UFOs Over Lake Erie?

[jayman]

This is a local story (http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-news-ohio-ufos-over-lake-erie-pictures,0,6755335.story) about supposed UFOs in my hometown of Cleveland. They just had to play the spooky X-Files music, didn't they? I wonder what the object(s) will turn out to be.

[EHocking]

This is a local story (http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-news-ohio-ufos-over-lake-erie-pictures,0,6755335.story) about supposed UFOs in my hometown of Cleveland. They just had to play the spooky X-Files music, didn't they? I wonder what the object(s) will turn out to be.Why is it that UFO and bigfoot camerapeople are so crap at their craft. They guy claims that the UFO returned to the same spot at the same time for 5 nights running and all we get is a shakey dot of light bouncing around the frame as though it was taken on a phone camera.

Pathetic people....

[jasonpatterson]

Was the cameraman crawling around on his knees? Or maybe is was Noodles Macintosh (http://www.allthingsyank.com/uhf15/noodlesbw.jpg)!

I didn't see anything that looked odd in the video, honestly. There is a massive amount of air traffic into and out of the city, and a handheld camera at night is going to show it as a jerky point of light. Ditto for a still picture of something in the dark, it'll make that crazy zigzag pattern.

[Stray Cat]

Well photograph 7 in the set of stills (that is also shown in the video) is just a long exposure taken from a fixed camera.

Compare it to these ones (http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/WashUFO/WashUFOExplained.html), exactly the same.

But no doubt that now UFOlogists know for sure that a UFO is visiting the same place at the same time every night, they'll get out there with scientific equipment to record it properly...

... oh, they won't you say?

Mmmm.... you're probably right.

[Astrophotographer]

Any time somebody says the lights arrive at the same place night after night indicates to me it is probably astronomical in nature. Details....Details....How about direction and elevation for once. If we had that, I would not doubt that this one could be solved. I will put my money on Vega or Arcturus rising in the east depending on time of night. If it is in the west, my guess would be Sirius (or possibly venus which is now visible right after sunset).

[BenBurch]

Lake Erie is noted for a strange optical effect. At some times one can see the northern shore from the southern shore via an atmospheric optical effect akin to a mirage.

This is called the Lake Erie Mirage Effect, and has been reported for a couple centuries now.

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=39;t=000982;p=0

[MG1962]

Why is it in the same place every night

Cause it is Venus

[BenBurch]

Why is it in the same place every night

Cause it is Venus

Or because its a distant light and a temperature inversion?

[MG1962]

Or because its a distant light and a temperature inversion?

Well he mentions different colours - sounds to me like scintillation. A very common thing (when you are used to it) With bright stars close to the horizion

[BenBurch]

Well he mentions different colours - sounds to me like scintillation. A very common thing (when you are used to it) With bright stars close to the horizion

Venus does indeed change color when it sets over a clear horizon.

In fact a Venusian version of the "green flash" effect has been observed.

[Ashles]

But no doubt that now UFOlogists know for sure that a UFO is visiting the same place at the same time every night, they'll get out there with scientific equipment to record it properly...


Look, an alien spacecraft!
My one opportunity to get hard evidence to demonstrate to the work we are not alone in the universe!
Fetch me some photographic paper, a carboard box and a pin!

[Stray Cat]

Look, an alien spacecraft!
My one opportunity to get hard evidence to demonstrate to the work we are not alone in the universe!
Fetch me some photographic paper, a carboard box and a pin!

I would think that using the poor quality photos that this guy has already taken and saturating the colours in Photoshop to see what pretty patterns we could discern was the favoured scientific route chosen by UFOlogists of today.

Maybe converting one to negative and one using the 'emboss' filter usually reveal hidden details about the occupants of such alien space craft too.

[MG1962]

I had a delightful UFO experience the other night. A vee shaped formation of white lights moving across the sky - about 12 - 14 as far as I could estimate.

As they came closer the recognisable honking of Canada Geese filled the air. The formation wheeled around lost altitude and then settled on a small pond north of the town I lived in

[jakesteele]

Why is it in the same place every night

Cause it is Venus

Then there would no doubt be astronomers that could set the story straight. Have any come forward with an astronomical explanation, yet?

[TX50]

Then there would no doubt be astronomers that could set the story straight. Have any come forward with an astronomical explanation, yet?

Or you could just do a quick check in a desktop or online planetarium.
According to mine, Venus is visible in the evening looking to the West from
Cleveland. It appears at about the same elevation above the horizon as
the blob in the film.

[gambling_cruiser]

Lights in the night sky!
Shocking!
How could this not be aliens on the way to a gay rodeo.
The only alternative is any god/goddess on his/her fiery chariot.

[bluesjnr]

The explanation is simple - it is Ball (ox) Lightning.

:whistling

[cienaños]

Once I identified an unidentified flying object. I was unflying my flying object, unidentifiable due its identifications. I was wooteen and a half.

[Astrophotographer]

Then there would no doubt be astronomers that could set the story straight. Have any come forward with an astronomical explanation, yet?

Feel free to provide more information than "I saw lights over lake Erie". Time, location, azimuth, and elevation please. When that information is provided, we can either determine the source or rule out astronomical sources.

[Marduk]

Probably just the lake rubbish on fire again
:D

[bluesjnr]

Probably just the lake rubbish on fire again
:D

Where about is this Lake Rubbishonfireagain and what is the origin of it's name? Perhaps this might provide some answers?

