Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Anybody Ever See A UFO?

observatory observing report observing
  • Please log in to reply
409 replies to this topic

#51 MikeMiller

MikeMiller

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 986
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2014
  • Loc: Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Posted 28 December 2017 - 12:39 AM


No offense ... Those aliens have to be felt, seen, heard, touched to be believed.

As a counterpoint...

Same logic can be used for most everything put forth in cosmology. Matters not all the logic, deductions, or how well the theory may fit, in the end all the evidence and conclusions needs to be touchable before they should be believed. I sure feel that way about most of the popularly supported cosmological theories out there ... if it can't be felt, seen, heard, touched, then not worth the paper it is written on lol.gif

And just think about all those possible life forms on other worlds that may have seen a strange light in the sky (i.e., one of our probes in orbit), or heard some strange almost undetectable patterned static on their radio receivers (i.e., gibberish from one of our TV or radion programs). Since none of them could have the opportunity to feel, see, hear, and touch a human, then those things they saw can in no way be believed to be alien. Just strange lights and sounds...probably a natural phenomena.

ps - I'm just offering the same logic in another circumstance to show that it can interpret things incorrectly. FWIW, I do not even believe there are aliens as I more align myself with the Rare Earth Hypothesis.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." -Carl Sagan

Just because someone says "I think it is aliens" and someone else says "I do not think it is aliens" does not mean there are equal chances of both being right.

Edited by MikeMiller, 28 December 2017 - 12:40 AM.

  • Don W likes this

#52 MG1692

MG1692

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,138
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Western Kansas

Posted 28 December 2017 - 12:45 AM

 

 

 

Same logic can be used for most everything put forth in cosmology.  Matters not all the logic, deductions, or how well the theory may fit, in the end all the evidence and conclusions needs to be touchable before they should be believed.  I sure feel that way about most of the popularly supported cosmological theories out there ... if it can't be felt, seen, heard, touched, then not worth the paper it is written on lol.gif

However you are missing one important element. Cosmological theories make predictions. How well those predictions pan out indicate the validity of the theory. 


  • StarChaser55, MikeMiller, alex_d and 1 other like this

#53 JohnMurphyRN

JohnMurphyRN

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 734
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2012
  • Loc: Dark Sky

Posted 28 December 2017 - 02:08 AM

many many years ago I was driving along a darkish road late evening, and there was NOTHING on either side other than fields, and trees, NO houses anything.

 

Something came down, bounced off the road and back up about the size of a small UK football, wondered to this day what it was.

This almost perfectly describes an owl snatching a mouse off the road. I've seen it a few times. 


  • grmaximus likes this

#54 MG1692

MG1692

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,138
  • Joined: 25 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Western Kansas

Posted 28 December 2017 - 02:36 AM

 

many many years ago I was driving along a darkish road late evening, and there was NOTHING on either side other than fields, and trees, NO houses anything.

 

Something came down, bounced off the road and back up about the size of a small UK football, wondered to this day what it was.

This almost perfectly describes an owl snatching a mouse off the road. I've seen it a few times. 

 

I cant speak for others but seeing an owl do that is way way cooler than some garden variety alien UFO zooming around the sky


  • DoctorNoodle, walt99, JohnMurphyRN and 2 others like this

#55 Myk Rian

Myk Rian

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,156
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2017
  • Loc: Hartland, Michigan

Posted 28 December 2017 - 09:02 AM

Have you ever seen an object in the sky, that looked alien in its structure? Thanks to you all.

Maybe not its structure, but 3 times I have seen "questionable" objects because of their movement.

I do not believe we are alone.


  • serrurier likes this

#56 epee

epee

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,718
  • Joined: 30 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Suh-van-nuh, Jaw-juh

Posted 28 December 2017 - 09:25 AM

I've seen a few things that temporarily dropped my jaw and made my heart pound. Closer inspection has, so far, revealed conventional explanations of these events. Birds will mess with your head.
Concerning "evidence". If it was believed in certain circles that a potentially hostile power, Earthly or not, were regularly overflying and sometimes landing within our territory, we would not require extraordinary proof, we would actively be trying to gather it.

