KLM Pilots Sight UFO

Originally posted by Erno86
reply to post by hotrice

 

One minute later I saw, [with two other witnesses] one of the most beautiful things, that I have ever seen in my entire life. A huge [ Approx.: 1,000 feet in diameter] fiery red-orange fusion plasma ball...

The foo had no fiery tail, but it seemed to have a perfect circular circumference...

Huge, Fiery, Red-Orange, and Beautiful: Check

...and your account then rings even more true with me when you recount something I noted too in my relatively close experience which was that "perfect circular circumference."

My take on what I saw: Intelligently controlled but hard to imagine as mechanical nuts & bolts technology.

Originally posted by hotrice

Originally posted by Thill
With all those sightings of orange/red/yellow "plasma" balls all over the world (I have witnessed it as well above my own house), I am becoming convinced that this might be some kind of organism that has not been discovered yet.

edit on 30/5/11 by Thill because: (no reason given)

Plasma balls are intelligently driven and designed in my opinion. Let's look at the facts. They fly away when chased; as per the reported sightings. They try to remain inconspicuous; they either hide in clouds or remain at a high altitude. And they vary in size and color, indicating that there are a variety of "ships".

Well that is exactly how a scared animal would react after being noticed. Try to follow a tiger, deer, octopus, or most other animals that live in the wild and they will manifest exactly the same behavior . They will try to avoid any contact, and will try and hide in any place that in their opinion makes them invisible or at least safe.

Edit : just to clear any misconceptions, I am not saying that this can not be extraterrestrial, it can. I am just saying that those lights (and I have seen one in person) resemble (at least to me) a biological entity.

reply to post by JimOberg


Unless they weren't looking for a university level debate, and were simply sharing something intriguing which they felt might garner interest amongst the membership.

See you brother..

Originally posted by hotrice
Plasma balls are intelligently driven and designed in my opinion.

Well, its clearly a UFO...ok, fine.

you suggest intelligentely driven...why not just say "intelligent" and ignore the driven part. perhaps this is a very very rare lifeform.

People see and film "orbs" quite often...and call them ghosts
but if its a big shiny orb in the sky, they suddenly shift their view from ghost to alien. why?

perhaps the earth is surrounded by energy lifeforms that have yet to truely be identified due to our limited equiptment. these lifeforms could be as intelligent as you or I, or as dumb as a squirrel...thats open to debate of course, but why not consider what we are seeing is not some ship, but rather the lifeform itself..seen both as orange plasma balls 3k feet in the air, or a smaller baby version in your home

reply to post by JimOberg


Well, you do have multiple eye witnesses, confirming back and forth from very different angles (tower to air). this is pretty well established to be considered evidence.

evidence of what of course is the question...but there can be little doubt that there was -something- out there...especially since the credibility and credentials is of professionals verses a few friends chatting and hoaxing something.

Originally posted by Frira
reply to post by hotrice

 

Quick thoughts:

Admittedly they do not send out beams of light as the tower reports seeing in the translation provided from the Dutch (thanks for that!), but regarding the ensuing discussion of "orange balls of plasma," that is an excellent description of a weather balloon around sunrise and sunset; and when the sun sets on those they "wink out" in an instant.

This recording, is quite interesting-- the low altitude is unusual and the tower's verification is neat.

Perhaps, the "beams" and subsequent disappearance witnessed by the tower might have something to do with the jet wash reaching a quite ordinary object, causing it to move suddenly?

At less than a thousand yards/meters, one might expect to have some structural detail provided if the object had been other than very small. As a sky watcher since childhood, I have seen many things-- empty trash bags twisting in the wind at over a thousand feet above provided some quick pulse for a bit, but I had time to go inside and get my binoculars.

I'm not debunker, but experience is that small lights in the sky are man-made objects.

My quick thought is Would they release a weather balloon near where it could disrupt air traffic over an airport?

The sighting is something the Soviet Union is all too familiar with, American tax dollars in action. Stealth Fighters and Bombers if cars would be 77 Monte Carlos. Skunk Works produced them while Nixon was in office. Are you guys so lame as to think 100% of what passes as a UFO is anything other than Uncle Sam?

Lets talk Aleins. Walk out the back door. Kick an ant hill. Walk back inside. Do you feel a need to communicate with the ants, leave behind a communication, build a statue? No. They are friggin ants. There are NO Aleins. We are the ants. UFO's are some other guys sub-contract. Geez.

i keep waiting for them to come pick me up

Thanks for posting this, best thread in a long time as far as I'm concerned

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by ZforZionism

Originally posted by JimOberg
Is there any hope of finding any of this material?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Is there some basic information on the KLM report such as date/time (GMT). location, and viewing azimuth (north, east, what?). Why hasn't anyone else asked for this basic stuff already?

