A Strange Story From Austraila, 1996

originally posted by: wavelength

originally posted by: RonnieJersey
a reply to: wavelength

Trouble is once one has seen, for example, one of these unidentified flying objects, you can no longer be a skeptic -
There truly are strange things happening in our world that we don't understand.

This is true. There is no denying that there are unfamiliar visitors. However, that does not mean that ALL reports of UFO/UAP activity are to be taken at face value. Despite the fact that UAPs are most certainly real, there are still hoaxes and misidentified phenomena (spotlights, etc) that cloud up the data pool.
This irks me because it makes it more difficult to study the legitimate sightings (such as yours) and other experiences as one has to sift through Gray Barker's hamburger-sized clay model saucers, photoshop, etc to get to the ones that matter.

Did you see the snippet from the FOIA file I posted earlier? It's somewhat similar to the craft you've described. I'm still looking for the rest of it, I haven't forgotten.

Yes - I did read that, thank you.
And sure, there are lots of misidentified objects. Vision can be blurred, a 'blimp' can look strangely like a UFO at times, or it can simply be something like a 'shooting star' at night. I've seen one of those myself not long ago, but I know it was just something normal.
Some of the vintage ones are really frightening and puzzling.
I'm going to look tomorrow for the photos of a UFO taken in the 1950's in NJ.

a reply to: quintessentone

I don't think Budden's book would explain my experience at all.
I don't really understand electromagnetic forces, but the thing I saw was something physically real.

originally posted by: wavelength

originally posted by: Scubalicious
It was to throw people off the scent looking the opposite way, 10 days later Port Arthur.

Thanks for pointing this out. Perhaps there is a distraction/connection there.

Only we see it 🕵️‍♀️

originally posted by: RonnieJersey
a reply to: quintessentone

I don't think Budden's book would explain my experience at all.
I don't really understand electromagnetic forces, but the thing I saw was something physically real.

Same here, if we hallucinated (as Budden claims) the craft and beings then how is it that so many people choose the exact same hallucination? I am biased on this point but my scientific mind turns back to skeptic when other people's paranormal experiences may be explained by natural forces. Take ghost hunters for instance, they investigate using instruments to measure many different phenomena and for the most part it ends up being natural phenomena - mostly electrical and magnetic energy forces.

a reply to: quintessentone

The thing about Budden is that he uses blanket assertions to attempt to explain away any and all sightings with his theories.
His theories may be true in some and certain high-strangeness UAP cases, but not in others.
That said, his knowledge of electromagnetic forces is interesting and he does propose some good theories that may fit certain cases, especially in the paranormal quadrant like you're alluding to.


ETA I studied paranormal events back in the day, I lived by high tension wires for a couple years in my youth and I saw all kinds of oddities.

a reply to: RonnieJersey

I mentioned that same sighting from 1967 in another thread years ago. I don't think it is quite like yours. The object did not zig zag rather it tilted to change directions, IIRC, and the witnesses was found to be young and imagination-prone.

Good story from you though. I believe what you had seen was absolutely real.

originally posted by: servovenford
a reply to: quintessentone

The thing about Budden is that he uses blanket assertions to attempt to explain away any and all sightings with his theories.
His theories may be true in some and certain high-strangeness UAP cases, but not in others.
That said, his knowledge of electromagnetic forces is interesting and he does propose some good theories that may fit certain cases, especially in the paranormal quadrant like you're alluding to.

Indeed, and I'm hesitating about buying his assertion that our brains hallucinate these strangeness events because the brain must make sense of it so we hallucinate it into a chosen 'reality' and I believe that neuroscience and psychology explain a lot of how our consciousness works to form our reality. Then I read articles like this one and I'm back to square one:

To be sure, any revelation that Russia, China or another foreign power has developed technology capable of defying the laws of physics and aerodynamics (while managing to keep it secret since at least 2004) would amount to the most significant national security development since the dawn of the nuclear age.

At the same time, there is no conclusive evidence that these encounters involve objects of extraterrestrial origin. But the mere fact that the U.S. government, with its nearly unlimited investigatory capabilities, is reportedly considering “alien” technology as an explanation for these phenomena is a jaw-dropping development.

In much the same vein, the pilot with the single most credible account of an encounter with a UFO – backed up by several of his fellow naval aviators and an array of sensor data – believes that the object he chased was “not from this world.”

Similarly, Luis Elizondo, who led the Pentagon effort to assess these extraordinary incidents, speculates that “we may not be alone.”

thehill.com...

a reply to: quintessentone

I'm with you on this. I'd say Budden's explanations cover some cases, but not all. Certainly not all. I think some of his theories may have been a factor in the original case discussed in the OP, but not for cases involving actual physical spacecraft with lights etc such as the one Ronnie described. A physical, material object seen by multiple people described the same way, and with no electrical-type sensations or side effects simply can not and will not be explained by those theories.

It's good to study all theories, however, when it comes to high-strangeness. This is because, as I keep saying, there is no one-size-fits-all explanation. Different types of cases with different content require different approaches and theories, so it is still good practice to read up on all possible explanations to better apply them to the appropriate cases respectively on an as-needed basis. Many cases require investigating with several theories. The OP case is one of them.

Thanks for sharing this. that's a pretty terrifying encounter. Glad it never happened to me!