Satellite Reentries -- One Possible Source of 'Mothership UFO' reports?

a reply to: scrounger

but the facts could lead to such a conclusion..

The facts being eyewitness reports of something in the sky?

You must know that eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable. Especially when it comes to unusual phenomena.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: scrounger

but the facts could lead to such a conclusion..

The facts being eyewitness reports of something in the sky?

You must know that eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable. Especially when it comes to unusual phenomena.

um no it depends on the "eye witnesses"

say a teenager seeing something in the sky vs a retired air force combat pilot.

i noticed in UFO debates the "credible" part of witnesses has been dropped and (as you just did) lump all witnesses in same category..

very Orwellian of you i must say


scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

say a teenager seeing something in the sky vs a retired air force combat pilot.

When it comes to something neither had seen before, neither one. If they say "spaceship" as opposed to "cool!" See, that's were a mindset comes into play. Our minds tend to fill in the blanks. Fact.

originally posted by: scrounger
say a teenager seeing something in the sky vs a retired air force combat pilot.

i noticed in UFO debates the "credible" part of witnesses has been dropped and (as you just did) lump all witnesses in same category..

If you want I can post a video of a United States General saying what he saw was not a plane and he's absolutely certain of it based on his decades of experience as a pilot. You sound like you would believe him.
I did, and I now admit I was wrong to believe him, because he was wrong, it WAS a plane. So I don't know how much higher we can set the bar for so-called credibility than that.

Now when I hear someone say they have a "credible" witness, maybe it means they have some kind of reputation and they're not a nut, but that's about it, it doesn't mean that they are right or not completely mistaken. They could be right, but I can't assume that any more after believing that general who was completely wrong when he said he was absolutely certain it was not a plane, and who would know what a plane should look like better than a general with decades of flying experience?

Your "appeal to authority" or appeal to credibility argument is especially troubling in the Rendlesham Forest incident with respect to Lt Col Halt.

First, you can prove him wrong about the direction of the lighthouse being southeast yourself using a map and his own audiotape which I assume you've been too lazy to do since you keep hammering this "credibility" think instead of arguing the facts like the actual direction of the lighthouse.

But the second and larger problem your argument leads to is that Halt's superior, the base commander, Ted Conrad was listening to Halt's radio transmissions and he and others were looking at the sky trying to confirm what Halt said he was seeing (Things in the sky shooting beams down at the base). Conrad was a higher ranking officer and if you're basing higher credibility on higher rank you would have to go with his story and he contradicts Halt. So you seem to really be confused about how to even apply your "credibility" argument if you're saying you believe Halt over his superior, Ted Conrad.

a reply to: scrounger

"say a teenager seeing something in the sky vs a retired air force combat pilot."

The teenager, or the little old lady in tennis shoes, will consistently provide the more accurate raw description. The pilot will perceive the apparition in the most potentially dangerous manifestation. It's why he lived so long.

Leslie Kean claimed [and still believes] that UFOs exhibit signs of intelligence by behaving aggressively when encountering military pilots, but passively when encountering civilian pilots. A more common sense explanation is that pilots preferentially report random visual stimuli to behave the way they are TRAINED to expect.


Several years ago, I described the ‘questionable foundation’ of Leslie Kean’s book as the naïve and unverified faith in pilot reports. She has insisted the UFOs show intelligent purpose based on their perception of the nature of their witnesses, since they are reported to behave differently when seen by military pilots than when seen by civilian pilots [when the more common-sense explanation is that different pilots report observations in terms of what they expect from their own different experience bases]. The data archives she touts as ‘unexplainable’ pilot sightings [such as the French ‘Weinstein Report’] can easily be shown to contain numerous pilot misinterpretations of unrecognized space and missile activity around the world, so who knows how many other prosaic explanations were never found by the ‘investigators’? See here:

web.archive.org...:/www.nbcnews.com/id/38852385

a reply to: scrounger

I find it so amazing the mental gymnastics done in debates like this to show it COULD NEVER BE a device/ship/ect from another planet/time/ dimension.

Who is saying it could never be something ET? The problem is with the lack of evidence of ET. The starting point is not proving this was not ET.

..to the point (as in this discussion) that somehow people trained and prepare to defend NUCLEAR WEAPONS would suddenly go off the rails (as it were) and for TWO DAYS completely forget a lighthouse that was there oh for decades and more....that they "forget" the terrain , "forget" objective reasoning and security proccedures.

Who is saying anyone 'went off the rails' as it were, or forgot the lighthouse?

John Burroughs witness statement confirms they saw the lighthouse at the end of investigations on the first night!!

....Once we reached the farmer’s house we could see a beacon going around, so we went toward it. We followed it for about 2 miles before we could see it was coming from a lighthouse....

I am not sure how many times I have to mention it. But the USAF personnel were assigned to bases at Bentwaters and Woodbridge. Rendlesham Forest is an adjoining but separate area of dense woods in UK sovereign territory. Navigating on foot through such an area in the dark was not part of USAF police duties. Plus they would be required to notify UK authorities about any such movement under the Status of Forces Agreement. The witnesses were not familiar with the forest

..that after reviewing their OWN TAPE that they missed "light pulsing seems to match a lighthouse"

They obviously did. It wasn't the only level of incompetency displayed. However the lighthouse plays a only a part in the story. You seem to be dwelling on it because you aren't really aware of the full details of this case.

...again military people DO make mistakes..but for two days and in direct defiance of their mission, training, ect?
not
.

Their mission was protect the assets on the airbase. If there was any threat to them then why was no alert called?

If we are saying personnel make mistakes then Halt made a huge one. He claimed in an official memo to a foreign government that the incident, which happened on the 26th Dec 1980, occurred a day later.

...Early in the morning of 27 Dec 80 (approximately 0300L) two USAF security police patrolmen saw unusual lights outside the back gate at RAF Woodbridge...

Later Halt says

“The following night (29 Dec 80) the area was checked for radiation”

He isn’t even consistent within his own memo. The following night would have to have been the 28th December (or even the 27th Dec 1980 as that followed the day of the 27th!).

This was an official letter from a USAF Lt. Colonel to the UK Ministry of Defence!!! So would say that this is either incompetency on Halt's part or wilful obfuscation for some other reason. It can also be proven that other witness Penniston and Warren have lied about various parts of their stories.

There are numerous other USAF personnel like Lt. Chandler, Lt. Buran, Armold and Col. Conrad whose story is one of unusual lights seen in the woods, investigated and reported back as of no real consequence.

How dare these decorated, brave, American servicemen's claims of much ado about nothing be questioned and accused of idiocy by the 'star names' of the UFOtainment circuit and lazy ET believers !!!

Rocket and spaceflight activity have provided very sobering calibration experiments on accuracy of perception.

For example:

MISSILE FREAK-OUT IN CALIFORNIA [NOV 7, 2015]
satobs.org...

Nov 07, 2015 Trident SLBM launch off California
satobs.org...


Observations of the SpaceX launch on October 7, 2018:
satobs.org...

Public misinterpretations of the SpaceX launch on October 7, 2018:
satobs.org...