Testimony of an Air Traffic Controller

reply to post by karl 12


Great listening and the Muskegon incident in 1994 was definitely something "different"



Best bit is around the 8 minute mark.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by Druscilla

 

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?

Originally posted by Komodo
*is anxiously waiting ...
Druscillia's reply."

Since we DON'T KNOW what it is/was, we can't say what it IS/WAS.
It's UNKNOWN.

UNKNOWN is a big enough bucket to include all the little green men you want to throw inside of it, but, it also encompasses every other possibility and probability as well.

It's okay and fine to say "I don't know".
That's objectivity.

Saying "I don't know, so, it must be aliens" is not objective in the least bit.

There's over half a Century of interest and investigation in the UFO Phenomenon, yet, with all this supposed wealth of data and interest, there's yet any strong indication worthwhile or substantial enough to lay any claim of any responsible agency, artificial, naturally occurring or otherwise.

UFO = Unknown.

Originally posted by karl 12

That's always a nice excuse given by cynics to comfort themselves about not taking the UFO subject seriously

It can be used as an excuse sure but you have to take it into account if you're honest about the research.

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?

These are far more interesting in my opinion but still, reality is complex and things that might seem to be connected sometimes are not. Eyewitness recollection is subject to errors and so is technical equipment. These factors must be thoroughly examined. A good example of how these errors can come together and give birth to a seemingly interesting case is the 1952 D.C incident.

Originally posted by Brighter

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.

Well said mate and there are quite a few UFO cases now where separately located witnesses have all submitted similar object descriptions -these sightings over a localised area are a good example and there's so many witness descriptions of 'strange egg-shaped object with no wings, tail, or fuselage' reports that it's not even funny anymore (I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for debunkers to be honest and objective by the way ).

Here are some relevant quotes about your post although when Jacques Vallee uses the term 'sceptics' in the first statement I think the word should be replaced with something else - the term 'sceptic' is probably one of the most abused terms on these boards and there are quite a few folks on here pretending to be who are quite clearly not.

"Skeptics, who flatly deny the existence of any unexplained phenomenon in the name of 'rationalism,' are among the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public. People are not stupid and they know very well when they have seen something out of the ordinary. When a so-called expert tells them the object must have been the moon or a mirage, he is really teaching the public that science is impotent or unwilling to pursue the study of the unknown."
Dr. Jacques Vallee, astrophysicist



"There are too many independent eyewitness reports to ignore. Too many of the reports describe coherent physical effects, and there is an agreement among the accounts concerning what was observed... But of course there are also physical effects. The Air Force report [of the F-16 jet scramble incident on the night of March 30-31, 1990] allows us to approach the problem in a rational and scientific way. The simplest hypothesis is that the reports are caused by extraterrestrial visitors, but that hypothesis carries with it other problems. We are not in a rush to form a conclusion, but continue to study the mystery."
Dr. Auguste Meessen, Professor of physics at the Catholic University in Louvain.



"The phenomenon seems to be real... The general coherence of sighting reports worldwide should not leave researchers indifferent. One does not conceive objective arguments to justify an attitude that would avoid at all cost these observations... The risk is, at worst, to confirm the existence of unknown vehicles appearing erratically into our atmosphere - a hypothesis that seems to explain nearly all reported aspects of the phenomenon and could be linked to the current (1970) exobiology branch of space research." (1971 Statistical Study prepared for the CNES and French officials.)
Dr. Claude Poher, expert on aeronautics, astronomy and astronautics, engineer at the French Space Agency (CNES) for thirty years

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Great listening and the Muskegon incident in 1994 was definitely something "different"

Great find mate and that's a fascinating video, hadn't heard the police report calls at the beginning before and the radar operator does sound pretty freaked out -the police officer also mentions that the UFOs were described as 'cylindrical objects which were going together and coming apart' and the radar data shows the returns were four times bigger than commercial aircraft travelling at a vertical speed of 1000mph so god knows what that was.

Cheers.

reply to post by 0bserver1


Thanks for the reply mate and some government UFO documents really do make for interesting reading, like when NORAD was shown to be lying through its teeth there's also authentic documents in the public domain which completely contradict the claims of the USAF UFO factsheet but noone seems to be bothered.

