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.
In the O'Hare case we have this, i.e., ~instant ~vertical acceleration from hovering to high velocity, and even leaving physical evidence of that maneuver in the form of a neatly vaporized column of cloud cover (i.e., a "hole punched in the clouds"). Not only can no publicly known aircraft do this, but no publicly known object of any kind can do this.
EyesOpenMouthShut
What if the lack of evidence for Bigfoot is because they pilot UFOs. :O
i know right, mind screw.
ZetaRediculian
reply to post by MaximRecoil
In the O'Hare case we have this, i.e., ~instant ~vertical acceleration from hovering to high velocity, and even leaving physical evidence of that maneuver in the form of a neatly vaporized column of cloud cover (i.e., a "hole punched in the clouds"). Not only can no publicly known aircraft do this, but no publicly known object of any kind can do this.
What we have is the perception of "~instant ~vertical acceleration" and the memory of that perception. There just is no way to determine if did or didn't actually happen.
Then there is the argument that it wasn't seen on radar as "evidence" that it wasn't actually there. But we do know that stealth exists and that radars might not pick up hyper dimensional crafts since we don't know what they are made of.
I am not a meteorologist or anything but holes do appear in clouds I think.
LogicalRazor
There is a big difference between witnessing an accident that involves known/every day technology, & unidentified & poorly understood phenomenon that is solely relying on flawed human perception. Not the same.
Even traffic accidents have conflicting stories because people often see what they want or what they think they saw.
Opening post does not change anything.
Human witness testimony cannot be relied on
and in the absence of ANY other proof, it is not proof enough of anything.
Motion is one of the most fundamental, basic, and simple elements of an event possible. Even critters can detect and visually follow motion. Detection of motion is so basic and fundamental to survival that it is on an instinctive level, even among humans.
Not sharp-edged circular holes in total cloud cover that appear ~instantly, the moment of appearance perfectly coinciding with several reports of a disc-shaped object matching the size of the hole blasting through the cloud cover like a bat out of hell.
Please demonstrate
This blanket claim is demonstrably false.
For example, how did you learn to write? You witnessed someone draw or otherwise show you the letter "A", and you copied it down, and so on.
neoholographic
reply to post by JimOberg
..When you have eyewitness accounts from high ranking Government officials, Police Officers, Astronauts, Pilots and more talking about human levitation and Elvis sightings then I suggest you start a thread about these things and go over the evidence...
MaximRecoil
...Motion is one of the most fundamental, basic, and simple elements of an event possible. Even critters can detect and visually follow motion. Detection of motion is so basic and fundamental to survival that it is on an instinctive level, even among humans.
.....
ZetaRediculian
Sort of. The part you are missing is that perception of movement is probably one of the most common optical illusions and probably the most likely to occur naturally.
Most likely this does have its roots in basic survival instincts. Continuity is a pretty basic concept. It is basically how our brains tend to group things to make a complete picture. With movement, we see this illusion every day and is easy to demonstrate.
If I throw a ball, my dog will see its movement and chase it. When the ball goes behind something, he still "sees" the continuity of the movement of the ball and knows exactly where it will end up. Pretty cool.
My robot cant do this primarily because Im a sucky programmer and have no idea how to program "continuity" of movement like this. It can chase a ball fairly well until it cant see it. So we are easily fooled into thinking things are moving when there is no actual movement. Its a side effect of a very basic survival skill.
Well. Unfortunately there is no way to confirm any of that. And I think there was only one witness that described this?
5.2 Historical Background. Although the multiple eyewitness accounts of this HIC (hole in clouds) may be unusual,
they are not unprecedented. Reports of this odd manifestation have been associated with UAP sightings
as far back as 1947, and as far afield as Newfoundland, England and Scotland.
