UFO Testimonies By Cosmonauts and Astronauts and U.S. Presidents

EnPassant

Nothing more than a hallucination? The medical profession, in its wisdom and reductive materialism, would have us believe that hallucinations are purely in the mind but there may be an external reality behind them. I once read a report on out of body experiments where the subjects were seeing beings and the experimenter came to the conclusion the what the subjects were seeing was real. The OBE enables the mind to see the astral plane? Sometimes abductees say that when the abduction begins they feel that they are in two places at the same time, as if they are leaving their bodies and the brain is seeing physical reality while the mind is on another level.

Are referring to this?

Unable to explain away the volunteers' experiences, he concluded that these were genuine encounters with independent sentient beings in otherwise normally invisible dimensions.

www.realitysandwich.com...

This suggests that OBEs and abductions are similar experiences. So,even the pilots may be seeing real things

That is an excellent point. There may be more going on here then we can possibly understand right now.

It truly is hard for me to get my head around the "real" part but I often use the Strassman study I referenced to link the phenomenon so I have to accept the conclusion as valid to make my point. Although there are different viewpoints namely from James Kent,

Complexity breeds all kinds of weird #, and the human brain is the most complex system on the planet.

www.tripzine.com... it is quite the conundrum.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Yes Strassman is the one I was thinking about. He and Kent have opposite views so we are left with deciding what views the evidence supports. This is what Randles tries to do and I am very much, but not entirely, in agreement with her ideas.

This is quite an interesting thread and I'd just like to make a quick point. I think each case needs to be looked at individually it's no good just saying sweeping statements about hallucinations. Hallucinations are actually quite rare, I've never had one. And amphetamines usually don't cause them. Hallucinogenic drugs like L S D can cause them but usually a person who does not have mental illness causing visual or auditory hallucinations requires powerful drugs like L S D and even then you still may not hallucinate. Extreme fatigue can sometimes cause them but not always.
A person with no mental illness cannot be assumed to hallucinate, unless a plausible reason why can be demonstrated or it can be shown that they are clearly hallucinating. I think pilots or astronauts hallucinating would be a very serious safety concern and if found to be the case they would be grounded pending full med and psych evaluation. Also if two people see and describe the same thing are they both hallucinating the same thing? This seems unlikely. Mass media warping people's perception through hallucination is also ridiculous outside of mental illness. They can make you want to buy stuff but not too sure about complete visual hallucination, unless you're schizophrenic.

JimTSpock
This is quite an interesting thread and I'd just like to make a quick point. I think each case needs to be looked at individually it's no good just saying sweeping statements about hallucinations. Hallucinations are actually quite rare, I've never had one. And amphetamines usually don't cause them. Hallucinogenic drugs like L S D can cause them but usually a person who does not have mental illness causing visual or auditory hallucinations requires powerful drugs like L S D and even then you still may not hallucinate. Extreme fatigue can sometimes cause them but not always.
A person with no mental illness cannot be assumed to hallucinate, unless a plausible reason why can be demonstrated or it can be shown that they are clearly hallucinating. I think pilots or astronauts hallucinating would be a very serious safety concern and if found to be the case they would be grounded pending full med and psych evaluation. Also if two people see and describe the same thing are they both hallucinating the same thing? This seems unlikely. Mass media warping people's perception through hallucination is also ridiculous outside of mental illness. They can make you want to buy stuff but not too sure about complete visual hallucination, unless you're schizophrenic.

edit on 15-9-2013 by JimTSpock because: (no reason given)

Sane people do hallucinate en.wikipedia.org...
But it really depends on where you define a "hallucination". It's basically a perception of something that isn't there in the outside world but experienced as it is. So that opens up a wide spectrum of phenomenon including ilussury contours. In this case two people can and do see the same "hallucination". This effect can be enhanced by amphetamine or adrenaline.

