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.

 

The Colusa UFO Sightings ~ September 10th, 1976.

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


My current campaign is to develop an interest in finally measuring the degree to which eyewitness testimony can occasionally -- RARELY -- get very imaginative when confronted with once-in-lifetime bizarre sky apparitions.

So far, all discussion of this issue has been a dialogue of the deaf, consiting of assertions of utter confidence in one theory or the other because they 'a priori' OUGHT to be true. NO experimental evidence -- just anecdotes and analogies.

Missile/space events offers an opportunity -- perhaps a uniquely fertile opportunity -- to actually measure the varieties, and extremes, of human misperception.

Something like a 'control experiment' -- except the stimuli are randomly and unpredictably created, and studying subsequent witness reports has to be done on an opportunistic basis. It IS a challenge.

I still think it could teach us ALL something about the as-yet completely unquantified range of potential misperception.

Nothing else seems to have worked.

In desperation, why don't we try something reasonable and measurable?

This is NOT to say which kinds of witnesses are GOOD or not-GOOD observers -- THAT would require a much larger data base to determine percentages of perception/misperception. We're NEVER going to have enough startling missile/space stimuli to get any reliable proportional estimates.

What it can tell us is, when people DO make misperceptions, is what do they appear like, and how does professional experience ['trained observer-hood'] influence what they perceive, if at all?




posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


So far, all discussion of this issue has been a dialogue of the deaf, consiting of assertions of utter confidence in one theory or the other because they 'a priori' OUGHT to be true. NO experimental evidence -- just anecdotes and analogies.


This isn't necessarily true. Sure, a lot of people like to take fairly assertive positions ('Aliens!' or 'Proton stages!') and they make the most noise and generate the most heat. There are quite a few others who have suspended judgement and speculate without confidence...utter or otherwise.



Missile/space events offers an opportunity -- perhaps a uniquely fertile opportunity -- to actually measure the varieties, and extremes, of human misperception.


I agree and the number of misidentifications of Moon, Venus and launches are testament to how easily some can be misled by their own eyes. At the same time, if a 100 people have claimed 'aliens' or UFOs and were grossly in error, it doesn't necessarily follow that everyone else was similarly thwarted by their senses.

Some years ago, myself, friends and a number of people on a beach saw a red light zig-zag across the whole sky in around 4 seconds. Funnily enough, if it wasn't for the zig-zag, I'd happily put it down to a meteor. If evidence arose that meteors could ricochet off the tropopause, it would do for me. In its essence, it was a UFO (not claiming a spaceship, demon or Proton stage). Given the details, no amount of expertise, trained observers or research in misperception can lay claim to identifying it.

I only refer to this dull example as a way of expressing to you that not all sightings can be boxed off. I think you are sincere in your belief that UFO reports are prosaically explainable. I also imagine you'll privately put the above claim down to ufological hysteria and a passing helicopter - prosaically explained once more! Nevertheless, people will stand by what they claim to have seen regardless of planetary transits, launches or even occupation.

Your wish for a larger sample to compare sightings to misidentified sightings is one I share. Whereas you'd see it as a means of explaining all UFO reports, some of us would see it as a way of further isolating the genuinely intriguing UFO reports.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
The cables hanging down from the object remind me on the incident in Point Pleasant, West Virginia. The cables, described as robotic arms in some articles, reached down to grab and lift a bloodmobile but the attempt failed. Really, really creepy!



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by owlwoman
The cables hanging down from the object remind me on the incident in Point Pleasant, West Virginia. The cables, described as robotic arms in some articles, reached down to grab and lift a bloodmobile but the attempt failed. Really, really creepy!


Thankls for the input. Is there a link on this report on this you could share, please?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Here's a Russian artist's rendering of what one witness saw at Petrozavodsk in 1977:

img.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by believe76
reply to post by JimOberg
 


"There have even been suggestions that Bill Pecha’s UFO in 1976 was a ‘light show’ from a missile launch from Vandenberg AFB."

I am so sorry to rain on their parade but even though I was only 5 yrs when this happened to my father and my family.....it was not a missile launch from Vandenberg AFB. I was there, I lived the horror and it wasn't a light show. I wish it would have been, wish it would have been a dream instead of reality. Wouldn't wish that night on any dis-believer.


I believe believe76.

No need to say more.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


ufoinfo

The date of March 5, 67 seems to be wrong, should be June 5, 67. See part IV.


