• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UFO help needed urgently!!!!

Well, I'm stumped. One place to have the gentleman check is the Condon report on UFO sightings--the link I give is to a chapter on perceptual phenomena related to UFO reports. I was looking for something in particular, but did not find it.
One table, in part, lists:
Angel hair Â_
Airborn debris (e.g. milkweed) Camarillo, Calif. (Case 58)
Birds, flocks of birds Tremonton, Utah (Case 49)
Swarms of insects Â_
Luminous fungi on birds Â_
Fireflies Â_
Click to expand...
None of these seem quite right. From the initial description, I was thinking perhaps of a mass of spider silk, which in the wind would appear to undulate slowly, as if swimming through the air. It could also reflect and refract light, depending, and with denser and thinner areas making it look like there were interior structures, etc. I have no idea, though, whether any sort of spider silk is luminescent (Bug_Girl?). I have seen enough spider silk at once to perhaps account for the size of the thing.

But, anyway, Kitty, he might be very interested in reading the Condon report. It does, I think, a nice job of saying "yes, you saw something, and it is understandable that you think it is aliens, but it is more likely this...."
 
kittynh said:
More information from my UFO questioner....
Click to expand...

Did you ask him about the time?

kittynh said:
he's getting very pig headed....
Click to expand...

Naaaaahh! Impossible!

kittynh said:
Anyone know how I can put this guy in contact with Phillip Klass? I think Mr.Klass would be very interested to hear his story.
Click to expand...

So...let's take a look.

Thanks for your answers and for providing your email. I'm more comfortable now.
Click to expand...

Hmmm....why? He dismisses all the explanations?

I'll admit that my initial reaction to the swamp gas answer was mild irritation. After a short reflection, I asked myself what answer you could have given that would satisfy. Answer; none possible. Had you said that I saw a class B bionic probe from Jupiter, I'd have written you off as just another UFO crazy.
Click to expand...

He basically admits that he won't accept any natural explanation.

The thing that I saw bugs me, but not for the usual reasons. I was never frightened of it. Heck, I stood right under it and walked with it as it crossed the road.
Click to expand...

A 20 feet (6m) glowing, pulsating, "organic", unexplained thing "swims" right past him, and he is not pertubed at all? Was he high??

My main concern was to be a good witness by observing and remembering with accuracy. Being a bird watcher I tick off details, and sometimes even say them out loud to make them stick until I can record them.
Click to expand...

Oh, no, you don't. Bird watchers are quiet, especially when they are not very far from their observed target. Birds have pretty good hearing, and any ornithologist knows this.

I stood on that road, taking it in, and speaking my observations for lack of a recording device. I wrote everything down later, but that record is long gone.
Click to expand...

So, he is basing this on memory alone. Atsa no good, paisan...

What bugs me is that I firmly believe these two things.

1. People who report UFO's are ill informed, delusional, or seeking attention.
2. I saw a UFO.
Click to expand...

Interesting reaction. He immediately wants to marginalize himself, yet wants to maintain that he is right. We see this also with some Superstitious, who distance themselves from one form of supernatural belief, while maintaining that their own beliefs are true.

I know that human memory is an imperfect storage medium that degrades with time and circumstances. All I can do is accept that, and believe that what I remember is something close to what really happened. I'll hold that position for a moment while I address your suggested conclusions.
Click to expand...

Here it is again: He acknowledges that there are several problems with his story, but he still claims to have gotten it right.

Plasma.
Really tough to maintain in open air. Lightning is plasma, and you see how short lived it is. Your flourescent lights contain plasma when lit. That's a closed chamber with a controlled energy source. Even that is short lived. The arc goes completely on and off 60 times per second. A stable plasma sphere can be maintained in the open. It requires a steady source of an inert gas, such as helium, high voltage excitation, and very controlled magnetic fields for containment. Maintaining that on a huge scale for half a mile would be a very good trick.
Click to expand...

He is basically right, except for the lightning: Lightning is not short lived because it is plasma, but because the electrical charges between the clouds and ground (or even between clouds) are "fired off" in one shot - a spark.

Swamp gas.
Good answer if we are talking about something low and stationary. Swamp gas is mostly methane. That's flammable and must look pretty neat. I don't know how it manages to get ignited, but accept that it's possible. Again, what I saw held it's size and shape for a pretty good time and distance. I don't see how a spurt of burning gas could do that.
Click to expand...

I think he knows this could very well be it. Because he is now insisting on explanations that simply isn't true: Swamp gas does not have to stay low and in place - it's a gas, for chrissakes! It can move at very little wind (did anyone say 5MPH?), and it would wobble, almost like a soap bubble.

The object that I remember was not flapping in the breeze. It was working hard to propel itself, sort of like a jelly fish or an amoeba. I hesitate to type these words, but it was "cigar shaped" and stayed that way.
Click to expand...

So there was a breeze. I will bet you a dollar that when you ask him, he will tell you that it moved against the breeze. A little tidbit we were not told at first.

The story builds. This is a Pink Dragon in the Garage-type of anecdote.

Here's the thing. Let's say that you and I had never seen a rabbit. One day I see one go by and report it to you. You might take your best shot and suggest that blowing leaves can sometimes look like that. I'd know that your answer was wrong, but still wouldn't know the truth. Let's add the complication that crazy people see rabbits all the time. That's pretty close to what we have here. Sorry to put you in this position. I join you in your wish that we had both seen the damned thing. At least then we could adjust each other's foil hats ;-)
Click to expand...

Hehehe....now he is really reaching: Nobody would confuse a rabbit with blowing leaves. Ears, fur, hops? He is merely choosing a very far-out analogy to point out just how special his experience was.

Then, he pats you on the head and basically says "Nice try..." This guy is not interested in natural explanations. He wants people to provide explanations, which he can summarily dismiss, and then say: "Hey, nobody has ever been able to explain this! (I'm sooo special...)"

You just watch, people...
 
thanks so much Claus. I've done lots of emailing with this guy. For instance, asking if he was near electrical lines (Phillip Klass wrote a whole darn book about "plasma" UFOs from electrical lines...lots of cool pictures inside). He just isn't answering, and I think that why should he remember?

I mean,he DID see a UFO. That is we don't know what it was. Thanks also for backing up my swamp gas theory.The reason it often IS swamp gas is that swamp gas looks different than you think it should. It doesn't "spurt". It can linger,it doen'st need to be lit. What part did the headlights of flashlights have on this, exactly what time of day, year and all that. I'm not getting enough information. I like to handle stuff like this sort of like a police report. I need the basic facts.

I also think that worrying that his peers are going to "commit" him is silly. I think as long as you don't suggest little green men were inside a scientific person would try to help solve the puzzle.

I've tried to suggest he try sharing, but he's reluctant, which is fine.


Oh I sent the link for the aurora, but he hasn't mentioned what he thought. :(
 
kittynh said:

I mean,he DID see a UFO. That is we don't know what it was.
Click to expand...
Yes. CFLarsen is being much too cynical. This sounds like a genuine report of an UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT to me. When *I* read the account, I immediately thought "mmm... fire balloon". But after a gap of thirty years it's impossible to say.

If ETs smart enough to cross interstellar space really wanted to keep us under secret surveillance, they'd either:

1) Turn the lights off on their secret surveillance craft, rather than flying round lit up like a damn Christmas tree.
2) Give up that conspicuous "saucer" shape and use scout craft shaped like aeroplanes.

It follows that anything you can recognise as an extraterrestrial craft isn't one.
 
There are two main problems here:

(1) Lack of information on the alleged sighting. This does not allow the creation of more detailed explanations. Heck, without judging or accusing the witness, with all the missing details and the time lag, it may have been a dream that was years later confused with reality or even a hoax.
(2) The witness does not seem to be willing to accept any explanation other than an extraordinary one.

Another point when regarding the witness being a bird observer- it happened at night. Bird observers are usually at ease on daylight. In the darkness or -in the fog-, distances may be much harder to estimate, even for them. Belive me, I have seen many funny -but explainable- things in the dark and in the fog.
 
Certainly a part deflated balloon would behave "organically"- ie flapping and pulsating, but he seems to have got a good look at the thing . I'm sure he would have recognised a flapping balloon by the noise it made.

The swamp gas Kittynh describes intrigues me. It "Glows" by reflected light? What exactly does that mean? Is this just water vapour? Methane is an invisible gas. It does not glow at all unless on fire. (Mixed with water vapour it might present a hazy vaporous appearance, I suppose.) If the phenomenon is so reliable on this road , Kittynh, I imagine you can get pictures?

Claus- I know some very loud twitchers. Watching birds on the ground or on water is usually a silent activity; watching them on the wing tends to be accompanied by shouts of " It IS a b***** Herring Gull, you cretin!" and the like. So I would not dismiss the fellow's statement that he counts features aloud.
 
This can be a typical example of pareidolia , the ability of our brain to view familiar things in fuzzy objects, like the face on Mars, or a huge spider instead of a potted plant.
I had a very misleading experience some time ago. I walk every morning in a park near my house, where there are several animals, including pigeons.
One morning, I saw a grey object, the size of a pigeon undulating like a pigeon's gait, some 30 meters away, so I concluded I was seeing a pigeon eating grass seeds.
When I got closer (about 10 m), I coud see more details and perceived that the 'head' of the pegeon was red , with a plastic glint, so I concluded that some sadist had put a plastic object over the head of the bird, and decided to take it off.
Only when I was at 2 or 3 m of the object, could I identify it. It was a plastic bag, stuck in a grass stem, undulating in the breeze.
It was a very bright morning, I was fully awake and I took one familiar object for another. What could happen in a poorly lit road, with people tired after driving several hours?
 
wow! thanks for all the help.