Also, since the first report was relative to the takeoff vector, how about somebody tell us the runway location and number (compass orientation) so we can get an azimuth on the light.

ATC asked the pilots to make a report of the event. So that report should be available from the airliner or whoever those reports are submitted.

Well, whoever is presenting this case as evidence for something is responsible for providing such information, in my view, or else it can be dismissed as unresearchable and 'inadequate information' -- maybe on purpose. It's the old 'burden of proof' argument. A skeptic isn't obliged to PROVE the report IS something prosaic -- a proponent is obliged to provide an argument that it CANNOT be anything prosaic.

I liked the video it does give a sence of were not alone.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by ZforZionism

Originally posted by JimOberg
Is there any hope of finding any of this material?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Is there some basic information on the KLM report such as date/time (GMT). location, and viewing azimuth (north, east, what?). Why hasn't anyone else asked for this basic stuff already?

Also, since the first report was relative to the takeoff vector, how about somebody tell us the runway location and number (compass orientation) so we can get an azimuth on the light.

ATC asked the pilots to make a report of the event. So that report should be available from the airliner or whoever those reports are submitted.

Well, whoever is presenting this case as evidence for something is responsible for providing such information, in my view, or else it can be dismissed as unresearchable and 'inadequate information' -- maybe on purpose. It's the old 'burden of proof' argument. A skeptic isn't obliged to PROVE the report IS something prosaic -- a proponent is obliged to provide an argument that it CANNOT be anything prosaic.

What nonsense.

You posed a question, I pointed you in a direction.

Threads like these are for those wiling to investigate or at least, discuss investigation. Furthermore, if a report has been officially submitted, it should be available. It is up to the community to get to the bottom of this, but it seems you have overly high expectations from the OP. The OP story can only be dismissed if someone made the effort to find the report and it was confirmed NOT to exist. If you dismiss it based on the omission in the OP then not only are you making an assumption but also demonstrating your closed minded behaviour. Your last sentence sums it up nicely, you are not only a skeptic, but one who is unwilling to make an effort to establish the facts. Instead you sit in your skeptic local minima.

As with most threads on ATS, partial evidence has been provided in the form of an alleged conversation between pilots and ATC.

Oh and it's not 'unresearchable", perhaps if you get off your skeptic as then you could contact ATC/Airliner involved with the dates to ask if a report was submitted. I don't have the time, but that doesn't mean I can write it off because I don't have sufficient evidence either way.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by StaceyWilson

Originally posted by JimOberg
Is there some basic information on the KAL report such as date/time (GMT). location, and viewing azimuth (north, east, what?). Why hasn't anyone else asked for this basic stuff already?

Also, since the first report was relative to the takeoff vector, how about somebody tell us the runway location and number (compass orientation) so we can get an azimuth on the light.

edit on 30-5-2011 by JimOberg because: add runway request

Bro, settle down , and relax, tomorrow night go camping somewhere , look up and see for your friggan self , if that dont work,try a week long camping trip , you will see many things , falling stars , Stars , chances are with all the activity , you will see a UFO,

"Seeing is believing", eh? Been there, got the T-shirt.

"Believing" even though there's no argument >95% of people who 'believe' because they 'saw' are basing the belief on bogus stimuli -- in explainable cases. I'd like just once to get 20 people who each 'believe' because THEY each think they SAW a genuine UFO to get locked in a room until they decide which ONE of them had the 'real' UFO experience and which ones were mistaken. Boy would THAT make an entertaining 'reality show'.

The point I'm trying to make is a real one. Since most all of the UFO perceptions are misperceptions, how can 'belief' that is overwhelmingly based on mistakes have ANY validity?

Study of 'best cases' -- rigorous analysis of case studies -- that seems a legit approach. Relying on highly error prone personal experiences? No way.

But you don't even seem to want to study 'good cases'. Your attitude toward my inquiry about contextual backup information indicates that. Whether or not 'UFOs are real', you seem to be satisfied to base your conclusions on unchecked mostly-delusions.

WRONG!

According to those individuals in your experiment those would still be classed as "unidentified flying objects".

What is a 'real' UFO anyway? a green alien in a spaceship? is that what you are expecting?

Many UFO sightings in the past can be attributed to secret weapons, what makes you think that doesn't apply today?

Again, utter nonsense.

Very interesting account...........nice conversation between the Dutch and the British pilot...........Even at times like these there is great brit wit.............

OK, if I've misconstrued the intent of raising this story into imagining it
meant it was deemed desirable to verify its strangeness, I can withdraw. Often
it's better for unfettered speculation if too many facts are NOT made available.

Just recall Hynek's definition of a UFO

"UFO Report - a statement by a person or persons judged responsible and psychologically normal by commonly accepted standards, describing a personal visual or instrumentally aided perception of an object or light in the sky or on the ground and / or its assumed physical effects, that does not specify any known physical event, object, or process or any psychological event or process [even after examination by qualified persons]..."
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Northwestern University,

and

UFO/OVNI Definition:
"The reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior 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."
The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry by J. Allen Hynek, Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1972, p. 10.

Clearly this story does not satisfy that definition, and apparently deliberately so.

Originally posted by StaceyWilson

Um......seen any UFOs ? C-mon, dont be shy

Ha! As I said, I have seen many things. I will say that, for me, reading Carl Jung's Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies resonated most deeply with me. Whatever I saw, or whatever happened to me, seems a spiritual matter rather than a technological one.

Which leads me to Jim Oberg's thoughts...

Originally posted by JimOberg

The point I'm trying to make is a real one. Since most all of the UFO perceptions are misperceptions, how can 'belief' that is overwhelmingly based on mistakes have ANY validity?

Study of 'best cases' -- rigorous analysis of case studies -- that seems a legit approach. Relying on highly error prone personal experiences? No way.

At some point we must trust our judgement, even if it is intuitive (that is, if any judgment is necessary). I'm very curious about many things, and study much; yet, after fifty-one years, I have seen too much, too often, to dismiss anyone's profound experiences. The relatively mundane audio report starting this thread excepted, the guess at what it (whatever was perceived) actually is does not seem nearly as important as the gut feel that what has been perceived by another was meaningful to that person. That is valid in its own right, even if it is invalid as proof for anyone else.

Yes, Jim, prehistoric man may well have experienced an eclipse and thought it may mean the Heavens were angry-- and for all we know it really did mean that. Just as easily, modern, scientific man may see an Angel and call it a Martian. The greatest fear I have is that someone sees something of great personal importance and finds it dismissed by others as swamp gas. I tend to trust my informed, studied, and analytical filter right along with my intuition-- my mind and my gut have proven to be a good team.

Originally posted by Thunda
I doubt there are many 'ordinary' objects just hanging around at 2500ft that the jet wash could move. Also, these professional pilots and ground crew independently confirmed what they were seeing- surely witnesses that are of reliable standing (KLM dont employ people prone to flights of fancy) that are used to seeing all sorts of objects in the sky- if it wasnt unusual, they wouldnt have commented.

What had been seen is a light holding position at 2500 feet. A child let go of a mylar balloon, a thin mil trash bag got sucked up behind a passing aircraft, or maybe someone's shiny gift wrap got whipped up by a sudden up-draft. That is all I meant by "ordinary."

Originally posted by karen61057
My quick thought is Would they release a weather balloon near where it could disrupt air traffic over an airport?

Certainly, a weather balloon would not be released near the airport, but that was a statement I made regarding the discussion of orange balls of plasma mention in a later post. What is described in the audio (as well as what is not described) and the proximity estimate given, rule out something as large as a weather balloon.

And finally, Schiphol Airport Runways:
It is only a guess someone posted that it was flying out of Amsterdam. Not much help, as there are eight possible directions into which the aircraft had launched:
18R/36L
06/24
09/27
18L/36R
18C/36C
04/22 (only 6600 feet)

Good discussion, everyone.

I am sometimes slow on the uptake, as the expression goes.

JimOberg, as in James Oberg? As in early Russian Space Program expert? As in Red Star in Orbit and the Sympathetic Skeptic? As in author of at least three books I have read, quoted and discussed in conversation? Well... neat! Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

I now return to my normal reserved and mostly un-excitable persona. Spirituality is my life, but manned spaceflight has been my favorite avocation since I was a child and because of my father's work, had access to lots of material few ever knew at the time. Shoot, I met Werner Von Braun when I was nine, so please excuse my being just a wee bit enthusiastic.

I was on my way to bed but I see I have several threads I know I'll have to read first.

Originally posted by Frira
Yes, Jim, prehistoric man may well have experienced an eclipse and thought it may mean the Heavens were angry-- and for all we know it really did mean that. Just as easily, modern, scientific man may see an Angel and call it a Martian. The greatest fear I have is that someone sees something of great personal importance and finds it dismissed by others as swamp gas. I tend to trust my informed, studied, and analytical filter right along with my intuition-- my mind and my gut have proven to be a good team..

We're absolutely singing from the same page here. Valuable reports can be lost in the noise or tossed out with the bathwater, so to speak. I've seen it happen, even when the valuable reports are merely prosaic events such as secret Soviet space/missile events or clues to manned spacecraft damage or bad performance.

