Corbell promises big reveal at 12 noon PST

originally posted by: mirageman
Are you trying to compare the evidence that points to alien visitation with that of murder convictions here?

There are differences of course. Typically eyewitnesses are asked to identify a suspect, while in UFO cases they are trying to identify an unknown flying object which pilots have difficulty with as Hynek noted. It's not exactly the same thing, obviosuly.

However, the common thread between those, is that eyewitness accounts are unreliable in both cases:
Eyewitness Testimony

Despite the frequency of use, we have been confronted as a country with many incredible failures of eyewitness testimony such as misidentifications that led to convictions and sentences of people who were later discovered innocent.1 Science has played no small role: post-conviction DNA profiling made possible by the development of the polymerase chain reaction, which enables amplification of crime-scene DNA to quantities sufficient for forensic analysis have meant that DNA identification is becoming increasingly used even in cases where it was previously not viable: those where we have smaller samples.2 As of now, almost 350 people, many serving long prison sentences, have been exonerated because their own DNA was discovered to be incompatible with evidence long ago collected from the crime scene. Many more sit in prisons who have not had the opportunity to have their cases re-investigated or samples re-tested. In about 70% of these cases, misidentification by one or more eyewitnesses contributed significantly as evidence for conviction.

Because of evidence like that, it's probably impossible to get a conviction for a serious crime these days based solely on eyewitness testimony. Some more reliable kind of evidence is needed.

Here's a general with 20 years flying experience, looking at a video of a airplane contrail, saying he is absolutely sure it's not an airplane or airplane contrail. But it is an airplane, that made an airplane contrail. If he's not reliable, nobody is. He's not reliable, nobody is. On the other hand, he and other pilots are probably skilled at identifying other known aircraft, if they can recognize the aircraft. It's things they can't recognize that they have problems with.

1:50 "I am absolutely certain that is not an aircraft"

The general is wrong, it's an aircraft. (Flight UPS902 to be specific).

In another case, the pilot rules out satellite re-entry because he's seen one before and the UFO didn't look like that. His mistake is assuming all satellite entries look the same, they don't. It was another satellite re-entry, and the pilots were telling accounts like they thought the UFO was "formating" on the pilot's aircraft. It wasn't "formating" on the pilot's aircraft, it was just space junk coming down. Reminds me of Fravor's testimony about how he thought the UFO was reacting to him. Maybe he thought that, and maybe like the other pilot who thought that, he's mistaken about that part of his account.

Pilot misperceptions

"That same night, a colleague of the captain, in another BA aircraft, reported two 'very bright, mystifying lights' while flying over the North Sea. Two days later, an RAF Tornado pilot told the captain that on the same evening (5th November) his Tornado -- while flying with another squadron aircraft, had been 'approached by bright lights'. The lights, he reported, 'formated on the Tornadoes'. (This expression 'formate' is apparently used to indicate a deliberate intent)

"The accompanying Tornado pilot was so convinced that they were on collision course with the lights (apparently nine of them were seen) that he 'broke away' and took 'violent evasive action'. This same pilot later added that he thought he was heading directly for a C5 Galaxy, a giant US transport plane. The formation of UFOs carried 'straight on course and shot off ahead at speed -- they were nearly supersonic. Some C5!', he said, indicating that they were going faster than the speed a C5 can achieve.

"The pilot known to Paul Whitehead commented, 'This is all a good true story, and could do with an explanation. All the pilots are adamant that what they had seen was definitely not satellite debris -- and they should know,'"

It was satellite debris.

Hynek's assessment of the accuracy of "UFO reports" from pilots appears to be right on target. It is not meant as an insult to their intelligence, integrity, or professional competence. It does, however, reflect the training their minds have gotten from years of flight experience.

I think everyone here has valid points. Some people are over excitable (Guilty as charged) others are steadfast to the point of annoyance.."Have you read your Bible lately son??" : : And some are in the middle.

Either way, we can have this awesome discussion as it is, until the "report" come out..

Then the discussion is refreshed.

It's hard to believe the higher ups at the Navy, tasked with protecting our oceans, shorelines, airspace, and responsible for millions of dollars of equipment, including airplanes, would be so ignorant in identifying an aircraft flying overhead. That's frightening actually. The strobing lights alone point to aircraft. The only thing odd with the video is the triangular shape. Viewing the object through a camera is seeing another generation of what's actually there. The Navy or Pentagon would recognize this and the possibility of an optical answer.

