery plasma red or green foofighter event, at White Sands, New Mexico around 1951.
books:google.com
Originally posted by Erno86
BLKMJK:
I'm sorry, but you are just going to have to wait, on my other ET and U.F.O. related events.
Dealing with a U.F.O. debunker is enough for one day. [Not meaning you]
Erno's response to me was, in part:
Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Now the meteor you probably saw was different to this one. All meteors are different, and no two are exactly the same, but the fact that many people can not identify meteors easily is proved by the above case, and many others like it.
You described your meteor as having "no tail" as if that is a characteristic that a meteor would not display, but not all meteors have obvious tails. I've seen meteors like you describe many times myself, and they are also reported all the time by much more experienced meteor observers than myself. There is also lots of photographic and video footage that shows these events are meteors that usually completely burn up high in the atmosphere.
You seem determined to convince us all that this was not a meteor even though your description fits meteors to a "T", and you have offered no evidence to support that it might be something else, apart from it seemed "close" which we know is something that meteors are very good at "seeming to be".
The problem with this statement, is that it's logically flawed. What you're saying is that you've seen meteors before therefore you know what all meteors look like, even the ones you haven't seen yet.
Originally posted by Erno86
I've seen many meteor's many in my lifetime, including a sizeable one; one night. The sizeable meteor, came in very fast sporting a long fiery tail.
Note the inadequate experience base reference. CHUD has a lot of experience observing meteors and knows more about them than I do (and I supsect he knows more than most ATSers), but I'm trying to learn and they sometimes even surprise me.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
www.zipworld.com.au...
Now, what can we make of these impressive testimonials? The satellite reentry was occurring right before their eyes, and these pilots made many, many perceptual and interpretative errors, including:...
4. The pilot did not believe the apparition was a satellite re-entry because "I have seen a re-entry before and this was different." These re-entries are particularly spectacular because of the size of the object, and the pilot was speaking from an inadequate experience base here.