UFO sighting - how best to analyse?

[Southwind17]

Southwind17, I have the impression that you are being a bit biased with some ideas presented by some posters. It seems you find explanations involving faulty recollections specially problematic.

However, as some already pointed out, with the availble information, such speculations can not be quickly dismissed, even if you do belive or feel the sighting happened the exactly the way you remember it.

Check, for example,
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html
http://forensic-evidence.com/site/Behv_Evid/BhvE_Paige.html
Performing a search for eyewitnesses reliability and false memory right here will also provide you some very usefull links that will help you to understand the many problems with eyewitness' reports. Its not dismissing it out of hand, is acknoweledging that there may be an issue with it.

Thank you for this. These links are very useful, and I can now accept the possibility, and indeed probability, of memory fallibility, at least in relation to some of the detail. It will, however, take more to convince me that the event did not occur largely as recollected, but I remain open to that possibility.

This put, there are a few more points I would like to comment.

1. People pointed out the possibility that the stop may have been an illusion; the object merely turned towards you. You said not, since it was right above you. Well, this was not clear from your previous posts... How could anyone have guessed?

I don't wish to appear pedantic, I think we're now past analysing the fine detail, but for the record, I was, actually, clear as to the positioning - quote: “The light point is almost directly overhead.” (third line of my description). I guess this actually adds weight to the memory explanation, or are you just pretending to have forgotten an important detail? (only joking!)

2. Satellites quite often "pass almost right over our heads", another match.

Yes - this adds weight to the satellite theory - thanks.

3. Satellites are only visible untill a certain time after sunset or before dawn; in the meantime, Earth's shadow cone allows no sunlight to illuminate them. If the sighting was not within the propper timeframe, satellites can be ruled out.
You might want to check these sites for more info (and predictions) on satellite observation.
http://www.heavens-above.com/main.aspx
http://www.satobs.org/satintro.html

Thanks for this too. I'm familiar with the "heavens-above" site, and will peruse both. Not sure if the available data will go back 30 years though - I'll check.

4. You can not also completely dismiss the possibility that you experienced some sort of illusion that created the apparent movment.

Accepted - that's always a possibility with just about anything 'unusual' that's observed, I guess. I suppose this one will always hang over the whole episode.

Thanks again for steering me down a clearer path of possible explanations - appreciated.

 

[Southwind17]

Those that I mentioned. For example, determining with the implied level of accuracy the regularity of the path of slowly moving points leaving no traces; determining presence or absence of subtle changes in an object's brightness over time; determining with the implied level of accuracy the angular distance between points, or how much it changes when the points move around each other.

OK - I think I see what you're saying now. It's impossible to say for sure that what I believe I saw really happened as I believe I saw it. I can accept that now (see previous post). What I was getting at, though, is that it's not impossible that what I believe I saw actually happened as recalled. I admit though, now, that it's extremely unlikely that I've got all the detail accurate, and that some of the illusions or misbeliefs that you describe could well have occurred. Thanks

On a clear night, you can see stars ranging all the way from, say, 0 to +4 magnitude, and with a wide range of colors (that are difficult for humans to see becose the light is so dim, but become very apparent on magnified color photographs). "Equivalent brightness to the ambient stars" could mean +1 magnitude just as well as +3 magnitude, which is over 6 times the difference in brightness. Under these circumstances, it is unclear to me what your "point of reference" is.

Accepted - my fault. I guess what I was trying to describe was a level of brightness that, were it not for the movement, would simply have been passed off by a lay-person as a star, as distinct from, say, a landing light from an aircraft, which, from my experience (which, in this regard, is, admittedly, somewhat limited), would probably be noticeably brighter.

I have actually tested this. I have written a simple program rotating two light points on a star background and shown this twice to a volunteer, with what I'd call fairly distorted paths. Upon questioning them, they used the term 'circle' and didn't report any distortion at all. Even after I've told them that the trajectories are distorted, and even when allowing them to replay the animation at their will, they found it extraordinarily difficult to draw the shape of the trajectory. After being shown the actual trajectory, they expressed surprise at how much it differed from what they imagined. You can have the program if you can arrange for transfer of binary data.

This seems extremely coincidental, although I don't doubt it for a second. May I ask what prompted you to conduct the experiment in the way you describe? Would I be able to use the data?

After the experiments I've done, I say with certainty that if you think you would be able to detect and recall irregularities in the path of two slowly moving points leaving no traces, thirty years ago, without having been previously alerted to the possibility that the paths may not be perfectly circular, you are simply deluding yourself.

You might well be right. I now accept this.

Oh, okay. You can try an experiment for yourself. If you are into watching the night sky, I suppose you have seen the constellations of Orion and Cassiopeia, many many times. Using just your memory, without checking the actual night sky or looking it up, try to assess the angular size of the Orion's belt and the angular width of the Cassiopeia's W, "at arm's length". After you have written down your assessment, feel free to measure the actual angular sizes, look them up, or ask here for the correct answer, and evaluate your error. Of course there is nothing preventing you from cheating, but this is an experiment for yourself, not for me.

This sounds like an interesting challenge. I will try this, and get back to you. I promise I won't cheat - I'm not out to disprove anybody here, all I'm seeking is a rational explanation, and this might well help. Thanks

It is you who implies the absolute accuracy of your description after nearly 30 years. I have tried to show you that several aspects of what you claim you "clearly remember" would in fact be very difficult for you to assess, and appear to be a product of your interpretation. I have tried to explain to you that it makes no sense to discount an explanation for your observation if it doesn't fit some particular details that you think you've observed.

Accepted

I'm not trying to say that unless your report is 100% accurate, it is worthless. What I'm trying to say is that while you can use little details to rule out explanations when you've got, for example, a recording of the event on camera, you cannot do the same when all you've got is a 30-year old eyewitness account, even if the witness swears by Zeus that it's all true and accurate. This means that one of the explanations that you've ruled out as inconsistent with your observation may be correct after all.

Accepted

No. What you have described and the reported accuracy thereof exceeds the ability of human naked eye observation. With hardly any background and the point lights leaving no traces, and the event happening only once, without you expecting it, I assert that it would be impossible for you to determine the geometric qualities of the lights' trajectory with the accuracy that is implied by words such as "exactly the same circumference", "perfect circle" or "extremely well orchestrated manouvre".

Accepted - but the movements were essentially straight lines and circular, at least.

In short, you should take your own recollections with a grain of salt, and not ascribe to them the accuracy of a videotape, even if the observed event is very simple.

Accepted - thanks for your input - appreciated.

 

[Southwind17]

Oh, okay. You can try an experiment for yourself. If you are into watching the night sky, I suppose you have seen the constellations of Orion and Cassiopeia, many many times. Using just your memory, without checking the actual night sky or looking it up, try to assess the angular size of the Orion's belt and the angular width of the Cassiopeia's W, "at arm's length". After you have written down your assessment, feel free to measure the actual angular sizes, look them up, or ask here for the correct answer, and evaluate your error. Of course there is nothing preventing you from cheating, but this is an experiment for yourself, not for me.

OK - unfortunately I'm not sufficiently familiar with Cassiopeia's W, but I would recognize Orion's belt easily. My estimation is that Orion's 'angular size', i.e. distance between the two extreme stars, is around 7cm at arm's length (I'm 5ft 11''). I have to admit, I think I could be way out, which I suppose proves your point already, but let's go with the official verdict. What's the answer?

 

[Thabiguy]

OK - unfortunately I'm not sufficiently familiar with Cassiopeia's W, but I would recognize Orion's belt easily. My estimation is that Orion's 'angular size', i.e. distance between the two extreme stars, is around 7cm at arm's length (I'm 5ft 11''). I have to admit, I think I could be way out, which I suppose proves your point already, but let's go with the official verdict. What's the answer?

Angular distance between Alnitak and Mintaka, the two border stars of the impressive "belt" in the beautiful constellation of Orion, is about 2.8 degrees; assuming 60 cm arm length, this would be about 2.9 cm at arm's length (you can convert to your specific arm length using formula distance-at-arm's-length = sin(angle) * arm-length). Your estimate is therefore about 2.4x off (or you could say, off by 140%), which is a fairly typical error that you needn't feel bad about - many people would err even more.

The point, as you have of course correctly guessed, is not to downplay your observational skills, but to illustrate that trying to recall angular sizes, even for objects we're relatively familiar with, is subject to significant inaccuracy, due to the inherent limitations of our visual processing and visual memory. One way to overcome this is not trying to memorize the apparent size of an object in the sky (which we're really quite bad at, as you have seen), but its relative size, compared to something else that can later be measured. But of course, this comparison needs to be done at the time of observation, not afterwards.

This seems extremely coincidental, although I don't doubt it for a second. May I ask what prompted you to conduct the experiment in the way you describe? Would I be able to use the data?

It wasn't coincidental; I did it because of this discussion. I'm one of those people who like to experiment. After I wrote my original post about the rotating points and before you replied to it, I kept thinking about it, and wondered about some additional details that I didn't have a quick answer to, and rather than doing lengthy research, I found it easier to write a simple program to simulate points following distorted paths and find out by actually trying it. It confirmed my predictions and answered the things I had wondered about. Later when you replied and expressed doubt about the result of such an experiment, I first wanted to mention my earlier simple experimentation, but then I realized that the test was not very good, as the observer (me) was obviously biased, so I thought - I've got some time to spare, why not do it a little more properly? So I made the program slightly fancier, added some background and antialiasing, and asked a friend to observe. The results were the same, but I felt better.

The program is a DOS application working in a simple graphic mode and I think it should work in any Windows version. If you want it, PM me.

 

[Southwind17]

E=MC2 is an example of semantic memory, sometimes referred to as knowledge, and your UFO sighting is an example of visual and episodic memory. These memories are laid down differently and are treated differently in the brain. Why do you hold forth on subjects of which you are clearly ignorant?

OK - I'll happily bow to your better judgement and knowledge, but I wasn't professing to 'hold forth' on subjects of which I am clearly ignorant, I was simply stating my views and opinions, on which you have commented from a clearly informed perspective. It's a good way to learn!

If thinking that makes you feel better then go ahead. The truth is, if I see a bird on a tree branch and the next time I look it's not there, I assume it has flown away. I do not assume it has been kidnapped by aliens, or eaten by unicorns, or succombed to spontaneous avian combustion as a result of proximity to plasma-based Martian tree fairies. It's in this way that I can appreciate the true wonders of the world without resorting to brainless woo-woo theories and infantile fantasy conjecture.

Explaining the disappearance of a bird from a branch presents very few likely possibilities and lends itself to common logic far better than the sighting I described. I'm sure I would resort to the same conclusion, in those circumstances. I too tend not to resort to 'brainless woo-woo theories and infantile fantasy conjecture', as I believe I have not in this instance. I am simply open to ideas, albeit, admittedly, with a slight bias at times - apologies.

Sure, because if you asked a scientist, "What's more likely; false childhood memory or a giant flashing alien spacecraft?" he'd reply, "The spacecraft, of course!"

... and so would I, of course(!), but pray tell, where did the 'giant flashing alien spacecraft' suddenly appear from (excuse the pun)? Incidentally, just because the occurrence of one possible event is of greater probability than another doesn't necessarily mean that the lower-probability event did not occur!

 

[Elind]

I know what we saw that night, and I'm not alleging that it was anything that did not originate from Earth, but I'm at a loss to come up with a plausible explanation, and I'm hoping that somebody out there can.

Go for it!

Question: How many years ago was this?
Question: How do you know which light point was above or below the other, when looking from below?
Question: What was the time of night?

Given that what you saw was a motion in a constant direction and a repeating pattern along that same direction, what you most likely saw (certainly I would say) was a satellite with a rotation and varying reflectivity. That is fairly common, and it does not have to be a uniformly spaced on/off reflectivity depending on many factors.

You saw a satellite fairly high and slow with a slow tumble that would periodically blink out, but less often than it was on. Your eye followed the light, but when it disappeared you automatically focussed on the nearest star trying to pick it out. Then it reappeared near the star you are looking at and your brain confuses which is which and sees them as moving around each other. Then blink out again, and on a little further away. This repeats twice more (it was a clear sky and therefore stars where everywhere, you said), but by now you are looking for and anticipating the pattern.

Edit: OK. I read more other posts. This was 30 years ago. No doubt you have thought of it often and probably the memory has not changed, but I venture that you were much more impressionable, and probably not as accurate in detail observation then as now which, based on personal experience, makes me even more confident of my explanation.

 

[Southwind17]

Thanks for your late contribution Elind. I'm now satisfied, from the suggestions provided by various members, that the sighting or details thereof could have many plausible explanations ranging from memory fallibility (very likely) to satellites, including combinations thereof (also very likely). I'm perfectly happy for this thread to fizzle out now, and I thank all who contributed for helping me see the experience and after-effects more openly than I at first thought I was. I should also like to apologize to those members who I initially gave short shrift to, and may have offended or upset with any of my somewhat disingenuous riposte - especially Cuddles - sorry.

 

[This is The End]

“We're lying on our backs in a field gazing at the night sky.”

Let’s say you’re looking up and the events take place around 60 to 80 degrees above your viewpoint.

“The stars are clear and bright, and abundant. The usual constellations can be clearly identified.”

Much has been discussed already about this, helps to confirm you wouldn’t be able to tell the exact posistion, speed, or size of the points of light, even if they were changing.

“Suddenly we notice a light point moving slowly in a straight line from left to right, as we're looking up. The light point is almost directly overhead. There's absolutely no noise. The light point appears of equivalent size, brightness and colour to the ambient stars overhead.”

Aircraft 1 approaches from the left, it has a light and is at a considerable altitude above you.

“After a few seconds the light point stops dead.”

Aircraft 1 has turned away from you 90 degrees to it’s left, possibly climbing slightly here. It appears relatively stationary to you, but probably hasn’t changed speed much. (It is possible it turned 90 degrees to it’s right here and is approaching you.)

“Then the light point, in conjunction with another light point 'beneath' it, as we're looking”

Aircraft 2 approaches from a vanishing point (perhaps atmospheric or relative to how well your eyes see the crafts light) some distance below (or above?) where Aircraft 1 is leaving you. Both appear stationary to you as described.

“begins to rotate slowly around a common axis in a clockwise direction. The distance between the two light points is roughly 6cm as measured at arm's length. When the two light points have exchanged positions, i.e. the first light point has rotated from the 12 O'clock position to the 6 O'clock position and vice versa”

Aircraft 1 makes a climbing (or descending?) arc turn 180 degrees down (or up?) , at the same time as Aircraft 2 makes a descending (or climbing?) arc 180 degrees up (or down). This appears to you as described.

“, both light points momentarily stop”

Aircraft 1 leaving via 90 degree turn to same vanishing point. Aircraft 2 is approaching your point of view.

“then the second light point, now at the 12 O'clock position, moves slowly away to the right, continuing the apparent course that the first light point initially followed.”

Aircraft 2 has turned 90 degrees to it’s left, so instead of coming head on at you it now travels to your right like Aircraft 1 did initially.

“The first light point remains still.”

Aircraft 1 hasn’t been moving away from you long enough to reach the vanishing point.

“After a few seconds the second light point stops dead, just as the first did, then the whole process repeats, this time with a third light point. After completing the 180 degree rotation the third light also point moves away to the right, again following the initial course, then fades out of sight, suggesting a very large distance from our observation point. “

Aircraft 2 has begun the cycle over with another 90 degree turn to it’s left. No need to type any of that again, except to add that Aircraft 3 could possibly be Aircraft 1 again.

“Unfortunately, the first two light points are no longer identifiable from the surrounding stars, and cannot be observed further.”

Likely not that they are idistinguisable, but they've gone/moved.


In summary, this doesn’t sound like a very remarkable sighting at all, likely some normal flight patrol maneuvers.

 

[Elind]

Don't Fizzle Out Yet

Thanks for your late contribution Elind. I'm now satisfied, from the suggestions provided by various members, that the sighting or details thereof could have many plausible explanations ranging from memory fallibility (very likely) to satellites, including combinations thereof (also very likely). I'm perfectly happy for this thread to fizzle out now, and I thank all who contributed for helping me see the experience and after-effects more openly than I at first thought I was. I should also like to apologize to those members who I initially gave short shrift to, and may have offended or upset with any of my somewhat disingenuous riposte - especially Cuddles - sorry.

Don't fizzle out yet.

I have a puzzle for those interested. Could easily have been a UFO story, but the challenge is to explain it.

I was watching the sky after dark one evening. There was scattered low clouds at a few thousand feet or less, but a lot of clear sky too. The landing pattern for the airport some 20 miles away was such that the planes would come towards me from a long way about 30 degrees above the horizon (when their headlight looks like a stationary star for a long time, until they get close), then they would turn to my left towards the airport and often pass through the low clouds and then I would hear the plane. The sight of the headlight shining like a ray beam was visible through the clouds and quite an interesting display.

Then came one light that got brighter and brighter coming straight at me, and also shining through a cloud. The cylindrical beam of light could be seen quite clearly in and through the thin cloud and at times was bright enough to cause a shadow where I was. I started to think this was a police helicopter with a searchlight looking for something, but no sound yet and the light was far far brighter than any airplane I had ever seen.

I would guess this went on for about one minute or even more, yet the plane never appeared. Then the light started to fade and the cloud dissipated and no airplane in sight.

What did I see?

 

[Iamme]

Sorry to disappoint EHLO, but satellites, I guess(!), don't stop dead, CLEARLY rotate around a common axis WITH ANOTHER SATELLITE.

But aircraft out 20 miles from an airport, with their landing lights on, circling the airport,will appear to be this bright light moving across the sky, stop dead in it's it's tracks, and go backwards. And *I* was able to figure that out years ago, on my own, I was 12 years old viewing my very first "UFO" (flying saucer of course, as nothing less than that would be a true UFO. ) through my 20 power binoculars in Racine Wisconsin, about 20 miles from Milwaukee's Gen. Billy Mitchell Field airport.

Also, if it occurs just after sunset, the light reflecting off the craft will appear to be it's lights and may not be...rather just or partially light reflection...and can explain how you continously see a bright light moving forward, then backward.

It also dawned on me back then, that "UFO's" would not be having lights on!!! If they had lights for us to see them... If THAT was their objective...they'd land! So, all these UFO's with lights...they can be explained, like I did about the airport case.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...I don't wish to appear pedantic, I think we're now past analysing the fine detail, but for the record, I was, actually, clear as to the positioning - quote: “The light point is almost directly overhead.” (third line of my description). I guess this actually adds weight to the memory explanation, or are you just pretending to have forgotten an important detail? (only joking!)...snip...

No jokes!

I'll answer without looking at the whole thread. Right now I just don't know if you said the lights were almost overhead at your first description of the sighting. However, I guess you did not! But thinking harder, I am really not sure. This could easilly have turned in to some "I'm sure that I remember..." case!

See how memory can be tricky?

As for the "thank you"s, you are welcome!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

In post number 7 you said, "I know what we saw that night" which does seem to be at odds with most of what you've said this thread (i.e. that you DON'T know what you saw).

I'd encourage you to at least entertain the idea that your memory is less reliable than a videotape. Also, if there was some sort of optical illusion happening, you'd be "remembering" what you saw even though it was a wrong reading.

I remember once seeing what looked for all the world like a large African shaman's mask sitting on the chair in my bedroom for quite a long time--at least 20 minutes-- before it finally flipped to become just a pile of clothes on the chair. If it hadn't "flipped" my memory would be the vivid recollection of a large African shaman's mask.

Let's not leave out the possibility of meteorological phenomena. Distant ground based lights reflected on clouds (or more dramatically on convection layers) can cause really strange optical illusions which aren't even actually Unidentified Flying Objects.

Since you don't know what you saw, you don't know anything about it (distance, size, speed, whether it was one object, two objects, or even an object at all) so . . .

I'd go along with Belz's answer given way back in post number 5.

If I had to guess, though, I'd lean toward some of the various aircraft explanations give in this thread.

 

[Southwind17]

I think my post #67 makes it very clear that I now accept that memory probably plays a large part in explaining what I thought we saw. Ergo, many of the possible explanations proffered by members now seem plausible, some moreso than others. My money's on satellites, as opposed to civil aircraft, and I'll explain why, for the benefit of anybody wishing to continue this thread. I must stress, though, that the following pre-supposes that my recollections are true and reasonably accurate, which I now accept is highly unlikely. Unless that can be assumed, though, there's little point analysing physical explanations further, and as I've already stated, I for one am happy to let this sleeping dog lie:

The location of the sighting was Sheffield, England. At the time the nearest civil airports were Manchester and East Midlands. Each are each approximately 40 miles distance from the sighting location. It was properly dark. The sky was full of stars, like when you're in awe of how many you can see. There was no cloud. The rotations occurred essentially overhead (probably greater than 60 degrees to the horizon) and were of no more than 15cm diameter as measured at arms length, allowing for memory lapse(!). By my calculation that would put the aircraft at an altitude circa 30+ miles, if essentially over the airport! Aircraft circling an airport preparing to land does not, to me, seem like a probable or even likely explanation.

Incidentally Joe, when I said "I know what we saw that night" I don't mean "I can explain what we saw that night". I meant "I can recall our observations accurately that night". It was a poor choice of words, on reflection, and I apologize for any confusion caused. I would not make that same statement now, as is evident from my more recent posts. Also, given that you've read at least as far back as Post #7 I'm surprised that you're encouraging me to entertain memory fallibility as an explanation (see my opening comment to this post re. Post #67). No encouragement needed - thanks.

Finally, to state as fact the UFOs "would not be having lights on" .... Come on, we started off (certainly in my mind) trying to explain seemingly unusual lights in the night sky. We did, to a degree, move on to debating the likelihood of extra-terrestrial craft being a possible explanation (which, for the absolute avoidance of any possible doubt I do not entertain). We have, in my mind, concluded that memory probably has a lot to do with what we 'saw'. To try to introduce the rationale as to why UFOs would not display lights as relevant to this discussion ... ahem!

 

[Elind]

I think my post #67 makes it very clear that I now accept that memory probably plays a large part in explaining what I thought we saw. Ergo, many of the possible explanations proffered by members now seem plausible, some moreso than others. My money's on satellites, as opposed to civil aircraft, and I'll explain why, for the benefit of anybody wishing to continue this thread.

I have seen far too many aircraft lights for anyone but a UFO woo to describe them as you did. You saw a variable satellite which was periodically confused with fixed stars and coupled with your statement that one was "below" the other (which is impossible to determine in that situation), there was a dash of imagination thrown in.

Now, doesn't anyone care to venture a guess on my sighting described above?

 

[Correa Neto]

A searchlight or a beacon from the airport or some other nearby source?

A plane taking off instead of landing?

The MIB explanation?

 

[Southwind17]

I have seen far too many aircraft lights for anyone but a UFO woo to describe them as you did. You saw a variable satellite which was periodically confused with fixed stars and coupled with your statement that one was "below" the other (which is impossible to determine in that situation), there was a dash of imagination thrown in.

Now, doesn't anyone care to venture a guess on my sighting described above?

Oh come on now Elind. If you take the time to read over this thread from the beginning (and I'm not saying you haven't, but your question suggests not) you should already have concluded that the explanation for your 'sighting', in all likelihood, will go down exactly the same path as mine. You don't say how long ago your sighting was, but irrespective, the memory explanation is still likely to play a large part. If we were to substitute your sighting for mine in this thread virtually everything that's been written (fine detail excepted) would still apply and hold true. Given what you have described, I suspect that, memory aside, there would be many possible explanations that potentially fit, just like my sighting, assuming members are prepared for an action replay, that is.

I think you need to accept, as I now have, that ANY description of a seeming UFO or unusual event (UFO-related or otherwise) is always going to be subjected to the memory fallibility test, and to my mind, from what I've now learned from this forum, it will be destined to fail.

 

[Elind]

You are correct, I haven't read every post here in entirety, because I could see that I didn't agree with the basic premise of some in the beginning. Airplanes and the like, for example.

My teaser event was just a couple of years ago, and I do know the answer, which is interesting and also quite likely to inspire UFO sightings in believers of the latter.

However, as I thought this thread was dying out I posted the same question in a new thread. Perhaps if you are interested we can continue there.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think my post #67 makes it very clear that I now accept that memory probably plays a large part in explaining what I thought we saw.

Sorry. I missed that.

My bad!