Here’s More Evidence of UFO Reality!, page 5

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 37 times

reply posted on 8-10-2012 @ 01:41 PM by schuyler

reply to post by Runciter33

And I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. You have not provided any contradictory evidence to my contention that certain classes of people are "better observers." Having been there myself I'm saying there are no special obervation techniques taught to these classes of people. None. They aren't "better observers." If you can show me the syllabus, show me the training manual, then we'll see. But there's more "training" in the Mufon Field Investigators Manual than there is in all of flight school and all of the police academy.

When people say certain classes of people are "better observers" they are speculating, just like they speculate hat UFOs contain aliens from other planets. When you drill down into the claims, there is simply no evidence that this is so. They certainly may be more reliable than a drunk with the DTs, but that includes most all of us.

greeneyedleo is in the legal business and has frequently posted on the issue of witness testimony. I'll see if I can get her to drop by.

edit on 10/8/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-10-2012 @ 01:41 PM by bluestreak53

reply to post by OrionHunterX

That is an interesting account. It doesn't really matter whether it qualifies as "evidence" since we really have no way of knowing if it is true or not. But it is consistent with numerous other accounts of pilots who have encounters with UFOs.

A number of years ago, I was visiting some people I knew down in Washington State. While I was there, I met a retired member of the US Air Force who told me about a UFO incident that happened during the Vietnam War era.

He was a pilot of an air tanker during a military exercise off the coast of Florida. He was basically in a holding pattern at about 40,000 feet, as he waited to perform refueling of jet fighters involved in the exercise. It was while he was waiting that he had an encounter with a UFO. I really can't remember much about his encounter, but I do remember him saying that his plane was targeted by some sort of "green light beam". He lost consciousness and when he came to, his plane was way higher in altitude and the turbine engines had shut down. He had to descend several thousand feet before he could get a "relight" on the engines as he was above the operating altitude of the aircraft.

I can't remember much else from his account as its several years ago when he told me. I can't remember if he made a report to the Air Force. (You would think they'd be very curious if they had followed his flight on radar)

When he told me the story, I remember thinking that it reminded me of the "Coyne Incident", where a US Army helicopter encountered a cigar shaped UFO that emitted a green beam - and the helicopter was apparently "pulled up" several hundred feet while in a dive evasion maneuver.

reply posted on 8-10-2012 @ 04:58 PM by suarez1

My girlfriend and I live in Langhorne, PA . Approximately on July 19, 2012 in the early evening, my girlfriends 19 yr old daughter came to tell her mother and I, that a friend of hers had just posted this creepy cell phone picture to facebook. She said the friend is at her job in Newtown, PA, (which is about five minutes away from us), went on break, stepped outside and took it of the sky.

My girlfriends daughter grabbed her laptop and showed it to us. My girlfriend and I thought it was a really cool summer storm picture. I asked her if she could download it and send it to my email. That night I downloaded the pic to my phone and laptop as well.

i41.photobucket.com...

How could several areas of lightening be so close to one another, yet not light up the clouds in between? I have showed it to many people and everyone always has a similar reaction, I've even been accused of photoshopping it. I've heard of ball lightening here on ATS, but have never seen it myself.
I want to post it here to see what others might think of it, besides accusing me of photoshopping it too All I can think of when I look at it now, is a triangle ufo.

reply posted on 8-10-2012 @ 05:21 PM by Runciter33

Originally posted by charlyv
To Believe something, is to fixate it into the permanence of your reality. The use of the word "Believe" is often misused and more or less becomes a term variable by context, which is wrong.

For causative interpretation, you can get away with "I believe water is a liquid", which is perfectly ok, since it is substantiated by our knowledge of the world, and has no repercussions if some day, science should change views of what is solid or liquid or gas.

It is ok to say "I Believe in UFO's", because basically you are saying that you are certain that there are flying objects in the atmosphere or space that have not been identified, and you would be totally correct.

If, however, you say "I believe that UFO's are extraterrestrial", then, by definition, you have thrown away all your objectivity in the matter, and fixated it in your belief system as an absolute truth, yet it has no substantiation because the real truth has not yet been verified.

