It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Arken
An odd coincidence in the same area in October: A Ufo? or Meteorite? had gone into the sea. Pilots and fishermans witnesse the event....
Canungra, Queensland, Australia Meteor 7:35 pm 20NOV2011
We saw a huge meteor in the sky tonight at 7.35pm. We had just left Canungra (a town inland from the Gold Coast) and saw it in the sky towards the west - it was travelling north. It was VERY large and close - it continued for about 5-10 seconds. At first we thought it was a plane on fire but it burnt up in the sky so must have been a meteor. It was a bright white light with 2 seperate white heads merging into a single tail which was more orange. Cheers - Donna Thank you Donna!
Toowoomba, Qld, Australia : 7:05 pm - Sunday 20 November 2011
Large fireball (with tail) moving slowly across the western sky (from SSW to NNE) – almost looked like a plane on fire but bigger - say it for about 20 seconds – incredible & once in a lifetime view for me. Looking up, Gayle Thank you Gayle!
Frank M of Brisbane Posted at 4:14 PM November 21, 2011
I saw it. There was this bright flash which looked like a flaming object. My first thought was a plane on fire. Only saw it for a split second out of the corner of my eye and thought I must have imagined it. Apparently not. Very cool sight.
Chris Akenfelds of Brisbane Posted at 5:15 PM November 21, 2011
I saw it. I was running across the Eleanor Schonell Bridge last night when I saw it blazing through the sky. I've seen many meteors in my life and I barely even recognised this as a meteor. Frankly, I didn't know what to think if at at first. It was huge.
Originally posted by dashdespatch
could be a cross channel passenger ferry looks a bit to big to be a fishing boat
Originally posted by tarifa37
As reported, the whitstable event was also seen by a pilot flying a plane ( I believe was a passenger jet) they are usually highly trained and able to recognise a meteor.
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:
1. In FSR, the anonymous BA pilot (obviously D'Alton) recalls: "One of the lights . .. was brighter than the others, and appeared bigger, almost disklike." It was just as light, a piece of burning debris, and the "disk" interpretation was a mental pattern conjured up from previous experience, not from this actual apparition. Note that later, Good alters this comment to have the pilot unequivocally call it "a silver disc".
2. The main light "was followed closely by another three that seemed to be in a V formation," according to the pilot. Referring to a "formation" is an assumption of intelligent control. The pieces of flaming debris were scattered randomly in a group and stayed approximately in the same relative positions, but the pilots misinterpreted this to mean they were flying in formation.
3. FSR reports the pilot saying "I watched the objects intently as they moved across my field of view, right to left," but the objects' actual motion was left to right, as reported elsewhere correctly. Either the FSR writer, or the pilot, jumbled this key piece of information.
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.
5. The RAF military pilots in the Tornadoes concluded that "the lights 'formated on the Tornadoes', which is the kind of thing a fighter pilot is trained to detect and avoid, not dispassionately contemplate. The lights, of course, never changed course, but the pilots who were surprised by them feared the worst.
6. The accompanying Tornado pilot was so convinced that they were on collision course with the lights that he "broke away" and took "violent evasive action". This move would be prudent in an unknown situation, but there's no need to believe that the perception of dead-on approach was really accurate. Since the flaming debris was tens of miles high, no real "collision course" ever existed, outside the mind of the pilot.
7. D'Alton in the National Enquirer is quoted as claiming " it made a sharp turn while flying at high speeds -- an impossible maneuver that would rip any man-made aircraft to bits. " Again, the actual object never made such a turn, and the pilot's over-interpretation of what the object MUST be experiencing was based on mistaken judgments of actual distance and motion.
8. After two minutes of flying straight, said D'Alton, ". . .it took a lightning-fast right-angle turn and zoomed out of sight." But we know that the actual observed object never made such a maneuver, but D'Alton remembered it clearly when trying to explain in his own mind how it disappeared so fast.
9. The newspaper account, quoted in Good's book, has D'Alton claiming that "ground radar couldn't pick it up, so it must have been travelling at phenomenal speed." Actually, the speed would have had nothing to do with radar failing to pick it up, but the actual distance -- which D'Alton misjudged, leading to subsequent erroneous interpretations -- did.
10. The Tornado pilots described the flaming debris as " two large round objects, each with five blue lights and several other white lights around the rim." Since they were used to seeing other structured vehicles with lights mounted on them, when they spotted this unusual apparition, that's the way they misperceived and remembered it.
11. "In Belgium, dozens reported a triangular object with three lights, flying slowly and soundlessly to the south-west," but these were separate fireball fragments at a great distance, which witnesses assumed were lights on some larger structure. Their slow angular rate was misinterpreted to be a genuine slow speed because their true distance was grossly underestimated.
12. "A British pilot . . . reported four objects flying in formation over the Ardennes hills in south Belgium." The pilot may have been over southern Belgium, but the objects he saw didn't have to be, they were hundreds of miles away. And despite his instinctive (and wrong) assumption the lights were "flying in formation", they were randomly-space fireball fragments.
13. Note that Good writes that "Jean-Jacques Velasco,. . . said an investigation would be launched," but Good saw the results of that investigation before his book went to press, and he neglected to tell his readers that Velasco proved the lights were from the satellite re-entry.
Such selective omissions make many such stories appear far stronger than they really are.
14. One Air France pilot told a radio interviewer: '. . . It couldn't have been a satellite (re-entry) because it was there for three or four minutes', but such reasoning is groundless since near-horizontal re-entriers can be seen for many minutes, especially from airplanes at high altitude. The pilot didn't know this, and rejected that explanation erroneously.
15. "In Italy, six airline pilots reported 'a mysterious and intense white light' south-east of Turin. Pilots also reported five white smoke trails nearby." They may have been near Turin when they saw the lights and assumed incorrectly they were 'nearby', but the lights were far, far away.
Originally posted by big_BHOY
What an absolute crock!
To the OP, You done the exact same thing over a year ago from the same general location as your newest video.
You started a thread on it, but have since seemingly deleted the video.