The point about amphetimine is that that it resembles Norepinephrine or adrenaline which does lead to perceptial distortions

The most common experience during tachypsychia is the feeling that time has either increased or slowed down, brought on by the increased brain activity cause by epinephrine, or the severe decrease in brain activity caused by the "catecholamine washout" occurring after the event.
It is common for an individual experiencing tachypsychia to have serious misinterpretations of their surroundings during the events, through a combination of their altered perception of time, as well as transient partial color blindness and tunnel vision. After the irregularly high levels of adrenaline consumed during sympathetic nervous system activation, an individual may display signs and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and it is common for the person to display extreme emotional lability and fatigue, regardless of their actual physical exertion.

I think pilots or astronauts hallucinating would be a very serious safety concern and if found to be the case they would be grounded pending full med and psych evaluation

It is actually a concern because of g-loc. apparently pilots frequently experience excessive g force which leads lo loss of conciousness or g-loc. I imagine losing consciousness is more of a concern than mispercieving something or even hallucinating. during g-loc:

It is possible to classify the G-LOC episodes. The G-LOC experience includes specific visual symptoms (tunnel vision through blackout), convulsive activity, memory alterations, dreamlets, and other psychological symptoms. The major, overall G-LOC experience characteristics that have commonality with NDEs are shown below.

Tunnel vision / bright light
Floating
Automatic movement
Autoscopy
Out-of-body experience
Not wanting to be disturbed
Paralysis
Vivid dreamlets / beautiful places
a. Euphoria
b. Dissociation
Pleasurable
Psychologic state alteration
Friends / family inclusion
Prior memories / thoughts inclusion
Very memorable (when remembered)
Confabulation
Strong urge to understand

www.near-death.com...

The content of someone's experience can never be understood so its impossible to say what happend in any given encounter. I don't offer ANY explanation for any pilot encounter but I do like to displel the misconceptions about perceptions and hallucinations and what is possible. I have hallucinated and its probably not what you think it's like.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Some interesting points you make there Zeta. G-LOC or gravity induced loss of consciousness is a normal part of a fighter pilots life. The F-16 can pull a 9g turn which is a force 9 times normal gravity, this is about the limit for human pilots. Blood drains from the pilots head resulting in tunnel vision and then blackout or complete loss of consciousness. This is something pilots try to avoid but many crashes have been caused by it. Then there is redout which is negative g or pushing forward on the stick. Blood goes to the head and it's even worse you can only take about 3g. Hallucinating aerial objects while in flight is not a normal part of a pilots life. And we are talking about something very specific, hallucinating an aerial object outside the aircraft. This could possibly explain some cases but not all.

JimTSpock
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

Some interesting points you make there Zeta. G-LOC or gravity induced loss of consciousness is a normal part of a fighter pilots life. The F-16 can pull a 9g turn which is a force 9 times normal gravity, this is about the limit for human pilots. Blood drains from the pilots head resulting in tunnel vision and then blackout or complete loss of consciousness. This is something pilots try to avoid but many crashes have been caused by it. Then there is redout which is negative g or pushing forward on the stick. Blood goes to the head and it's even worse you can only take about 3g. Hallucinating aerial objects while in flight is not a normal part of a pilots life. And we are talking about something very specific, hallucinating an aerial object outside the aircraft. This could possibly explain some cases but not all.

Thanks. I don't pretend to know what a pilot would or would not see. I have know idea if g-loc can be blamed for any sighting but it does shine some light on what they experience. I really cant imagine what 9g feels like. I also agree that a full blown spontaneous hallucination can not explain much of anything and nor do I suggest that.

What we do have is some evidence that an unfamiliar event like a reentry event can be misidentified as something, well, not familiar...as Jim Oberg has pointed out. "hallucination" is a strong word but may be accurate in a sense but in a more subtle category like "illusory contour" or similar phenomenon. Are there other types of similar natural phenomenon that occur?

radar cases ARE tricky but I don't think its impossible to come up with an alternate earthly scenario that could fit an event. That being said, it doesn't PROVE anything and would argue the point with anyone who says they have it all figured out and dismissed as "just a hallucination" or whatever. its impossible to prove.

Personally, I don't think there is strong enough evidence to favor the ETH. Some people do or may have a "gut feeling".

anyway, I just saw the latest Star Trek flick and thought it was pretty decent.