#57 brentwood

brentwood

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,371
  • Joined: 04 Nov 2005
  • Loc: SW BC Canada

Posted 28 December 2017 - 11:25 AM

I've seen two objects over the 50+ years I have been looking at the sky that I still can't identify. I described one on the other thread but got no suggestions. We did discuss ball lightning, but after reviewing the evidence, it doesn't look like this was a possibility. I'd really appreciate any suggestions.

November evening, rain turning to snow, just a single very bright, -2.5 mag, slightly pinkish light, moving very slowly north to south, disappeared behind low clouds when overhead, NO sound.

The city I was in is about 1000' altitude, surrounded by hills/mountains of about 4-5000' .  The clouds in this interior, semi arid area, always touch the mountains when it rain or snows. The object therefore, was no more than 3-4000'  away from me when it disappeared above me.

At first I thought it was an aircraft landing light as I first saw it in the direction of the airport, which would also explain how slow it was travelling towards me. However, landing lights change as they get closer, they are no longer pointing directly at you. This didn't change,  was maybe brighter than when I first saw it. The speed? very slow, similar to how fast you would see an ultralight  a few years later or maybe a hovering helicopter searching for something, but NO sound, even though it would not have been that far away, and NO navigation lights.

UFO? Yes, I know my sky and have been watching planes for years. Many/most seeing this would just dismiss it as a plane. My best guess would be some kind of rare atmospheric phenomenon, ball lightning? but I didn't think it lasts that long?



#58 t_image

t_image

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,499
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015

Posted 28 December 2017 - 04:16 PM

When I was a child before my teen years,
I had one of those Sears refractors and a pair of my dad's binos that I would use on starry summer nights...
The scope proved useful for the Moon and airplanes during the day (easy to follow contrails to the plane)..
{I knew to not point at the Sun}.
Most nights (I wasn't able to be outside in the warm months),
I would look at the sky from my room's set of two windows....
Being a light-polluted and city suburb,
The most interesting things to see were planes at night.
I would chart the look of planes (light scheme) in the binos and what direction they were flying in a spiral notebook with time and direction.....
So I remember I was pretty familiar with such.
I also remember the night the GY Blimp flew over with its electronic billboard sign and all the neighbors coming outside to see it....

I also,
however was a big fan of UFOs,
every sci-fi movie,
read every book in the library about UFOs,
and read about the Roswell incident before it was even popular....

 

I remember one night,
I was (7-10 years old>remembered what tv shows I watched--looked up air dates)
standing next to my house,
in the yard on a slope,
and looking at the familiar distant tree tops (same direction my room window faced),
and seeing what I thought I remembered at the time as a ferris wheel-like (upright, not on its side),
set of lights as moving as if on an object (size as if I was looking at a ferris wheel from that distance)....
I'd say 20 around the outer circle on both sides (depth was perceivable) but I can't remember the center being noteworthy....

The interesting thing thinking back was,
although I was a big fan of UFOs,
I don't remember being overly impressed by the sight,
other than thinking "hmm, interesting."
I also don't remember the length of time or more details,
except for the particular location I was standing
(the look of the side of the house and the imbalanced feel of the slope of grass),
and the area of the tree tops I saw it....

 

Because I was a child and so long ago,
I can't say for sure it wasn't a vivid dream I remembered,
or a conflation of my imagination spurred by all the ingested content for the subject.
I had a pretty decent childhood,
no traumas that I needed to invent memories,
and wasn't particularly interest in getting attention,
(don't remember if I even told anyone of what I saw).....

Can't say the sighting couldn't be explained by a blimp or a head-on view of a low flying plane,
but such direction to see a plane profile doesn't fit the regular or any flight pattern of planes v. airports,
even to this day....
Also no fun military bases or activity due to city local.....

Had some fun other encounters (like seeing a rising "star" that was changing colors in my binos)---that turned out to be Venus,
since I observed it over the course of hours that night and had my pocket guide I learned quite young the atmosphere does funny things to the look...
^but all easily explainable and learning opportunities.....
The most exciting was recently here:
https://www.youtube....h?v=duYf8ZwRSt8
Was with some friends, I started filming only after the object had stopped glinting a brilliant blue like a bright flare,
[probably a mylar blue toy birthday balloon].....
Also was spooked once by this:
https://www.youtube....h?v=wI4zJ4XiqoY
initially until the movement gave away the real cause....

