|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
 Posted - 11/08/2005 : 10:51:16 [Permalink]
|
| I've noticed that a very bright yellow (sometimes orange) light follows me everywhere I go in the daytime. Sometimes at night it's a much less intense white light. If I duck behind a building and peak around...it's still there. If I drive in my car and look up...there it is, following me!! |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
 |
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 12:59:49 [Permalink]
|
| Don't worry, "La lune ne garde aucune rancune" |
|
|
|
Patrick Hennessey
New Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 13:26:00 [Permalink]
|
I will clarify: this was a single "star" in the sky, directly overhead, traveling east, at around 11pm. sky was as clear as can be. i lived in eugene, OR at the time. Blimps do not stop dead, then turn around with the same agility that this "star" had.
aurora??? how could this possibly be an aurora, a whispy, colorful cloudlike structure? not to mention the fact that eugene is at about 45th parallel, out of range of the aurual activity.
it was not a plane. unless that plane had silent rotors...this was no plane. planes dont slow to a halt, linger at one spot, go backwards, then go forwards.
the weather balloon idea is bunk. not only do balloons travel in a straight line (the wind at the altitude they typically travel blows in a consistent fashion i.e. jet stream), but neither the sun nor moon were visible, thus such an object could not be lit at 11 at night--even at extreme altitudes. this was a luminescent object.
this isnt my first "encounter" with such things. though i have no proof...how many times must i see them for people to believe it? how many thousands, hundreds of thousands of reports are needed before people start paying attention to the sky?
I am a skeptic. I dont take first appearances. but when you see a glowing amorphous flying ring through your binoculars...when you see three "stars" close together silently moving in unison and slowly fade away...when you see a white star suddenly shine brighter than the moon, then turn red, move to the right, then dissapear...when you see a star cruising along and then jettison off at a right angle...you have to ask the question: what is it NOT?
people always ask: why is it always in a rural setting that sightings happen? DUH? its called less light pollution, less obstruction, more inclination to look upwards than worrying about whats right in front of you. if you really truly want to see something you cant explain, spend the time looking. you'll see something soon enough.
if you have a personal problem with believing something, you will usually never discover otherwise. this works both ways. you have to be aware of what you want to believe versus what may actually be true.
if history is any lesson, its that many core truths we hold to be undeniable turn out to be completely false, and many things we deny the possibility of turn out to be true. this is not a rule, but an important idea to remember.
Science: subject to change without notice. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 13:50:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
Science: subject to change without notice.
Yes, we all agree on that. Now ask yourself, "How does science change?" Is it by taking eye-witness accounts as fact without asking for concrete evidence? Has this ever happened that you're aware of?
Edit: I should add that almost every poster in this thread has offered good suggestions about what it is you may have seen. The only one being close-minded about it, insisting that it must have been a flying vehicle of some sort, is you.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/08/2005 14:35:08 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 14:15:50 [Permalink]
|
Patrick Hennessey,
I have no problem with the idea that you saw an unidentified flying object. Lots of people have. Some of them have been explained and so they are not unidentified anymore, and some remain unidentified and may always be unidentified. Perhaps, one day, there will be a visitor from somewhere else willing to let us in on their presence here. (I am not holding my breath for that to happen, but I also can't rule out the possibility.) In the meantime, mysterious lights happen and in some cases the mystery may never be solved.
Oh well…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 14:15:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
aurora??? how could this possibly be an aurora, a whispy, colorful cloudlike structure? not to mention the fact that eugene is at about 45th parallel, out of range of the aurual activity.
With solar storms of the magnature we have seen in the recent past, it could have been auroral in nature as I have seen some aurorals as far south as Chicago.
You really didn't give us much to go on and completely left out color changes. That's not very nice. It ensures that you can claim some sort of secret knowledge and that's intellectually dishonest.
Also, as this is a skeptics board, you will need proof for your assertations. Science will change without notice but not without empirical evidence. You have provided none which suggest that the lights you saw were anything but natural.