So we are left with the SEEDS being planted of "hallucinations", "misconceptions" and that there is no evidence to support a ET hypothesis but are being made to stay in a purgatory state of awareness when it comes to those UFO cases that offer no natural, hallucination or known explanations by not only the high strangeness data, multiple witnesses and radar back up hits..., yet the ET hypothesis as one of a possible origins is rejected...?? you could not make this up, really , no concrete evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is no ET intelligence's out there with the required technological capabilities to be on a observational agenda with us and our planet..., When there is radar back up and multiple witnesses its not tricky, its real stimuli independent and verified , its proof that pilots are not suffering from hallucinations ect,..

There is another very important reality with regards to unknowns entering countries restricted air spaces and it is very often over looked or not even included by those who have an agenda to crush any credible possibility of the ET hypothesis as having a credible foundation and as one of a number of alternative explanations, its the issue that is required by law of every plane, commercial and private air craft needing to be fitted with a "transponder".

Now when we have UFO cases not only involving multiple radar back up hits,multiple witnesses,scrambled fighter jets sent up to engage or investigate these radar and witness unknowns with no standard or recognizable "transponder" signal being received from the unknown is it a credible perspective to suggest that this unknown know enters the next stage of "explanatory" explanations..ie.

1; Secret military technology
2; Occult ,(extra dimensional origins manifesting in our dimension).
3; ET technology..


Now why do those who reject any ET possibilities for such UFO cases do so with no real evidence to support the justification of why the ET hypothesis should not be included in the above three possible origins, why would one go to such lengths to try and implant that ALL such "high strangeness" UFO cases are hallucinations ect from a their perspective of NOT only not looking at the hundred's of cases with the required high strangeness data like described above but not providing any real concrete evidence of these cases to show BEYOND reasonable doubt that hallucinations ect are a credible explanation for these cases...

It might look very impressive and clever to put out hallucination explanations but when they do not take into account the reality of these glaring realities like radar hits, multiple witness witnessing these radar hits
and then air base commanders giving direct orders to scramble fighter jets to engage these unknowns because of radar hits, multiple witness witnessing these radar hit unknowns who at the same time have NO,(by law from the FAA), standard or recognizable identification "responder" or "transmitter" signals emitting from them,, now in what reasonable, credible and acceptable way are these UFO cases that contain all of the above scenarios are not in any credible position to have a possible ET origin..., these cases are not only manifesting evidence of real unknowns but unknowns that are NOT corresponding or showing signs of recognizable objects by the sheer lack of standard or recognizable identification "responder" or "transmitter" signals emitting from them...

Were or when does one have a reasonable and credible "cut off" point when we admit that all of the above scenarios are pointing to intelligent controlled unknowns not only entering various countries air spaces resulting in scrambled air force fighter jets engaging or investigating them and then these unknowns not emitting recognizable ,standard and by law "responder" or "transmitter" signals?????

That the ET hypothesis is as every bit as plausible and possible as the other possible explanations i have gave in this post is to me without doubt a very real one, because when one looks deep enough, like those cases from Blue Book that were later termed "Blue books unknowns",(not for lack of data i my add but because of the amount of data of high strangeness), then one starts to see and perceive of those cases that do not correspond to the hallucination explanations as real and credible in the defense of the ET hypothesis..

When an unknown detected by radar and has multiple witnesses and fighter jets scrambled to investigated it ,it is done so because the below information regarding "responder" or "transmitter" signals is also not being adhered to and is violating not only restricted air space but the law too, were does that leave the rejection of the POSSIBILITY of the ET hypothesis along side the secret military explanation and the occult one too, it leaves in in a more credible position

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that all airplanes and other aircraft must be equipped with a transponder. A transponder is a radar beacon system that allows air traffic control to identify aircraft. The word "transponder" is a combination of the words "transmitter" and "responder" which indicates its use. The FAA maintains different requirements for different types of aircraft and for different airspace designations.

