UFO sighting - how best to analyse?

[Southwind17]

First, let me open by stating that I am probably the World's No.1 skeptic when it comes to the paranormal, including 'valid' UFO sightings, well, disregarding the numerous JREF skeptics, that is, who are far better placed to comment than this JREF rookie. I would, however, like somehow to compare a UFO 'sighting' that I had many years ago (witnessed by a friend), but can remember vividly, with possible sightings of other observers. I do, however, wish to pre-empt the possibility of others interpreting their sightings to correspond with mine by not fully describing mine at this stage. Suffice to say, it involved the silent movement of numerous light points within the night sky through a regular and repeated pattern that, to my mind, defies the possibility of either man-made craft or natural phenomena as an explanation. My line of logic here is two-fold: 1. If somebody can rationally explain the movement of light points as I observed them then my wondering may cease; 2. If they cannot, but can describe an identical or very similar incident, then that might well add further wonder and trigger some research. How should I proceed to disclose and analyse my sighting without tainting the potential feedback and soliciting a 'loaded' response?

[athon]

The question is - what do they attribute the sighting to? As a UFO, that's truly what it is - an unidentified object. It could be several things, but postulating it is close to pointless with little more than personal anecdotes of an observation. However, if the observers postulate it being an extraterrestrial object or non-human technology, they have to be the ones to support the claim with evidence, and it is you who has the right to ask for it.

There is nothing wrong with saying 'I don't know', especially if there is no evidence other than the memory of an observation. But that doesn't equate lending evidence to any wild speculation. Not in the slightest.

Athon

[Cuddles]

many years ago...

can remember vividly

There's your first problem, and you are in no way alone with it. Memory is far less reliable than most people think. While it may seem that you can remember it perfectly, the actual memory is probably very different from what actually happened. Memories change every time you remember them and every time you tell them to someone. This is not done conciously, but happens nonetheless. Add to this all the possibilities of optical illusions and general misunderstandings and it is just not possible to explain anything. Without any more than a single anecdote it will never be possible to know anything about this UFO.

[Southwind17]

Sorry to sound dismissive Cuddles, but whilst I agree that memories do tend to be unreliable that's not to say that some events cannot be recalled accurately after the passage of time. I am certain that if I was still in touch with the friend to whom I refer, and he 'recalled' the event as accurately as I remember it, we would have exactly the same story to tell. Your final sentence summarise my plight. What I am seeking is a corroborative anecdote (surely, if the 'sighting' is explainable then similar sightings have been witnessed over the ensuing 30 years), or a plausible explanation. Perhaps my only course of action is to go right ahead and describe what we observed, and see where that leads(?)

[Belz...]

UFO sighting - how best to analyse?

Ignore them. :D

[tsg]

I am certain that if I was still in touch with the friend to whom I refer, and he 'recalled' the event as accurately as I remember it, we would have exactly the same story to tell.

This is pretty much the point. You aren't certain he would recall it the same way you do, or which one of you would be correct if he didn't. And without his account there is no corroboration.

If you can't start with the assumption that your memory of the event may be faulty, there is little point in discussing it any further.

[Southwind17]

OK - here's the sighting description, through our eyes:

We're lying on our backs in a field gazing at the night sky. The stars are clear and bright, and abundant. The usual constellations can be clearly identified. Suddenly we notice a light point moving slowly in a straight line from left to right, as we're looking up. The light point is almost directly overhead. There's absolutely no noise. The light point appears of equivalent size, brightness and colour to the ambient stars overhead. After a few seconds the light point stops dead. Then the light point, in conjunction with another light point 'beneath' it, as we're looking, begins to rotate slowly around a common axis in a clockwise direction. The distance between the two light points is roughly 6cm as measured at arm's length. When the two light points have exchanged positions, i.e. the first light point has rotated from the 12 O'clock position to the 6 O'clock position and vice versa, both light points momentarily stop then the second light point, now at the 12 O'clock position, moves slowly away to the right, continuing the apparent course that the first light point initially followed. The first light point remains still. After a few seconds the second light point stops dead, just as the first did, then the whole process repeats, this time with a third light point. After completing the 180 degree rotation the third light also point moves away to the right, again following the initial course, then fades out of sight, suggesting a very large distance from our observation point. Unfortunately, the first two light points are no longer identifiable from the surrounding stars, and cannot be observed further.

Clearly, this was not a 'dramatic' sighting in the sense that many so-called sightings caught on film are, but because of the regularity and unorthodox pattern of the movements, in my view, makes it all the more puzzling. I'm not an aeronautics fanatic or expert, but common sense leads me to ask the question: what possible plausible explanation could there be for such an observation? I guess there will be many skeptics on this forum who will readily seek to pass the incident off with the usual generic explanations, but if you're tempted to respond please take the time to give due consideration, and only proffer explanations that fit the observation.

I know what we saw that night, and I'm not alleging that it was anything that did not originate from Earth, but I'm at a loss to come up with a plausible explanation, and I'm hoping that somebody out there can.

Go for it!

[BlackKat]

All the faulty memory discussion aside, presuming you saw what you saw (regardless of correlation with other people's memory as well)...

There are numerous objects that move in the "sky" that either reflect or generate light and would appear to move in "patterns". With so many mundane, potential explanations for these moving lights there is a good chance that they were caused by something mundane (i.e. Flares, Airplanes, Satellites, Helicopters, Blimps, Satellites, Meteors, etc.).

While it would be interesting to learn what that "UFO" was, anything we put forwards would be merely postulation (having not witnessed what you did). But again with so many potentially mundane explanations, there's a good chance it's just one of them.

For instance, from your description of what you saw, if you were at a high enough altitude it might have been satellites or even the ISS. Or you could have seen lights on a high altitude airplane or planes or maybe even a mid-air refueling in progress. Remember that military planes do not always use normal navigation lights during combat or exercises.

Remember that just because something appears still in the sky that it could still be moving or vice versa, even at a high rate of speed, depending on one's perspective. Also distance judgments in the sky are very difficult to make accurately due to a lack of frame of reference.

[Southwind17]

You have the details now BlackKat. None of your potential postulations fit even remotely. Perhaps you'd like to give it more thought?!?

[tsg]

OK - here's the sighting description, through our eyes:

We're lying on our backs in a field gazing at the night sky. The stars are clear and bright, and abundant. The usual constellations can be clearly identified. Suddenly we notice a light point moving slowly in a straight line from left to right, as we're looking up. The light point is almost directly overhead. There's absolutely no noise. The light point appears of equivalent size, brightness and colour to the ambient stars overhead. After a few seconds the light point stops dead. Then the light point, in conjunction with another light point 'beneath' it, as we're looking, begins to rotate slowly around a common axis in a clockwise direction. The distance between the two light points is roughly 6cm as measured at arm's length. When the two light points have exchanged positions, i.e. the first light point has rotated from the 12 O'clock position to the 6 O'clock position and vice versa, both light points momentarily stop then the second light point, now at the 12 O'clock position, moves slowly away to the right, continuing the apparent course that the first light point initially followed. The first light point remains still. After a few seconds the second light point stops dead, just as the first did, then the whole process repeats, this time with a third light point. After completing the 180 degree rotation the third light also point moves away to the right, again following the initial course, then fades out of sight, suggesting a very large distance from our observation point. Unfortunately, the first two light points are no longer identifiable from the surrounding stars, and cannot be observed further.

Clearly, this was not a 'dramatic' sighting in the sense that many so-called sightings caught on film are, but because of the regularity and unorthodox pattern of the movements, in my view, makes it all the more puzzling. I'm not an aeronautics fanatic or expert, but common sense leads me to ask the question: what possible plausible explanation could there be for such an observation? I guess there will be many skeptics on this forum who will readily seek to pass the incident off with the usual generic explanations, but if you're tempted to respond please take the time to give due consideration, and only proffer explanations that fit the observation.

I know what we saw that night, and I'm not alleging that it was anything that did not originate from Earth, but I'm at a loss to come up with a plausible explanation, and I'm hoping that somebody out there can.

Go for it!

Just from the description I don't think you can rule out aircraft flying in formation. The light can appear to be stopped but actually be moving towards or away from you (I have flown small aircraft at night and can attest that the plane heading right for you looks like it isn't moving at all. In fact, they tell you specifically to look for other traffic that "isn't moving" because it means it's heading your way). In addition, without knowing how far away they were it's not possible to know how fast they were moving or what direction they were heading apart from their two dimensional appearance.

But even if it that wasn't what it was, I want to caution you about two of your statements.

what possible plausible explanation could there be for such an observation?

Be careful here. That it isn't explained doesn't mean it is unexplainable without resorting to extra-terrestrials. It just means we don't know. Very many of these accounts (and, for the record, I am not accusing you of doing this) end with "I'm not saying it was aliens, but what else it could it be?" The answer is "just about anything else." The explanation may be quite mundane, but unknown.

I know what we saw that night

Again, if you can't start with the assumption that your memory of the event may be flawed, there's little point in going any further.

In any case, even witnessing it first hand wouldn't convince me it was extra-terrestrial visitors, and it shouldn't lead you down that road either. You can discount every conceivable explanation for what happened that night and it still doesn't mean it was aliens. All you would be left with is "I don't know".

[athon]

I agree with tsg. Small details do shift in rather subtle ways with time, yet these make all the difference. Your initial perception biases what you think you observe. Just because it can be correlated with what another person observed doesn't immediately mean you both didn't assume the same biases. This happens frequently; chances are, what alters your perception will also alter somebody else's, especially if you share similar backgrounds.

For example, it's likely you both initially thought 'stars', then you both assumed 'aircraft' when you saw the lights move across the starry background. Each assumption means you form a framework in your mind which manipulates the details of the observations.

As the framework shifts over time with additional experiences, the memory alters slightly. Hence memory is not like a warehouse of recollections, but like a novel in revision, following a plot that doesn't change much but with shifting details that change as you rewrite it. Sizes, sequences, intensities, relationships, timing...all of this stuff is kind of flexible. You could swear black and blue that it happened just as you said, but your convictions come from a mind that is capable of adjusting the picture without telling you.

So, how reliable is your account? We have no way of telling. Maybe it's fairly close, maybe it's not. Assuming the details you provided have some accuracy, it could be as tsg said - a misperception of non-movement where really there was some, meaning it was aircraft manouvering. Maybe it was spotlights from a distance reflecting off a thin layer of precipitation.

As I said before, sometimes it pays to simply say 'I don't have enough information to even guess'.

Athon

[Southwind17]

OK - thanks for all of your views and comments so far - appreciated.

It is a little disappointing, however, but not unexpected, I suppose, that virtually all of the meaningful feedback focusses on the possibility, neigh, probability, that my memory has betrayed me. I suppose, under the circumstances, that is impossible to prove or disprove, but the benefit of any doubt seems to be in scarce supply here. I suppose that's the nature of skeptcisim, and if I'm being totally honest I'm probably as guilty as the next person when it comes to lending credulity to so-called eye-witness accounts of alleged paranormal or seemingly unexplainable activity. I wonder what responses would have been forthcoming if I were to have couched my initial enquiry in terms of a hypothetical sighting, with the assumption that the details, as described subsequently, were an accurate account. I guess, being hypothetical, it would have been largely dismissed out of hand as a pointless exercise, which I suppose is valid, or alternatively possible 'explanations' would have been proferred, similar to those alluded to already.

I don't for one minute wish to appear even to suggest that extra-terrestrial craft or beings were at play, so to speak, but given the conditions that night it will take much more than a few generic suggestions that what we witnessed could be accounted for by conventional military or civil aircraft, satellites, 'blimps', spotlight reflections or the like. The observations simply defy logic on all accounts, and I think that if anybody reading the account carefully were to be completely open-minded and honest with themselves and critically question the probable likelihood of 'generic' explanations they would be very hard-pressed to suggest a convincing theory.

I wouldn't expect any forum members to dedicate even a modicum of time and effort travelling that road, as the 'memory problem' seems to weigh too heavily on the skeptic's ability to focus on the observation as described and seek a plausible explanation, and, in the nature of skepticism it's all too easy to pass off otherwise unexplainable events by reference to 'the usual suspects'. Ask yourself this though: Do you seriously doubt your own long-term memory, as you do mine, to the extent that you cannot vouch for the accuracy of ANY memorable events, particularly something so profain, but at the same time simple and defined, as that described by me? I'd like to bet that if the boot were on the other foot the benefit of any doubt, of which, in your mind, I'm sure there would be very little, would be pursued with vigour.

[EHLO]

Hi Southwind17, having spent a lot of time gazing at the stars in very dark places I'd like to suggest that what you witnessed was merely a satellite.

I've found that trying to track a satellite by eye over a star filled sky can result in very real optical illusions. Sometimes I swear that other stars are also moving, or rotating, or swapping places with the satellite I'm tracking. The telling factor is that the path of the satellite as a whole doesn't change. It's not very exciting but would seem to fit your account.