[Marduk]

Where about is this Lake Rubbishonfireagain and what is the origin of it's name? Perhaps this might provide some answers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Erie#Water_quality
:D:D

[TX50]

Where about is this Lake Rubbishonfireagain and what is the origin of it's name? Perhaps this might provide some answers?

It's a Shawnee word.

[Maeby]

Hi, I'm in the Cleveland Skeptics, too (actually the founder) and one of our members suggested that someone could point a laser pen at the clouds and capture that on film and make it look like something zig zagging around. However, a)wouldn't that be rather small and hard to see at such a distance, and b) Isn't camera shake a more likely explanation for the video? On the other hand, if this guy really feels that he saw the lights moving around like that and isn't crazy, there would have to be a factor other than just camera shake.

[Astrophotographer]

From what I have read recently, MUFON is "on the case". Their investigator reported bright lights to the northwest over the lake that turn southwest and then "disappear". This is standard approach for planes coming from Chicago and further west. Times are around 7:15-8:15. If these observations are the same thing that this guy is recording, I am not impressed at all.

[Rramjet]

Hi, I'm in the Cleveland Skeptics, too (actually the founder) and one of our members suggested that someone could point a laser pen at the clouds and capture that on film and make it look like something zig zagging around. However, a)wouldn't that be rather small and hard to see at such a distance, and b) Isn't camera shake a more likely explanation for the video? On the other hand, if this guy really feels that he saw the lights moving around like that and isn't crazy, there would have to be a factor other than just camera shake.
Camera shake is obviously a factor in this video. One of the most famous examples of this can be found in the "ampersand" image in the The New Zealand "Kaikoura" UFO sightings (31 Dec 1978). An analysis of that image can be found in the document linked under the heading "NEW ZEALAND SIGHTINGS of December 31, 1978" at (http://brumac.8k.com/). More about how camera shake affects film images can be found in the document at (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html). While these documents are case specific, they do show how camera shake plays a definite role film images such as the one under current examination.

[MattusMaximus]

This is a local story (http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-news-ohio-ufos-over-lake-erie-pictures,0,6755335.story) about supposed UFOs in my hometown of Cleveland. They just had to play the spooky X-Files music, didn't they? I wonder what the object(s) will turn out to be.

My guess is not an alien spacecraft.

ETA: I just watched the video... laaaaaame! If that's "evidence" for aliens, then I've got some swampland to sell you in the Sahara :rolleyes:

[Rramjet]

My guess is not an alien spacecraft.

ETA: I just watched the video... laaaaaame! If that's "evidence" for aliens, then I've got some swampland to sell you in the Sahara :rolleyes:
That was not the point. You guess “it” is not an alien spacecraft. But No-one is claiming “it” was! IMO this seems a typical reaction of the UFO debunkers in this forum – whenever “UFO” is mentioned, their minds immediately leap to “alien spacecraft”!

Josh (in the OP) actually asked a reasonable question. That is “I wonder what the object(s) will turn out to be.” He did not state or imply “aliens” or “alien spacecraft” in any way, shape or form.

Perhaps if you believe he did make such an implication, then I just may have a bridge you might be interested in…

[Sledge]

Oh great. Now his own thread is being moderated, Rramjet is raving about "UFO debunkers" elsewhere. I'm... I'm really not sure I can take it.

[Rramjet]

Oh great. Now his own thread is being moderated, Rramjet is raving about "UFO debunkers" elsewhere. I'm... I'm really not sure I can take it.

I really don't think "raving" is appropriate under the circumstance - but then I have noticed that another trait of the UFO debunkers is to engage in hyperbole - so your response in this regard could be "typically" expected.

Perhaps you could "appeal" the moderated status of "my" thread then - and let me get back to it - so I won't have the time to "play" in other's threads ;) (waiting a whole day to get my posts up in the "moderated" thread does give me the scope to turn my attention elsewhere...)

...besides, this IS a UFO thread and I AM interested in UFOs (in case you had not noticed :)

...but this little conversation is dragging the thread "off topic" so why don't you give us the benefit of YOUR opinion on the "UFO film" under discussion? Mundane or UFO? What's your opinion?

Mine is that it is a typical UFO at night. The telling evidence that it is a UFO and nothing mundane is as follows:

1. It has appeared "five nights in a row" in the same position (thus unlikely to be "plasma balls" or a "mirage" - and given no navigation lights, unlikely to be a plane - besides - EVERYONE knows what planes look like - especially after five nights in a row).
3. The fact that it was pulsating different colours.
2, The "student's" statements that "Once see it with your own eyes, you're gonna say wow, what's goin on here..." rings true for anyone who has seen a true UFO, such things just don't conform to anything that we have experience of and when you see one, you KNOW that it is just nothing that "we" have in the way of natural or technological objects flying around.

The still images are obviously the result of "camera shake".

One interesting thing is that the witness seems to indicate there is more than one light - ruling out Venus for example (and the single frame due to camera shake shows lots of different colours - in the one frame - now I HAVE seen Venus pulsate different colours - but not to that extent!) ...oh but of course Photoshop is the "natural" answer there! Huh.

[23_Tauri]

Feel free to provide more information than "I saw lights over lake Erie". Time, location, azimuth, and elevation please. When that information is provided, we can either determine the source or rule out astronomical sources.
Hi Astrophotographer. There's this article,

http://www.examiner.com/x-2363-UFO-Examiner~y2010m3d12-Euclid-Ohio-UFO-case-MUFON-field-investiagor-on-the-scene

in which we get a little more (but still scant) information. The observer says he first saw the object at 7.15pm, 2° about the horizon and then

At 7:35 p.m. the object appeared again at "287 degrees northwest for 6 minutes"

Then he says:

"It went from 10 degrees to 290 degrees and disappeared in a matter of just a few minutes," Wertman said.

