UFO sightings (longish)

Posted by: MachOne

UFO sightings (longish) - 05/28/02 12:25 AM

Maybe.<br><br>I'll whip back in time to 1977. A bud and I were returning from a trip to the local off-license (bottle-shop, whatever) and as I turned the car into my driveway, both my friend and I saw it...the unidentified flying object.<br><br>Now, I am a sceptic. Anyone who knows me will attest to that, so that makes the sighting remarkable. And what we saw was something I have been unable to satisfactorally explain since.<br><br>As we drove down the driveway toward the garage, a bright light appeared to the south, (the car was facing west), and travelled north, at high speed, just above the roofline of the houses that backed on to my home. <br><br>When I say high speed, it took maybe 15 seconds to travel from the point we first saw it until it disappeared from sight in the north, presumably dropping below roofline level.<br><br>The reason the sighting is strange is that it doesn't conform to the behavior of any aircraft I know of and I am a commercially rated pilot. I wasn't at that time though, and I was convinced for a time that it must have been an aircraft. But there are numerous reasons why that is not possible.<br><br>For one, the speed across the sky was such that only a high performance jet aircraft would have been capable of such a feat, and the altitude was never any greater than 1000 to 1500 feet. The military does not allow such operations across built-up areas. Never has, never will.<br><br>The light source itself was not in keeping with a landing light, which invariably shines in the direction the aircraft is travelling. When the object was directly in front of us, and subsequently moving away, the light shone with an intensity that never seemed to diminish until it was finally lost from view.<br><br>And aircraft, even military aircraft, which are flying through control zones, have strobes and navigation lights which must be activated. The object, whatever it was, did not have the normal lights.<br><br>So it remains unidentified. Out of curiosity, the following day I spoke with the Christchurch controller who denied any knowledge of any high performance aircraft doing low-level operations that night, nor any other night, over the city.<br><br>Despite enquiries to the media during the next week, no other reports of UFO activity in the area surfaced.<br><br>So what was it? I'll never know. However, I should let you know that my bud and were sober at that moment, we were not on any pharmaceuticals, recreational or otherwise, and neither if us was suffering from illness.<br><br>So, anyone else out there as crazy as me? <br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: UFO sightings (longish) - 05/28/02 01:19 AM

Oh, that was you in the car? I was with the secret Galactic police then, and I was one of the officers aboard the ship. We had information about a low-life martian hanging out at that watering hole, and came around to take him in if we found him there.<br><br>--<br>I am Dyslexic of Borg. Fusistance is retile. Your a$$ will be laminated.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: UFO sightings (longish) - 05/28/02 03:42 AM

Some time back, my Sister and I used to drive out to the back roads, and park the car in front of a dairy factory at around one in the morning to look at what appeared to be saucers floating above a huge tower. There were uplights that illuminated the whole tower from the gound, so it gave us a good view of the underside of these floating obects. They were simple oval shaped small, reflective objects that seemed to float in a figure eight, occasionaly intersecting eachother's paths. Sometimes there would be three or four. I think at one point we must have seen about 7. What is most peculiar about this, is that we never made a hooplah about it. We never went home and said, "Holy cow! We know where there's UFO's! Call the news! Call the Airforce!" It was just sort of normal. We would hardly even talk about it other than, "Let's go see the UFO's again." Eventually the interst began to wither and we forgot all about it. Have'nt gone back to that place since.<br><br>
Posted by: MachOne

Re: UFO sightings (longish) - 05/28/02 05:38 AM

You seem to have have had a feeling you were witnessing UFO activity even then. Which must've been exciting and even a little bizarre. I didn't really question what we were seeing until some time later, putting it down to an aircraft. Albeit a very low-flying, fast moving one. Not being a believer in flying saucers and extraterrestrials, the logical assumption, (it seemed), was military aircraft. With the benefit of hindsight, it obviously was not.<br><br>When I think of it today, I'm inclined to explaining it as some kind of weather phenomenon, such as the fabled ball lightning. Whatever it was, I'm sure it was not an aircraft.<br><br>
Posted by: watcher

Re: UFO sightings (longish) - 05/28/02 07:32 AM

OK, well I can verify that I saw something exactly as you describe, mr antipodean speed of sound. er .. mach one ;)<br><br>T'was not all that far away either<br><br>Given a bit of ocean that is.<br><br>It was brought to my attention by a friend.. Doug, a very sober type of friend not taken to being in hallucinations from any means chemical or otherwise. He and his girlfriend (equally sober) arrived at my door in a flush saying that they had been buzzed by a UFO while driving down the road to my house(I lived on a farm). They claimed in over excited voices that this spinning light complete with sound had hovered above their car for a brief period and then sped off, just before they arrived at my gate. This was just before dusk. Convinced that they had not swallowed something strange, I ventured out to see if I could catch a glimpse.. hastened by Doug, who was anxious to show me what he had seen.<br>he said "there" and pointed west, I said "that's Venus" he said "nope Venus is over there" I said "Mars then" he said "nope Mars is there" hmm .. and it moved* just a blink it was gone and reappeared some miles to the south that's how fast it moved * gone... had to actually wait until it stopped to catch up to it with your eyes I have never seen anything move so fast, just isn't possible. However move that fast it did. As we followed it around for a while in the car it seeming to be intent on playing the game of shooting over there,.. maybe twenty miles or more (who knows), then once we had turned that way..., moving again to another location.. always within our sight range though. This went on for maybe an hour I don't know .. At one stage we passed a car with a few people in it .. all out of their car and looking up.., maybe at our object, maybe not. Then the light just up and pissed off real fast... gone, never saw it again. Never saw anything like it before or since and living where I do, I see a lot of strange things. However one night, about 10 years later, I was invited to a fireside chat the subject beleive it or not.. flying saucers and do they exist and what was their relation to us.. sort of thing. At this chat I met a couple who had been quite obviously out on the same night and from their description of events, I calculated that this couple had been a part of the group in the other car we saw that night.. They had been doing exactly as we had been doing.., on parralel roads, we only passed them the once. In all the time we watched it, it never seemed to be more than say 2,000 feet high at the most, normally more like a low flying light plane would over open country at about 1,000 feet. Just like, light speed faster! When it left it did go higher but not a lot higher it just sort of faded into the distance rather than blink out but it faded very rapidly all the same. Interesting story?<br>Yours brought it to my mind immediately.<br><br> I have seen ball lightning and ground lightning both of which will have the shivers up your spine, I have seen St Elmo's fire... but this light that night was definitely none of those. <br><br>
Posted by: watcher

Re: UFO sightings (longish) - 05/28/02 07:42 AM

I am afraid I can explain that one away quite simply.<br><br>In my land we have lots of these events you describe.. but in fact nobody much noticed them until we built towers which were lit at night from below.<br><br>Yes the same can be seen in the light from the side or above, in a different fashion.<br><br>They are Moths in most cases but also could be Bats, collecting moths to eat.<br><br>The oval shape is cause by rapidly fluttering wings and reflected light. Moths tend to shed fine particles of waxy substance as they fly and also they spray pheremones in the air.. all of this can tend to make moths into a larger than life UFO.<br><br>
Posted by: MachOne

Re: UFO sightings (longish) - 05/28/02 01:46 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>This was just before dusk<p><hr></blockquote><p>Steve and I saw our "UFO" as the sun was setting...ie, we were looking westward, the sun was in its last throes of disappearing, and was obscured by cloud in the distance.<br><br>The weather was fine but it was about this time of year; that is the beginning of winter (for any northern hemisphere types reading this), and twilight was in progress.<br><br>I sometimes wonder if the sunset had something to do with it but have not read anything that would suggest the setting sun was capable of producing that effect. But, who knows...<br><br>
Posted by: OSXaddict

Re: UFO sightings (longish) - 05/28/02 02:02 PM

I just think you all are crazy <br><br>signed,<br>Cigarette Smoking Man<br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: UFO sightings (longish) - 05/28/02 02:27 PM

Don't tell me you started smoking again...?<br><br>--<br>I am Dyslexic of Borg. Fusistance is retile. Your a$$ will be laminated.
Posted by: carp

Re: UFO sightings "shortish" - 05/28/02 02:55 PM

One of 3 things.<br><br>Meteror day or nite can give that perception and due to its placement relative to the horizon, plus the factor of humidity and density of the atmoshere at that time. The illusion that those factors can create the effect that is seen by the human eye that the meteror was just above the city at a low altitude.<br><br>Satelites in low orbit at sunsets or sunrise can give off a reflection from the sun that would appear to be UFOs. Like above if the air has the right amount of water present it could act like a magnefying glass and cause that effect aswell.<br><br>Since "You" could not indentify the object it will remain as a UFO.<br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by carp on 05/28/02 06:00 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: UFO sightings (longish) - 05/28/02 02:57 PM

It was definitely an tropospheric inversion layer reflecting the refracted light of the setting sun at an angle specific to your line of vision, wich explains why no one else reported seeing anything. If you'd moved just two inches to the southwest, you'd have seen it disappear.<br><br>And, by the way, if you're ever in the US of A, there's a really nice bridge in San Francisco (maybe you've heard of it, it's called the Golden Gate) that I can sell you cheap. <br><br>Great wits are sure to madness near allied.--John Dryden, "Absalom and Achitophel"
Posted by: MachOne

Re: UFO sightings (longish) - 05/28/02 03:15 PM

Jeeze, for a minute there I thought you'd cracked the case. Doh...<br><br>
Posted by: MachOne

Re: UFO sightings "shortish" - 05/28/02 03:26 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Meteror day or nite can give that perception <p><hr></blockquote><p>Except I've seen many meteors in my time and they all took no more than 3 or 4 second to disappear. This light was visible for 15 seconds of so, which made it remarkable. Still...<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Satelites in low orbit at sunsets or sunrise can give off a reflection from the sun that would appear to be UFOs<p><hr></blockquote><p>That's a possibility. Although the sun was setting, something at extreme altitude could quite easily still reflect the sun's rays and the speed/time might well fit that of a satellite.<br><br>The impression I had was thet the object was quite low, but as you rightly point out, the atmosphere can play tricks with our vision. That's a very plausible explanation.<br><br>I'm surprised this thread hasn't encouraged others to share their "UFO" experiences, watcher excepted. Perhaps very few of us ever witness these phenomena.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: UFO sightings "shortish" - 05/28/02 04:06 PM

I have seen those here and the news people will say look just above the horizon you will see the space shutlle or a statelite at a certain time when the sun will be reflecting off the object. Sunsets or sunrise is the most spectacular events. Plus since you are looking at just above the horizon, that longer distance through the atmoshere there is more light bending.<br><br>You being a pilot have you ever flown late at nite with 2 or even buy yourself? Man I tell you the sounds you hear at nite while flying will scare the beeejeeders off you. I guess I am just not used to that nite sounds.<br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by carp on 05/28/02 07:36 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: Terry11

Re: UFO sightings "shortish" - 05/28/02 04:47 PM

I saw something I can't describe about ten years ago. If the people you try to explain it to haven't seen one for themselves... well... they think you're wacked in the head. No sense in setting yourself up for that. <br><br>
Posted by: MachOne

Re: UFO sightings "shortish" - 05/28/02 04:50 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>you ever flown late at nite with 2 or even buy yourself<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yep. During my commercial training, I had to do some cross-country flights and I can tell you I was puckered up every minute I was up there. Single engined aircraft, no instrument rating, pitch darkness outside of the built up areas. Man, that stuff keeps you "fascinated", as they used to say. I would return from the X-country, bathed in sweat, no matter how cold it was. It's not the sort of flying you do for fun.<br><br>I still don't have my instrument rating, although I had to complete some basic panel instrument flying to get my commercial. The IR rating is not compulsory, especially for helicopters, very few of which are IR rated or have the instruments required.<br><br>Don't get me started on noises at night. Whooooh...<br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by MachOne on 05/28/02 07:52 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: MachOne

Re: UFO sightings "shortish" - 05/28/02 04:54 PM

Oops. Too late for me I guess...<br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: UFO sightings "shortish" - 05/28/02 05:16 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I'm surprised this thread hasn't encouraged others to share their "UFO" experiences, watcher excepted. Perhaps very few of us ever witness these phenomena.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>I really wish I could share experiences cause that'd mean I'd had some. Of the exraterrestrial variety, I mean. I do believe we're not alone, but for me (so far) it has to be a matter of faith, not experience.<br><br>Great wits are sure to madness near allied.--John Dryden, "Absalom and Achitophel"
Posted by: watcher

Re: UFO sightings "shortish" - 05/28/02 05:30 PM

Whilst it is true yes that there are numerous debunk theories that can be put forward that often do explain such phenomena as we are discussing. I beleive that I did do just that; re the moths circling the tower.. but in this case I am saying that from all my extensive knowledge of flying objects, this particular sighting does not actually have any authentification along those lines of thought. <br>I have been watching things that fly since I could turn my eyes to the stars. <br>I have a very practical mind that is well educated in all matters of scientific analysis of events before our eyes.. <br>I have lived in an area of the world where strange phenomena abound for 50 years. I am well used to sorting out the heebie jeebies from reality. I spend many long hours/days and weeks alone in the night or on days of the extreme nature that could easily cause one to rant and rave about hallucinations, I am no stranger to what can occur. <br><br>This particular night I had no sensory deprivation of any kind and I have several witnesses.. I am not alone in seeing this phenomena and witnessings were from more than one direction.<br><br>This particular sighting I described may not be a flying saucer but it is a genuine UFO. I don't give a rats arse whether it was a low flying experimental secret surveillance craft or a giant glow worm.. there just is no scientific evidential reality that can pin it to any of the reader's above mentioned scenarios.. except UFO. <br>It was definitely NOT a satellite. I have been watching those all my life, I saw skylab coming down after all.<br>I have seen millions no.. billions of meteorites.. <br>I have also seen a meteor that you could fit NY city on... (and still have room for Sydney).., pass us by by what appeared to be mere inches and man they travel fast..(if that one had hit, I would not be telling this tale today). Yes this is the sort of speed I observed that night but.. without the bright burning light associated with burning in our atmosphere. The metor I am describing .. left a white line burnt into my retina for minutes afterward...or at least seemed to do so. Nope I have seen planes that look like cigar shaped craft in the early morning light.. You guys have to remember that I can see the horizon curve in every direction I look .. I doubt that there are many observers who can see as much sky as I can. This Light that I saw and is so very similar to Mach One's strange sight but has one difference.. I trailed it in every direction North, South, East, West.. in a four wheel drive over rough terrain and our field/angles of view were constantly altering we trailed it well into the night .. Well after dusk, the sun had been long gone and all was pitch black when it took off and flew away.. yes .. flew away, not any abberation of vision.. no way.<br><br>
Posted by: steveg

They're out there. - 05/28/02 06:20 PM

1959, Ellsworth Falls, Maine. I'm a kid at a summer camp on the lower shore of Graham Lake (a 22 mile long man-made lake formed when the Union River was dammed in 1925). One night, around 9:30pm one of the councellors calls us out to the baseball field atop a nearby hill. There's a formation of small very bright lights slowly circling overhead, back and forth across the lake near our camp. Within 10 minutes, 3 fighter jets from nearby Dow AFB approach from the south. <br><br>In an instant, the lights overhead are at the other end of the lake — 22 miles away. As the jets near that end of the lake, ZIP! The lights are over us again. We can see the jets swing back in our direction, and as they approach again, POOF! Lights out. The jets circled the lake for another 20 minutes or so and then returned to Dow. <br><br>Nothin' in the paper the next day, and never saw anything like that again. But it made an early believer out of me. And I still get a chill when I think about it.<br><br>
Posted by: OSXaddict

Re: UFO sightings (longish) - 05/28/02 07:21 PM

no, not smoking...it was a reference to the Cigarette Smoking Man on the show X-Files. But I guess noone here watches it as it went over like a lead balloon!<br><br>
Posted by: watcher

Re: They're out there. - 05/28/02 07:29 PM

Sounds like a once in a lifetime job for sure.<br><br>However there are possibly many whom could argue that the lights you saw were actually generated by the jet fighters forward adjusted landing lights or even sighting lights can often be invisible between the plane and the spot where the light appears to land/reflect. this spot which may even be on moisture haze in the atmosphere, that light reflects from. <br><br>Mind you I will not attempt to argue that point as I did not see your objects.<br><br>There is no doubt that there are many things that occur which can leave you with that "most memorable feeling of my life".. feeling. Most of them are just too hard to talk about since we afraid someone will tell us we are looney or worse treat us with suspicion. <br><br>I had a strange experience with the police when I rang and asked had anyone reported noises when an earthquake like occurrence, caused me to want to know if others had sensed it. We are in an non seismic area. The police were acting as if I was accusing them of seccretly blowing something up... but there was no need for that, they were just covering their arse.. I published it in the paper after having had two other confirmations (this earthquake occurred at 2:15 AM). I received another seven phone calls, all from sane people who had for some reason been up at that time. We tracked it in a line from my place almost 40 kilometres, from our "sensings". I checked with the seismic authorities and they said that an earthquake of any magnitude had not been detected. I checked with the local soil and water management scientific faculty, as I knew they had a device which measured the slight fluctuations in the water table. I was informed that the disturbance had happened between readings so it had no possibility of being recorded but they suggested that the seismic stations were too far away, to have recorded an earth tremor below 1 on the richter scale.. and went on to say that if one had occured at depth immediately below us and was as much as 1.6, that no detector could have picked it up. <br>So I felt vindicated in my assessment. <br>and it was an unreal experience to be alone on a crisp frosty night under a 360º sky where there had never been an earthquake in living memory and I had never experienced one before. An experience I will always claim as one of those "most amazing happenings" yet Californians just shrug off earthquakes 5 times the intensity, on a regular basis.<br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: They're out there. - 05/28/02 07:35 PM

Now you've gone and scared the beejeezus outta me.<br><br>And here I was thinking I was a hardened skeptic...<br><br>deebee<br><br>
Posted by: watcher

Re: UFO sightings (longish) - 05/28/02 08:33 PM

yep.. plonk. I didn't watch enough X files to get it.. my son would have though.<br><br>I thought you were saying that you smoked "straight" cigarettes and the rest of us must be on the "wacky baccy" ;)<br><br>
Posted by: NotTheOnly1

Re: UFO sightings (longish) - 05/28/02 10:29 PM

I'm am SO anti-aliens and sh!t it's not funny. It's worse than a skeptic. I'm a UFO atheist-- I don't believe in them period. I've never watched the X-files and don't want to. (Give me Peaks, or give me death..)<br><br>Anyhow, a few years back, I was driving through the general area of Roswell New Mexico heading East across the country. It was high noonish, sunny, clear skies. No clouds anywhere. While I was driving (alone, undistracted) I noticed a greasy black band in the sky, ahead of me to the left. It was like an oil streak, streaking across the sky. Like a black rubber band snapping.<br><br>I thought it was some kind of stealth flyer or whatever, but then I realized it made NO sound. I pulled over and the mostly empty highway. It was quiet.<br><br>It then hit me that what I saw moved REEEEEAAAAALLLLYYYYYYY fast. That it might have been a black object BLLUURRRRIIIINNNNGGG itself across the sky.<br><br>I told my military tech/science guy friend about it when I arrived East. He said something surprising. He said a few years back, an object travelled from San Francisco to LA an a truly impressive speed. So impressive, it registered on all the Califonria earthquake equipment. I can't recall how fast it was going, but it was WAY past human speeds. That's all he'd tell me, and he's not the type to fsck with you.<br><br>Of both stories, I presume it's a military tech more than aliens.<br><br>But I'm clueless, so don't quote me..<br><br>Do you rhumba? Excellent! Now pick a rhumba and sit down.. GM
Posted by: MachOne

Re: UFO sightings "shortish" - 05/29/02 02:51 AM

Dude, there's no way I'm dissing your experience. My response to Carp was a confession that I had not considered the satellite angle in the case of the experience that I shared.<br><br>I'm also not saying Carp's explanation is the correct one. And as he added at the finish, the third possibility is that it remains a "UFO" with all that entails.<br><br>Your instance was entirely different to mine in the sense that we were not observing the same event. So my judgement of what you saw is absolutely in line with what you reported.<br><br>What it was you saw will remain a mystery. Moreso perhaps than my encounter. <br><br>
Posted by: MachOne

Re: They're out there. - 05/29/02 03:05 AM

Well I can't claim to have any answer to your UFO puzzle, Steve. Whatever those things you saw were, there seems to have been a reaction from the military. If they discovered the "truth", I guess we'll never know. But there's always a chance that our children's children's children might be privy to the truth. I hope so.<br><br>The one thing about these first hand encounters is that it's the witnesses' testimony. It's not some writer or journo using someone else's story to get famous or rich. And for that reason, I for one am more inclined to believe that testimony.<br><br>
Posted by: watcher

Re: UFO sightings "shortish" - 05/29/02 03:34 AM

Well aware of what you were saying, I was responding in a way to the whole thread of replies just making sure that everyone realises that I have gone over and over this event with all witnessing parties concerned, it happened some 25 years ago or more. There can be no doubt that it was not, Min Min lights or any such explanation As it just does not fit any known phantasmagoric assertations *w*. The only similarities with your sighting are that it was low, it was fast, it was just a light and it left you in complete doubt as to what it could possibly have been. Sorry it was mere coincidence that my last post landed in the queue after your name.. Nobody else seems to follow any rules about where in the order they place their posts... and what is this word dissing.. ?<br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: They're out there. - 05/29/02 03:37 AM

Fear not. WalMart is selling beejeezus for $1.99/lb. So you can replenish. <br><br>
Posted by: watcher

Re: They're out there. - 05/29/02 03:45 AM

Yep... seeing is beleiving.<br>The night we saw the big meteor for example there were three of us we had been out watching Halleys comet and it was maybe 2:30 am we were all about to wind up and head to bed. It is faily customary for males her to empty bladders before the drive over rough roads home so that is what we were engaged in when I spotted the spark of entry of this huge meteor.. I pointed it out to the others but whther they were too tired or whether they partly missed it, I cannot be sure as the other two were never keen to report it. Not long afterward I began to hear stories about how we had been missing meteors that came straight at us.., in our detection of approaching bodies and that some had managed to narrowly miss us. Later I noticed that many years before someone had caught one on camera near Florida in the daytime. I saw the photo in some magazine at the dentists. It was identical to mine in almost every way except for the daylight background. Yep it made so much light that it could be the foreground in a daylight shot.. when it as actually millions of miles away. Maybe someone would beleive if I happened to have a camera rolling at the time.<br><br>
Posted by: MachOne

Re: UFO sightings "shortish" - 05/29/02 03:47 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>and what is this word dissing.. ?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Slang for dismissing.<br><br>
Posted by: MachOne

Re: They're out there. - 05/29/02 03:57 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Maybe someone would beleive if I happened to have a camera rolling at the time<p><hr></blockquote><p>Nuh. There's always the likelihood that the shot had been retouched, so people are highly sceptical these days.<br><br>Look at that "Alien Post-mortem" hoax. The cost of making that would have been enormous, but they went ahead and did it all the same.<br><br>There's not a lot of folk who accept unreservedly that photographic images are real. Unless you were actually there then I think that you are bound to be at least a bit sceptical.<br><br>
Posted by: MachOne

Re: UFO sightings "shortish" - 05/29/02 04:19 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>but for me (so far) it has to be a matter of faith, not experience<p><hr></blockquote><p>Absolutely. No evidence whatsoever. Agree entirely. Totally concur...ur...ur...<br><br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: UFO sightings "shortish" - 05/29/02 09:58 AM

I believe, I believe!! <br><br>Great wits are sure to madness near allied.--John Dryden, "Absalom and Achitophel"
Posted by: Mississauga

Re: UFO sightings (longish) - 05/29/02 10:02 AM

At one time, I witnessed many UFO's! But, then I stopped popping Purple Microdots. <br><br>[color:red]Alec</font color=red>
Posted by: mojo_jojo

Re: UFO sightings (longish) - 05/29/02 04:23 PM

Me too! <br><br>I once had 4 or 5 of them "melt" in my hand. Leaving nothing but a purplish streak on my palm. <br><br>Man, the UFO's where everywhere that night.<br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: UFO sightings "shortish" - 05/29/02 09:21 PM

i always thought it was 'disrespecting'...<br><br>:-)<br><br>deebee<br><br>
Posted by: bganey

Skeptical - 05/29/02 09:25 PM

Just never seen enough proof to believe in UFOs. <br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Skeptical - 05/29/02 09:42 PM

You want proof, just scroll up a bit and see what's happened to MachOne <br><br>Great wits are sure to madness near allied.--John Dryden, "Absalom and Achitophel"
Posted by: MachOne

Re: UFO sightings "shortish" - 05/29/02 11:32 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>i always thought it was 'disrespecting'<p><hr></blockquote><p>You could well be correct. For a very long time I thought LOL meant lots of luck. hey, whadda I know? <br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Skeptical - 05/30/02 12:31 AM

While I do not doubt MachOne saw something he nor perhaps anyone else can explain, I doubt it was an alien space craft.<br><br> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. An old grainy photo of me holding a football is evidence enough to convince someone I played football, a similarly grainy photo of me holding an alien does not tote the load.<br><br>
Posted by: MachOne

Re: Skeptical - 05/30/02 12:40 AM

I think he meant the one with the profile pic with the interesting complexion. <br><br>BTW, I don't go the alien space craft route either. If the pix we see published are anything to go by, those aliens have more models than Toyota.<br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

The Science - 05/30/02 07:42 AM

I don't doubt that people have seen "things". While these "things" may be unexplained, and thus they really are Unidentified Flying Objects, that doesn't mean they are space craft holding a bunch of gooey green bug-eyed monsters.<br><br>It would help to look at the science.<br><br>It is known that the speed of light is the fastest speed attainable in nature. It is also known that it is impossible for an object with any appreciable mass to attain this speed. Even a large fraction of this peed would require a fuel load the size of the Earth itself for a modest-size spacecraft.<br><br>So let's pick on a speed which, though very fast, is theoretically attainable. Like, a million miles an hour. A million miles an hour would get you to the Moon in fifteen minutes. Around the world once in one and one half minutes. Mars in a little over a day (when Mars is close to Earth). The Sun in three days or so. Like I said, fast.<br><br>Of course, there are problems making this speed. Using conventional rockets and propellants, you'd have to carry the equivalent of several Empire State Buildings full of fuel just to get there. Then you'd have to carry the same amount of fuel to decelerate, unless you were willing just to whiz by. Then, of course there's the return journey: two more loads of fuel. So picture a gigantic space craft with a little button on the end representing something the size of the Space Shuttle.<br><br>So, where do we go? It might make sense to pick the closest star, which would be Proxima Centauri, 4.3 light years away. Now, Proxima Cen is a dinky little star, which it is nevertheless inadviseable to get too close to, since it is a "flare star": every once in a while a burst of radiation just pops off, scouring clean any life which might be in the way of the flare. But let's go there anyway.<br><br>At a million miles an hour, it would take over 2,800 years. Think of someone the age of Yoda as witness to the birth of Christ. Now think how old he might be in 2002. 2,800 years ago, there was no Roman Empire. Egyptians were still building pyramids. Oh, wait, round trip: 5,600 years. To the closest star. A million miles an hour.<br><br>"Ah," you say,"What about space warp?" I'm not going to say this science fiction concept is absolutely impossible. I am going to say it is extremely unlikely. The only thing which can "warp" space to any degree is a black hole and matter gets torn apart before it can get too close to one of those. Let's be reasonable here: anything is possible in our minds, but just because I write, "24 carat gold comes out of my butt." that doesn't mean I acquire new wealth every morning. Likewise, to make the leap from seeing something we cannot explain to space monkeys in a giant, intergalactic hub cap is too great a leap to support logically.<br><br>[color:red]John</font color=red>
Posted by: Entish

Re: The Science - 05/30/02 10:57 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I don't doubt that people have seen "things". While these "things" may be unexplained, and thus they really are<br> Unidentified Flying Objects, that doesn't mean they are space craft holding a bunch of gooey green bug-eyed<br> monsters.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>correct that is all that is really at stake here.. <br>the fact that there exist objects that are as yet unidentified and flying...<br><br>lets ask ourselves one question though.. some where in the scriptures of the Bible it is stated that Christ would return in a period roughly equating 2000 years, in our guestimation of the translations of how far apart two mountains are...<br> <br>Would this not give credence to the story that Christ himself had a UFO to get about in?<br><br>C'mon guys, I am joking, don't get your crucifixes in a knot. <br><br>
Posted by: Entish

Re: Skeptical - 05/30/02 11:09 AM

Yeah, I doubt at all whether MachOne or Watcher or SteveG for one moment thought that little Aliens were pushing these lights around. I did not see one mention of any windows with green faces behind..No one mentioned motors or flames from exhausts. Don't lets start treating this thread in that fashion or we will never come up with a logical solution for the issue of such strange sightings.<br><br>As many have so far tried to assure.. there has to be a reason for people seeing things that they are loathe to publish for fear of being labelled... <br>Well we know that everthing has a cause and an effect.<br><br>In the case of UFO's, we know some of the effect but what is the cause? <br><br>
Posted by: watcher

Re: UFO sightings "shortish" - 05/30/02 11:17 AM

Well, whichever.. I did not feel dismissed nor unrespected.<br>-by yourself.<br>Maybe some of the other posts stirred me to say things in my reply to your post that did not apply to you, which may have given you that impression.<br><br>
Posted by: Shooshie

Re: The Science - 05/30/02 01:32 PM

There is a lot we don't know yet. There are some things we actually do know, but which we cannot understand yet. One of those things, and an amazing one, is nonlocality. It is one of the few theories which has been proved, thus all forthcoming theories and proofs in science must take this one into account. Nonlocality, as most of us know these days, is a phenomenon by which two events are linked simultaneously at great distances. They occur outside of time, apparently, for their actions are instantaneously simultaneous—they go far beyond the speed of light. <br><br>An example of nonlocality: twin photons, born in pairs, have identical polarity. Once they leave their point of origin, they may be twin photons, but they are no longer physically connected in any way that we know of. The twin photons can be reflected so that one goes north and the other goes south, or any direction you want. At that point, they will be travelling away from each other, each receeding from the point of origin at the speed of light, and (in that strange, relativistic way) from each other also at the speed of light. <br><br>Here's what gets weird. Let's send them in opposite directions. Now let's run our northbound photon through a calcite crystal and change its polarity. Meanwhile, we have an observer in Mars capturing the other one as it passes by, and... voila! Its polarity has ALSO changed! Change it back, and measure our original northbound photon, and someone on the star Polaris will capture it as it goes by and it, too has also changed back. Each of them is inextricably linked to the other forever. Change one, and the other one also changes at that same instant, though they be trillions of miles apart. There is no way that any "signal" could get from one to the other in any way that we know, using any particles or other means that we know of. So, the change has occurred in a nonlocal way. <br><br>That's just one example of what we don't know or understand. There simply is no point in saying things like "the fastest anything can travel is... " or "the universe is far too big to..." or anything else. We just don't know some of these things. Or, more aptly put, we know just enough to make ourselves seriously confused. <br><br>Shooshie<br><br>Shooshie's Stuff
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: The Science - 05/30/02 05:00 PM

BBC News | ENGLAND | Alien life could be out there<br><br>--<br>I am Dyslexic of Borg. Fusistance is retile. Your a$$ will be laminated.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: The Science - 05/30/02 08:01 PM

Let's put it this way: if lightspeed is somehow not the fastest speed anything can travel, the theory of relativity cannot hold true. The reason the theory was elucidated by a mathematician is that once the constant of the speed of light is introduced, everything falls into place mathematically. But the speed of light must be a constant.<br><br>Up until now, everything about relativity which is observable has proven to be right. The quantum effect you mentioned is obviously unprovable at this point since we do not have observers on Mars (for one thing). Quantum effects in general are extremely strange, but to my knowledge have only been observed on a micro level, not the macro level you suggest. And even if observable, one does not extrapolate anything from it, ie: strange effect (a) doesn't mean we have to blindly throw out all current knowledge of the universe simply because we're suddenly weirded out. The fact that we understand how bumblebees fly, when they were not supposed to be able to, does not invalidate everything we learned about aeronautics in the last century.<br><br>No, I prefer our current understanding of the universe and the way it works, as incomplete as it may be, over a blind faith that, yes, we really can travel faster than the speed of light if we just wish hard enough and tap our ruby slippers together three times.<br><br>[color:red]John</font color=red>
Posted by: TreeBeard

Re: The Science - 05/30/02 08:45 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>That's just one example of what we don't know or understand. There simply is no point in saying things like "the fastest<br> anything can travel is... " or "the universe is far too big to..." or anything else. We just don't know some of these things. Or,<br> more aptly put, we know just enough to make ourselves seriously confused. <p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Well Sooshie I can only agree with you..Personally, I think that we are too far up our own coits, when it comes to what we think we know.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The fact that we understand how bumblebees<br> fly, when they were not supposed to be able to, does not invalidate everything we learned about aeronautics in the last<br> century.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Well and good, it is true that learning how a bumble bee flies does enhance our knowledge of aeronautics but it also tells us that it does not pay to ever think we are correct in whatever mathematical assumption we make.<br><br> Why, we still have not invetsigated all the legacy of math and astronomy that Pythagoras bequeathed us.<br><br>Let us not allow one person's evaluation of cosmic math entrap us. Even Einstein would change his mind if he disacovered a quaver in any constant.<br><br>We see all the time; any one famous scientist or historian, attempting to maintain/retain the foothold on fame they garnered by making a theory no one else had yet debunked..by debunking any new theorem that may shed some light on their own indiscrepancies.<br><br>=============================================================<br>| "Behold the Turtle, he maketh no progress ==== until he sticketh out his neck." |<br>=============================================================
Posted by: TreeBeard

Re: UFO sightings (longish) - 05/30/02 08:52 PM

hehe we could start a whole new thread.. "Does WackyBaccy make you see UFO's?"<br><br>=============================================================<br>| "Behold the Turtle, he maketh no progress ==== until he sticketh out his neck." |<br>=============================================================
Posted by: Anonymous

Hooray for science! (long) - 05/30/02 09:08 PM

Thanks for injecting some healthy scientific principles into the thread. I used to be the one who always chipped in a little primer on Ockam's Razor, falsifiable hypotheses and the perils of ruby slippers.<br><br>That said, I know where Shooshie is coming from. A cursory glance at the history of science sends up a huge warning flare about making absolute statements about reality. To assert that of all the generations who have ever lived on Earth, ours is the one that has finally worked it out - with no more turn-it-all-on-its-head surprises in store - is to fall into the same kind of homocentric trap that convinced people that Earth was the center of the universe, humans were not animals, etc etc.<br><br>I remember when studying my field (geology), I'd have a lecture in the morning about, say, plate tectonics, in which everything would be presented as incontrovertible fact; then, in the afternoon, I'd go to a lecture in the Arts faculty where we studied the history of geology, and learned that a scientific consensus on plate tectonics was only 10 years old!<br><br>Do I 'believe in' plate tectonics? Sure.<br><br>Do I 'believe in' c as the maximum speed anything can travel? Sure.<br><br>Do I think that a few generations hence Relativity and Plate Tectonics will be considered the last word in astrophysics and geology? No way, Jose.<br><br>I am very impressed that no-one in this thread has seriously stood up for an alien explanation for UFOs, and that we all seem to agree that 'Unidentified' doesn't mean 'Supernatural'. <br><br>I have wanted to see a UFO since I was 8 years old, but never have. I have, however, seen two ghosts - which takes me on to the next part of my epic post...<br><br>My preferred explanation for both UFOs and ghosts is pretty simple - they're the noise in our perception systems. Any electronic mechanism will have some noise amongst the signal. In particular, we humans have the most amazing pattern-recognition system - unthinkably more advanced than any algorithm we can dream up - but it's hypersensitivity means that it is subject to false positives: in short, to seeing things that aren't there. Both my ghost 'sightings' (a woman who was there one second and gone the next while I was in the woods one night; and a young girl who sat on the end of my bed early one morning) were incredibly convincing, but I have no problem putting them down to buggy perception. <br><br>This is where science kicks in: the suite of perceptions that accompanied the sightings (strong smell, unexpected emotional response, sudden silence) are compatible with (but not enough to prove) my hypothesis that I was experiencing a momentary sensory hallucination, and there was no evidence to suggest an alternative explanation. The hallucination hypothesis is far simpler and more likely than the proposition that our understanding of such a fundamental thing as death is all wrong, so I'll go with that. If, however, some alternative evidence was to emerge (other sightings of an identical nature; a pattern in time or space to such sightings etc), then it would be appropriate to weigh that evidence and reconsider the hypothesis.<br><br>But could ghosts and UFOs be a manifestation of some kind of Shooshie-a-rific, non-local, non-causal 'susperscience' that we are still centuries away from uncovering? Sure. In fact, in the longer run, I'd say it's likely. But does that mean we should throw up our hands, give up on science, and let the pseudoscientific barbarians through the gates? No way.<br><br>Whew. Finished now. Thanks for getting this far.<br><br>deebee<br><br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: The Science - 05/30/02 09:13 PM

Actually, the photon effect that Shooshie refers to has been demonstrated experimentally.<br><br>edit: It's true that quantum effects aren't "observable" other than at the atomic/sub-atomic level. Nonetheless, the major impasse that theoretical physics finds itself in at this point is directly a consequence of the impossibility of reconciling quantum and relativity theories. After all, if there's a theory that explains big things that are made up of small things, but that theory doesn't take into account the way small things behave, there's an obvious conceptual problem. The central problem comes precisely at the point where relativity must come to terms with quantum theory, at the point, in other words, that the universe comes into being in the Big Bang. At such small size and intense density quantum gravity becomes an imponderable, because not theorized, phenomenon. One way of conceiving of that origin is tha the Big Bang is a "random fluctuation in the quantum void"--which implies that, absent quantum mechanics, there would be no gravity because there'd be no spacetime. That formula has grow threadbare over the last quarter century, though, because in being so comprehensive, it doesn't explain anything in particular. I'm reading a very interesting book right now, The Life of the Cosmos, by Lee Smolin, in which a much more interesting way of conceiving of the origin of the universe is presented. It's an Oxford UP book, but whoever edited it ought to be shot because poor Smolin is made guilty of a lot of grammatical and spelling errors that should have been picked up and corrected before printing. Still, if anyone is interested in cosmology, I recommend it highly.<br><br>Great wits are sure to madness near allied.--John Dryden, "Absalom and Achitophel"<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by yoyo52 on 05/31/02 00:29 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: The Science - 05/30/02 09:53 PM

Yeah! You want to make a physicist squirm? Ask them what inertia is...<br><br>:-)<br><br>deebee<br><br><br>
Posted by: TreeBeard

Re: UFO sightings (longish) - 05/30/02 10:07 PM

an abbreviated and amended quote.. sorry MachOne<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>a bright light appeared to the south and travelled north, at high speed, just above the roofline of the houses that backed on to my home., it took maybe 15 seconds to travel from the point we first saw it until it disappeared from sight in the north, presumably dropping below roofline level, the speed across the sky was(possibly beyond) such that only a high performance jet aircraft would have been capable of such a feat, the altitude was never(appearing to be) any greater than 1000 to 1500 feet. The light source itself was not in keeping with a landing light, which invariably shines in the direction the aircraft is travelling. When the object was directly in front of us, and subsequently moving away, the light shone with an intensity that never seemed to diminish until it was finally lost from view.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Though not attempting to take away from your experience.. I am trying to add to it.<br>I could well imagine that this could well be a meteor(not a meteorite), of the larger type.. <br>These travel very fast in what could only be called a flat trajectory and what you describe fits....with both my experiences and watcher's description of a large meteor/asteroid. <br>Though his(meteor) appears to have arched across the sky, as it should .. his was at night and in a place where he could see the whole hemisphere of night. Yours was a fleeting glimpse by comparison. <br>The big difference between yours and his (UFO); is that yours did not appear to deviate from its course.<br>Your experience sounds much more like his meteor description.. <br>The light "always looking at you" also fits with the description of "looking up the arse end of a jet that follows your eye"...a meteor.<br><br>watcher's eperience is much more of a UFO.. he appears to have seen plenty of meteors and other phenomena. Enough to allow him to know that what he saw, was different.<br><br>steveG's experience could easily be eplained as watcher said, but at the same time it could not.. and I have to reserve the same kind of judgement in all cases since I was not there to see what was actually seen.. Even our own descriptons become vague enough to allow ourselves to believe that what we saw differently.. as time passes. <br><br>So until you agree yours was a meteor.. it shall stay a UFO<br><br>=============================================================<br>| "Behold the Turtle, he maketh no progress ==== until he sticketh out his neck." |<br>=============================================================
Posted by: MachOne

Re: UFO sightings (longish) - 05/30/02 11:35 PM

I have to say that my description was of my impressions. Your edits are totally resonable. There was no intent to make more of the sighting than actually occured, so I wrote of what I observed then and my subsequent rationalisation.<br><br>You may be correct in your suggestion that a meteor was responsible, rather than a meteorite. Since I claim no expertise in the visual phenomena associated with meteors, I am not about to dismiss the possibility. I'm just curious. Carp's suggestion of a satellite is also a possibility.<br><br>I am certain, in my sceptical way, that there was no alien connection. <br><br><br><br>
Posted by: MachOne

Re: Hooray for science! (long) - 05/30/02 11:45 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>and a young girl who sat on the end of my bed early one morning<p><hr></blockquote><p>Snap. Except mine was a man I didn't recognise, and he was standing at the end of my bed. I admit to being quite fearful, thinking it was an intruder. He just stood there watching me. I closed my eyes for a moment, why I don't know, and surprise, I could still see him. Then I sat upright and he was gone. It might be pertinent that I had a strep throat at the time and I was running a fever. What that experience did for me was to give me a frame of reference to deal with the concept of ghosts. Having hallucinated, it's now really easy for me to accept that others' experiences might also the result of hallucination.<br><br>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Hooray for science! (long) - 05/31/02 07:12 AM

Not only did I make it to the end, but I was engrossed. It helps that I completely agree with you. I trust that nobody thinks that I accept our present understanding of things as the "last word". I understand that science is always willing to (eventually) move one when its explanations provably do not work. That said, the general theory of relativity has proven remarkably durable over the last 90 or so years.<br><br>[color:red]John</font color=red>
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Hooray for science! (long) - 05/31/02 09:04 AM

and then there was.. Chaos<br><br>