And indeed yes the phenomenon is of profound societal significance in altering cultural attitudes -- whatever the actual core stimuli.

We differ on how far to trust our intuitions. For phenomena that earthlings have been familiar with for milliions of years, intuition probably has been shaped by evolution to give survival-positive results. The error could be in trying to apply those algorithms beyond the range of phenomena which they evolved to fit. In such cases I urge more vigorous application of intellect, not intuition.

We can pursue this. Your comments are very constructive.

Jim O

Originally posted by JimOberg
OK, if I've misconstrued the intent of raising this story into imagining it
meant it was deemed desirable to verify its strangeness, I can withdraw. Often
it's better for unfettered speculation if too many facts are NOT made available.

Just recall Hynek's definition of a UFO

"UFO Report - a statement by a person or persons judged responsible and psychologically normal by commonly accepted standards, describing a personal visual or instrumentally aided perception of an object or light in the sky or on the ground and / or its assumed physical effects, that does not specify any known physical event, object, or process or any psychological event or process [even after examination by qualified persons]..."
Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Northwestern University,

and

UFO/OVNI Definition:
"The reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon the land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior 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."
The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry by J. Allen Hynek, Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1972, p. 10.

Clearly this story does not satisfy that definition, and apparently deliberately so.

The questions in my post where rhetorical questions!

I called you out on your own understanding of the word UFO which did NOT fall in line with your copy-n-paste.

The key issue that you have to understand is that in your example, the OBSERVERS perceived them as UFOs. Others may perceive it differently given analytical data, experience and knowledge.

In addition, there is a University in Norway that many years ago acquired funding to research precisely this strange light phenomena (I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT AURORA BOREALIS) but morphing light sources in the sky that behave like animals. I don't want to tell you the name of the University because that's a little homework for you.

Originally posted by JimOberg
The error could be in trying to apply those algorithms beyond the range of phenomena which they evolved to fit. In such cases I urge more vigorous application of intellect, not intuition.

Thats fine Jim, but there is alot of evidence out there that is more than figments of our survival mind

There's alot of quacks out there trying to make a buck or in our uk sence, pound of flesh. I will agree. However there are also millions of eye witness observations, even our very own Nick Pope says that some cases are to strange to ignore.

This suggests that screaming at every piece of evidence before research has taken place is false. Instead we should have an agnostic mind until such evidence presents itself as to the prove the legitimacy of the material in question.

Thanks Jim.

Originally posted by JimOberg
We're absolutely singing from the same page here. Valuable reports can be lost in the noise or tossed out with the bathwater, so to speak. I've seen it happen, even when the valuable reports are merely prosaic events such as secret Soviet space/missile events or clues to manned spacecraft damage or bad performance.

And indeed yes the phenomenon is of profound societal significance in altering cultural attitudes -- whatever the actual core stimuli.

We differ on how far to trust our intuitions. For phenomena that earthlings have been familiar with for milliions of years, intuition probably has been shaped by evolution to give survival-positive results. The error could be in trying to apply those algorithms beyond the range of phenomena which they evolved to fit. In such cases I urge more vigorous application of intellect, not intuition.

We can pursue this. Your comments are very constructive.

Jim O

Thank you for the comments and the kind words.

Without specifics cases before us, it is difficult to know how to discuss the inner sense which often accompanies an experience which includes marvel, awe and power.

Part of the experience of mankind, certainly across the ten thousand years of known civilization of man, the spiritual and mystical has been part of our perceptions. My belief (shared by many) is that these inner perceptions are not necessitated for survival but rather a part of what it is to be human-- the recognition of the unseen as real as the visible.

Sometimes, what we perceive outwardly simply cannot be, and at such times it is the inner sense which may provide both meaning and the more accurate perception.

I find the tendency of some to assign time-space-dimensional-warp portals to a failed submarine missile launch to be disturbing and so wish to rush in and identify what was really taking place. The other side of that coin is equally important-- to allow a spiritual interpretation of a spiritual event before what had been perceived is analyzed by others into an irreconcilable oblivion-- essentially telling the person that they did not perceive what clearly had been experienced by the person.

Zamora saw a tethered hot air balloon; the early astronauts saw ice from their own waste water flying in formation with them; Roswell was likely a fuel tank from an earlier Bumper-WAC launch; but Betty and Barney Hill? Well, something happened, and I lean toward a spiritual event.

In my work, I often have persons discussing their religious experiences who knew exactly what the event was as it was happening; but I also read or hear of persons having such experiences who have no idea what is taking place with them. A good scientist and a good theologian will both seek to discover the truth, and I think it inevitable that it will be the same truth. For that reason, I think it doesn't hurt to know at least a little of each.

My thoughts have not, but I fear my words have, strayed far from the topic. My apologies.