UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
You claim it (flashing) cannot happen
Make your case
Where did I claim that? The eyewitness confirms it was flashing like a strobe. I accept that as an accurate description.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Your claim is hereI accept that as an accurate description.
LOL What did I claim?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No problem. Accounts posted without analysis can be explained without analysis.
It's Venus.
Let's move on.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Sorry I thought English was your first language
Sorry no time to teach.
You're right...I claimed I accept the eyewitness's account of the ufo strobing as accurate. So what?
Last edited:
Sorry you don't appear to understand
I don't play "he said I said" games
I'm out
I have not claimed it is Venus.
Clearly, you haven't ruled that out as a possibility, however.
Do you have the required details about location, time, direction, as previously discussed? Perhaps I can help you by doing the check.
Do you care about what this UFO was? Or have you already lost interest?
When did you become an expert on atmospheric conditions, Magical Realist?
I don't think you even knew why stars twinkle.
What have I said that is BS? Be specific, please. Be sure to support your claims with evidence or appropriate argument.
You have 2 problems here:
1. You have claimed that it is impossible under any circumstances for atmospheric conditions to make it look like Venus is flashing like a strobe. You have done nothing to begin to establish the impossibility you claim.
2. You have not even established that anything in the reported UFO case was actually observed to flash like a strobe. So far, you only have the say-so of one supposed eyewitness. You have done nothing to establish that the eyewitness's description is an accurate account of what could have been observed objectively.
So, again, you're just saying that somebody reported seeing something in the sky that they couldn't explain, and you - for reasons best known to yourself - have decided that whatever it was they saw, it was probably the woo. Right?
What convinced you?
And I simply told you it might well have been Venus.
You claim that is impossible, but you haven't shown that. In fact, you have done precisely nothing to rule out the possibility that it was Venus, so far, except to make extravagant, unsupported claims about atmospheric conditions.
No. If you claim it's the woo, the onus is on you to show that it's the woo.
The first step towards proving your claim would be to rule out simple, logical explanations, like that it might have been Venus.
Why won't you put in any effort? Don't you care whether what you believe is true?
Since the claim that this was the woo is made without evidence, it can be dismissed without evidence, then.
Are we done with this one, then?
That was the usual damp squib from you, Magical Realist. Ho hum.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I don't really care about this claim but I went back to MR's post about the lights and reread it. Venus was up in the evening (as opposed to the morning) on Dec.26 as a factual matter, by the way. It's always one or the other. So it would be in the southwest just before sunset.
The "sighting" says that a light flew from the NE and flew just above Mt.Shasta's summit, stopped, stayed in one spot for 10 minutes and began strobing. It said then 3 other lights flew to the summit as well.
Not that I believe anything, one way or the other, about what was actually happening from this story but it really doesn't seem to have much to do with Venus other than that Venus is always either visible about 30 minutes before sunset or 30 minutes before sunrise.
My point is, I don't know why "we" are so stuck on Venus in this thread. There are many atmospheric reasons for lights around clouds, mountain tops etc. Why get stuck on Venus?
It's more true that stars are known to "flicker" due to the Earth's atmosphere and the greater distances involved than for planets to do so. That used to be used as a quick way to distinguish a star from a planet (twinkle, twinkle little star).
However, it is possible for a planet to flicker due to the atmosphere as well, it's just not the usual situation but who cares, that's beside the point.
Lights flying from the NW, stopping, strobing, more lights coming again after 10 minutes...why does Venus seem like such a great explanation?
More likely would be, the guy is drunk, wants to see spaceships, optical illusions, with the later being the best explanation IMO, without more info.
The "sighting" says that a light flew from the NE and flew just above Mt.Shasta's summit, stopped, stayed in one spot for 10 minutes and began strobing. It said then 3 other lights flew to the summit as well.
Not that I believe anything, one way or the other, about what was actually happening from this story but it really doesn't seem to have much to do with Venus other than that Venus is always either visible about 30 minutes before sunset or 30 minutes before sunrise.