Belief is both a dangerous word and a dangerous attitude, and it has caused major trouble for all of us, since we were able to think.
edit on 8-10-2012 by charlyv because: spelling where caught

Good call, star for you. I said earlier i favored the inter-dimensional or ETH, but i can see where the idea of them being archetypes as Jung suggests, or some sort of unknown earth-magnetic aerial energy phenomena, or a bazillion other theories that sound tantalizing like time travelers from the future or any number of them. That is what i find interesting about the area, is it's broad range across the spectrum of many subjects. You got your religion, psychology, science, spirituality, the sociological implications, the political ones, etc. etc. ad infinitum. There is enough deception in the UFO subject as is, i think keeping as objective and open a mind as possible is for a good thing.

Then of course if you've had a personal experience yourself, that is a whole other story, and you would probably shape your 'belief' around such an experience to some degree. As for other people's stories; i have no problem saying maybe it's true, maybe it's not. I believe it's possible and see no reason to disbelieve them, but to assume everything everyone tells you is true is foolish, a belief i picked up from experience.

Anyways, i find these stories fascinating, and probably many of them go unresolved for the fact that, as people have pointed out, there is not much more you can do officially. However i would think that the experience itself to the witness would mean something to them, if only it alters their perception of reality in some way..

reply posted on 8-10-2012 @ 05:24 PM by Runciter33

Originally posted by schuyler
reply to post by Runciter33

And I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. You have not provided any contradictory evidence to my contention that certain classes of people are "better observers." Having been there myself I'm saying there are no special obervation techniques taught to these classes of people. None. They aren't "better observers." If you can show me the syllabus, show me the training manual, then we'll see. But there's more "training" in the Mufon Field Investigators Manual than there is in all of flight school and all of the police academy.

When people say certain classes of people are "better observers" they are speculating, just like they speculate hat UFOs contain aliens from other planets. When you drill down into the claims, there is simply no evidence that this is so. They certainly may be more reliable than a drunk with the DTs, but that includes most all of us.

greeneyedleo is in the legal business and has frequently posted on the issue of witness testimony. I'll see if I can get her to drop by.

edit on 10/8/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

Fair enough. It still seems pretty obvious to me that at nuclear facilities you would need to have the ability to identify things in the sky properly, and would have more experience than most doing so. Same with the air force. But that is my opinion, no i do not have any evidence to back me up, other than what i believe to be common sense, so we have come to an impasse. And that is ok. To each their own.

edit on 8-10-2012 by Runciter33 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-10-2012 @ 05:49 PM by okyouwin

Originally posted by Outrageo
reply to post by okyouwin

...
I have to remain skeptical.

And so you shall. And so you should. That does not mean the event did not take place. Nor does it foment a critical persuasion.

That brilliant pothead Sagan once said (oft repeated here at ATS), "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

A great story is a great story, but it is not extraordinary evidence. It is not even empirical evidence. That does not mean the story is untrue, only that it can not be substantiated.

Nevertheless, telling the story and repeating it here is worthwhile as it tickles our curiosity, gives us a miniscule and momentary sense of encouragement, enables us to discuss and ponder and extrapolate some morsels to digest later.

Yet, I must agree with the poster who concluded that at least the OP's thread title, if not the story itself, may be misleading (though perhaps not disingenuous). Why? because "Here's More Evidence..." is no evidence at all. An entertaining, titillating, fascinating, and quite believable 3rd-person account perhaps - but evidence it is not,

We are no closer to "UFO Reality" by the retelling of this story, though we may be, only so very slightly, a wee bit wiser.

And for that at least - I thank thee...

You're right skeptical it is. Skeptical it remains.

reply posted on 8-10-2012 @ 06:53 PM by thesearchfortruth

The story sounds interesting. It sounds true, and in fact I believe it really happened.

Thanks for posting, any idea when (what year) this happened?

reply posted on 8-10-2012 @ 07:35 PM by ArMaP

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
Witness testimony IS a very valid form of evidence in a court of law and those that play down this fact are not addressing the real issues of how witness testimony plays a major and vital role in the evidence format to the prosecution and defence professions.

