Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 10181920
Results 571 to 595 of 595

Thread: ET Visitors: Scientists See High Likelihood

  1. #571
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    132
    Clarke's 3rd Law; it seems most reasonable to me but of course I consider it through human eyes and ideals.


    Quote:
    Wouldn't sufficiently advanced technology simply be unrecognizable as technology?


    You mean like "magic?"
    If "magic" is simply shorthand for saying "I don't know what that is," I can understand. However, if we're saying "I don't know what that is, therefore it must be something metaphysical, supernatural, or ET," then I do not understand this leap of logic. How can "I don't know" lead to such specific conclusions?

    I personally think the phenomena of UFOs is linked to the ETH, as observed and recounted throughout History and is more relevant to us than most care to imagine.
    Observing and recounting are human activities, so UFOs (whether real or imaginary) are certainly relevant to human behavior, perhaps even in a profound way. There have certainly been some good stories, some of them written by Mr. Clarke. Otherwise, I don't see where they fit into science or my life or anywhere else in the real world. If only we could do more than write them off as "magic."

  2. #572
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Eieam Wun
    We have yet to observe dark matter, dark energy, black holes, the big bang, the formation of a stars, gravity, the list goes on, how are any of these relevant to us?
    I can't make a scientific case for any of these. I would be in way, way over my head. But some conclusions can be drawn from indirect observation. We observe the effects but not the cause. The cause is still very real.

  3. #573
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    140
    I never called RAF any names. I was speaking of people in general not specifics.
    I still stand that there are many ignorant people that scoff at UFOs. Being ignorant is not a bad thing; we are ignorant about one thing or another.

    4 years ago I was a scoffer and I was very ignorant. There I called myself a name now I will have to put myself on the ignore list

    I really did not have any interest in UFOs until I met a few people that worked behind the scenes back in the 50s. I did me own reading and found there was much more to them than I had thought. It took me a awhile to accept that they all might not be a bunch of bunk.

    No one particular story made me change my thinking. It was the total amount of information plus knowing a few trusted people (that I consider credible). Also I found some explanations to be fabricated on purpose.
    ie. Temp inversions were used as explanations for radar returns directly overhead. The people that made these explanations are smart enough to know that can't be true yet they used it anyway. Ok maybe they were incompetent but it looks to be more of something that the average public or media person would buy vs someone with a physics background.

    There are just too many of these out in left field explanations used over the years. It does not mean what was seen was alien but it does tell me that someone is trying to tone down a sighting. It could be they were too embarrassed to admit that they could not identify it, and rather than admit that they make up a explanation that will pass 95% of the population.

    I apologize to the non ignorant, people here that have read all the available information and still say there is just nothing to it. Its a hard step to take and one can always fall back on "When it lands in my backyard I will believe"

    I'm usually like that but the more research I did I found it increasingly difficult to ignore the picture that was being painted. I found it disturbing and still do. Once you start to think it may be possible then you begin to wonder what they want who they are etc.

    I would like to some government support on this. The Condon panel was terribly flawed, as its final analysis did not match its own data. Itís over 1000 pages so not too many bothered to read it.



    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F.
    [b
    Goblin[/b]...I was going to attempt to answer all of your questions...but then I read this...

    I don't appreciate being called names, no matter how 'politely" it is done...I'm putting you on my ignore list...

  4. #574
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,368
    Goblin,
    I have read quite a bit on the subject. While intriguing, there is still no "smoking gun". Obviously, it is difficult to investigate old cases. What I have said on this board, is that I would find it reasonable to have properly equipped surveilance aircraft on the lookout for such phenomena, say in alleged hotspots like Mexico. I agree with your position.

  5. #575
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Eieam Wun
    Who is Grinspoon? You mention him in your last post and I was a bit intrigue with the reference you made concerning why "they" are doing such a poor job of keeping concealed.
    Dr. David Grinspoon, planetary scientist and principal investigator for NASA astrobiology, author of the "hole in my philosophy" link I gave.
    His questions dealing with how we can or can't apply the scientific method to intelligent beings who do not want to be studied are, in my mind, most pertinent.
    Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?