Eyewitness
Atomic, it "tore off" out of there extremely quickly, and did indeed punch a hole in the clouds. It left at a slight angle, slightly easterly.
link
We cannot identify the object or
phenomenon lying inside the oblate spheroid surface, but two conclusions seem inescapable: 1) the
object or phenomenon observed would have to have been something objectively and externally real to
create the HIC effect; and, 2) the HIC phenomenon associated with this object cannot be explained by
either conventional weather phenomena or conventional aerospace craft, whether acknowledged or
unacknowledged.
ZetaRediculian
reply to post by MaximRecoil
Please demonstrate
This blanket claim is demonstrably false.
As a society we function because we evolved to do so, not because we are good at witnessing things.
In fact we suck at it so bad that we need to write everything down and take pictures. That's why cameras are all the rage.
To LEARN something requires repetition and practice and correction and an occasional back hand.
Tell me how long you need to "witness" this before you learn it. Five minutes? an hour?
JimOberg
MaximRecoil
...Motion is one of the most fundamental, basic, and simple elements of an event possible. Even critters can detect and visually follow motion. Detection of motion is so basic and fundamental to survival that it is on an instinctive level, even among humans.
.....
Unless you have developed new senses, I cannot think of any way you or any other human can detect line-of-sight motion more than 30-40 feet from you [the limit of binocular convergence]. Beyond that, line-of-sight motion is interpreted based on object variation in brightness, angular size, fuzziness, or some other visual feature which LOOKS like, or masquerades AS, line-of-sight motion.
And orthogonal angular motion, especially in the absence of a horizon in the field of view, is also notoriously subject to misinterpretation unless your brain has a built-in gyroscope [semi-circular ear canals won’t hack it]. If you really think human-perceived motions of this type are FACTS rather than mental GUESSES, you really need to go back and read up on standard perception limits.edit on 28-3-2014 by JimOberg because: punctuation...
JimOberg
neoholographic
reply to post by JimOberg
..When you have eyewitness accounts from high ranking Government officials, Police Officers, Astronauts, Pilots and more talking about human levitation and Elvis sightings then I suggest you start a thread about these things and go over the evidence...
You're on. Name me one 'UFO sighting by an astronaut' you would stake your reputation as a reasonable human and good investgator on.
Tell me how long you need to "witness" this before you learn it:
So basically, your explanations are as follows:
1. Hovering gray metallic disc-shaped craft = illusion
2. ~Instantaneous vertical/east acceleration to high velocity = illusion
3. HIC = illusion
Is that right? Three very clever illusions back-to-back; Mother Nature needs to take that show on the road.
Either way, you haven't established grounds for reasonable doubt; you've just continued to throw things at the wall hoping something will stick.
Someone reports a cat stuck up in a tree. The fire department shows up and indeed there is a cat stuck up in a tree. Eyewitness report confirmed. Blanket "eyewitness testimony is unreliable" statement demonstrated to be false.
ZetaRediculian
I honestly find it quite odd that people get so bent out of shape just by talking about perception and the way people misperceive. I am not trying to establish grounds for reasonable doubt. That's your game that you think I am playing. I am encouraging people to not be ignorant when they talk about perception. Specific to this case, I am looking at possibilities. If it applies, it applies if it doesn't it doesn't. Why would you discourage an open discussion about this?
You are missing it. In sports psychology, its called "visualization". We "see" motion very effectively all the time without there being motion. It happens quite often in nature. All you need is fragments of information and your brain translates it automatically as a complete picture. Its quite impressive actually. And tis is EXACTLY what is happening in the examples you provided.
Do you realize how impossible most sports would be if nature was constantly playing motion-illusionist? People swinging wildly at a baseball that hasn't even been thrown, people trying to catch passes that haven't been thrown, goalies in hockey and soccer would go nuts, and so on.
And I have yet to learn my lesson. I also find it odd that when I bang my head up against a wall, it hurts. Pretty much every time. Is that supposed to happen?
What's so odd about someone getting defensive when their deeply held beliefs are questioned? Happens all the time.
And yes, I know the story behind this, but regardless of that