The video that has been shown explains all this. If it was genuinely unidentified by staff experts, their positions need to be reevaluated. Researching something that might cause the camera to film objects as it zooms in a triangular shape should have been part of their investigation. We have a "layman", in comparison to supposed Navy and Pentagon experts, show the reason: a triangle shaped iris. This isn't just an opinion blurted out, it's something backed up with video showing with the shape and examples of how it would look. Has the Navy or Pentagon even been shown this video? A grounded, logical explanation.

I don't know this because I don't follow him, but Corbell seems to be priming people for one of his documentaries. He has a stake in this. With Corbells history being frowned on by many for not producing hard nose information, it doesn't make sense the Navy would be connected with him. Unless the Navy has other ideas as posted in one of the YouTube videos.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

It's hard to believe the higher ups at the Navy, tasked with protecting our oceans, shorelines, airspace, and responsible for millions of dollars of equipment, including airplanes, would be so ignorant in identifying an aircraft flying overhead.

What if they're actually doing their jobs perfectly? I think they are.
It's just that people are uncomfortable with thinking about philosophies that aren't conducive to their own train of thought..
Unidentified.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Surely this is true, many times no doubt.

But every single time? Its not possible.

Your assertion requires thousands of people being consistently incompetent. Mine requires one thing: that some of these vehicles exhibiting capabilities beyond our understanding are indeed made by someone other than a human being. Even if 1/100000 represents this reality, my supposition holds true.

Yours requires 100000/100000

I suspect far more represent ETI.

We should be cognizant that the June report will be a mixed report.

The mandate bottom line is truly the bottom line:

Source page 12 www.congress.gov...

The report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex

Unclassified form = transparency for general public consumption

Classified annex = non-transparency secrecy will continue for those who have a need to know

Those two words Classified Annex is stating in plain English ... the mandate includes business as usual for classified information. Same MO but re-packaged for the MR “process”.

Perhaps, I’ll be surprised in the June report, if not delayed, as MR stated as a possibility.

NOTE: the word “may” will change to ‘will’ ....the moment any of the listed agencies say...”we can’t release this as unclassified”

originally posted by: Blue Shift

Some people just ignore it when the pictures don't match the stories. Why?

Welcome to the internet.

Sadly what you said can be applied to most things involving humans. Feels just seem to be more important to fact these days. (Maybe not these days but looking at the history of mankind it's been like this forever.)

I like my beliefs to be challenged, even disproven. I'd rather be bummed out that what I thought is proven to be not true, than look like an idiot because I am running around spouting obvious nonsense.

I sometimes think it is unintentional though and many humans live in some kind of bubble or have some hard wired mental filters that make it literally impossible to see anything other than what they want to see. Reality to be damned.

Might be a good thing as I think if the average humans had to actually face reality and take in the 'bigger picture' the world would be a lot more awful than it currently is.

The Universe is much too big for some folks if you know what I mean?

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge
a reply to: canucks555

Yes he gets on my nerves sure. He is after all the one pushing certain topics that he wants us to take his word for. My problem is people wildly believing anything they are told. Even when shown a ton of evidence.
Alls i hear basically is "because corbell said so". Work it out for yourself, check the facts.
I dont dislike the man because he's making money off the subject, its wrong of you to presume that.
I dislike him for reasons which are quite clear

Its like me being shown video, photographic and data evidence which disprove the events, yet i'd rather believe the story im being told because its more exciting..
He just happens to be the one telling it

I wonder what Corbell would say to the pyramid video showing why the object was triangular shape. I would expect a defensive argument with all the promotion he's done. It's admitting he was wrong which is hard for some people. I can see him being one of these people. It's a fragile ego.

I still believe this is a lead up to a documentary he's creating. He's invested in these videos/photos showing UFOs/UAPs. He's going to fight for them to be real. That's understandable, but for others to strongly follow with this same mentality, if not for their jollies to stir the pot or a stake in Corbell, it has to be something deep seeded.

Curious.....has the pyramid UFO over the pentagon video from 2018 been debunked or still unknown?


YouTube vid to dark.....however the vid was brightened up and viewable here:

www.newsflare.com...

a reply to: JBurns

Bro let's give it up, take our ball, and go home.