Here are some other relevant statements for the thread involving Air Traffic Controllers and radar operators.

"Here we had a number of object seen coming in across the North Sea on coastal radar. It looked like a Russian mistake. Jet aircraft were scrambled. The objects were travelling at quite impossible speeds like 4-5000 mph and then came to an abrupt halt near to one of these stations not very high up. Jet aircraft picked them up on aircraft radar. The objects then simply made rings round them."
Ralph Noyes,Senior Official with British Air Ministry - retired as Under Secretary of State in 1977




"During the 1955 Warsaw Pact exercises, a radar station in the area of Warsaw recognized two targets over the Gulf of Gdansk. The targets were moving at a speed of 2,300 km/h at an altitude of 20 thousand meters. In those days there was no aircraft with such performance. At one point it was noticed that the two objects did a 90 degrees turn, literally on the spot with no turning radius. This maneuver at such high speeds cannot be done. Most modern aircraft are unable to do so even today, and that was 50 years ago".
Colonel Ryszard Grundmanem - Former Head of Poland's 'Air Traffic, Air Force and Air Defense'




“What I saw defied all logic and was, quite frankly, extraordinary. It wasn’t just me, more than 30 pairs of eyes of RAF staff and radar operators at Heathrow Airport witnessed the same thing. I instantly knew this wasn’t a convoy of military planes -the only craft with that rate of climb were supersonic lightning aircraft but they wouldn’t have been able to hold such a perfect formation".
RAF Wing Commander Alan Turner (MBE).




"There is no other conclusion I can reach but that for six hours on the morning of the 20th of July, 1952 there were at least ten unidentifiable objects moving above Washington....I can safely deduce that they performed gyrations which no known aircraft could perform. By this I mean that our scope showed that they could make right angle turrns and complete reversals of flight".
Senior Air Route Traffic Controller Harry Barnes




"When you have the view of the airspace and the radar screen and you see the UFOs go around twenty or thirty miles a second – that is very real. They can turn suddenly almost 90 degrees in a second or half a second. The UFOs can go vertically straight up very quickly."
Mexico City Senior Air Traffic Controller, Enrique Kolbeck




"We had objects with four-way confirmation – ground visual, ground radar, airborne visual, airborne radar. It doesn’t get any better than that. In my following of unusual aerial phenomena for the past 50 years, there seems to be some reason to discredit very viable and very reputable witnesses when they say something is unidentified."
US Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Lieutenant Colonel Charles Brown




“On several occasions the instruments gave reading of material objects moving at incredible speed. Calculations showed speeds of about 230 knots, of 400 kph. Speeding so fast is a challenge even on the surface. But water resistance is much higher. It was like the objects defied the laws of physics. There’s only one explanation: the creatures who built them far surpass us in development".
Russian Naval Rear Admiral Yury Beketov




"Of these UFO reports,the radar/visual reports are the most convincing. When a ground radar picks up a UFO target and a ground observer sees a light where the radar target is located,then a jet interceptor is scrambled to intercept the UFO and the pilot also sees the lights and gets a radar lock only to have the UFO almost impudently outdistance him,there is no simple answer."
Edward J Ruppelt USAF Capt 1956




According to worthy information of faith, in our atmosphere objects arrive at high speed. No aircraft, neither in the United States, either in the Soviet Union is currently able to achieve the speed attributed to these objects from the radars and from the observatories.
Admiral S. Fahrney,head missile testing of the American Navy

link

Cheers.

Interesting find OP.

Lots of talk relating to 'Mass Hysteria' being the reason why this is being withheld from the general public, lots of counter argument also.

Obviously if people were told that these things exist and they mean us no harm, why would people suddenly go off the rails? There wouldn't be any need as life would not change, save for the question on religion, maybe. But as we have heard the Catholic Church has suggested that religion could continue even if other forms of life were discovered in the universe.

But let's say Governments disclosed their existence, advised that these things do exist, they do abduct people and there is nothing they can do about it. Then 'Mass Hysteria' would surely break out.

Or maybe, the Governments have an agreement, allowing abductions to take place in exchange for technology?

Or maybe, just maybe our coffee has been laced and we are all hallucinating?

reply to post by cripmeister


You can take it into account, certainly, but using it as a 'one size fits all' explanation for all UFO sightings is disingenuous and untruthful. If we were such bad observers, we wouldnt be able to drive cars, fly aircraft, cross roads or observe scientific test results. Our ancestors would have perished from not being able to tell the difference between food and predators. Humans have good eyes, two of them, on the front of their head giving us stereoscopic, colour vision. Yes, we do fall prey to optical illusions occasionally, but you cannot explain the entire UFO phenomenon with that.

Sure, a tiny light in the dark of the night can be misconstrued, but structured craft witnessed close up cannot be written off with 'yeah, well, humans are terrible observers'.

reply to post by 0bserver1


I was just watching natgeo, "the real roswell."

they matter-of-factly say that it was all mogul.

no matter how advanced ET is...logistics dictates they can't succeed in a hostile takeover of earth.

They probably could destroy it but what would be the point? That's an exercise in futility.

I wouldn't be surprised if established tptb were the ones who threatened to blow up earth if aliens intervened

This is a known fact, often the air traffic controller's are witness to unexplained phenomena and some time's it is top secret flight test's but some time's it is truly unknown, there are innumerable ancient underground city's such as those in turkey were the occupant's seemed to be hiding from something and if that was the case did that something just go away or was it expelled by some other thing?.

I am a religouse person but can't envisage a creator creating only one race when he has the whole universe and all of it's world's so is it possible we may have elder sibling's out there, hmm, yes. And maybe here as well.

reply to post by karl 12


Nice enumeration of air traffic control statements , I think its going on from the time radar has been invented until this day... And most of the time they can't point the finger on it. I wonder if there was never any communication between airtraffic controllers and the objects they tracked ? , ah they probably never wrote it down if it did..

reply to post by Komodo


It's obvious that the controllers are not allowed to log down whatsoever unidentified phenomena in our atmosphere.
everything has to be hand over immediately to higher ranks.. so that they can cover it up ...I wonder how long in this time period they gonna last doing that?

Originally posted by DAVID64
I think they've seen things for years and have been muzzled. Government is scared spitless of ET. If they came here, they have tech we can't imagine. And we are no match for it. If people knew ET was up there buzzing around, many would be terrified, thinking we are being invaded. There could be world wide panic, causing untold damage. They're going to cover it up as long as possible.

............................Just waiting for the ones who will come, claiming to know ET's plan. You know they'll be along shortly.

edit on 16-3-2013 by DAVID64 because: (no reason given)

The panic angle is utter b...cks. That is based on 1950's US military assessment of the impact of aliens being real. That assessment has more to do with 1950's US paranoia about reds under the bed than aliens.

If aliens landed in the middle of a park in a city the police would have trouble keeping folks back from taking photos and videos with their phones.

There will be more people walking up with a Vulcan salute than running scared.

Time for a 21st century reality check, live long and prosper.

Originally posted by Thunda
reply to post by cripmeister

 

You can take it into account, certainly, but using it as a 'one size fits all' explanation for all UFO sightings is disingenuous and untruthful.

I agree, there is no "one size fits all" UFO explanation.

If we were such bad observers, we wouldnt be able to drive cars, fly aircraft, cross roads or observe scientific test results. Our ancestors would have perished from not being able to tell the difference between food and predators. Humans have good eyes, two of them, on the front of their head giving us stereoscopic, colour vision. Yes, we do fall prey to optical illusions occasionally, but you cannot explain the entire UFO phenomenon with that.

It is not that our eyesight is at fault, especially when dealing with familiar things in everyday life. It is when we are confronted with unfamiliar stimulus in stressful situations that our limitations start to show themselves. There is also something that can be called the exitedness effect which I think plays a role in UFO reporting.

An effect important to the UFO problem is demonstrated by the records: the excited observers who thought they had witnessed a very strange phenomenon produced the most detailed, longest, and most misconceived reports, but those who by virtue of experience most nearly recognized the nature of the phenomenon became the least excited and produced the briefest reports. The "excitedness effect" has an important bearing on the UFO problem. It is a selection effect by which the least accurate reports are made more prominent (since the observer becomes highly motivated to make a report), while the most accurate reports may not be recorded. Source

Sure, a tiny light in the dark of the night can be misconstrued, but structured craft witnessed close up cannot be written off with 'yeah, well, humans are terrible observers'.

Like I said above, there is no "one size fits all" explanation. It is about not jumping to conclusions on material we know is subject to errors, we have to try and remain objective. The apparent sincerity of an eyewitness does not automatically mean they are accurately reporting an event.

Originally posted by cripmeister

It is not that our eyesight is at fault, especially when dealing with familiar things in everyday life. It is when we are confronted with unfamiliar stimulus in stressful situations that our limitations start to show themselves. There is also something that can be called the exitedness effect which I think plays a role in UFO reporting.

An effect important to the UFO problem is demonstrated by the records: the excited observers who thought they had witnessed a very strange phenomenon produced the most detailed, longest, and most misconceived reports, but those who by virtue of experience most nearly recognized the nature of the phenomenon became the least excited and produced the briefest reports. The "excitedness effect" has an important bearing on the UFO problem. It is a selection effect by which the least accurate reports are made more prominent (since the observer becomes highly motivated to make a report), while the most accurate reports may not be recorded. Source

Don't be fooled by the Condon Report.

Prior to it even beginning, they had a preconceived agenda:

"Our study would be conducted exclusively by "Non Believers". The trick would be, I think, to describe the project so that to the public it would appear a totally objective study. Conclusion...There is no secrecy and no evidence that such objects even exist."

Memorandum from Robert Low (before the report was started) - Project Administrator CONDON Report to Colorado University V.P. Thurston Marshall

Link

So no matter what their findings were, they had already decided they would cherry-pick from their findings to present a preordained conclusion to the public.

Here is Dr. Peter Sturrock's paper where he discusses the dubious nature of the entire Condon Report. Dr. J. Allen Hynek and Dr. James E. McDonald both levied similar criticisms against the methodologies and conclusions of the 'study'.

Originally posted by cripmeister

It is not that our eyesight is at fault, especially when dealing with familiar things in everyday life. It is when we are confronted with unfamiliar stimulus in stressful situations that our limitations start to show themselves.

I just don't find it plausible that many of these detailed reports (often with multiple, isolated, corroborating accounts) are simply the result of "limitations". I'm assuming that you're referring to both cognitive and perceptual limitations.

Actually, from what many people report, their cognitive functioning is perfectly normal and healthy in such situations. They oftentimes report that at first, they just assumed that the object was a plane, or helicopter, or some other normal stimulus. It's only after more careful observation that they're forced to reassess these initial assumptions. Most people actually strongly resist subsuming unfamiliar perceptions under novel concepts. So at least in many of these cases, there most certainly isn't this desire to 'see' something out of the ordinary, but rather the opposite. And in light of such natural resistances, it's actually a testament to the strength of the original perception, that it would be clear, distinct and sustained enough to force them to place them under a non-conventional concept in the first place.

It's also well known that, in stressful situations, unless you're a myotonic goat, your senses and overall awareness are actually heightened.

Of course, this isn't even taking into consideration the countless cases where multiple isolated witnesses describe roughly the same object. Obviously, the more people that independently report the same description, the less likely that their description is due to "limitations".

Now I'm not saying that people don't occasionally exaggerate or misdescribe something. Of course they do. But even taking that into account, you're still left with a residue of cases that resist such explanations.

wanted to post this awesome thread up ..

wrap your heads around this for 20mins worth of reading and .. read it again ....

UFO Giant Scaling Project

intresting is the size of 'unknowns' out there eh?

Originally posted by Komodo
wanted to post this awesome thread up ..

wrap your heads around this for 20mins worth of reading and .. read it again ....

UFO Giant Scaling Project

intresting is the size of 'unknowns' out there eh?

Um, #2 listed on that thread?
The Yukon Mothership?

About that ... Yukon Mothership ... Busted

As to some of the others ... well, I'll let you keep on believing in, well, keep setting milk and cookies out for jolly old nighttime visitors flying around in sleighs, clouds, clouds that look like cigars, clouds that look like walnuts, clouds that look like saucers, or any other contraption if that's what keeps you happy.

Oh, something to think about; what does your weatherman use to track meteorological phenomenon?
One of the tools wouldn't happen to be Radar would it?
Clouds show up on radar? Yep.
Different kinds and types of clouds have different radar reflectivities too.
Unknown phenomenon? eh. Unknown is unknown ... unless it's just a stupid cloud some people got a little too high strung about.

... and before somebody starts throwing a fit over clouds, I'm not claiming clouds are responsible for UFO sightings, though there is precedent. I am, however, positing the possibility, and even probability for some unknowns, as there are in precedent, for being attributable for some cases, especially so where a case is largely riding on witness testimony and only witness testimony regardless the so-called credibility of witnesses.

reply to post by Druscilla


Yes but it was there wasnt it and it was under intelligent control and it hovered. What is it then? Speculate !!!!!!! dont be a fence sitter.

reply to post by AthlonSavage


What's the point in speculating without all the data?

What was the humidity level at ground level, 5000ft, 10,000ft. etc?
What was the cloud ceiling at?
How many different types of cloud strata were visible and can you name them?
What was the temperature average for that day?
What other meteorological data do you have? Low pressure zones? High pressure fronts?
What was the average wind direction and speed?
What were the geological coordinates?
Are you familiar with Earth lights and naturally occurring piezoelectric discharges and the geology associated with the phenomenon?
Are you familiar with what plasma balls are?
Are you familiar with ball lightning and what it is?
Have you ever seen any of these to accrue familiarity enough for comparison?
Are you familiar with sun dogs?
Moon dogs?
other naturally occurring optical illusions?
What time of day was it?
What phase was the moon in?

I can ask a lot more questions, but, when someone says "I saw blah blah blah X ... what was it?", and doesn't provide even the scarce bit of data provided in the questions just posed, then, what is there to speculate about?
Somebody saw something. woo hoo. Good for them. Tell us about that big fish that got away that one time too.

FYI; all this is rhetorical. Please don't answer any of these questions because this thread isn't about any one single case to be picked over and examined.
Start a separate thread, and maybe then? meh.

reply to post by Druscilla


It was atypical low hanging blanket of cloud. I am familiar with the type of low hanging cloud blanket as i have seen it alot and planes fly beneath it. Therefore knowing how large an airbus is flying under the clloud i was able to estimate its diameter from wing span of airbus.

Who cares what the damn humidity was stop trying to be clever. Cloud ceiling as explained. Only one continuous layer of cloud, like a blanket.

I have no other meterological data and who gives a damn about other meteorlogical data the thing was in plain view above as visibility on the night was good. Wind the wind was very slow breeze.

It wasnt a Plasma ball, when it stopped i saw it hover for 20 seconds and then it did a stealthing manouevre that was saying the least fanastic.

it was early night. I couldntnt see moon it was obviously hidden by cloud and no it wasnt the moon i know what moon looks like. It wasnt ball lighting.

All your questions are meaningly spamful and attempting to discredit what i saw. I know what i saw! You dont know what your talking about when it comes to Ufos.

What we are certain about is that there are intelligent controlled objects, whether materialistic or not (No, I don't think there are spirits if such thing exists at all, in fact data so far showed that these glowing orbs if out of juice are quite solid objects, i.e if they do not shine and lose their power).

What we also know is that someone is hiding information about them - maybe the ones who hide it (humans) are also not aware fully (or are they), and in more speculating manner - those beings if such, make sure their presence remains secret.

Whoever says 'They don't do it well since people see UFOs all the time' is wrong - the fact that all you get is some blurry glowing objects, often times misidentified known ones, that whever you see a close-up or some of these objects has exposed itself too much, you may be paid a visit by MiB or otherwise - lose consciousness, your car stops working etc...and in the end you have a poor proof

means they ARE doing it WELL.

Now, when it's evident we are dealing with something, when some BLINDLY follow this scientific method "Show me 100% evidence in plain sight materialistic object or else - it is a lie and not real", I can just feel how those hiding it LAUGH hard, because those who follow this logic simply help and do like 90% of the work to belittle, ridicule and make people ignore what they are seeing

I mean, it's clear you are not paid agents, a lot of you here but maybe whoever made this logic, that something only exists if YOU (and not a 3rd party as is the case) see it, even testimonies of others is not enough. And while doing this unintentionally you are helping big time those who wanna hide it.