It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: draknoir2
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: JimOberg
I agree with you on your study of the fireball swarms. Human perception is not at all intuitive or as clear cut as we generally think.
I'm confident I could differentiate between the Leonids and the Goodyear blimp floating 100ft overhead, but that's just me.
originally posted by: HorusChrist
come on folks I know it was 97 and cell phones weren't as prevalent but I know people had cameras then, no one could stop and take a pic if thousands saw it? Besides one video that shows just lights? I mean take a pic of this huge v shaped craft. Nothing? Gotta assume hoax then.
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
originally posted by: draknoir2
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: JimOberg
I agree with you on your study of the fireball swarms. Human perception is not at all intuitive or as clear cut as we generally think.
I'm confident I could differentiate between the Leonids and the Goodyear blimp floating 100ft overhead, but that's just me.
I hear you. Same here. You can tell the difference between a picture of a bird and something else too....not everyone can though. There was even video of one of these swarms a couple of years ago and a thread here. I think it was in Russia. Even with the video, some people saw it as a structured object. There is definitely not a one to one relationship in these cases. Not everyone will misinterpret what they are seeing.
As far as this being the case of planes in formation...im having a hard time with that. Its possible but also reproducible. I haven't heard of this happening before or since....
that's you I'm just saying the law of averages says someone out of those thousands would have had a disposable camera handy. It was 1997 not 1967.
originally posted by: draknoir2
originally posted by: HorusChrist
come on folks I know it was 97 and cell phones weren't as prevalent but I know people had cameras then, no one could stop and take a pic if thousands saw it? Besides one video that shows just lights? I mean take a pic of this huge v shaped craft. Nothing? Gotta assume hoax then.
I wouldn't.
I've had a couple of sightings myself, pre-digital cams, and wasn't able to get to a camera in time. In one case I had to settle for binoculars. Even now I don't wear my phone when I'm out and about, except at concerts. I posted a photo of something I saw on a motorcycle ride home and the pic turned out crappy - iPhones make everything look miles away.
yeah human perception is not reliable which is why we can't trust alleged observers with no proof. Why couldn't just one person take a pic!!!!
originally posted by: draknoir2
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
originally posted by: draknoir2
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: JimOberg
I agree with you on your study of the fireball swarms. Human perception is not at all intuitive or as clear cut as we generally think.
I'm confident I could differentiate between the Leonids and the Goodyear blimp floating 100ft overhead, but that's just me.
I hear you. Same here. You can tell the difference between a picture of a bird and something else too....not everyone can though. There was even video of one of these swarms a couple of years ago and a thread here. I think it was in Russia. Even with the video, some people saw it as a structured object. There is definitely not a one to one relationship in these cases. Not everyone will misinterpret what they are seeing.
As far as this being the case of planes in formation...im having a hard time with that. Its possible but also reproducible. I haven't heard of this happening before or since....
Seems that people read what they want me to be saying instead of what I am actually saying. Perhaps human perception is that wildly unreliable after all. [Not referring to your post]
Yes, as I stated some people were doing just that in the Phoenix lights case, but not all accounts could be so simply explained this way without convenient assertions about the perceptual limitation of witnesses ["story doesn't fit so they saw what I say they saw"]. Somehow that provoked a challenge to explain an unrelated case in Kiev. [ignoratio elenchi]
Yes, as I stated some people were doing just that in the Phoenix lights case, but not all accounts could be so simply explained this way without convenient assertions about the perceptual limitation of witnesses ["story doesn't fit so they saw what I say they saw"]
originally posted by: HorusChrist
that's you I'm just saying the law of averages says someone out of those thousands would have had a disposable camera handy. It was 1997 not 1967.
originally posted by: draknoir2
originally posted by: HorusChrist
come on folks I know it was 97 and cell phones weren't as prevalent but I know people had cameras then, no one could stop and take a pic if thousands saw it? Besides one video that shows just lights? I mean take a pic of this huge v shaped craft. Nothing? Gotta assume hoax then.
I wouldn't.
I've had a couple of sightings myself, pre-digital cams, and wasn't able to get to a camera in time. In one case I had to settle for binoculars. Even now I don't wear my phone when I'm out and about, except at concerts. I posted a photo of something I saw on a motorcycle ride home and the pic turned out crappy - iPhones make everything look miles away.
originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: draknoir2
Yes, as I stated some people were doing just that in the Phoenix lights case, but not all accounts could be so simply explained this way without convenient assertions about the perceptual limitation of witnesses ["story doesn't fit so they saw what I say they saw"]
Definitely a pitfall. Can't say because it happens sometimes that it happens every time. I think the best anyone can do in this case is say that its possible it was planes and I don't think its unreasonable to reject the planes as an explanation either.
I don't think the answer is limited to planes, though they are part of the answer.
I think there were at least two, and perhaps three distinct things being witnessed.
originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: fleabit
Still with the Black Project skepticism, I see. You're consistent.
In this particular case, assuming all of the testimony was on the up and up, that would be my go to explanation. Way better fit than ETH. And as for flying a stealth craft out in the open, what better opportunity to test its effectiveness or engage in social/psychological experimentation?
originally posted by: JimOberg
Think about how a swarm of bright lights at night can be perceived under special circumstances -- what is the data trying to tell us, stop telling the data what it should be saying. Or imagining it has nothing to say for insight into this classic event.
It is in Close Encounter cases [sightings at close range, under favorable visibility conditions] that we come to grips with the 'misperception' hypothesis of UFO reports... [I]t becomes virtually untenable in the case of the Close Encounter. Accepted logical limits of misperception are in these cases exceeded by so great a margin that one must assume that the observers either truly had the experience as reported or were bereft of their reason and senses.... Do we then have a phenomenon in which several people suffer temporary insanity at a given instant but at no other time before or after? If so, we have to deal with a new dimension of the UFO phenomenon. But the DATA of the problem -- the subject of this book -- would remain unaltered. Simply, the problem of their generation would need to be attacked from another direction.
No scientist who examines the subject objectively can claim for long that UFOs are solely the products of simple misidentification of normal objects and events.
originally posted by: _BoneZ_
originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
in the very place of credible witnesses
I stopped reading right there. Witnesses are never credible. EVER. Unless they have corroborating evidence to support their claims.