UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Marduk]

After the sighting, I started asking around and I found out that other people had reported similar objects out there in the past. The valley has plenty of weird stories, and since I lived there for several years I was lucky enough to experience some of the phenomena.

j.r.

ok, so you lived there for years then you must be familiar with the local firefly population, or are you claiming that there aren't any ?

 

[Akhenaten]

<cool story, bro>

This thing, whatever it was, wasn't "one of ours". There is just no way.

There's a huge difference between telling a story about something you couldn't identify and ending it with "I don't know what it was" and telling the same story and ending it with "OMG . . . aliens!".

After the sighting, I started asking around and I found out that other people had reported similar objects out there in the past.

Similar in what way? Unknown light sources? On what basis do you speculate that reports which have but a single common characteristic - that they were unidentified - are describing similar "objects"?

The valley has plenty of weird stories, and since I lived there for several years I was lucky enough to experience some of the phenomena.

j.r.

No. You experienced something and assumed, for no logical reason, that it was associated in some way with everyone else's flying saucer story.

 

[EHocking]

...Plus I saw the object four times in total that night. Three of us saw it the first time. Two of us the second, and me the last two times. ( The girls had dozed off by then ). When it came up the last time, it was getting light and the landscape was plainly visible. This thing, whatever it was, wasn't "one of ours"...

You REALLY need to get your story straight.

Here and on your website you state categorically that you saw it at 2am, 4am and (outside) 6am.
Barring metric conversion errors, I make that 3 times it was sighted.

So which is it, 3 times? 4 times?

You are making the same mistake the OP made in this thread - adding "detail" in order to bolster your sighting claim, but by doing so contradicting all previous statements about the sighting.

 

[Resume]

The whole thing was a ball of light so it wasn't headlamp size, more like a headlamp the size of a whole car, but with an odd glow that is hard to describe ... it was bright, but not sharp or blinding, a quality of light very similar to glow stick light ... but blue-white and much brighter. As it approached the top of the trees you could see the tree tops. They weren't really disctinct at that distance, but you could see them well enough to tell they were tall firs, and as it settled into the forest between them the light from the object filtered out from between them. So I knew for sure it had gone down in the forest on the other side of the lake.

I see similar effects here regularly from car headlamps on a road that runs through the Tsu Tina Nation ( native land ) across from my home. The cars are way over there going along a road between the trees. Plus I saw the object four times in total that night. Three of us saw it the first time. Two of us the second, and me the last two times. ( The girls had dozed off by then ). When it came up the last time, it was getting light and the landscape was plainly visible. This thing, whatever it was, wasn't "one of ours". There is just no way.

After the sighting, I started asking around and I found out that other people had reported similar objects out there in the past. The valley has plenty of weird stories, and since I lived there for several years I was lucky enough to experience some of the phenomena.

j.r.

These new details that pop up, are they from your notes of the event?

 

[Akhenaten]

These new details that pop up, are they from your notes of the event?

Not yet.

 

[23_Tauri]

You REALLY need to get your story straight.

Here and on your website you state categorically that you saw it at 2am, 4am and (outside) 6am.
Barring metric conversion errors, I make that 3 times it was sighted.

So which is it, 3 times? 4 times?

You are making the same mistake the OP made in this thread - adding "detail" in order to bolster your sighting claim, but by doing so contradicting all previous statements about the sighting.

To be fair on ufology, the website account does have an initial sighting at midnight, so I think that is four times.

At midnight a glowing blue-white orb sprung up from behind the mountain range across the lake and bounced down the side of the mountain in three big arcs. We were all stunned and didn't know what to say. Finally Karen said, "did you see that?" we were already nodding. It was about the size of a Volkswagen beetle, but at our distance ( about 3 kilometers ), we couldn't make out any details. When it landed it went dark and stayed on the ground until about 2:00AM.

 

[EHocking]

To be fair on ufology, the website account does have an initial sighting at midnight, so I think that is four times.

I stand corrected.

 

[ufology]

These new details that pop up, are they from your notes of the event?

