Testimony of an Air Traffic Controller

reply to post by AthlonSavage


That's nice. Good for you. Have a cookie. You know what you saw. Yay.

This pilot put his plane into a nose dive to avoid a ... UFO, but, it was actually Venus.
A trained commercial pilot. Those guys are suppose to know what they see too. Uh-huh.

There's no possible way at all that you could have seen a naturally occurring (rare) instance of lunar holography produced by the cloud cover. Nope. Not at all. That would be impossible.
You know what you saw?
Was it by chance crescent shaped?
Like the moon?

Maybe not. Eh.
But who am I to discount your word-of-mouth zero documented evidence claim?
You're obviously a veritable intellectual juggernaut well versed in all the sundry meteorological phenomena, and hey, you know what you saw, so, what do I know?

reply to post by Druscilla

That's nice. Good for you. Have a cookie. You know what you saw. Yay.

I know what i saw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by AthlonSavage

 

You're obviously a veritable intellectual juggernaut well versed in all the sundry meteorological phenomena, and hey, you know what you saw, so, what do I know?

lay off him , you are right that you dont know what he saw and yet you keep talking like you know everything. channeling philip klass again ?

OP, isnt the traffic controller radar filter the noise and unidentified stuff from their screen ? i think most modern radar have some kind of signal processor to eliminate noise and anomalies. though i dont know the traffic controller can see raw radar return instead of the processed one.

btw mulling over radars, what happen when F35 uses their DAS 360 degree IR sensor when they encounter anomalies thats detectable by IR ? that should be fun to use IR sensor to detect anomalies around F35 and record them too..

Originally posted by milomilo

lay off him , you are right that you dont know what he saw and yet you keep talking like you know everything. channeling philip klass again ?

It's an exercise in demonstrating sufficient margin for doubt.

UFO = Unknown.

I don't know what it was, but, if anyone wants to begin any sort of investigation, it's only proper to START with all the KNOWN phenomenon, optical illusions, and other similar precedents already set.
The list o KNOWN phenomenon potentially culpable can be dauntingly ominous.

In the end, however, most people don't want to actually hear or know what it actually IS that they saw.
They just want validation for what they think they saw, because, as we can all plainly see, it's an old song that gets sung tirelessly over and over and over ... "I know what I saw!"

yawn

UFO = unknown

boring.
We know what they are they are alien spacecraft.
People have seen the aliens, looking out through portholes.
The Roswell craft had alien bodies in as documented by Major Corso. The evidence is there yet you choose to believe they are unknown.

I've seen 3 flying saucers (orbs at night). I know what I saw: alien technology.

I wish more traffic controllers would report what they see.

reply to post by Druscilla

for what they think they saw...

ok .. well .. take this on for size.. Classic UFO sighting by ATS's own; by SkepticOverlord and tell him that he didn't see what he thought he saw..?

so.. then I have a question.

Q: "what is it then that you think what people are seeing over these decades, (well if you only go back to the 1950's, but this phenomon has been dated WAY back even as far as Alexander the Great) ..scientifcally speaking if it's NOT ET craft ..and yes perhaps it's is military black buget projects, but, that stretch, ... what do you PERSONALLY & specifically think all these people ARE seeing"

reply to post by Druscilla


So, who ever is reporting this, this guy is not an air traffic controller. He's a range operator. They basically drive planes together to they can play in the ranges, get refueled etc. They also watch out for intruders entering military airspace that is being used for maneuvering so Dr. Smith in his twin Bonanza doesn't accidentally fly into a KC-135.
Not saying he lacks observation credibility, he's just not an air traffic controller (They keep planes apart, these guys run em together).

reply to post by Komodo


As I continue to maintain:

I
Don't
Know

Because I don't know, that doesn't give me automatic license to start making up stupid fantasies.
I'm comfortable with UNKNOWN. I'm quite happy and fine with leaving the UNKNOWN label on something until there's data enough to give sufficient indication into whatever may be attributable as cause.

If there's not enough data, and never enough data occurs, then, it stays UNKNOWN.

How difficult is that to understand?

Staying with UNKNOWN is far MORE OPEN-MINDED than the craziest of loopity stupidy nutter poopity anyone could ever imagine and lay claim to requirement for open-mindedness to "understand" it.
Unknown encompasses and leaves room for ALL possibilities and impossibilities.
It's the proper objective position.

Until there's data enough to suggest something, something that can be confirmed through additional similar observation and even tested, then, it stays unknown, regardless the propensity of people lacking the intellectual facility to understand this concept wanting to super-glue whatever their favorite cartoon character alien face is on the whole thing.

Just as nature is described as abhorring a vacuum, People abhor a 'vacuum', or unknown even more and feel the overwhelming urge to fill it with something they can 'understand' or think they can understand.
Aliens have a face.
You can hug an alien.
You can do kinky things you're ashamed to talk about with an alien, and it's okay.
You can carry on with secret invisible imaginary telepathic conversations with an alien.
Thus, for these reasons and more, people just HAVE TO have their little alien fantasy because it gives way much more than any possibility it's just naturally occurring phenomenon.