Can you verify whether or not this would correspond with Venus on the days concerned? The size ("head of a pin") would fit with it being Venus, yes?

Wertman (the observer) refers to a second orb next to the first appearing about 7.43pm. Could this be a refraction off the lake or some similar phenomenon?

What do you think is going on here?

[Stray Cat]

Perhaps if you believe he did make such an implication, then I just may have a bridge you might be interested in…

If that is the bridge between your world and the real world, it is evident you don't own such a thing.

[Stray Cat]

From what I have read recently, MUFON is "on the case". Their investigator reported bright lights to the northwest over the lake that turn southwest and then "disappear". This is standard approach for planes coming from Chicago and further west. Times are around 7:15-8:15. If these observations are the same thing that this guy is recording, I am not impressed at all.

Indeed we can rest assured that the MUFON experts are on the case: Clickerage here (http://www.sott.net/articles/show/204721-The-story-continues-or-does-it-The-Euclid-Ohio-UFO)

[Astrophotographer]

Hi Astrophotographer. There's this article,

http://www.examiner.com/x-2363-UFO-Examiner~y2010m3d12-Euclid-Ohio-UFO-case-MUFON-field-investiagor-on-the-scene

I don't think it is Venus. There is too much motion involved. However, I still am of the opinion it may be aircraft. I was following aircraft last night on line over lake Erie towards Cleveland. There were two flights from Chicago and one from San Francisco that made the same approach to Cleveland around 7:20, 7:40, and 8:00 PM. These times are close to the times he reported. I made some screen grabs for some time between 7:15 and 8:00 PM but got distracted between 7:37 and 7:57PM (it does get boring watching little planes move on the screen). However, you can see the track of the 7:40 aircraft is the same as the previous one. These are on my home computer so I have to get back to you on this information this evening.

[23_Tauri]

Thanks Astro, it's appreciated. I look forward to your further posts this evening.

[Sledge]

I really don't think "raving" is appropriate under the circumstance - but then I have noticed that another trait of the UFO debunkers is to engage in hyperbole - so your response in this regard could be "typically" expected.
You are raving. Time and time again, people have explained why the term "UFO debunker" is ridiculous, yet you continue to use it. I'd say it undermines your credibility, but you don't have any.

ETA: To make the point again for anyone not willing to venture into that trainwreck of a thread, to "debunk" means "To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of." Therefore, a "UFO debunker" would be exposing or ridiculing the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of UFOs. Such a term logically means that UFOs are false, shams, or exaggerated. To put it simply, Rramjet's use of the term means he thinks UFOs are fake. That Rramjet has adopted this as his favorite term of abuse for anyone disagreeing with his fantasies is hilarious or annoying, depending how much of a stickler you are for the proper use of English.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think it is Venus. There is too much motion involved.....The motion looks like camera shaking.

Venus is currently in the night sky, rising just after dusk and would be in the western sky. Lake Erie is north of Cleveland but stretches to the east and west.

If this light is to the west, Venus is a highly likely suspect.

But, so are the aircraft you mention.

All one need do is find Venus to rule it in or out during one of these sightings. Venus really looks like it is coming toward you and appears to be moving at a good clip as it rises over the horizon. At some point it becomes clear it is Venus after it gets higher in the sky and no longer looks to be moving so fast.

[godless dave]

They guy claims that the UFO returned to the same spot at the same time for 5 nights running

You know what else returns to roughly the same spot at roughly the same time 5 nights in a row? The planet Venus.

[EHocking]

You know what else returns to roughly the same spot at roughly the same time 5 nights in a row? The planet Venus.And yet, this UFO bleever, given 5 opportunities, can only provide shakey, out of focus camera phone shots. Hardly good evidence even for the presence of Venus!

[Astrophotographer]

As I stated, I am not so sure it is Venus. The MUFON observer reported obvious motion of the light as it came from the northwest and then turned towards the southwest. There was also some times given of 7:15-8PM. Venus set at around 7:40 for Cleveland according to my astronomy program at an azimuth of about 271 deg. Venus just doesn't seem to fit and it should not forced to do so.
I think a better fit is the standard air traffic approaching Cleveland from the northwest. I watched it on the "Flightaware" website (http://flightaware.com/live/airport/KCLE)last night and saw three aircraft make the same approach around 7:20 (from chicago), 7:45 (from Chicago), and 7:55PM (From SF). Here are two images I took of the screen showing the position of the Chicago flight at 7:20 and 7:26 PM. Note that the MUFON investigator stated that the light seemed to turn off at an azimuth of about 290 degrees. It just so happens that is about the azimuth the plane turns from going ESE to going SE. Does the plane have it's approach lights on and then as they turn south, the lights disappear because they are not pointed towards the observer anymore? The low angle of elevation of the lights indicate the flight is probably around 7,000-17,000 feet (rough estimate using 2-5 degree elevation with a 40 mile distance).

17165

Is this the solution? I don't know but it certainly is something to consider. If I were in Cleveland I would definitely go and check this out. I would be taking all sorts of azimuth readings, elevations, and noting if I could see these aircraft in addition to these lights. I probably would have my refractor coupled with a camera as well. But I am in NH, and it is a long drive. I have to trust that MUFON checks everything out. Right now, I am not overly impressed with their investigation but you never know.

[Towlie]

"I mean, we're not too far from Canada, it could've been a light show over there or something, somebody playing."

D7UKllR0Edo

[Skeptic Ginger]

As I stated, I am not so sure it is Venus. The MUFON observer reported obvious motion of the light as it came from the northwest and then turned towards the southwest.Venus can be mistaken for moving. It surprises anyone who hasn't tried to manually keep an object centered in a telescope just how fast the Earth is rotating. Watching the setting or rising Sun doesn't give you the same experience of speed as Venus rising on the horizon.

I remember seeing it once thinking it was a plane. It was very bright, and moving at a good pace. Then it got high enough in the sky to recognize.

There was also some times given of 7:15-8PM. Venus set at around 7:40 for Cleveland according to my astronomy program. That's not entirely inconsistent with Venus.


Either way, it certainly isn't very convincing UFO material.

[Astrophotographer]

Venus can be mistaken for moving. It surprises anyone who hasn't tried to manually keep an object centered in a telescope just how fast the Earth is rotating. Watching the setting or rising Sun doesn't give you the same experience of speed as Venus rising on the horizon.

I remember seeing it once thinking it was a plane. It was very bright, and moving at a good pace. Then it got high enough in the sky to recognize.

That's not entirely inconsistent with Venus.

Having spent a lot of time looking at Venus and knowing the problems people have with it, I understand your argument. People chase Venus with their cars and it can "appear" to move esp when in a moving vehicle.
That being said, Venus is pretty low these days and is not very obvious except right after sunset. This is also a stationary observer so the motion seen due to autokinesis can only be a few degrees. It just doesn't fit the bill here IMO. I am more in line to consider it to be aircraft on normal approach to Cleveland.

Either way, it certainly isn't very convincing UFO material.

On this I definitely agree. However, it is always interesting to see if one can look at the various sources and potential stimulus for such reports.

[jayman]

My guess is not an alien spacecraft.

ETA: I just watched the video... laaaaaame! If that's "evidence" for aliens, then I've got some swampland to sell you in the Sahara :rolleyes:

I just want to make sure you know where I stand. I don't think it's an alien spacecraft. I think this is some of the crappiest video evidence for anything let alone alien spacecraft.

[MG1962]

Astrophotographer - I agree the extra information does seem to suggest it is not Venus. A mere 2 degrees above the horizion is a lot to ask of an bright celestial object, even Venus

[Skeptic Ginger]

... This is also a stationary observer so the motion seen due to autokinesis can only be a few degrees. ...We don't disagree so don't take this as an argument for Venus, but I haven't seen any of the videos that suggest any more than an unsteady hand.

The ones in the OP link don't show the horizon and the long jerky movements just look like the guy is realigning his camera on an object that is moving slowly across the horizon. On the news the videos that showed the horizon were definitely mostly showing a shaky camera. Without a tripod, you cannot hold a camera still on an object that far distant.

[Access Denied]

Could it be some people are seeing/recording/reporting Venus or some other celestial object and others are seeing/recording/reporting aircraft... or in some cases both?

How many different reports/videos/photographs are we talking about?

[Rramjet]

You are raving. Time and time again, people have explained why the term "UFO debunker" is ridiculous, yet you continue to use it. I'd say it undermines your credibility, but you don't have any.

ETA: To make the point again for anyone not willing to venture into that trainwreck of a thread, to "debunk" means "To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of." Therefore, a "UFO debunker" would be exposing or ridiculing the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of UFOs. Such a term logically means that UFOs are false, shams, or exaggerated. To put it simply, Rramjet's use of the term means he thinks UFOs are fake. That Rramjet has adopted this as his favorite term of abuse for anyone disagreeing with his fantasies is hilarious or annoying, depending how much of a stickler you are for the proper use of English.

But see ...here's your problem, UFO debunkers never give us the FULL story!

For example "A debunker is an individual who discredits and exposes claims as being false, exaggerated or pretentious.[1] The term is closely associated with skeptical investigation of topics such as U.F.O.s, claimed paranormal phenomena, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, religion, or pseudoscientific research." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunk)

That means of course that if the claims cannot be so exposed, then they have veracity. The way YOU put it means that the claim was a priori "sham" - before any examination of the evidence has taken place - and that is patently an anti-rational contention (another trait of UFO debunkers). How can we know a claim to be false before we examine the evidence? (another trait of UFO debunkers "don't bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up)

Anyway, if you disagree with my use of the term, then I have (many times) offered to substitute it for an appropriate term of your choosing! But so far you have come up with... ? So please don't pretend outrage, the solution is (and has always been) in the UFO debunker's hands.

[wollery]

Anyway, if you disagree with my use of the term, then I have (many times) offered to substitute it for an appropriate term of your choosing! But so far you have come up with... ? So please don't pretend outrage, the solution is (and has always been) in the UFO debunker's hands.I offered you one in the other thread - Moronic Argument Disprovers.

Of course, if you want more I can oblige;

Challengers of UFO Nutjob Theories,
Workers Against Non-Knowledgeable Extraterrestrial Researchers,
Those Who Argue Truth.

And there's more where they came from.

[Stray Cat]

But see ...here's your problem, UFO debunkers never give us the FULL story!
Which is odd because the sceptics usually supply more information than the UFOlogists do.

And the UFOlogists manage to continually over reach with their conclusions.

[Astrophotographer]

Could it be some people are seeing/recording/reporting Venus or some other celestial object and others are seeing/recording/reporting aircraft... or in some cases both?

How many different reports/videos/photographs are we talking about?

It is possible that Venus or some other astronomical objects are being reported by this character. However, I was addressing the report by the MUFON "investigator", who stated he saw lights to the northwest over a specific time period with significant motion being observed. IMO, these are consistent with aircraft approaching Cleveland airport over Lake Erie.

The individual (and his companions), who made the initial reports, seemed to be the only one seeing them until MUFON arrived. This is indicative of a mundane source. His descriptions are all over the place with no specific time frames (between 7 and 9) and no specific directions. When MUFON arrived, he started indicating where these UFOs were being spotted and that was over the lake. That means he could have been seeing Venus setting as well as the airplane traffic. Without any more specific details it seems hard to determine what was seen when.

For those familiar with UFOlogy, proposing a solution is Venus, when it is not Venus is a big mistake. UFO proponents (like certain individuals posting here), automatically cry "debunker" and that we are trying to "force fit" a solution. It just gives them ammunition to demonstrate that skeptics don't look at all the information or ignore 'the evidence' (which is not very good in the first place). In this case, Venus is a potential culprit but not the only one and, IMO, does not explain the lights seen by the MUFON investigator or some of the videos shot by the reporting individual.

[MG1962]

That means of course that if the claims cannot be so exposed, then they have veracity. The way YOU put it means that the claim was a priori "sham" - before any examination of the evidence has taken place - and that is patently an anti-rational contention (another trait of UFO debunkers). How can we know a claim to be false before we examine the evidence? (another trait of UFO debunkers "don't bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up)

The problem is the leap of faith needed to automatically connect an unexplained phenomena with alien technology. In the late 80's and early 90's amature astronomy fourms all over the planet were buzzing with reports of formations of lights flying across the night sky and changing position relative to each other.

No one had seen anything like it before, but the reports were so detailed and by people experienced in observing the night sky, there had to be something to it.

It turned out that it was a group of satelites known as NOSS that were designed to fly in formation, and occassionally amature astronomers were seeing the formation changing deployment

So what began as possible compelling evidence of unknown technology at work turned out to have a very mundabe answer

[RoboTimbo]

It's interesting in the video that the witness states that "absolutely nothing we have on this earth even looks like that."

Rramjet, based on the witness testimony, what do you believe it is?

[Sledge]

But see ...here's your problem, UFO debunkers never give us the FULL story!

For example "A debunker is an individual who discredits and exposes claims as being false, exaggerated or pretentious.[1] The term is closely associated with skeptical investigation of topics such as U.F.O.s, claimed paranormal phenomena, conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, religion, or pseudoscientific research." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunk)I don't think you'll find that Wikipedia trumps dictionaries when it comes to defining what words mean. What you've posted doesn't even add anything to what I said. Nice try, though. You must be close to wearing out your CTRL, C and V keys.
That means of course that if the claims cannot be so exposed, then they have veracity. The way YOU put it means that the claim was a priori "sham" - before any examination of the evidence has taken place - and that is patently an anti-rational contention (another trait of UFO debunkers). How can we know a claim to be false before we examine the evidence? (another trait of UFO debunkers "don't bother me with the evidence, my mind is made up)
See, the problem is that no one is debunking UFOs. Everyone agrees that UFOs exist. We're debunking your claims about them. We do not agree with your "if no one knows what it is, it must be alien" raving. Your grasp on the English language is as poor as your grasp on logic.
Anyway, if you disagree with my use of the term, then I have (many times) offered to substitute it for an appropriate term of your choosing! But so far you have come up with... ? So please don't pretend outrage, the solution is (and has always been) in the UFO debunker's hands.
Oh, that's big of you. "If you find my insulting term insulting, why don't you suggest something else I can insult you with." How about you focus on proving your point instead of trying to label anyone who disagrees with you?

[Marcus]

Anyway, if you disagree with my use of the term, then I have (many times) offered to substitute it for an appropriate term of your choosing! But so far you have come up with... ? So please don't pretend outrage, the solution is (and has always been) in the UFO debunker's hands.
I think you need to go with Alien Debunkers. The problem with UFO debunkers is that there just aren't any people here that don't believe that UFO's exist.

ETA: To be fair, we should refer to your group as Alien Creduloids, instead of UFO Creduloids. Since, of course, we all require labels.

[Astrophotographer]

I was just listening to a webcast where the witness reported his sighting. Instead of over Lake Erie, he seems to be reporting it was to the south and moved towards the west. To be honest, I am not sure if this guy knows his cardinal points because it seems the MUFON investigator thought things were happenning to the northwest. Still, his new (or original) statements are also consistent with air acitivity from the airport. Aircraft taking off to his SW with their lights on and heading west, turn around after traveling a few miles north (his west). Of course, it would be nice if their was some consistency in these reports with azimuth/elevation/times. How hard is it to set up two or three stations and pinpoint the UFOs location in some scientific manner? I guess MUFON is going to drop the ball on this one too.

[Access Denied]

The individual (and his companions), who made the initial reports, seemed to be the only one seeing them until MUFON arrived. This is indicative of a mundane source.
I can’t help but see some similarities between this and that “Michael Lee Hill” character who tried to cash in (and succeeded with David Sereda et. al.) on his obvious videos of aircraft over Lake Erie back in 2007…

Lake Erie UFOs Are Stars on YouTube
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/theweb/news/2008/01/erie_ufos

This latest article seems to confirm the aircraft hypothesis….

MUFON field investigator sees light pattern at Euclid, Ohio
http://www.examiner.com/x-2363-UFO-Examiner~y2010m3d16-MUFON-UFO-investigator-sees-light-pattern-at-Euclid-Ohio

“The group at Lakewood confirmed that the lights then moved toward Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.”

