Your ufo Sighting's here - Page 4

John Saunders · #61 25-02-2008, 05:23 PM

I am an extra-terrestrial...

roccodm · #62 26-02-2008, 01:50 AM

i think the last time one landed in northern illinois my wife was left behind -rocco

Tommy Camp · #63 10-01-2009, 02:34 PM

I was with some friends sleeping on a tramp the other night when we saw a Satelite moving laterally across the sky.
the interesting thing was it would "flash" at seemingly random intervals.
Would this just be a satelite spinning and thus on occaison the suns rays would reflect off particular parts of it ?
because of its constant movement in the same plane and locational similarity to normal satilites i'd suggest its nothing extraordinary im just interested as to what causes the flashing.

Blue Skies (Jacquie) · #64 10-01-2009, 08:41 PM

It 'flashes' because it's tumbling - rotating on an axis, that is. And yes, its a perfectly normal thing, I've seen many of them, that latest just on Thursday night.

Tommy Camp · #65 10-01-2009, 08:49 PM

cool cheers

primadonna (Donna) · #66 19-04-2009, 10:51 PM

Hello,

I am new to this site. Initially I thought it was for reporting only ufo sightings, however i can see it is so much more. i am very interested in astronomy and the universe. i did have a ufo experience in 1979. I was on the beach in Cottesloe Western Australia at about 9pm at night. there were about 30 other people around as it was a hot summers night and people had decided to cool off down the beach. We all saw a light which i imagine we all thought was a plane. it came towards us and was flashing a very white and red light. it moved slowly for a minute towards us and then took off so fast away from us that had vanished within 3 seconds. i was under the impression that this had been reported but no conclusions were made. i am pretty sceptical and sensible about most things but i know what i saw and nothing we have can travel as fast as this object did.

xnomad · #67 20-04-2009, 06:54 PM

Wow I'm surprised by some of the replies on here. A UFO does not mean an alien space craft, it means an object you can't identify. I've seen a couple in my time and I've never claimed that they were alien space craft, just objects that I can't explain. There are people from all walks of life who've had similar experiences be they scientists, astronauts, pilots etc. They don't claim that's it's ET either but it's still interesting to hear their accounts.

I thought an astronomy forum would encourage open discussion. I'm very surprised by some of the replies not contributing anything and just poking fun.

astroron (Ron) · #68 20-04-2009, 07:14 PM

I think that is because most of us who have spent hundreds of hours observing over the years have not had the honour of seeing anything of the extraterrestrial kind.
Also some people come onto this Astronomical site to stir the pot knowing full well the feelings of most astronomers.
Just because you don't know what an object is doesn't mean it is a UFO, it is only a UFO to you.
This subject gets brought up every so often, and most times the person goes away without a change of view, as they have already made up their mind about what they observed.

xnomad · #69 20-04-2009, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astroron

Just because you don't know what an object is doesn't mean it is a UFO, it is only a UFO to you.

A UFO is always unidentified to the observer hence the term. I'm not sure how many people viewing an object it takes for it to be officially labeled unidentified. A UFO is not synonymous with alien spacecraft; so even if it's definitley not an alien spacecraft this doesn't mean it's identified.

I've seen 2 different things I can't explain on 3 separate occasions, one of them I witnessed with maybe 30-40 other people and nobody had a clue what it was.

I'm a rational human being, I believe in the scientific method, I can't explain what I saw, hence I use the term UFO. This does not mean I believed them to be alien spacecraft.

Some replies by contributors here are just short of saying that had they been in a similar situation, they could easily explain what they saw. It's almost like saying only unintelligent and misinformed people see UFO's, the more learned ones can easily identify every phenomenon. It's not polite and doesn't really give people the freedom to share in open discussion.

I thought amateur astronomers would be more curious, scientific and open to discussion. My view has always been to listen to whatever anybody has to say and not to ridicule them. The opposite of this is bigotry, which is one of the biggest enemies of science.

ngcles · #70 20-04-2009, 11:15 PM

Hi Xnomad & All,

Quote:

Originally Posted by xnomad

I'm a rational human being, I believe in the scientific method, I can't explain what I saw, hence I use the term UFO. ...

I thought amateur astronomers would be more curious, scientific and open to discussion.

But XNomad, the term UFO is exactly the problem here.

On the one hand you say that you believe in the scientific method. Good!

But on the other hand by using the term UFO, assert that the sightings were both an "object" and "flying". This is what U.F.O means -- Unidentified Flying Object.

The acronym at once implies that the sighting is a solid "object" and that it is being aimed/directed/flown. If it is being flown, then it must be being piloted by an intelligent being. Because it is similarly unidentified, it must therefore be an Alien/LGM. This is what UFO really implies. With the vast majority of these reports there is no evidence at all that the sighting is a solid physical object or that it is being "flown" -- it's simply a light in the sky that isn't identified by the person making the report.

And it is one of the things that I find most alarming about the whole subject. If people (in particular the media) would refer to them as "Unidentified Aerial Sightings" or an Unidentified Light in the sky, it would take a lot of heat out of the subject.

The thing is, amateur astronomers spend a lot of time out under the night sky and are by and large pretty knowlegable about what they are seeing. Yet, most of the so-called "UFO" sightings do not come from amateur astronomers. In this respect amateur astronomers are woefully under-represented in reporting "UFO's". The question must be asked -- why is that so? The answer is obvious.

I've spent 39 years out underneath the night sky and have never seen a single thing that did not have a ready explaination. There are many amateurs of similar experience level on this forum and many of them have a similar track record. Is that to say that unidentified lights in the sky don't exist? No. I'm sure there are lots of genuine people see things in the sky they can't explain or interpret and are on the face of it reasonably credible.

Probably 99% of the so called UFOs have a simple rational explaination that is simply not known to the person who observes the light in the sky. Would you believe a majority of them turn out to be the Moon, Venus or Jupiter. A substantial number of the residual turn out to be aircraft or weather ballons. There are a very small residual number that appear on the face of it not to have a simple explaination. That isn't to say they don't have a natural cause -- we can't tell.

But the use of the term UFO isn't really scientific unless you can say it was definitely an "object" and that it was being flown/aimed/directed -- which at once implies an intelligent pilot of unknown origin.

I know, I know ... I must stop from harping on about "UAS's" ...

Best,

Les D

Blue Skies (Jacquie) · #71 21-04-2009, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xnomad

I thought amateur astronomers would be more curious, scientific and open to discussion. My view has always been to listen to whatever anybody has to say and not to ridicule them. The opposite of this is bigotry, which is one of the biggest enemies of science.

This works the other way, too. I've run into people who don't want to hear any theory I might have about what they've seen, they're just so certain they've seen something containing aliens! I find that just as closed-minded and frustrating.

I think you also need to look at science history - its full of people with closed minds, like that man at the end of 19th century who reckoned we'd found out just about everything there ever was to know. What was happening 200 or so years ago is still happening today. I think that's just human nature.

BTW: You're here on this astronomy forum - don't you consider yourself to be an amateur astronomer too?

Enchilada · #72 21-04-2009, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngcles

I've spent 39 years out underneath the night sky and have never seen a single thing that did not have a ready explanation.

Me too! Observing the skies for an almost equal amount of time, and I've not seen anything that would qualify as any legitimate UFO - alien or domestic!

** Actually, the only true UFO I've experienced was from being hit in the head in the pitch blackness around 11pm one night by a high velocity Champagne cork - originally from a nice cheek little Victorian vineyard - vintage about 1985 !! Ouch!
(Sorry, for the purists I meant a sparkling wine cork!!) )

Duck at that time didn't seem to work for some reason !

xnomad · #73 21-04-2009, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngcles

Hi Xnomad & All,

This is what U.F.O means -- Unidentified Flying Object.

The acronym at once implies that the sighting is a solid "object" and that it is being aimed/directed/flown. If it is being flown, then it must be being piloted by an intelligent being. Because it is similarly unidentified, it must therefore be an Alien/LGM. This is what UFO really implies.

Sorry Les, but no it doesn't.

This is precisely why UFO has become a taboo word in some circles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ufo

"Popular culture frequently takes the term UFO as a synonym for alien spacecraft. Some investigators now prefer to use the broader term Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (or UAP), to avoid the confusion and speculative associations that have become attached to UFO.[4]"

The object is unidentified until further study or research can determine what it is. This is what the scientific method is all about isn't it? It does not mean that it is an alien spacecraft or that the observer believes it to be. The same reason that a scientific hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis and not a theory or a law. Wouldn't a UFO no longer be a UFO if it is determined to be alien because then it has been identified?

Perhaps the thread title should be called odd objects you've seen in the sky that you can't identify? It's quite clear that the term UFO has completely lost it's original meaning and gets everyone quite worked up on here.

PeterM · #74 21-04-2009, 09:05 AM

Sorry Xnomad but it does and always has, it will never lose its original meaning because there is an industry out there that won't allow that.

Ask your mother, next door neighbour, workmate what they think a UFO is. I will be more than surprised if it is not exactly as Les has noted.

The whole thing is a big bucks industry, someone has to keep the myth alive in these times of a gazillion mobile cameras, big brother city cams etc just about everywhere and yet reports that could have a nice pic are almost non existant, not at all good for business. "Some Investigators" as noted below lead me to think that some are trying to add credible status to their "work" and keep the whole myth alive by clouding the issue a little because they can see the writing on the wall. I wonder if there are there any recognised universities around the world that provide phd studies into UFO studies, one would think they of all people would want to know more about these objects.

I don't fish, but if were to catch a fish it's just a fish to me, yet to the informed its a whiting etc. These are the people I trust when they say it's ok to eat that one but not that one.

This is an astronomy forum dealing with what can be seen in the sky so if anyone is surprised by the replies from knowledgeable people who have spent many years getting to know the sky then I am flabbergasted. If more people took the time to know what was in the sky - in particular the brighter planets and what happens as a bright star gets near the horizon, then UFO reports would be even fewer.
I will respect that most will not, as I am never going to know the difference between fish species. So I will trust those who spend ages fishing and I will never call a jewfish a bream or a big long shiny thing that shot through the water performing turns at speeds that no swimmer could ever do.
PeterM.

"Popular culture frequently takes the term UFO as a synonym for alien spacecraft. Some investigators now prefer to use the broader term Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (or UAP), to avoid the confusion and speculative associations that have become attached to UFO.[4]"

stephend · #75 21-04-2009, 09:16 AM

I think F for Flying simply refers to the fact that they are observed in the sky. O for Object also sounds suitably vague to me.

But how about S for Skyward. That would cover flying, floating, falling, and possibly other f words. And how about T for Thing. There's nothing less politically dangerous than a mere thing.

U for Unidentified does suggest a priori the Thing must have an identity, a name or number plate perhaps. I for Inexplicable would remove this.

But, no, thinking about Thing again, thing is TOO general.

One quality all UFO sightings have is that they are perceived as unusual and special and remarkable by the observer. So P for Phenomenon might be better. Phenomenon also conveys the brevity of the experience perhaps.

Thus we arrive at Inexplicable Skyward Phenomenon, or ISP.

However, ultimately every cloud shape is inexplicable, space is skyward and inexplicable, so are choirs of angels and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. In contrast, our old familiar UFO sighting is very much localised, focussed, singular in both senses.

Also I note that "skyward" is a bit too poetic and Dylan Thomasish for your average hard-cased modern, so I will shorten it to "sky". It's fashionable, anyway, to use nouns as adjectives (not to mention adjectives as adverbs,
past tenses as gerunds, "alternative" for "alternate", "it's" for "its", etc. etc.)

So I will settle for Localised Inexplicable Sky Phenomenon, or LISP. This to me sounds as charming as my daughter's.

* * *

The reason these things are inexplicable . ... no, I'm not reverting to LIST, a phenomen is also a thing ...

yes, the reason the things are inexplicable is (probably) paucity of information. If we could catch it, shoot it down or something, be there with our research equipment, we would almost certainly know what "it" was, whether little green man in a tin can or American spy craft or just a Google camera.

Conceivably, with full information, we might still be puzzled. Perhaps black holes shoot out uff particles that produce globes of ionised gas on faraway planets, and no-one is ever going to be able to figure how uff particles do that, when they have no other effect whatsoever, including no effect on any experimental apparatus. Possibly. But probably, the mystery is simply due to lack of information.

So it is natural that scientists are pretty cool about LISPs because a LISP is a case of an UP, an Unexplained Phenomen, and UPs are the meat and bread, and wine, too, of science. Science is all about turning UPs into EPS. I'm sure I don't have to explain what an EP is. So why get excited about an UP?

I suggest that those are truly disciples of the scientific method really should be a little interested in LISPs, because the LISP and the observer of it are part of the same phenomenon. If a lot of clever, sober, experienced people continue to say that they have seen weird things in the sky, then remembering Occam's Razor a scientific response would be "Perhaps there are weird things in the sky".

However, having been a little interested, I think a scientific person will soon become less interested, because if the LISP probably exists only because of lack of information, and there's no way of getting more information, well there are plenty of other UPs to turn into lovely EPs.

xnomad · #76 21-04-2009, 10:40 AM

I'm worried that everyone is going to lump me in with the alien spacecraft believers camp. Please don't do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterM

This is an astronomy forum dealing with what can be seen in the sky so if anyone is surprised by the replies from knowledgeable people who have spent many years getting to know the sky then I am flabbergasted.

You've misunderstood my original post. The whole reason I joined this thread was to express my surprise at the fun poking on a forum where I thought serious discussion would take place. I'm not taking sides here. I'm all for the mature replies on the subject but poking fun at someone's views is on the verge of bigotry. If they don't want to debate then they shouldn't participate. People shouldn't be made afraid of raising subjects, if they don't discuss them how can they find answers? So an answer that offers a possible explanation is to be encouraged, but not one that pokes fun and talks of little green men etc.

I've mentioned it several times already I don't believe to have seen alien spacecraft. I have however seen interesting phenomena that I couldn't identify. I would label this under UFO, but from the replies on this thread that's probably the last time I'll do that as nobody seems to agree that UFO just means unidentified flying object, pure and simple. My understanding was that the true definition does not automatically infer the presence of intelligent (be it terrestrial or extra terrsetrial) control etc.

It's the same with people talking about poisonous snakes. This term is heard all the time in the media but it's not correct. A snake is poisonous if you eat it and via ingestion it poisons you. The correct term is venomous. I'm fighting a losing battle aren't I?.....

Someone is going to misinterpret this post as well and I'll spend all year replying. What have I done????

erick (Eric) · #77 21-04-2009, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xnomad

What have I done????

Got an active discussion going!

I can find little to disagree with in all the recent posts! I think there is a significant degree of furious agreement!

Darth Wader (Wade) · #78 21-04-2009, 07:18 PM

Speaking purely theoretically, what if these so called UFO's are actually time travel devices built by the ancestors of the human race hundreds of thousands of years in the future and their purpose is purely scientific observation? Just a thought ;-P

MrB (Simon) · #79 22-04-2009, 09:12 PM

I'm with you xnomad. You may have already seen a post from me saying UFO != ET.

Unfortunately it joins a whole pile of missused words, like Decimate(a favourite of TV reporters), Gay..... even the word Alien itself, which now apparently means ET....... and lots more I can't remember right now.

evad2009 (David) · #80 23-04-2009, 09:07 AM

I'm with you xnomad. Perhaps somebody can tell me what a friend and I saw about 40 years ago. His wife had recently bought him a 4" refractor for his birthday and we were taking turns at looking at the full Moon and stars from outside London on a very clear night.

Whilst John was using the scope, I noticed two "satelites" moving together. As a 'newbie' to astronomy and not yet familiar with degrees, arcs, mins etc I'll have to say that they were about four fingers apart held at arm's length. Satelites were uncommon back then and I was surprised to see two so close together, I was even more surprised when the one at the rear stopped. As the gap between them widened, I noted the position of the stationary one. It was just South of the lowest star in the "plough" as we called it.

Like most people at that time, I didn't know much about orbiting satelites but I was fairly certain that they couldn't just stop.

I told John what I'd just seen and he handed over the scope to me. I tracked the still moving satelite toward the position of the moon. John lost it in the glare but I was able to track it until it disappeared in front of (or behind) the moon's surface. I waited for it to re-appear on the other side of the moon but after more than 30 seconds it hadn't. Travelling at the speed we'd seen satelites travelling at before, it should have only taken a few seconds to re-appear. We both scanned the sky for 10 mins or so but there was no sign of the second object. The first one was still in the same position when we returned home an hour later.

In case anybody is wondering, neither of us had touched a drop of alcohol. In fact, we were practically tee-total. We tried but never found an explanation for what we had both witnessed, perhaps somebody on this site can enlighten me?