  6. #576
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,631
    Nor can we apply that method to other mythological beings.

  7. #577
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,958
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthGuy
    If "magic" is simply shorthand for saying "I don't know what that is," I can understand. However, if we're saying "I don't know what that is, therefore it must be something metaphysical, supernatural, or ET," then I do not understand this leap of logic. How can "I don't know" lead to such specific conclusions?
    What "specific conclusions?"

    All I'm saying is that you can't expect to recognize any advanced tech and the many "magical" sightings of UFOs throughout History seem to fit rather
    well.

    Observing and recounting are human activities, so UFOs (whether real or imaginary) are certainly relevant to human behavior, perhaps even in a profound way. There have certainly been some good stories, some of them written by Mr. Clarke. Otherwise, I don't see where they fit into science or my life or anywhere else in the real world. If only we could do more than write them off as "magic."
    I agree.
    Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?

  8. #578
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by A.DIM
    All I'm saying is that you can't expect to recognize any advanced tech and the many "magical" sightings of UFOs throughout History seem to fit rather well.
    Can you demonstrate conclusively that we would not be able to "recognize it", or is the "catch phrase" of a sci/fi writer enough for you??

    aside...I actually respect Mr. Clarke very much, except when he starts talking about the vegetation he thinks he see's in Mars images.
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  9. #579
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,958
    How about an analogy like the magical "fire sticks" white men possessed while they warred against the red men?
    Do you think the natives recognized them as technological items or did they perceive them as "magic?"

    I'm sure there are plentiful similar examples but I'm also sure that none would be convincing enough for you.
    Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?

  10. #580
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by A.DIM
    How about an analogy like the magical "fire sticks" white men possessed while they warred against the red men?
    Do you think the natives recognized them as technological items or did they perceive them as "magic?"
    Problem with your "analogy"...the red men didn't possess any technology, so they wouldn't "know it" if it bit them in the butt.

    Your "premise" also contains a fallacy. Just because advanced tech. "might" appear to be magical DOES NOT MEAN
    that things that appear magical are automatically advanced tech. You can't assume it "works both ways' without some form of evidence.

    I'm sure there are plentiful similar examples but I'm also sure that none would be convincing enough for you.
    That's the 2nd time in the last few of your posts that you have "implied" that I am somehow closed-minded simply because I don't agree with what you have to say. I suggest that you STOP IT unless you can demonstrate that to be true.

    Understand?
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  11. #581
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,958
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F.
    Problem with your "analogy"...the red men didn't possess any technology, so they wouldn't "know it" if it bit them in the butt.
    Are you saying that the many implements used for hunting, gathering, sewing, decorating etc weren't technology?

    I think blanket stock statements like "wouldn't know it if it bit them in the butt" is meaningless, considering the tech they DID have.

    Your "premise" also contains a fallacy. Just because advanced tech. "might" appear to be magical DOES NOT MEAN
    that things that appear magical are automatically advanced tech. You can't assume it "works both ways' without some form of evidence.
    But of course.
    And then we find ourselves bickering over what evidence is.

    After all, I accept the testimony of texts and witnesses throughout history as well as modern witnesses with radar-visual cases and the word of trained observers; aviators, police, military, scientists etc.

    You do not.

    That's the 2nd time in the last few of your posts that you have "implied" that I am somehow closed-minded simply because I don't agree with what you have to say. I suggest that you STOP IT unless you can demonstrate that to be true.
    No, RAF, I haven't "implied" anything.
    Reviewing 3 years of such exchanges as this between us will certainly show how nothing I say will be convincing enough for you.

    I realize that nothing short of the craft landing on your head will be convincing to you.

    So in the end, I'm a "woowoo" in your opinion, and you are, IMO, a pseudoskeptic.

    That's OK, as long as we can have a few laughs along the way, right?



    Understand?
    Certainly.

    Do you?
    Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?