If ti's naturally occurring phenomenon, just something we don't understand as of yet, something like plasma balls, ball lightning, earth lights, or something else, that would certainly account for claimed accounts dating back to the prehistoric.

We're always projecting agency or our own selves on anything we don't understand. We've a huge tendency to stuff things into an anthropomorphic box by putting a face on things, giving things human sounding names, genders, projecting personalities among other things.
People name their cars, or other possessions.
Every cartoon animal on the planet talks and exhibits human personality traits.
We're constantly injecting ourselves into everything.

It's thus no effing wonder people are so easily self-convinced there's some kind of other intelligence at work.
oooooo, what is that? I dunno. I must be aliens.
Aliens are just a warped projection of ourselves, a placeholder we can model into anything we want to fit whatever fantasy we desire.

Thus, until we have data strong enough to indicate there's any such thing as actual aliens (besides the 2nd grader statistics argument) actually visiting us, UFOs where they are not found to be attributable to any known phenomenon will remain responsibly UNKNOWN.

Anyone that wants to traipse about with whatever they want to fantasize about, feel free. Run around naked wearing blinking assorted X-mas tree lights all over at night trying to signal the space brothers and sisters for all I personally care. Have fun.
If aliens show up, then, woo hoo. Good for you. Get yo freak on, and while doing so, try convincing your bug-eyed booty buddies to come out of the closet, maybe even on Pride Day so the rest of us can meet them.

Originally posted by Dr X

The Roswell craft had alien bodies in as documented by Major Corso. The evidence is there yet you choose to believe they are unknown.

Major Corso... you mean the guy who invented kevlar, fiber optics, IC's, and laser pointers?



Compelling evidence indeed.

reply to post by 0bserver1


I always take these admissions with a grain of salt. I know that ATC have to be among perhaps some of the highest witness rating professions. So having said that, I do know that many of them are likely legit, but they are told in most cases to keep their mouths shut. Most do until asked point blank and even then some still do. I have a good friend who was not only an ATC but specifically military not civillian..I asked him once if he had seen anything while on the job and he said many times but recalled specifically one time that was according to him undeniably not possibly manmade based on movement and speed and he said when he communicated the activity to his superiors he was told that it was never there, they never discussed it, none of it ever happened.

Originally posted by Brighter

Don't be fooled by the Condon Report.

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

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.

Well I didn't cite Condons conclusion now did I. Read Hartmanns chapter and if you find anything wrong with it try and refute it, don't forget to source your information.

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.

Believe what you want, I prefer to question instead as it has been proven more fruitful.

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.

Sure but discerning what category these witnesses belong to (those prone to fanciful interpretations etc) is more or less impossible. Also, rarely are eyewitness accounts taken directly after an event leaving time for the memory of it to be contaminated and expanded upon.

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

This is true but the attention to detail in these situations varies from person to person. Pilots might generally be better at handling stressful situations (i.e focusing on piloting the airplane) but I suspect that comes at the cost of less attention to detail.

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.

Multiple witness cases are interesting but I suspect that in many of these cases contamination of memory plays an important role. Sure there might be a residue of cases that seem to resist conventional explanation but they will forever be in unknown category. There are always crucial pieces of the puzzle missing, frustrating isn't it?

reply to post by Aleister


LoL, you crack me up! Star for that!

Actually this interview is quite old.
It's part of dr. Greers disclosure project.
Seems he's now using it yet again now for the sirius movie.
Could have done without the piano for ambiance though.
*shudder*

I live in London near heathrow airport and I saw a large black triangle slowly moving over my house towards the airport. It was about 500 feet above the house with three lights at the each end. The lights were not flashing but cinstantly on. I called my 14yo son out to watch it. Tried using my mobile camera but the footage was useless. Heathrow must have seen it on the the radar surely? Btw it was about two football fields in size and totally silent.

reply to post by RubberDuckGB


Well.. some stealth/Lockheed? - Most likely. Why does it have to be a top secret aircraft?

Originally posted by kingofmd
These aliens must not be so advanced. Our "primitive" government is able to keep the public from knowing that the "aliens" exist. You would think that they would just reveal themselves to the public as opposed to kidnapping people in their sleep and shoving probes up their a$$es

You mean the gov is able to keep YOU from knowing that ET exist.

There are many people in the world that know that they are here.
They obviously do not want to reveal themselves for some reason.
We are still dangerous to an extent.
Would you walk into a cage with a hungry tiger?

And they are not a threat to the mil gov because the mil gov is working with them.
The only threat would be to their jobs once people like you get *official word* that they have been experimenting on humans with the mil govs knowledge.

Of course what could the mil gov do about them anyway?
Nothing.

But it would be nice if they told us the historical truth.

Originally posted by cripmeister

Well I didn't cite Condons conclusion now did I. Read Hartmanns chapter and if you find anything wrong with it try and refute it, don't forget to source your information.

No, what you did was cite a chapter in the unscientific Condon Report, whose conclusions regarding the UFO subject were predetermined prior to the investigation even beginning. This is actually a testament to the strength of evidence for UFOs - that the USAF would have to literally pay off a university to conduct a bogus study to divert the public's attention away from it.

Originally posted by cripmeister

Believe what you want, I prefer to question instead as it has been proven more fruitful.

But your 'questioning' is ill-informed. For starters, you supported your position by quoting one of the most unscientific studies ever performed. It's not proper to support an argument with an excerpt from a pseudo-scientific study.

Originally posted by cripmeister

Sure but discerning what category these witnesses belong to (those prone to fanciful interpretations etc) is more or less impossible. Also, rarely are eyewitness accounts taken directly after an event leaving time for the memory of it to be contaminated and expanded upon.

It's not only possible, it's quite common. Any psychologist or psychiatrist with a basic level of competence can discern within minutes someone's general psychological dispositions.

Regarding peoples' memories being contaminated, this is not an issue with cases of multiple, isolated witnesses. I'd even argue that it's hardly an issue with the vast majority of other cases. It's actually quite rare, and would probably qualify as some sort of rare mental disorder, for someone to be so impressionable as to allow their memories be effortlessly distorted to a degree that would fundamentally alter their original perception. Such extreme results are generally only achieved via prolonged suggestion conditioning that involves the administering of specific chemical compounds.

Originally posted by cripmeister

This is true but the attention to detail in these situations varies from person to person. Pilots might generally be better at handling stressful situations (i.e focusing on piloting the airplane) but I suspect that comes at the cost of less attention to detail.

Of course it varies from person to person. But the point of course is that, in such situations it's more likely for ones awareness to be heightened as opposed to dampened.

Originally posted by cripmeister

Multiple witness cases are interesting but I suspect that in many of these cases contamination of memory plays an important role.

I don't see much evidence to suggest that memory contamination plays any sort of significant role in the majority of these cases. The very fact that people are consistently quite hesitant to even admit to themselves that they've just saw something extraordinary, let alone admit this to others, strongly supports the premise that memory contamination is not a significant issue at all. It actually points to the fact that we're largely dealing with quite normal, psychologically healthy individuals who are not at all prone to fantasy.

Originally posted by cripmeister

Sure there might be a residue of cases that seem to resist conventional explanation but they will forever be in unknown category.

A large percentage of UFO cases point to the fact that people saw precisely what they described. Remember, Blue Book's "Unknown" category was basically an admission that there is no conventional explanation, strongly supporting the witness's very reports. People are entirely justified in the belief that these craft exist as real, objective entities. The relevant question is who, or what is piloting them.

Even in one of the most vivid encounters, the Ariel School, Zimbabwe incident, you have an extraordinarily competent psychiatrist in John Mack (M.D. from Harvard, Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard), who interviewed the children and found no reason to disbelieve what they were saying. And I'm fairly certain one of the first things he was trying to rule out was 'memory contamination'.

reply to post by NephraTari


What's so important to keep this secret... ? Whom are they protecting?

reply to post by reject

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

That's something to think about, but then there are stories that say , craft could shutdown complete series of missile silo's?

Originally posted by Brighter

No, what you did was cite a chapter in the unscientific Condon Report, whose conclusions regarding the UFO subject were predetermined prior to the investigation even beginning. This is actually a testament to the strength of evidence for UFOs - that the USAF would have to literally pay off a university to conduct a bogus study to divert the public's attention away from it.

You seem reluctant to directly adress the facts and conclusions in Hartmanns chapter, why is that?

But your 'questioning' is ill-informed. For starters, you supported your position by quoting one of the most unscientific studies ever performed. It's not proper to support an argument with an excerpt from a pseudo-scientific study.

Again, where in the chapter is Hartmann being pseudo-scientific? Please provide citations instead of blanket statements.

It's not only possible, it's quite common. Any psychologist or psychiatrist with a basic level of competence can discern within minutes someone's general psychological dispositions.

So in this "residue of cases" were all witnesses evaluated by a psychologist/psychiatrist?

Regarding peoples' memories being contaminated, this is not an issue with cases of multiple, isolated witnesses. I'd even argue that it's hardly an issue with the vast majority of other cases. It's actually quite rare, and would probably qualify as some sort of rare mental disorder, for someone to be so impressionable as to allow their memories be effortlessly distorted to a degree that would fundamentally alter their original perception. Such extreme results are generally only achieved via prolonged suggestion conditioning that involves the administering of specific chemical compounds.

So certain, so confident and without citing any current scientific research. One word, opinions.

Even in one of the most vivid encounters, the Ariel School, Zimbabwe incident, you have an extraordinarily competent psychiatrist in John Mack (M.D. from Harvard, Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard), who interviewed the children and found no reason to disbelieve what they were saying. And I'm fairly certain one of the first things he was trying to rule out was 'memory contamination'.

John Mack? Come on! I seem to have overestimated your critical thinking skills.

reply to post by 0bserver1


Last year, in March, I met a commercial pilot and was shocked when he told me that he was a pilot for Delta and he flew the 757. I had to ask him the UFO question and he had in fact told me about 2 sightings of UFO's. I was shocked, because og this rair opportunity I had in front of me and he was also interested in the phenomina.