On the night of March 5, a Red Cross Bloodmobile was traveling along Route 2, which runs parallel to the Ohio River. Beau Shertzer, twenty-one, and a young nurse had been out all day collecting human blood and now they were heading back to Huntington, West Virginia, with a van filled with fresh blood. The road was dark and cold and there was very little traffic. As they moved along a particularly deserted stretch, there was a flash in the woods on a nearby hill and a large white glow appeared.

the details



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lowneck

Originally posted by believe76
reply to post by JimOberg
 


"There have even been suggestions that Bill Pecha’s UFO in 1976 was a ‘light show’ from a missile launch from Vandenberg AFB."

I am so sorry to rain on their parade but even though I was only 5 yrs when this happened to my father and my family.....it was not a missile launch from Vandenberg AFB. I was there, I lived the horror and it wasn't a light show. I wish it would have been, wish it would have been a dream instead of reality. Wouldn't wish that night on any dis-believer.


I believe believe76.

No need to say more.


It would be nice if this poster would take part in this discussion.

Some key issues neede to assess this report remain ambiguous, as i've posted earlier.

Your blind faith 'believe76' is who you think he is, is touching -- and kind of dismaying.

Unless you have some other proof of their actual identity you care to share with us.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Jim,

You're right.

We do need to hear from believe76.

Cheers.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lowneck
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Jim,

You're right.

We do need to hear from believe76.

Cheers.


Thanks.

i think we can agree on certian measures of investigation to be takenj, and reserve judgment whether we'll ever agree on the interpretation of such results. But there ARE things we can do constructively, and we're not helpless in the face of all the contending, misleading, even deceptive voices around us.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


My current campaign is to develop an interest in finally measuring the degree to which eyewitness testimony can occasionally -- RARELY -- get very imaginative when confronted with once-in-lifetime bizarre sky apparitions.


I am really interested in this perspective. If I understand correctly, there is an event or stimulis, and then a misperception or interpritation. The mind fills in the blanks to complete the story.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by JimOberg
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


My current campaign is to develop an interest in finally measuring the degree to which eyewitness testimony can occasionally -- RARELY -- get very imaginative when confronted with once-in-lifetime bizarre sky apparitions.


I am really interested in this perspective. If I understand correctly, there is an event or stimulis, and then a misperception or interpritation. The mind fills in the blanks to complete the story.


The 'filling in' is the crux of the process, and it is poorly recognized or understood by most folks. Depending on what is already IN the person's memory and experiences, partial perceptial fragments 'cue up' images that the mind is 'reminded of', usually correctly and quickly enough to react if the image is of something about to eat the person. Over thousands of generations, those whose minds did NOT give danger warnings quickly enough ["I'm not really sure... yet] tended not to have children.

If the initial cue is erroneous, further perceptions can correct and reset the initial identification. But not always.

What missile/space events can do, probably alone of all major 'UFO report stimuli', is provide documented events of known raw appearance, to throw into the unprepared and startled minds of witnesses. Most will correctly identify what they're seeing, or even if not, be baffled but calm enough to assemble their perceptions soberly and accurately.

But it's those who DON'T, that make up the kernel of the study. What do THEY perceive, and most important, HOW is what they report DIFFERENT from the most perplexing 'unexplained' UFO stories that do baffle any honest and curious investigator?

And there we might be able to detect the influence of a person's experience on what they see when something REALLY weird forces itself in their faces. It's not that pilots are BAD observers, for example, but that their minds are particularly prone from training -- and properly so - to interpret visual shocks in the most hazardous possible way. It's the right thing to do under uncertainty.

And the smarter a person is, or the more technically trained, the MORE memories they have piled up and ready to be cued, or miscued. That's why the NTSB prefers NOT to have pilots as witnesses to an aviation accident, since their minds are trained to figure things out, to come up with fast answers, not to dispassionately record and report raw perceptions.

It's also why Major Marcel was a laughing stock and poster child of wrong-headedness in the military intelligence community in the 1950s, I've been told by people who want through schools and training then. He was held up as a warning and bad example of what an intelligence officer is NOT supposed to do -- jump to an explanation, rather than gather raw data and pass it forward for professional analysts to figure out.

They knew, as the NTSB knows, as my own experience has shown, that once a person has an indentification/solution in mind for a memory, he will subconsciously edit his memory and recollection of it to stress confirmatory evidence and omit or play down contrary indicators. That's human nature and it requires rigorous training -- or total innocence -- to overcome.








edit on 4-6-2012 by JimOberg because: add



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Thanks for your reply. Is this your own theory or a particular branch of psychology that this is based on? To me this sounds a lot like Gestalt Psycholgy en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not an expert or anything and I could be off track.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Just add that I still think that believe76, who posted on this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

is indeed Debbie Pecha, who was about 5 when the traumatic events of October 1976 unfolded.

My apologies for confusing her with her older brother.

Given the traumatic nature of the events that the whole Pecha family experienced on that night, I can see why Jim Oberg's attempt to make light of their experience as originating in a 'light show' possibly connected with Vandenburg AFB might have prompted her to join ATS and make her single post.

But if believe76 is not Debbie Pecha, then I can't see why this impostor would have bothered to join ATS and make a post of that kind.

For the record, I do believe 'Jim Oberg' is indeed the well-known journalist and space expert of that name, because of the professional expertise shown in many of his posts.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lowneck
Given the traumatic nature of the events that the whole Pecha family experienced on that night, I can see why Jim Oberg's attempt to make light of their experience as originating in a 'light show' possibly connected with Vandenburg AFB might have prompted her to join ATS and make her single post.


Come on, offering a prosaic explanation is NOT "making light" of somebody's highly emotional experience.

We all know many people with highly emotional UFO experiences, and we all realize that MOST of them were misperceiving or misunderstanding something prosaic.

The level of emotional reaction cannot be taken as evidence for the validity of the experience, and you can't seriously be proposing that.

Nor can misperceiving or misinterpreting a bizarre, once-in-a-lifetime visual apparition be construed as reflecting negatively on a witness's intelligence, character, soborness, rationality, anything about their thought processes except that they are human.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   
There are many details about this intriguing case in APRO Bulletin (azimut, other witnesses details, ...)

February: page 3 to 6:
APRO BULLETIN FEBRUARY: volume 25 n°7 (do a search on google to find them as links are not allowed)

March: page 3 to 6:
APRO BULLETIN MARCH volume 25 n°9

April: page 3 and 4:
APRO BULLETIN APRILvolume 25 n°10

Various witnesses have seen the UFO around azimut 260.
The witness never observed the moon during the sighting, which is quite astonishing:
"Pecha said he did not see the (97% illuminated) full moon, which was at azimuth 210 degrees (south-southwest), altitude 50 degrees, though he knew it should have been there. Apparently, the UFO was in front of the moon."

I don't pretend it was just the moon, but that's surprising to me considering the moon position (around 50° high) which should be visible.
edit on AugustSaturday078 by Fl078 because: links

edit on AugustSaturday078 by Fl078 because: links... again



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
The major disconnect with the 'rocket explanation' is whether "2 am Friday night" is referring to calendar day Friday 2 am or Saturday 2 am. The witness activity description indicates it was the night following the end of the work week. Maybe the puzzle of moon visibility is connected with this ambiguity?



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


My current campaign is to develop an interest in finally measuring the degree to which eyewitness testimony can occasionally -- RARELY -- get very imaginative when confronted with once-in-lifetime bizarre sky apparitions.

So far, all discussion of this issue has been a dialogue of the deaf, consiting of assertions of utter confidence in one theory or the other because they 'a priori' OUGHT to be true.


Umm, doesn't much witness testimony come from professional pilots, military personnel, police and such? Are you saying those aren't credible witnesses?

The only "a priori" proposition that I consistently see is yours of "unidentified flying objects have no association with non-human intelligence" and will fit that round peg into any square hole no matter how bizarre the explanation.
edit on 1-8-2015 by PlanetXisHERE because: addition



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: JimOberg

Mr. Oberg, I am still on topic here but do you believe spirits of our deceased, as we know they are called, exist in our plane of reality?



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=19645551]Jaellma....nope....they're in paradise immediately...but the spirits that have fallen....those nasty muthers can appear as any 2 or 4 legged thing....or with wings. when encountered , one is to invoke spiritual warfare tactics as he is being attacked. Christian warfare tactics, which are passively powerful.
I've seen three ufo's and unlimited orbs....one ufo was the biggy, the granddaddy....a 400 foot long cigar shaped muther.

details out the wazzoo as the poster above up there a ways wanted....I have details ....from a pilots view and pilots terminology.....like it was on a ground track to take it over Dallas Love Field at about 4500 feet MSL. on a heading of 350



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join