First of all, a court of law is something that cannot be applied t scientific process, as they use completely different approaches for completely different situations.

The problem with witnesses' accounts is that what we are listening to is their interpretation of what happened.

reply posted on 9-10-2012 @ 05:19 AM by squarehead666

Originally posted by OrionHunterX

Originally posted by squarehead666
Thus I call BS at least until such time as the 'former Air Vice Marshal' is identified.
edit on 7-10-2012 by squarehead666 because: S&P/Content

I call your BS, BS. I know him personally and I can assure you he isn't used to flights of imagination, He's fought two wars, been decorated, been part of the UN and served as a military attache twice abroad. Therefore, he isn't any nitwit, liar or a bluff master as you seem to suggest.

Actually I wasn't suggesting that he was doing the BSing.

If the person in question won't even put their name to the story, how can we even begin to treat it as valid? Why won't the former Air Vice Marshal allow himself to be named? He wouldn't be the first senior airman to do so and he has already retired so he's not likely to lose his job.

Without any names, dates, locations, aircraft id, etc. your post is no more meaningful than any other tall tale....."I know this bloke who saw a light in the sky once".....So What? Big deal!

edit on 9-10-2012 by squarehead666 because: s&p

reply posted on 9-10-2012 @ 10:17 AM by K-PAX-PROT

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
Witness testimony IS a very valid form of evidence in a court of law and those that play down this fact are not addressing the real issues of how witness testimony plays a major and vital role in the evidence format to the prosecution and defence professions.

First of all, a court of law is something that cannot be applied t scientific process, as they use completely different approaches for completely different situations.
The problem with witnesses' accounts is that what we are listening to is their interpretation of what happened.

So you are saying that witness should be scrutinised via a scientific process, remember that witness testimony in a court of law can and does condemn a person to prison and in some states THE DEATH PENALTY .As i have pointed out there seems to be a trend of smugness and arrogance in those who are rejecting witness accounts from those sources who by their professions, military ect are in much better positions than those who are rejecting and have NO training or background.That is far from an acceptable scientific protocol, well it is in my book.

Seems that what is being perceived here is that all military witnesses are unreliable and so should be dismissed,is this the state of the DEFENCE implications of most nations military defence capabilities that there is unreliable military sources who CANNOT differentiate between a object that by its "FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS" and manoeuvrability is considered from a MILITARY observational perception to be considered "high strangeness" or unknown to present military technologies.,WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE BEING OFFER THERE.

.Are we really to believe that those witnesses from a military or scientific back ground are NOT in any way to be accepted as very valuable witnesses over a bunch of internet sources who have probably never seen a radar scope ,sat in a F16 fighter jet while it engaged in a dog fight with a genuine unknown object that was displaying very advanced flight characteristics and manoeuvrability or even really engaged in the amount of information now available from military testimonies .

My main point in this thread was the poor thought out justifications of the rejection of such credible military sources by those NOT in these positions.What manner of mind set would openly reject witness testimonies from those very sources who are trained and have the very real responsibilities to protect the restricted air spaces of a nations air space from unknown penetrations of its air space.

There are very credible witness sources from various professions who have gave testimonies,astronomical and scientific sources are of great value but the military sources have to be given that extra bit of attention to detail as i believe that they offer the most in describing an objects flight characteristics ect that determines it being classed as a high strangeness unknown.

To simply dismiss ALL military witness testimonies is a dangerous ploy to engage in, for is it not the case that those that are in charge ,(that have been trained and are in such a position to make better witnesses), of the defence of our air space do so because they have be given that training.Differentiation of a object in the sky from a military perspective and training differs greatly from those out with that training and experience is it not,that is a fact in the military scientific professions.

We are not dealing with "hill billy" witnesses crying wee green men in spaceships when it comes to military witness testimonies, we are in fact dealing with a very real professionally trained source who by its definition cannot account for an objects flight characteristics and manoeuvrability from a military view point and that reality is to me fundamental and a damning and clear indication that the reality of some UFOs are or could be possible off world observational objects.