I'll go so far as to call it a UFO for the time being, but stipulate that it is most likely natural or terrestrial. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 14:28:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
this isnt my first "encounter" with such things. though i have no proof...how many times must i see them for people to believe it? how many thousands, hundreds of thousands of reports are needed before people start paying attention to the sky?
I am a skeptic. I dont take first appearances. but when you see a glowing amorphous flying ring through your binoculars...when you see three "stars" close together silently moving in unison and slowly fade away...when you see a white star suddenly shine brighter than the moon, then turn red, move to the right, then dissapear...when you see a star cruising along and then jettison off at a right angle...you have to ask the question: what is it NOT?
people always ask: why is it always in a rural setting that sightings happen? DUH? its called less light pollution, less obstruction, more inclination to look upwards than worrying about whats right in front of you. if you really truly want to see something you cant explain, spend the time looking. you'll see something soon enough.
I live in a rural setting. I have spent many hours star gazing and watching satelites and meteors. I have not seen the spectacular sights you have seen. Not even close. The best I have seen is a meteor that broke up into many pieces, quite cool. I also have heard the sonic boom of a large meteorite that hit in Penn., unfortunately it was cloudy and I did not get to see it. Darn!
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 14:47:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
...this isnt my first "encounter" with such things. though i have no proof...
You know, Pat, the numerous explanations suggested in this thread, many of which wouldn't have personally occurred to me, reinforce in my mind the neeed for self-scrutiny in such instances. I would be hesitant to draw conclusions myself unless they landed the craft, and stepped-out to shake my hand, or abduct me as a "volunteer" for henious and unthinkable medical or reproductive experiments, or wuddever (ha ha.) But seriously, I have a "whole family" of relatives... 4 of them... who live in a rural area, and swear they all saw one of extraterrestrial origin hovering in their backyard... all were totally straight-laced, intelligent, and my uncle was a top-flight engineer and very rational guy. I don't know what to say about these things, except that it suggests to me that natural, and unnatural phenomenon can both be awful deceptive (magicians know that.) |
Ron White |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 15:25:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
aurora??? how could this possibly be an aurora, a whispy, colorful cloudlike structure? not to mention the fact that eugene is at about 45th parallel, out of range of the aurual activity.
Auroras appear in different guises. "a whispy, colorful cloudlike structure" is not the only description of them. Have you seen auroras enough to know how different they can look? And thanks to magnetic pole not being at the geographic north pole, but closer to the North American continent, auroras have actually been seen as far south as Mexico!
Your decription does not fit auroras, so I think we can rule it out, I just wanted to clarify a few things about it.
quote:
it was not a plane. unless that plane had silent rotors...this was no plane. planes dont slow to a halt, linger at one spot, go backwards, then go forwards.
Planes at great distances can appear silent. And at great distances a plane turning toward you may very well appear to "hover". There have been reports somewhat similar to yours in my area, where the explanation was aircraft.
Winds have a tendency to dissipate sounds, and even if there's no wind at ground level, at 50+ meters altitude winds can be strong.
quote:
if history is any lesson, its that many core truths we hold to be undeniable turn out to be completely false,
... like the fact that aliens from other planets are visiting us?
quote:
Science: subject to change without notice.
Yes, but not without convincing evidence.
Evidence ruling out one explanation is not automatically proof for another explanation. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 16:45:51 [Permalink]
|
| Couldn't it just be a satellite? I was under the impressions that satellites in LEO were visible from the Earth's surface under certain conditions. |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 16:57:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
I will clarify: this was a single "star" in the sky, directly overhead, traveling east, at around 11pm. sky was as clear as can be. i lived in eugene, OR at the time...
Hi,
Have you checked Heavens Above? Look up the time and place and see what was up there.
www.heavens-above.com
Another explanation is that you observed simultaneous different phenomenon. I was once fooled by this, and I'm an amateur astronomer. I observed something very similar. It appeared to me that the Big Dipper had an extra star! (Oh boy, I spotted a Nova!) But then it began to move. (Oops, its a plane with a steady navigation light approaching me high from a distance while descending.) Nope. It stopped again! Now its going the other way. What did I see?
To make a long story short, I very likely observed a plane, mistook it for a stationary star, lost it for a second, then saw another plane with a similar light on distant approach. Very similar aircraft were flying in the same pattern that night. Due to the placement of all these things, my mind easily melded them into one object. (Or it was Zorgon's Space Fleet stopping by Earth to pick up some coffee.)
The point is, since your observation was "overhead," you might have seen a Iridium flare, then an unrelated satellite or aircraft all at about the same time.
Wait until you see the "Noss Triads" if you really want to freak out!
 |
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
|
|
|
Patrick Hennessey
New Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 17:07:34 [Permalink]
|
if you charge me with close mindedness, i will make a more concerted effort to explain myself, and i will go point by point:
"What was the aparent distance to the object?"
answer: it looked like a star in the sky, no discernable width, just a point of bright light, similar to the brightness of the surrounding stars.
"What time of the day was it? What day was it?"
11pm at night. i dont remember what day, but it was not a weekday because i was comming home from a friends house. this was five months ago.
"What was the bearing of the object realtive to you?"
straight up, +/- a couple degrees.
"What was the original direction of travel, relative to the map?"
west to east
"How did you rule out the four options above?"
This would seem self evident, given the nature of the sighting.
"I have not seen the spectacular sights you have seen."
And I haven't tasted monkey brains. What does this say about monkey brains? Exactly nothing.
And i wouldnt describe them as "spectacular", but curious.
"I should add that almost every poster in this thread has offered good suggestions about what it is you may have seen. The only one being close-minded about it, insisting that it must have been a flying vehicle of some sort, is you."
Really? would you point them out for me?
"Firefly"
"Thai wedding lamps"
"Glow-in-the-dark Frisbee"
"Swamp gas"
"Were you recently kicked in the head by a horse perhaps?"
"God could have made you see lights"
"The Matrix was experiencing technical difficulties."
"You're still dreaming"
...you mean these good suggestions, right?
"...at great distances a plane turning toward you may very well appear to 'hover'"
Since this was directly overhead, ill leave it to you to decide whether or not it was a plane.
"I would be hesitant to draw conclusions myself unless they landed the craft, and stepped-out to shake my hand, or abduct me as a "volunteer" for henious and unthinkable medical or reproductive experiments"
But i never claimed this was an extraterrestrial craft. it could have been a secret technology which the government was testing. the only conclusion i have drawn is that it could be one of the two. i am open to any plausible explanation. so far, i have not been offered a convincing one.
"I have a "whole family" of relatives... 4 of them... who live in a rural area, and swear they all saw one of extraterrestrial origin hovering in their backyard... all were totally straight-laced, intelligent, and my uncle was a top-flight engineer and very rational guy. I don't know what to say about these things, except that it suggests to me that natural, and unnatural phenomenon can both be awful deceptive"
What do you find deceptive about this? your relatives were decieved by their own eyes? that flying disks are a deceptive phenomenon, trying to "get" you?
"With solar storms of the magnature we have seen in the recent past, it could have been auroral in nature as I have seen some aurorals as far south as Chicago."
Auras are not solid moving points of light.
"Science will change without notice but not without empirical evidence. You have provided none which suggest that the lights you saw were anything but natural. I'll go so far as to call it a UFO for the time being, but stipulate that it is most likely natural or terrestrial."
Then offer me one plausible natural explanation.
"You really didn't give us much to go on and completely left out color changes. That's not very nice."
Hopefully you will think better of me. It was white.
"Also, as this is a skeptics board, you will need proof for your assertations."
Then this entire UFO debate tank is pointless and I am wasting my time. You are shooting believing fish in a skeptic barrel to excercise your intellect. No one with a story of a sighting has any proof but unto themselves.
I have no proof, anymore than I can prove what I ate for breakfast last week. but i am a human, just like you, who uses his eyes, ears, and brain to figure out whats going on. that, on some level, is science. excercising faith in believing the honesty and sincerety of others does not make you cease to be a skeptic. it makes you human.
