UFO sighting - how best to analyse?

[Southwind17]

First, let me open by stating that I am probably the World's No.1 skeptic when it comes to the paranormal, including 'valid' UFO sightings, well, disregarding the numerous JREF skeptics, that is, who are far better placed to comment than this JREF rookie. I would, however, like somehow to compare a UFO 'sighting' that I had many years ago (witnessed by a friend), but can remember vividly, with possible sightings of other observers. I do, however, wish to pre-empt the possibility of others interpreting their sightings to correspond with mine by not fully describing mine at this stage. Suffice to say, it involved the silent movement of numerous light points within the night sky through a regular and repeated pattern that, to my mind, defies the possibility of either man-made craft or natural phenomena as an explanation. My line of logic here is two-fold: 1. If somebody can rationally explain the movement of light points as I observed them then my wondering may cease; 2. If they cannot, but can describe an identical or very similar incident, then that might well add further wonder and trigger some research. How should I proceed to disclose and analyse my sighting without tainting the potential feedback and soliciting a 'loaded' response?

 

[athon]

The question is - what do they attribute the sighting to? As a UFO, that's truly what it is - an unidentified object. It could be several things, but postulating it is close to pointless with little more than personal anecdotes of an observation. However, if the observers postulate it being an extraterrestrial object or non-human technology, they have to be the ones to support the claim with evidence, and it is you who has the right to ask for it.

There is nothing wrong with saying 'I don't know', especially if there is no evidence other than the memory of an observation. But that doesn't equate lending evidence to any wild speculation. Not in the slightest.

Athon

 

[Cuddles]

many years ago...

can remember vividly

There's your first problem, and you are in no way alone with it. Memory is far less reliable than most people think. While it may seem that you can remember it perfectly, the actual memory is probably very different from what actually happened. Memories change every time you remember them and every time you tell them to someone. This is not done conciously, but happens nonetheless. Add to this all the possibilities of optical illusions and general misunderstandings and it is just not possible to explain anything. Without any more than a single anecdote it will never be possible to know anything about this UFO.

 

[Southwind17]

Sorry to sound dismissive Cuddles, but whilst I agree that memories do tend to be unreliable that's not to say that some events cannot be recalled accurately after the passage of time. I am certain that if I was still in touch with the friend to whom I refer, and he 'recalled' the event as accurately as I remember it, we would have exactly the same story to tell. Your final sentence summarise my plight. What I am seeking is a corroborative anecdote (surely, if the 'sighting' is explainable then similar sightings have been witnessed over the ensuing 30 years), or a plausible explanation. Perhaps my only course of action is to go right ahead and describe what we observed, and see where that leads(?)

 

[Belz...]

UFO sighting - how best to analyse?

Ignore them.

 

[tsg]

I am certain that if I was still in touch with the friend to whom I refer, and he 'recalled' the event as accurately as I remember it, we would have exactly the same story to tell.

This is pretty much the point. You aren't certain he would recall it the same way you do, or which one of you would be correct if he didn't. And without his account there is no corroboration.

If you can't start with the assumption that your memory of the event may be faulty, there is little point in discussing it any further.

 

[Southwind17]

OK - here's the sighting description, through our eyes:

We're lying on our backs in a field gazing at the night sky. The stars are clear and bright, and abundant. The usual constellations can be clearly identified. 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. After a few seconds the light point stops dead. Then the light point, in conjunction with another light point 'beneath' it, as we're looking, 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, both light points momentarily stop 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. The first light point remains still. 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. Unfortunately, the first two light points are no longer identifiable from the surrounding stars, and cannot be observed further.

Clearly, this was not a 'dramatic' sighting in the sense that many so-called sightings caught on film are, but because of the regularity and unorthodox pattern of the movements, in my view, makes it all the more puzzling. I'm not an aeronautics fanatic or expert, but common sense leads me to ask the question: what possible plausible explanation could there be for such an observation? I guess there will be many skeptics on this forum who will readily seek to pass the incident off with the usual generic explanations, but if you're tempted to respond please take the time to give due consideration, and only proffer explanations that fit the observation.

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!

 

[BlackKat]

All the faulty memory discussion aside, presuming you saw what you saw (regardless of correlation with other people's memory as well)...

There are numerous objects that move in the "sky" that either reflect or generate light and would appear to move in "patterns". With so many mundane, potential explanations for these moving lights there is a good chance that they were caused by something mundane (i.e. Flares, Airplanes, Satellites, Helicopters, Blimps, Satellites, Meteors, etc.).

While it would be interesting to learn what that "UFO" was, anything we put forwards would be merely postulation (having not witnessed what you did). But again with so many potentially mundane explanations, there's a good chance it's just one of them.

For instance, from your description of what you saw, if you were at a high enough altitude it might have been satellites or even the ISS. Or you could have seen lights on a high altitude airplane or planes or maybe even a mid-air refueling in progress. Remember that military planes do not always use normal navigation lights during combat or exercises.

Remember that just because something appears still in the sky that it could still be moving or vice versa, even at a high rate of speed, depending on one's perspective. Also distance judgments in the sky are very difficult to make accurately due to a lack of frame of reference.

 

[Southwind17]

You have the details now BlackKat. None of your potential postulations fit even remotely. Perhaps you'd like to give it more thought?!?

 

[tsg]

OK - here's the sighting description, through our eyes:

We're lying on our backs in a field gazing at the night sky. The stars are clear and bright, and abundant. The usual constellations can be clearly identified. 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. After a few seconds the light point stops dead. Then the light point, in conjunction with another light point 'beneath' it, as we're looking, 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, both light points momentarily stop 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. The first light point remains still. 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. Unfortunately, the first two light points are no longer identifiable from the surrounding stars, and cannot be observed further.

Clearly, this was not a 'dramatic' sighting in the sense that many so-called sightings caught on film are, but because of the regularity and unorthodox pattern of the movements, in my view, makes it all the more puzzling. I'm not an aeronautics fanatic or expert, but common sense leads me to ask the question: what possible plausible explanation could there be for such an observation? I guess there will be many skeptics on this forum who will readily seek to pass the incident off with the usual generic explanations, but if you're tempted to respond please take the time to give due consideration, and only proffer explanations that fit the observation.

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!

Just from the description I don't think you can rule out aircraft flying in formation. The light can appear to be stopped but actually be moving towards or away from you (I have flown small aircraft at night and can attest that the plane heading right for you looks like it isn't moving at all. In fact, they tell you specifically to look for other traffic that "isn't moving" because it means it's heading your way). In addition, without knowing how far away they were it's not possible to know how fast they were moving or what direction they were heading apart from their two dimensional appearance.

But even if it that wasn't what it was, I want to caution you about two of your statements.

what possible plausible explanation could there be for such an observation?

Be careful here. That it isn't explained doesn't mean it is unexplainable without resorting to extra-terrestrials. It just means we don't know. Very many of these accounts (and, for the record, I am not accusing you of doing this) end with "I'm not saying it was aliens, but what else it could it be?" The answer is "just about anything else." The explanation may be quite mundane, but unknown.

I know what we saw that night

Again, if you can't start with the assumption that your memory of the event may be flawed, there's little point in going any further.

In any case, even witnessing it first hand wouldn't convince me it was extra-terrestrial visitors, and it shouldn't lead you down that road either. You can discount every conceivable explanation for what happened that night and it still doesn't mean it was aliens. All you would be left with is "I don't know".

 

[athon]

I agree with tsg. Small details do shift in rather subtle ways with time, yet these make all the difference. Your initial perception biases what you think you observe. Just because it can be correlated with what another person observed doesn't immediately mean you both didn't assume the same biases. This happens frequently; chances are, what alters your perception will also alter somebody else's, especially if you share similar backgrounds.

For example, it's likely you both initially thought 'stars', then you both assumed 'aircraft' when you saw the lights move across the starry background. Each assumption means you form a framework in your mind which manipulates the details of the observations.

As the framework shifts over time with additional experiences, the memory alters slightly. Hence memory is not like a warehouse of recollections, but like a novel in revision, following a plot that doesn't change much but with shifting details that change as you rewrite it. Sizes, sequences, intensities, relationships, timing...all of this stuff is kind of flexible. You could swear black and blue that it happened just as you said, but your convictions come from a mind that is capable of adjusting the picture without telling you.

So, how reliable is your account? We have no way of telling. Maybe it's fairly close, maybe it's not. Assuming the details you provided have some accuracy, it could be as tsg said - a misperception of non-movement where really there was some, meaning it was aircraft manouvering. Maybe it was spotlights from a distance reflecting off a thin layer of precipitation.

As I said before, sometimes it pays to simply say 'I don't have enough information to even guess'.

Athon

 

[Southwind17]

OK - thanks for all of your views and comments so far - appreciated.

It is a little disappointing, however, but not unexpected, I suppose, that virtually all of the meaningful feedback focusses on the possibility, neigh, probability, that my memory has betrayed me. I suppose, under the circumstances, that is impossible to prove or disprove, but the benefit of any doubt seems to be in scarce supply here. I suppose that's the nature of skeptcisim, and if I'm being totally honest I'm probably as guilty as the next person when it comes to lending credulity to so-called eye-witness accounts of alleged paranormal or seemingly unexplainable activity. I wonder what responses would have been forthcoming if I were to have couched my initial enquiry in terms of a hypothetical sighting, with the assumption that the details, as described subsequently, were an accurate account. I guess, being hypothetical, it would have been largely dismissed out of hand as a pointless exercise, which I suppose is valid, or alternatively possible 'explanations' would have been proferred, similar to those alluded to already.

I don't for one minute wish to appear even to suggest that extra-terrestrial craft or beings were at play, so to speak, but given the conditions that night it will take much more than a few generic suggestions that what we witnessed could be accounted for by conventional military or civil aircraft, satellites, 'blimps', spotlight reflections or the like. The observations simply defy logic on all accounts, and I think that if anybody reading the account carefully were to be completely open-minded and honest with themselves and critically question the probable likelihood of 'generic' explanations they would be very hard-pressed to suggest a convincing theory.

I wouldn't expect any forum members to dedicate even a modicum of time and effort travelling that road, as the 'memory problem' seems to weigh too heavily on the skeptic's ability to focus on the observation as described and seek a plausible explanation, and, in the nature of skepticism it's all too easy to pass off otherwise unexplainable events by reference to 'the usual suspects'. Ask yourself this though: Do you seriously doubt your own long-term memory, as you do mine, to the extent that you cannot vouch for the accuracy of ANY memorable events, particularly something so profain, but at the same time simple and defined, as that described by me? I'd like to bet that if the boot were on the other foot the benefit of any doubt, of which, in your mind, I'm sure there would be very little, would be pursued with vigour.

 

[EHLO]

Hi Southwind17, having spent a lot of time gazing at the stars in very dark places I'd like to suggest that what you witnessed was merely a satellite.

I've found that trying to track a satellite by eye over a star filled sky can result in very real optical illusions. Sometimes I swear that other stars are also moving, or rotating, or swapping places with the satellite I'm tracking. The telling factor is that the path of the satellite as a whole doesn't change. It's not very exciting but would seem to fit your account.

 

[Southwind17]

Sorry to disappoint EHLO, but satellites, I guess(!), don't stop dead, CLEARLY rotate around a common axis WITH ANOTHER SATELLITE, the other satellite then continuing the orbit of the first satellite then REPEATING the whole process. I can see where you're coming from, but in the context of my account and description, which has to be assumed to be correct if we're to proffer possible explanations for the movements, the satellite theory simply doesn't cut it. BTW, do satellites remain constantly illuminated as they cross the night sky? Having observed many irridium flares, which last for a matter of seconds, at best, I'm inclined to suggest not, but remain open to being educated if mistaken.

 

[EHLO]

The satellites I've watched are quite consistent in brightness (similar in magnitude to other stars) and can track most of the visible sky before fading out. Iridium flares are quite different as you say.

My wife and I watched the International Space Station track overhead the other night from the back yard. It was brighter than all the other stars and lasted a good couple of minutes.

I'm not saying that it was a satellite, but it does match your description. Just because the light "appeared" to stop and rotate doesn't mean that it did. As I said before, one moving dot against a back drop of lots of static dots can play tricks on your eyes.