My point is, I don't know why "we" are so stuck on Venus in this thread. There are many atmospheric reasons for lights around clouds, mountain tops etc. Why get stuck on Venus?
It's more true that stars are known to "flicker" due to the Earth's atmosphere and the greater distances involved than for planets to do so. That used to be used as a quick way to distinguish a star from a planet (twinkle, twinkle little star).
However, it is possible for a planet to flicker due to the atmosphere as well, it's just not the usual situation but who cares, that's beside the point.
Lights flying from the NW, stopping, strobing, more lights coming again after 10 minutes...why does Venus seem like such a great explanation?
More likely would be, the guy is drunk, wants to see spaceships, optical illusions, with the later being the best explanation IMO, without more info.
Seattle:
Thanks for doing some legwork on MR's behalf. He's either too lazy or can't think of how to do it himself or can't follow the simple suggestions I gave him, so I hope he appreciates the help.
I suggested to MR that he should try to rule out that possibility, for starters. Of course, he has no interest in doing that and has so far put no effort at all into investigating any aspect of this sighting. Therefore, I'm glad you're willing to give it a go.
If we can rule out Venus, great. While we're at it, we should also check other bright planets, like Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Can we also rule those out?
This is why Venus seems like a great explanation. At least, unless and until it can be ruled out.
Understand?
The point I wanted to illustrate to MR is that this UFO investigation caper requires some effort, if you want to take it seriously. So far, that point has completely flown over his head. No surprises there, though. He hasn't absorbed anything he's been told here in the past 10 years.
Thanks for doing some legwork on MR's behalf. He's either too lazy or can't think of how to do it himself or can't follow the simple suggestions I gave him, so I hope he appreciates the help.
What time did the sighting occur? Also, do you know where the eyewitness was located and which direction he was facing? MR has no idea and doesn't care, as far as I'm aware.
If this was near sunset, then according to what you've said Venus might have been visible if the eyewitness was facing southwest. The eyewitness did not report the lights flying from behind him to in front of him, as far as I'm aware.
One reason I brought this up is related to the exact information you just provided. IIRC, the eyewitness reported seeing the UFO around sunset (or was it sunrise), close to the horizon. That suggests that Venus could potentially have been in the field of view.
I suggested to MR that he should try to rule out that possibility, for starters. Of course, he has no interest in doing that and has so far put no effort at all into investigating any aspect of this sighting. Therefore, I'm glad you're willing to give it a go.
There's no reason to be stuck on Venus. If MR had been willing to put any effort at all into conducting a basic investigation of the facts of the report, then it is conceivable that he could have ruled out Venus as a possible explanation long ago. But, MR being MR, he is not motivated to actually think about any of the cases he brings forward, let alone work on trying to solve them.
If we can rule out Venus, great. While we're at it, we should also check other bright planets, like Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Can we also rule those out?
How is distance relevant? What is more important is the apparent angular size of the object in the sky. Since stars are so far away, they appear as point sources, whereas a planet like Venus appears as a disc. Nevertheless, under the right conditions, it is still quite possible for Venus to twinkle. MR, knowing nothing about this topic, claims it is impossible, but that's an empty claim from him, like all his other claims.
As a rule of thumb it can be useful, but it's not foolproof. And it turns out it is quite often the case that fools are the ones who are likely to misinterpret things they see in the sky.
It's not beside the point unless we can rule out Venus as an object that would have been visible in this particular eyewitness's field of view.
When the sun sets, the stars are observed to come out gradually, not suddenly and all at once. As the sunset dims, the brightest objects in the sky become visible first, then the dimmer stars. So, one might initially see Venus soon after (or even before) sunset, with no stars, then see other stars "appear" nearby as the twilight dims.
This is why Venus seems like a great explanation. At least, unless and until it can be ruled out.
Understand?
That's another possible explanation that has not yet been ruled out, of course.
The point I wanted to illustrate to MR is that this UFO investigation caper requires some effort, if you want to take it seriously. So far, that point has completely flown over his head. No surprises there, though. He hasn't absorbed anything he's been told here in the past 10 years.
Not in the dark.
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
Date of sighting ??