Anyways,
I think with the advent of ubiquitous cameras,
we're only going to have more opportunity to document stuff,
like a rocket launch causing car accidents:lol.gif
(not my video)
https://www.youtube....h?v=Ff7wbSwTuEk



#59 BillP

BillP

    ISS

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 21,589
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 29 December 2017 - 01:06 PM

 

Just because someone says "I think it is aliens" and someone else says "I do not think it is aliens" does not mean there are equal chances of both being right.

 

 

It also does not mean that it is NOT EQUAL chances of being both.  Until a mystery is resolved, any bias as to what it "might" be, is just bias.  If you want to stick to the facts, and the scientific method, then all you can say is that you do not know.  And you cannot assign odds to something you "do not know".  Odds come from known data.  So if you want to be completely scientific about it, then when someone says "I think it is aliens" a proper response would be to say if you have no reliable data confirming one way or the other, "I do not have sufficient confirmed data to assess whether it is or is not."  So if you do not yourself stay neutral when there is no reliable data, then it means you carry a bias which will confound your own future assessments when better quality data does come in.

 

Discussions like this are really just between groups that have alternate hypotheses as to what is going on.  Neither has data yet, nor have any suggested or set up a reliable way to gather data to prove or disprove their hypothesis.  So Are UFOs Real discussions can really never converge anywhere because it is just two groups with divergent hypotheses arguing before they have conducted any experiments related to their hypotheses.  So it is like two people yelling at each other "I'm right!" and "No, I'm right."  It can go no where productive, just somewhere emotional.

 

The stories everyone relates of personal mysterious object observations are certainly interesting because obviously something happened that was observed.  However their data is just anecdotal since the observation was not gathered in a controlled way within the context of a well considered and reviewed experimental design.  But these stories do have value since they can lead us to ways to construct a good experimental design since the design should be able to reliably gather confirming data based on the circumstances they convey.


Edited by BillP, 29 December 2017 - 01:18 PM.

  • StarChaser55 and SeaBee1 like this

#60 bobito

bobito

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,934
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Litchfield County, CT

Posted 29 December 2017 - 01:38 PM

It seems that with the thousands (perhaps million?) of hours of acquisition done for astro photography over the last few decades someone would have captured a compelling image of an alien craft should they be out there.

 

But I'm sure lots of people have seen UFOs, yes.

 

Bob


  • JimMo, DoctorNoodle and Ballyhoo like this

#61 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,999
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 29 December 2017 - 01:53 PM

 

 

Just because someone says "I think it is aliens" and someone else says "I do not think it is aliens" does not mean there are equal chances of both being right.

 

 

It also does not mean that it is NOT EQUAL chances of being both.  Until a mystery is resolved, any bias as to what it "might" be, is just bias.  If you want to stick to the facts, and the scientific method, then all you can say is that you do not know.  And you cannot assign odds to something you "do not know".  Odds come from known data.  So if you want to be completely scientific about it, then when someone says "I think it is aliens" a proper response would be to say if you have no reliable data confirming one way or the other, "I do not have sufficient confirmed data to assess whether it is or is not."  So if you do not yourself stay neutral when there is no reliable data, then it means you carry a bias which will confound your own future assessments when better quality data does come in.

 

Discussions like this are really just between groups that have alternate hypotheses as to what is going on.  Neither has data yet, nor have any suggested or set up a reliable way to gather data to prove or disprove their hypothesis.  So Are UFOs Real discussions can really never converge anywhere because it is just two groups with divergent hypotheses arguing before they have conducted any experiments related to their hypotheses.  So it is like two people yelling at each other "I'm right!" and "No, I'm right."  It can go no where productive, just somewhere emotional.

 

The stories everyone relates of personal mysterious object observations are certainly interesting because obviously something happened that was observed.  However their data is just anecdotal since the observation was not gathered in a controlled way within the context of a well considered and reviewed experimental design.  But these stories do have value since they can lead us to ways to construct a good experimental design since the design should be able to reliably gather confirming data based on the circumstances they convey.

 

Actually, we can assign a stronger probability to not aliens than aliens, and doing so is entirely "scientific".

 

We have been looking for aliens for using radio telescopes, thousands of astronomers have been carefully examining the sky for centuries, and there is no reliable evidence for aliens.

