Testimony of an Air Traffic Controller

reply to post by Thunda



Nope they would have done it 65 years ago....but then they swallowed it after spitting it out...

Nice, thank you for the upload.

Half way done, the man appears to be very sincere & honest about his experience.

"If the government knows about this, why aren't they telling the press?"

"We're here to observe them, not talk about them. NORAD already knows, so keep quiet."

There is a cover up for these "U.F.O"s --- we know this.

Stanton Friedman made an interesting statement several nights ago: We're asking for the wrong things, people say "Hey eye witness testimony, that doesn't mean anything, we need proof, a body, so forth" --- I think that's nonesense. The reason why we can explain most UFO sightings is because we are good observers; our entire legal system is designed on evaluating eye-witness testimony. People have been convicted of murder when there wasn't even a body to be had.

"Why would anyone show YOU this evidence? What clearance do you have?"

"Progress comes from doing things differently, in an unpredictable way. That's the way it's always been. Very smart people saying something is impossible, tends to be done very quickly when we do it anyway."

Decent points... Progress comes from doing things differently.

It really burns me when people start with this stupidity that if we were told about ET it would cause mass hysteria and panic and the breakdown of society.

They act like people are blithering idiots. We do not need anyone playing mommy for us. People and societies have survived the most horrible conditions and catastrophes imaginable and they hold together.

The UFO/ET thing is no different. We need to be told exactly what is going on, and if ET is coming to "harvest" for their pressure cookers we have a right to know.

Originally posted by ThinkingCap

Stanton Friedman made an interesting statement several nights ago: We're asking for the wrong things, people say "Hey eye witness testimony, that doesn't mean anything, we need proof, a body, so forth" --- I think that's nonesense. The reason why we can explain most UFO sightings is because we are good observers; our entire legal system is designed on evaluating eye-witness testimony. People have been convicted of murder when there wasn't even a body to be had.

Eyewitness testimony is the worst form of evidence no matter what Friedman or anyone else says. We are horrible observers.

Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.

While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated. Source

reply to post by karl 12

Blackvault's John Greenewald Junior did once prove that NORAD collected and collated CIRVIS UFO reports from miltary and civilian pilots (even though they informed him 'in good faith' that they didn't) by going through the channels of Canada's Access Of Information Act and presenting them with their own documents (but it seems that not many UFO cynics like to talk about that)

*big grin*.....

Good to see you making an apperance ... ...

yes .. lets all bury our heads in the sand and not look at documented experiences of those who's JOB it is to ensure the safety of their precious cargo flying 30k ft in the air....

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by ThinkingCap

Stanton Friedman made an interesting statement several nights ago: We're asking for the wrong things, people say "Hey eye witness testimony, that doesn't mean anything, we need proof, a body, so forth" --- I think that's nonesense. The reason why we can explain most UFO sightings is because we are good observers; our entire legal system is designed on evaluating eye-witness testimony. People have been convicted of murder when there wasn't even a body to be had.

Eyewitness testimony is the worst form of evidence no matter what Friedman or anyone else says. We are horrible observers.

Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.

While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated. Source

might want to check out the documentry ..

I KNOW WHAT I SAW..

and from what you're saying is ...EYE wittness testimony is no longer vaild .. even for the courts ....??

Originally posted by Komodo
might want to check out the documentry ..

I KNOW WHAT I SAW..

and from what you're saying is ...EYE wittness testimony is no longer vaild .. even for the courts ....??

Seen it, along with basically every other UFO "documentary". Ironic name really, I am pretty sure most eyewitnesses who help convict innocent people also "know what they saw". Eyewitness testimony is still valid in the courts (of course) but new interviewing techniques are being developed and used in criminal investigations. Now me saying that eyewitness testimony is the worst form of evidence is not intended as an insult to UFO witnesses, it is just a fact of how our brains are wired.

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by Komodo
might want to check out the documentry ..

I KNOW WHAT I SAW..

and from what you're saying is ...EYE wittness testimony is no longer vaild .. even for the courts ....??

Seen it, along with basically every other UFO "documentary". Ironic name really, I am pretty sure most eyewitnesses who help convict innocent people also "know what they saw". Eyewitness testimony is still valid in the courts (of course) but new interviewing techniques are being developed and used in criminal investigations. Now me saying that eyewitness testimony is the worst form of evidence is not intended as an insult to UFO witnesses, it is just a fact of how our brains are wired.

all good.. thx for the clarification..

However, for pilots, the medical rec's just to fly the jets is pretty steep, though some might not follow the 'rules' but, FAA seems to be pretty strick on making sure pilots are in top mental condiction; this is what the video is about...

a jet fighter pilot, not a commerical pilot,

which makes the health rec's/standards are even more steep and if not the MOST strick in any form of occupation, cilvilian or military.

So, the eyes of a military pilot are the most important 'tool' when they are making reports of boggeys, ATC's have to trust what the pilot sees up there physically with their own eyes...

No I'm not a pilot,but I've flown right seat for a very short time for recreational purposes and was in the back seat when a friend was taking his Instrument test...trust me when I say ..when you're up there, it's ALL about keeping your head on a swivel and watching out for the other guy...sight is primary in Avaition~!

Originally posted by Komodo

Originally posted by cripmeister

Originally posted by Komodo
might want to check out the documentry ..

I KNOW WHAT I SAW..

and from what you're saying is ...EYE wittness testimony is no longer vaild .. even for the courts ....??

Seen it, along with basically every other UFO "documentary". Ironic name really, I am pretty sure most eyewitnesses who help convict innocent people also "know what they saw". Eyewitness testimony is still valid in the courts (of course) but new interviewing techniques are being developed and used in criminal investigations. Now me saying that eyewitness testimony is the worst form of evidence is not intended as an insult to UFO witnesses, it is just a fact of how our brains are wired.

all good.. thx for the clarification..

However, for pilots, the medical rec's just to fly the jets is pretty steep, though some might not follow the 'rules' but, FAA seems to be pretty strick on making sure pilots are in top mental condiction; this is what the video is about...

a jet fighter pilot, not a commerical pilot,

which makes the health rec's/standards are even more steep and if not the MOST strick in any form of occupation, cilvilian or military.

So, the eyes of a military pilot are the most important 'tool' when they are making reports of boggeys, ATC's have to trust what the pilot sees up there physically with their own eyes...

No I'm not a pilot,but I've flown right seat for a very short time for recreational purposes and was in the back seat when a friend was taking his Instrument test...trust me when I say ..when you're up there, it's ALL about keeping your head on a swivel and watching out for the other guy...sight is primary in Avaition~!

Interesting, but none of that proves that "eye-witness" testimony is a rock solid basis for evidence collection.

Originally posted by 0bserver1

This is just a great coverage of air-traffic controllers working with government to identify incoming air-traffic.
They see so much on their screens,but can't talk about it.

Also pilots nowadays see so much unknown air-traffic and gladly they now can talk about it more openly than before.

Michael Smith was an Air Traffic Controller with the Air Force in Oregon and, subsequently, in Michigan. At both of these facilities he and others witnessed UFOs tracked on radar and moving at extraordinary speeds. He also confirms that personnel were expected to maintain secrecy concerning these observations, and that NORAD, the North American Air Defense Command, was fully apprised of these events.

Hey 0bserver1, excellent post. It's pretty obvious that relevant information gets filtered at every level.

It's also interesting how NORAD was mentioned.

NORAD radars actually tracked the UFO in the Japan Airlines 1628 case, although for whatever reason, it's very rarely mentioned.

This is from FAA agent James Derry:

"Upon completion of my discussion with the crew, I called Capt. Stevens, Duty Officer to NORAD, and asked if he had any questions other than what I had asked. He said he had no other questions, but they also showed two targets on radar (one was JAL). He stated that they would give all data to Intelligence in the morning. I then asked Bobby Lamkin by phone if the Air Force was holding the data and he said yes."

Also, if anyone's interested, the video in the OP gets quite interesting at around 7:50 and afterwards, especially when he starts talking about his second encounter. It would seem to support what we'd already suspected - that radar specialists are essentially conditioned and trained to outwardly deny seeing anything on radar, even when they're staring right at it.

reply to post by Druscilla

Your material is interesting. Your righting style is lets say overly honest. Consider rewriting your topics in more subtle form. The truth has a way of finding its own way to the surface in the replies.

So lets assume Ufo isnt Alien Druscillia. I observed a spherical orange object with wing span of aprox airbus fly very fast under the low hanging blanket of cloud cover; and it came to an abrupt standstill in the air and hovered nearly right over where i was standing. What was it? Please dont say a hallicination or other garabage like that. What was it if it wasnt Alien?

reply to post by RobertF


RIIIIGHT ...~!

So what is actual ROCK SOLID proof then..in your opinion...but lets take it a step futher, lets just say that YOUR the ATC and a Jet pilot (for laughs it's an F14 Tomcat) says .. "there's a UFO appox 500ft from my left wing..do you confirm?" ....

ATC: "is it visable to weapons officers?"
WO: "yes.. confirmed @ 500ft.. and seems to be closing or maybe tracking "

what would be the first thing you'd think of .. ?

"are the pilots seeing a mirage.."
"are they on drugs perhaps "
"or do they see an actual 'UFO' (meaning a craft that doesn't behaves unlike anything of this world)"

What say you?

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by Druscilla

 

Your material is interesting. Your righting style is lets say overly honest. Consider rewriting your topics in more subtle form. The truth has a way of finding its own way to the surface in the replies.

So lets assume Ufo isnt Alien Druscillia. I observed a spherical orange object with wing span of aprox airbus fly very fast under the low hanging blanket of cloud cover; and it came to an abrupt standstill in the air and hovered nearly right over where i was standing. What was it? Please dont say a hallicination or other garabage like that. What was it if it wasnt Alien?

*is anxiously waiting ...
Druscillia's reply."

I know a retired air traffic controller from Perth and one day I asked him if he had seen anything peculiar in his 30+ year career and his eyes just welled up as he spent the next 30 minutes describing the event in unbelievable detail.

Ok.
Lets say they ARE here..
UFOs
ET´s
ET crafts..

YES, they DO penetrate airspace, YES govmts know. They cant do anything
about it. But then again, they cant do anything about the "ALIENS" that penetrate
subsurface either, like dolphins, tunas, orcas, bluewhales, bass...YES we KNOW
the "fish" is benigne, but we still cant do anything about it.

So.
DO the gvmnts know? I dont think so..If they did, there would be MORE leaks
about it. How to hoax the moonlandings when theres 1000s and 1000s of ppl
working on the project. Would be the same with et´s.

So.
Do they know, yes. Imho they do. And the leaks and information IS
out. Its a matter of what to belive. Do i belive my own eyes and
experiences, sure do...If i tell them too you, do you belive..
I dont care, some do but i dont..

We see what we want to see, we hear what we want to hear.
We belive what we want to belive.

AND this goes BOTH ways.
So if you dont want to belive i saw a ALIEN CRAFT, fine.
Thats your problem...

You want evidence, sorry cant help you.
You´ll get evidence when it happens to you.

It is important that the government keep the UFO phenomena a secret, due to its ability to hide what technology we create, plus as long as only they know that's all that matters.

plausible deniability IE: the ability to coverup by ignoring

Originally posted by mazzroth
I know a retired air traffic controller from Perth and one day I asked him if he had seen anything peculiar in his 30+ year career and his eyes just welled up as he spent the next 30 minutes describing the event in unbelievable detail.

edit on 17-3-2013 by mazzroth because: (no reason given)

out

with

it

we want to hear this ~!!

Originally posted by cripmeister

We are horrible observers.

That's always a nice excuse given by cynics to comfort themselves about not taking the UFO subject seriously but what about EM effect / physical trace cases or incidents where unknown objects have been tracked and plotted on (sometimes multiple) radar screens in the same area of sky as to where they're being reported by eye-witnesses?

Here's an interesting case where Mexico City Airport flight control reported three unexplainable radar blips near a pilot's aircraft the same time he was visually reporting three 'domed discs' flying alongside his plane..


link


this case also involves several unknown objects with 'flashing red lights on the bottom and green, glowing lights on top' being verified by five independent radar installations and witnessed by several U.S. Military personnel including the Air Force air traffic controller..


link


this case involves an unidentified flying object being seen by separately located witnesses and tracked on radar over Pinecastle Electronic Warfare Range Tracking Station in 1978..


link


this case involves a low level UFO being confirmed on ground and air radar and witnessed by separately located U.S. Military personnel on Minot Air Force Base in 1968..


link


this case also involves military witnesses seeing a UFO in the same area of sky as to where the object was confirmed on multiple radar..


link


this case involves two pilots of a RAF Meteor VII witnessing three 'disc shaped' objects 'flying over the cockpit of their aircraft' - the three objects were also confirmed on ground radarat a speed of 600mph:


link

I'm sure there will be quite a few other case examples but how do your comments deal with incidents where there's an independent radar confirmation at the same time and location?

link

reply to post by karl 12


Good points. But I think you could even argue on independent grounds that we're quite skilled observers the majority of the time - our perceptual skills coupled with our higher-order interpretive abilities are largely responsible for our very existence and the fact that we're the dominant species on earth.

Debunkers just focus on instances of mistaken observation, but if you're going to be honest and objective, you'd have to admit that, for every case of mistaken observation, a person experiences thousands upon thousands of accurate observation.