Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Fila

DOCUMENTARY: I know what I saw

86 posts in this topic

documentary that compiles interviews of the most credible UFO witnesses around the world, and further details investigations conducted by analysts and government officials into UFO sightings.

 

THIS IS A YOUTUBE COPY FOR FORUM EMBEDDING. The original can be found here: (http://www.iknowwhatisawthemovie.com/trailer.html)

No one claims any of these objects are ET. No one knows.., but they want to find out.

The title refers to people being told that they did not see a UFO.., but something else like a bird or plane.., regardless of the description given.

EDIT: DISCLAIMER: I am not the first person to see this"

Edited by Fila
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all knew what the thought they saw ...

~

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you think youre the first to see that?

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/12/2017 at 11:34 AM, third_eye said:

We all knew what the thought they saw ...

~

No one claims it ET

The title refers to people being told that they did not see a UFO.., but something else like a bird or plane.., regardless of the witnesses descriptions.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/12/2017 at 11:39 AM, seeder said:

do you think youre the first to see that?

No.

I guess I should have said that in the OC perhaps. "Attn: DISCLAIMER: I am not the first person to see this" 

Edited by Fila
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fila said:

No one claims it ET

The title refers to people being told that they did not see a UFO.., but something else like a bird or plane.., regardless of the witnesses descriptions.

'Chinese lanterns'

:yes:

~

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not see a UFO, I did not get abducted, I did not get probed. I didn't get probed. Oh god they probed me so much. And bigfoot was there too.:cry:

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/12/2017 at 11:43 AM, third_eye said:

'Chinese lanterns'

:yes:

~

Yes, even chinese lanters. IN fact.., anything that flies or floats is the automatic response.

The title is based on this dismissive attitude to hastily explain the sighting as anything but what was described.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Superman

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I did not see a UFO, I did not get abducted, I did not get probed. I didn't get probed. Oh god they probed me so much. And bigfoot was there too.:cry:

And fire...don't forget fire

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fila said:

Yes, even chinese lanters. IN fact.., anything that flies or floats is the automatic response.

The title is based on this dismissive attitude to hastily explain the sighting as anything but what was described.

As it should be. 

Why are we supposed to leap to flying saucer/extra terrestrial if it simply could be something from Earth.

It isn't dismissive...it's critical questioning... To stimulate thought...to break through paradigms created (possibly created) by society. 

If I taught u that the colour red is.blue(from birth) how will you learn that it is actually red? U were taught it's blue...prove to me that it is red...how? By repeating 'no u are wrong it is red?' 

Same here. I have to ask (for the sake of logic)  certain questions to establish what u believe u saw. And if my questions lead to u changing ur mind and acknowledging the fact that it might have been something besides extra terrestrial.... Is that bad?

 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/12/2017 at 4:17 PM, DebDandelion said:

Why are we supposed to leap to flying saucer/extra terrestrial if it simply could be something from Earth.

No one is saying that. You do not need to conclude anything. I think this is the point.

There are plenty of UFO cases that do not match the description of any known object.

You don't need to say its ET.., just unsolved. You don't need to label it anything, or try to force a conclusion (musta just been something else, or they were lying).

When all avenues are exhausted.., we are left with an unsolved case.

But to then take an inconclusive case by numerous trained military personnel, backed by radar data.., and assume "They must be lying"  is dismissive. (for example)

Edited by Fila
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the good intro to the video. I did watch some of it. Noticed that it took just under one and a half minutes for something to happen. That is such a hassle with videos - the enormous amount of dead time.

The video begins with the 1997 Phoenix event, event #1 for the night. The video calls it inexplicable which is pure fantasy. The event is well explained. What the video does show is how poor observers are. The voices tell us how easily people make mistakes when observing. The video shows what it claims is a similar video. Why not show the video shot that night of the event being discussed? That's right, it would explain the event.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Fila said:

The title is based on this dismissive attitude to hastily explain the sighting as anything but what was described.

dismissive of what?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Fila said:

The title is based on this dismissive attitude to hastily explain the sighting as anything but what was described.

Just because there is a description does not mean that the description is correct. Humans are bad at doing that. They get the wrong color, car type, height, weight, clothes, hair style and color in their descriptions of people. They get the wrong order of events. What happens is that the human mind fills in missing details and those filled in details become part of the memory.

I met a couple that told me they saw Champ, the Lake Champlain monster. They even had photos. I looked over the photos and asked each simple questions. The two were not together and could not hear each other. The two gave me conflicting answers. I could see in the photos the answers. My questions were simple such as did the monster move from left to right or right to left as you viewed it. It seems they saw something, assumed it was the monster, and then created details that never existed. This happens all of the time.

People see something. They try to imagine what it is. If they think it is a machine they begin to see what they expect to see. If they think the object did something miraculous then that is what they remember regardless of what actually took place.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/12/2017 at 6:17 AM, stereologist said:

Just because there is a description does not mean that the description is correct. Humans are bad at doing that. They get the wrong color, car type, height, weight, clothes, hair style and color in their descriptions of people. They get the wrong order of events. What happens is that the human mind fills in missing details and those filled in details become part of the memory.

I met a couple that told me they saw Champ, the Lake Champlain monster. They even had photos. I looked over the photos and asked each simple questions. The two were not together and could not hear each other. The two gave me conflicting answers. I could see in the photos the answers. My questions were simple such as did the monster move from left to right or right to left as you viewed it. It seems they saw something, assumed it was the monster, and then created details that never existed. This happens all of the time.

People see something. They try to imagine what it is. If they think it is a machine they begin to see what they expect to see. If they think the object did something miraculous then that is what they remember regardless of what actually took place.

The last resort! (An emotional response imo) Very unscientific.., and has no basis.

We cannot attack the evidence. So the witness must be lying, or just misidentifies stars as large aircraft back by radar and many others.

To then use an example of a mis-ID to refute the claims made is a very weak argument and cannot be accepted. Sorry. Not being rude, mean or trying to start a fight. Its just how it works in the real world.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Fila said:

The last resort! (An emotional response imo) Very unscientific.., and has no basis.

We cannot attack the evidence. So the witness must be lying, or just misidentifies stars as large aircraft back by radar and many others.

To then use an example of a mis-ID to refute the claims made is a very weak argument and cannot be accepted. Sorry. Not being rude, mean or trying to start a fight. Its just how it works in the real world.

I disagree with you Fila.

There is no clear evidence of an emotional response. 

You have to attack the evidence to prove the relevance of the evidence. Mis identification leads to many a discussion ufo or not ufo related and mis identification is problematic.

Stereologist used an example to explain quite a common phenomenon.  

I think you might tired or being attacked from all sides and imo you might have.interpreted what was said incorrectly.

It makes sense @Fila...

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/12/2017 at 4:57 PM, DebDandelion said:

I disagree with you Fila.

There is no clear evidence of an emotional response. 

You have to attack the evidence to prove the relevance of the evidence. Mis identification leads to many a discussion ufo or not ufo related and mis identification is problematic.

Stereologist used an example to explain quite a common phenomenon.  

I think you might tired or being attacked from all sides and imo you might have.interpreted what was said incorrectly.

It makes sense @Fila...

True, you are right. It seems like I was getting a bit heated there after reading what i posted. Thank you for pulling me up on this.

Sorry Stereologist.

Edited by Fila
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Fila said:

The last resort! (An emotional response imo) Very unscientific.., and has no basis.

We cannot attack the evidence. So the witness must be lying, or just misidentifies stars as large aircraft back by radar and many others.

To then use an example of a mis-ID to refute the claims made is a very weak argument and cannot be accepted. Sorry. Not being rude, mean or trying to start a fight. Its just how it works in the real world.

The suggestion that I made an emotional response is another lie. In fact we see a pattern here don't we. When you fail you respond with a lie.

Why the anger and vitriol. The video is a sham, at least the part I viewed which was the beginning of the video.

Here is what I wrote. It describes why the video is bad.

Quote

The video begins with the 1997 Phoenix event, event #1 for the night. The video calls it inexplicable which is pure fantasy. The event is well explained. What the video does show is how poor observers are. The voices tell us how easily people make mistakes when observing. The video shows what it claims is a similar video. Why not show the video shot that night of the event being discussed? That's right, it would explain the event.

As I explained the video chooses to show something else and not the video taken of the event. The video taken of the event shows that the lights over Phoenix are planes.

I did attack the evidence. The witness did not lie. The witnesses are typical bad witnesses that are mistaken. I stated that in my post.

Again this shows you lie about what people post.

You've lied many times about my posts. The pattern is clear.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try and remain polite here shall we.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I've seen a UFO as well. Several others witnessed it too. No one knew what it was and to my knowledge it was never explained. So, where does that leave the event? It leaves it in the category of "unexplained". It does not render the event as proof for alien visitation. This is a difficult concept for some to grasp, but unknown does not automatically equal ET.

So, we're left with people seeing things, things that can't (at least currently) be explained. Could be ET, could be an unknown phenomena, could be our own military's secret aircraft, could even be a simple misidentification of an astronomical event.

Someone things can't be explained and we need to accept it.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed.  I have seen a numbers of UFOs over the years.   Some subsequently explained, some remain totally unexplained.  

There is exactly zero evidence any of these UFOs had anything to do with space aliens - and absolutely no reason to even suspect such.   I don't believe in teasers :D

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

alien41.jpg

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/12/2017 at 2:50 AM, stereologist said:

Thanks for the good intro to the video. I did watch some of it. Noticed that it took just under one and a half minutes for something to happen. That is such a hassle with videos - the enormous amount of dead time.

The video begins with the 1997 Phoenix event, event #1 for the night. The video calls it inexplicable which is pure fantasy. The event is well explained. What the video does show is how poor observers are. The voices tell us how easily people make mistakes when observing. The video shows what it claims is a similar video. Why not show the video shot that night of the event being discussed? That's right, it would explain the event.

The Phoenix lights are explained as military flares.., although flares were dropped later that night (10pm or so) the sighting occurred much earlier.., and not just where the flares were dropped. The airforce did not lie about flares being dropped, this actually happened. But this cannot be used to dismiss the sighting from earlier. Fife Symington also raises this issue, as he was on both sides of the argument.

Edited by Fila
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/12/2017 at 11:20 PM, stereologist said:

The suggestion that I made an emotional response is another lie. In fact we see a pattern here don't we. When you fail you respond with a lie.

Why the anger and vitriol. The video is a sham, at least the part I viewed which was the beginning of the video.

Here is what I wrote. It describes why the video is bad.

As I explained the video chooses to show something else and not the video taken of the event. The video taken of the event shows that the lights over Phoenix are planes.

I did attack the evidence. The witness did not lie. The witnesses are typical bad witnesses that are mistaken. I stated that in my post.

Again this shows you lie about what people post.

You've lied many times about my posts. The pattern is clear.

No. I don't lie. I just said I got heated, misread your post and apologised. Again.., one thing happening.., does not equate to "it happens all the time" This is false logic.

I strongly disagree that because "witness give different descriptions" of an event.., this equates to "the event didn't occur."

Its a well established fact that memories are not perfect. Police take this into consideration.., as opposed ignoring information.

They are trained on how to get the best info from various eye witnesses. Example:

A male wearing a black beanie, blue jumper and red pants steals a purple handbag from an old lady in a crowded park 20 people see the event occur. Now.., they know for a fact that when they ask each witness individually.., then they will 100%get conflitcintg results. This does NOT means 20 people hallucinated an event. It is a well known fct that memoires are infallible.

They way they counter this.., is to get all the information thhey can.

WITNESS 1: A guy wearing a black beanie, blue jumper and grey pants stole a red handbag

WTNESS 2: A person wearing a blue beanie and blue jumper stole a red handbag

WITNESS 3: A male wearing a black beanie, and red pants stole a blue handbag

WITNESS 4: 2 men appeared to steal a red handbag.

WITNESS 5: A female wearing a black beanie, blue jumper and red pants stole a red handbag

WITNESS 6: A person wearing red pants stole a red backpack from someone

etc.., etc.., etc.

Then what they do.., is look at all the data to find patterns that will corroborate all witness accounts into one. 15 people say the handbag was red (even though other things were sketchy like the color of the beanie) so they conclude that the handbag was most likely Red.

19 people said it was male.., so they will conclude male. Although the person who said female got every other detail correct. As hjumans.., wee cannot take all info in.., and some people just naturally notice others things more like clothes colour, hairstyles, phone or shoe brand , handbag brand etc.


You were performing the opposite. Rather using known human errors as proof an event didn't happen. Which is simply not true.

Edited by Fila
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.