8 out of 10 of these "skeptics" could shake hands with an ET and they will still scream."DISINFO! PSYOP!"

It's now clear to me arguing with them is going to be fruitless.

Let them believe that entire carrier fleets, pilots, pentagon chain of command, and AATIP/UAPTF which has dedicated scientists and technicians specifically for this with access to Classified data and tools...

Are all completely wrong, or that this is all DISINFO/psyop stuff.

It's comical. If they aren't convinced now, they won't be even when ET shows up on their doorstep.

a reply to: Lucidparadox

To be fair, I think ATS incudes the whole spectrum, but the ones who are most vocal tend to be situated on each of their respective barricades. I'm not sure trying to convert anyone here is the right approach. I'm trying my best to remain in the middle, but right now I'm leaning more and more towards genuine excitement. Either side can't prove #e, so can't really judge anyone for picking a side, regardless of which it is.

One thing is for sure, there's lots going on in the world right now. UAP's is yet another ingredient that's stirring in the worlds pot.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Surely this is true, many times no doubt.

But every single time? Its not possible.

Your assertion requires thousands of people being consistently incompetent. Mine requires one thing: that some of these vehicles exhibiting capabilities beyond our understanding are indeed made by someone other than a human being. Even if 1/100000 represents this reality, my supposition holds true.

Yours requires 100000/100000

I suspect far more represent ETI.

Incompetent is a bit of a misnomer. Our brains try to make sense of things we are unfamiliar with. We don't know what we don't know and pop culture can influence what people think they see.It doesn't mean someone else, who wasn't there with more data, information or knowledge than was available to the original witness can't explain things.

The Norway Spiral in 2009 was something that probably would have been a huge UFO mystery back in the days of the Cold War.



After initial reports of the strange sight it was solved fairly rapidly as a failed missile test.

Citing 100000 cases isn't proof because currently, the evidence adds up to zero.

What we need is better evidence.

originally posted by: mirageman

originally posted by: PokeyJoe
a reply to: zazzafrazz

I see….so WTF is it gonna take to convince this guy that something is happening then?

Something is happening.

But not necessarily what people think is happening.

You mean it's potentially a load of old spherical objects?

Assuming we discard all other alternative explanations in the usual Sherlock Holmes fashion, I think I'll wait until prominent News Headlines across the world are screaming from the rooftops about such a momentous and historical event.

Rather than mid-life-crisis-fueled chin-forest hipsters and their tarnished mentors.

To paraphrase 'An American Werewolf In London' (1981):



"I'm sure that if an alien spaceship really IS roaming the skies and crashing into oceans, we'd have seen it on the telly."

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo
The Universe is much too big for some folks if you know what I mean?

Yeah. And when it comes to UFOs, I find that people have a shocking lack of imagination. The things they come up with for potential explanations are so often simple and mundane -- and this includes their visualization of aliens, UFOs, propulsion methods, and so on.

I will be profoundly disappointed, if the UFO thing turns out just to be physical alien creatures that maybe look a little like us coming from planets that are kind of like ours in metal ships powered by forces we are familiar with and doing things that when explained seem reasonably motivated by our human standards. Or course it would still be astounding, but a part of me would have to wonder why out of all the things it could have been, why this? Why not something truly mind-blowing and bordering on incomprehensible? That to me seems more appropriate.

(I've been haunting UFO discussion groups since I found Usenet through my local college BBS in 1988.)

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
8 out of 10 of these "skeptics" could shake hands with an ET and they will still scream."DISINFO! PSYOP!"
[...]
It's comical. If they aren't convinced now, they won't be even when ET shows up on their doorstep.

Yeah, people sometimes say this. But it has never happened. When / if it does, let us know and we can accurately test your hypothesis. If you want to go all in on incomplete and questionable information, that's up to you.

It's fun to hypothesize and speculate. I wouldn't make it into a religion, though.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Surely this is true, many times no doubt.

But every single time? Its not possible.

Your assertion requires thousands of people being consistently incompetent. Mine requires one thing: that some of these vehicles exhibiting capabilities beyond our understanding are indeed made by someone other than a human being.

