UFO sighting - how best to analyse?

[Gravy]

Jeez - you should post a thread on telepathy - you seem to know more about what I'm thinking than I do! Where do I state what I believe it was? I don't believe I've even hinted at a suggestion. All I've said is what I believe it was not, based on the generic suggestions tentatively proffered so far.

No, you said you don't believe you saw a man-made or natural phenomenon. You've eliminated an awful lot there!

ETA: my 10,000th post. It snuck up on me.

 

[LTC8K6]

Sounds like it could be aircraft in holding patterns to me.

 

[Southwind17]

Yet the literature is full of examples of UFO sightings that seemed to defy logic, but were revealed to have simple causes.

Because we may not have convincing explanations for what you experienced, based on the limited information we have, doesn't mean there isn't a simple, convincing explanation. And don't be offended by people questioning your memory. This is a skeptic's forum and we also have to consider the possibility that you are insane, prone to hallucinations, a drug abuser, or a liar, in which cases our guesses would be pointless. We simply have no way of determining if the information you're providing is accurate. And even if it is as accurate and complete as possible, it's not much to go on for people who weren't there.

By the way, what did you mean by "profain?"

OK - based on the 'limited information' you have (I apologize, I don't know what else to tell you that's of any relevance - are there any blindingly obvious holes in my account that you'd like me to try to fill?). Would you like to offer one or a number of the 'simple convincing explanations' you might have in mind? Let's see if we can find a preliminary match based on what we already know.

I'm not offended by anybody questioning my memory. I am very aware of how memories can fail us and play tricks on the mind. I am simply disappointed that people seem all too willing to dismiss by defaulting to the 'poor memory explanation' before even considering possible alternatives. I suppose the alternatives simply fall into the 'too hard' basket for most people.

Apologies - 'profain' was an incorrect choice of word, and incorrect spelling to boot - double apology. I think 'confounding' would have been a better choice.

 

[Gravy]

OK - based on the 'limited information' you have (I apologize, I don't know what else to tell you that's of any relevance - are there any blindingly obvious holes in my account that you'd like me to try to fill?). Would you like to offer one or a number of the 'simple convincing explanations' you might have in mind? Let's see if we can find a preliminary match based on what we already know.

Military helicopters.

 

[Southwind17]

No, you said you don't believe you saw a man-made or natural phenomenon. You've eliminated an awful lot there!

ETA: my 10,000th post. It snuck up on me.

Thank you for correcting yourself and concurring that I claimed what I didn't observe, not what I did. I'm guessing you were just being playful and provocative in suggesting that I've made my mind up what I did see - that's only to be expected from somebody who seemingly hasn't experienced a 'confounding' event that's not readily explainable.

I do agree, however, that I have 'eliminated an awful lot'. By definition, if I hadn't then I wouldn't still be contemplating the possibilities - they would be too numerous to trivialise the whole incident. But please pay attention to detail. I said 'man-made CRAFT [emphasis added] and natural penomenon'. That's a subtle but important distinction.

Congratulations on your 10,000th. Pleased I was the one to facilitate it. Bit of a ways to go for me!

 

[Southwind17]

Military helicopters.

You've seen them do this have you? No noise; single point light sources; not close to a military base; geometric patterns; too simple - don't think so.

 

[Southwind17]

Sounds like it could be aircraft in holding patterns to me.

Can you be more specific, with reference to the movement patterns described?

 

[Terry]

The start of what you saw corresponds exactly to what a satellite looks like. I suggest that one or more satellites are at least part of the explanation here.

 

[Gravy]

Thank you for correcting yourself and concurring that I claimed what I didn't observe, not what I did. I'm guessing you were just being playful and provocative in suggesting that I've made my mind up what I did see - that's only to be expected from somebody who seemingly hasn't experienced a 'confounding' event that's not readily explainable.

I do agree, however, that I have 'eliminated an awful lot'. By definition, if I hadn't then I wouldn't still be contemplating the possibilities - they would be too numerous to trivialise the whole incident. But please pay attention to detail. I said 'man-made CRAFT [emphasis added] and natural penomenon'. That's a subtle but important distinction.

1) A man-made craft as opposed to a man-made what?

2) Why have you eliminated the possibility of a man-made craft? Do you really think there is no possibility that humans cannot have invented a craft that can do what you saw, taking into account that you may not have been able to accurately determine the distance or speed of the lights?

Congratulations on your 10,000th. Pleased I was the one to facilitate it. Bit of a ways to go for me!

Thanks.

 

[Gravy]

You've seen them do this have you? No noise; single point light sources; not close to a military base; geometric patterns; too simple - don't think so.

Because I haven't seen them do exactly that, does that mean it's impossible? Some military helicopters can fly high and relatively quietly. Exercises can be done with all sorts of lights, one light, or no lights. There was a case years ago near where I lived of private fixed-wing pilots rendezvousing from different airports and playing UFO games on consecutive nights: fooled a lot of people, although not the FAA and military. It just took a while for the facts to filter down.

An here's the problem we have: no matter what we say, if you've already made up your mind about what it cannot be, you can always say, "No, what I saw 30 years ago wasn't quite like that. Try again."

 

[tsg]

Jeez - you should post a thread on telepathy - you seem to know more about what I'm thinking than I do! Where do I state what I believe it was? I don't believe I've even hinted at a suggestion. All I've said is what I believe it was not, based on the generic suggestions tentatively proffered so far.

It doesn't take psychic ability to figure that out:

It is a little disappointing, however, but not unexpected, I suppose, that virtually all of the meaningful feedback focusses on the possibility, neigh, probability, that my memory has betrayed me.

In other words, "I know what I saw and won't be convinced otherwise."

I don't for one minute wish to appear even to suggest that extra-terrestrial craft or beings were at play, so to speak, but given the conditions that night it will take much more than a few generic suggestions that what we witnessed could be accounted for by conventional military or civil aircraft, satellites, 'blimps', spotlight reflections or the like.

"I'm not saying it was aliens, but I don't know (and have already dismissed) what else it could have been."

As has already been pointed out, even if you can 100% eliminate all known mundane explanations for what you saw, even if your memory is 100% accurate, it still doesn't mean it was aliens. All it means is you saw lights you can't explain. And yes, you've said several times that you aren't saying it was aliens, but you also don't show any inclination for entertaining the idea that it wasn't.

The observations simply defy logic on all accounts, and I think that if anybody reading the account carefully were to be completely open-minded and honest with themselves and critically question the probable likelihood of 'generic' explanations they would be very hard-pressed to suggest a convincing theory.

"I've already decided it was aliens and you'll have to convince me otherwise."

If you're not willing to entertain the idea that it wasn't aliens, you are the one who is not being open-minded.

I wouldn't expect any forum members to dedicate even a modicum of time and effort travelling that road, as the 'memory problem' seems to weigh too heavily on the skeptic's ability to focus on the observation as described and seek a plausible explanation, and, in the nature of skepticism it's all too easy to pass off otherwise unexplainable events by reference to 'the usual suspects'.

The "memory problem" is a plausible explanation that you are discounting out of hand. The "usual suspects" are plausible explanations that you are also discounting out of hand for, I can only assume, no other reason except that it isn't the one you want to hear. The very fact that you use the term "usual suspects" in this manner is an indication of that. It's a very subtle way of saying "you don't have the ability to think outside your narrow world view."

Ask yourself this though: Do you seriously doubt your own long-term memory, as you do mine, to the extent that you cannot vouch for the accuracy of ANY memorable events, particularly something so profain, but at the same time simple and defined, as that described by me? I'd like to bet that if the boot were on the other foot the benefit of any doubt, of which, in your mind, I'm sure there would be very little, would be pursued with vigour.

Memory is not entirely reliable. If my memory of an event indicated the only possible cause was something that was completely contrary to the evidence, yes, I would suspect that I was remembering something wrong.

Your OP and subsequent posts carry all the earmarks of a person who witnessed something he can't explain, made up his mind what it was and is now looking for confirmation with no intention of considering that it might have been something else. If you're looking for someone to blindly accept your account and your explanation as 100% factual, you're in the wrong place.

If, however, you are serious about examining it with a skeptical eye, start with the possibility that what you remember isn't exactly what happened.

 

[Cuddles]

I'm not offended by anybody questioning my memory. I am very aware of how memories can fail us and play tricks on the mind. I am simply disappointed that people seem all too willing to dismiss by defaulting to the 'poor memory explanation' before even considering possible alternatives. I suppose the alternatives simply fall into the 'too hard' basket for most people.

What exactly do you expect from us? You've given a vague description of some lights doing something. No pictures, no measurements, no corroboration, no nothing. It simply isn't possible for us to come up with an explanation. There are several things that often give rise to sightings like this, such as satelites, aircraft, swamp gas reflecting Venus, and so on. One of these explanations is that your memory is faulty. This isn't dismissing anything and refusing to consider possible alternatives, it is one of the alternatives, and one of the most likely ones at that.

The fact is, it really wouldn't take much change in the way the lights moved to make them completely normal behaviour for satelites or aircraft. You say you are aware that memory is falible. Why can't you accept that this is true for you as well as everyone else? Of course, you might remember it absolutely perfectly. Now what? We can still only give some possible explanations. We don't have enough information to confirm or deny any of them, and if all you have to go on is what you have told us, neither do you.

 

[Correa Neto]

Thanks for the link, and interesting timeframe of your sighting. My sighting would have been circa 1978. It'll take a while for me to read through the link to see whether it helps explain my observation. Meantime, does the fact that my sighting occured over northern UK preclude your suggested explanation? Also, I'd be very interested to hear a description of your own 'not totally unlike' sighting. Would you oblige please? The devil's often in the detail, as they say!

Location? No problem, the way I see it. My "sighting" was at a farm in Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil. Note that NOSS started well before 1978.

It was about 4 am or so; the sky had some clouds. I, and other people, saw a configuration of three lights on what seemed to be an equilateral triangle formation with a fourth light in the centre. Each individual light looked quite like a small satellite. While the formation moved across the sky, it rotated slowly. The path was not unlike those of other satellites I've seen that night. I could see stars between the lights, so it seemed that there was nothing solid linking them. Sometimes the formation was covered by the clouds. At a vertain point, one of the triangle lights separated from the formation, performed a wide ellipsis across the sky and returned to it. The formation kept moving untill I lost sight of it due to cloud cover.

Since I never wrote a note describing the sighting immediately (or a few days) after it happened, and since it happened almost 30 years ago, I honestly can not be sure if it happened exactly as I am writing now. The devils lies in the details, but the details may have been created by my mind attempting to fill the memmory gaps. Can I be sure there was a fourth light in the centre of the formation? Coudn't it be a "detail" later added by my mind? Can I be sure if one of the lights detached from the formation? Couldn't it be an impression created by (moving) cloud cover and "improved" later by my mind?

Even if it all happened exactly as I told, and even if NOSS satellites could not perform such a maneuver, I would still think it most likely was not an alien craft. UFO? Yes. ET? No.

 

[Southwind17]

The start of what you saw corresponds exactly to what a satellite looks like. I suggest that one or more satellites are at least part of the explanation here.

I don't disagree with your first statement, but that's only the prologue. The second part, addressing the main story, however, is a sweeping, convenient white wash. I'm looking for a substantive explanation. Thanks for your input though.

 

[Southwind17]

1) A man-made craft as opposed to a man-made what?

2) Why have you eliminated the possibility of a man-made craft? Do you really think there is no possibility that humans cannot have invented a craft that can do what you saw, taking into account that you may not have been able to accurately determine the distance or speed of the lights?

Thanks.

Well you indicated I'd said 'man-made phenomenon' (if there is such a thing). Given that we're talking lights in the sky then man-made [air/space] craft was always likely to be suggested as the probable explanation. I asserted that 'man-made craft', as opposed to any other type of craft, does not fit the bill. That said, yes, there is the possibility that man-made craft affords an explanation, but not of a type that I'm familiar with. Are you suggesting it could have been something other than a conventional air/space craft (that maybe became disorientated on it's way back to Area 51!!!)?

 

[Southwind17]

Because I haven't seen them do exactly that, does that mean it's impossible? Some military helicopters can fly high and relatively quietly. Exercises can be done with all sorts of lights, one light, or no lights. There was a case years ago near where I lived of private fixed-wing pilots rendezvousing from different airports and playing UFO games on consecutive nights: fooled a lot of people, although not the FAA and military. It just took a while for the facts to filter down.

An here's the problem we have: no matter what we say, if you've already made up your mind about what it cannot be, you can always say, "No, what I saw 30 years ago wasn't quite like that. Try again."

No, it does not, but the generality of your suggested explanation does not, in my opinion, fit the specificity of the sighting.

"Relatively quietly" is very different from silently, especially at night with next to no ambient noise. Perhaps my hearing failed me, in addition to my memory, although it seems to have returned immediately after the sighting!

I know that neither fixed-wing aircraft nor helicopters could account for the sighting, unless a deliberate hoax was perpetrated, and even then I doubt very much that it could be done convincingly. If so, shame that only two teenagers seem to have witnessed it and been taken in by it. Hell of an expensive and ineffective hoax, that one!

I repeat, I HAVE NOT MADE UP MY MIND WHAT IT CAN OR CANNOT BE. I have simply discounted the 'usual' explanations at the time and possible explanations that have now been suggested on this forum so far. I'm not going to dismiss out of hand every possible explanation because it doesn't fit my agenda. I DON'T HAVE AN AGENDA. I'm simply looking for possible PLAUSIBLE explanations, and nobody has come up with one yet. Maybe I'm being over-critical here, in which case, ironically, I'm probaby being more skeptical than the rest of you!

 

[tsg]

It's aliens. It can only be aliens. There is no possible explanation for what you remember 100% correctly to be, except for aliens.

I'm convinced based on your account alone. It was aliens.

 

[Southwind17]

It doesn't take psychic ability to figure that out:

I think you're jumping to conclusions faster and higher than you allege I have!

"I'm not saying it was aliens, but I don't know (and have already dismissed) what else it could have been."

I've only dismissed the suggestions that don't fit the facts (Mmmm ... dare I use that word here, or will the old 'dementia' theory come back around for another bite?!?). If there are no more suggestions, then I'll let sleeping dogs lie and submit to all of us not really having a clue as to what we saw. I can sleep soundly with that in mind.

As has already been pointed out, even if you can 100% eliminate all known mundane explanations for what you saw, even if your memory is 100% accurate, it still doesn't mean it was aliens. All it means is you saw lights you can't explain. And yes, you've said several times that you aren't saying it was aliens, but you also don't show any inclination for entertaining the idea that it wasn't.

"I've already decided it was aliens and you'll have to convince me otherwise."

There you go - jumping again! I do not believe for one second that it was aliens (I think it might have been you that first introduced the 'A' word to this thread - I'm sure it wasn't me).

If you're not willing to entertain the idea that it wasn't aliens, you are the one who is not being open-minded.

I am willing, oh yes, for sure. Please give me something to hang my hat on though.

The "memory problem" is a plausible explanation that you are discounting out of hand.

No I am not, but most members seem to offer it as the only, or likely, explanation, which is surely as heinous a crime!

The "usual suspects" are plausible explanations that you are also discounting out of hand for, I can only assume, no other reason except that it isn't the one you want to hear. The very fact that you use the term "usual suspects" in this manner is an indication of that. It's a very subtle way of saying "you don't have the ability to think outside your narrow world view."

The "usual suspects" simply don't fit the facts. I think you need to review your use of the word "plausible" in the context of my description of the sighting. I believe that you are deploying it in the generic sense that there are "plausible" explanations for most UFO sightings. I'm being very specific here, and seeking plausible explanations that fit those facts.

Memory is not entirely reliable. If my memory of an event indicated the only possible cause was something that was completely contrary to the evidence, yes, I would suspect that I was remembering something wrong.

I agree with you on this. That's not to say that memory ALWAYS fails us though, as you imply.

Your OP and subsequent posts carry all the earmarks of a person who witnessed something he can't explain

Agree

, made up his mind what it was

Disagree - I have no idea, but I'm very dubious about all suggestions made so far

and is now looking for confirmation

of what, exactly?

with no intention of considering that it might have been something else.

other than what?

If you're looking for someone to blindly accept your account

No I'm not, but I did, maybe naively, anticipate more receptive and scientific reponses. I realize we're all skeptics, but a true skeptic, in my view, should strive to remain broad-minded, within scientific limits.

and your explanation as 100% factual, you're in the wrong place.

The description of the sighting is hardly complex, leaving little to fade or otherwise morph in the memory. If everything posted on the forum has to qualify as 100% factual before it can be considered worthy of consideration I'm surprised the forum persists. Sounds like a cop-out to me for somebody whose skepticism has 'passed across' to cynicism, leaving me wondering exactly who might be 'in the wrong place'!

If, however, you are serious about examining it with a skeptical eye, start with the possibility that what you remember isn't exactly what happened.

OK, I'll go along with this, seriously. What do you propose now as a logical line of enquiry?

 

[Southwind17]

What exactly do you expect from us? You've given a vague description of some lights doing something. No pictures, no measurements, no corroboration, no nothing. It simply isn't possible for us to come up with an explanation. There are several things that often give rise to sightings like this, such as satelites, aircraft, swamp gas reflecting Venus, and so on. One of these explanations is that your memory is faulty. This isn't dismissing anything and refusing to consider possible alternatives, it is one of the alternatives, and one of the most likely ones at that.

The fact is, it really wouldn't take much change in the way the lights moved to make them completely normal behaviour for satelites or aircraft. You say you are aware that memory is falible. Why can't you accept that this is true for you as well as everyone else? Of course, you might remember it absolutely perfectly. Now what? We can still only give some possible explanations. We don't have enough information to confirm or deny any of them, and if all you have to go on is what you have told us, neither do you.

I don't 'expect' anything from you. All I was seeking was possible plausible explanations for what we saw. At best, I was hoping that somebody had had a similar sighting, who might then have gone on to seek or obtain an explanation. So far all I've read are generic explanations that fail to fit the facts and suggestions of memory failure as a probability.

Interesting, actually, thinking about it. Let's assume for a second the memory theory is right. I suppose the effect of that is that the sighting, as described, could be virtually fabricated, the memory converting a completely unrelated event to an alleged UFO sighting. Alternatively, maybe the sighting was genuine but the recollection has been only slightly altered over time, possibly embelishing the facts for dramatical effect. You state that a 'faulty' memory is 'the most likely' alternative. What, exactly, are you asserting in the context of my musings above, and what scientific evidence do you base your probabilistic assessment on?

Not wishing to pick up on detail, but to cite 'swamp gas reflecting Venus' as potentially giving rise to 'sightings like this' only serves, in my mind, to discredit the sincerity of your response, and demonstrates my earlier inference that many forum members who are all too keen to participate in these threads and have their say are, in contrast, all too single-minded not to consider the facts, views, opinions, assertions, etc. Your reference to 'vague description of some lights doing something' only serves to highlight and illustrate my point.

If one cannot contribute positively to a debate with fresh or novel ideas then maybe one should simply sit back, observe and take solace from those who can.

 

[tsg]

OK, I'll go along with this, seriously. What do you propose now as a logical line of enquiry?

First, start with the view that the alien visitation explanation suffers from a great number of flaws at the outset, most fatally that there is no evidence for life on other planets, let alone intelligent life that is visiting us, and that the requirements of evidence for this to be the explanation are much, much higher than that of more mundane explanations, including your memory not being entirely accurate. Basically, unexplained lights in the sky should not be sufficient to convince you of alien visitations even if you can't find another explanation for them.

Second, start examining the other explanations offered for how they could explain what you saw instead of trying to find details that don't fit with what you remember (ETA: with the understanding that none of us saw what you did and can only go by your description). Understand that the movements you saw, even if your memory of them is correct, may not be what actually happened. For instance, the perception of a point of light moving left to right, stopping, and then moving right to left are adequately explained by a plane making a 180 degree turn if part of the turn is within your plane of view (ie, moving directly away from or towards you). At great distances, like the altitudes commercial airliners are typically found, the change in distance isn't nearly as perceptible as the change in position from left to right. You can rank the likelihood of these explanations by how well they fit with what you remember seeing, but don't automatically discount it because it doesn't fit every little detail. Remember that a mundane explanation that only explains 90% of what you saw is far more likely to be the right one than alien visitation.

Third, be prepared for the possibility that there just isn't enough information to explain what you saw. "I don't know" is not an unacceptable result. While the desire to know is a good thing, don't let it drive you to a conclusion that isn't supported.