If you know the date/time/location we can look and see what satellites may have been visible from your location.

 

[Correa Neto]

"Flight formations" of satellites are not exactly new -or rare- stuff.
Check this, for example:
http://www.satobs.org/noss.html

I saw one of these once, back in the early 80s. For some years it remained "running in the background" of my mind as something that defied all explanations, untill I read about NOSS...

My recollections of the sighting are not totally unlike yours...

 

[tsg]

OK - thanks for all of your views and comments so far - appreciated.

It is a little disappointing, however, but not unexpected, I suppose, that virtually all of the meaningful feedback focusses on the possibility, neigh, probability, that my memory has betrayed me. I suppose, under the circumstances, that is impossible to prove or disprove, but the benefit of any doubt seems to be in scarce supply here. I suppose that's the nature of skeptcisim, and if I'm being totally honest I'm probably as guilty as the next person when it comes to lending credulity to so-called eye-witness accounts of alleged paranormal or seemingly unexplainable activity. I wonder what responses would have been forthcoming if I were to have couched my initial enquiry in terms of a hypothetical sighting, with the assumption that the details, as described subsequently, were an accurate account. I guess, being hypothetical, it would have been largely dismissed out of hand as a pointless exercise, which I suppose is valid, or alternatively possible 'explanations' would have been proferred, similar to those alluded to already.

I don't for one minute wish to appear even to suggest that extra-terrestrial craft or beings were at play, so to speak, but given the conditions that night it will take much more than a few generic suggestions that what we witnessed could be accounted for by conventional military or civil aircraft, satellites, 'blimps', spotlight reflections or the like. The observations simply defy logic on all accounts, and I think that if anybody reading the account carefully were to be completely open-minded and honest with themselves and critically question the probable likelihood of 'generic' explanations they would be very hard-pressed to suggest a convincing theory.

I wouldn't expect any forum members to dedicate even a modicum of time and effort travelling that road, as the 'memory problem' seems to weigh too heavily on the skeptic's ability to focus on the observation as described and seek a plausible explanation, and, in the nature of skepticism it's all too easy to pass off otherwise unexplainable events by reference to 'the usual suspects'. Ask yourself this though: Do you seriously doubt your own long-term memory, as you do mine, to the extent that you cannot vouch for the accuracy of ANY memorable events, particularly something so profain, but at the same time simple and defined, as that described by me? I'd like to bet that if the boot were on the other foot the benefit of any doubt, of which, in your mind, I'm sure there would be very little, would be pursued with vigour.

You've apparently already made up your mind what it was, so why are you asking?

 

[Gravy]

The observations simply defy logic on all accounts,

Yet the literature is full of examples of UFO sightings that seemed to defy logic, but were revealed to have simple causes.

Because we may not have convincing explanations for what you experienced, based on the limited information we have, doesn't mean there isn't a simple, convincing explanation. And don't be offended by people questioning your memory. This is a skeptic's forum and we also have to consider the possibility that you are insane, prone to hallucinations, a drug abuser, or a liar, in which cases our guesses would be pointless. We simply have no way of determining if the information you're providing is accurate. And even if it is as accurate and complete as possible, it's not much to go on for people who weren't there.

By the way, what did you mean by "profain?"

 

[Southwind17]

"Flight formations" of satellites are not exactly new -or rare- stuff.

I saw one of these once, back in the early 80s. For some years it remained "running in the background" of my mind as something that defied all explanations, untill I read about NOSS...

My recollections of the sighting are not totally unlike yours...

Thanks for the link, and interesting timeframe of your sighting. My sighting would have been circa 1978. It'll take a while for me to read through the link to see whether it helps explain my observation. Meantime, does the fact that my sighting occured over northern UK preclude your suggested explanation? Also, I'd be very interested to hear a description of your own 'not totally unlike' sighting. Would you oblige please? The devil's often in the detail, as they say!

 

[Southwind17]

You've apparently already made up your mind what it was, so why are you asking?

Jeez - you should post a thread on telepathy - you seem to know more about what I'm thinking than I do! 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.