The parts where I describe what's going on outside my home here in Calgary as examples are casual conversation. For the sighting, I'm not making things up as I go if that's what you're suggesting. Certain details like being able to see it light up the trees weren't included because it was a big ball of light ... of course it lit up the trees. What I'd like to see is less nitpicking over the details ... when it departed, it was a flying bright bluish white glowing sphere about the size of a car that instantly went from a dead stop to a distance of over 25Km in about 1 second leaving a glowing trail of light in its wake. It doesn't take much time to figure out that no known natural or manmade object can do that. Therefore it was something alien, as in alien to human civilization, not as in the sarcastic "OMG it's aliens" crack you see posted here by the cynics. I don't know where it originated. I didn't see it fly into Earth orbit and come down into the atmosphere, so I can't say that I know it came from space. But I do think it's reasonable to think that if any manufacturer on Earth was making them, we'd probably know about it.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

I stand corrected.

Don't worry, I won't slam you with it every five minutes while implying that you don't know how to read. Just because we get certain details wrong when we read or write something down doesn't mean that the essential information isn't correct. Plus finding the errors helps us make better records. I do a lot of copy, cut, delete and paste when I'm writing, and I'm the only one maintaining the site, so I have no proof reader. I try to avoid mistakes, but nobody is perfect. I actually should thank whoever it was back there for pointing out my directional mistake. If nothing else, this discussion has made me look at the finer points and I appreciate every bit of constructive commentary.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

The parts where I describe what's going on outside my home here in Calgary as examples are casual conversation.

An anecdote, in other words, and yet you have this expectation that it'll be accepted as evidence of something extraordinary having happened.

For the sighting, I'm not making things up as I go if that's what you're suggesting. Certain details like being able to see it light up the trees weren't included because it was a big ball of light ... of course it lit up the trees.

Of course when you think back on it after the event it must have lit up the trees.

What I'd like to see is less nitpicking over the details ...

No doubt. You'd just love everyone to accept everything you say and gloss over the details just like good little ufologists.

As if.

... when it departed, it was a flying bright bluish white glowing sphere about the size of a car that instantly went from a dead stop to a distance of over 25Km in about 1 second leaving a glowing trail of light in its wake.

Sure it did.

It doesn't take much time to figure out that no known natural or manmade object can do that.

The reason it doesn't take much time is that this isn't actually figuring anything out at all - it's simply jumping to a conclusion.

Therefore it was something alien, as in alien to human civilization, not as in the sarcastic "OMG it's aliens" crack you see posted here by the cynics.

Therefore it was something alien??? This is what you call figuring it out???

I assure you, when I use the expression "OMG . . . aliens!" I'm not being the least bit sarcastic.

I don't know where it originated. I didn't see it fly into Earth orbit and come down into the atmosphere, so I can't say that I know it came from space. But I do think it's reasonable to think that if any manufacturer on Earth was making them, we'd probably know about it.

j.r.

That you describe this sort of wild speculation as 'reasonable' is quite telling.

You have no idea at all about what this thing even was and yet you're willing to undertake conjecture about who built it?

 

[Akhenaten]

Don't worry, I won't slam you with it every five minutes while implying that you don't know how to read. Just because we get certain details wrong when we read or write something down doesn't mean that the essential information isn't correct.

It gives us a reason to not believe everything we hear or read is a true and accurate account of actual events though.

Plus finding the errors helps us make better records.

Finding discrepancies and going back to edit the records might help to make them more internally consistent but it doesn't make them better. It makes them into a novel.

I do a lot of copy, cut, delete and paste when I'm writing, and I'm the only one maintaining the site, so I have no proof reader.

And no fact checker.

I try to avoid mistakes, but nobody is perfect. I actually should thank whoever it was back there for pointing out my directional mistake. If nothing else, this discussion has made me look at the finer points and I appreciate every bit of constructive commentary.

j.r.

It doesn't appear to have helped you to appreciate the lack of value that yarns like this have as evidence of anything.

 

[ufology]

It gives us a reason to not believe everything we hear or read is a true and accurate account of actual events though. Finding discrepancies and going back to edit the records might help to make them more internally consistent but it doesn't make them better. It makes them into a novel.
And no fact checker. It doesn't appear to have helped you to appreciate the lack of value that yarns like this have as evidence of anything.

Actually, the above poster makes a perfectly valid point. The reasons we tend to think things are true is because they seem reasonable. If I'd not seen this object do what it did with my own eyes, I'd think that it was unreasonable too. I've said it before that I have a hard time accepting the sheer accelleration of the object. Humans launched a craft in 1977 that is now moving at over 56,000 KPH in interstellar space, but nothing we've got can do that in the atmosphere. Even cutting edge hypersonic technology today is topped out at Mach 20. Back in 1975, the X-15 was still the fastest thing they'd ever built that could fly in the atmosphere. As amazing as it was for its day, it only went over Mach 6. So yes this object defies conventional engineering so radically that skeptical disbelief is perfectly understandable. Yet I tell the story because it is part of human experience and should be shared rather than hidden away out of fear of ridicule, mockery, disbelief or whatever other social consequences there may be.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

It gives us a reason to not believe everything we hear or read is a true and accurate account of actual events though. Finding discrepancies and going back to edit the records might help to make them more internally consistent but it doesn't make them better. It makes them into a novel.
And no fact checker. It doesn't appear to have helped you to appreciate the lack of value that yarns like this have as evidence of anything.

Actually, the above poster makes a perfectly valid point.

Well why didn't you address it, instead of rabitting on about Voyager, X-15s and alternate realities?

 

[R.A.F.]

Yet I tell the story because it is part of human experience and should be shared rather than hidden away out of fear of ridicule, mockery, disbelief or whatever other social consequences there may be.

Good for you..too bad that all that is irrelevant. Either aliens are here or they are not. Your "encounter" simply doesn't measure up to be anything extraordinary.

...and as far as your "estimates" of speed and distance, you've given us no reason to believe that you can accurately determine such things.

This is the problem with eyewitness testimony....why should we "take your word" that what you saw was extraordinary?

The alien "question" is simply too important to rely on anecdotal testimony for an answer.

 

[Jeff Corey]

yes, because what you saw has a mundane explanation
you have become "Mr firefly"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_perspective


what size was the alien ship ?

Phillip Klass once reported that he observed a strange effect in a hot Arizona parking lot. Six or so silvery objects were performing what looked like an aerial dog fight above the lot. He was very puzzled until the objects fell to the ground and turned out to be fast food wrappers that had been caught in a dust devil (or whatever you call a dust devil with no dust). The famous UFO debunker had been temporarily fooled by that effect.
If an object is far enough away, the normal depth cues of accommodation and binocular disparity don't work and the absence of any other cues made the judgement of distance and speed impossible.

 

[Stray Cat]

Don't worry, I won't slam you with it every five minutes while implying that you don't know how to read. Just because we get certain details wrong when we read or write something down doesn't mean that the essential information isn't correct.

We all make mistakes, it doesn't automatically end with being 'slammed' for it.
You'll notice EHocking immediately put his hands up and admitted the mistake without excuses or back peddling.

You may have missed this question earlier: Could you see the surface of the lake from where your sighting occurred?

 

[tsig]

These new details that pop up, are they from your notes of the event?

Give him a break, he's writing them as fast as he can.

 

[ufology]

Phillip Klass once reported that he observed a strange effect in a hot Arizona parking lot. Six or so silvery objects were performing what looked like an aerial dog fight above the lot. He was very puzzled until the objects fell to the ground and turned out to be fast food wrappers that had been caught in a dust devil (or whatever you call a dust devil with no dust). The famous UFO debunker had been temporarily fooled by that effect.
If an object is far enough away, the normal depth cues of accommodation and binocular disparity don't work and the absence of any other cues made the judgement of distance and speed impossible.

I've got Klass's book and other skeptical works by various authors including Sagan. My sighting was not plastic wrappers in a parking lot. The object was a big glowing sphere with powers of accelleration beyond any Earthly technology. Choose not to believe the story, but don't imply explanations that aren't plausible. At least alien techology is plausible, plastic wrappers that look like a big ball of light at 3Km that can accellerate beyond view over 25Km away in about 1 second isn't plausible ... neither are birds, aircraft, or fireflies or anything else known that is natural or manmade ... yet anyway.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

Give him a break, he's writing them as fast as he can.

Thanks, I actually did respond to that question ( about my notes ) here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7483046&postcount=1707

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

I've got Kass's book and other skeptical works by various authors including Sagan. My sighting was not plastic wrappers in a parking lot.

Straight over your head at 25 km/sec.

The object was a big glowing sphere with powers of accelleration beyond any Earthly technology. Choose not to believe the story, but don't imply explanations that aren't plausible. At least alien techology is plausible, plastic wrappers that look like a big ball of like at 3Km that can accellerate beyond view over 25Km away in about 1 second isn't plausible ... neither are birds, aircraft, or fireflies or anything else known that is natural or manmade.

j.r.

The only thing that's implausible here is your story. Trying to create a new version of reality in which alien technology (or techology either) is a reasonable explanation so that it makes more sense isn't going to work.