Not sure what took them so long to figure this out.

Oh, and fear not…

LAKE ERIE UFO EXPLAINED
http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2010/03/14/lake-erie-ufo-explained

“In December of 2008 "Share International" magazine sent a press release to the world's media announcing that what appears to be a "star" will be seen around the world both night and day. This "star" heralds Maitreya's Presence among us and is akin to the Star of Bethlehem in biblical days.

[snip]

The "star" is actually 1 of 4 very large spaceships that originate from the planets in our solar system. All of our sister planets are inhabited on what are called the ethereal planes: very fine planes that underlie the dense physical. The UFO crews are our Space Brothers and work tirelessly to clean our atmosphere of the toxic pollutants we dump into it. The most dangerous of these pollutants are levels of radiation that seep from nuclear reactors, unrecognized by our primitive scientific equipment, and is largely responsible for such diseases as Alzheimer's.”

[these folks may be the source of some of the Venus-like reports I’ve seen posted elsewhere]

[EHocking]

I was just listening to a webcast where the witness reported his sighting. Instead of over Lake Erie, he seems to be reporting it was to the south and moved towards the west. To be honest, I am not sure if this guy knows his cardinal points because it seems the MUFON investigator thought things were happenning to the northwest... Typical UFODebunker tactics - question the absolute accuracy of eyewitness accounts...

[Astrophotographer]

This latest article seems to confirm the aircraft hypothesis….

MUFON field investigator sees light pattern at Euclid, Ohio
http://www.examiner.com/x-2363-UFO-Examiner~y2010m3d16-MUFON-UFO-investigator-sees-light-pattern-at-Euclid-Ohio

Duh.....It took them this long to establish a two station system to figure this all out. Sometimes I think MUFON is full of morons, who haven't a clue about conducting an investigation. Well good for them for confirming what I was able to figure out looking at "flight aware" on-line.

[23_Tauri]

Well 'xactly Astro. My reaction when I read this article earlier today was "who was the first moron to look up into the same skies and decide that the planes that have been over their city for decades are now UFOs?" This got on the TV news for crying out loud! How does this happen? (Bangs head against keyboard)

Might the scenario be something like this? Person not into sky watching look up one night and sees Venus. Thinks it's a UFO. Rumour gets around by word of mouth in the local area and other people (who don't usually look further than tv remote control) look at the sky. They see aeroplanes coming into land and think they are the rumoured UFO(s). Some moron phones the tv station. The ball is rolling. The myth is born.

[tsig]

I really don't think "raving" is appropriate under the circumstance - but then I have noticed that another trait of the UFO debunkers is to engage in hyperbole - so your response in this regard could be "typically" expected.

Perhaps you could "appeal" the moderated status of "my" thread then - and let me get back to it - so I won't have the time to "play" in other's threads ;) (waiting a whole day to get my posts up in the "moderated" thread does give me the scope to turn my attention elsewhere...)

...besides, this IS a UFO thread and I AM interested in UFOs (in case you had not noticed :)

...but this little conversation is dragging the thread "off topic" so why don't you give us the benefit of YOUR opinion on the "UFO film" under discussion? Mundane or UFO? What's your opinion?

Mine is that it is a typical UFO at night. The telling evidence that it is a UFO and nothing mundane is as follows:

1. It has appeared "five nights in a row" in the same position (thus unlikely to be "plasma balls" or a "mirage" - and given no navigation lights, unlikely to be a plane - besides - EVERYONE knows what planes look like - especially after five nights in a row).
3. The fact that it was pulsating different colours.
2, The "student's" statements that "Once see it with your own eyes, you're gonna say wow, what's goin on here..." rings true for anyone who has seen a true UFO, such things just don't conform to anything that we have experience of and when you see one, you KNOW that it is just nothing that "we" have in the way of natural or technological objects flying around.

The still images are obviously the result of "camera shake".

One interesting thing is that the witness seems to indicate there is more than one light - ruling out Venus for example (and the single frame due to camera shake shows lots of different colours - in the one frame - now I HAVE seen Venus pulsate different colours - but not to that extent!) ...oh but of course Photoshop is the "natural" answer there! Huh.

How do I tell a 'true UFO" from a false UFO?

[Towlie]

How do I tell a 'true UFO" from a false UFO?You mean an IFO?

http://wildrc.com/images/ifomk3.jpg

[Rramjet]

I find it interesting that Astrophotographer first stated “How hard is it to set up two or three stations and pinpoint the UFOs location in some scientific manner? I guess MUFON is going to drop the ball on this one too.”

Then, when a report comes out that MUFON actually did this he then states: “Duh.....It took them this long to establish a two station system to figure this all out. Sometimes I think MUFON is full of morons, who haven't a clue about conducting an investigation. Well good for them for confirming what I was able to figure out looking at "flight aware" on-line.”

So he calls for a particular type of investigation and when MUFON conducts the very type of investigation, that he called for, he then calls them morons for doing so? What does that then say about the initial call for investigation by Astrophotographer?

The other thing is that a member of the public cannot confirm specific historical flights on “flight aware” unless they pay a minimum fee of $250 to purchase the historical data. My question is then: Did Astrophotographer make such a purchase and compare the dates and times the UFO was (UFOs were) seen with that historical flight data? If not, then how can he claim to have used “flight aware” to make a determination about the UFOs?