[Southwind17]

Sorry to disappoint EHLO, but satellites, I guess(!), don't stop dead, CLEARLY rotate around a common axis WITH ANOTHER SATELLITE, the other satellite then continuing the orbit of the first satellite then REPEATING the whole process. I can see where you're coming from, but in the context of my account and description, which has to be assumed to be correct if we're to proffer possible explanations for the movements, the satellite theory simply doesn't cut it. BTW, do satellites remain constantly illuminated as they cross the night sky? Having observed many irridium flares, which last for a matter of seconds, at best, I'm inclined to suggest not, but remain open to being educated if mistaken.

[EHLO]

The satellites I've watched are quite consistent in brightness (similar in magnitude to other stars) and can track most of the visible sky before fading out. Iridium flares are quite different as you say.

My wife and I watched the International Space Station track overhead the other night from the back yard. It was brighter than all the other stars and lasted a good couple of minutes.

I'm not saying that it was a satellite, but it does match your description. Just because the light "appeared" to stop and rotate doesn't mean that it did. As I said before, one moving dot against a back drop of lots of static dots can play tricks on your eyes.

If you know the date/time/location we can look and see what satellites may have been visible from your location.

[Correa Neto]

"Flight formations" of satellites are not exactly new -or rare- stuff.
Check this, for example:
http://www.satobs.org/noss.html

I saw one of these once, back in the early 80s. For some years it remained "running in the background" of my mind as something that defied all explanations, untill I read about NOSS...

My recollections of the sighting are not totally unlike yours...

[tsg]

OK - thanks for all of your views and comments so far - appreciated.

It is a little disappointing, however, but not unexpected, I suppose, that virtually all of the meaningful feedback focusses on the possibility, neigh, probability, that my memory has betrayed me. I suppose, under the circumstances, that is impossible to prove or disprove, but the benefit of any doubt seems to be in scarce supply here. I suppose that's the nature of skeptcisim, and if I'm being totally honest I'm probably as guilty as the next person when it comes to lending credulity to so-called eye-witness accounts of alleged paranormal or seemingly unexplainable activity. I wonder what responses would have been forthcoming if I were to have couched my initial enquiry in terms of a hypothetical sighting, with the assumption that the details, as described subsequently, were an accurate account. I guess, being hypothetical, it would have been largely dismissed out of hand as a pointless exercise, which I suppose is valid, or alternatively possible 'explanations' would have been proferred, similar to those alluded to already.

I don't for one minute wish to appear even to suggest that extra-terrestrial craft or beings were at play, so to speak, but given the conditions that night it will take much more than a few generic suggestions that what we witnessed could be accounted for by conventional military or civil aircraft, satellites, 'blimps', spotlight reflections or the like. The observations simply defy logic on all accounts, and I think that if anybody reading the account carefully were to be completely open-minded and honest with themselves and critically question the probable likelihood of 'generic' explanations they would be very hard-pressed to suggest a convincing theory.

I wouldn't expect any forum members to dedicate even a modicum of time and effort travelling that road, as the 'memory problem' seems to weigh too heavily on the skeptic's ability to focus on the observation as described and seek a plausible explanation, and, in the nature of skepticism it's all too easy to pass off otherwise unexplainable events by reference to 'the usual suspects'. Ask yourself this though: Do you seriously doubt your own long-term memory, as you do mine, to the extent that you cannot vouch for the accuracy of ANY memorable events, particularly something so profain, but at the same time simple and defined, as that described by me? I'd like to bet that if the boot were on the other foot the benefit of any doubt, of which, in your mind, I'm sure there would be very little, would be pursued with vigour.

You've apparently already made up your mind what it was, so why are you asking?

[Gravy]

The observations simply defy logic on all accounts,Yet the literature is full of examples of UFO sightings that seemed to defy logic, but were revealed to have simple causes.

Because we may not have convincing explanations for what you experienced, based on the limited information we have, doesn't mean there isn't a simple, convincing explanation. And don't be offended by people questioning your memory. This is a skeptic's forum and we also have to consider the possibility that you are insane, prone to hallucinations, a drug abuser, or a liar, in which cases our guesses would be pointless. :) We simply have no way of determining if the information you're providing is accurate. And even if it is as accurate and complete as possible, it's not much to go on for people who weren't there.

By the way, what did you mean by "profain?"

[Southwind17]

"Flight formations" of satellites are not exactly new -or rare- stuff.

I saw one of these once, back in the early 80s. For some years it remained "running in the background" of my mind as something that defied all explanations, untill I read about NOSS...

My recollections of the sighting are not totally unlike yours...

Thanks for the link, and interesting timeframe of your sighting. My sighting would have been circa 1978. It'll take a while for me to read through the link to see whether it helps explain my observation. Meantime, does the fact that my sighting occured over northern UK preclude your suggested explanation? Also, I'd be very interested to hear a description of your own 'not totally unlike' sighting. Would you oblige please? The devil's often in the detail, as they say!

[Southwind17]

You've apparently already made up your mind what it was, so why are you asking?

Jeez - you should post a thread on telepathy - you seem to know more about what I'm thinking than I do! Where do I state what I believe it was? I don't believe I've even hinted at a suggestion. All I've said is what I believe it was not, based on the generic suggestions tentatively proffered so far.

[Gravy]

Jeez - you should post a thread on telepathy - you seem to know more about what I'm thinking than I do! Where do I state what I believe it was? I don't believe I've even hinted at a suggestion. All I've said is what I believe it was not, based on the generic suggestions tentatively proffered so far.No, you said you don't believe you saw a man-made or natural phenomenon. You've eliminated an awful lot there!

ETA: my 10,000th post. It snuck up on me.

[LTC8K6]

Sounds like it could be aircraft in holding patterns to me.

[Southwind17]

Yet the literature is full of examples of UFO sightings that seemed to defy logic, but were revealed to have simple causes.

Because we may not have convincing explanations for what you experienced, based on the limited information we have, doesn't mean there isn't a simple, convincing explanation. And don't be offended by people questioning your memory. This is a skeptic's forum and we also have to consider the possibility that you are insane, prone to hallucinations, a drug abuser, or a liar, in which cases our guesses would be pointless. :) We simply have no way of determining if the information you're providing is accurate. And even if it is as accurate and complete as possible, it's not much to go on for people who weren't there.

By the way, what did you mean by "profain?"

OK - based on the 'limited information' you have (I apologize, I don't know what else to tell you that's of any relevance - are there any blindingly obvious holes in my account that you'd like me to try to fill?). Would you like to offer one or a number of the 'simple convincing explanations' you might have in mind? Let's see if we can find a preliminary match based on what we already know.

I'm not offended by anybody questioning my memory. I am very aware of how memories can fail us and play tricks on the mind. I am simply disappointed that people seem all too willing to dismiss by defaulting to the 'poor memory explanation' before even considering possible alternatives. I suppose the alternatives simply fall into the 'too hard' basket for most people.

Apologies - 'profain' was an incorrect choice of word, and incorrect spelling to boot - double apology. I think 'confounding' would have been a better choice.

[Gravy]

OK - based on the 'limited information' you have (I apologize, I don't know what else to tell you that's of any relevance - are there any blindingly obvious holes in my account that you'd like me to try to fill?). Would you like to offer one or a number of the 'simple convincing explanations' you might have in mind? Let's see if we can find a preliminary match based on what we already know.Military helicopters.

[Southwind17]

No, you said you don't believe you saw a man-made or natural phenomenon. You've eliminated an awful lot there!

ETA: my 10,000th post. It snuck up on me.

Thank you for correcting yourself and concurring that I claimed what I didn't observe, not what I did. I'm guessing you were just being playful and provocative in suggesting that I've made my mind up what I did see - that's only to be expected from somebody who seemingly hasn't experienced a 'confounding' event that's not readily explainable.

I do agree, however, that I have 'eliminated an awful lot'. By definition, if I hadn't then I wouldn't still be contemplating the possibilities - they would be too numerous to trivialise the whole incident. But please pay attention to detail. I said 'man-made CRAFT [emphasis added] and natural penomenon'. That's a subtle but important distinction.

Congratulations on your 10,000th. Pleased I was the one to facilitate it. Bit of a ways to go for me!

[Southwind17]

Military helicopters.

You've seen them do this have you? No noise; single point light sources; not close to a military base; geometric patterns; too simple - don't think so.

[Southwind17]

Sounds like it could be aircraft in holding patterns to me.

Can you be more specific, with reference to the movement patterns described?

[Terry]

The start of what you saw corresponds exactly to what a satellite looks like. I suggest that one or more satellites are at least part of the explanation here.

[Gravy]

Thank you for correcting yourself and concurring that I claimed what I didn't observe, not what I did. I'm guessing you were just being playful and provocative in suggesting that I've made my mind up what I did see - that's only to be expected from somebody who seemingly hasn't experienced a 'confounding' event that's not readily explainable.

I do agree, however, that I have 'eliminated an awful lot'. By definition, if I hadn't then I wouldn't still be contemplating the possibilities - they would be too numerous to trivialise the whole incident. But please pay attention to detail. I said 'man-made CRAFT [emphasis added] and natural penomenon'. That's a subtle but important distinction.

1) A man-made craft as opposed to a man-made what?

2) Why have you eliminated the possibility of a man-made craft? Do you really think there is no possibility that humans cannot have invented a craft that can do what you saw, taking into account that you may not have been able to accurately determine the distance or speed of the lights?

Congratulations on your 10,000th. Pleased I was the one to facilitate it. Bit of a ways to go for me!Thanks.

[Gravy]

You've seen them do this have you? No noise; single point light sources; not close to a military base; geometric patterns; too simple - don't think so.Because I haven't seen them do exactly that, does that mean it's impossible? Some military helicopters can fly high and relatively quietly. Exercises can be done with all sorts of lights, one light, or no lights. There was a case years ago near where I lived of private fixed-wing pilots rendezvousing from different airports and playing UFO games on consecutive nights: fooled a lot of people, although not the FAA and military. It just took a while for the facts to filter down.

An here's the problem we have: no matter what we say, if you've already made up your mind about what it cannot be, you can always say, "No, what I saw 30 years ago wasn't quite like that. Try again."

[tsg]

Jeez - you should post a thread on telepathy - you seem to know more about what I'm thinking than I do! Where do I state what I believe it was? I don't believe I've even hinted at a suggestion. All I've said is what I believe it was not, based on the generic suggestions tentatively proffered so far.

It doesn't take psychic ability to figure that out:

It is a little disappointing, however, but not unexpected, I suppose, that virtually all of the meaningful feedback focusses on the possibility, neigh, probability, that my memory has betrayed me.

In other words, "I know what I saw and won't be convinced otherwise."

I don't for one minute wish to appear even to suggest that extra-terrestrial craft or beings were at play, so to speak, but given the conditions that night it will take much more than a few generic suggestions that what we witnessed could be accounted for by conventional military or civil aircraft, satellites, 'blimps', spotlight reflections or the like.

"I'm not saying it was aliens, but I don't know (and have already dismissed) what else it could have been."

As has already been pointed out, even if you can 100% eliminate all known mundane explanations for what you saw, even if your memory is 100% accurate, it still doesn't mean it was aliens. All it means is you saw lights you can't explain. And yes, you've said several times that you aren't saying it was aliens, but you also don't show any inclination for entertaining the idea that it wasn't.

The observations simply defy logic on all accounts, and I think that if anybody reading the account carefully were to be completely open-minded and honest with themselves and critically question the probable likelihood of 'generic' explanations they would be very hard-pressed to suggest a convincing theory.

"I've already decided it was aliens and you'll have to convince me otherwise."

If you're not willing to entertain the idea that it wasn't aliens, you are the one who is not being open-minded.

I wouldn't expect any forum members to dedicate even a modicum of time and effort travelling that road, as the 'memory problem' seems to weigh too heavily on the skeptic's ability to focus on the observation as described and seek a plausible explanation, and, in the nature of skepticism it's all too easy to pass off otherwise unexplainable events by reference to 'the usual suspects'.

The "memory problem" is a plausible explanation that you are discounting out of hand. The "usual suspects" are plausible explanations that you are also discounting out of hand for, I can only assume, no other reason except that it isn't the one you want to hear. The very fact that you use the term "usual suspects" in this manner is an indication of that. It's a very subtle way of saying "you don't have the ability to think outside your narrow world view."

Ask yourself this though: Do you seriously doubt your own long-term memory, as you do mine, to the extent that you cannot vouch for the accuracy of ANY memorable events, particularly something so profain, but at the same time simple and defined, as that described by me? I'd like to bet that if the boot were on the other foot the benefit of any doubt, of which, in your mind, I'm sure there would be very little, would be pursued with vigour.

Memory is not entirely reliable. If my memory of an event indicated the only possible cause was something that was completely contrary to the evidence, yes, I would suspect that I was remembering something wrong.

Your OP and subsequent posts carry all the earmarks of a person who witnessed something he can't explain, made up his mind what it was and is now looking for confirmation with no intention of considering that it might have been something else. If you're looking for someone to blindly accept your account and your explanation as 100% factual, you're in the wrong place.

If, however, you are serious about examining it with a skeptical eye, start with the possibility that what you remember isn't exactly what happened.

[Cuddles]

I'm not offended by anybody questioning my memory. I am very aware of how memories can fail us and play tricks on the mind. I am simply disappointed that people seem all too willing to dismiss by defaulting to the 'poor memory explanation' before even considering possible alternatives. I suppose the alternatives simply fall into the 'too hard' basket for most people.

What exactly do you expect from us? You've given a vague description of some lights doing something. No pictures, no measurements, no corroboration, no nothing. It simply isn't possible for us to come up with an explanation. There are several things that often give rise to sightings like this, such as satelites, aircraft, swamp gas reflecting Venus, and so on. One of these explanations is that your memory is faulty. This isn't dismissing anything and refusing to consider possible alternatives, it is one of the alternatives, and one of the most likely ones at that.

The fact is, it really wouldn't take much change in the way the lights moved to make them completely normal behaviour for satelites or aircraft. You say you are aware that memory is falible. Why can't you accept that this is true for you as well as everyone else? Of course, you might remember it absolutely perfectly. Now what? We can still only give some possible explanations. We don't have enough information to confirm or deny any of them, and if all you have to go on is what you have told us, neither do you.

[Correa Neto]

Thanks for the link, and interesting timeframe of your sighting. My sighting would have been circa 1978. It'll take a while for me to read through the link to see whether it helps explain my observation. Meantime, does the fact that my sighting occured over northern UK preclude your suggested explanation? Also, I'd be very interested to hear a description of your own 'not totally unlike' sighting. Would you oblige please? The devil's often in the detail, as they say!
Location? No problem, the way I see it. My "sighting" was at a farm in Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil. Note that NOSS started well before 1978.

It was about 4 am or so; the sky had some clouds. I, and other people, saw a configuration of three lights on what seemed to be an equilateral triangle formation with a fourth light in the centre. Each individual light looked quite like a small satellite. While the formation moved across the sky, it rotated slowly. The path was not unlike those of other satellites I've seen that night. I could see stars between the lights, so it seemed that there was nothing solid linking them. Sometimes the formation was covered by the clouds. At a vertain point, one of the triangle lights separated from the formation, performed a wide ellipsis across the sky and returned to it. The formation kept moving untill I lost sight of it due to cloud cover.

Since I never wrote a note describing the sighting immediately (or a few days) after it happened, and since it happened almost 30 years ago, I honestly can not be sure if it happened exactly as I am writing now. The devils lies in the details, but the details may have been created by my mind attempting to fill the memmory gaps. Can I be sure there was a fourth light in the centre of the formation? Coudn't it be a "detail" later added by my mind? Can I be sure if one of the lights detached from the formation? Couldn't it be an impression created by (moving) cloud cover and "improved" later by my mind?

Even if it all happened exactly as I told, and even if NOSS satellites could not perform such a maneuver, I would still think it most likely was not an alien craft. UFO? Yes. ET? No.

[Southwind17]

The start of what you saw corresponds exactly to what a satellite looks like. I suggest that one or more satellites are at least part of the explanation here.

I don't disagree with your first statement, but that's only the prologue. The second part, addressing the main story, however, is a sweeping, convenient white wash. I'm looking for a substantive explanation. Thanks for your input though.

[Southwind17]

1) A man-made craft as opposed to a man-made what?

2) Why have you eliminated the possibility of a man-made craft? Do you really think there is no possibility that humans cannot have invented a craft that can do what you saw, taking into account that you may not have been able to accurately determine the distance or speed of the lights?

Thanks.

Well you indicated I'd said 'man-made phenomenon' (if there is such a thing). Given that we're talking lights in the sky then man-made [air/space] craft was always likely to be suggested as the probable explanation. I asserted that 'man-made craft', as opposed to any other type of craft, does not fit the bill. That said, yes, there is the possibility that man-made craft affords an explanation, but not of a type that I'm familiar with. Are you suggesting it could have been something other than a conventional air/space craft (that maybe became disorientated on it's way back to Area 51!!!)?

[Southwind17]

Because I haven't seen them do exactly that, does that mean it's impossible? Some military helicopters can fly high and relatively quietly. Exercises can be done with all sorts of lights, one light, or no lights. There was a case years ago near where I lived of private fixed-wing pilots rendezvousing from different airports and playing UFO games on consecutive nights: fooled a lot of people, although not the FAA and military. It just took a while for the facts to filter down.

An here's the problem we have: no matter what we say, if you've already made up your mind about what it cannot be, you can always say, "No, what I saw 30 years ago wasn't quite like that. Try again."

No, it does not, but the generality of your suggested explanation does not, in my opinion, fit the specificity of the sighting.

"Relatively quietly" is very different from silently, especially at night with next to no ambient noise. Perhaps my hearing failed me, in addition to my memory, although it seems to have returned immediately after the sighting!

I know that neither fixed-wing aircraft nor helicopters could account for the sighting, unless a deliberate hoax was perpetrated, and even then I doubt very much that it could be done convincingly. If so, shame that only two teenagers seem to have witnessed it and been taken in by it. Hell of an expensive and ineffective hoax, that one!

I repeat, I HAVE NOT MADE UP MY MIND WHAT IT CAN OR CANNOT BE. I have simply discounted the 'usual' explanations at the time and possible explanations that have now been suggested on this forum so far. I'm not going to dismiss out of hand every possible explanation because it doesn't fit my agenda. I DON'T HAVE AN AGENDA. I'm simply looking for possible PLAUSIBLE explanations, and nobody has come up with one yet. Maybe I'm being over-critical here, in which case, ironically, I'm probaby being more skeptical than the rest of you!

[tsg]

It's aliens. It can only be aliens. There is no possible explanation for what you remember 100% correctly to be, except for aliens.

I'm convinced based on your account alone. It was aliens.

[Southwind17]

It doesn't take psychic ability to figure that out:

I think you're jumping to conclusions faster and higher than you allege I have!

"I'm not saying it was aliens, but I don't know (and have already dismissed) what else it could have been."

I've only dismissed the suggestions that don't fit the facts (Mmmm ... dare I use that word here, or will the old 'dementia' theory come back around for another bite?!?). If there are no more suggestions, then I'll let sleeping dogs lie and submit to all of us not really having a clue as to what we saw. I can sleep soundly with that in mind.

As has already been pointed out, even if you can 100% eliminate all known mundane explanations for what you saw, even if your memory is 100% accurate, it still doesn't mean it was aliens. All it means is you saw lights you can't explain. And yes, you've said several times that you aren't saying it was aliens, but you also don't show any inclination for entertaining the idea that it wasn't.

"I've already decided it was aliens and you'll have to convince me otherwise."

There you go - jumping again! I do not believe for one second that it was aliens (I think it might have been you that first introduced the 'A' word to this thread - I'm sure it wasn't me).

If you're not willing to entertain the idea that it wasn't aliens, you are the one who is not being open-minded.

I am willing, oh yes, for sure. Please give me something to hang my hat on though.

The "memory problem" is a plausible explanation that you are discounting out of hand.

No I am not, but most members seem to offer it as the only, or likely, explanation, which is surely as heinous a crime!

The "usual suspects" are plausible explanations that you are also discounting out of hand for, I can only assume, no other reason except that it isn't the one you want to hear. The very fact that you use the term "usual suspects" in this manner is an indication of that. It's a very subtle way of saying "you don't have the ability to think outside your narrow world view."

The "usual suspects" simply don't fit the facts. I think you need to review your use of the word "plausible" in the context of my description of the sighting. I believe that you are deploying it in the generic sense that there are "plausible" explanations for most UFO sightings. I'm being very specific here, and seeking plausible explanations that fit those facts.

Memory is not entirely reliable. If my memory of an event indicated the only possible cause was something that was completely contrary to the evidence, yes, I would suspect that I was remembering something wrong.

I agree with you on this. That's not to say that memory ALWAYS fails us though, as you imply.

Your OP and subsequent posts carry all the earmarks of a person who witnessed something he can't explain

Agree

, made up his mind what it was

Disagree - I have no idea, but I'm very dubious about all suggestions made so far

and is now looking for confirmation

of what, exactly?

with no intention of considering that it might have been something else.

other than what?

If you're looking for someone to blindly accept your account

No I'm not, but I did, maybe naively, anticipate more receptive and scientific reponses. I realize we're all skeptics, but a true skeptic, in my view, should strive to remain broad-minded, within scientific limits.

and your explanation as 100% factual, you're in the wrong place.

The description of the sighting is hardly complex, leaving little to fade or otherwise morph in the memory. If everything posted on the forum has to qualify as 100% factual before it can be considered worthy of consideration I'm surprised the forum persists. Sounds like a cop-out to me for somebody whose skepticism has 'passed across' to cynicism, leaving me wondering exactly who might be 'in the wrong place'!

If, however, you are serious about examining it with a skeptical eye, start with the possibility that what you remember isn't exactly what happened.

OK, I'll go along with this, seriously. What do you propose now as a logical line of enquiry?

[Southwind17]

What exactly do you expect from us? You've given a vague description of some lights doing something. No pictures, no measurements, no corroboration, no nothing. It simply isn't possible for us to come up with an explanation. There are several things that often give rise to sightings like this, such as satelites, aircraft, swamp gas reflecting Venus, and so on. One of these explanations is that your memory is faulty. This isn't dismissing anything and refusing to consider possible alternatives, it is one of the alternatives, and one of the most likely ones at that.

The fact is, it really wouldn't take much change in the way the lights moved to make them completely normal behaviour for satelites or aircraft. You say you are aware that memory is falible. Why can't you accept that this is true for you as well as everyone else? Of course, you might remember it absolutely perfectly. Now what? We can still only give some possible explanations. We don't have enough information to confirm or deny any of them, and if all you have to go on is what you have told us, neither do you.

I don't 'expect' anything from you. All I was seeking was possible plausible explanations for what we saw. At best, I was hoping that somebody had had a similar sighting, who might then have gone on to seek or obtain an explanation. So far all I've read are generic explanations that fail to fit the facts and suggestions of memory failure as a probability.

Interesting, actually, thinking about it. Let's assume for a second the memory theory is right. I suppose the effect of that is that the sighting, as described, could be virtually fabricated, the memory converting a completely unrelated event to an alleged UFO sighting. Alternatively, maybe the sighting was genuine but the recollection has been only slightly altered over time, possibly embelishing the facts for dramatical effect. You state that a 'faulty' memory is 'the most likely' alternative. What, exactly, are you asserting in the context of my musings above, and what scientific evidence do you base your probabilistic assessment on?

Not wishing to pick up on detail, but to cite 'swamp gas reflecting Venus' as potentially giving rise to 'sightings like this' only serves, in my mind, to discredit the sincerity of your response, and demonstrates my earlier inference that many forum members who are all too keen to participate in these threads and have their say are, in contrast, all too single-minded not to consider the facts, views, opinions, assertions, etc. Your reference to 'vague description of some lights doing something' only serves to highlight and illustrate my point.

If one cannot contribute positively to a debate with fresh or novel ideas then maybe one should simply sit back, observe and take solace from those who can.

[tsg]

OK, I'll go along with this, seriously. What do you propose now as a logical line of enquiry?

First, start with the view that the alien visitation explanation suffers from a great number of flaws at the outset, most fatally that there is no evidence for life on other planets, let alone intelligent life that is visiting us, and that the requirements of evidence for this to be the explanation are much, much higher than that of more mundane explanations, including your memory not being entirely accurate. Basically, unexplained lights in the sky should not be sufficient to convince you of alien visitations even if you can't find another explanation for them.

Second, start examining the other explanations offered for how they could explain what you saw instead of trying to find details that don't fit with what you remember (ETA: with the understanding that none of us saw what you did and can only go by your description). Understand that the movements you saw, even if your memory of them is correct, may not be what actually happened. For instance, the perception of a point of light moving left to right, stopping, and then moving right to left are adequately explained by a plane making a 180 degree turn if part of the turn is within your plane of view (ie, moving directly away from or towards you). At great distances, like the altitudes commercial airliners are typically found, the change in distance isn't nearly as perceptible as the change in position from left to right. You can rank the likelihood of these explanations by how well they fit with what you remember seeing, but don't automatically discount it because it doesn't fit every little detail. Remember that a mundane explanation that only explains 90% of what you saw is far more likely to be the right one than alien visitation.

Third, be prepared for the possibility that there just isn't enough information to explain what you saw. "I don't know" is not an unacceptable result. While the desire to know is a good thing, don't let it drive you to a conclusion that isn't supported.

[baron]

I am certain that if I was still in touch with the friend to whom I refer, and he 'recalled' the event as accurately as I remember it, we would have exactly the same story to tell.

How does that negate the possibility of flawed memory? Have you called this friend? Did he corroborate all the details without prompting? If not, then we're back to square one; a flawed memory.

After 29 years the liklihood of recalling the exact manoevers of three tiny points of light are very slim. Furthermore, unless you wrote down your experiences within a reasonable timeframe of days or weeks then I'd say it's very possible the event was imagined. You, and everyone else, have numerous memories of events that simply did not happen. Such is the nature of memory.

I have a crystal clear memory of when I was about five years old. I was standing in the back garden watching a giant, multicoloured object hover a dozen yards away, over the field behind the back fence. This thing was five times the size of a house and I remember watching blue lights flash around its perimeter and thinking they reminded me of miniature ambulances racing around on tiny roadways. Trouble is, it never happened. Had it have occurred I expect my parents or neighbours would have mentioned it. They didn't. Either I dreamed it or the memory was fabricated at some later date.

[Thabiguy]

So far all I've read are generic explanations that fail to fit the facts and suggestions of memory failure as a probability.
Indeed, you should not use the word "facts". You should use terms such as "recollection", "report", "account", "testimony", "anecdote", etc. Your description of the event is in no way a fact; specifically, your opinion of its accuracy plays no role whatsoever in it being a fact or not.
Not wishing to pick up on detail, but to cite 'swamp gas reflecting Venus' as potentially giving rise to 'sightings like this' only serves, in my mind, to discredit the sincerity of your response...
'Swamp gas reflecting Venus' is obviously a joking reference to the motion picture Men in Black (where an agent, after erasing people's memories of an actual alien encounter, offers a ludicrous alternate explanation that "swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus".)
I know that neither fixed-wing aircraft nor helicopters could account for the sighting, unless a deliberate hoax was perpetrated, and even then I doubt very much that it could be done convincingly. If so, shame that only two teenagers seem to have witnessed it and been taken in by it. Hell of an expensive and ineffective hoax, that one!
This is an argument from incredulity. Some human action not seeming to make sense is not evidence that it didn't happen. (Or worse, can't happen.)

Furthermore, you admit that deliberate maneuvering of aircraft could produce such an effect, yet you offer no argument to support the assertion that such maneuvering could only be done in order to "perpetrate a hoax", and not for some other, more mundane reason.

Having said this, I would find these to be the most plausible explanations for your eyewitness report, in no particular order of likelihood:
- You have seen several high altitude aircraft performing some unusual rendezvous maneuvers. Details seemingly inconsistent with that ("sudden stops" etc.) are attributable to inaccurate observation (optical illusions, blinking, losing track, mistaking for a nearby star, aircraft switching lights on/off, ...) and/or inaccurate recollection of actual events.
- You have seen a satellite move across the sky. Major parts of your report inconsistent with that (stops, rotation, etc.) are a product of observation gaps filled with inaccurate reconstructions, suggestion, severe visual artifacts, hallucination, and/or distorted memory. (I have no objective information about your observational skills and reliability of your memory. In general population, this happens frequently enough to qualify as a plausible explanation.)
- You were lucky and have witnessed some very rare phenomenon (or a rare combination of some more common phenomena, creating a convincing show together) that doesn't normally occur. Not being familiar with this particular phenomenon (or combination), people won't generally be able to correctly guess what it actually was.
- You have made up some parts of or the whole story. (Again, in general population, this happens frequently enough to qualify as a plausible explanation.)

Of course, all these could be wrong and the actual explanation could be entirely different. After all, it could always have been extra-terrestrials performing a deliberate hoax. ;)

[Gravy]

That said, yes, there is the possibility that man-made craft affords an explanation, but not of a type that I'm familiar with.Thanks for clearing up that you agree that no aliens need apply. I wish it hadn't taken so many words.

[Southwind17]

Location? No problem, the way I see it. My "sighting" was at a farm in Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil. Note that NOSS started well before 1978.

It was about 4 am or so; the sky had some clouds. I, and other people, saw a configuration of three lights on what seemed to be an equilateral triangle formation with a fourth light in the centre. Each individual light looked quite like a small satellite. While the formation moved across the sky, it rotated slowly. The path was not unlike those of other satellites I've seen that night. I could see stars between the lights, so it seemed that there was nothing solid linking them. Sometimes the formation was covered by the clouds. At a vertain point, one of the triangle lights separated from the formation, performed a wide ellipsis across the sky and returned to it. The formation kept moving untill I lost sight of it due to cloud cover.

Since I never wrote a note describing the sighting immediately (or a few days) after it happened, and since it happened almost 30 years ago, I honestly can not be sure if it happened exactly as I am writing now. The devils lies in the details, but the details may have been created by my mind attempting to fill the memmory gaps. Can I be sure there was a fourth light in the centre of the formation? Coudn't it be a "detail" later added by my mind? Can I be sure if one of the lights detached from the formation? Couldn't it be an impression created by (moving) cloud cover and "improved" later by my mind?

Even if it all happened exactly as I told, and even if NOSS satellites could not perform such a maneuver, I would still think it most likely was not an alien craft. UFO? Yes. ET? No.

Thanks for this Correa Neto - helpful - especially your last statement, couldn't agree more. Maybe I'm just stubborn and don't like to admit defeat!

[Southwind17]

Thanks for clearing up that you agree that no aliens need apply. I wish it hadn't taken so many words.

Me too - but if you'd read my early posts carefully we could probably have plugged the verbal diarrhea earlier, as I effectively admitted from the start that I essentially discounted extra-terrestrial craft, and certainly aliens! Nonetheless, thanks for your contribution.

[Southwind17]

How does that negate the possibility of flawed memory? Have you called this friend? Did he corroborate all the details without prompting? If not, then we're back to square one; a flawed memory.

If two people recall an incident identically or essentially the same then surely that reduces considerably the possibility that either person's memory is flawed. I lost contact with the friend many years ago, indeed not very long after the sighting. Ironically, he went on to join the RAF. Maybe he has more sightings to disclose, or could now offer an informed explanation! Maybe we are back to square one, but to assume a flawed memory as the only, or indeed probable, expalantion, is itself equally flawed. I appreciate where you're coming from though, and it's understandable.

After 29 years the liklihood of recalling the exact manoevers of three tiny points of light are very slim. Furthermore, unless you wrote down your experiences within a reasonable timeframe of days or weeks then I'd say it's very possible the event was imagined. You, and everyone else, have numerous memories of events that simply did not happen. Such is the nature of memory.

Again, you make a big assumption here. Strange, isn't it, how I can recall accurately (we can test this if you like) many aspects of, say, mathematics taught around the same time at school, which I've not had the need to use or apply since, aspects which, on balance, are far more complex and, therefore, prone to memory distortion, than the very simplistic sighting I described. I'm sorry to be contrary, but I don't believe I have memories of events that I believe happened but did not (I think that's what you're saying). We all have all kinds of memories, some of true events, others of images, smells, sounds, etc, that could be loosely described as 'imagination'. I certainly can't think of anything though in my memory banks that constitutes a memory of an 'event' that I know didn't happen.

I have a crystal clear memory of when I was about five years old. I was standing in the back garden watching a giant, multicoloured object hover a dozen yards away, over the field behind the back fence. This thing was five times the size of a house and I remember watching blue lights flash around its perimeter and thinking they reminded me of miniature ambulances racing around on tiny roadways. Trouble is, it never happened. Had it have occurred I expect my parents or neighbours would have mentioned it. They didn't. Either I dreamed it or the memory was fabricated at some later date.

You see, I wouldn't call what you describe as a memory. You KNOW it didn't happen, by your own admission. You imagined something, and you can recall that imagination. I think there's a subtle, but important, difference between what you 'saw' and what I 'saw'. That said, we'll probably never be able to reconcile such difference as you could easily argue that my recollection could just as well fall into the same category as yours, and that I imagined the whole thing. The key difference here though is that you KNOW you imagined (or dreamed) your sighting, but I don't KNOW that I did, and firmly believe that I didn't.

[Southwind17]

First, start with the view that the alien visitation explanation suffers from a great number of flaws at the outset, most fatally that there is no evidence for life on other planets, let alone intelligent life that is visiting us, and that the requirements of evidence for this to be the explanation are much, much higher than that of more mundane explanations, including your memory not being entirely accurate. Basically, unexplained lights in the sky should not be sufficient to convince you of alien visitations even if you can't find another explanation for them.

Couldn't agree more.

Second, start examining the other explanations offered for how they could explain what you saw instead of trying to find details that don't fit with what you remember (ETA: with the understanding that none of us saw what you did and can only go by your description).

OK - I'm cool with this.

Understand that the movements you saw, even if your memory of them is correct, may not be what actually happened. For instance, the perception of a point of light moving left to right, stopping, and then moving right to left are adequately explained by a plane making a 180 degree turn if part of the turn is within your plane of view (ie, moving directly away from or towards you). At great distances, like the altitudes commercial airliners are typically found, the change in distance isn't nearly as perceptible as the change in position from left to right. You can rank the likelihood of these explanations by how well they fit with what you remember seeing, but don't automatically discount it because it doesn't fit every little detail. Remember that a mundane explanation that only explains 90% of what you saw is far more likely to be the right one than alien visitation.

OK - let's work with this for a minute. The first light source moved in a straight line at constant speed; no sound. Yes - could have been an aircraft, in the broadest sense of the word. It then 'stops' dead. Yes - maybe it didn't really stop, but changed direction, moving in our plane of view either directly towards or away from us - I can appreciate that. Given that it was almost directly overhead though, it must have been travelling essentially vertically, either towards the ground or away from the ground. That still seems plausible, but unusual, especially for civilian aircraft. The light point also remained of constant brightness and colour throughout the entire event, which seems odd if we're talking about significant changes in direction of travel. Surely the lights would be obscured by the bodies of the crafts at times(?). So be it, let's still entertain the idea of conventional aircraft. The 180 degree rotation involving now a seemingly identical light point. Yes, I can see how two aircraft could cause this effect. But for both to commence the 'manouvre' at exactly the same time, scribe exactly the same circumference across the sky (which just 'happened' to be a seemingly perfect circle from our viewing position), 'stop dead' (or alternatively change direction to the vertical, either up or down, remaining in our plane of view throughout), now that's starting to stretch the imagination. Nevertheless, let's continue. The same effect now occurs as just described, involving a third light point, IDENTICAL IN ALL RESPECTS to the first. Probability of civil or military aircraft creating this REGULAR GEOMETRIC effect by chance, meaning that it would probably have looked completely different and far less remarkable from any other viewing position - very remote. What we seem to be left with, then, is a planned, coordinated and extremely well orchestrated manouvre by three separate aircraft, or satellites, at night. OK - I can buy that, but it just seems so unlikely, I'd be more inclined to question my ability to rationalise than my memory. Maybe that's the answer!

Third, be prepared for the possibility that there just isn't enough information to explain what you saw. "I don't know" is not an unacceptable result. While the desire to know is a good thing, don't let it drive you to a conclusion that isn't supported.

Again, couldn't agree more, which is why I'm still a way off drawing a conclusion. I guess you're right though, we'll simply never know for sure what it was we saw. Case closed!

[Thabiguy]

Southwind, if one carefully reads your description of the event as you remember it, it becomes apparent that several aspects of what you describe cannot possibly have been observed and are just your interpretation. This highlights the point that eyewitness account - let alone after nearly 30 years - is simply not reliable and subject to inaccuracies, particularly in details.

You need to realize that much of what we observe, especially what we see, we do not actually perceive. Our perception system is inherently limited and lossy and our brain constantly reworks it and fills in major parts of our experience with what you might call, educated guesswork. This is not bad and in most situations it works very well; it saves processing power, and if details are important, we are often around to recheck and update our memory 'on the fly', without us ever becoming aware of any inconsistencies. This is demonstrated in this popular clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voAntzB7EwE).

But you seem to be under the impression that what you saw - or think you saw - is an accurate reflection of reality. Let us review some of your reported observations.

The light point also remained of constant brightness and colour throughout the entire event...

An untrained human observer can't even remotely make this claim based upon naked eye observation. Human eyes is notoriously bad at perceiving subtle and slow changes in brightness, and especially in color, under poor lighting conditions. Not only that, but your brain constantly messes with the raw input, trying to compensate for perspective, parallax, iris dilation (which happens all the time without you being aware of it), and what not.

In fact, any object remaining at constant absolute magnitude and height will, just by moving from overhead (90 degress) to 45 degrees over horizon, increase its distance by over 41%, diminishing correspondingly. That the object would remain of constant brightness throughout the entire event, is extremely unlikely, as it would imply an object either moving on the surface of a sphere centered on you, or compensating its absolute magnitude depending on its distance from you, both very implausible assumptions.

That you claim with confidence that the object remained of constant brightness, even though we can be virtually certain that it did not, regardless of the nature of the object, is an example of unreliability of eyewitness account and impression replacing actual events in your memory.

But for both to commence the 'manouvre' at exactly the same time, scribe exactly the same circumference across the sky (which just 'happened' to be a seemingly perfect circle from our viewing position)...

Here is another obvious example of a claim which can't be based on actual reality of observation.

With two light points moving slowly over a mostly dark background with many similar dots, and leaving no traces at all, it would be practically impossible for you to accurately assess their trajectory and the quality of its shape. In the absence of a background grid, you would have: 1) no means of perceiving the actual position of the dots (distances from surrounding stars, especially for a moving object, would give no useful information); 2) no means of comparing actual position to past positions. Using words such as "exactly the same circumference" or "seemingly perfect circle" is entirely baseless; you were without any means of determining that even remotely.

And it is worse. You have said before that the distance between the points was 6 cm at an arm's length. This corresponds to about 6 degrees. However, the width of your foveal vision (sharp central vision, essential for perceiving visual details) is only 3 degrees. Do you know what this means? This means that - without you ever realizing it - your eyes would alternately look between the two points. They would be moving back and forth, with your brain masking it and filling in the gaps so that it would seem like a continuous observation to you. But (unless you intentionally stared between the two points and tried to perceive them with your weaker macular vision, which I'm fairly certain didn't happen) you would only be able to observe one point at a time. Your actual visual input, for either point, would be an interrupted chain of short arcs, shifted rapidly over your visual field a few times per second. Without detailed background, this would more or less completely negate your ability to assess the actual quality of the circular path. Your brain would substitute its guess for this missing information and pass that to you as actual observation.

I know what you mean to say; you saw a perfect circle. What you don't realize however, is this is not what you saw - this is what your impression was. The dots' trajectory could have been a fairly distorted bumpy potato, only roughly circular, and you would still have seen a perfect circle, because you would have no means of perceiving the irregularities. Here you do not recall the actual reality, but your brain's intepretation of it. And that is, for aforementioned reasons, flawed and subject to inaccuracy.

Another thought comes to mind: how do you know that the distance was 6 cm at an arm's length? Did you immediately reach up your arm to measure it while the points were rotating? Unless you did this (as a trained astronomer possibly would, but an untrained teenager would be very unlikely to do), then you again would have no means of accurately determining this afterwards. Trying to later recall how distant the points were and fitting your hand against this memory could easily yield an error of several hundred percent. In fact, it would be very unusual if you got that right.

What we seem to be left with, then, is a planned, coordinated and extremely well orchestrated manouvre...

For reasons mentioned above, the claim of "extremely well orchestrated manouvre" is baseless. Relying on your naked eye observation, with the points of light leaving no traces, it was impossible for you to assess this.

[Cuddles]

All I was seeking was possible plausible explanations for what we saw...

So far all I've read are generic explanations that fail to fit the facts and suggestions of memory failure as a probability.

I ask again, what else do you expect of us? You were seeking possible explanations. We have given you possible explanations. Since all we have is a single 30 year old memory, what more do you think you're going to get?

Interesting, actually, thinking about it. Let's assume for a second the memory theory is right. I suppose the effect of that is that the sighting, as described, could be virtually fabricated, the memory converting a completely unrelated event to an alleged UFO sighting. Alternatively, maybe the sighting was genuine but the recollection has been only slightly altered over time, possibly embelishing the facts for dramatical effect. You state that a 'faulty' memory is 'the most likely' alternative. What, exactly, are you asserting in the context of my musings above, and what scientific evidence do you base your probabilistic assessment on?

I thought it was fairly obvious what I'm asserting. What you say happened isn't actually what happened. This is based on the scientific evidence that memory is in no way reliable, especially after 30 years, and that even at the time, what you think you see is very often not what is actually happening. Again, what more do you want? Obviously I can't tell you what really did happen because I wasn't there and you have no evidence for anyone to work with. Thabigguy's last post sums up pretty well the sort of thing that you are likely to have wrong.

Not wishing to pick up on detail, but to cite 'swamp gas reflecting Venus' as potentially giving rise to 'sightings like this' only serves, in my mind, to discredit the sincerity of your response, and demonstrates my earlier inference that many forum members who are all too keen to participate in these threads and have their say are, in contrast, all too single-minded not to consider the facts, views, opinions, assertions, etc.

There's this amazing thing called a sense of humour. I suggest you try one out at some point. Swamp gas reflecting Venus is a long running joke about UFO sightings. As Thabigguy pointed out, it appears in Men in Black, but I believe it was around well before that. It's amazing how you have managed to deduce my entire personality and reasons for posting from a simple throwaway joke.

If one cannot contribute positively to a debate with fresh or novel ideas then maybe one should simply sit back, observe and take solace from those who can.

Feel free to do so at any time.

[Zep]

I would almost bet it is two or more aircraft on a similar approach pattern to an airport. You need to note the following points:

1) Aircraft approach patterns to airports are often tens of miles from the airport proper. Commercial aircraft start descent from altitude often 100 miles from touchdown. So you may not have been near an airport yourself, but they were, relatively speaking.

2) Aircraft lights at night always look about the same brightness at any visible distance, except for very close up. You can check this yourself by standing at the end of a busy airport runway at night and looking out into the night sky and seeing anything up to a dozen aircraft lights on approach. The nearest may be only a few miles away, the furthest might be 50 miles away on a clear night.

3) Most busy airports use set circuits and approach paths for aircraft to lose height and line up to land. Safety thing, naturally.

4) So get a few aircraft following each other on an approach path, they cross the sky at a good distance from you, turn towards you one after the other, then turn to land. Thus you have your nice, simple, parsimonious explanation for your "UFO's".

But this was explained to you above, no?

[baron]

If two people recall an incident identically or essentially the same then surely that reduces considerably the possibility that either person's memory is flawed. I lost contact with the friend many years ago, indeed not very long after the sighting. Ironically, he went on to join the RAF. Maybe he has more sightings to disclose, or could now offer an informed explanation! Maybe we are back to square one, but to assume a flawed memory as the only, or indeed probable, expalantion, is itself equally flawed.

It may be wrong, but the reasoning is not logically flawed. My solution is workable and perfectly possible. Indeed, given your account it is the only reasonable conclusion.

Again, you make a big assumption here. Strange, isn't it, how I can recall accurately (we can test this if you like) many aspects of, say, mathematics taught around the same time at school, which I've not had the need to use or apply since, aspects which, on balance, are far more complex and, therefore, prone to memory distortion, than the very simplistic sighting I described.

Sorry, but this shows you don't understand the basics of how memories are laid down and processed in the brain. You need to gain this understanding first. There is a big difference between memory and knowledge.

I certainly can't think of anything though in my memory banks that constitutes a memory of an 'event' that I know didn't happen.

Obviously not, but if there was a way of proving it I'd bet good money that you actually do harbour false memories.

You see, I wouldn't call what you describe as a memory. You KNOW it didn't happen, by your own admission.

No, you didn't read my post. I only know it was imagined because it could not have happened. There is zero difference between this recollection and my other memories. I know it didn't happen because given the choice between false memory and amazing alien craft, I go for the proven and common phenomenon of false memory.

[Southwind17]

Southwind, if one carefully reads your description of the event as you remember it, it becomes apparent that several aspects of what you describe cannot possibly have been observed and are just your interpretation. This highlights the point that eyewitness account - let alone after nearly 30 years - is simply not reliable and subject to inaccuracies, particularly in details.

Thanks for a most informative critique of my description of the sighting. You're obviously pretty well versed in whatever theories, principles, laws, etc. govern observations, sight, perception and the like, and I respect that. Could you please clarify though, which are the 'several aspects' to which you allude, but omit to refer, that 'cannot possibly have been observed'? Which parts of the observation do you render IMPOSSIBLE?

You need to realize that much of what we observe, especially what we see, we do not actually perceive. Our perception system is inherently limited and lossy and our brain constantly reworks it and fills in major parts of our experience with what you might call, educated guesswork. This is not bad and in most situations it works very well; it saves processing power, and if details are important, we are often around to recheck and update our memory 'on the fly', without us ever becoming aware of any inconsistencies. This is demonstrated in this popular clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voAntzB7EwE).

As interesting as this demonstration is, I fail to see the link. All it seems to demonstrate to me is that, as humans, we’re inherently unobservant when it comes to things that don’t seemingly matter. I doubt that anybody watching the clip will have failed to notice that the card chosen was the three of diamonds, which, at that point in time, was the only relevant detail. The fact that many other aspects of the set changed as the trick progressed, whilst probably surprising to some, and certainly interesting to most, simply shows that we care little for what seems irrelevant. Ironically, you couldn’t have chosen a more apt example to demonstrate, in my view, an unrelated visual/observational concept, but which unwittingly adds credence to my recollection. The three diamonds on the chosen playing card effectively represent the three light points, i.e. the main point of interest, and the card itself represents the location of the light points at any point in time, an equally key point of interest. Observing the card trick, we know, all along, that there are definitely three diamonds at play and where they (the playing card) are. This is closely analogous to observing the light points described. Their appearance and movement were so critical to the observation that they were the details that were remembered with accuracy. The remainder of the event (exact part of the sky observed, what we were wearing, what day it was, etc.) were not relevant to the sighting. They’re the parts that I will willingly confess to not remembering.

But you seem to be under the impression that what you saw - or think you saw - is an accurate reflection of reality. Let us review some of your reported observations.

An untrained human observer can't even remotely make this claim based upon naked eye observation. Human eyes is notoriously bad at perceiving subtle and slow changes in brightness, and especially in color, under poor lighting conditions. Not only that, but your brain constantly messes with the raw input, trying to compensate for perspective, parallax, iris dilation (which happens all the time without you being aware of it), and what not.

In fact, any object remaining at constant absolute magnitude and height will, just by moving from overhead (90 degress) to 45 degrees over horizon, increase its distance by over 41%, diminishing correspondingly. That the object would remain of constant brightness throughout the entire event, is extremely unlikely, as it would imply an object either moving on the surface of a sphere centered on you, or compensating its absolute magnitude depending on its distance from you, both very implausible assumptions.

That you claim with confidence that the object remained of constant brightness, even though we can be virtually certain that it did not, regardless of the nature of the object, is an example of unreliability of eyewitness account and impression replacing actual events in your memory.

In referring to the light points remaining of constant brightness throughout the sighting I omitted to reiterate what I described in my initial account, that the finally observed light point did, indeed, fade out as at passed farther to our right, and I apologize for any confusion caused. That does, however, seem consistent with your explanation, and supports the notion of a physical object traveling away from us. The remainder of the sighting occurred in a relatively narrow band of observable sky, the first light point becoming noticeable approaching from the left at no lower than 30 degrees to the meridian, and the two ‘circular’ manouvres occurring within roughly a 30-degree ‘band’ straddling the meridian. Otherwise, the light points remained of equivalent colour and brightness to the ambient stars, which I am using as my point of reference. Indeed, had the light points not moved I am sure we would, had we had other cause to observe them, have passed them off as stars, which tends to explain why the first two light points, after becoming stationary following the circular manouvres, effectively merged with the surrounding stars.

Here is another obvious example of a claim which can't be based on actual reality of observation.

With two light points moving slowly over a mostly dark background with many similar dots, and leaving no traces at all, it would be practically impossible for you to accurately assess their trajectory and the quality of its shape. In the absence of a background grid, you would have: 1) no means of perceiving the actual position of the dots (distances from surrounding stars, especially for a moving object, would give no useful information); 2) no means of comparing actual position to past positions. Using words such as "exactly the same circumference" or "seemingly perfect circle" is entirely baseless; you were without any means of determining that even remotely.

I disagree. I know you would like to believe this, but I doubt you have tested it. I am pretty confident that were you to mimic the sighting by projecting two laser lights of equivalent brightness onto a star-studded darkened background at equivalent distance to the observed lights it would not be difficult to differentiate from slow, deliberate movement scribing a circle and anything distinctly different, especially a ‘fairly distorted bumpy potato’.

And it is worse. You have said before that the distance between the points was 6 cm at an arm's length. This corresponds to about 6 degrees. However, the width of your foveal vision (sharp central vision, essential for perceiving visual details) is only 3 degrees. Do you know what this means? This means that - without you ever realizing it - your eyes would alternately look between the two points. They would be moving back and forth, with your brain masking it and filling in the gaps so that it would seem like a continuous observation to you. But (unless you intentionally stared between the two points and tried to perceive them with your weaker macular vision, which I'm fairly certain didn't happen) you would only be able to observe one point at a time. Your actual visual input, for either point, would be an interrupted chain of short arcs, shifted rapidly over your visual field a few times per second. Without detailed background, this would more or less completely negate your ability to assess the actual quality of the circular path. Your brain would substitute its guess for this missing information and pass that to you as actual observation.

I know what you mean to say; you saw a perfect circle. What you don't realize however, is this is not what you saw - this is what your impression was. The dots' trajectory could have been a fairly distorted bumpy potato, only roughly circular, and you would still have seen a perfect circle, because you would have no means of perceiving the irregularities. Here you do not recall the actual reality, but your brain's intepretation of it. And that is, for aforementioned reasons, flawed and subject to inaccuracy.

Another thought comes to mind: how do you know that the distance was 6 cm at an arm's length? Did you immediately reach up your arm to measure it while the points were rotating? Unless you did this (as a trained astronomer possibly would, but an untrained teenager would be very unlikely to do), then you again would have no means of accurately determining this afterwards. Trying to later recall how distant the points were and fitting your hand against this memory could easily yield an error of several hundred percent. In fact, it would be very unusual if you got that right.

I don’t know the exact distance. I have assessed it based on my recollection. It could have been slightly more or less than 6cm, but I refute your ‘several hundred percent’ inaccuracy suggestion. 100% would equate to 12cm, and I recall for sure that it was certainly less than that. Either way, I doubt you have a bouquet of ideas that can be selectively applied to the possible circumference range of the circles scribed! The fact that you are paying so much attention to challenging the absolute accuracy of my description could well be detracting from your ability to assimilate the incident in the round, which is tantamount to what I think you’re actually accusing me of!

For reasons mentioned above, the claim of "extremely well orchestrated manouvre" is baseless. Relying on your naked eye observation, with the points of light leaving no traces, it was impossible for you to assess this.

Actually, there was no ‘assessment’, simply an observation of an unsophisticated, albeit it geometric, movement of point lights across a clear night sky. It seemed rather easy and uncomplicated at the time, which probably accounts for why the details of the incident have stuck with me for so long.

[Southwind17]

I ask again, what else do you expect of us? You were seeking possible explanations. We have given you possible explanations. Since all we have is a single 30 year old memory, what more do you think you're going to get?

I didn't know what I might get. No harm in asking though was there? I'm not exactly holding a gun to anybody's head insisting that they proffer an explanation that I'm satisfied with. If you feel you can add nothing further to this thread then I thank you for your contribution and respectfully suggest that you divert your attention to an obviously more worthwhile cause.

There's this amazing thing called a sense of humour. I suggest you try one out at some point. Swamp gas reflecting Venus is a long running joke about UFO sightings. As Thabigguy pointed out, it appears in Men in Black, but I believe it was around well before that. It's amazing how you have managed to deduce my entire personality and reasons for posting from a simple throwaway joke.

I'm sorry - your simple throw-away joke was lost on me - I wasn't expecting trivialisation and failed to spot the signs. Interesting, though, if not amazing, that I still managed to characterize you accurately! There's a quality I didn't realize I had. Maybe it compensates for my apparent lack of sense of humour, and congratulations on deducing my personality too - seems we're both gifted with the same talent - something in common, at least. Tell you what, I'll see if I can go out and acquire a sense of humuor if you promise to have your charisma by-pass reversed - deal?!?

[Southwind17]

I would almost bet it is two or more aircraft on a similar approach pattern to an airport. You need to note the following points:

I appreciate your thoughts, but can you direct me to a demonstration of where a pattern of approach lights even remotely resembles what we observed, and where it isn't blatantly obvious that they are indeed civil aircraft. I assume you've witnessed such an event, or are you purely postulating?

2) Aircraft lights at night always look about the same brightness at any visible distance, except for very close up. You can check this yourself by standing at the end of a busy airport runway at night and looking out into the night sky and seeing anything up to a dozen aircraft lights on approach. The nearest may be only a few miles away, the furthest might be 50 miles away on a clear night.

This is interesting. Seems to contradict what Thabiguy has said though ... and what happened to the Inverse Square Law?

4) So get a few aircraft following each other on an approach path, they cross the sky at a good distance from you, turn towards you one after the other, then turn to land. Thus you have your nice, simple, parsimonious explanation for your "UFO's".

Of course - but maybe just a little too 'parsimonious' and convenient, methinks. I wonder why similar sightings are not reported, and indeed filmed, on a regular basis - people must surely be falling for this one all the time!

[Southwind17]

Sorry, but this shows you don't understand the basics of how memories are laid down and processed in the brain. You need to gain this understanding first. There is a big difference between memory and knowledge.

Oh, I see, my mistake, sorry. So, recalling a mathematical formula or principle, for example, is necessarily knowledge and not memory, just like 'learning' the times tables is? Mmmm ... I don't quite get that one. I certainly don't know that E=mc2 through knowledge (I never studied it, and can't explain it!), or that six sixes are thirty six, so it must be through memory, surely?

No, you didn't read my post. I only know it was imagined because it could not have happened. There is zero difference between this recollection and my other memories. I know it didn't happen because given the choice between false memory and amazing alien craft, I go for the proven and common phenomenon of false memory.

... and here's the underlying flaw in your entire reasoning - thank you for revealing it so openly. Allow me to quote, for dramatic effect (emphasis added):

"I only KNOW it was imagined because it COULD NOT have happened. I KNOW it didn't happen because given the CHOICE between false memory and amazing alien craft, I go for the proven and common phenomenon of false memory."

There we go, now we're seeing it. You witness something - you recall it later - it doesn't seem to make sense - so you immediately put it down to 'the proven and common phenomenon of false memory' - the only possible alternative being something that can't possibly be explained otherwise. You must have a very sad and narrow outlook on life and it's remaining mysteries. I take it you're not a scientist. Is there an icon round here somewhere to nominate a JREF most skeptical skeptic?!?

[Zep]

I appreciate your thoughts, but can you direct me to a demonstration of where a pattern of approach lights even remotely resembles what we observed, and where it isn't blatantly obvious that they are indeed civil aircraft. I assume you've witnessed such an event, or are you purely postulating?Please don't be obtuse. There could be many such patterns! How about you think of various tracks in the sky, then consider what the lights travelling along them might look like from various viewpoints. I certainly have witnessed this myself!



This is interesting. Seems to contradict what Thabiguy has said though ... and what happened to the Inverse Square Law?No it doesn't at all. It's just that the perception of brightness is not perfect in human eyes. Lights at night can easily fool human eyesight.



Of course - but maybe just a little too 'parsimonious' and convenient, methinks. I wonder why similar sightings are not reported, and indeed filmed, on a regular basis - people must surely be falling for this one all the time!Errmmm... They do... All the time. It is probably THE most common misconception for UFO's in existence.

[Southwind17]

Errmmm... They do... All the time. It is probably THE most common misconception for UFO's in existence.

So plenty such sightings documented then, presumably. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to direct me to some, for comparison with my sighting. Thanks, in anticipation.

[Correa Neto]

Southwind17, I have the impression that you are being a bit biased with some ideas presented by some posters. It seems you find explanations involving faulty recollections specially problematic.

However, as some already pointed out, with the availble information, such speculations can not be quickly dismissed, even if you do belive or feel the sighting happened the exactly the way you remember it.

Check, for example,
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html
http://forensic-evidence.com/site/Behv_Evid/BhvE_Paige.html
Performing a search for eyewitnesses reliability and false memory right here will also provide you some very usefull links that will help you to understand the many problems with eyewitness' reports. Its not dismissing it out of hand, is acknoweledging that there may be an issue with it.

This put, there are a few more points I would like to comment.

1. People pointed out the possibility that the stop may have been an illusion; the object merely turned towards you. You said not, since it was right above you. Well, this was not clear from your previous posts... How could anyone have guessed? Aniway, consider the fact that satellites usually follow equatorial or polar orbits. If the objects' tajectory was N-S or E-W, this increases the odds of being an NOSS-like satellite group...

2. Satellites quite often "pass almost right over our heads", another match.

3. Satellites are only visible untill a certain time after sunset or before dawn; in the meantime, Earth's shadow cone allows no sunlight to illuminate them. If the sighting was not within the propper timeframe, satellites can be ruled out.
You might want to check these sites for more info (and predictions) on satellite observation.
http://www.heavens-above.com/main.aspx
http://www.satobs.org/satintro.html

4. You can not also completely dismiss the possibility that you experienced some sort of illusion that created the apparent movment.

[Thabiguy]

Thanks for a most informative critique of my description of the sighting. You're obviously pretty well versed in whatever theories, principles, laws, etc. govern observations, sight, perception and the like, and I respect that. Could you please clarify though, which are the 'several aspects' to which you allude, but omit to refer, that 'cannot possibly have been observed'? Which parts of the observation do you render IMPOSSIBLE?

Those that I mentioned. For example, determining with the implied level of accuracy the regularity of the path of slowly moving points leaving no traces; determining presence or absence of subtle changes in an object's brightness over time; determining with the implied level of accuracy the angular distance between points, or how much it changes when the points move around each other.

Otherwise, the light points remained of equivalent colour and brightness to the ambient stars, which I am using as my point of reference.

On a clear night, you can see stars ranging all the way from, say, 0 to +4 magnitude, and with a wide range of colors (that are difficult for humans to see becose the light is so dim, but become very apparent on magnified color photographs). "Equivalent brightness to the ambient stars" could mean +1 magnitude just as well as +3 magnitude, which is over 6 times the difference in brightness. Under these circumstances, it is unclear to me what your "point of reference" is.

I disagree. I know you would like to believe this, but I doubt you have tested it. I am pretty confident that were you to mimic the sighting by projecting two laser lights of equivalent brightness onto a star-studded darkened background at equivalent distance to the observed lights it would not be difficult to differentiate from slow, deliberate movement scribing a circle and anything distinctly different, especially a ‘fairly distorted bumpy potato’.

I have actually tested this. I have written a simple program rotating two light points on a star background and shown this twice to a volunteer, with what I'd call fairly distorted paths. Upon questioning them, they used the term 'circle' and didn't report any distortion at all. Even after I've told them that the trajectories are distorted, and even when allowing them to replay the animation at their will, they found it extraordinarily difficult to draw the shape of the trajectory. After being shown the actual trajectory, they expressed surprise at how much it differed from what they imagined. You can have the program if you can arrange for transfer of binary data.

After the experiments I've done, I say with certainty that if you think you would be able to detect and recall irregularities in the path of two slowly moving points leaving no traces, thirty years ago, without having been previously alerted to the possibility that the paths may not be perfectly circular, you are simply deluding yourself.

I don’t know the exact distance. I have assessed it based on my recollection. It could have been slightly more or less than 6cm, but I refute your ‘several hundred percent’ inaccuracy suggestion. 100% would equate to 12cm, and I recall for sure that it was certainly less than that.

Oh, okay. You can try an experiment for yourself. If you are into watching the night sky, I suppose you have seen the constellations of Orion and Cassiopeia, many many times. Using just your memory, without checking the actual night sky or looking it up, try to assess the angular size of the Orion's belt and the angular width of the Cassiopeia's W, "at arm's length". After you have written down your assessment, feel free to measure the actual angular sizes, look them up, or ask here for the correct answer, and evaluate your error. Of course there is nothing preventing you from cheating, but this is an experiment for yourself, not for me.

The fact that you are paying so much attention to challenging the absolute accuracy of my description could well be detracting from your ability to assimilate the incident in the round, which is tantamount to what I think you’re actually accusing me of!

It is you who implies the absolute accuracy of your description after nearly 30 years. I have tried to show you that several aspects of what you claim you "clearly remember" would in fact be very difficult for you to assess, and appear to be a product of your interpretation. I have tried to explain to you that it makes no sense to discount an explanation for your observation if it doesn't fit some particular details that you think you've observed.

I'm not trying to say that unless your report is 100% accurate, it is worthless. What I'm trying to say is that while you can use little details to rule out explanations when you've got, for example, a recording of the event on camera, you cannot do the same when all you've got is a 30-year old eyewitness account, even if the witness swears by Zeus that it's all true and accurate. This means that one of the explanations that you've ruled out as inconsistent with your observation may be correct after all.

Actually, there was no ‘assessment’, simply an observation of an unsophisticated, albeit it geometric, movement of point lights across a clear night sky.

No. What you have described and the reported accuracy thereof exceeds the ability of human naked eye observation. With hardly any background and the point lights leaving no traces, and the event happening only once, without you expecting it, I assert that it would be impossible for you to determine the geometric qualities of the lights' trajectory with the accuracy that is implied by words such as "exactly the same circumference", "perfect circle" or "extremely well orchestrated manouvre".

In short, you should take your own recollections with a grain of salt, and not ascribe to them the accuracy of a videotape, even if the observed event is very simple.

[baron]

Oh, I see, my mistake, sorry. So, recalling a mathematical formula or principle, for example, is necessarily knowledge and not memory, just like 'learning' the times tables is? Mmmm ... I don't quite get that one. I certainly don't know that E=mc2 through knowledge (I never studied it, and can't explain it!), or that six sixes are thirty six, so it must be through memory, surely?

E=MC2 is an example of semantic memory, sometimes referred to as knowledge, and your UFO sighting is an example of visual and episodic memory. These memories are laid down differently and are treated differently in the brain. Why do you hold forth on subjects of which you are clearly ignorant?

There we go, now we're seeing it. You witness something - you recall it later - it doesn't seem to make sense - so you immediately put it down to 'the proven and common phenomenon of false memory' - the only possible alternative being something that can't possibly be explained otherwise. You must have a very sad and narrow outlook on life and it's remaining mysteries.

If thinking that makes you feel better then go ahead. The truth is, if I see a bird on a tree branch and the next time I look it's not there, I assume it has flown away. I do not assume it has been kidnapped by aliens, or eaten by unicorns, or succombed to spontaneous avian combustion as a result of proximity to plasma-based Martian tree fairies. It's in this way that I can appreciate the true wonders of the world without resorting to brainless woo-woo theories and infantile fantasy conjecture.

I take it you're not a scientist.

Sure, because if you asked a scientist, "What's more likely; false childhood memory or a giant flashing alien spacecraft?" he'd reply, "The spacecraft, of course!"

Is there an icon round here somewhere to nominate a JREF most skeptical skeptic?!?

Yep, it's the "nominate" button under my post. Feel free to click away.

[Southwind17]

Southwind17, I have the impression that you are being a bit biased with some ideas presented by some posters. It seems you find explanations involving faulty recollections specially problematic.

However, as some already pointed out, with the availble information, such speculations can not be quickly dismissed, even if you do belive or feel the sighting happened the exactly the way you remember it.

Check, for example,
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html
http://forensic-evidence.com/site/Behv_Evid/BhvE_Paige.html
Performing a search for eyewitnesses reliability and false memory right here will also provide you some very usefull links that will help you to understand the many problems with eyewitness' reports. Its not dismissing it out of hand, is acknoweledging that there may be an issue with it.

Thank you for this. These links are very useful, and I can now accept the possibility, and indeed probability, of memory fallibility, at least in relation to some of the detail. It will, however, take more to convince me that the event did not occur largely as recollected, but I remain open to that possibility.

This put, there are a few more points I would like to comment.

1. People pointed out the possibility that the stop may have been an illusion; the object merely turned towards you. You said not, since it was right above you. Well, this was not clear from your previous posts... How could anyone have guessed?

I don't wish to appear pedantic, I think we're now past analysing the fine detail, but for the record, I was, actually, clear as to the positioning - quote: “The light point is almost directly overhead.” (third line of my description). I guess this actually adds weight to the memory explanation, or are you just pretending to have forgotten an important detail? (only joking!)

2. Satellites quite often "pass almost right over our heads", another match.

Yes - this adds weight to the satellite theory - thanks.

3. Satellites are only visible untill a certain time after sunset or before dawn; in the meantime, Earth's shadow cone allows no sunlight to illuminate them. If the sighting was not within the propper timeframe, satellites can be ruled out.
You might want to check these sites for more info (and predictions) on satellite observation.
http://www.heavens-above.com/main.aspx
http://www.satobs.org/satintro.html

Thanks for this too. I'm familiar with the "heavens-above" site, and will peruse both. Not sure if the available data will go back 30 years though - I'll check.

4. You can not also completely dismiss the possibility that you experienced some sort of illusion that created the apparent movment.

Accepted - that's always a possibility with just about anything 'unusual' that's observed, I guess. I suppose this one will always hang over the whole episode.

Thanks again for steering me down a clearer path of possible explanations - appreciated.

[Southwind17]

Those that I mentioned. For example, determining with the implied level of accuracy the regularity of the path of slowly moving points leaving no traces; determining presence or absence of subtle changes in an object's brightness over time; determining with the implied level of accuracy the angular distance between points, or how much it changes when the points move around each other.

OK - I think I see what you're saying now. It's impossible to say for sure that what I believe I saw really happened as I believe I saw it. I can accept that now (see previous post). What I was getting at, though, is that it's not impossible that what I believe I saw actually happened as recalled. I admit though, now, that it's extremely unlikely that I've got all the detail accurate, and that some of the illusions or misbeliefs that you describe could well have occurred. Thanks

On a clear night, you can see stars ranging all the way from, say, 0 to +4 magnitude, and with a wide range of colors (that are difficult for humans to see becose the light is so dim, but become very apparent on magnified color photographs). "Equivalent brightness to the ambient stars" could mean +1 magnitude just as well as +3 magnitude, which is over 6 times the difference in brightness. Under these circumstances, it is unclear to me what your "point of reference" is.

Accepted - my fault. I guess what I was trying to describe was a level of brightness that, were it not for the movement, would simply have been passed off by a lay-person as a star, as distinct from, say, a landing light from an aircraft, which, from my experience (which, in this regard, is, admittedly, somewhat limited), would probably be noticeably brighter.

I have actually tested this. I have written a simple program rotating two light points on a star background and shown this twice to a volunteer, with what I'd call fairly distorted paths. Upon questioning them, they used the term 'circle' and didn't report any distortion at all. Even after I've told them that the trajectories are distorted, and even when allowing them to replay the animation at their will, they found it extraordinarily difficult to draw the shape of the trajectory. After being shown the actual trajectory, they expressed surprise at how much it differed from what they imagined. You can have the program if you can arrange for transfer of binary data.

This seems extremely coincidental, although I don't doubt it for a second. May I ask what prompted you to conduct the experiment in the way you describe? Would I be able to use the data?

After the experiments I've done, I say with certainty that if you think you would be able to detect and recall irregularities in the path of two slowly moving points leaving no traces, thirty years ago, without having been previously alerted to the possibility that the paths may not be perfectly circular, you are simply deluding yourself.

You might well be right. I now accept this.

Oh, okay. You can try an experiment for yourself. If you are into watching the night sky, I suppose you have seen the constellations of Orion and Cassiopeia, many many times. Using just your memory, without checking the actual night sky or looking it up, try to assess the angular size of the Orion's belt and the angular width of the Cassiopeia's W, "at arm's length". After you have written down your assessment, feel free to measure the actual angular sizes, look them up, or ask here for the correct answer, and evaluate your error. Of course there is nothing preventing you from cheating, but this is an experiment for yourself, not for me.

This sounds like an interesting challenge. I will try this, and get back to you. I promise I won't cheat - I'm not out to disprove anybody here, all I'm seeking is a rational explanation, and this might well help. Thanks

It is you who implies the absolute accuracy of your description after nearly 30 years. I have tried to show you that several aspects of what you claim you "clearly remember" would in fact be very difficult for you to assess, and appear to be a product of your interpretation. I have tried to explain to you that it makes no sense to discount an explanation for your observation if it doesn't fit some particular details that you think you've observed.

Accepted

I'm not trying to say that unless your report is 100% accurate, it is worthless. What I'm trying to say is that while you can use little details to rule out explanations when you've got, for example, a recording of the event on camera, you cannot do the same when all you've got is a 30-year old eyewitness account, even if the witness swears by Zeus that it's all true and accurate. This means that one of the explanations that you've ruled out as inconsistent with your observation may be correct after all.

Accepted

No. What you have described and the reported accuracy thereof exceeds the ability of human naked eye observation. With hardly any background and the point lights leaving no traces, and the event happening only once, without you expecting it, I assert that it would be impossible for you to determine the geometric qualities of the lights' trajectory with the accuracy that is implied by words such as "exactly the same circumference", "perfect circle" or "extremely well orchestrated manouvre".

Accepted - but the movements were essentially straight lines and circular, at least.

In short, you should take your own recollections with a grain of salt, and not ascribe to them the accuracy of a videotape, even if the observed event is very simple.

Accepted - thanks for your input - appreciated.

[Southwind17]

Oh, okay. You can try an experiment for yourself. If you are into watching the night sky, I suppose you have seen the constellations of Orion and Cassiopeia, many many times. Using just your memory, without checking the actual night sky or looking it up, try to assess the angular size of the Orion's belt and the angular width of the Cassiopeia's W, "at arm's length". After you have written down your assessment, feel free to measure the actual angular sizes, look them up, or ask here for the correct answer, and evaluate your error. Of course there is nothing preventing you from cheating, but this is an experiment for yourself, not for me.

OK - unfortunately I'm not sufficiently familiar with Cassiopeia's W, but I would recognize Orion's belt easily. My estimation is that Orion's 'angular size', i.e. distance between the two extreme stars, is around 7cm at arm's length (I'm 5ft 11''). I have to admit, I think I could be way out, which I suppose proves your point already, but let's go with the official verdict. What's the answer?

[Thabiguy]

OK - unfortunately I'm not sufficiently familiar with Cassiopeia's W, but I would recognize Orion's belt easily. My estimation is that Orion's 'angular size', i.e. distance between the two extreme stars, is around 7cm at arm's length (I'm 5ft 11''). I have to admit, I think I could be way out, which I suppose proves your point already, but let's go with the official verdict. What's the answer?

Angular distance between Alnitak and Mintaka, the two border stars of the impressive "belt" in the beautiful constellation of Orion, is about 2.8 degrees; assuming 60 cm arm length, this would be about 2.9 cm at arm's length (you can convert to your specific arm length using formula distance-at-arm's-length = sin(angle) * arm-length). Your estimate is therefore about 2.4x off (or you could say, off by 140%), which is a fairly typical error that you needn't feel bad about - many people would err even more.

The point, as you have of course correctly guessed, is not to downplay your observational skills, but to illustrate that trying to recall angular sizes, even for objects we're relatively familiar with, is subject to significant inaccuracy, due to the inherent limitations of our visual processing and visual memory. One way to overcome this is not trying to memorize the apparent size of an object in the sky (which we're really quite bad at, as you have seen), but its relative size, compared to something else that can later be measured. But of course, this comparison needs to be done at the time of observation, not afterwards.

This seems extremely coincidental, although I don't doubt it for a second. May I ask what prompted you to conduct the experiment in the way you describe? Would I be able to use the data?

It wasn't coincidental; I did it because of this discussion. I'm one of those people who like to experiment. After I wrote my original post about the rotating points and before you replied to it, I kept thinking about it, and wondered about some additional details that I didn't have a quick answer to, and rather than doing lengthy research, I found it easier to write a simple program to simulate points following distorted paths and find out by actually trying it. It confirmed my predictions and answered the things I had wondered about. Later when you replied and expressed doubt about the result of such an experiment, I first wanted to mention my earlier simple experimentation, but then I realized that the test was not very good, as the observer (me) was obviously biased, so I thought - I've got some time to spare, why not do it a little more properly? So I made the program slightly fancier, added some background and antialiasing, and asked a friend to observe. The results were the same, but I felt better. :)

The program is a DOS application working in a simple graphic mode and I think it should work in any Windows version. If you want it, PM me.

[Southwind17]

E=MC2 is an example of semantic memory, sometimes referred to as knowledge, and your UFO sighting is an example of visual and episodic memory. These memories are laid down differently and are treated differently in the brain. Why do you hold forth on subjects of which you are clearly ignorant?

OK - I'll happily bow to your better judgement and knowledge, but I wasn't professing to 'hold forth' on subjects of which I am clearly ignorant, I was simply stating my views and opinions, on which you have commented from a clearly informed perspective. It's a good way to learn!

If thinking that makes you feel better then go ahead. The truth is, if I see a bird on a tree branch and the next time I look it's not there, I assume it has flown away. I do not assume it has been kidnapped by aliens, or eaten by unicorns, or succombed to spontaneous avian combustion as a result of proximity to plasma-based Martian tree fairies. It's in this way that I can appreciate the true wonders of the world without resorting to brainless woo-woo theories and infantile fantasy conjecture.

Explaining the disappearance of a bird from a branch presents very few likely possibilities and lends itself to common logic far better than the sighting I described. I'm sure I would resort to the same conclusion, in those circumstances. I too tend not to resort to 'brainless woo-woo theories and infantile fantasy conjecture', as I believe I have not in this instance. I am simply open to ideas, albeit, admittedly, with a slight bias at times - apologies.

Sure, because if you asked a scientist, "What's more likely; false childhood memory or a giant flashing alien spacecraft?" he'd reply, "The spacecraft, of course!"

... and so would I, of course(!), but pray tell, where did the 'giant flashing alien spacecraft' suddenly appear from (excuse the pun)? Incidentally, just because the occurrence of one possible event is of greater probability than another doesn't necessarily mean that the lower-probability event did not occur!

[Elind]

I know what we saw that night, and I'm not alleging that it was anything that did not originate from Earth, but I'm at a loss to come up with a plausible explanation, and I'm hoping that somebody out there can.

Go for it!

Question: How many years ago was this?
Question: How do you know which light point was above or below the other, when looking from below?
Question: What was the time of night?

Given that what you saw was a motion in a constant direction and a repeating pattern along that same direction, what you most likely saw (certainly I would say) was a satellite with a rotation and varying reflectivity. That is fairly common, and it does not have to be a uniformly spaced on/off reflectivity depending on many factors.

You saw a satellite fairly high and slow with a slow tumble that would periodically blink out, but less often than it was on. Your eye followed the light, but when it disappeared you automatically focussed on the nearest star trying to pick it out. Then it reappeared near the star you are looking at and your brain confuses which is which and sees them as moving around each other. Then blink out again, and on a little further away. This repeats twice more (it was a clear sky and therefore stars where everywhere, you said), but by now you are looking for and anticipating the pattern.

Edit: OK. I read more other posts. This was 30 years ago. No doubt you have thought of it often and probably the memory has not changed, but I venture that you were much more impressionable, and probably not as accurate in detail observation then as now which, based on personal experience, makes me even more confident of my explanation. :)

[Southwind17]

Thanks for your late contribution Elind. I'm now satisfied, from the suggestions provided by various members, that the sighting or details thereof could have many plausible explanations ranging from memory fallibility (very likely) to satellites, including combinations thereof (also very likely). I'm perfectly happy for this thread to fizzle out now, and I thank all who contributed for helping me see the experience and after-effects more openly than I at first thought I was. I should also like to apologize to those members who I initially gave short shrift to, and may have offended or upset with any of my somewhat disingenuous riposte - especially Cuddles - sorry.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

“We're lying on our backs in a field gazing at the night sky.”

Let’s say you’re looking up and the events take place around 60 to 80 degrees above your viewpoint.

“The stars are clear and bright, and abundant. The usual constellations can be clearly identified.”

Much has been discussed already about this, helps to confirm you wouldn’t be able to tell the exact posistion, speed, or size of the points of light, even if they were changing.


“Suddenly we notice a light point moving slowly in a straight line from left to right, as we're looking up. The light point is almost directly overhead. There's absolutely no noise. The light point appears of equivalent size, brightness and colour to the ambient stars overhead.”

Aircraft 1 approaches from the left, it has a light and is at a considerable altitude above you.


“After a few seconds the light point stops dead.”

Aircraft 1 has turned away from you 90 degrees to it’s left, possibly climbing slightly here. It appears relatively stationary to you, but probably hasn’t changed speed much. (It is possible it turned 90 degrees to it’s right here and is approaching you.)


“Then the light point, in conjunction with another light point 'beneath' it, as we're looking”

Aircraft 2 approaches from a vanishing point (perhaps atmospheric or relative to how well your eyes see the crafts light) some distance below (or above?) where Aircraft 1 is leaving you. Both appear stationary to you as described.


“begins to rotate slowly around a common axis in a clockwise direction. The distance between the two light points is roughly 6cm as measured at arm's length. When the two light points have exchanged positions, i.e. the first light point has rotated from the 12 O'clock position to the 6 O'clock position and vice versa”

Aircraft 1 makes a climbing (or descending?) arc turn 180 degrees down (or up?) , at the same time as Aircraft 2 makes a descending (or climbing?) arc 180 degrees up (or down). This appears to you as described.


“, both light points momentarily stop”

Aircraft 1 leaving via 90 degree turn to same vanishing point. Aircraft 2 is approaching your point of view.


“then the second light point, now at the 12 O'clock position, moves slowly away to the right, continuing the apparent course that the first light point initially followed.”

Aircraft 2 has turned 90 degrees to it’s left, so instead of coming head on at you it now travels to your right like Aircraft 1 did initially.


“The first light point remains still.”

Aircraft 1 hasn’t been moving away from you long enough to reach the vanishing point.

“After a few seconds the second light point stops dead, just as the first did, then the whole process repeats, this time with a third light point. After completing the 180 degree rotation the third light also point moves away to the right, again following the initial course, then fades out of sight, suggesting a very large distance from our observation point. “

Aircraft 2 has begun the cycle over with another 90 degree turn to it’s left. No need to type any of that again, except to add that Aircraft 3 could possibly be Aircraft 1 again.

“Unfortunately, the first two light points are no longer identifiable from the surrounding stars, and cannot be observed further.”

Likely not that they are idistinguisable, but they've gone/moved.


In summary, this doesn’t sound like a very remarkable sighting at all, likely some normal flight patrol maneuvers.

[Elind]

Thanks for your late contribution Elind. I'm now satisfied, from the suggestions provided by various members, that the sighting or details thereof could have many plausible explanations ranging from memory fallibility (very likely) to satellites, including combinations thereof (also very likely). I'm perfectly happy for this thread to fizzle out now, and I thank all who contributed for helping me see the experience and after-effects more openly than I at first thought I was. I should also like to apologize to those members who I initially gave short shrift to, and may have offended or upset with any of my somewhat disingenuous riposte - especially Cuddles - sorry.

Don't fizzle out yet.

I have a puzzle for those interested. Could easily have been a UFO story, but the challenge is to explain it.

I was watching the sky after dark one evening. There was scattered low clouds at a few thousand feet or less, but a lot of clear sky too. The landing pattern for the airport some 20 miles away was such that the planes would come towards me from a long way about 30 degrees above the horizon (when their headlight looks like a stationary star for a long time, until they get close), then they would turn to my left towards the airport and often pass through the low clouds and then I would hear the plane. The sight of the headlight shining like a ray beam was visible through the clouds and quite an interesting display.

Then came one light that got brighter and brighter coming straight at me, and also shining through a cloud. The cylindrical beam of light could be seen quite clearly in and through the thin cloud and at times was bright enough to cause a shadow where I was. I started to think this was a police helicopter with a searchlight looking for something, but no sound yet and the light was far far brighter than any airplane I had ever seen.

I would guess this went on for about one minute or even more, yet the plane never appeared. Then the light started to fade and the cloud dissipated and no airplane in sight.

What did I see?

[Iamme]

Sorry to disappoint EHLO, but satellites, I guess(!), don't stop dead, CLEARLY rotate around a common axis WITH ANOTHER SATELLITE.

But aircraft out 20 miles from an airport, with their landing lights on, circling the airport,will appear to be this bright light moving across the sky, stop dead in it's it's tracks, and go backwards. And *I* was able to figure that out years ago, on my own, I was 12 years old viewing my very first "UFO" (flying saucer of course, as nothing less than that would be a true UFO. :) ) through my 20 power binoculars in Racine Wisconsin, about 20 miles from Milwaukee's Gen. Billy Mitchell Field airport.

Also, if it occurs just after sunset, the light reflecting off the craft will appear to be it's lights and may not be...rather just or partially light reflection...and can explain how you continously see a bright light moving forward, then backward.

It also dawned on me back then, that "UFO's" would not be having lights on!!! If they had lights for us to see them... If THAT was their objective...they'd land! So, all these UFO's with lights...they can be explained, like I did about the airport case.

[Correa Neto]

...snip...I don't wish to appear pedantic, I think we're now past analysing the fine detail, but for the record, I was, actually, clear as to the positioning - quote: “The light point is almost directly overhead.” (third line of my description). I guess this actually adds weight to the memory explanation, or are you just pretending to have forgotten an important detail? (only joking!)...snip...
No jokes!

I'll answer without looking at the whole thread. Right now I just don't know if you said the lights were almost overhead at your first description of the sighting. However, I guess you did not! But thinking harder, I am really not sure. This could easilly have turned in to some "I'm sure that I remember..." case!

See how memory can be tricky?

As for the "thank you"s, you are welcome!

[JoeTheJuggler]

Where do I state what I believe it was? I don't believe I've even hinted at a suggestion. All I've said is what I believe it was not, based on the generic suggestions tentatively proffered so far.

In post number 7 you said, "I know what we saw that night" which does seem to be at odds with most of what you've said this thread (i.e. that you DON'T know what you saw).

I'd encourage you to at least entertain the idea that your memory is less reliable than a videotape. Also, if there was some sort of optical illusion happening, you'd be "remembering" what you saw even though it was a wrong reading.

I remember once seeing what looked for all the world like a large African shaman's mask sitting on the chair in my bedroom for quite a long time--at least 20 minutes-- before it finally flipped to become just a pile of clothes on the chair. If it hadn't "flipped" my memory would be the vivid recollection of a large African shaman's mask.

Let's not leave out the possibility of meteorological phenomena. Distant ground based lights reflected on clouds (or more dramatically on convection layers) can cause really strange optical illusions which aren't even actually Unidentified Flying Objects.

Since you don't know what you saw, you don't know anything about it (distance, size, speed, whether it was one object, two objects, or even an object at all) so . . .

I'd go along with Belz's answer given way back in post number 5. :)

If I had to guess, though, I'd lean toward some of the various aircraft explanations give in this thread.

[Southwind17]

I think my post #67 makes it very clear that I now accept that memory probably plays a large part in explaining what I thought we saw. Ergo, many of the possible explanations proffered by members now seem plausible, some moreso than others. My money's on satellites, as opposed to civil aircraft, and I'll explain why, for the benefit of anybody wishing to continue this thread. I must stress, though, that the following pre-supposes that my recollections are true and reasonably accurate, which I now accept is highly unlikely. Unless that can be assumed, though, there's little point analysing physical explanations further, and as I've already stated, I for one am happy to let this sleeping dog lie:

The location of the sighting was Sheffield, England. At the time the nearest civil airports were Manchester and East Midlands. Each are each approximately 40 miles distance from the sighting location. It was properly dark. The sky was full of stars, like when you're in awe of how many you can see. There was no cloud. The rotations occurred essentially overhead (probably greater than 60 degrees to the horizon) and were of no more than 15cm diameter as measured at arms length, allowing for memory lapse(!). By my calculation that would put the aircraft at an altitude circa 30+ miles, if essentially over the airport! Aircraft circling an airport preparing to land does not, to me, seem like a probable or even likely explanation.

Incidentally Joe, when I said "I know what we saw that night" I don't mean "I can explain what we saw that night". I meant "I can recall our observations accurately that night". It was a poor choice of words, on reflection, and I apologize for any confusion caused. I would not make that same statement now, as is evident from my more recent posts. Also, given that you've read at least as far back as Post #7 I'm surprised that you're encouraging me to entertain memory fallibility as an explanation (see my opening comment to this post re. Post #67). No encouragement needed - thanks.

Finally, to state as fact the UFOs "would not be having lights on" .... Come on, we started off (certainly in my mind) trying to explain seemingly unusual lights in the night sky. We did, to a degree, move on to debating the likelihood of extra-terrestrial craft being a possible explanation (which, for the absolute avoidance of any possible doubt I do not entertain). We have, in my mind, concluded that memory probably has a lot to do with what we 'saw'. To try to introduce the rationale as to why UFOs would not display lights as relevant to this discussion ... ahem!

[Elind]

I think my post #67 makes it very clear that I now accept that memory probably plays a large part in explaining what I thought we saw. Ergo, many of the possible explanations proffered by members now seem plausible, some moreso than others. My money's on satellites, as opposed to civil aircraft, and I'll explain why, for the benefit of anybody wishing to continue this thread.


I have seen far too many aircraft lights for anyone but a UFO woo to describe them as you did. You saw a variable satellite which was periodically confused with fixed stars and coupled with your statement that one was "below" the other (which is impossible to determine in that situation), there was a dash of imagination thrown in.

Now, doesn't anyone care to venture a guess on my sighting described above?

[Correa Neto]

A searchlight or a beacon from the airport or some other nearby source?

A plane taking off instead of landing?

The MIB explanation?

[Southwind17]

I have seen far too many aircraft lights for anyone but a UFO woo to describe them as you did. You saw a variable satellite which was periodically confused with fixed stars and coupled with your statement that one was "below" the other (which is impossible to determine in that situation), there was a dash of imagination thrown in.

Now, doesn't anyone care to venture a guess on my sighting described above?

Oh come on now Elind. If you take the time to read over this thread from the beginning (and I'm not saying you haven't, but your question suggests not) you should already have concluded that the explanation for your 'sighting', in all likelihood, will go down exactly the same path as mine. You don't say how long ago your sighting was, but irrespective, the memory explanation is still likely to play a large part. If we were to substitute your sighting for mine in this thread virtually everything that's been written (fine detail excepted) would still apply and hold true. Given what you have described, I suspect that, memory aside, there would be many possible explanations that potentially fit, just like my sighting, assuming members are prepared for an action replay, that is.

I think you need to accept, as I now have, that ANY description of a seeming UFO or unusual event (UFO-related or otherwise) is always going to be subjected to the memory fallibility test, and to my mind, from what I've now learned from this forum, it will be destined to fail.

[Elind]

You are correct, I haven't read every post here in entirety, because I could see that I didn't agree with the basic premise of some in the beginning. Airplanes and the like, for example.

My teaser event was just a couple of years ago, and I do know the answer, which is interesting and also quite likely to inspire UFO sightings in believers of the latter.

However, as I thought this thread was dying out I posted the same question in a new thread. Perhaps if you are interested we can continue there.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think my post #67 makes it very clear that I now accept that memory probably plays a large part in explaining what I thought we saw.

Sorry. I missed that.

My bad!:D