I'm going to try for a photo of the glowing whatever when I go to my uncle and aunts house. People just don't think much about it. So, we don't question what it REALLY is. People down there don't think much of the paranormal. So, it's just "swamp gas".

I'll have to check it out.
 
It seems that people here agree on the swamp gas theory. Why? We have read one account where it says that the gas burned with a weak bluish flame closely hugging the ground. How can this be reconciled with the colour, height, and movement of the UFO?

Why has the aurora theory been given so little attention. It seems to me that auroras (I have never seen one) could better fit the description. Could it perhaps be checked if the UFO was seen in the northern sky?
 
steenkh said:
Why has the aurora theory been given so little attention. It seems to me that auroras (I have never seen one) could better fit the description. Could it perhaps be checked if the UFO was seen in the northern sky?
Click to expand...

Yeah, auroras writhe around, can appear and disappear quickly, can be bright green and kind of organic-looking, plus an aurora also has no distinct edges and so it's perhaps not easy for the eyes to judge distance to one.
 
Why on earth do you feel the need to go there and even try and be cynical of his experience? What are you? A Zealot, or a skeptic?

Unfortunately for you, you will have to accept that he is probably telling the truth and what he experienced was something you have no explanation for. This fits right in with millions and millions of other peoples experiences. Evidently, UFO's exist and even the USAF can't offer valid explanation for many of them. Go tell him that and sop making the fallacy of starting from the point that there has to be some sort of current explanation.

Care to give the name of the site?
 
I'm coming late to this discussion, but I've seen ball lightning once and it was almost exactly as the gentleman describes. My wife and I were driving on a poorly-lit street at night, there was a light wind and clouds threatening to be a storm a few miles west of us, the east was clear. We were chatting away, when a glowing, green, ball of light dropped in front of our car. Distance and scale was hard to judge- it was dark and there were not too many clear visual references- but it seemed to be a couple hundred yards away and about the size of a compact car. The light dropped to what looked like a foot or so off the ground, and moved off to my left towards the stormfront. We watched it for several seconds as it moved across a vacant lot and we lost sight of it. I would say "organic" describes the look of it about right.

Dollars to donuts this is what it was, and he's, unintentionally or not, embellished the details.
 
Lucianarchy said:
Why on earth do you feel the need to go there and even try and be cynical of his experience? What are you? A Zealot, or a skeptic?
Click to expand...
I believe he asked. What are you? An apologist?

Unfortunately for you, you will have to accept that he is probably telling the truth
Click to expand...
I think most here have assumed this...there is no need yet to think he is lying.
and what he experienced was something you have no explanation for.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, of course. But the point is, that is not the end of a story, but the beginning. We have no explanation...yet. Does not mean an explanation does not exist. On the other hand, if we don't look for one, that pretty much guarantees we won't find one.
This fits right in with millions and millions of other peoples experiences.
Click to expand...
again, yeah. Of course. Do you suggest we stop looking for the explanations?
Evidently, UFO's exist
Click to expand...
by definition, true. So? Again, this is a starting point. They are unidentified, let's try to identify some...
and even the USAF can't offer valid explanation for many of them.
Click to expand...
And won't ever, if they follow your advice and stop looking. Come on! The USAF cannot be expected to explain every instance--if you look at the Condon Report, for instance, you will see any number of possible explanations, including many which the USAF could not possibly be expected to either confirm or deny (they do not keep close tabs on flocks of birds, for instance, and they cannot, even with the most sophisticated radar, tell if you are having a visual migraine. Sorry, it's just not their job.)
Go tell him that and stop making the fallacy of starting from the point that there has to be some sort of current explanation.
Click to expand...
Has to be? I think we are starting from the point that there may be a mundane explanation. Do you go so far as to advise against that?
 
Yo, kittynh, read thine PM's!

I have no idea what to do with the UFO guy, sorry.

I wonder if it's like the 'Burning Geyser' state park here in Washington. The park is over a huge shallow methane reservoir. There are "lights in the woods" indeed, and they are just what it says :)
 
While it may be entertaining to try, there is nothing one can do to 'explain' a thirty year old anecdotal account.

There are two levels to a sensory observation: sensory input and input interpretation. What the witness tells you he saw is a reflection of his interpretation may or may not bear any relationship to the reality of what was perceived, indeed, the entire event may have occurred internally, while the observer has assumed an external event and seeks external explanation.

The term "UFO" is relative to the observer. Two people may see a UFO at the same time. One, an accountant, teacher, welder, whatever, may not be able to ID what he has seen, and so, it becomes a "UFO", while the other witness, a university meteorologist, may immediately recognize it as a weather balloon. It's all relative.

The term "UFO" tells us more about the observer than the observed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom