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 siting for example, "United Airlines employees, ranging from pilots to supervisors" saw a "metallic, saucer-shaped craft hovering over Gate C-17" which then rapidly accelerated vertically, punching a hole in the clouds in the process.
Wrong, this case does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You have many other witnesses with an entire profession relying upon visually directing air traffic safely, that looked in the exact same area and saw nothing. These are the exact type of people that believers frequently point out are "trained observers"... yet, they saw nothing. You have conflicting reports by multiple witnesses. That puts into question what exactly was seen. So, it's not a slam dunk- "This was a UFO, end of story" incident.
This sighting alone proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there exists or existed at least one metallic, saucer-shaped craft on Earth which is capable of hovering and rapid vertical acceleration.
draknoir2
Get in the way of what, accurately eyeballing speeds of that magnitude? Unless the pilot happens to be Steve Austin that's all it is - a guess, and the greater the speed the less likely it is to be an accurate one.
tanka418
draknoir2
Get in the way of what, accurately eyeballing speeds of that magnitude? Unless the pilot happens to be Steve Austin that's all it is - a guess, and the greater the speed the less likely it is to be an accurate one.
Yes, of course its a guess! What else could it be? BUT! What would you do? Ignore any such data simply you don't believe an accurate value can be arrived at?
You are aware that almost everyone can infer a velocity. for most of us that value we get won't be very accurate; we don't normally experience speeds in excess of around 60 mph.
A pilot, even a "low level" one experiences speeds greater than 100mph, routinely! The bigger the aircraft, the more speed the pilot experiences. These folks have very good ideas of what these higher velocities "look like", and are therefore capable of rendering a relatively accurate estimate. If you doubt this, go "test" one at random.
The whole point is; this velocity is relevant to the event, and leaving it out because you are too afraid to make an estimate is irresponsible data analysis. By the way; a responsible witness would hesitate to give any actual "value" to the "observed speed", and would characterize it with some other descriptive method. What One should come away with in the present case is that the velocity was far to great for terrestrial technology.
Ectoplasm8
reply to post by MaximRecoil
Another reason this isn't a case of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the fact that the witnesses description of the object varies. For example, one witness said the object was no more than 6 to 10 feet across, while another said 22 feet. With your car crash analogy, that's equivalent to a witness saying they saw a 12 foot Mini Cooper and another saying it was 30+ foot limousine. Someone else claimed it was the size of a quarter at arms length which came out to roughly 88 feet across. Another aircraft taxi mechanic said he looked up at it for 30 seconds and dismissed it as a bird and walked away. One said it was "spinning pretty fast" while another said it was completely motionless.
My points above and previously point out to you why this is not a case "beyond a reasonable doubt". Your car crash analogy does not apply to this incident.