The 26th Dec seems to be the article posted on site date. Check the articles before and after on that site, they too are 26th Dec.
See below: Date 26th Dec, but the event was 21th Dec.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This is the North East sky over Mount Shasta at about 20 minutes and then 10 minutes before sunset during the week of Dec 20-27th.
(Captured from Stellarium Web online. Feel free to verify yourself.)
Mars (one of the brightest objects in the sky) is rising at mag -1.37.
Mars would be the only object visible at first.
As the sky darkened, the next brightest objects would become visible:
Capella (one of the brightest stars in the sky) is rising at mag 0.24.
Aldebaran is rising at mag 1.0.
Elnath is rising mag at 1.6.
These 4 objects are the only things bright enough to be seen over the sky glow of the North East setting sky.
All these objects are subject to scintillation - especially
- low on the horizon
- on a fast cooling Dec evening
- as the sun sets and
- the cooling land disturbs the atmosphere.
Note, by the way, it is quite apparent the observer is not at all experienced with sky observing or scientific analysis, since they made no attempt to provide any useful sighting data, such as degree of inclination of objects in sky - heck, they couldn't even be bothered to check the time - reporting only "just before sunset".
Yes, this is the very kind of observer that would mistake Venus for a UFO.
Yes, this is the kind of observer that would see bog standard scintillation and think it's "strobing".
MR, please step up your game.
(Captured from Stellarium Web online. Feel free to verify yourself.)
Mars (one of the brightest objects in the sky) is rising at mag -1.37.
Mars would be the only object visible at first.
As the sky darkened, the next brightest objects would become visible:
Capella (one of the brightest stars in the sky) is rising at mag 0.24.
Aldebaran is rising at mag 1.0.
Elnath is rising mag at 1.6.
These 4 objects are the only things bright enough to be seen over the sky glow of the North East setting sky.
All these objects are subject to scintillation - especially
- low on the horizon
- on a fast cooling Dec evening
- as the sun sets and
- the cooling land disturbs the atmosphere.
Note, by the way, it is quite apparent the observer is not at all experienced with sky observing or scientific analysis, since they made no attempt to provide any useful sighting data, such as degree of inclination of objects in sky - heck, they couldn't even be bothered to check the time - reporting only "just before sunset".
Yes, this is the very kind of observer that would mistake Venus for a UFO.
Yes, this is the kind of observer that would see bog standard scintillation and think it's "strobing".
MR, please step up your game.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
The eyewitness saw the lights fly across the sky and then become stationary. That immediately rules out stars or planets. That's why I am unconcerned with plotting their positions on that evening. They simply don't explain what was seen, Plus, as I have said, stars and planets don't flash like a strobe.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Yes. As an amateur astronomer attending star parties, I see newbies do this all the time. Inexperienced observers such as the one in the article are frequently confused about apparent motion of objects in the sky; that goes with the territory and is part of the learning curve.
It is a known fact that it is easy to see movement of objects in the sky when they are near enough to the horizon that it serves as a reference point, but that, as objects are farther away from a known reference point it becomes more difficult to tell if an object is in motion, and may very well to the uninitiated appear as if it's stationary.
This is an illusion every experienced sky observer is familiar with. A simple trick is to move one's location until there's something near - a tree or an overhead wire. It then becomes immediately apparent if the object is entirely stationary (such as a hovering helicopter) or if it is moving with the rotation of the Earth (such as Mars), or if it is moving under its own power (such as an airplane on final approach). I live on a flight path to the airport and I use this trick all the time to separate a low flying aircraft 40 miles out over the lake from, say, Jupiter.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I'm pretty sure that stars and planets are observed standing still far more often than being misperceived as moving. Hence the unlikelihood of some specious illusion. As usual the skeptics cherry pick the account for what fits their explanation and dismiss the rest.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Ah. There's your problem. Better to listen and learn from those who are skilled and experienced in sky-watching, astronomy, physics, perception and cognition.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Better to listen to the person who actually witnessed the event instead of armchair "experts" who have an agenda of debunking all ufo sightings.