  12. #582
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    Quote Originally Posted by A.DIM
    Are you saying that the many implements used for hunting, gathering, sewing, decorating etc weren't technology?

    I think blanket stock statements like "wouldn't know it if it bit them in the butt" is meaningless, considering the tech they DID have.
    Let's modify the statement a bit then.
    They didn't have any technology that used other than direct or stored musclepower.
    Therefore they had no reference for the effects of firearms, hence their power was larger than anything conceivable except magic.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  13. #583
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    140
    A.DIM you seemed to have started a very popular thread. Almost 19,000 views in a short period of time. We all may not agree on things but it seems we all have some interest in this topic. This is a topic that is a bit awkward to bring up in conversation with most people even though many have interest in it. The Internet makes this a bit easier.

    It is clear that the military does have an opinion on this topic that is different from what the official public statements may say. Some people I know that were at Hamilton Air force base (they worked with/for project blue book) were told that the public could not handle it. They saw many cases that never made it to blue book. To them UFOs were real and were not ours, they logged them but it was not up to them on which ones were filtered. Even so blue book still has some very interesting cases.

    None of them would/or have been interviewed on the topic. I know many people in the military have come forward just not the ones I know. They were not the people calling the shots as to where in the information would end up. They did not have any information to any downed or crashed UFO. They did have plenty on chases though, one right out of Rod Serlings Twilight Zone. Some weird stuff for sure. Yea yea I know its all just words and no proof of anything. Anyone can make up a story; I just have to go on my judge of character that they are not full of crap.

    If real I find the technology to be very interesting. New physics? or yet to be discovered physics at work. In theory Einsteinís speed limit can be circumvented in at least three ways, each one has some huge hurdles to overcome. Manipulating space itself to me seems the most tangible vs multiple universe theories. Power sources needed seem unobtainable.

    But maybe somewhere else Einstein would be considered a slow learner, someone stumbled across a way around restrictions we impose on space travel.

    From what I know I do not buy that the reason for non-funding UFO research is due to it being of no scientific value. I believe itís a bit more complicated than that.

  14. #584
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,631
    From a military point of view, it makes perfect sense to treat UFOs or, rather UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) as potentially significant, whether they are under intelligent control or not. They might represent a military threat, or at the very least they might represent a danger to air safety.

    It also makes sense to keep much of the information collected out of the public domain, as the detailed reports contain a lot of data about the sensitivity and accuracy of detection systems, which are necessarily secret.

    But none of this implies that UAPs are really artefacts under intelligent control; in fact the available evidence so far suggests that the Extraterrestrial hypothesis is unnecessary. Most of the famous cases happened a long time ago, when radar systems were very basic compared to todayís systems; if UAP were in fact solid craft they would be detected more often by modern systems, but that is not the case.
    Every case that has so far been reported is likely to be the result of one of the following -
    misidentification of known natural phenomena, unknown natural phenomena, misidentified manmade objects, including objects not known to the public, hallucination of various kinds, faulty recall of events and post-rationalisation (I believe this is very important in many early cases, where electronic records were not available) and deliberate hoaxes. In a number of cases it is not possible to identify which of these causes it the true one after the event; this is not a reason to immediately jump to the conclusion that there are extraterrestrials in our skies.
    There have been unexplained cases galore for sixty years, give or take a year- but no contact. I can state with a certain amount of confidence that this situation will continue for another sixty years, whether the extraterrestrial hypothesis is true or not.

  15. #585
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by A.DIM
    And then we find ourselves bickering over what evidence is.
    I know what evidence "is".

    I accept the testimony of texts and witnesses throughout history as well as modern witnesses with radar-visual cases and the word of trained observers; aviators, police, military, scientists etc.

    You do not.
    And there's a reason for that. If the question is, "Are there now, or have there ever been extraterrestrial aliens visiting the Earth?", then the quality of the evidence you present in the above paragraph is simply not enough to reach the conclusion that they are actually visiting. I know you don't "like" that, but that's the way it is.

