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.
Originally posted by JimOberg
Originally posted by The Shrike
I happen to be an eyewitness and after I got through describing what I saw there would be no doubt that what I've seen is NOT associated with humans. But not all eyewitness know how to describe accurately and therein lies the rub.
No. "Accurate description" has nothing to do with the 'noise' factor.
The 'rub', Shrike, is that > 95% [how much greater is THE object of debate] of sincere, intelligent eyewitnesses ARE mistaken -- that figure is hardly in dispute after all these decades.
...and practically EVERY one of the ">95%" is absolutely convinced that THEY are NOT in the ">95%", just those OTHER guys.
But not THEM!!
So forgive me for being a little less confident than you, in assuming that accuracy is measurable by sincerity and certainty levels.
Let's discuss the facts that can be checked, that stand on their own.
Originally posted by buzzEmiller
I had to snip your reply 'cause my article below was almost longer than the space ATS allows and I needed to introduce it. I edited the article for grammar but it's almost word for word as the one found at rense via the URL I include
Originally posted by The Shrike
Let's try this description and you tell me where it's inaccurate. I'm in L.A. in the Great San Fernando Valley. I go down to my apartment building's pool and recline on a pool lounge at around 11pm and it's a beautiful, comfortable night. The pool lights are off so I'm reclining in a dark area with the clear, star-filled sky above. I am relaxed and alert and enjoying the sky view. I have my zoom binoculars that go from 7x to 15x but I always start out at 7x. I see 3 stars in a vertical row, evenly spaced but with wide spaces. Cannot judge distance or size but as far as I'm concerned they're stars after all what I see are star-like lights that blend in with the rest of sky display. Only the fact that they're slightly brighter than the rest and that they are in a straight line makes me start to look at each one through the binoculars. As I'm about to put the binocs to my eyes, the top star shoots off to the south and a fraction of a second later the 2nd or middle star also hauls off to the south soon to be followed by the 3rd or bottom star. I'm flabbergasted to the say the least. NOW I know they weren't stars but UFOs disguised as stars. The autokinetic effect was not a factor.
Originally posted by JimOberg
Shrike, is there ANYTHING about my research results you find credible or useful?
Do you have any suggestions to enhance these features, or do you basically admit, you're never gonna believe it no-how, ever?
Originally posted by camus154
Originally posted by The Shrike
Let's try this description and you tell me where it's inaccurate. I'm in L.A. in the Great San Fernando Valley. I go down to my apartment building's pool and recline on a pool lounge at around 11pm and it's a beautiful, comfortable night. The pool lights are off so I'm reclining in a dark area with the clear, star-filled sky above. I am relaxed and alert and enjoying the sky view. I have my zoom binoculars that go from 7x to 15x but I always start out at 7x. I see 3 stars in a vertical row, evenly spaced but with wide spaces. Cannot judge distance or size but as far as I'm concerned they're stars after all what I see are star-like lights that blend in with the rest of sky display. Only the fact that they're slightly brighter than the rest and that they are in a straight line makes me start to look at each one through the binoculars. As I'm about to put the binocs to my eyes, the top star shoots off to the south and a fraction of a second later the 2nd or middle star also hauls off to the south soon to be followed by the 3rd or bottom star. I'm flabbergasted to the say the least. NOW I know they weren't stars but UFOs disguised as stars. The autokinetic effect was not a factor.
I'll be happy to criticize this report.
You assume the conclusion. That's where you're wrong. See? Simple as that.
You saw things that you mistook for stars that then moved. Conclusion: they are UFOs that were hiding as stars.
If you can't understand the very basic breakdown in logic and reason in that, I truly don't know what to tell you. I can tell you that I wouldn't put any stock whatsoever in someone who thought this type of reasoning was valid.
I would urge people who want to be taken seriously to stop assuming their own conclusions and start being a bit more intellectually honest with both themselves and everyone else here. You might have seen something interesting, but the very moment you presume to know what that thing was, where it came from, and even what its "intentions" are, you've crossed the line into dishonesty.
Originally posted by The Shrike
No, James, what I see and what is explained doesn't jibe with me. And I cannot apologize for not seeing what you are describing for we are talking apples and oranges. You can say I'm not a good fruitman.
Originally posted by JimOberg
Originally posted by The Shrike
No, James, what I see and what is explained doesn't jibe with me. And I cannot apologize for not seeing what you are describing for we are talking apples and oranges. You can say I'm not a good fruitman.
I cannot believe you read the answers I posted. Disagree with what I'm claiming, for sure -- but refuse even to try to understand it? -- not well played.
Your reconstruction of what you think you see in that video is full of implicit assumptions and conclusions, not raw perceptions. Apparently your mind is building a defensive wall by conjuring up imaginary must-have-beens against any arguments that it has reached the wrong explanations for what it was interpreting based on what it was seeing.
edit on 16-3-2012 by JimOberg because: typo
Originally posted by The Shrike
It must be frustrating for you when a brilliant mind like mine cannot grasp your "simple" concepts!
Originally posted by JimOberg
Originally posted by The Shrike
It must be frustrating for you when a brilliant mind like mine cannot grasp your "simple" concepts!
Our exchanges have always been stimulating, and along with other conversations have contributed to my learning how to be more clear and on-point in offering explanations. My "99 FAQs on space UFO stories' will be posted on my website soon.
Originally posted by The Shrike
Originally posted by JimOberg
Originally posted by The Shrike
It must be frustrating for you when a brilliant mind like mine cannot grasp your "simple" concepts!
Our exchanges have always been stimulating, and along with other conversations have contributed to my learning how to be more clear and on-point in offering explanations. My "99 FAQs on space UFO stories' will be posted on my website soon.
And you can bet your sweet bippy that I'll read 'em and make a serious effort to understand them.
Originally posted by The Shrike
My conclusion was correct and my reasoning is valid. They flew, they were unidentified, ergo, UFOs. You show me what human-constructed object can be seen hovering in space, is able to haul off from a standing start to thousands of miles an hour instantly.
NOW I know they weren't stars but UFOs disguised as stars. The autokinetic effect was not a factor.