Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Testimony of an Air Traffic Controller

page: 6
40
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by 0bserver1
 

Well that's just it, it's the military right? They can consider the price of a gallon of milk to be vital to national security if they want these days can't they? so who knows if there was something they are hiding or just covering their behinds just in case.




posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla

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!"


edit on 18-3-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)


I hope you realize you are behaving exactly like those people you mention, just in the opposite end of the spectrum.

in the end , just let people speak what they want. after all this is a forum not a research center for UFO Phenomena. They may be wrong , but you maybe wrong too, so its arrogant to say one side is right and one side is wrong. This depend on BELIEF. if you believe UFO dont exist because of (insert your reasoning) . still doesnt mean you are right.

you know , i hope you see the irony of your post saying people always sing "i know what i saw" , while you keep telling people they are wrong... off course if you dont see it its understandable.. just like mr klass

to OP :

Radar anomalies happens , but not necesarily unexplainable.. some natural emanation or military emission like ECM can show up as anomalies on radar. As for air traffic (civilian) , they usually only show planes with transponder active, some control tower got air search radar for non-transponder aircraft but not all.

the term UFO is still means UNIDENTIFIED flying object. as long as the term UFO is used to refer an unknown anomaly then its a correct term. but if we confuse the term UFO with Extra terrestrial craft then its not correct. There are NO proof of extra terrestrial craft visitation (yet), there are only hypothesis and theories and maybe some myth/fantasy generated by hucksters..

but consider this facts...
- there are lot of CE3 cases but not a single one provide conclusive evidence
- there are lot of messages from "aliens" but not one makes any sense and some are outright lies/hoax
- there are lot of photos/media but not a single photo provide any damning evidence
- there are lot of radar anomalies detected (even sonar from Sub/Ship) but not a single one can be used as proof of aliens

its like these phenomena just want to make itself 'known' but never to the point of real proof-of-existence/disclosure. I suggest OP you read the case files of UFO sightings/contacts and dont pick the best cases but see the patterns that emerge from all the cases you see..

there's a few researched that analyze the data and generate an interesting pattern of UFO CE1/CE2/CE3

- mistaken identity cases (usually CE1) are short time sighting durations, unknown cases are usually 10 minutes or longer
- UFO activity peak start from 10pm to midnight and then peaked again from 1am-3am. comparing the data from social activities, the peaks are opposite of each other. at the UFO activity peak, the social activities of people are the lowest. (Data from FRENCH Cases/sightings and FRENCH people activities)

there are more patterns thats very interesting , you can look it up on the web and study it.

just remember, never focus on 1 case or 1 type of evidence but ALWAYS look for patterns

regards
edit on 21-3-2013 by milomilo because: grammar spelling



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by milomilo
This depend on BELIEF. if you believe UFO dont exist because of (insert your reasoning) . still doesnt mean you are right.


I don't recall anyone here ever expressing this belief.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by 0bserver1
 


going by what replies i have had in my thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...
ufos dont go near airports

please have a look at the vids/thread

back on topic traffic control as got to be a good form of infomation IMHO

EDIT:s+f
edit on 21/3/2013 by maryhinge because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by maryhinge

going by what replies i have had in my thread

ufos dont go near airports



I'm in Chicago, so I know otherwise.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by maryhinge
reply to post by 0bserver1
 


going by what replies i have had in my thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...
ufos dont go near airports

please have a look at the vids/thread

back on topic traffic control as got to be a good form of infomation IMHO

EDIT:s+f
edit on 21/3/2013 by maryhinge because: (no reason given)


I would advise that those who hold the believe that UFOs dont go near airports listen to the Edwards AFB audio I posted earlier in the thread as their views are absolute rubbish.

And further on my Chicago friend above, in emphasis of what he means:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


Good luck with getting replies to that one -here's another interesting airport case and the unknown object, according to an official CAA investigation, still remains unexplained:

Pilots witness UFO over Manchester airport - January, 1995

I know you've probably heard it already mate but this interview also raises a few extremely interesting points and for folks genuinely interested in the subject it's time well spent.

Cheers.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by maryhinge

going by what replies i have had in my thread

ufos dont go near airports



I'm in Chicago, so I know otherwise.


do you think the object in my thread is an out of focus plane?



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by 0bserver1
 


just thought id put this in here as this object is near an airport


and as everyone that as replied in my thread say its a plane id like others
who dont think like them to have a look



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brighter
reply to post by cripmeister
 


Basically he’s trying to say that we can just assume that most of these reports are misidentifications, because those people are more likely to be sending us reports. (...) It’s entirely speculative, presumptive and unscientific.


I can see how a UFO proponent like yourself could interpret it like that, it is to be expected. His intent is stated clearly in the introduction to the chapter, to try and answer the question


Are misinterpretation and misreporting sufficiently common as to make credible the assertion that the entire UFO phenomenon, or at least the residual of unidentified cases, is the result of these processes (plus deliberate hoaxes)? Source


The answer he arrives at is


The answer appears clearly affirmative, although we claim no proof that all reports can be so explained. Source


His answer is neither speculative, presumptive or unscientific. The conclusion is in line with what the cases studied revealed. Can his conclusion be generalized to all cases? No, but he doesn't make that claim. In my opinion Hartmann demonstrates that there probably is something to the excitedness effect and that we should take it seriously if we want to be honest about the UFO phenomenon.
edit on 23/3/2013 by cripmeister because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join