Operation;
A transponder operates by rebroadcasting a signal it receives. It receives a signal -- called an "interrogation" -- and then transmits that signal back after analyzing the request for information. The transponder receives the signal on its "interrogator," its reception component. The signal goes through a frequency converter and the transponder then automatically transmits back a radio wave at a preprogrammed frequency. This way of operating allows the transponder to receive and transmit signals at the same time.

Codes;
Transponders operate using codes in the format of a sequence of pulses. These codes are referred to as "interrogation modes." The different modes identify the type of aircraft by its purpose. Mode 1 provides two-digit, five-bit mission code and is only for military use. Mode 2 provides a four-digit octal unit code and is also only for military use, particularly for jet fighters. Mode 3/A provides a four-digit octal identification code that is assigned by the air-traffic controller and is for military and civilian use. Both Mode 4 and Mode 5 use cryptic codes and are for military use. Mode 4 provides a three-pulse reply to crypto-coded "interrogations," and Mode 5 provides a cryptographically secured version of Mode S.

Supplemental Modes;
A transponder code can be combined with pressure-altitude information provided by Mode C. Like Mode 3A, C can be used to help air-traffic controllers identify aircraft and maintain distance. Mode S is designed for automatic collision avoidance without the assistance of air-traffic control. It is often required in controlled airspace around the world. Mode S transponders are compatible with Modes A and Mode C and are designed for automatic collision avoidance.

Airspace Designations;
The FAA classifies airspace by the letters A, B, C, D, E and G, each of which has its own rules for aircraft entering the particular space. For example, aircraft entering any airspace designated A, B or C must have a Mode 3/A transponder.

link; www.ehow.com...

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

Now why do those who reject any ET possibilities for such UFO cases do so with no real evidence to support the justification of why the ET hypothesis should not be included in the above three possible origins, why would one go to such lengths to try and implant that ALL such "high strangeness" UFO cases are hallucinations ect from a their perspective of NOT only not looking at the hundred's of cases with the required high strangeness data like described above but not providing any real concrete evidence of these cases to show BEYOND reasonable doubt that hallucinations ect are a credible explanation for these cases...

The question is why go to such lengths in favor of ETH when there is no real evidence to support it? It's interesting and you can speculate but you can't do anything with the "hundreds" or even "millions" of reports. "High strange" means what exactly? How do you measure that? The mass collection of stories doesn't add up to anything except a mass collection of stories. You are free to explore that as you wish but there is no real data there. I read the Bluebook report and that's what you have. You are looking to positively identify an unknown with an unknown. It doesn't compute.

its the issue that is required by law of every plane, commercial and private air craft needing to be fitted with a "transponder

Yes that rules out commercial and private aircraft. But isn't the moto of the US black ops "we don't need no stinkin transponders"?

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

 

Now why do those who reject any ET possibilities for such UFO cases do so with no real evidence to support the justification of why the ET hypothesis should not be included in the above three possible origins, why would one go to such lengths to try and implant that ALL such "high strangeness" UFO cases are hallucinations ect from a their perspective of NOT only not looking at the hundred's of cases with the required high strangeness data like described above but not providing any real concrete evidence of these cases to show BEYOND reasonable doubt that hallucinations ect are a credible explanation for these cases...

The question is why go to such lengths in favor of ETH when there is no real evidence to support it? It's interesting and you can speculate but you can't do anything with the "hundreds" or even "millions" of reports. "High strange" means what exactly? How do you measure that? The mass collection of stories doesn't add up to anything except a mass collection of stories. You are free to explore that as you wish but there is no real data there. I read the Bluebook report and that's what you have. You are looking to positively identify an unknown with an unknown. It doesn't compute.

its the issue that is required by law of every plane, commercial and private air craft needing to be fitted with a "transponder

Yes that rules out commercial and private aircraft. But isn't the moto of the US black ops "we don't need no stinkin transponders"?

edit on 16-9-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

No the real reason is why you go to such lengths to reject the ET hypothesis when you have zero evidence to support such a notion, you tried and failed to pass of ALL fighter pilot cases as merely hallucinations then back tracked when i pointed out the fact that you forgot to included those cases that contain radar returns and multiple witnesses.