What is the point of an air defence when those very sources who we trust are refuted, ridiculed,suffer character assassinations or made to feel inferior by those not in their position of a military training , especially the air force.

The case being put forward to dismiss or play down the valuation, reliability and importance of ALL UFO witnesses is one i feel is unjustified towards those sources with a military,astronomical or scientific back ground or training, they are in a better position, they are all we have ,they deserve the respect ,for are they not in the front line.

edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 9-10-2012 @ 11:54 AM by K-PAX-PROT

Originally posted by okyouwin

Originally posted by Outrageo
reply to post by okyouwin

...
I have to remain skeptical.

And so you shall. And so you should. That does not mean the event did not take place. Nor does it foment a critical persuasion.

That brilliant pothead Sagan once said (oft repeated here at ATS), "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

A great story is a great story, but it is not extraordinary evidence. It is not even empirical evidence. That does not mean the story is untrue, only that it can not be substantiated.

Nevertheless, telling the story and repeating it here is worthwhile as it tickles our curiosity, gives us a miniscule and momentary sense of encouragement, enables us to discuss and ponder and extrapolate some morsels to digest later.

Yet, I must agree with the poster who concluded that at least the OP's thread title, if not the story itself, may be misleading (though perhaps not disingenuous). Why? because "Here's More Evidence..." is no evidence at all. An entertaining, titillating, fascinating, and quite believable 3rd-person account perhaps - but evidence it is not,

We are no closer to "UFO Reality" by the retelling of this story, though we may be, only so very slightly, a wee bit wiser.

And for that at least - I thank thee...

You're right skeptical it is. Skeptical it remains.

When is evidence considered evidence, by those who try and set the requirements of "acceptability" or set the requirements of the "rejection" of evidence being put forward as evidence.Those always crying and making a noise about what i term ,show or provide the "UFO landing on the Whitehouse lawn" type evidence always fail to perceive that outside the UFO Whitehouse landing on the lawn evidence.that evidence can and often does exist in the actual data of what is being witnessed.

That is the crucial and most often over looked reality,that the information contained in the witness accounts is just that evidence.Now of course we have evidence that something was observed and we have independent witness data and in some cases radar returns also back up what was observed , the game changer is when we have professional sources like military, astronomy and scientific witnesses or engaging in the investigation's of the witness testimonies or sighting reports.

What gets me is that these very same sources would be give credence and acceptability in any other field of witness credibility, reliability ect except when the concern is the ET source for some UFO sightings ect, that transparency in rejection for any possibility pertaining to a ET source for just ONE UFO high strangeness account is in its self manifesting another agenda, that is the agenda of those that seek to do whatever it takes to dismiss any ET acceptability as an credible and justifiable possibility, there are even those that are attacking or dismissing any possibility of a ET source for even one UFO high strangeness case,if that is ruled out then where is the evidence that there can be no possibility of advance ET intelligences observing us in advanced nanotechnology hard ware, until that evidence is produced then the possibility of a ET source for at least one high strangeness case is a valid and possible reality.

reply posted on 9-10-2012 @ 02:58 PM by ArMaP

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
So you are saying that witness should be scrutinised via a scientific process, remember that witness testimony in a court of law can and does condemn a person to prison and in some states THE DEATH PENALTY .

No, I am saying that if the method used in a court of law has been proved as not being the best possible we shouldn't use it for other situations. In fact, we shouldn't even use it in a court of law, but that's already established and hard to correct.

As i have pointed out there seems to be a trend of smugness and arrogance in those who are rejecting witness accounts from those sources who by their professions, military ect are in much better positions than those who are rejecting and have NO training or background.That is far from an acceptable scientific protocol, well it is in my book.

You don't know the professions, experience, training and capabilities of those rejecting the witnesses reports.
I can only tell you that I don't have any special qualifications for which I can show some kind of document.

Seems that what is being perceived here is that all military witnesses are unreliable and so should be dismissed,is this the state of the DEFENCE implications of most nations military defence capabilities that there is unreliable military sources who CANNOT differentiate between a object that by its "FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS" and manoeuvrability is considered from a MILITARY observational perception to be considered "high strangeness" or unknown to present military technologies.,WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE BEING OFFER THERE.

I don't think this is being pointed specifically to military personnel but to all witnesses, regardless of their positions, professions, etc.

Some people in the military may have better training or have been specially chosen because of their ability to distinguish what's an unknown from an unknown, but that doesn't mean that they are immune to optical illusions or that they can be as "mechanical" and void of personal interpretation as a camera.

My main point in this thread was the poor thought out justifications of the rejection of such credible military sources by those NOT in these positions.What manner of mind set would openly reject witness testimonies from those very sources who are trained and have the very real responsibilities to protect the restricted air spaces of a nations air space from unknown penetrations of its air space.

I never reject any witness report, I just don't give them the same weight as I would give to some physical evidence, as the witness may:
- have interpreted what they witnessed in a way that is not exactly correct
- may have been unable to see exactly what they think they witnessed
- may not be able to convey exactly what they witnessed

We are not dealing with "hill billy" witnesses crying wee green men in spaceships when it comes to military witness testimonies, we are in fact dealing with a very real professionally trained source who by its definition cannot account for an objects flight characteristics and manoeuvrability from a military view point and that reality is to me fundamental and a damning and clear indication that the reality of some UFOs are or could be possible off world observational objects.

Do you have anything against "hill billy" witnesses? Are they less able of observing and reporting than a general?

reply posted on 9-10-2012 @ 03:03 PM by ArMaP

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
What gets me is that these very same sources would be give credence and acceptability in any other field of witness credibility, reliability ect except when the concern is the ET source for some UFO sightings ect, ...

Don't you think that you are making too much assumptions about what other people think and about what they would say in a different situation, to different people, etc?

reply posted on 9-10-2012 @ 03:03 PM by Outrageo

reply to post by ArMaP

ArMaP nails it yet again...

...First of all, a court of law is something that cannot be applied t scientific process, as they use completely different approaches for completely different situations.

The problem with witnesses' accounts is that what we are listening to is their interpretation of what happened...

Exactly. And whether we are talking about a court-of-law, the "sheeple's court", or the court of common sense, the paradigm remains the same:

Claimant: "I have EVIDENCE of UFO Reality!!"
Observer: "Really? How interesting! What manner of evidence do you have?"
Claimant: "I heard from this guy I know, who-knows-a-guy, who-knew-a-guy, who-knew-another-guy, who-heard-from-a-guy, that this other guy saw "something" (choose your flavor of blip.)"
Observer: "Oh. Uh-huh... thanks."
Claimant: "But I BELIEVE him! The guy is credible, he's a 'professional'! I just KNOW he's telling the truth and wouldn't make this up!"
Observer: "That's great. it does sound interesting and believable indeed. However..."

Conclusion: Once the judge and jury (or assemblage of listeners/observers) hear this and stop laughing, what are we left with? Evidence? I'm afraid not, not in any stretch of imagination or extrapolation.

What we do have is a very intriguing, quite believable, heart-rendered story of something someone observed at some time in the past and they couldn't explain what they saw.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND: This is by no means a criticism of the OP. Personally, I LOVE these stories. And this is a very good one. I'm sure we would ALL love for MORE pilots (like me), astronomers, policemen, ATC operators, military, NGIA, NRO, CIA, FBI, (pick your acronym) - to come forward with their story! That would be awesome. In fact, many have- and the stories have been compiled into wonderful, equally believable collections (some to include actual evidence (such as Timothy Good's "Above Top Secret").

This is a great (and needed) discussion! Too bad we can't seem to get past this semantic issue regarding evidence (yeah - I'm to blame as well), and focus on zeroing in on finding the witness and fleshing out a few more details! Now THAT would be cool! The truth is in the details - and we just don't have too much of that here.

What do we have? - a fascinating, quite believable story. Thanks