I just saw a UFO

[UnrepentantSinner]

Was outside having a smoke and saw what I believe to be one of the "black triangle" craft I've been hearing about. It was travelling north/northeast and looked to be about 3-5 miles away and between 1000 and 3000 ft. Size was hard to guage because I saw it mostly side on, but 500-1000 feet long. There's a lot of air traffic in and out of Love Field, Dallas-Fort Worth and Addison so I've seen a lot of planes over the years and have a lot of stuff to compare what I saw to, but what amounted to a giant sliver of "darker knight sky" and some lights that didn't resemble a commercial or private jet, is still a difficult thing to discern precisely.

I wish it had been travelling overhead so I could get a better perspective on it. And no, I don't own a smart phone so there's no pics or vids from me.

 

[MG1962]

How did you establish the height of the object

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The height or the altitude? Altitude was an eyeball estimate based on the literally thousands of planes I've seen approaching the various airports I mentioned in the OP. Height of the craft was really kind of a guess. As I noted, I saw it mostly side on. Anywhere between 25 and 100 feet I suppose.

 

[MG1962]

Altitude - What was your point of reference....You have an unknown object, it may have been small and close or far and big

If it was seen virtually side on, what did you base the observation of it being triangle shaped?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I have worked nights and gone outside for literally thousands of smoke breaks (as well as worked outside many many night. The view to the east has a number of visual cues like a tree line, two overpasses on the east/west toll road, a giant overpass there 190 and US 75 intersect a 5 story building about a mile away and some 15 story ones over by 75. There's plenty of references.

If it was seen virtually side on, what did you base the observation of it being triangle shaped?

Read my description again. I used the words "I believe to be".

 

[Malfie Henpox]

I have also seen a UFO, in Manchester. It was two light balls circling each other that left a trail similar to this, but with the naked eye:

Which implies some kind of pulsing or stuttering propulsion.

I've no idea what it was, nor the size or altitude of it, as it was in clear skies.

Obviously I don't think it was aliens, I'm just saying.

To be honest, it clearly didn't excite me too much as I've never bothered to look up what it could have been, nor do I ever mention it. This topic just reminded me.

 

[Reivax]

Afs?

 

[idoubtit]

Haven't we all seen UFOs at some point? We just don't jump to the conclusion they are alien spacecraft.

I often wondered what I would do if I had a weird experience. I probably would post it here.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I have worked nights and gone outside for literally thousands of smoke breaks (as well as worked outside many many night. The view to the east has a number of visual cues like a tree line, two overpasses on the east/west toll road, a giant overpass there 190 and US 75 intersect a 5 story building about a mile away and some 15 story ones over by 75. There's plenty of references.

You clearly saw it pass in front of one of these reference points, or in some other way interact with them in a way which means you can be 100% sure of its distance from them? Can you be more specific with exactly how you determined the altitude, and what exact reference points you measured it against?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

You clearly saw it pass in front of one of these reference points, or in some other way interact with them in a way which means you can be 100% sure of its distance from them? Can you be more specific with exactly how you determined the altitude, and what exact reference points you measured it against?

Did you read the OP? Did you note I am quite familiar with the geography of the area, actively skywatch and have seen thousands of planes flying overhead (oh, and police/air ambulance helicopters a couple of times as well)?

Of course it possible that what I saw was 5 miles long, 1000 ft. high and flying at 50,000 feet 50 miles away, but I doubt it.

 

[Pixel42]

I think the point being made was that if you can only estimate the distance of an object in the sky if you know its size, and the size if you know its distance. Usually you know what the object is, and hence know its size, and can hence estimate its distance reasonably accurately. But if you don't know what the object is then you can't estimate either size or distance unless it goes in front of or behind something whose size and/or distance you do know.

If you're used to observing aircraft then it's natural to assume that the object is roughly aircraft sized, and estimate its distance accordingly. But if you're assuming wrongly then your distance estimate will also be wrong. If the object was actually much bigger than an aircraft then you've underestimated its distance; if it's actually much smaller then you overestimated it.

That's why the question as to whether you saw it go behind or in front of something else that you can use as a reference is being asked. No-one is disputing your expertise when it comes to aircraft, but this thing might not have been an aircraft.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Did you read the OP? Did you note I am quite familiar with the geography of the area, actively skywatch and have seen thousands of planes flying overhead (oh, and police/air ambulance helicopters a couple of times as well)?

But you know the rough size of a plane. Therefore you can estimate its distance. You need to know the size of a flying object to estimate its distance. And you need to know its distance to estimate its size.

Of course it possible that what I saw was 5 miles long, 1000 ft. high and flying at 50,000 feet 50 miles away, but I doubt it.

Or it could be 5 inches long at a distance of a foot. Without knowing the size you can't know the distance, and without knowing the distance you can't know the size. The best you can do is say what the angular size is - namely how much of your field of vision it takes up.

I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. And one thing our vision is very good at is vastly miscalculating the size and distance of flying objects.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I've told the story before of being fooled (along with several other people) into thinking a model glider (sailplane) was a full sized one. Only when it "crashlanded" and was picked up by its owner did we realise our error.
In that case, thinking we knew the size of the object completely screwed our perceptions.
I expect the OP sighting was indeed an experimental aircraft, but I don't rule out a model at much closer range.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

But you know the rough size of a plane. Therefore you can estimate its distance. You need to know the size of a flying object to estimate its distance. And you need to know its distance to estimate its size.

No, I know the rough size of known objects like airplanes and helicopters flying at a known distance - or at least an estimatable distance based on my intimate familiarity with the geography and airspace of the place I have worked for 16 years.

Or it could be 5 inches long at a distance of a foot.

I'm going to stop you right there because I've already noted that I'm an avid and experienced sky watcher so your objection is baseless. You're not talking to some idiot who for once in his life happened to look up and see something and wishfully though it to be an alien spacecraft.

For that matter, I'm still not convinced that, after all these years of searching the skies that what I saw was an ET - per idoubtitt's post above, and I'm sorry for not acknowledging your salient comment. But it was what it was and I saw what I saw.

I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. And one thing our vision is very good at is vastly miscalculating the size and distance of flying objects.

Well thank you. For all those years I was outside doing observations of planes flying overhead, police/medical helicopters, comets, meteors, Iridium flares, the ISS, visible planets, etc. over the last 16 years, I've been too stupid to realize that I wasn't seeing what I thought I was seeing. If not for you pointing out that human vision and perception is imperfect, I would never have realized that all the naked eye astronomy I've done over the last 20+ years is a joke because of this incident.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I've told the story before of being fooled....

Odd how that tends to happen a lot with skeptics.

 

[Stray Cat]

No, I know the rough size of known objects like airplanes and helicopters flying at a known distance - or at least an estimatable distance based on my intimate familiarity with the geography and airspace of the place I have worked for 16 years.



I'm going to stop you right there because I've already noted that I'm an avid and experienced sky watcher so your objection is baseless. You're not talking to some idiot who for once in his life happened to look up and see something and wishfully though it to be an alien spacecraft.

For that matter, I'm still not convinced that, after all these years of searching the skies that what I saw was an ET - per idoubtitt's post above, and I'm sorry for not acknowledging your salient comment. But it was what it was and I saw what I saw.



Well thank you. For all those years I was outside doing observations of planes flying overhead, police/medical helicopters, comets, meteors, Iridium flares, the ISS, visible planets, etc. over the last 16 years, I've been too stupid to realize that I wasn't seeing what I thought I was seeing. If not for you pointing out that human vision and perception is imperfect, I would never have realized that all the naked eye astronomy I've done over the last 20+ years is a joke because of this incident.

I think you're being overly defensive here.

No one has 100% infallible perception. Your expertise in identifying things you know has nothing to do with your inexperience in not identifying those that you don't know.

No one is saying you are stupid.

 

[MG1962]

I'm going to stop you right there because I've already noted that I'm an avid and experienced sky watcher so your objection is baseless. You're not talking to some idiot who for once in his life happened to look up and see something and wishfully though it to be an alien spacecraft.

And I am also a very experienced sky watcher and know your presumption is wrong - without a frame of reference you have guessed all the numbers you are claiming

 

[Olowkow]

Many UFO's seem to be date related.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, I know the rough size of known objects like airplanes and helicopters flying at a known distance - or at least an estimatable distance based on my intimate familiarity with the geography and airspace of the place I have worked for 16 years.

Yes, this is why you can estimate their distance. You don't know the size of the unknown object you saw, therefore you cannot estimate its distance. And as you don't know the distance, you can't estimate its size. You need to know one or the other to calculate the other one.

I'm going to stop you right there because I've already noted that I'm an avid and experienced sky watcher so your objection is baseless. You're not talking to some idiot who for once in his life happened to look up and see something and wishfully though it to be an alien spacecraft.

I don't think you're an idiot, nor do I doubt that you've spent lots of time skywatching. That does not, however, change the fact that you cannot estimate distance in the sky without knowing the size of what it is you're trying to estimate the distance of, and vice versa. This is my objection, and its basis is in the reality of human perception, not in my estimation of your personal experiences or brainpower.

Well thank you. For all those years I was outside doing observations of planes flying overhead, police/medical helicopters, comets, meteors, Iridium flares, the ISS, visible planets, etc. over the last 16 years, I've been too stupid to realize that I wasn't seeing what I thought I was seeing. If not for you pointing out that human vision and perception is imperfect, I would never have realized that all the naked eye astronomy I've done over the last 20+ years is a joke because of this incident.

Surely it's not your contention that human vision and perception are incapable of being fooled? Or that your vision and perception are incapable of being fooled?

Perhaps it'd help if you'd answer the questions I originally put to you in post #9.

 

[Mike!]

Even in todays economy and adjusted for inflation, a picture is still worth 1000 words. In this case, perhaps a photo of the area you were looking toward, since you state you see the exact view regularly, would prove helpfully in discerning what you may have witnessed. At least it will help give the 'point of reference' a reference point.