You now are showing just what you really know about UFO cases that contain high strangeness cases by your incredible refusal to actually look at them in any real attention span, your lack of a coherent argument that actually address the actual CONTENT of the data of these kind of cases is just plain staggering and is now bordering on arrogance that you know better than the actual witnesses or what the radar returns were showing , i could cite radar case after another backed up with independent witnesses as well as pilot witnesses but you would reject it without any real attention to the actual data that is manifesting as high strangeness ...

You have attacked the perception of high strangeness data AGAIN without really paying any real attention to what that high strangeness data includes, you are trying ,(like you tried with ALL pilot cases), to make out that ALL high strangeness data is just a collection of stories with no real coherent pattern, you fail to included high strangeness data such as "flight characteristics" , sudden acceleration , stop , vertical climb rates, out passing of fighter jets, speeds reached by unknowns , outwith of any known, acceptable or recognizable aircraft speeds be they military or commercial...

There is high strangeness data that deserves attention , not just passed of as you say as just a bunch of stories, that in its self is one arrogant attitude to have and proves just how little you have looked at those cases that contain such data.. i would reiterate my point that i am just glad that you are no where near any respectable position or in any decision making when it comes to the air defense of my country...



You have now cited and in some way admitted that one of the possible explanations for high strangeness cases is secret back ops;(how did you come to citing secret back ops if as you say ALL high strangeness data is just a bunch of incoherent stories), as not needing a transponder which is a radar beacon system that allows air traffic control to identify aircraft but at the same time continue to rule the ET hypothesis out for those unknowns not admitting any recognizable "transponder" signals without any justifiable evidence to do so ..

As long as there is no evidence either produced by you or those so much more qualified than you in the scientific fields of astronomy and astro physics and even quantum mechanics to disprove the possibility of ET intelligence's out there having the technological capabilities to be engaging in some sort of observation agenda the ET hypothesis remains as one of the possibilities of those high strangeness cases that are by the data they contain so much more than a bunch of incoherent stories.

Your suggestion that there is no evidence in ANY UFO cases deemed unsolvable ,due not to the lack of data they contain but rather the amount of high strangeness data they contain for the ET hypothesis to be a plausible explanation or origin is borne out of someone not paying any real attention to such cases as the one i will cite below..

You have also stated that you personally think ,out of nothing more than personal speculation and not from any credible scientific position or investigation that ALL radar cases can be explained by some natural or known origins even when those more qualified , experience and in much better positions or privy to sensitive information regarding some radar cases have FAILED to come to any real coherent natural or known explanations for a number of radar cases, lets see you explanations that would prove beyond all doubt a natural or known explanation for cases like the radar case below

5. Case 39. Port Huron, Mich., July 29, 1952

Many of the radar cases for which sighting details are accessible date back to 1953 and preceding years. After 1953, official policies were changed, and it is not easy to secure good information on subsequent cases in most instances. A radar case in which both ground-radar and airborne-radar contact were involved occurred at about 9:40 p.m. CST on 7/29/52 (Refs. 4, 5, 7, 10, 25).

From the official case summary (Ref. 7) one finds that the unknown was first detected by GGI radar at an Aircraft Control and Warning station in Michigan, and one of three F-94s doing intercept exercises nearby was vectored over towards it. It was initially coming in out of the north (Ref. 5, 25), at a speed put at over 600 mph. As the F-94 was observed on the GCI scope to approach the unknown, the latter suddenly executed a 180° turn, and headed back north. The F-94 was by then up to 21,000 ft., and the pilot spotted a brilliant multicolored light just as his radarman got a contact. The F-94 followed on a pursuit course for 20 minutes (Ref. 7) but could never close with the unknown as its continued on its northbound course. At the time of first radar lockon, the F-94 was 20 miles west of Pt. Huron, Mich. The GCI scope revealed the unknown to be changing speed erratically, and at one stage it was moving at a speed of over 14000 mph, according to Menze...

Many other cases might be cited where UFOs have appeared on radar under conditions where no acceptable conventional explanation exists. Ref. 7 has a number of them. Hall (Ref. 10) lias about 60 instances in which both radar and visual sightings were involved. A December 19, 1964 case at Pa
files.ncas.org...

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

No the real reason is why you go to such lengths to reject the ET hypothesis when you have zero evidence to support such a notion, you tried and failed to pass of ALL fighter pilot cases as merely hallucinations then back tracked when i pointed out the fact that you forgot to included those cases that contain radar returns and multiple witnesses.

I already addressed the radar cases. So what did you think of the JAL alaska link? That's a very good radar case with multiple witnesses. With loads of actual documentation. Correct? How many times have you ignored this?

Backtracking my ass!

That is the kind of documentation that is needed for such cases. Unless I am missing something, this type of information is not included in any of the radar cases you reference. It's impossible to determine anything from the information contained in something like the Cometa report.

And lets be clear. "ALL" is your word. I'm trying to sift through the garbage to find something significant. You just pile on the garbage. More garbage just makes a bigger pile of garbage. Understanding the "data" is key. Your dataset is meaningless.

Being in IT, I do that for a living. You can't determine a cause of something without solid data. It doesnt matter if 1 user or 500 users report that an application doesn't work. I need details. If I can't get specifics, I can't solve the issue. I can't blame unknown entities causing the problems but sometimes that is what it looks like. It's painstaking and tedious at times.

So you throwing at me that their are 5000 highly strange radar cases is absolutely useless.

I feel it is merited that this particular radar case that has three different and independent radar returns from two CAA radars and one military radar at USAF Andrews base, taking into account that three independent radar locations one USAF confirmed these objects we can safely rule out any human mental hallucinations and misconceptions ect... There is a reasonable on the record historical radar returned cases that cannot be attributed to misconceptions from pilots, radar malfunctions or known atmospheric conditions...

That nature of the high strangeness data contained in such cases is indicating that the high strangeness data itself that is or has manifested in such cases is so much more than incoherent stories that add nothing to the conclusions that have been the primary reasons for the DETECTION of the high strangeness data , data that is inconclusive as to determine any kind of UNDERSTANDING of the high strangeness conclusions reached always start or manifest with a primary source that is determined "unknown" due to not a lack of coherent data to form the foundations of what determines high strangeness data but rather to what science can determine or understand in any given moment of its current or present understandings.... this is to me the primary reason why we cannot afford to reject the ET hypothesis ,not because of a bias towards the ET hypothesis but out of the very nature of the high strangeness data that is showing that there are objects that have technological capabilities well advanced than what we currently have..

That the argument put forward that one cannot judge or reach any finale conclusions based on the primary "high strangeness" data to that which is in its self unknown is only true when that data is lacking any real coherent understanding even from a primitive source, lets say we know an object can travel at a certain speed , stop and accelerate at what science tells us at any given time in our current climate of scientific understandings , then something comes along and blows that current understanding out of the water, we are now left with an understanding that what we thought as possible has been made to look as not the only possibility when it comes to rates of speed and accelerations.. we can judge but in a limited way that is the difference, there is always a frame of KNOWN REFERENCE.. to perceive stimuli that is on a more advanced stage of evolution..

I will cite yet again such a "high strangeness" case .. the ET hypothesis is just to serious to not include as one of the possible explanations fir such cases below, why, because the stakes are just to high not only fir our own perceptions of our self's but for science too..

4. Case 38. Washington, D.C., July 19, 1952

By far the most famous single radar-visual sighting on record is the one which occurred late in the evening of July 19, and early on July 20, 1962, in the vicinity of Washington, D.C. (Refs. 2, 4, 5, 10, 24, 25). A curiously similar incident occurred just one week later. The official explanation centered around atmospheric effects on radar and light-propagation. Just before midnight on July 19/20, CAA radar showed a number of unidentified targets which varied in speed (up to about 800 mph) in a manner inconsistent with conventional aircraft A number of experienced CAA radarmen observed these returns, and, at one juncture, compatible returns were being received not only at the ARTC radar but also on the ARS radar in a separate location at Washington National Airport, and on still a third radar at Andrews AFB. Concurrently, both ground and airborne observers saw unidentifiable lights in locations matching those of the blips on the ground radar.

