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.
“Many documents and materials examined by the authors of this report confirm it. We have therefore retained, among some others but only as a working hypothesis, the possibility that most of the craft observed can have a non-terrestrial origin.”
On November 5, 1990, in France, between 6:15 p.m. and 7:45 p.m., many “apparatus” of various shapes were
observed and even filmed on two main routes: from the tip of
Finistère to Strasbourg, and the Basque Country to Nancy, passing through the Massif Central. The observations
ranged from a triangle with lights at the bottom, to an elongated wingless fuselage over two hundred meters
long [Gretz-Armainvilliers]. An
unusual silence was noted during most of these events.
Elliot's email from Clarke's Cosford file
now I’m convinced that what I saw has been explained. I have to accept that the noise like a humming and the beam of light are very similar to what you would expect of a police helicopter.”
a Dyfed-Powys police helicopter following a stolen car down the A5 between the A49 junction…The observer was using
Now, how about the general issue of Soviet space and missile activity masquerading as UFO stimuli? I surveyed your article in the March/April 1991 issue of IUR on "UFO activities in the Soviet Union", and found you really hadn't scratched the surface in seeking obvious, prosaic explanations. Furthermore, your new Russian friends appear to be congenitally incapable of recognizing space and missile activity.
Originally posted by Lowneck
To change my overall stance on the UAPs, though, you'd need to demonstrate that Jim McDonald was a flawed, dishonest, lazy scientist, that Menzel understood atmospheric physics better than he did, that Condon made a serious personal contribution to his own report and that Hynek was wrong when he thought he was right and right when he conceded he'd been wrong.
Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
reply to post by JimOberg
All great, Jim, IF you assume that your explanations are in fact the correct explanations.
Also, in other forums, including several months ago at DeVoid, I've seen you slam Haines and NARCAP for not acknowledging some of your explanations. You did this for one specific case (I believe it had to do with pilots witnessing a re-entry in Japan), and I was highly surprised to hear that NARCAP would simply ignore what sounded like a pretty good explanation by you. So I went and read the NARCAP report, and guess what... they HAD discussed the possibility of the 'UFO' having been the re-entry you mentioned.
In other words, in at least one of the handful of instances you consistently cite as evidence of NARCAP/Haines' neglect with respect to your possible explanations, you're simply incorrect. (And that's the only one I bothered checking.) Yet you continue to speak of this as if they've simply ignored you, when it can clearly be shown that your hypotheses have been considered. So, don't you think that affects YOUR credibility more than that of Richard Haines or NARCAP? I do. So maybe you want to tone it down a bit with that?
Also, since you're so interested in human mis-perception, why not have a serious discussion of some of the more perplexing multi-witness radar-visual cases? There appear to be ATS members with legitimate radar/electronics expertise on these forums, and I'm sure they'd jump in when appropriate. I'd imagine electronic detection to be HIGHLY useful to you as you seek to gauge and calibrate eye-witness reliability. Don't you think?
Originally posted by Kandinsky
When I first read the claims that pilot sightings are all misinterpretations, hallucinations or even BS exercises to reap rewards from the National Enquirer, it was useful to check out the experts.
The claim to which the onus probandi attaches is the contra-positive: that ALL pilot reports of apparent prosaicly non-explainable stimuli CANNOT be misperceptions of earthside processes/activities/apparitions.
To prove that there is no possible way to explain these reports except by currently unrecognized stimuli, the advocate has to establish that pilots CANNOT make such misinterpretations.
Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by JimOberg
The claim to which the onus probandi attaches is the contra-positive: that ALL pilot reports of apparent prosaicly non-explainable stimuli CANNOT be misperceptions of earthside processes/activities/apparitions.
This is where so many stumble and fall. By taking the view that *all* pilot sightings are either explainable or non-explainable it's possible that something unknown remains unexplored.