The thing is, people have smart phones everywhere and take pictures and videos of all kinds of unexpected things that were never documented in the past, when not everyone had cameras. Yet, where is a single reliable video that's not fake of what you describe, "vehicles exhibiting capabilities beyond our understanding"? Chad Underwood claims he made such a video, but shows an optical illusion, I don't know of any other. So we have zero photographic evidence of what you describe. Certainly the boring descending sphere in the topic of this thread doesn't seem to exhibit any capabilities beyond our understanding. And this is the same thing we see over and over in UFO videos, nothing close to what you describe.

So all that's left of "vehicles exhibiting capabilities beyond our understanding" is unreliable eyewitness testimony. Even though pilots have a huge misperception rate, even the most reliable class of observers still has 50% misperception rate of UFOs.

Yours requires 100000/100000

My criterion is actually the scientific community criterion, and now a criterion even used in courts since eyewitness testimony is so unreliable, and that is we need something better than eyewitness testimony, like photos, or video. OK we have video of a sphere descending very slowly into the ocean, and other boring videos of UFOs, but they do not show "vehicles exhibiting capabilities beyond our understanding".

30 eyewitnesses or 100000 eyewitnesses telling us stories doesn't get us anywhere. Hynek tried to make the claim that multiple eyewitnesses having a close encounter of a UFO must indicate a reliable event. But, that's not the case as this example and many others show, which Hynek didn't realize at the time he wrote that in his book.



Those 30 people certainly saw something, but, their descriptions were almost all so far off as to make it nearly impossible if not completely impossible to determine what they actually saw, from their descriptions alone. Some descriptions were more accurate than others, but for example, 30 out of 30 were nowhere close to being accurate on their distance estimates. It wasn't even a close encounter as the witnesses thought.

Usually there's no way to accurately estimate the distance to an unknown flying object and I wouldn't be surprised if nearly all of the eyewitness UFO distance estimates were incorrect (if someone got it correct it was just a lucky guess because accurate distance estimates to unknown objects are usually not possible). At least in the Gofast video, there was a rangefinder to show the distance to the UFO which turns out to be an extremely important and valuable piece of information. It's an example of why we need videos or better evidence than eyewitness accounts, because some people are fooled by that "gofast" optical illusion too.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
8 out of 10 of these "skeptics" could shake hands with an ET and they will still scream."DISINFO! PSYOP!"
[...]
It's comical. If they aren't convinced now, they won't be even when ET shows up on their doorstep.

Yeah, people sometimes say this. But it has never happened. When / if it does, let us know and we can accurately test your hypothesis. If you want to go all in on incomplete and questionable information, that's up to you.

It's fun to hypothesize and speculate. I wouldn't make it into a religion, though.

That exactly what im trying to communicate that the debunkers are doing.

Theyre proclaiming balloon, and foreign tech, based on video evidence alone, without taking in the information Knapp and Corbell reported regarding the personnel that recorded the footage. Theyre discarding it because they dont trust Knapp and Corbell for some reason, even though they keep delivering us facts.

Maybe the declassified videos are declassified because they don't show anything immediately "Alien"?
All the classified stuff "Could" be undeniably alien to us and so not released.
Look at all the gun camera footage that's never released.
As Spooky Pope said in the ATS debate, these can't be released because of copyright etc.

While reading 'ufo case book' I have noticed a common pattern when witnesses discribe UFO depart. The object on the ground has to get til some ultitude before accelerating away.
They seem to always jump up using 'normal' propulsion and then being just gone withing split second? Does their thechnology work only when a bit off the surface?

originally posted by: Encounter
While reading 'ufo case book' I have noticed a common pattern when witnesses discribe UFO depart. The object on the ground has to get til some ultitude before accelerating away.
They seem to always jump up using 'normal' propulsion and then being just gone withing split second? Does their thechnology work only when a bit off the surface?

Of the many possible theories.....This technical science paper (also downloadable PDF) may have information you can extrapolate that might answer semi-partially, partially, or fully give you a theoretical maybe. I have not read it in detail...just skimmed. You’ll probably know in the first five minutes...if it’s looking like what your seeking. Also, the Roswell newspaper picture is not correct as far as I have seen, nevertheless, Good luck.

A Scientific Study of the Unidentified Flying Objects in accordance with Anti- Gravity

www.researchgate.net... _Anti-_Gravity/links/5f59b61f92851c07895866b1/A-Scientific-Study-of-the-Unidentified-Flying-Objects-in-accordance-with-Anti-Gravity.pdf?origin=publica tion_detail