Discussion. -- I have interviewed five of the CAA personnel involved in this case and four of the commercial airline pilots involved, I have checked the radiosonde data against well-known radar propagation relations, and I have studied the CAA report subsequently published on this event Only an extremely lengthy discussion would suffice to present the serious objections to the official explanation that this complex sighting was a result of anomalous radar propagation and refractive anomalies of the mirage type. The refractive index gradient, even after making allowance for instrument lag, was far too low for "ducting" or "trapping" to occur; and, still more significant, the angular elevations of the visually observed unknowns lay far too high for radar-dueling under even the most extreme conditions that have ever been observed in the atmosphere. Some of the pilots, directed by ground radar to look for any airborne objects, saw them at altitudes well above their own flight altitudes, and these objects were maneuvering in wholly unconventional manner. One crew saw one of the unknown luminous objects shoot straight up, and simultaneously the object's return disappeared from the ARTC scope being watched by the CAA radar operators.

The official suggestion that the same weak (1.7° C) low-level "inversion" that was blamed for the radar ducting could produce miraging effects was quantitatively absurd, even if one overlooks the airline-pilot sightings and deals only with the reported ground-visual sightings. From the CAA radar operators I interviewed, as well as from the pilots I talked to about this case, I got the impression that the propagation-anomaly hypothesis struck them as quite out of the question, then and now. In fact, CAA senior controller Harry G. Barnes, who told me that the scope returns from the unknowns.

"were not diffuse, shapeless blobs such as one gets from ground returns under anomalous propagation"

but were strong, bright pips, said that

"anomalous propagation never entered our heads as an explanation."

Howard S. Conklin, who, like Barnes, is still with FAA, was in the control tower that night, operating an entirely independent radar (short-range ARS radar). He told me that what impressed him about the sighting that night was that they were in radio communication with airlines crewmen who saw unidentified lights in the air in the same area as unknowns were showing up on his tower radar, while simultaneously he and Joseph Zacko were viewing the lights themselves from the tower at the D.C. Airport James M. Ritchey, who was at the ARTC radar with

link; files.ncas.org...

So trying not to sound like a "repeater" or even "dogmatic" the glaring reality here is that we we have unknowns entering or leaving countries restricted air spaces and these unknowns are backed up by multiple independent CAA and military radars , multiple witnesses and also investigated by scrambled air force fighter pilots whose radars again confirm these unknowns and that these unknowns being attributed to the possibility of a ET origin remains possible, the same possibility attributed to the secret black ops; and occult possibilities.. why should the ET hypothesis not be included?? why ?? ...because there is no real credible rebuttals or evidence to show its NOT POSSIBLE and no one has ever provided indisputable scientific evidence to prove that there are no ET intelligence's out there with the required technological capabilities to not only get here but to remain in a highly stealth observational mode of operations by the sheer advanced technological and even occult capabilities they have, could they also be highly advanced in a spiritual way to, why not , materialization and de-materialization from one dimension to another is a primary reality of the occult and could be behind the abductions, Dr Mack touched upon this...


So we have high strangeness unknowns entering or materializing and in some cases de-materialization in countries restricted air spaces and not complying to any of the below text...

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that all airplanes and other aircraft must be equipped with a transponder. A transponder is a radar beacon system that allows air traffic control to identify aircraft. The word "transponder" is a combination of the words "transmitter" and "responder" which indicates its use. The FAA maintains different requirements for different types of aircraft and for different airspace designations.

link; www.ehow.com...


So secret stealth back ops;, occult based interdenominational intelligence's or ET intelligence's, what ever they are there is the primary high strangeness data in cases that are not just an incoherent mixture of just stories they are in fact pointing to the possibilities of the three main named alternative sources ..... secret stealth back ops;, occult based interdenominational intelligence's or ET intelligence's.....

edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT


I know the case. So where are the documents regarding this or do I just have to take someone's word that everything is accurate?

It may be the best case in the world but I can't tell from this type of report. It's still useless and the JAL flight over Alaska was most likely due to a cloud so that means there was combo radar hit and misperception. Why would the planes radar return be consistant with a cloud? Alien metal of course!

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
I came across project Palladium which is interesting.
I have no idea what to make of this yet.

What happened in 1952 over Washington, D.C.?

The first incident took place early one morning in July. It was reported extensively in the newspapers that a number of unknown objects appeared on radar screens around Washington. Now, it looks very plausible to me that the Washington incident was a demonstration of a technology from the Defense Department, known as Project Palladium, which allowed the operator to project radar blips onto other radar screens. Later on, the technology became very sophisticated to the point where you could change the shape of the blip and its speed and so forth. We go on in the book at length about the evidence that suggests that the Washington radar incident was a planned operation.

www.usnews.com...

Is this true? Why is this info being kept from from me?

reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

That nature of the high strangeness data contained in such cases is indicating that the high strangeness data itself that is or has manifested in such cases is so much more than incoherent stories that add nothing to the conclusions that have been the primary reasons for the DETECTION of the high strangeness data , data that is inconclusive as to determine any kind of UNDERSTANDING of the high strangeness conclusions reached always start or manifest with a primary source that is determined "unknown" due to not a lack of coherent data to form the foundations of what determines high strangeness data but rather to what science can determine or understand in any given moment of its current or present understandings.... this is to me the primary reason why we cannot afford to reject the ET hypothesis ,not because of a bias towards the ET hypothesis but out of the very nature of the high strangeness data that is showing that there are objects that have technological capabilities well advanced than what we currently have..

I read this several times and I honestly can not come up with an argument against it. I think you answered all my questions with just this one sentence. I think you are right. I am forced to reevaluate my position at this point.

That nature of the high strangeness data contained in such cases is indicating that the high strangeness data itself that is or has manifested in such cases is so much more than incoherent stories that add nothing to the conclusions that have been the primary reasons for the DETECTION of the high strangeness data , data that is inconclusive as to determine any kind of UNDERSTANDING of the high strangeness conclusions reached always start or manifest with a primary source that is determined "unknown" due to not a lack of coherent data to form the foundations of what determines high strangeness data but rather to what science can determine or understand in any given moment of its current or present understandings.... this is to me the primary reason why we cannot afford to reject the ET hypothesis ,not because of a bias towards the ET hypothesis but out of the very nature of the high strangeness data that is showing that there are objects that have technological capabilities well advanced than what we currently have..

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

 

That nature of the high strangeness data contained in such cases is indicating that the high strangeness data itself that is or has manifested in such cases is so much more than incoherent stories that add nothing to the conclusions that have been the primary reasons for the DETECTION of the high strangeness data , data that is inconclusive as to determine any kind of UNDERSTANDING of the high strangeness conclusions reached always start or manifest with a primary source that is determined "unknown" due to not a lack of coherent data to form the foundations of what determines high strangeness data but rather to what science can determine or understand in any given moment of its current or present understandings.... this is to me the primary reason why we cannot afford to reject the ET hypothesis ,not because of a bias towards the ET hypothesis but out of the very nature of the high strangeness data that is showing that there are objects that have technological capabilities well advanced than what we currently have..

I read this several times and I honestly can not come up with an argument against it. I think you answered all my questions with just this one sentence. I think you are right. I am forced to reevaluate my position at this point.

Huh.

All I got out of it was "High Strangeness Data".

I guess one would have to accept "ETH" as a valid scientific hypothesis in the first place to apply this label to what amount to simple uncorrelated observations and then present them as evidence of a purely speculative, "highly strange" postulate.

ZetaRediculian
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT

I read this several times and I honestly can not come up with an argument against it. I think you answered all my questions with just this one sentence. I think you are right. I am forced to reevaluate my position at this point.

Huh.

All I got out of it was "High Strangeness Data".

I guess one would have to accept "ETH" as a valid scientific hypothesis in the first place to apply this label to what amount to simple uncorrelated observations and then present them as evidence of a purely speculative, "highly strange" postulate.

That IS strange. But what makes it highly strange is that is highly strange. Whats even stranger is that it's said in one sentence. Read it again and again while breathing into a paper bag real fast. It gets even stranger.