 

This process of estimating probabilities before the collection of evidence is a key part of Baysian statistics when estimating prior probabilities.


  • StarChaser55, alex_d and trurl like this

#62 bluesteel

bluesteel

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,162
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2013
  • Loc: KILM

Posted 29 December 2017 - 03:23 PM

It seems that with the thousands (perhaps million?) of hours of acquisition done for astro photography over the last few decades someone would have captured a compelling image of an alien craft should they be out there.

 

But I'm sure lots of people have seen UFOs, yes.

 

Bob

I'd like to make one point that seems to be lost on some. (Not directing it at you bobito).

When observing through a telescope, or taking a picture of the sky, at most, we are viewing what, 2 degrees?

There is a lot of sky we are not looking at when viewing through an optical enhancement device.

The times I have seen something strange, a friend has been observing with me, and they are at the eyepiece when I am looking up.  Heck, I missed the bright green boldie of a lifetime because my eyeball was in an eyepiece, and all I caught was the bright green flash behind me while my friend reveled in the full view.

 

As to seeing odd things, yes.  When "satellites" make wild course corrections while pursuing each other, hooking a full 170 degrees (wasn't full turn around) while 2 other satellites are in hot pursuit, that is something I cannot identify, and categorize it as an unidentified flying object.


  • StarChaser55 and serrurier like this

#63 BillP

BillP

    ISS

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 21,589
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 29 December 2017 - 03:29 PM

Actually, we can assign a stronger probability to not aliens than aliens, and doing so is entirely "scientific".

 

We have been looking for aliens for using radio telescopes, thousands of astronomers have been carefully examining the sky for centuries, and there is no reliable evidence for aliens.

 

This process of estimating probabilities before the collection of evidence is a key part of Baysian statistics when estimating prior probabilities.

 

 

I would disagree.  Statistics work fine for natural processes following relatively fixed processes and laws.  However, since you would be dealing with an intelligence that would have specific motives of which you are completely unaware, statistical process will be of little value.  I can set up situations that will fool you all day into thinking one thing when something completely different it actually happening. 

 

So "if" an observation yields results that categorize it as an "unknown", and if intelligent activity is considered in the mix, then you are hosed as far as statistics goes (think presidential elections as an example lol.gif ).  And further, even if a probability is assignable, if the odds are 1:10,000,000 that it is an "alien", it could still very well be an alien!  You just have no way of knowing.  So in the end, odds are not very useful.  They may make you feel secure, but in reality they bring no security with them.  Super rare things happen all the time...ask any of the hundreds to thousands of lottery winners who won even though their odds were 1:175,000,000. 


Edited by BillP, 29 December 2017 - 03:32 PM.

  • SeaBee1 likes this

#64 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,999
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 29 December 2017 - 03:59 PM

Ok, seems that I should be clear about what prior probabilities are and how they are actually useful despite being ball-park estimates.

 

Bayesian stats are not intuitive, but it is very useful even with the necessary problem of estimating prior probabilities.

 

Here's a nice explanation of how impoverished data can be used to generate very interesting predictions about aliens:

 

https://youtu.be/KRGca_Ya6OM

 

And this is an excellent overview of Bayes theorem:

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=R13BD8qKeTg



#65 walt99

walt99

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 593
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Mount Aerial, Kentucky

Posted 29 December 2017 - 05:42 PM

Are UFOs  OURs 

 

?

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=h9CAftwO1x8



#66 Migwan

Migwan

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,822
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Meeechigan

Posted 29 December 2017 - 05:53 PM

 

many many years ago I was driving along a darkish road late evening, and there was NOTHING on either side other than fields, and trees, NO houses anything.

 

Something came down, bounced off the road and back up about the size of a small UK football, wondered to this day what it was.

This almost perfectly describes an owl snatching a mouse off the road. I've seen it a few times. 

 

Exactly.  Seen it too.



#67 SeaBee1

SeaBee1

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,257
  • Joined: 19 Mar 2015
  • Loc: Under the DFW light barrier

Posted 29 December 2017 - 06:09 PM

*SNIP*

 

So "if" an observation yields results that categorize it as an "unknown", and if intelligent activity is considered in the mix, then you are hosed as far as statistics goes (think presidential elections as an example lol.gif ).  And further, even if a probability is assignable, if the odds are 1:10,000,000 that it is an "alien", it could still very well be an alien!  You just have no way of knowing.  So in the end, odds are not very useful.  They may make you feel secure, but in reality they bring no security with them.  Super rare things happen all the time...ask any of the hundreds to thousands of lottery winners who won even though their odds were 1:175,000,000. 

 

 

I am not sure we can throw intelligence into the mix when considering presidential elections... or maybe that is what you meant... grin.gif


  • DoctorNoodle likes this

#68 North of Sixty

North of Sixty

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,136
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2015
  • Loc: Yukon

Posted 29 December 2017 - 06:13 PM

Ya gotta love CN for bringing out one's inner geek. My friends are going out ice fishing and drinking a few beers but I declined so I can give myself a crash course on Bayesian stats. 


  • Vesper818, JohnMurphyRN, areyoukiddingme and 1 other like this

#69 JohnMurphyRN

JohnMurphyRN

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 734
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2012
  • Loc: Dark Sky

Posted 29 December 2017 - 07:26 PM

Ok, seems that I should be clear about what prior probabilities are and how they are actually useful despite being ball-park estimates.

 

Bayesian stats are not intuitive, but it is very useful even with the necessary problem of estimating prior probabilities.

 

Here's a nice explanation of how impoverished data can be used to generate very interesting predictions about aliens:

 

https://youtu.be/KRGca_Ya6OM

 

And this is an excellent overview of Bayes theorem:

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=R13BD8qKeTg

But it's a black swan. Extrapolation from previous experience with white swans will never predict a black one. Until you see one...


  • StarChaser55 likes this

#70 BillP

BillP

    ISS

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 21,589
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 29 December 2017 - 07:34 PM

 

*SNIP*

 

So "if" an observation yields results that categorize it as an "unknown", and if intelligent activity is considered in the mix, then you are hosed as far as statistics goes (think presidential elections as an example lol.gif ).  And further, even if a probability is assignable, if the odds are 1:10,000,000 that it is an "alien", it could still very well be an alien!  You just have no way of knowing.  So in the end, odds are not very useful.  They may make you feel secure, but in reality they bring no security with them.  Super rare things happen all the time...ask any of the hundreds to thousands of lottery winners who won even though their odds were 1:175,000,000. 

 

 

I am not sure we can throw intelligence into the mix when considering presidential elections... or maybe that is what you meant... grin.gif

 

 

lol.gif   OK....purposeful manipulation then.  In any event, when one has to resort to "probabilities" to explain anything, all it means is that they do not fully understand the process and what is going on so they have to resort to statistics to be predictive. 


  • SeaBee1 likes this

#71 NEOhio

NEOhio

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,062
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2016
  • Loc: Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Posted 29 December 2017 - 07:39 PM

Was listening to a radio program (ok, it might have been Coast to Coast AM) in which a college professor/UFO proponent was being interviewed. He was asked the classic question: With so many cellphones out there nowadays, why do we still get nothing but blurry photos?

 

His answer: Walk around the quad on campus. Every single student is looking down and texting. The mothership from Independence Day could do a low pass over the quad, and no one would notice, much less interrupt texting to shoot a photograph.

 

Gotta admit, he has a point. 


  • CCD-Freak, StarChaser55 and Conaxian like this

#72 grif 678

grif 678

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,447
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2010
  • Loc: NC

Posted 29 December 2017 - 08:01 PM

I like this topic, because the unknown about UFO's back in the 50's and 60's is one thing that got me interested in astronomy. Watching the old Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers movies, with the space ships that spit out sparks, me and my Gilbert telescope, I use to spend hours trying to see a space ship.


  • StarChaser55 and SeaBee1 like this

#73 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,999
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 29 December 2017 - 08:01 PM

 

Ok, seems that I should be clear about what prior probabilities are and how they are actually useful despite being ball-park estimates.

 

Bayesian stats are not intuitive, but it is very useful even with the necessary problem of estimating prior probabilities.

 

Here's a nice explanation of how impoverished data can be used to generate very interesting predictions about aliens:

 

https://youtu.be/KRGca_Ya6OM

 

And this is an excellent overview of Bayes theorem:

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=R13BD8qKeTg

But it's a black swan. Extrapolation from previous experience with white swans will never predict a black one. Until you see one...

