Possible UFO seen outside my house few minutes ago

reply to post by stanlee

Chinese lanterns do not now, nor have they ever, nor WILL they ever take off at enourmous speeds.

Correct, and if you re-read what I said, you will see that I never said that. What I did say is that sky-lanterns have been described as doing so. There is a big difference between something appearing to be the case and it actually being the case.

Sorry, but stop and go motions, and taking off at enourmous speeds are not characteristic of the floating lanterns.

You need to do a bit of research. They can, and do appear to do these things. Your ignorance that they do not, has no bearing on this well known fact.

Wow I love how that has become the swiss army knife of UFO explanation.

Would that be the same way as ignorance has become the "swiss army knife" of denying all rational explanation?

So we should ignore sky lanterns as possible explanations (and jump straight to the "it must be not of this world" explanation) because your lack of understanding of the subject does not extend to understanding the basics of human perception and basic investigation and identification?

You and almost everyone else here are forgetting that WE DO NOT SEE REALITY!

Our brains first have to interpret what we see before we can see it.

There is a danger of postulating special mechanisms, or processes, when none is needed. It is well known that the images in the eyes are optically reversed — upside down and switched left–right — yet the world looks upright, and visual right and left agree with touch. It is generally accepted that this does not need a special compensating mechanism because retinal images are not seen, as objects are seen — or they would need another eye to see them — with another picture in the brain, a regress, going on forever without getting anywhere

Source: answers.com

It is sometimes said that illusions occur only in laboratory or other artificial conditions, but this is far from true. Illusions of all the senses are frequent in normal conditions, and may be dramatic even with familiar objects in full lighting.

Source: answers.com

For the physical sciences illusions are nothing much more than threats to be avoided; but these out-of-this-world phenomena are important for suggesting and testing theories of how we perceive things. That there are illusions shows that at least some perceptions are not tied to the object world, as they float free of physical reality.

Source: answers.com

But illusions can be caused not by systems misbehaving, but very differently, by normal functioning being inappropriate to the situation. This distinction implies that there is more to life than physiological functions; it matters what they are doing in particular circumstances. For example, the brain effectively scales up retinal images optically shrunk by object distance (as in a camera) giving 'size constancy', but this scaling may not be appropriate. Then a distortion of size or shape occurs though the physiology is working normally.

Which girl is taller here? This scene manipulates the visual cues, rather than them not being there in the first place, as would be the case with an object in the sky.

Fig. 6a. The Ames Room: the odd-shaped room gives the same retinal image to the eye (placed at the right distance) as a normal rectangular room. So it must appear the same — and does — until there are objects, such as people, inside it. Then they look odd sizes while the room continues to look (falsely) like a normal rectangular room.

Source: answers.com

Answer: They are both the same! Of course, because the visual cues are misleading, our eyes are deceived.



Question: If you see something that appears to be a long way away, but is actually much closer than it is, how would you perceive a small movement, keeping in mind that your brain is telling you that the object is a long distance away?

reply to post by C.H.U.D.



I agree to an extent, but I have a few comments first, if you don't mind..

First, I don't know how wise it is to quote another member on ATS as if it was an "official source", so I would be careful with that.

Secondly, I feel we can not be too anxious to jump to conclusions on things just because "it is possible, given certain conditions, that a lantern could account for such things."

I say this because that very argument could be used to say the same thing about actual high flying aircraft or satellites. So it is a very ambiguous argument in my opinion. Of course it must be considered, but it can not be singular in consideration.

reply to post by TwilightMage

BUT, there were plenty of things in the sky to compare this to. The radio tower with it's red light, the clouds, the airplanes, and the stars.

Explain to me please, how any of these things could help you estimate the size, distance, or speed of an unknown object?

Lets look at these one at a time:

The radio tower with it's red light - you know the approximate size of the tower, but unless the object is attached to the tower in some way, how can you compare size? The object could be close to the tower, or it might not - how can you tell if it is or not? Did the object pass in front of or behind the tower? If it did, than you can place some limits on the range, but that's all.

The clouds - You can tell if it passes in front of a cloud, that it is at some distance between you and a cloud. Or, if it passes behind a cloud, you can tell that it must be at least as far as the cloud. That's it.

The stars - How are they any help? The nearest stars (excepting our Sun) are light years away, and objects seen passing in front of them can be said to be within a few light-years of us, but again that's about all you can say as far as the facts go.

Please demonstrate to me how you alone can estimate size, distance and speed, when for the rest of us it is physically impossible in situations like this case.

reply to post by jkrog08


I appreciate your comments and reply jkrog08 - Thank you.

Secondly, I feel we can not be too anxious to jump to conclusions on things just because "it is possible, given certain conditions, that a lantern could account for such things."

So, it's more valid to consider the ET hypothesis (which there is no hard proof for), than the "more prosaic and mundane", when we know that these things can appear anything but normal in the right conditions?

Sorry, but I just don't agree, and I doubt you would too if you take the time to investigate how our perception works. This important aspect of UFOlogy is completely ignored for the most part, and that is one of the reasons why it never gets anywhere.

You seem to have an open mind jkrog, so please, consider all the possibilities - not just the ones that short-sighted people tend to only look at.

reply to post by C.H.U.D.



Thanks my friend, I am not saying to ignore the mundane first, that MUST be taken into account first, before anything else. I was simply saying that we can not overlook every case that is similar to a lantern, under certain conditions. We must consider all possibilities.


[edit on 1/26/2010 by jkrog08]

(warning: language)

this reminds me of what we saw... it was bright! for about 5-10 minutes then it went dim, turned towards the south and then flew over us headings southwest. about as fast as what is in the video here. it had flashing lights of diff. colors and you could hear an engine sound only when it was right overhead for no longer than 20 seconds or so..

[edit on 26-1-2010 by TheCoffinman]

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Explain to me please, how any of these things could help you estimate the size, distance, or speed of an unknown object?

Lets look at these one at a time:

The radio tower with it's red light - you know the approximate size of the tower, but unless the object is attached to the tower in some way, how can you compare size? The object could be close to the tower, or it might not - how can you tell if it is or not? Did the object pass in front of or behind the tower? If it did, than you can place some limits on the range, but that's all.

The clouds - You can tell if it passes in front of a cloud, that it is at some distance between you and a cloud. Or, if it passes behind a cloud, you can tell that it must be at least as far as the cloud. That's it.

The stars - How are they any help? The nearest stars (excepting our Sun) are light years away, and objects seen passing in front of them can be said to be within a few light-years of us, but again that's about all you can say as far as the facts go.

Please demonstrate to me how you alone can estimate size, distance and speed, when for the rest of us it is physically impossible in situations like this case.

The Tower: The tower sits at the highest point of the hill. I just height that way, according to that, when something is coming over the hill. Once it gets high enough, I use the clouds.

The Clouds: Cumulus. The base of that type of cloud is usually about 6,500 feet. That's 1.2 Miles, or 2 Kilometers. There's the height. Somewhere between 3,000 feet, and 6,500 feet.

The stars I use for size. The area I live in has virtually no pollution, so most stars are visible. I use the constellation stars. I stare at the sky enough to know the relative size and brightness of them on a nightly basis, throughout the year. Compared to the stars it was next to, the thing was huge and VERY bright.

The Planes: Planes fly around here all the time. You look up at the sky anytime, and you will be guaranteed to see at least 1-3+ planes. I know how fast the usual ones travel, and how they blink and whatnot. What I saw acted NOTHING like any of the planes I had ever seen before.

See? It's not physically impossible. You just have to pay attention to your surroundings. I tend to do that a lot.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/08ff9f6ee8c6.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by jkrog08

Thanks my friend, I am not saying to ignore the mundane first

You are welcome my friend, but whether or not you know it, and with all due respect, that is exactly what you seem to be doing.

I was simply saying that we can not overlook every case that is similar to a lantern, under certain conditions.

So if it looks and acts like a lantern, we should investigate it further to make sure it's not a lantern?

It's the old adage - if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck... but of course in the real world, life is not perfect... perhaps we should investigate ducks that have a strange waddle according to some random joe (no offense TwilightMage/TheCoffinman), who says it can't be a duck because it doesn't waddle right, whilst having spotted it at a distance, when we know that there is a particular spices of duck which the general public often mistake for something else?

We must consider all possibilities.

I agree, and the first possibility any investigator should take into account, if a claim of something that does not seem possible is made, is if our own perception might have anything to do with what was seen and what is being claimed.

It is the most likely possibility in all UFO cases, since we all employ the same flawed visual data gathering systems (eyes and brain), and if you don't rule out the most obvious possibilities first, then considering the possibility that it could be something "other worldly" is leaping to a conclusion whilst effectively ignoring the most likely possibility (or just brushing it off as a non-issue which it most definitely is not).

What you effectively said was just that... but I put to you, that by doing that, it is in fact "a leap" to reach the conclusion that there even could be something truly unusual here.

Since we already know that this is just the kind of situation where perception can play a big part, given the lack of visual cues and that there is no other evidence to suggest anything other than something mundane, apart from witness testimony which we know can be faulty or flawed in a situation like this, there is only one logical conclusion that is likely.

Science (or "proper investigation" if you like) works by not looking at one of the least likely possibilities that we have no hard evidence for and including that as a possibility that has equal merit with more prosaic explanations like mundane phenomena combined with our known inabilities to misjudge.

UFOlogists fall into this trap instead.

Scientific method, and investigative techniques are used for a reason - they can be trusted to return a reasonably accurate conclusion, and this is a well trodden road/argument that is simply ignored by most or simply dismissed as "dis-info".

The only real "dis-info" in UFOlogy is from those painting the picture that UFOs must equal ET's without grasping that people are basically predisposed to seeing UFOs for the reasons I gave... and that is the vast majority of people on this forum I think


It's good to see that the mods seem to have acknowledged this and moved this thread appropriately, to where it should be IMHO, because of the lack of any evidence for anything other than a mundane phenomena.

Once again, I'd like to say that I am not implying in any way that TwilightMage/TheCoffinman are being anything else but honest, sincere, and genuine here, but just like we all bleed red, it is a fact that we can easily make misjudgments under circumstances like these.

For this very reason, this thread makes a good example for those who might otherwise make the same basic errors, and I hope it does not get "brushed under the rug" by having been put in the "Gray Area".

Thank you for posting everyone, especially TwilightMage and TheCoffinman.

reply to post by TwilightMage

The Tower: The tower sits at the highest point of the hill. I just height that way, according to that, when something is coming over the hill. Once it gets high enough, I use the clouds.

So how do you know the exact moment when it's directly over the hill then?

You (or TheCoffinman) said that the hill was not illuminated when the object passed over...

The Clouds: Cumulus. The base of that type of cloud is usually about 6,500 feet. That's 1.2 Miles, or 2 Kilometers. There's the height. Somewhere between 3,000 feet, and 6,500 feet.

That gives you an upper limit, but how do you know it wasn't lower than 3,000 feet?

The stars I use for size. The area I live in has virtually no pollution, so most stars are visible. I use the constellation stars. I stare at the sky enough to know the relative size and brightness of them on a nightly basis, throughout the year. Compared to the stars it was next to, the thing was huge and VERY bright.

How do you calculate the size of an object, when you don't know it's true (or intrinsic) brightness?

Sure you can compare brightness, but how does brightness tell you anything about size?

An Iridium satellite flare can be 2.5x brighter than a new moon, but does brighter mean it's bigger?

How do you tell if something is big or not then? Usually the brighter something is, the nearer it is - but it is hard to say anything about true size, based on brightness alone.


Having looked at the diagram TheCoffinman posted while I was writing my previous reply, it would seem to be allot more in line with what you might expect to see from an aircraft (that "hocky-stick" turn is usually a good indicator that it's a plane).

The diagram says to me that you probably saw the aircraft head on (when it was bright) and from quite a distance... that would make it similar to this case: This has to be 100% genuine???

It appeared to be hovering during the "bright" phase I am guessing?

reply to post by TwilightMage


Hi TwilightMage, I'm not being sarcastic at all. I live in the Phoenix area and see those things every few nights (about a mile or two away - best guess, they fly over close enough to my house low and that's when I can clearly tell it's some sort of funky military aircraft). It starts out as a really bright flash of white light that appears to be going straight up, hovers for a bit before the flash turns into typical aircraft lights. There's usually two to three of them coming around individually a few minutes apart. I'm only saying that they're some sort of stealth bomber because when they fly over my house, you can see the outlines of a dark colored triangular aircraft that resembles a stealth bomber. I'm not an expert on military aircraft and I'm too lazy & cheap to invest in a camera/telescope, etc to capture it on film.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Please demonstrate to me how you alone can estimate size, distance and speed, when for the rest of us it is physically impossible in situations like this case.

It's physically impossible for TwilightMage to do it too, he just hasn't figured that out yet but hopefully with some thought provoking questions from you CHUD he will eventually figure it out.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
The diagram says to me that you probably saw the aircraft head on (when it was bright) and from quite a distance... that would make it similar to this case: This has to be 100% genuine???

That thread is an eye-opening example of how even with a video to document the sighting, many people still misinterpret what their eyes are telling them and conclude it can't be a plane because planes don't do things like "hover motionless" or "show only a bright light" with no wings visible etc.

While I'm not exactly sure what TwilightMage saw, one thing I AM sure about is that there is no rational basis for the claim that it moved faster than an airplane. Such a claim reminds me of a similar claim made in this thread:

UFO displays superior speed against fighter jets at air show
www.abovetopsecret.com...

While that was a daytime sighting, and the type of "UFO" is different, what it has in common with this sighting, is that the "UFO" perceived to be traveling faster than the fighter jets is actually traveling much slower, maybe only about 30-40 miles per hour for the UFO versus hundreds of miles an hour for the jets. If this mistake can be made in daytime, it's even easier to make at night.

However I believe he is honestly reporting what he saw or thinks he saw, it's just that he's misinterpreting the information his eyes are sending to his brain, as CHUD is kind enough to point out. Around here the planes travel anywhere from 3000 feet to 30,000 feet or higher, so comparing something to an airplane isn't much help when first of all I don't know how far away the unknown object is, nor do I know the distance of the planes at night. During the day if the plane is low enough I might be able to identify the type of aircraft and only in that case can I estimate its distance, but at night it's nearly impossible to tell how far the planes are, and it's completely impossible to tell how far away the unknown object is. I'm sure that's true for other observers too, and people who THINK they can judge the distance of an unknown object at night are kidding themselves. The only possible exception I can think of is if the object is close enough for our stereoscopic vision to assist in determining the distance, and that is effective at close distances like maybe up to 100 feet for most people, maybe double that for people with exceptional vision, and I'm assuming the object was further than that. So let's say it's somewhere between 200 to 6000 feet away, that's quite a large range. By the way, won't a plane at 5000 feet appear to be traveling 6 times faster than a plane traveling at 30,000 feet above you, even if they are both traveling the exact same speed? I think so.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by Arbitrageur]