"Did you receive or record any information beside your own senses?"
that would have been impossible insofar as the nature of UFO's is that we can only observe with our eyes and ears. that science does not formally acknowledge it takes away nothing from the reality of the phenomenon.
also...dont you realize the silliness of that statement? anything science will ever achieve came by way of the scientists' senses and intellect. if a measurement is made, it is recorded with the eyes and mind of a scientist. if evidence is presented, it is scrutinized by the eyes and by the hands of scientists. if a tool is created to take a measurement, that tool was created by an engineer, and percieved by a scientist. whats the common denominator in all these scenarios? all we have are our senses. they are the gatekeepers of the mind, and the harbingers of reality. it is innescapable.
------
There seems to be an overwhelming bias against an extraterrestrial explanation in the "skeptic community", mostly because it is perceived as "silly/unscientific". Applying occams razor, isnt "extraterrestrial craft" the simplest, the most straight-forward explanation?
http://www.topsecrettestimony.com/demo/
i would ask you to take a look at the link ive posted above, if you've any doubt to the legitimacy of the "UFO phenomenon". this is an airline pilot and his testimony. whether you believe him or not is not my concern. i am hoping to expose people to the phenomenon in ways they never eencountered.
"Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers." - Bernard Haisch |
|
|
|
Patrick Hennessey
New Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 17:18:11 [Permalink]
|
"The point is, since your observation was "overhead," you might have seen a Iridium flare, then an unrelated satellite or aircraft all at about the same time."
Iridium flares do just that: flare up. this was a point of light that never got dim, was never flashy, and never disappeared. it just coasted on into the night sky, and i lost sight of it behind trees.
and i wont get into the sheer astronomical improbability of seeing such an alignment, not to mention the mountain of testimony with similar or identical sightings as this one that can be found (if you actually decide to look).
I have seen many iridium flares, and they are always short-lived. somme do indeed last a long time, but they eventually die out as they leave the sun's light. this was unmistakably one light moving in a very un-satellite like fashion, slowing and then stopping dead. motionless. no movement. zero. then, slowly backing up, then stopping again, then moving forward again. this process took about 7 or 8 seconds. if i had missed that maneuver, id have thought it was a satellite. |
| Edited by - Patrick Hennessey on 11/08/2005 17:19:34 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2005 : 18:11:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
This was unmistakably one light moving in a very un-satellite like fashion, slowing and then stopping dead. motionless. no movement. zero. then, slowly backing up, then stopping again, then moving forward again. this process took about 7 or 8 seconds. if i had missed that maneuver, id have thought it was a satellite.
I already explained how you might perceive a stationary object as moving in the very first response in this thread. If you were looking straight up at a point of light with no horizon or anything in your periphery, it would be very difficult to discern movement or direction, and very easy for your eyes to play tricks on you.
quote:
There seems to be an overwhelming bias against an extraterrestrial explanation in the "skeptic community", mostly because it is perceived as "silly/unscientific". Applying occams razor, isnt "extraterrestrial craft" the simplest, the most straight-forward explanation?
No, skeptics don't rule out alien spacecraft on the basis that it's a "silly" explanation. In fact, we don't rule it out at all. But the fact remains there are several very good explanations for such phenomena that do not require invoking such an unlikely cause. Occam's razor cuts out the "alien spacecraft theory" precisely because it is more improbable than dozens of alternatives.
But if none of the proposed explanations will do, then a skeptic must conclude that we simply do not know what it was you saw. You cannot decide "alien spacecraft" is the correct answer by process of elimination. You must have positive evidence to support such a conclusion. A strange light in the sky is not evidence of that.
I'm sorry if you feel you must have an answer for every single thing you will perceive in your life. That is most likely impossible. If not having an answer makes you so unconfortable that you simply must latch onto some explanation, any explanation at all, then I would suggest picking a more reasonable one. But becoming angry with us because we aren't willing to accept a tiny light in the sky as evidence that an advanced alien civilization has traversed the enormous reaches of space, entered our atmosphere, drove a like a senior citizen in a Walmart parking lot and then zipped off again undetected, speaks volumes more about your frame of mind than ours.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/08/2005 18:21:53 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