 

Sure, aliens being the black swans. . . But there's nothing you can do with that scientifically except reserve judgment.

 

But I think we can do more than that, b/c: 1. we can assign higher probabilities to not-aliens than aliens so far as there being evidence for alien spacecraft visiting Earth (I think the opposite for there being aliens); and 2. even though we do not have full information, we can still generate interesting predictions with less than full information, especially when there's some physics involved.

 

Indeed, the link I supplied did that to generate predictions about the configurations of aliens and their size.

 

And of course the Drake equation does this too.

 

Lots of error is involved, but we can generate information about ball park likelihoods. Lots of noise, but some signal too.


  • JohnMurphyRN and StarChaser55 like this

#74 BillP

BillP

    ISS

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 21,589
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 29 December 2017 - 08:32 PM

Sure, aliens being the black swans. . . But there's nothing you can do with that scientifically except reserve judgment.

 

But I think we can do more than that, b/c: 1. we can assign higher probabilities to not-aliens than aliens so far as there being evidence for alien spacecraft visiting Earth (I think the opposite for there being aliens); and 2. even though we do not have full information, we can still generate interesting predictions with less than full information, especially when there's some physics involved.

 

Indeed, the link I supplied did that to generate predictions about the configurations of aliens and their size.

 

And of course the Drake equation does this too.

 

Lots of error is involved, but we can generate information about ball park likelihoods. Lots of noise, but some signal too.

 

 

But "likelihoods" are not actual data!  They are just predictions and not reality.  The "identification" of an "unidentified" is not determined statistically, but via "proof".  Statistics provide zero proof, only a likelihood that is tied to the appropriateness of their process and population, which both can have unknown flaws in them.  So that is the most important take away, whether something is likely or not likely statistically does not determine what the outcome will actually be. 

 

I saw a funny cartoon once about all this.  It showed a person being arrested and taken from an aircraft because he had a bomb with him.  He was a statistician and when asked why he had a bomb his reply was: "I am afraid of flying and wanted to ensure my flight went without any terrorist incident.  Since it is so statistically rare that a plane ever went down from two different bombs being carried on board, I decided that if I took a bomb with me then the chances would be greatly reduced that anything would happen." lol.gif


Edited by BillP, 29 December 2017 - 08:33 PM.

  • walt99, JohnMurphyRN and StarChaser55 like this

#75 bobito

bobito

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,934
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Litchfield County, CT

Posted 29 December 2017 - 08:48 PM

 

It seems that with the thousands (perhaps million?) of hours of acquisition done for astro photography over the last few decades someone would have captured a compelling image of an alien craft should they be out there.

 

But I'm sure lots of people have seen UFOs, yes.

 

Bob

I'd like to make one point that seems to be lost on some. (Not directing it at you bobito).

When observing through a telescope, or taking a picture of the sky, at most, we are viewing what, 2 degrees?

There is a lot of sky we are not looking at when viewing through an optical enhancement device.

The times I have seen something strange, a friend has been observing with me, and they are at the eyepiece when I am looking up.  Heck, I missed the bright green boldie of a lifetime because my eyeball was in an eyepiece, and all I caught was the bright green flash behind me while my friend reveled in the full view.

 

As to seeing odd things, yes.  When "satellites" make wild course corrections while pursuing each other, hooking a full 170 degrees (wasn't full turn around) while 2 other satellites are in hot pursuit, that is something I cannot identify, and categorize it as an unidentified flying object.

 

I have anecdotal evidence to support my theory.  I've only been observing for 5 years, and one night viewing the moon a plane flew through my FOV.  That was at over 300x, so tiny FOV.  I'm not the most diligent of amateur astronomers, and usually don't go out when the moon is up, so I've probably looked at the Moon a couple dozen times.

 

On another occasion, a friend was viewing with me and had the same thing happen while viewing a DSO (Don't recall which one). Would have been a wider FOV that time, but the SCT we were using has a max FOV of less than 1 degree of sky.

 

So that's just my experience, and the amount of time eyes have been peering through my scopes in total is likely covered in one night by astro photographers around the globe.




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: observatory, observing report, observing



Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics