73 replies to this topic

[quillius]

bmk1245, on 13 February 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

Yes, since you do insist pilot's sighting was corroborated by radar data, and by other pilot.

well not exactly, I insist that you cannot dismiss neither based on what we have. To date we have the statement by the controller where he conmfirms the RADAR hit. Ok we dont have the hard data nor do we have a voice recording of 'other' witness, does that mean they dont exist!??

bmk1245, on 13 February 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

Did I said nothing happened?

well you at least say it was in the mind as opposed to physical so yes to an extent you deny there was anything physically seen. Apologies if I have this wrong.

bmk1245, on 13 February 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

Yeah, thats true, but what the hell with "instant denial" then?

ok maybe it was harsh. So I will retract the 'instant denial' accusation, with apologies

bmk1245, on 13 February 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

Yes, its possible (if you mean pilot saw nuts-and-bolts aircrafts, radar detected nuts-and-bolts aircrafts, and the second pilot saw nuts-and-bolts aircrafts), only its very far from the top on my list.

no i mean that something was there as opposed to figmant of imagination. nuts and bolts is pushing the ET slant again is it not.

bmk1245, on 13 February 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

It would be flying all around, and as I said in my very first post "Too many unknowns".

why would it....logical fallacy I believe....no hard data presented here or to be found on net with basic search does not equal it doesnt exist. And yes too many unknowns but investigations could potentially unravel.

bmk1245, on 13 February 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

The only fact about this case - it is solid mess. And no, with plasma I wouldn't go either (although it would be higher on the list).
BTW, what most likely explanation would be the number one on your list? Let me guess, again, your answer will be "Its truly unidentified", while in your thoughts "What else if not ET?". Am I wrong?

I cant put forward an explanation without more facts (and /or hard data )
as for my thoughts being what else apart from Et......      is that what you really think that my thought process is?

bmk1245, on 13 February 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

Thats why UFOlogy is on the same page with woo-woo stuff.

??? this reponse to my post is misunderstood I believe.

quillius, on 13 February 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

Quote

[...]
I do appreciate though that if we do claim ET that makes life far easier does it not?

what I am saying here is that if someone introduces ET as the answer that makes debunking easy doesnt it ? it goes like this:

person a) I think its ET

person prove ET exists with scientific evidence

a) I cant

haha case closed..

then these participants leave the ride and new people hop on for the merry go round to start again...

[tipotep]

bmk1245, on 13 February 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

Sigh...

Just two quotes:
(Human Performance and Limitations in Aviation, R.D. Campbell and M. Bagshaw, Blackwell Science, 3^rd ed, 2002; note bolded part)

and

(link; note bolded part)

* SIGH *

So now you are saying that the pilot could have been suffering due to lack of oxygen ? I don’t recall seeing that in any of the reports ? Personal opinion is it ? Don’t suppose you can provide a source to back this assumption , medical records of the pilot ?

Quote

That was hand of God, case closed. God is omnipotent, and his deeds doesn't require to be questioned. No assumptions, nor speculations, just blind belief.

What ? Best you go and read up on what it really means My link

Quote

And ETH in this case is most likely explanation? First of all, there is absolutely nothing to support sighting of the second pilot, whatsoever. None, zip, nada, zilch. Secondly, controllers might had seen false returns, intermittent signals, which had nothing to do with alleged UFO. But hey, if you have hard data, not just everchanging story, then bring it on.

You assume way too much , It is an explanation of what could have happened but certainly not the only one .

All right lets look at this from another angle , If you can prove that the pilot was hallucinating due to high altitude or that the radar (s) were both faulty and the second pilot didn't exist how about you bring it ?

TiP.

[quillius]

Hypoxia.....

couple of questions for you BMK....

- what severity of Hypoxia do you think is required before the symptoms can include hallucinations?
- how long do the effects last?


If mild, then Hallucinations I dont think can be included in the symptoms, if moderate to severe where hallucinations are possible....could he land the plane within 45 minutes of experiencing the hallucinations?

also what do you think the SP02 was at?

I have read that 80% or higher (mild) = upto 16500ft

[bmk1245]

Ok, quill and TiP, I'm short on time, so I'll return later. Few points just for now:

1) references to hypoxia could be found in interview given to Ana Luisa Cid, Skylook;

2) no, I'm not an expert in medicine, nor physiology, nor psychology;

3) while I couldn't find (takes time) any cases with hallucinations at altitudes of 4-5km, but here is some interesting account

Quote

During the
1933 Everest expedition, Smythe gave a dramatic
description of a hallucination when he saw pulsating
cloud-like objects in the sky (Ruttledge 1933).
Smythe also reported a strong feeling that he was
accompanied by a second person; he even divided
food to give half to his non-existent companion.

(High Altitude Medicine and Physiology, John B. West et al, Hodder Arnold, 2007; although, nor altitude, nor time of experience are not specified, but most likely there was prolonged exposure);

4) human body is quite complex machinery, so strangest things can happen.

[quillius]

bmk1245, on 14 February 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

Ok, quill and TiP, I'm short on time, so I'll return later. Few points just for now:

no worries...time is a limited commodity

bmk1245, on 14 February 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

1) references to hypoxia could be found in interview given to Ana Luisa Cid, Skylook;

references yes, anything saying thats what happened..no (also note that the statement made by controller mentions composure whilst 'hallucination/sighting' was occuring) not easily acheived whilst Hypoxia kicking in...unless very mild....if mild = no hallucination possible.
note: these work well in the equations mentioned a few days ago  

bmk1245, on 14 February 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

2) no, I'm not an expert in medicine, nor physiology, nor psychology;

then we shouldnt be putting it forward as a viable answer.

bmk1245, on 14 February 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

3) while I couldn't find (takes time) any cases with hallucinations at altitudes of 4-5km, but here is some interesting account

(High Altitude Medicine and Physiology, John B. West et al, Hodder Arnold, 2007; although, nor altitude, nor time of experience are not specified, but most likely there was prolonged exposure);

prolonged exposure also increases the recovery time, however its an apple oranges comparison. Another csae you will find difficulty in finding is Hypoxia induced hallucinations followed by a swift recovery with the ability to land a plane and pass a medical examination

bmk1245, on 14 February 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

4) human body is quite complex machinery, so strangest things can happen.

it is indeed, although symptoms dependant on severity of hypoxia are apparently quite consistant.

[bmk1245]

tipotep, on 14 February 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

* SIGH *

So now you are saying that the pilot could have been suffering due to lack of oxygen ? I don’t recall seeing that in any of the reports ?[...]

I think I answered this question in my previous (to this one) post.

tipotep, on 14 February 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

[...] Personal opinion is it ? Don’t suppose you can provide a source to back this assumption , medical records of the pilot ?[...]

Not my personal opinion, but someone did brought hypoxia as one of the explanations to pilot's experience. Maybe it was suggested by medical staff, who examined pilot after incident, maybe other pilots, I simply don't know.

tipotep, on 14 February 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

[...] What ? Best you go and read up on what it really means My link [...]

But thats exactly my point: explanation "god's hand" does not require assumptions, nor speculations - it simply is.

tipotep, on 14 February 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

[...] You assume way too much , It is an explanation of what could have happened but certainly not the only one .[...]

Did I said thats the only one possible explanation? BTW, do, for example, ET explanation requires less assumption than human fallibility, which is proven fact.

tipotep, on 14 February 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

[...] All right lets look at this from another angle , If you can prove that the pilot was hallucinating due to high altitude or that the radar (s) were both faulty and the second pilot didn't exist how about you bring it ?
[...]

Well, it can't be proven otherwise, isn't it? (About hallucinations bit later)
BTW, if you see "ghost" on your TV screen, it does not mean your TV set is faulty.

[bmk1245]

quillius, on 14 February 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

[...] - what severity of Hypoxia do you think is required before the symptoms can include hallucinations?[...]

Hallucinations were experienced by healthy (with no psychological, nor physiological problems) climbers at the altitudes as low as 3000 m, 4500 m (P.Brugger et al, Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol. 1999 Jan;12(1):67-71.). Was hypoxia only responsible for experience? No. Other stressors did played role as well.

quillius, on 14 February 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

[...]- how long do the effects last?[...]

Few minutes, although stress related may last longer. (Later about that).
Would he have been able to land airplane? Apparently, yes. Others do crash in simpler situations.

quillius, on 14 February 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

[...] also what do you think the SP02 was at?

I have read that 80% or higher (mild) = upto 16500ft

At 15000 feet would be about 85%, although it may wary.

[quillius]

bmk1245, on 21 February 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

Hallucinations were experienced by healthy (with no psychological, nor physiological problems) climbers at the altitudes as low as 3000 m, 4500 m (P.Brugger et al, Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol. 1999 Jan;12(1):67-71.). Was hypoxia only responsible for experience? No. Other stressors did played role as well.

I dont see how we can compare climbers who have 'prolonged exposure' , no supplemental oxygen and likely different temperatures. I have looked into the various types of hypoxia and the different stages and symptoms that occur at varying altitudes. Also important to note is the stages that hypoxia goes through prior to reaching the critical stage (or at least the stage at which 'useful consciousness' is dimished significantly..usually at 20kft plus)

bmk1245, on 21 February 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

Few minutes, although stress related may last longer. (Later about that).
Would he have been able to land airplane? Apparently, yes. Others do crash in simpler situations.

but to do so would mean he had not moved into the critical stage and was still in mild (possibly moderate) stage. hallucinations cannot occur at this stage and definately do not occur prior further symptoms being visiable..

bmk1245, on 21 February 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

At 15000 feet would be about 85%, although it may wary.

83-100% = mild

I have some good links for you that all indicate similar figures as I have stated regarding the severity of Hypoxia experienced, the severity is used to establish the sypmtoms that can occur at every stage.


In summary if we cant verify any additional pilots witness testimony or the RADAR hits, and all we have is the pilots testimony then I think we would still have trouble making hypoxia a viable explanation. Obviously with either of the corroborating accounts then hypoxia is a non starter anyway, therefore I conclude that the answer is unlikely to be hypoxia.

[bmk1245]

quillius, on 13 February 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

well not exactly, I insist that you cannot dismiss neither based on what we have. To date we have the statement by the controller where he conmfirms the RADAR hit. Ok we dont have the hard data nor do we have a voice recording of 'other' witness, does that mean they dont exist!??[...]

...and the confirmation varies wildly from source to source. Yes, controllers did saw return(s), but that does not mean it reflects true event that actually happened.

quillius, on 13 February 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

[...] well you at least say it was in the mind as opposed to physical so yes to an extent you deny there was anything physically seen. Apologies if I have this wrong.[...]

I don't deny it might have been physical object(s), I'm against statements it was/were physical object(s). See difference?

quillius, on 13 February 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

[...] no i mean that something was there as opposed to figmant of imagination. nuts and bolts is pushing the ET slant again is it not. [...]

And figments of imagination are less possible than other highly speculative explanations?

quillius, on 13 February 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

[...] why would it....logical fallacy I believe....no hard data presented here or to be found on net with basic search does not equal it doesnt exist. And yes too many unknowns but investigations could potentially unravel.[...]

While you are right, but it doesn't mean data survived, either.

quillius, on 13 February 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

[...]I cant put forward an explanation without more facts (and /or hard data )
as for my thoughts being what else apart from Et......      is that what you really think that my thought process is?[...]

Maybe yes, maybe no - I can't crawl into your head.

quillius, on 13 February 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

[...]??? this reponse to my post is misunderstood I believe.

quillius, on 13 February 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:



what I am saying here is that if someone introduces ET as the answer that makes debunking easy doesnt it ? it goes like this:

person a) I think its ET

person prove ET exists with scientific evidence

a) I cant

haha case closed..

then these participants leave the ride and new people hop on for the merry go round to start again...

Indeed I slightly misunderstood you, thanks for clarification.

[quillius]

bmk1245, on 22 February 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

...and the confirmation varies wildly from source to source. Yes, controllers did saw return(s), but that does not mean it reflects true event that actually happened.

indeed but they are all second hand sources, look at the document posted by Karl from the control centre..then you can have it from the horses mouth so to speak.

bmk1245, on 22 February 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

I don't deny it might have been physical object(s), I'm against statements it was/were physical object(s). See difference?

I certainly do, hence my avoiding definitive statements such as 'was/were'. Although I think defining what is accpeted as physical may be in order. I use physical in the sense that the opposite is figmant of imagination. Whther weather enduced manifestation or nuts and bolt (both I treat aas physical in this context..the context being the response to 'imagination')

bmk1245, on 22 February 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

And figments of imagination are less possible than other highly speculative explanations?

I wouldnt know as I havent seen any other speculative explanations let alone defined as 'highly speculative' (not trying to force ET in again are you? secret believer huh?)  

bmk1245, on 22 February 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

While you are right, but it doesn't mean data survived, either.

Quote

And yes too many unknowns but investigations could potentially unravel

notice I used the word 'potentially' as I agree it may not have survived or may not be accessible.

bmk1245, on 22 February 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

Maybe yes, maybe no - I can't crawl into your head.

exactly so we did you attempt to do so? (warning if you do find your way, your sanity will be in danger my friend)  

bmk1245, on 22 February 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

Indeed I slightly misunderstood you, thanks for clarification.

no probs  

[bmk1245]

quillius, on 22 February 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

I dont see how we can compare climbers who have 'prolonged exposure' , no supplemental oxygen and likely different temperatures. I have looked into the various types of hypoxia and the different stages and symptoms that occur at varying altitudes. Also important to note is the stages that hypoxia goes through prior to reaching the critical stage (or at least the stage at which 'useful consciousness' is dimished significantly..usually at 20kft plus)[...]

Do all climbers experience hallucinations at 3000m? If not, why?

quillius, on 22 February 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

[...]but to do so would mean he had not moved into the critical stage and was still in mild (possibly moderate) stage. hallucinations cannot occur at this stage and definately do not occur prior further symptoms being visiable.[...]

You seem to stuck on hypoxia only, and only, while in my post I gave a bit more than that. Can hypoxia (up to 15000 feet) alone be the cause? No data could be found. Can hypoxia plus other factors (psychological/physiological stresses) induce hallucinations? Apparently yes.

quillius, on 22 February 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

[...]I have some good links for you that all indicate similar figures as I have stated regarding the severity of Hypoxia experienced, the severity is used to establish the sypmtoms that can occur at every stage.[...]

I have plenty info as well, but again - hypoxia + other things.

quillius, on 22 February 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

[...]In summary if we cant verify any additional pilots witness testimony or the RADAR hits, and all we have is the pilots testimony then I think we would still have trouble making hypoxia a viable explanation. Obviously with either of the corroborating accounts then hypoxia is a non starter anyway, therefore I conclude that the answer is unlikely to be hypoxia.

And again - hypoxia + other things.

[quillius]

bmk1245, on 22 February 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Do all climbers experience hallucinations at 3000m? If not, why?

we both know why not, point is? and also how do you reconcile these factors in pilots? especially if you include the factors I mentioned previosuly.

http://www.anesthesi...rugger-1999.pdf

so again I ask have you any case where a pilot has suffered hallucinations at 15000ft @ under 1hour exposure (for this purpose we will assume no 'supplementary oxygen was present)

bmk1245, on 22 February 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

You seem to stuck on hypoxia only, and only, while in my post I gave a bit more than that. Can hypoxia (up to 15000 feet) alone be the cause? No data could be found. Can hypoxia plus other factors (psychological/physiological stresses) induce hallucinations? Apparently yes.

what do you mean no data found?

the questions is, can hypoxia plus the other induce hallucinations in a pilot flying at 15000ft for a short period without any other sequential symptoms being portrayed, then managing to regain composure to land the plane? I take it your answer is as above : apparently yes? can you show me anything that supports this notion?>

bmk1245, on 22 February 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

I have plenty info as well, but again - hypoxia + other things.

And again - hypoxia + other things.

see above

(maybe its time for us both to share info then...unless we want to carry on with raise, re-raise, re-re-raise...)

[bmk1245]

quillius, on 22 February 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

indeed but they are all second hand sources, look at the document posted by Karl from the control centre..then you can have it from the horses mouth so to speak.[...]

The one that says three objects? Then Diaz must be wrong in his interview, where he says object (singular).

quillius, on 22 February 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

[...]I certainly do, hence my avoiding definitive statements such as 'was/were'. Although I think defining what is accpeted as physical may be in order. I use physical in the sense that the opposite is figmant of imagination. Whther weather enduced manifestation or nuts and bolt (both I treat aas physical in this context..the context being the response to 'imagination')[...]

So, human (you know, we are physical objects, and all processes in our body are governed by the laws of physics) fallibility is off the table, yes? Why then?

quillius, on 22 February 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

I wouldnt know as I havent seen any other speculative explanations let alone defined as 'highly speculative' (not trying to force ET in again are you? secret believer huh?)   [...]

I can bet my life that most of the believers see only one explanation. BTW, you do fancy inter/extradimentional "thingies", don't you?

quillius, on 22 February 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

[...] notice I used the word 'potentially' as I agree it may not have survived or may not be accessible.[...]

Fair enough.

quillius, on 22 February 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

[...]exactly so we did you attempt to do so? (warning if you do find your way, your sanity will be in danger my friend)  
[...]

No worries, I'll survive.

[quillius]

bmk1245, on 22 February 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

The one that says three objects? Then Diaz must be wrong in his interview, where he says object (singular).

The spanish official report from the control centre...did you translate it yet?  

bmk1245, on 22 February 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

So, human (you know, we are physical objects, and all processes in our body are governed by the laws of physics) fallibility is off the table, yes? Why then?

??? If RADAR had hits and pilot witnesses something...then whos imagination are we talking about here?

bmk1245, on 22 February 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

I can bet my life that most of the believers see only one explanation. BTW, you do fancy inter/extradimentional "thingies", don't you?

really? what constitutes most? what has 'most' have to do with me? I find interdimentional 'thingies' intriguing..yes. where are the highly speculative explanations though you mention, before we get sidetracked?

bmk1245, on 22 February 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

No worries, I'll survive.

survive without damage though?

[bmk1245]

quillius, on 22 February 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

we both know why not, point is? and also how do you reconcile these factors in pilots? especially if you include the factors I mentioned previosuly.

http://www.anesthesi...rugger-1999.pdf

so again I ask have you any case where a pilot has suffered hallucinations at 15000ft @ under 1hour exposure (for this purpose we will assume no 'supplementary oxygen was present)
[...]

No, I don't have examples of "pilot has suffered hallucinations at 15000ft @ under 1hour exposure". As I already mentioned, besides hypoxia there other "things", stress in particular:

Quote

Hallucinations are generally considered to be clinical pathological phenomena. It is, however, well known that under exceptional circumstances, normal people also hallucinate, without any link to an organic or a functional psychiatric disorder...

Authors present three cases of such hallucinations. I'll bring just one

Quote

S, 18 years old, was mobilised to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and was transferred to the military psychiatric clinic before the basic training course. From his past, there was no evidence of any prominent psychopathology. His academic achievements were the most important issue for him. His parents used to over-protect him, and he grew up in a very protected environment where he did not have to demonstrate his virility or his independence. He was preoccupied with doubts about his ability to serve as a soldier. On his second day in the army, when he was alone in his room, very tense and anxious, preoccupied with thoughts about his fate in the army, he suddenly hallucinated that ants as big as human beings were approaching and climbing on him. These experiences lasted for a few minutes. This hallucinatory phenomenon did not recur during the supportive short-term psychotherapy in our out-patient clinic. He claimed that during the visual and tactile hallucinatory experiences, he had a good sense of reality and looked upon these experiences as a phenomenon that does not belong to the objective of reality.

So, you see how many things come into play even without oxygen deprivation. And I want to note here, that in all three cases hallucinations were experienced when subjects were alone.
Why we don't have plenty of such experiences? One reason is obvious - occurrences are very rare. Second reason somewhat obvious as well - what pilot would want to report that he saw, for example, deers on his wings (especially if it occurs just once in their lifetime)?
What are the sources of the stress in aviation you can find here.

And I want to repeat: I'm not stating pilot hallucinated, I'm just bringing one of the possibilities for his sighting.

quillius, on 22 February 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

[...]
what do you mean no data found?

the questions is, can hypoxia plus the other induce hallucinations in a pilot flying at 15000ft for a short period without any other sequential symptoms being portrayed, then managing to regain composure to land the plane? I take it your answer is as above : apparently yes? can you show me anything that supports this notion?>
[...]

He had plenty of time to calm down circling airport. Look, there are examples when pilots do crash in simpler situations, while others do manage land fully loaded airplane while suffering severe head injuries and making wild maneuvers (FedEx flight 705). Would other crews land safely under the same circumstances? You just can't tell.

quillius, on 22 February 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

The spanish official report from the control centre...did you translate it yet?  [...]

You mean this doc?

Quote

... y se observa un eco; aproximadamente 15 millas al sur de Mexico donde se nos <porcio> al contacto radar con el XAU se le volvio a preguntar si ya tenia control de la aeronave, contesto que negativo y unos diez segundos e despues nos informo que lo acababan de abandonar dichos objetos y que se alejaban a la derecha de el con rumbo <este> y que el continuaba su descenso visual al Aeropuerto de Mexico, observa en la pantalla radar aproximadamente a 11 millos al sureste del Aeropuerto un eco bastante rapido a una velocidad aproximada 400 a 450 nudos, con rumbo Este, que efectuo un viraje de 270 hacia la izquierda y se perdio a 20 millas, exactamente donde se inicia la zona del Popocatepetl.

If yes, then I retract my previous comment about it.

quillius, on 22 February 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

[...]
??? If RADAR had hits and pilot witnesses something...then whos imagination are we talking about here?
[...]

Awh...

Quote

... There are many other reports of reflections from unidentified objects, many of which are caused by reflections resulting from anomalous propagation (ducting) in certain areas of the world. Air traffic control radars often develop tracks on atmospheric anomalies that do not appear to have been caused by ducting. These are often referred to as “angels” or as “worms” if they can be tracked...

(Radar Design Principles: Signal Processing and the Environment, 2nd ed, F.E.Nathanson, J.P.Reilly, and M.N.Cohen, McGraw-Hill (1999))
In "noisy environment" you always will find something that fits your "profile". For more about radars you can search info posted by badeskov.

quillius, on 22 February 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

[...]
really? what constitutes most? what has 'most' have to do with me? I find interdimentional 'thingies' intriguing..yes. where are the highly speculative explanations though you mention, before we get sidetracked?
[...]

Are you saying you don't tie some UFOs with interdimentional 'thingies'? If you don't, my apologies.

quillius, on 22 February 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

[...]
survive without damage though?

With the gadget, based on B.Cathie's math/harmonics, and interfaced with tin foil hat, I'm invincible.

quillius, on 22 February 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

[...]
(maybe its time for us both to share info then...unless we want to carry on with raise, re-raise, re-re-raise...)

Name place and time...