    Reviewing 3 years of such exchanges as this between us will certainly show how nothing I say will be convincing enough for you.
    "Nothing I say will convince you" is a LOT different than "what I say has not convinced you". I don't know why you think it "reasonable" that the evidence not be convincing...it simply does not help your argument to characterize me as unconvincible, particularly when that is not true.

    I'm a "woowoo" in your opinion...
    Actually, my opinion is that you are mistaken...but you certainly can "call" yourself anything you want.

    ...and you are, IMO, a pseudoskeptic.
    Once again...mistaken. Haven't you been "cautioned" by a mod. (I don't remember which one) that applying that "handle" to posters you disagree with was a "no no"??
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  16. #586
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by A.DIM
    How about an analogy like the magical "fire sticks" white men possessed while they warred against the red men?
    Do you think the natives recognized them as technological items or did they perceive them as "magic?"

    I'm sure there are plentiful similar examples but I'm also sure that none would be convincing enough for you.
    Or did they simply ask, "Hey, how did you make that?"

    In any case, I just have an issue with calling real world observations magic. It's a vague term which suggests a thing is supernatural. It suggests to me that we might as well not ask any more questions about the thing because we will never understand it. In my experience, when a person calls something "magic"--even in jest--they really mean "don't ask me any more about it."

    Anyway, I'm probably going off on a semantic tangent, but I would like to know what the term magic means to you. Also, can you give examples of observations of things that you would call magic?

  17. #587
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    140
    I agree the ET hypothesis is unnecessary, but it was what the military people I know concluded at the time. They said they did show up on radar much more than was ever reported. They did not call a public press conference for sightings. I don't know if their conclusions were correct. They were not going from radar alone, they had many up close visuals.
    A paratrooper (He specialized in recovery of crashed aircraft) lost 2 buddies chasing one. The strange thing was both jets and UFO were on radar over the desert then they blipped off, everything went dead no radio nothing. They searched the desert for I think for weeks and found no signs of wreckage. The jets never returned to base. He said they had no idea what happened to them. Two radar operators confirmed his story. I have never read about any cases like that. Were they making it up? If you knew them you would not think so, but its not proof of ET just an unsolved mystery.
    I think after seeing enough of weird things like that they probably just concluded that the objects were not ours and are probably ET.
    Some people somehow think that these reports are from someone seeing a tiny light in the sky or some radar anomaly. The cases they talked about all had visual and radar, something more than mistaking the planet Venus for a UFO. Saying its from old faulty radar is like someone seeing a car at 20 feet and someone that was not there telling them it was not a car it must have been ball lighting shaped like a car from temperature inversions. Some explanations fit the picture but many others that sound stupid are from ill informed people that are making a statement that does not fit the sighting or case in question. Thatís not to say that radar did not malfunction back then. But when you see it with more than one set of eyes and its on radar its a bit more compelling.

    I donít mind skeptics as I am myself but not to the point of being ridiculous. If someone said that they saw a bright light in the west and could not identify it. I would ask did it move? Ans, no it flickered, I would ask other questions like time and location. Then if I found that Venus was there around that time I could say that they probably were seeing a planet. I have read cases were people saw a triangle craft and then read what some skeptics reply was. They often will say something stupid like a planet. Iím thinking how can this skeptic astronomer even pull something like that out of his bag? At least read the report before you insert foot in mouth.

    If you want to believe at least read some cases donít blindly believe and if you want to be a die hard skeptic at least try to come up with a plausible explanation which requires you have some knowledge of the sighting.





    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45
    From a military point of view, it makes perfect sense to treat UFOs or, rather UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) as potentially significant, whether they are under intelligent control or not. They might represent a military threat, or at the very least they might represent a danger to air safety.

    It also makes sense to keep much of the information collected out of the public domain, as the detailed reports contain a lot of data about the sensitivity and accuracy of detection systems, which are necessarily secret.