Everyone knows an airport is in the area (more than one in fact) so the simple contention that planes fly in the area does not even take “flight aware” to work out – so what DID Astrophotographer use “flight aware” for again?

[Access Denied]

So he calls for a particular type of investigation and when MUFON conducts the very type of investigation, that he called for, he then calls them morons for doing so?
No, try reading what he wrote again. That your reading comprehension skills are so demonstrably and consistently poor selective really says a lot about you… and you wonder why we don't take you seriously?

I wonder, when you discover what you got wrong, will you apologize?

What does that then say about the initial call for investigation by Astrophotographer?
Wow, you really don’t get it.

Tell us Rramjet, do you agree or disagree that…

a) this case warranted all the attention it got in the first place?

b) this case could not have been solved without a MUFON “field investigation”?

c) once MUFON decided to "investigate", they should have known and been prepared to do and then done what Tim called for sooner?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Typical UFODebunker tactics - question the absolute accuracy of eyewitness accounts...Right because eyewitness reports have such a good track record for accuracy. :rolleyes:

[EHocking]

Astrophotographer and I have previous experience with Rramjet on the subject - he would have got the Ufologist Patented Reply allusion :p

[Astrophotographer]

I find it interesting that Astrophotographer first stated “How hard is it to set up two or three stations and pinpoint the UFOs location in some scientific manner? I guess MUFON is going to drop the ball on this one too.”

Then, when a report comes out that MUFON actually did this he then states: “Duh.....It took them this long to establish a two station system to figure this all out. Sometimes I think MUFON is full of morons, who haven't a clue about conducting an investigation. Well good for them for confirming what I was able to figure out looking at "flight aware" on-line.”

So he calls for a particular type of investigation and when MUFON conducts the very type of investigation, that he called for, he then calls them morons for doing so? What does that then say about the initial call for investigation by Astrophotographer?

The other thing is that a member of the public cannot confirm specific historical flights on “flight aware” unless they pay a minimum fee of $250 to purchase the historical data. My question is then: Did Astrophotographer make such a purchase and compare the dates and times the UFO was (UFOs were) seen with that historical flight data? If not, then how can he claim to have used “flight aware” to make a determination about the UFOs?

Everyone knows an airport is in the area (more than one in fact) so the simple contention that planes fly in the area does not even take “flight aware” to work out – so what DID Astrophotographer use “flight aware” for again?

My criticism is that it was not scienitific to begin with and it did not make use of the resources available. If you think you can do better, you should have been there but who am I to argue with somebody who claims to be the ultimate scientific authority on UFOs. As for your criticisms:

1. MUFON went to "investigate" and are amazed by seeing the lights over the lake. If you are going to start looking for a UFO in some sort of investigation, the FIRST thing you do is set up two stations to see if the two can triangulate the position of the UFO. Otherwise, you are just gazing at lights and are accomplishing nothing. They had to take several tries to figure this all out.

2. You can watch "flight aware" real time for FREE. I gave the link when I first posted the potential airplane explanation. I paid absolutely nothing to monitor the air traffic real-time. You could also monitor air traffic the next day. The patterns are usually very similar so you don't need to go to the historical data. With the ability of mobile phones and wi-fi, it is not hard to watch real time as you are present at the lake. Additionally, while the UFO investigator was out gazing at the lights he was talking on the cell phone to MUFON (Marsh). What prevented Marsh from jumping on-line as well and noticing he was watching aircraft? Again, a failure to use the resources that were readily available.

I am glad that MUFON finally stepped up and at least attempted something but it took them several days to figure this out. A real scientific investigation would have been there armed and ready on the first night. Who knows, if it were an exotic event, it may have not reappeared on another night and it would have been a lost opportunity to study it. I think a REAL scientist would understand this.

[EHocking]

Fairly typical response from Rramjet where he has come to incorrect conclusions based on his poor analysis skills, lack of research and his bias blinding him to the evidence.

A succinct example of is in this rant about Penn & Teller assigned to AAH (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5440115&postcount=19).

[Rramjet]

My criticism is that it was not scienitific to begin with and it did not make use of the resources available. If you think you can do better, you should have been there but who am I to argue with somebody who claims to be the ultimate scientific authority on UFOs. As for your criticisms:

1. MUFON went to "investigate" and are amazed by seeing the lights over the lake. If you are going to start looking for a UFO in some sort of investigation, the FIRST thing you do is set up two stations to see if the two can triangulate the position of the UFO. Otherwise, you are just gazing at lights and are accomplishing nothing. They had to take several tries to figure this all out.

2. You can watch "flight aware" real time for FREE. I gave the link when I first posted the potential airplane explanation. I paid absolutely nothing to monitor the air traffic real-time. You could also monitor air traffic the next day. The patterns are usually very similar so you don't need to go to the historical data. With the ability of mobile phones and wi-fi, it is not hard to watch real time as you are present at the lake. Additionally, while the UFO investigator was out gazing at the lights he was talking on the cell phone to MUFON (Marsh). What prevented Marsh from jumping on-line as well and noticing he was watching aircraft? Again, a failure to use the resources that were readily available.

I am glad that MUFON finally stepped up and at least attempted something but it took them several days to figure this out. A real scientific investigation would have been there armed and ready on the first night. Who knows, if it were an exotic event, it may have not reappeared on another night and it would have been a lost opportunity to study it. I think a REAL scientist would understand this.

I was not making a commendation of MUFON here - quite clearly they could have handled the case more expediently (at least).

I was however criticising you Astrophotographer because it was you who made a claim about "flight aware" as if you had used it to make some sort of determination about the UFOs - which, given that you could not have (unless you paid for the data) observed "flight aware" data for the nights of UFO activity (hence my question about whether you HAD paid for the data), then all that actually amounted to from you was an observation that there were regular airplane flights in the area - and THAT does not take "flight aware" to ascertain. So therefore you reference to "flight aware" was an unwarrented pseudoscientific attempt to lend credence to your statements (unless of course you had access to the historical data - which by your comments you did not).

Moreover, as you have noted, the flights from night to night are NOT the same, therefore observing the current (free access) flight information does NOT give you an accurate picture of whether the flight data and the UFOs matched in time and space - and is therefore a useless activity to make determinations about the UFOs on the nights in question. To make an accurate determination one MUST PAY for the historical data, and perhaps the MUFON investigator(s) (volunteers after all) did not feel able to come up with the minimum $250 it would have taken to make such a determination. Perhaps you feel "flush" enough to come up with the cash and settle the argument once and for all? If you cannot (or will not) do this, then you cannot criticise other individuals for making a similar determination about their own cash status and conducting other lines of investigation perhaps less onerous on their bank balances.

[Astrophotographer]

Moreover, as you have noted, the flights from night to night are NOT the same, therefore observing the current (free access) flight information does NOT give you an accurate picture of whether the flight data and the UFOs matched in time and space - and is therefore a useless activity to make determinations about the UFOs on the nights in question. To make an accurate determination one MUST PAY for the historical data, and perhaps the MUFON investigator(s) (volunteers after all) did not feel able to come up with the minimum $250 it would have taken to make such a determination.

The flight patterns are the same. The planes may not be exactly on time but they make the same approaches EVERY time from the same location. These are ROUTINE operations and can be correlated to observations made on the night in question simply by looking at the arrival times of the aircraft (which are free if you know where to look). Anybody who looks at "Flight aware" for a period of time can ascertain this. ADDITIONALLY, real time watching "flight aware" as you see these flights is not difficult to do as I previously mentioned but you so willingly ignored.

Perhaps you feel "flush" enough to come up with the cash and settle the argument once and for all? If you cannot (or will not) do this, then you cannot criticise other individuals for making a similar determination about their own cash status and conducting other lines of investigation perhaps less onerous on their bank balances.

There is a difference between spending a large sum of money for data and spending a few dollars for a book or being too lazy to go to the library. The data is not going to serve me a useful purpose since I already know what the data will probably show. If you think there are UFOs over Lake Erie feel free to spend the money or try and FOIA the radar tapes. Good luck in that effort.

[Marduk]

Wow Rroger, new theory for you then, now youre claiming that both terrestrial and extra terrestrial craft were in the same airspace those nights

yet we're still expected to believe the only witness to anything was on the ground

logic much ?
:p

[EHocking]

...Moreover, as you have noted, the flights from night to night are NOT the same,..Yet another example of an unsupported assertion that ignores available evidence.

While it is understood that you can't afford a secondhand copy of a UFO book, so are unlikely to be a frequent flyer, you have heard of scheduled flights, surely?

Here's the scheduled flights for Cleveland Hopkins in PDF format (http://www.trvlink.com/download/cle/schedules.pdf).

Note the item under Flight Frequency - "All flights arrive and depart daily except when noted."

[Astrophotographer]

Well, MUFON got their act together and called it correctly:

http://www.examiner.com/x-2363-UFO-Examiner~y2010m3d18-Case-closed-MUFON-says-Euclid-OH-UFOs-are-planes

Good for them. I notice that they used "flight tracking websites" to help resolve the issue. Hmmm....I thought I heard that somewhere before.....So, after fumbling for a bit, they managed to use the resources available to identify the lights. Again, they get a thumbs up for doing their homework. I agree at this point, "the case is closed".

Of course, others have considered this a 'non-mundane' cases simply because the witness stated, "Once see it with your own eyes, you're gonna say wow, what's goin on here...". I understand that automatically indicates it is a "non-mundane" source. I also understand one had to rule out planes because the witness saw it five nights in a row and should have been able to determine if they were airplanes (after all he could not see any nav lights). This kind of reasoning relies heavily on the witness being accurate. Apparently, the witness seems to have exaggerated some of his claims a bit and the investigator noted this. The UFO "debunker" in me states that he was:

1. a very poor observer
2. knew what he was filming were aircraft and conducted a hoax for some air time on TV or other gain.
3. was not very bright.

Take your pick.

The bottom line is that repeating UFO events usually have an astronomical source (my original thoughts when I read the story) OR something that routinely performs the same task (like air traffic at a large airport).

[RoboTimbo]

4. To poke the UFO creduloids with a stick.

[Access Denied]

Rramjet™ presents...

"Aliens from Beyond the Borders of What We Call Nature" c. 2007

9QZxsM8xWFA
Is this proof of the retrocausal nature of UFOs?

[the audio is an absolute riot]

[MattusMaximus]

You know what else returns to roughly the same spot at roughly the same time 5 nights in a row? The planet Venus.

Also planes that are coming in for regular night flights. We see this all the time over Lake Michigan in Chicagoland.

ETA: I see that this seems to be the likely explanation for the UFOs. Can't say I'm surprised.

[Yeah_Right]

Rramjet™ presents...

"Aliens from Beyond the Borders of What We Call Nature" c. 2007

9QZxsM8xWFA
Is this proof of the retrocausal nature of UFOs?

[the audio is an absolute riot]

I think that every time somone excessively uses the word "dude", they should recieve an electric shock.

[Access Denied]

Bzzt!