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.
"The descriptions given match the description of a lenticular cloud."
"[Thoren] says it was moving almost due west. Unless the plane was also flying due west he could not determine that."
"I see nothing while eliminates the possibility of a misidentification of a lenticular cloud."
Read that entire thread. It is disingenuous for Lance Moody or anyone to characterize what's found there as supporting Lance's conclusion that "weather conditions were ripe for the formation of lenticular clouds."
You've implicitly accused them of conspiring to 'get their stories straight' -- either changing their sighting data outright, or pretending it was stronger than it really was. Would you be insulted?
Loftus and Palmer argue that two kinds of information go into a person's memory of a complex event. The first is the information obtained from perceiving the event, and the second is the other information supplied to us after the event. Over time, information from these two sources may be integrated in such a way that we are unable to tell from which source some specific detail is recalled. All we have is one 'memory'. This argument is called the reconstructive hypothesis.
Individual eyewitness recall reports were gathered from witnesses (29 undergraduates) who were later put into 4 groups to discuss and reach a consensus on a description of a simulated crime they had witnessed. Groups gave more complete reports but at the price of a significant increase in errors of commission (the fabrication of details under group pressure). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
It was found that individuals tend to agree in their testimony following group discussion, and are liable to change their original replies to bring themselves into agreement with group leaders' recall.
Originally posted by Phage
What thread? Who is Lance Moody? I don't know anything about the weather conditions, can you direct me to that source?
You are again misrepresenting what I have said. I have implied no conspiracy. I have said that it is a known phenomenon that groups of people tend to reinforce each others' observations. It is a subconscious process. Eyewitness reports are not entirely reliable. Group eyewitness reports are no more reliable, especially when they involve discussion between members of the group.
I don't think all aspects of the reports from the crew members can be considered accurate, especially since Johnson had volunteered his personal description (which would have included saying that he saw the object moving to the west) before hearing from them. There are certain gaps in the descriptions which indicate this.
The easy dismissal by the witnesses of the possibility that the object was a cloud and the reasons given for that dismissal to not help strengthen the reliability of their reports. I am not convinced that they did not all see a lenticular cloud which evaporated.
Originally posted by IMSAM
yep check the manual for more information please
discard testimony if witness is civilian
In the case that the civilian is a pro in any field check paragraph 1
discard astronomer testimony
discard physicist testimony
discard pilot testimony
discard astronaut testimony
discard weather specialist testimony
discard policeman testimony
discard army officials testimony
discard colonel testimony
discard president testimony
If above fails then what, check paragraph 2
If above fails deny anything that has to do with the incident,IT cant happen therefore it didnt,so we got nothing to discuss.
make them debate whether ufos exist or not so they wont go any deeper.Divide and conquer at its finest