Evidence for the existence of gooses = lots
Evidence for the existence of Ayleeuns = none
Therefore it is more likely to be something that we have evidence for it's existence and forthermore, something that has a precedent for looking like something it's not.
To explain a UFO as ET is not warranted. We simply do not have any direct evidence to suggest that UFOs can be so explained.
However, we do have circumstantial evidence (ostensible “nuts and bolts” craft, intelligent control and associated beings) and we know that science predicts that ET should exist.
So either ETs are visiting earth or they are not.
If they are, it is nevertheless impossible to know the likelihood of a particular UFO being able to be explained by ET.
But equally, we do not know that they are not visiting us.
I therefore never have, nor do I intend to, explain any UFOs as ET.
It is however possible to work out whether a particular UFO report can be explained by geese.
In the case of my own particular UFO sighting the likelihood is practically zero. I say this for a number of reasons. The great height, the luminosity and the pattern of motion forming the principal of those.
How does something at "great height" or satellite height (essentially something that is above the atmosphere), not get affected by the exact same atmospheric effect that makes the stars twinkle?
As a child I would often watch satellites pass overhead and it was apparent that they did not twinkle as stars did. Even the planets do not twinkle as stars do. There is a measurable difference between the pattern of light from satellites and planets and stars. Perhaps you have never looked to the night sky to see for yourself – or perhaps you live in a city where this is impossible?
The objects I observed did not twinkle as stars do, but shone more in the manner of a satellite or planet.
So have you now dropped the ridiculous assertion that you were in a goose free zone where gooses fear to fly forever and always?
Not at all, there have never been any geese in the area, nor, to my knowledge, have any ever been sighted flying over the area. It is a heavily forested and mountainous area and there are much easier passages inland to the west. Any geese would make for the nearest safe land after an arduous sea journey and there is simply no safe landing for them in the place or the surrounding area, while there is closer landfall to the west for them where they can follow the coast until a safe passage inland to grazing areas is found.
Perish the thought that a bird might have to fly over an ocean.
The “birds hypothesis” is a complete furphy in any case. How do you explain the brilliant illumination (a starlike “pinprick” of light). How do you explain the unwavering regularity of formation and the oscillation of the first two objects around a central axis? And how do you explain the great height?
Re your “twinkliness”:
It is however a good descriptor and can be used for city lights in the mid to far distance as well as stars (and of course unicorn's farts). The common thing being that points of light, when passing through the atmosphere go through a sciency explainable 'twinkle filter'™ that makes them twinkle.
So quite obviously you have found this case too much for you and rather than address the substantial issues simply revert to type with denial ridicule, and obfuscation?
Get back to me when you feel you might be able to actually conduct a rational debate.
The point you are missing (avoiding?) is NOT whether geese might be a plausible explanation, but the fact that you did not even consider the possibility. When the possibility was put to you you quite arrogantly insisted that there are no geese in southern Australia, so not even an option.
Of course you simply misrepresent what I stated – and of course you
must do that in order to maintain you faith-based belief system. Let me restate for the record:
There are no geese in the area, nor have any ever been seen flying overhead. It just does not happen. Geese are simply not a plausible explanation.
The question is not whether geese are a viable explanation, but what OTHER viable explanations you have not even considered.
Now please explain how, at midnight,
anything flying over the area could have been illuminated?
You continue to declare that there are no plausible, mundane explanation for your sighting, when it has been clearly demonstrated that you have barely considered all possibilities.
What possibilities? So far all that I have seen proposed is the “geese hypothesis” and I have explained many times and in detail why that hypothesis is not plausible. You may continue to ignore my statements in that regard, but your ignorance will not make them disappear.
The reason this thread is so long is a direct result of that attitude to the research side of the thread title.
The reason this thread is so long is that the UFO debunkers simply ignore the evidence when presented with it. They propose an implausible mundane explanation, I present the evidence or logical argument to show why that explanation is implausible, the debunkers merely ignore that to launch a campaign of ridicule, denial and obfuscation - and then when the dust settles, they merely return to proposing the original implausible explanation – as if no evidence or logical argument had been presented against it in the first place. And so around and around it goes.
Satellites can and do travel in south to north directions.
Indeed they can. Perhaps then, since you are the resident expert in such matters, you can inform us as to what satellites were in a south to north orbit in December 2008?
Satellites can travel in groups of two to three (see NOSS).
Apart from the fact that there were four objects in my sighting, was the NOSS travelling south to north in horizontal alignment in December 2008?
Satellites can APPEAR to oscillate between each other depending on the conditions (two or more satellites moving in the same general direction at different altitudes) and the observer (the same way people can think a star appears to jump around).
There were four objects in formation on precisely the same trajectory. The first two were oscillating about a central point between them while the second two trailed them, following the trajectory of that central point. None of them were “jumping around”.
Satellites can have short transit times based on their altitude but we already know that estimates of time can be almost meaningless and in error.
The azimuth was due west when first sighted at about 70 degrees above the horizon. They disappeared over the hills some 20 seconds later. This meant that they covered about 35 degrees of arc in that 20 seconds. This would mean a total transit time (horizon to horizon) of about a minute. Can you show me any group of satellites in a south/north orbit in December 2008 with such a transit time?
As I stated previously, this is Rramjet's personal UFO sighting, which means asking him to be objective about it is a non-starter in the first place.
This is mere obfuscation in the form of an unfounded assertion.
He will refuse to accept explanations, come up with new details, change details to suit his needs and ensure a viable explanation can not be formulated. This is nothing new with people who report UFOs.
Will I indeed? Here is the original sighting as related:
Mr X, Mr Y and myself were sitting outside on are warm, clear night, enjoying a quiet conversation, when my Mr Y said …“Those stars are moving”. And he pointed up into the western night sky (it was about 11:45 in the evening). I looked up but could see nothing except a huge number of stars (it was a very clear night and we were well away from city lights). “Where?” I asked. “There”, he said pointing. I stood up and so did he. I followed his pointed finger and there they were: Four tiny star-like points of light in a row, about 70 degrees up from the horizon, moving south to north. Very high up. Satellite height. They had a similar brightness to stars – but they were not twinkling. The strange thing was that the first two lights were close together (a finger nail width between them at arms length) and they were “oscillating” about a midpoint between them. Not much - perhaps 20-30 degrees - but certainly noticeable. First the front one was above (to the side of?) the line of motion and the back one below it, then the oscillation would reverse this configuration. Back and forth they moved with a period of about 5 seconds. Then there was a third object trailing them on the same track, perhaps two finger widths back - and a little further back again – maybe three finger widths from the second object, a fourth one. All following precisely the same track. They just continued on their heading to disappear in the slight misty haziness over the hills to the north. From the time of sighting (almost due west) to when they disappeared in the northwest was about 20 seconds.
Those are the details. That is the case. If you want to question me about it, then I will be happy to supply more details as per those requests - and I will do my best to provide those details as accurately and objectively as possible. If however you propose to denigrate my character before you have even got started on those questions then I would suggest that says more about you than it does me.
Since Rramjet apparently refuses to provide real details of his observation (location, date, time, azimuth, elevations)
I have not been asked for some of those details and others I have supplied.
has had problems telling north from west,
LOL. Yes, I typed in north by mistake when I should have typed in west. I have corrected that error. The error was however not pertinent to the case.
and seems to have difficulty with magnitude estimates (I too find it hard to believe he had difficulty locating a third magnitude satellite indicating it was probably +4 or fainter)
When Mr Y stated “Those stars are moving” and I looked up, I did not immediately see what he was talking about. However, when we both stood up and I followed his pointed finger, they were immediately obvious. The magnitude was an estimate. All I really know is that they were practically indistinguishable in magnitude from the myriad other stars that were in that region of the sky (thus, since I was asked the question, I chose a magnitude that I thought reflected an average magnitude of those stars from here
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/science/star-magnitude.htm).
one can only consider this an unreliable observation that contains insufficient information.
So, three witnesses observe four objects, of star bright in magnitude, seemingly not twinkling, travelling in relatively close and precise formation, with the first two oscillating around a central point between them and that is an unreliable observation?
If you want more information, all you have to do is ask and I will be happy to provide it. However, if you do not ask, and given I am not a mind reader, how am I to know what extra information you might want?
Just to add to the above commentary as I reviewed Hendry's UFO handbook a little while ago. He states the following about satellites:
The only real deviation reported by the witnesses is a well-known illusion based on the same autokinetic effects that "move" stars. Involuntary jerky motions of the eye can make a satellite appear to "jog off course and back again in five seconds" (case 190), "zigzag" (cases 719 and 804), and "wobble" (case 1080). An absence of a frame of reference, especially overhead, can make judging a satellite's motion difficult. The witness in case 827 thought that the satellite "stopped once" for a matter of seconds in a five-minute transit of the sky. Even the noted science author Arthur C. Clarke has recounted how and film director Stanley Kubrick thought an Echo satellite passing over Manhattan came to rest when it was directly overhead! (pages 44-45)
Richard Feynman once said, The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
Can that apply in this UFO report?
They did not “jog off course”, “wobble”, “zig zag”, “stop” or even “come to rest”. They were all four moving in an unwavering trajectory, with the first two objects oscillating about a central point between them (with an entirely predictable period that was noted by all three witnesses).
)