    But none of this implies that UAPs are really artefacts under intelligent control; in fact the available evidence so far suggests that the Extraterrestrial hypothesis is unnecessary. Most of the famous cases happened a long time ago, when radar systems were very basic compared to todayís systems; if UAP were in fact solid craft they would be detected more often by modern systems, but that is not the case.
    Every case that has so far been reported is likely to be the result of one of the following -
    misidentification of known natural phenomena, unknown natural phenomena, misidentified manmade objects, including objects not known to the public, hallucination of various kinds, faulty recall of events and post-rationalisation (I believe this is very important in many early cases, where electronic records were not available) and deliberate hoaxes. In a number of cases it is not possible to identify which of these causes it the true one after the event; this is not a reason to immediately jump to the conclusion that there are extraterrestrials in our skies.
    There have been unexplained cases galore for sixty years, give or take a year- but no contact. I can state with a certain amount of confidence that this situation will continue for another sixty years, whether the extraterrestrial hypothesis is true or not.

  18. #588
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,631
    Some of the early reports of flying triangles may have been the result of the NOSS satellites; these objects travel in threes, known as trios or triads. The observers may have seen the threee lights travelling silently in formation and extrapolated a solid body in the gap between them.
    This is certainly a very strong contender for some of the descriptions I have read; other observations are more difficult to explain without gross observational error or deliberate falsehood; both of which are possible.

  19. #589
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    140
    I can believe that some are, just not the ones that were seen at 500 feet.
    Those are either made up or some kind of craft the general public does not know about. Usually the military has no reply on any sighting. But this is very strange in light of 911 era. Either they do investigations behind the scenes or they already know what it is. Some of these objects have to be considered a threat to national security, ignoring them totally would be wreckless.

    We may have some giant sats. in orbit. 2 years ago with my wife and kids we saw one go overhead. I assumed it to be the space station. I have seen hundreds of Sat. while doing backyard astronomy. I do not try to find them in the scope just with the naked eye. They all look like moving stars, depending on orbit are doing around 15k mph. What set this one apart was its size; it looked like a tiny model and its color.

    I thought it must be very low to see detail but its orientation was not aerodynamic. It was squarish shaped with what looked like a long tube protruding out from one side at a 45 degree to its path. From that I concluded it could not have been in the atmosphere, as wind sheer would have ripped it apart. Size? angular size was probably at least 1/2 moon diameter, detail was easily seen, more than one could see in a jet at 40,000 feet. It was internally illuminated green. Not all parts but the extension tube was. I had never seen the Space shuttle or space station in orbit so at first I assumed it had to be one of those.

    Later I looked up what those objects look like from the ground. I found I was in error in assuming it was the space station as it orbits at 200 miles and looks just like a star to the naked eye.

    I did some calculations based on how much sky it covered it x amount of seconds. The unknown was the altitude, a fresbie thrown overhead at 10 feet can have a larger angular veocity than a Sat. traveling at 15,000 mph but at 200 miles up.

    Even If I put the lower floor at 4 miles it was moving well beyond the speed of sound. I think it was around 6k at the low end, would have to dig up my old calculations. It really did not do anything special, no direction changes, just coasting like it was in orbit. I could not find a Sat. that matched the color though I did not really do an exhaustive search.

    The problem was the size it would need to be for me to see it with detail with the naked eye. Depending on altitude it could be 1/2 mile (bouncing off the upper atmosphere) to much larger if its orbit was further out.

    I then concluded that it must have been much lower. The problem there was how and why would it go thought the atmosphere at that non-aerodynamic angle without tearing it apart.

    The problem I have is putting it in the atmosphere, which would explain how its shape could easily be seen.

    Is there a Sat. that could fit this?

    Things that are not even to be considered (By me) comets, space junk coming down, ordinary Jets etc. It did look pretty cool but at least to my kids and wife was not something they thought about much after that night. I am sure other people had to have seen it but unless they had some physics background or aviation background they would not have thought it was anything earth shattering.

    If someone were to put a gun to my head to force me to take a guess. I would say it was in orbit vs being in the atmosphere and be stuck with it being extra large in orbit.

    Maybe we pieced together something that large for a military space station.

    I am hoping someone here might be able to shed some light on it.

    Thats my only strange sighting and only found to be strange later and not at the initial time I saw it. If I had a camera in hand I could have gotton a tough shot, I think I only had 7-10 seconds to get a shot off, it was really moving.

    Direction was West to East at 10:30 pm late Aug in Michigan goinh on 3 years ago.
    Did not see it until just about directly overhead as the house blocked the west view.



    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45
    Some of the early reports of flying triangles may have been the result of the NOSS satellites; these objects travel in threes, known as trios or triads. The observers may have seen the threee lights travelling silently in formation and extrapolated a solid body in the gap between them.
    This is certainly a very strong contender for some of the descriptions I have read; other observations are more difficult to explain without gross observational error or deliberate falsehood; both of which are possible.

  20. #590
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,631
    Quote Originally Posted by Goblin
    I can believe that some are, just not the ones that were seen at 500 feet.
    One aspect of the Unidentified Aerial phenomenon which causes confusion it the difficulty of estimating the height of an unknown object.
    Quite simply, if you don't know what it is, you don't know how big it is;
    and if you don't know how big it is you can't estimate its distance of height without some other clues.
    At all. Period.

    So if the object is in front of the cloud cover you can guess that it is from a couple of hundred yards to a few kilometers away; if there are no clouds or other objects of known size or distance associated with the object it could be as far away as several hundred kilometers, and may be in orbit.
    Without definite clues, any estimate of height or distance is worthless.

    By the way, you sighting sounds intriguing. I am almost certain it cannot have been a spacecraft in orbit, as it would have been bigger than any craft yet built; by humans, anyway.

  21. #591
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,631
    Possibly you saw the Space Shuttle in close orbit with the ISS; the two objects together might have looked like one object, and the 'tube' could have been an optical illusion caused by the tendency for bright objects to appear to bleed into one another. There were a number of missions three or four years ago- shame you don't have a more precise date.

  22. #592
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    140
    No no there was no illusion to it. It was super easy to see. Not like trying to make out detail of jupiter on a soso seeing night.

    The extension looked like a clear green glass tube (like a space walk tube) It was above some very light clouds but how much higher is hard to estimate. The orientation of its path made be believe it had to be in orbit.

    I have never seen an object that could go through the atmosphere at a 45 degree angle.

    Maybe a super low orbit but thats still like 100 miles is it not?

    Trucks seen at 4 miles from a plane look very tiny. At 100 miles I don't think one could see any detail with the naked eye. I'm 20/20 but no superman.

    I know leave it me to be to see something cool only to downplay it at the time and later find it was pretty interesting.

    I remember telling my wife that some nuts going to think thats some UFO, its just the space station. Now I'm still scratching my head as to what it was.

    One thing I'm certain of is the angular speed and detail, like looking at a small model. Like I said about its altitude I do not know how it could have been lower it was not moving in an airodynamic fashion and was above the clouds. No sonic booms, no trails etc. It was not just a tiny spot of green light, it had geometric detail that my wife and kids could easily see.

    The ISS/shuttle overlap is a good guess but I don't think if those were place next to each other I could have seen any detail with the naked eye.
    I just asked my wife what she thought the shape was. She said it was like a box tilted at 45d angle to its path with green blinking lights. Maybe the space shuttle? Why the green color and strobes?

    If I got all excited at the time I would have drawn out a sketch etc. The only reason I remember the specifics is I did do a count in seconds to estimate angular velocity. It was not like a meteor but covered 1/3 the sky in less than 10 seconds, much faster than a typical jet at 550mph covers the sky at 30,000 feet. It was no question breaking the sound barrier unless it was 1000 feet up and then I would have heard something.

    Those missions they had, do you know the altitude of them? Did they fly west to east? Shame on me for not nailing down a date/time as those things are logged. I don't think I will get a redo on it as I have not seen anything like it since.




    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45
    Possibly you saw the Space Shuttle in close orbit with the ISS; the two objects together might have looked like one object, and the 'tube' could have been an optical illusion caused by the tendency for bright objects to appear to bleed into one another. There were a number of missions three or four years ago- shame you don't have a more precise date.

  23. #593
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    140
    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45
    .
    By the way, you sighting sounds intriguing. I am almost certain it cannot have been a spacecraft in orbit, as it would have been bigger than any craft yet built; by humans, anyway.

    LOL, I'm not saying it was not built by humans. I'm saying it was in orbit vs being lower. Yes I understand the problem with it having to be too large but I have just as much of a problem with it being lower because I have never seen anything fly tilted through the air that fast.

    I have a problem with the goofy color too. Why it was internally Illuminated green. I could not find anything on green sat, ISS or shuttle being that color.

    There has to be some explanation I just don't have one.

  24. #594
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,631
    Since you say you could see blinking lights and detail, that really does rule out a man-made object in orbit. The ISS is the largest man-made object in orbit at a length of 100 meters; as you can see from this page, it is still tiny as seen from the ground, compared to the Sun and the Moon.
    http://www.satcom.freeserve.co.uk/isstrans.htm

    Also, lights on man-made objects in space are not bright enough to be seen with the naked eye from the ground - we see them by reflected sunlight.

    So probably your object was within the atmosphere and relatively close- a number of kilometers up at the most.
    If it was an aircraft (or more than one) with some sort of illuminated region on the underside that might fit the bill- but I have absolutely no idea what kind of craft this could have been, or why it should only be partly illuminated. Perhaps a refueling exercise?

  25. #595
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    140
    Thanks for the link. It was easier to see than the photo on the first link. And that one looks to be magnified. See how the path it makes across the sun, note the orientation (its tough to see on that site) Its not lined up with its path exactly (in orbit it does not matter). The object we saw was much cleaner looking not blurred like that video. Plus add some color.

    Ok so much lower, It covered the sky so fast it would have had to be like 400 feet above my head. Maybe refuling, but again its orientation was all messed up. Maybe it was 60,000 feet but even with the thin air I don't think you could fly a jet sideways. I'm positive on the orientation and checked with my wife to see if she noticed it too, she did.

    It would easily have outpaced a common airliner that you see making com trails. They barely move across the sky when seen at 40,000 feet. No sound no trail on what ever it was we saw. I try not to think about it as its a paradox to me.

    One more thing I could try is to contact an official ISS site and ask if in the past 3 years any Sat. or Shuttle could have been seen with the naked eye as anything more than point source of light. I'm thinking that tube I saw might have been a solor panel. A long shot at best, but what the heck.

    Thanks for trying to help out.

    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45
    Since you say you could see blinking lights and detail, that really does rule out a man-made object in orbit. The ISS is the largest man-made object in orbit at a length of 100 meters; as you can see from this page, it is still tiny as seen from the ground, compared to the Sun and the Moon.
    http://www.satcom.freeserve.co.uk/isstrans.htm

    Also, lights on man-made objects in space are not bright enough to be seen with the naked eye from the ground - we see them by reflected sunlight.

    So probably your object was within the atmosphere and relatively close- a number of kilometers up at the most.
    If it was an aircraft (or more than one) with some sort of illuminated region on the underside that might fit the bill- but I have absolutely no idea what kind of craft this could have been, or why it should only be partly illuminated. Perhaps a refueling exercise?
    Last edited by Goblin; 2006-Jun-13 at 10:59 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Graphing the likelihood of planets orbiting doubles
    By astromark in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2010-Mar-07, 05:39 AM
  2. Astronaut: We've had visitors
    By The_Radiation_Specialist in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 2007-Oct-22, 03:00 AM
  3. ET Visitors: Scientists See High Likelihood
    By A.DIM in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 536
    Last Post: 2006-Mar-30, 12:42 AM
  4. What Is The Likelihood Of Ftl Travel?
    By zrice03 in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 2004-May-21, 04:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •