1880 very descriptive UFO sighting

Let us please focus this debate on the topic of this thread and not on the debaters. Ad hominem attacks or just plain bickering instead of focusing the facts will not be tolerated.

We will begin to debate the facts as of this post.

Thank you.

[edit on 2010/9/6 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by CynicalM
So, my above post and MANY others like it in this thread shows you that I am closed minded to a natural explanation?

Out of context, sure that post appears very reasonable. However, it is just one post of many.

Originally posted by CynicalM
I'm baffled mate...

It certainly seems that way. You don't seem to know what you are arguing. Let's go over your position here...

Starting here you deny the phenomenon even exists. Here you claim it is make-believe, something invented just to explain away marine UFO sightings. All because there are no photographs. At the same time, you accept that the Panta sighting at face-value, even if you are not intentionally making a God-in-the-Gaps argument, that it is a sighting of an hitherto unknown and unexplainable phenomenon. This, despite the fact there is no photograph of the event. You accept the Panta sighting at face-value while effectively rejecting other sightings of this same phenomenon, descriptions of which make the Panta sighting perfectly. Both you and GeisterFahrer continually tell us throughout the thread that the Wheels of Poseidon is not a real phenomenon, while at the same time arguing that the Panta sighting happened; do you see the contradiction there?

To further illustrate that you seem to have no idea what you are arguing, first you tell -PLB- here that you think "UFO" is the best description. But then you tell Yeti here that you never said it was a UFO. Then again here you say the same thing. Though, to your credit, in that same post you seem to finally acknowledge that the Wheels of Poseidon is a real phenomenon; baby-steps but progress nonetheless, even if you are contradicting your earlier positions.

Neither you nor GeisterFahrer have a cogent, consistent argument. If you did, you would not be so blatantly contradicting yourselves. You want it to be unexplained, therefore you will fight against any and all explanations that do not match the fancies you want to fill that mystery with.


[edit on 6-9-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
You are making an argument where there is none. Are you deliberately claiming that me, or anyone else, for that matter, is claiming this is a bona fide UFO?

Yes, because that is the exact argument you are trying to make, though you will not admit to it.

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
However, if you will re-read posts, you will find that a specific person has claimed this to be a well documented yet rare occurrence.

Who?

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
I am going to go out on a limb here (sarcastic) and say that it is NOT well documented.

And I will agree with you. It is a rare and little studied phenomenon. However, that does not mean what you are implying it means.

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
There are UFO sightings that are much more "well documented" than this rare occurrence.

There are even photographs .... imagine that.

But we aren't talking about UFOs, are we? Though it is very peculiar you would bring that up.

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
Are you going on "faith" that these poiseidon wheel's are a naturally occurring phenomenon? Where is your proof they even exist?

Another contradiction. You take the Panta at face value but deny Wheel of Poseidon, descriptions of which match exactly saw, exists.

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
Your argument is more of a God-In-The-Gaps argument than anyone else's - you are relying on 2nd hand information and absolutely NO PROOF!!

Even if that were the case (it is not), that is not a "God-in-the-Gaps" argument.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


There are many Well Documented sightings of UFOs.
Even some pics that are unexplained to this day..

Your explanation of this wheel is Ducumented..
I note that you denied early that anyone mentioned "well documented"
so must assume you agree it is not..

So yes. To me a USO at this point is slightly ahead in my thinking.

That does NOT mean my mind is made up..

You are welcome to add a theory of somethin else or more proof of this wheel...

Originally posted by CynicalM
But here were are being asked to "believe" 100% that a rarely seen phenomenon (I think Chad found about 8 sightings) wth varying descriptions and a few scetchy drawings and zero pictures.

Not at all. No one is saying that there may not be other explanations. No one is saying the Wheels of Poseidon are the only explanation. What we are saying is that this phenomenon is the best explanation based on what evidence we have available.

Originally posted by CynicalM
There are many Well Documented sightings of UFOs.
Even some pics that are unexplained to this day...

And this matters to this discussion, how?

Originally posted by CynicalM
I note that you denied early that anyone mentioned "well documented"
so must assume you agree it is not..

It is rare and little studied. However, that does not mean what you and others are implying.

Originally posted by CynicalM
You are welcome to add a theory of somethin else or more proof of this wheel...

What are you asking here? For evidence that these wheels exist or that the Panta was a sighting of one?

reply to post by DoomsdayRex

What we are saying is that this phenomenon is the best explanation based on what evidence we have available.

It is "an" explanation, though much of the detail is lacking..

IF (and its a big IF) you believed in UFOs etc, then going by the many well documented acounts, it is "my opinion" that they are a better explanation at this time..And thats only if I believe this event to be true and factual..

BTW your constant use of the word "WE" suggests a group or gang..

Lurker Here.

Great topic,great debate.Lets see,you have a old story of an unexplained sighting,detailed to some extent,seen by people who are trustworthy.If its a phenomenon that is rarely seen,why cant it be just that? I also understand that it would have been an awesome sight to see,being that not many have seen it.Hard to put it into 1800's vernacular. Just because we cant see an atom with the naked eye,doesn't mean its not there. I would have to say the skeptics have my vote.You don't need a photograph to know that best explanation to this,is a natural one. It would also hold more validation as being out of this world,if there were more witness to the story,with their own responses to the thing they saw.Until then,its natural phenomena.



Lurking back on.

Originally posted by Pixus
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e5f426548dba.jpg[/atsimg]

This image seems to fit in with these older UFO sightings.

I'm sure there's a story to go along with this image, but I don't know it.

Pixus.....

As with the case currently under discussion, this is another example of how an "old" UFO story or report can be misrepresented, intentionally or otherwise.

It shows you how you need to be careful when reviewing the old ocean based case in this thread......all is not necessarily what it seems.

Just briefly.....seeing that you raised it & in case anybody else is "scratching their head.....

That picture has been shown to be a piece of timber in an ice-drift, not a "UFO" in the clouds.

If you use the ATS search feature, you will find detailed information about that.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


[edit on 7-9-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

A migraine sufferer wrote: "Anyway, I had auras (i.e., flashes of light on the periphery of my eye and what looked like lightening bolts - jagged lines like 'Z's' ... ) ... I am told auras occur before a headache and ... that auras can also be considered hallucinations - visual, www.migraine-aura.org... Dont know if source works (new at this), anyway my thoughts are what if the guy had some special mushrooms for dinner or a helping of seasickness which are well known to cause hallucinations scroll down left hand of source onto# Visual hallucina...

* Random form dimension
* Line form dimension
* Curve form dimension
* Web form dimension
* Lattice form dimension
* Tunnel form dimension
* Spiral form dimension
* Kaleidoscope form dimension
* Complex visual hallucinations

[edit on 7-9-2010 by scratcher]

Originally posted by CynicalM
It is "an" explanation, though much of the detail is lacking..

It is very curious how you can saw that; the crew of the Patna gave a very detailed description...

"...there suddenly appeared on each side of the ship an enormous luminous wheel whirling round, the spokes of which seemed to brush the ship along. The spokes would be 200 or 300 yeard long, and resembled the bird rods of the dames' schools. Each wheel contained about sixteen spokes, and made the revolution in about twelve seconds...and, although the wheels must have been 500 or 600 yards in diameter, the spokes could be distinctly seen all the way round." Lee Fore Brace, Patna, Indian Ocean, 1880.

As for the Wheels of Poseidon being simply an explanation and not the best one...

This is a description from the Netherlands Meteorological Institute...

'Marine phosphorescent wheels' come in many appearances, often together with 'luminous parallel bands' or 'luminous rotating spokes'. Sometimes one, sometimes multiple wheels, rotating clockwise or counter clockwise, with a diameter between 3 and 200 metres, sometimes virtually stretching out to the horizon. At times the spectacle appeared to be under water, sometimes it seemed to be above the surface. Also in this context, 'under water rising and at the surface exploding balls of light' and 'submarine light rays' were observed sometimes together with the 'wheels'. Altogether, a wide-ranging, but very intriguing phenomenon.

Source

Another description from a Dutch vessel in 1978...

Spokes and wheels rotated approximately one meter above the water, and there where a spoke moved, the sea lightened strongly, about as far outward as the outer wheels. Behind the ship and next to the ship's stern, where the ship lights caused the spokes and wheel to be less, though still clear and recognizable visible, the lighting of the sea was less visible.

The width of the wheels was approximately 1.5-2m, narrower near the centre, but increasingly wider further outward. The spokes, or beams, were cone shaped, pointing at the ship, with the wider part of 2-2.5m outward and curved with a convex shape in the direction of the rotation. The colour of the lighting of the sea was not bright green like one often observes in the Persian Gulf, but fainter white-yellowish; both the wheels and the spokes showed the same colour. The lighting of the sea was visible in patches, nearly circular areas with a diameter of 0.5-1m. The wheels' circles were clearly visible abeam to approximately two ship lengths and forward to about half a ship length (length of ms 'Dione' is 244m).

(Same source as above...)

Here is a description of the phenomenon from "A Meeting With Medusa" by Arthur C. Clarke...

"The intensely bright lumniscene approached us rapidly, shooting sharply defined light rays to the west in rapid succession... to the left of us a gigantic fiery wheel formed itself with spokes that reached as far as one could see..."

And a collection of sightings from Science Frontiers, a link you provided.

Reading those descriptions, how it is possible to say that the Wheels of Poseidon are not the best explanation for the 1880 Patna sighting?

Originally posted by CynicalM
IF (and its a big IF) you believed in UFOs etc, then going by the many well documented acounts, it is "my opinion" that they are a better explanation at this time...

Why?

Originally posted by CynicalM
And thats only if I believe this event to be true and factual...

And you have still not answered my question from my previous post.

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
That picture has been shown to be a piece of timber in an ice-drift, not a "UFO" in the clouds.

It doesn't even look like an actual photograph but a painting...

"The spokes would be 200 or 300 yards long , and resembled the birch rods of the dames schools."

Birch rods....thin wood. Do any of those marine phosphorescent wheels reports mention the spokes looking like wooden rods?

Originally posted by virraszto
"The spokes would be 200 or 300 yards long , and resembled the birch rods of the dames schools."

Birch rods....thin wood. Do any of those marine phosphorescent wheels reports mention the spokes looking like wooden rods?

I don't think he literally meant a thin piece of wood, his inclusion of "the dames' schools" gives us a bit of insight into his meaning. A dame school was a form of private school in the United Kingdom; a birch-rod refers to a thick bundle of birch sticks, tied together, the business end loose. Here is a picture of one. These "birch-rods" were used as a form of corporal punishment in 18-19th century schools; I don't think I need to go into detail for you to guess how it was used. I think he may be comparing the shape and thickness to a birch-rod, not the consistency or material.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

[edit on 7-9-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


Ahh..I see. I had visualized something totally different.

It was described as being flat on the surface of the water, not under or above the water, if not phosphorescent sea creatures, what else would it have been. Yes it appeared an unusual shape and pattern but if it was just a trick on the eyes, would a recent version of this event even be able to be captured by a camera to use as a comparison?

Every ordinary explanation must be eliminated before we can start looking to an extraordinary explanation, and since the phosphorescent sea creatures being the source has been far from been eliminated, I will have to go with this explanation unless further evidence presents itself to the contrary.

i dont have the time to go through each report now as its getting late, but some interesting stuff here surfmar.meteo.fr... and look up Marine Phenomena and Observations

it might help if you have the time to go through each one, hope it helps

edit to fix link



if you have trouble add this after the .fr bit /wikilog/index.php/Category:Bioluminescence,_Phosphorescent_Wheels_%26_Plankton_Effects



[edit on 7-9-2010 by Neilc1972]

IMHO to prove or disprove weather or not this was in fact bioluminescent algae one would first understand the propulsion system of an 1800 steamer and the natural reactions of bioluminescent algae.

Growing up not far from the Arch in St. Louis MO I have seen many of the ships from that era as they are part of the attraction of the "Riverfront" there are cruises offered on steamships and the ships are moved often. Water is a very amazing thing to observe (for me) I could stare at it for hours. This combo gives me some understanding of waters basic movements and how that is effected by a steamship. I have never witnessed bioluminescent algae at work but I have seen it (on tv, on youtube links from this site) and have read and heard about how it "works". Based on these things I think it is highly probably that a steamship could cause exactly what was described in this article.

I have never heard of the Posideon's wheel untill now and the only source I seen as I skimmed this thread was a "Wiki" unfortunatley Wiki is open source which makes it not a valid reference point. It is possible that I have overlooked a more reliable source for that phenom, however I do plan on doing more reading on that topic.

I do agree that any "pro" seamen XD should know what they were looking at but at the same time. I know that in the 1800's there was not as much access to information on a global level as there is today. I also take in to concideration that most professions were passed down through families and aprenticeships as opposed to going to school back in these times.

Originally posted by virraszto
How could this be debunked with such a descriptive report? It took place in May of 1880 when there were no airplanes, helicopters or any flying machines. This was taken from the book Anatomy of a Phenomenon by Jaques Vallee 1965. Curious to know what skeptics think of this sighting. What alternatives can you think of that might explain away this sighting?

This kind of reminds me of another wheel that was seen in the sky, only much earlier in time.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/33d95161e2f9.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2916d452bdf6.jpg[/atsimg]

As NASA likes to say, they are Chinese lanterns. They must be the first observed Chinese lanterns.