Ufo sighting + picture [Archive]

JAMIE1

Jan2-09, 08:19 PM

Hello everyone.

I am very interested in anything to do with Space, Nature and the Universe. I have just got a new Canon 1000D and am starting to do some Astrophotography. I am subscribed to the Sky at Night magazine and read as much as I can.

I became interested in UFOs when watching a meteor shower I saw something strange. I was watching what I thought was a Satellite moving along above me when it stopped dead and started moving in the opposite direction, only a short distance, and then stopped again and started moving the same way it was to begin with. I don't know if this was just my eyes messing with me or the object did what I think it did but I started reading and watching everything I could about UFOs.
A few years later I had to look after my Uncles house in a village just outside of the town I live in which is in Lincolnshire England. Me and my brothers were in my Uncles paddock one evening and saw 2 white objects moving across the fields in front of us. One object was bigger than the other, both were round and white like a bolt of lightning, not an object painted white or an object with a white light on it. These looked like a bolt of lightning does, that kind of light. There was no clouds or wind that night. We have never seen anything before that looked like these objects. The sighting lasted a few minutes.
Because of this sighting, and the fact we had a couple of nights left to look after my uncles house, we decided to borrow my dads digital camera just in case we saw anything else. The next night we were outside with the camera, it was a clear night with no wind and my brothers were taking pictures and geting the typical Orbs in them which are mostly caused by moisture and dust, later that night there was an intense fog and we think the moisture in the air caused the Orbs in the photos we got. After being outside for a while we saw something coming towards us flashing a bright white light. The object was round, silent and moving slowly and we got a picture of it as it was overhead. As we got the picture of it we noticed another one coming which was identical to the first. As this second object was overhead we noticed a smaller white object travelling with it that wasn't flashing and we took a picture. The way the bigger objects would flash was that the entire object would flash a white light, the light would decrease and go out, then the light would increase and flash and keep doing this. It was only after we saw these objects that we realized how strange they were. There was no wind so they couldn't be balloons, at least we have never seen balloons like them before or since. They were quite low in the sky and they didn't make any noise.
This happened some time in August 2003 and we only started trying to find out what these objects were quite recently. I have been in touch with Timothy Good, one of the worlds most well known UFO researchers, he seemed like a very busy man but was helpful, I sent him the pictures we got and basically, he didn't know what the objects are and recommended I get in touch with Nick Pope, Nick used to work at the Ministry of Defence in the U.K investigating UFOs. I got in touch with Nick who also didn't know what the objects were, he also seemed busy but was helpful, and said that he wasn't in a position where he could find this out but that I should send the pictures and my UFO sighting report to the Ministry of Defence and also a UFO research organisation, BUFORA. I got a letter from the MOD saying they don't investigate all UFO reports, they only see if there was any evidence of a threat, they remain open minded about UFOs and that they would file away my report and pictures. I have got to print off a report form from BUFORA, I don't have a printer so this is taking me a while but I have sent them my pictures. I have also sent my pictures and report to MUFON in the U.S and they are looking at my sighting now, they seemed to have trouble finding my report as they said they get about 600 reports a month!
I still don't really have any idea what the objects we saw at my uncles house were because I don't know anything that fits with the way the objects looked and moved.

Please have a look at the picture I have attached to this thread. The object in the middle of the picture was flashing a bright white light, you can see the light around the object. To the lower left of the picture is the smaller object that wasn't flashing. Both objects were travelling towards the house in the picture. Becasue of the camera settings at the time the pictures were taken, the picture appears quite dark so when I look at them I use Autobalance to brighten them up a bit, but I have left the picture the way it is for you lot to see. There probably is a rational explanation for the objects but I can't think of one and haven't heard one yet so please tell me if you think you know what these objects could be.
I've only just found this forum and had a quick look at the kind of responses people have been giving about the UFO subject and from what I have seen I am very impressed by the serious comments. Keep it up!

Thanks

All the best

Jamie

http://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17045&stc=1&d=1230945502

Ivan Seeking

Jan2-09, 11:52 PM

By chance did this occur near an agricultural area?

I just checked Google Earth and that would appear to be the case. What do they grow around there?

Thanks for sharing your story, Jamie.

heldervelez

Jan3-09, 07:20 AM

In the photo connect with a line the two 'objects'.
With a map and/or compass can you tell what is the direction of the line?
Is it in aprox. direction of Iceland? or aprox. Ipswich?

JAMIE1

Jan3-09, 01:31 PM

Thanks very much for replying to my thread.

Yes, to one side of my uncles house is a small warehouse where tractors and machinery is kept. The village itself is surrounded by fields, the fields nearest to my uncles house mainly grow wheat I think.

I'm just looking on Google Earth and if you take the Swarby road into Culverthorpe and then turn left, or down looking on google when you enter the village there is a bus shelter. On google earth there's 2 signs that are marked and when you touch it says Transportdirect.info, look at the first sign you come to. To the right of this sign is a drive way and my uncles house is the one at the end of this drive way, or the second house in. The object's in the picture were travelling towards the house from below.

Please can you explain your questions to me.

Thanks for the help.

Jamie

russ_watters

Jan3-09, 07:03 PM

Your description of the objects in the photo is consistent with airplanes. Why do you believe they were not?

That said, the one in the center sure looks like a lens flare to me.

Upping the brightness using the "curves" function of photoshop, I see a number of lens flares of similar size to the "object" in the center and I see a number of stars that are indistinguishable from the object in the lower left. This looks to me like a rather mundane photo of the night sky.

I've attached my enhancement. I could do a lot more with the original - this was pretty noisy - but I don't see anything in the photo that is very interesting, so I don't think much can be gained by further enhancement.

It is quite likely that if you have spent a great deal of time looking at the night sky over the past decade or two that you have seen some things that are outside of peoples' normal perceptions. I once by accident took a recognizable photo of the tail of an airplane at 100x magnification! I also capture satellites, meteors, etc. I have not yet been lucky enough to capture something as exciting as spacecraft (besides a satellite). But here's a neat one of a booster burning up. It looked like a bright light that slowly grew and moved across the sky. This is a 30 min exposure of it, taken accidentally in what became a pretty famous photo: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070222.html

Ivan Seeking

Jan3-09, 07:11 PM

Your description of the objects in the photo is consistent with airplanes. Why do you believe they were not?

That said, the one in the center sure looks like a lens flare to me.

Why would you assume that it's a lens flare when he said that he took a picture of something seen in the sky?

russ_watters

Jan3-09, 07:23 PM

Why would you assume that it's a lens flare when he said that he took a picture of something seen in the sky? I didn't say it is a lens flare, I said it looks like a lens flare. What are you assuming?

We have very little to go on here, Ivan. Eyewitness accounts are tough to deal with and I'm more likely to trust the actual evidence than eyewitness accounts. You know this.

russ_watters

Jan3-09, 07:32 PM

....Looking again and thinking about it more, I think I misinterpreted what I'm seeing. The small points of light probably aren't stars, they are probably popped pixels and what I said looked like lens flares is probably out of focus stars.

I think this because the building in the photo is in focus and it would be virtually impossible for both the building and the sky to be in focus at the same time. What that makes the other bright object (which is in focus), I don't know.

The object in the center - if it really was flashing, it could be any one of several common flashing objects: an airplane, a tumbling satellite, a firefly. We really have virtually nothing of value here with which to identify it.

JAMIE1

Jan3-09, 08:06 PM

Thanks for all the comments.

Please read my first thread again.

We saw 2 round objects that were flashing a bright white light and 1 smaller object that remained the same brightness. All objects were moving slowly without making a sound, all objects were at a low height in the sky.

Orbs that appear in pictures and are caused by dust and moisture appeared in the pictures taken that night and are most likely caused by moisture in the air, there was an intense fog later that night.

The objects in the pictures look the same as they did when we saw them. They are not airplanes! They are not satellites, fireflies, lens flare or out of focus stars.

Thanks very much for the help.

Jamie

Ivan Seeking

Jan3-09, 10:01 PM

Russ makes the point that we always assume the possiblity that any eyewitness account could be erroneous or a complete fabrication. As stated in the posting guidelines, we make this assumption without constant reminding. Also, in some cases we do debunk false claims. However, we also invite you to share your sincere accounts of seemingly unusual events or observations. Given this, it makes sense to offer any possible explanation that we can for the events as described.

Staying within the bounds of what is considered accepted science, the following post offers a few references to ball lightning phenomena that could be consistent with your observations. Not saying it is, but it is one possiblity.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2021507&posted=1#post2021507

Having not checked a map, I suspect that heldervelez was trying to ascertain if the orbs followed the magnetic field lines of the earth as this has been suggested to be true of ball lightning in some cases.

I have a personal hunch that ball lightning, or something that appears to be similar to ball lighting, can occur naturally over wheat and grass fields in particular, and perhaps with other crops as well. I also have some ideas about how and why this might happen. [August would be a good month. Had the fields been harvested yet?] But this is not a formal theory of mine or anything so grandios; it is something that is suggested by a class of the many thousands of UFO reports that I've read. But, since we don't yet understand ball lightning or how it might occur, at this time there is no way to relate this hunch to a formal model.

JAMIE1

Jan4-09, 08:26 AM

Thanks very much for the comments Ivan and the great links.

One of my main hobbies is to watch Thunderstorms. I watch, record and collect severe weather documentaries, storm chasing and hurricane footage. I personally would be really happy if I saw ball lightning. I must have watched hundreds of storms over the years and I have never seen ball lightning before, so to see 3 in one night from a clear sky would be awesome!
However, the objects we saw that night moved in a straight line at the same height. The objects kept the same slow speed. The 2 flashing objects would slowly, constantly flash a bright white light that covered the entire object, the light would then decrease and go out, then the light would increase in brightness and flash again which happened at a regular period of time. The sighting lasted at least 5 minutes. I don't think Ball lightning is what we saw that night and by the way the objects looked and moved that they were controlled devices/machines of some kind.
I checked with some other picture's taken at the time we were at my uncle's house and the fields were still full of wheat.

Please keep the comments coming. I am sincere and really want to know what the objects are that we saw that night.

Thanks for the help

All the best

Jamie

DaveC426913

Jan4-09, 09:12 AM

We saw 2 round objects that were flashing a bright white light and 1 smaller object that remained the same brightness. All objects were moving slowly without making a sound, all objects were at a low height in the sky.
How could you possibly know their height? (Or do you mean low height wrt the horizon?)

The objects in the pictures look the same as they did when we saw them. They are not airplanes! They are not satellites, fireflies, lens flare or out of focus stars.How can you know they are not airplanes or satellites? It's not so much that I'm doubting your judgement on it; it's the implication that there's more that you know about the objects that you haven't said. What rules these things out?

JAMIE1

Jan4-09, 09:44 AM

Ivan Seeking

Jan4-09, 11:50 PM

However, the objects we saw that night moved in a straight line at the same height. The objects kept the same slow speed. The 2 flashing objects would slowly, constantly flash a bright white light that covered the entire object, the light would then decrease and go out, then the light would increase in brightness and flash again which happened at a regular period of time. The sighting lasted at least 5 minutes. I don't think Ball lightning is what we saw that night and by the way the objects looked and moved that they were controlled devices/machines of some kind.

From my point of view, nothing that you have said here rules out a natural phenomena like ball lightning. There is some video of "UFOs" over Gulf Breeze, Florida, that shows what almost certainly is a natural phenomena that involved flashing and pulsating lights.
This is an excerpt that was easily found.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08s2Bhh_tlE&feature=related
I have seen similar videos taken in the Mt Adams area, in the NW. Also, since we don't understand the physics of BL, there is no way to predict the behavior that might be observed under various circumstances.

I checked with some other picture's taken at the time we were at my uncle's house and the fields were still full of wheat.

Late summer before the harvest is the right time. Thanks.

Consider that there are other reported phenomena that may or may not be related to ball lightning. This is a particularly interesting account:

"Fireballs a few metres in diameter often popped out of the ground in a repetitive manner at distances of up to only a few metres away from the observers. Others were seen several hundred metres up in the sky, stationary or moving. Some observers described dripping luminescent droplets, rapidly disappearing a few metres under the stationary fireballs. Only two fire-tongues on the ground were reported, one on snow and the other on a paved parking space without any apparent surface fissure. The colours most often identified were orange, yellow, white and green. Some luminosities lasted up to 12 min."
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074g14.htm
Ouellet, Marcel; "Earthquake Lights and Seismicity," Nature, 348:492, 1990.

DaveC426913

Jan5-09, 09:41 AM

I would say ball lightning is a pretty fantastic explanation in and of itself.

JAMIE1

Jan5-09, 10:40 AM

Thank you so much everyone for putting your time into this. I am completely sincere and want to find out what the objects are that we saw.

I love the fact there are things like Ball lightning, earth lights, Sprites and Jets seen in Thunderstorms that we know so little about. Thanks for all the great links. I have read about these phenomena before from reading about UFOs and from my interest in severe weather and thunderstorms. You have reminded me about the Hessdalen lights www.hessdalen.org
I have seen the youtube footage before and have seen Ball lightning footage taken in India before, very interesting.

The object in the middle of my picture isn't a light, its an object which when it flashed was covered in light, you can see the light around the object. It could just appear that way. I wonder if there was any earthquake activity in the area at the time, I will see if I can find this out.

To watch these objects, everything about them looked controlled. They were travelling at the same height and in a straight line. The objects that were flashing flashed at a regular period of time. They were moving steady and slowly. They didn't make a sound, no hissing or crackling. There was no wind that night, the skies were crystal clear and it was quiet, its a small village area and is generally quiet. These objects could be natural but there appeared to be nothing natural about them.

For me to see 3 Ball lightning, 2 of which were flashing, in 1 night would be fantastic! Unfortunately I don't think we saw Ball lightning, but I admit this could be wrong considering what little we know about the phenomena.

I am going to send the pictures to any Ball lightning experts that I can and see what they think, I didn't do this before because the way the objects looked and moved didn't look natural at all. Please can you lot give me any advice if you think you know a good place to send my picture and report, feel free to do this yourself.

Thanks for all the help and please keep commenting.

All the best

Jamie

Ivan Seeking

Jan5-09, 10:42 AM

I would say ball lightning is a pretty fantastic explanation in and of itself.

Why?

DaveC426913

Jan5-09, 12:34 PM

Why?I guess because I put it in the rather broad range between The Mundane and The Loch Ness Monster. It's been witnessed, sure, but it's so rare and hard-to-pin-down that I wouldn't consider it as the 'default' merely because it can't be ruled out. For me, ball lightning is still just too 'out there'.

Season and geographical location aside, do they float around over houses?

Ivan Seeking

Jan5-09, 12:49 PM

I guess because I put it in the rather broad range between The Mundane and The Loch Ness Monster. It's been witnessed, sure, but it's so rare and hard-to-pin-down that I wouldn't consider it as the 'default' merely because it can't be ruled out. For me, ball lightning is still just too 'out there'.

Ball lightning is by all or most accounts known to exist, as are earthlights. There may be other related phenomena as well. The report offered here is fairly consistent with many ball lightning reports, so BL or earthlights certainly qualify for consideration. However, as stated, this is only one possible explanation. I didn't say anything about a default. In fact I don't think there is such a thing as a "default". Unless someone can provide a clearly definitive answer, which does not appear possible in this case, we can only offer potential explanations.

Season and geographical location aside, do they float around over houses?

Sure. There was even a house in Japan that had its roof half destroyed by ball lightning. And while generally associated with lightning strikes, this is not always the case. The links posted above [posts 10 + 14] offer many more links and plenty of detailed discussion.

JAMIE1

Jan5-09, 03:41 PM

Thanks everyone for the comments.

I have decided to post the first picture we took of the first object we saw. The object would flash, the light would decrease and go out, then the light would increase and flash and keep doing this at a regular period of time. We took this picture when the light on the object had gone out so its hard to see it. If you look at the little open window, make a line from the middle of it down about an inche and there is the object. You need to brighten up the picture to see the object better and when you do you will see more Orbs which as I said are probably caused by the moisture in the air. I didn't post this picture before because I thought the other one was the best, there is 2 objects that you can see well, and we saw them after the object in this picture.

Thinking about the Ball lightning explanation and earth lights, would it be possible to see the phenomena's as an object without light or as an object with light around itself instead of just a light?

Thanks everyone for the help

All the best

Jamie

http://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17082&stc=1&d=1231187836

phlegmy

Jan5-09, 07:00 PM

hi there jamie,

this isnt my field at all but i had a look at your pictures,

in the second one (the one just above this post) you say there are two mysterious objects:
i can see one clearly, which looks like th object in the first picture,

i can also see a much fainter "ball" of light above this and to the right, very close to the eve of the roof: i zoomed in and it appears to me as if the circle of light is present in the near feild, i.e. it appears to be infront of the guttering on the roof, just near its outer edge,

my very un-expert opinion is that whats turning up in the picture is a camera effect, deliberate or otherwise.
i know you say that you saw theese particular objects with your own eyes, so unless your mistaken i am wrong. :D

interesting none the less

JAMIE1

Jan5-09, 07:22 PM

Thanks for the comments phlegmy.

The picture in my last post is of 1 flashing object. You can see Orbs in the picture which are most likely caused by the moisture in the air, there was an intense fog later that night. You can see through them, we didn't see any of them at the time, we did see the 2 flashing objects and the small white one. In the picture on my first post on this thread is 2 objects, 1 flashing which is in the middle of the picture and a smaller object which wasn't flashing at the lower left of the picture. In the picture in my last post before yours is 1 flashing object which is about an inche below the centre of the small open window.

Thanks for the help

All the best

Jamie

russ_watters

Jan5-09, 07:31 PM

Thanks for the comments Dave.

Yes. We first saw the objects coming towards us so could see how high they were against the horizon, the objects came directly above us moving slowly so we could see that they were quite low in the sky.

The objects were low in the sky so couldn't have been satellites. The objects were round and didn't have wings or a tail like a plane would have. The objects were silent, planes are not. The objects in the picture look like they did when we saw them.

The objects are not planes or satellites. Your description and the picture do not rule out airplanes and most certainly contains inaccuracies. As pointed out, seeing the angle of something against the horizon gives you no information whatsoever about the actual altitude of the object. There are two ways you could estimate the altitude:

1. If you see an object of known size, you can estimate the height based on how big it looks. This, of course, is imperfect as often things like airplanes look similar even if they are different sizes. As a result, people often overestimate the altitude of small planes and underestimate the altitude of large ones.

2. You could view the object passing in front of another object and know it is closer than that object.

Your description provides neither of these.

If the flashing was an extreme change in brightness, it may rule out spinning satellites.

Please understand: I'm trying to help figure out what you saw, but I am highly skeptical of eyewitness accounts because they are very frequently unreliable. And it isn't because people are dishonest, they just don't know what they are seeing and don't know how to report it. People don't say what they saw they say what they think they saw. You think you saw lights moving low across the sky when what you actually saw is lights moving across the sky. You are providing an interpretation of your observation, not the observation itself.

Almost every time we get a thread like this, the poster makes an error in interpreting either/both the height and the size of the object. You have made both.

russ_watters

Jan5-09, 07:39 PM

I have decided to post the first picture we took of the first object we saw. Brightness enhanced, attached.

JAMIE1

Jan5-09, 08:04 PM

Thanks for the comments and help russ.

We saw these objects for at least 5 minutes, moving slowly and approaching from behind us and travelling directly above us and we have the pictures of the objects. Plane engines make noise and can be heard for miles, the objects we saw were silent. How can you explain that?

Why would all 3 of us be mistaken? Why would the picture's confirm exactly what we saw, round objects with no wings or tails at a low height in the sky?

I want to figure out what we saw. We live in Lincolnshire, within 15 miles of Cranwell. We often see planes at night and are used to seeing them. I completely disagree with your theory that what we saw was planes.

Please keep posting russ and thanks for the help.

All the best

Jamie

russ_watters

Jan5-09, 08:24 PM

We saw these objects for at least 5 minutes, moving slowly and approaching from behind us and travelling directly above us and we have the pictures of the objects. Plane engines make noise and can be heard for miles, the objects we saw were silent. How can you explain that? Yes, they can be heard for miles. So if they are miles high, they can't be heard and take several minutes to traverse the sky. Sounds consistent with airplanes to me. Why would all 3 of us be mistaken? Because you saw the same thing and made the same misinterpretations. These misinterpretations are extremely common. Even experienced pilots make depth perception errors at night. Before instrument landings were mandatory and runways had modern markings, there were problems with pilots flying airplanes into the ground when trying to land on clear nights.

Our brains are hard wired to make the errors you made. Why would the picture's confirm exactly what we saw, round objects with no wings or tails at a low height in the sky? The pictures do not confirm your interpretation. There is one "small" bright light that completely saturates the pixels it covers, making a size determination impossible. It is, for all intents and purposes, a bright point source of light. Mistaking bright points of light for objects with size is very common. We get photos of fire ballons in here occasionally, for example.

The other light seen in the picture appears the same as the other out of focus objects in the frame. Given your propensity for misinterpretation, I'm not inclined to accept that it appeared to your eyes exactly as it appears in the photo. It may not even really be there: it could be a lens flare caused by the other bright light. However, it is also possible that we are coincidentally seeing two separate phenomena: an airplane being one. The other - I'm not very clear on the conditions necessary for ball lightning, but there are other possibilities.

To put it more simply: the photo contradicts your account and I'm more likely to accept the photo. The photo is hard evidence.

One thing that would be very helpful, since we know nothing about the camera: try to duplicate the photo during the day. Then you'll know if it is possible to have the building and objects in the sky in focus at the same time.

DaveC426913

Jan5-09, 11:22 PM

One thing that would be very helpful, since we know nothing about the camera: try to duplicate the photo during the day. Then you'll know if it is possible to have the building and objects in the sky in focus at the same time.

That won't work. During the day, the f-stop will be way down, putting everything between a few feet and infinity in focus.

We are all agreeing that almost (not all, but almost all) all the large circular objects in the photo are probably reflections off drops of mist, right? Those aren't being contested are they?

JAMIE1

Jan7-09, 08:41 PM

Thanks so much everyone for all the comments and the interest. I put the picture's on here because the subject matter of UFOs seems to be taken alot more seriously than other places I have seen.

I completely agree that I could be mistaken for misinterpreting the objects we saw and that my explanation may not be accurate.

Talking about engine noise from planes being heard for miles with regard to the objects we saw being silent :

"Yes, they can be heard for miles. So if they are miles high, they can't be heard"

Isn't this a bit of a contradiction? Do you mean something else russ?

Talking about the small white round object in the first picture I posted on here :

"There is one "small" bright light that completely saturates the pixels it covers, making a size determination impossible. It is, for all intents and purposes, a bright point source of light. Mistaking bright points of light for objects with size is very common. We get photos of fire ballons in here occasionally, for example."

Yes it is small, it looked small at the time and it does in the picture. If it was a big object at a high altitude it still looked small at the time and does in the picture. If it was a small but bright object at high altitude it looked small at the time and does in the picture. It isn't a square or triangle shape and it looked round when I saw it, I thought saying a round shape would best describe it. Hence me saying I saw a small round white object.

The object in the middle of the picture is round like the Orbs in the picture. You can't see through the object because its a solid object. You can see through the Orbs because they are not solid objects. They appeared in most of the picture's taken that night and are probably caused by moisture in the air. The object's would flash, the light would decrease and go out, then it would increase and flash again, you can see the white light surrounding the object.

I have sent e-mails with the picture's to about 20 of the places on this list http://ae.nsstc.uah.edu/AE/addresses.html Ball lightning wasn't what we saw according to the people who I have heard back from because of the fact the objects were seen in a clear sky with no thunderstorm activity and the amount of time we saw the objects rules out Ball lightning. I haven't heard back from everyone I sent e-mails to so they could have different opinions on what the objects could be, maybe some earth lights or something like that is still a small possibility.

I went out last night to try do some Astrophotography, the sky was crystal clear(not for long though unfortunately) I saw a plane high up in the sky flashing away and leaving a contrail, it was damn noisy too. It took me about 3 seconds to see it was high up and was a plane, never mind at least 5 minutes. It made me laugh thinking about this thread!

If we were mistaken for what the objects looked, moved like and the height they travelled, nobody knows for sure what the exact size, speed, height and identity of the objects we saw that night were so any comments from anyone that wasn't there that we are mistaken is quite amusing to me! I was expecting this though and thats fine and I would still like any comments from people even if they think me and my brothers COULD be mistaken and have misinterpreted what we saw.

Attached is a picture which is an 18 - 5 second exposure's stacked together wide shot of Orion. I had to resize it alot so hopefully it won't look too bad.

Thanks everyone and please keep commenting.

All the best

Jamie

http://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17110&stc=1&d=1231378335

DaveC426913

Jan7-09, 11:47 PM

The object would flash, the light would decrease and go out, then the light would increase and flash and keep doing this at a regular period of time.
This description is not inconsistent with a helicopter using its searchlight. I see this kind of thing a lot, living in a big city, and its still seems freaky. The light goes from very bright to almost invisible as the searchlight is panned about. Sometimes they stop in a spot, or move about slowly, if they're scanning an accident on the ground. They could be miles away -those serachlights are very bright and very focused. There's no way you'd hear them. Ruling out airborne vehicles based on lack of noise is really risky. There are lots of reasons why engine noise is lost over distance.

Ivan Seeking

Jan8-09, 12:08 AM

If we were mistaken for what the objects looked, moved like and the height they travelled, nobody knows for sure what the exact size, speed, height and identity of the objects we saw that night were so any comments from anyone that wasn't there that we are mistaken is quite amusing to me! I was expecting this though and thats fine and I would still like any comments from people even if they think me and my brothers COULD be mistaken and have misinterpreted what we saw.

We can only offer potential conventional explanations for what you saw. Anything beyond that would be inappropriate for this forum.

JAMIE1

Jan8-09, 12:51 PM

Thanks very much for your comments and ideas.

I completely agree Dave and Ivan, in fact I think airbourne vehicle's of some kind is a better explanation than some natural phenomena such as Ball lightning and Earth lights. Even though I've never seen a helicopter search light regularly flashing like the 2 objects we saw and not see any search light beam, and can't think of a time I have seen a Helicopter and not heard some noise from it, thats a good idea. Thanks very much for that. Please could you describe the many reasons why engine noise is lost over distance so I have a better understanding about this.

Thanks again and all the very best

Jamie

Ivan Seeking

Jan8-09, 06:57 PM

Alright, Jamie, you have taken this stunt far enough!

LINCOLN, England, Jan. 8 (UPI) -- Residents of a British town said a wind turbine that lost one of its 65-foot-long blades was hit by what appeared to be a UFO.

Some residents of Conisholme, England, reported lights in the sky and a loud noise at about 4 a.m. Sunday and the turbine was discovered later in the morning with one of its blades ripped off and another blade twisted, The Daily Mail reported Thursday...
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/01/08/Locals_blame_wind_turbine_damage_on_UFO/UPI-57451231453158/

That is very near your uncle's house, isn't it?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

JAMIE1

Jan8-09, 07:09 PM

Good one Ivan! he he he he

That UFO would be the one me and my brothers misinterpreted as being low when it was in fact miles high in the sky which is why we didn't hear it!!!!!

Thanks for the link I'll have a look.

Watched a report about the sighting on the channel 4 news a couple of hours ago and surprise surprise they played the x-files music.

The truth is out there........!

Cheers Ivan

Ivan Seeking

Jan8-09, 07:24 PM

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Note that no one actually saw the reported UFO hit the turbine; at least it hasn't been reported as such yet.
:biggrin:

JAMIE1

Jan8-09, 07:29 PM

The report about it on the news was very brief but you did hear a bit about what the UFO looked like. I think a girl who saw it said it looked like a jellyfish with tenticles which touched the ground!!!!

Makes my sighting sound very boring!:grumpy:

Ivan Seeking

Jan8-09, 07:31 PM

I don't suppose they are reeeeeeally late in harvesting the wheat this year? :uhh:

JAMIE1

Jan8-09, 07:45 PM

Ahh, that could be why UFOs from other worlds are visiting us. To harvest our wheat!

Ivan Seeking

Jan10-09, 02:23 AM

...Those mysterious lights were actually the fireworks Emily's brother Tim had bought at the local garden centre for the 80th birthday party of dad Peter Bell. "It was a medium-sized fireworks display with absolutely no ballistics, and the fireworks were mostly dropping over my parents' house. But we were laughing that we could have broken the wind turbine," jested Emily...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2009/jan/08/windpower-thesun

JAMIE1

Jan10-09, 10:13 AM

Thanks for the link Ivan.
Thats basically what I was reading yesterday. It was interesting to read in the paper that someone in the Ministry Of Defence was saying that they have been testing new stealth aircraft around Lincolnshire for a while now which has caused people to report seeing flying triangles, I don't know if this is true but I think people are mean't to have been seeing things in that area for the last few months. Nick Pope who was in the paper and who worked at the MoDs UFO desk and who I spoke to about my own sighting said something like "these days who does not know what a firework looks like". I don't know much about this sighting, what time the firework display was happening and what time people were seeing these UFOs so can't really say much. As for the wind turbine damage, alot of what I was reading yesterday said that kind of damage happens to turbines because of mechanical problems and wouldn't need something to hit it. Just by looking at the damage it does look like something smashed into it, but its probably totally normal and nothing collided with it at all. If people had been seeing strange lights and objects in the area for a while and saw something in the direction of the wind turbine that night and heard a bang later on, seeing the damage to the turbine, I can't blame them for thinking something crashed into it.

All the best

Jamie

Ivan Seeking

Jan10-09, 12:31 PM

They were lighting fireworks at 4am?

JAMIE1

Jan10-09, 05:25 PM

Thats a good point Ivan.

I need to read more about this. It is interesting that people saw something in the area and have been for a while now. I think the MoDs response is really bleak though that they don't investigate UFO sightings unless there is some evidence of a threat. How can you say that a UFO isn't a threat when you don't know what it is. I spoke to Nick Pope about this and he gave me this link to his website http://www.nickpope.net/mod_versus_mod.htm and here is a bit from it :

Because how can you possibly say whether UFO sightings are or aren't of any "defence significance" (however you define that term) unless you investigate the sightings? The answer is simple: you can't. I'll make one small qualification here: you can, if you hide behind a negative and say "because I've seen no hard evidence of hostile intent from UFOs, they pose no threat and are therefore inherently of "no defence significance". It's a lazy get-out approach, but it has been used on occasion. However, most would agree you can't make a meaningful assessment without first undertaking some form of investigation, and this was the background to Project Condign.

There is some interesting information on his website.

All the best

Jamie

Ivan Seeking

Jan11-09, 01:32 PM

Although the UFO phenomenon has been recognized by some governments for over fifty years, that does not suggest that there has ever been evidence of a threat. If people were reporting what could be Mig jets, it would probably get the attention of the MOD. Likewise, any UFO that approaches sensitive areas or attacks in some fashion would be considered a threat. Beyond that it may be more a concern for the commercial aviation folks.

While they do acknowldege the existence of UFOs, neither the UK or the US recognizes that any UFOs are alien technology.

JAMIE1

Jan11-09, 07:00 PM

Thanks for the information Ivan :

Given the MOD's "no defence significance" conclusion on UFOs, it seems fitting to conclude with quotes from MOD documents which contradict the usual stance. In a briefing that I prepared for my Head of Division on 16 April 1993 I wrote:

"It seems that an unidentified object of unknown origin was operating in the UK Air Defence Region without being detected on radar; this would appear to be of considerable defence significance, and I recommend that we investigate further, within MOD or with the US authorities".

My Head of Division was normally sceptical about the UFO phenomenon, but on this occasion he agreed with my conclusion. His 22 April 1993 brief to the Assistant Chief of the Air Staff (one of the UK's most senior RAF officers) stated:

"In summary, there would seem to be some evidence on this occasion that an unidentified object (or objects) of unknown origin was operating over the UK."

This is about as close the MOD will ever get to saying that there's more to UFOs than misidentifications or hoaxes.

http://www.nickpope.net/cosford_incident.htm

All the best

Jamie

Ivan Seeking

Jan11-09, 11:05 PM

This is the official position of the USAF.

...As a result of these investigations, studies and experience gained from investigating UFO reports since 1948, the conclusions of Project Blue Book were:

No UFO reported, investigated and evaluated by the Air Force was ever an indication of threat to our national security;

There was no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge; and

There was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as "unidentified" were extraterrestrial vehicles.
[Note by Ivan: The chief scientist for project bluebook - Hynek - disputes this statement]

With the termination of Project Blue Book, the Air Force regulation establishing and controlling the program for investigating and analyzing UFOs was rescinded. Documentation regarding the former Blue Book investigation was permanently transferred to the Modern Military Branch, National Archives and Records Service, and is available for public review and analysis.

Since the termination of Project Blue Book, nothing has occurred that would support a resumption of UFO investigations by the Air Force. Given the current environment of steadily decreasing defense budgets, it is unlikely the Air Force would become involved in such a costly project in the foreseeable future.

There are a number of universities and professional scientific organizations that have considered UFO phenomena during periodic meetings and seminars. A list of private organizations interested in aerial phenomena may be found in "Encyclopedia of Associations," published by Gale Research. Interest in and timely review of UFO reports by private groups ensures that sound evidence is not overlooked by the scientific community. Persons wishing to report UFO sightings should be advised to contact local law enforcement agencies.
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=188

JAMIE1

Jan12-09, 05:31 PM

Thanks Ivan.

I would be surprised if the USAF or MoDs responses about the UFO subject would be anything else. It reminds me of what Nick Pope says which I quoted in my earlier post.

It is interesting when people like Hynek become convinced of the reality of UFOs and that there are cases of strange advanced "craft" seen which can't be explained. Its a possibility that the USAF and other Military around the world have made some kinds of really advanced types of aircraft, startrek style. Even this explanation doesn't sound like a good enough answer to some UFO encounters though. The thing with the UFO subject is that no matter how unlikely, its not possible to 100% rule out the E.T explanation, like its not possible to 100% confirm it.

Quote :

"What I found [in doing research for the book Project Delta] was compelling evidence to claim that most of these aerial objects far exceeded the terrestrial technology of the era in which they were seen. I was forced to conclude that there is a great likelihood that Earth is being visited by highly advanced aerospace vehicles under highly 'intelligent' control indeed."
-Dr. Richard F. Haines, retired NASA senior research scientist at Ames Research Center and the Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science where he worked on the International Space Station.--From the preface of his book, CE-5, 1998.

Dr Haines is the NARCAP Science Directer

www.narcap.org

Definitley check this website out if you haven't already.

All the best

Jamie

boit

Jan22-09, 01:06 PM

I don't want to hurt anybody's feeling. Keith Mayes of the 'theories with problems' fame has alot to say about witnesses' accounts vis a vis UFOs. Sorry I can't post links but googling the name may give you results. Science ,The universe and God is also an informative book but obviously biased to the "non believers".

JAMIE1

Jan24-09, 08:06 PM

Boit you big softy, I don't want to hurt anyones feelings either!

I'm not new to the UFO subject so people's comments like Keith Mayes aren't new to me, but nice one anyway for posting the info.

Some of what Keith says is true, some of it is a matter of opinion and some of it is funny!

There isn't 100% solid evidence of E.T spacecraft visiting us. But, there is a mass of evidence of advanced craft which people have seen for years which can easily outperform normal planes and make the space shuttle look like a fart compared to an atom bomb and this evidence is what can't be 100% ruled out as being E.T spacecraft. If anyone studies the UFO subject and doesn't come to the conclusion that there are very advanced craft being seen all over the world, then in my opinion they haven't studied enough! This is old news! I found Keiths UFO page weak and dull when in fact the UFO subject is interesting and certainly can't be explained away as easily as Keith says in his UFO page!

I highly recommend everyone to check out the NARCAP link in my last post, and Keiths UFO page, and compare them!

Thanks for the comments.

All the best

Jamie

Ivan Seeking

Jan24-09, 11:05 PM

I think you go way too far. Compelling documented encounters and plenty of anecdotal evidence, yes, but I've never seen anything that convinces me beyond any reasonable doubt that ET has been here.

Ivan Seeking

Jan25-09, 02:56 AM

Note also that you are in violation of the posting guidelines. If someone experiences some sort of dramatic event that causes them to believe that they have observed an alien spacecraft directly, they are welcome to share that opinion along with their story, but as for the rest of us:

This is not a pseudoscience forum. We survey information and consider anecdotal and scientific evidence for unusual and seemingly exotic claims, and informally we seek to make sense of what we find, but the standards for scientific evidence and inquiry still apply. Anecdotal evidence can never be taken as scientific evidence, or as proof of any claim, or as proof that a phenomenon exists.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5929

JAMIE1

Jan25-09, 12:04 PM

DaveC426913

Jan25-09, 12:51 PM

Hello Ivan.

Please explain to me how my opinion that its not possible to 100% completely rule out E.T visits has "gone way to far" because I like this forum and haven't tried to violate any rules.

Thanks
I would suggest that this
...there is a mass of evidence of advanced craft which people have seen for years which can easily outperform normal planes and make the space shuttle look like a fart compared to an atom bomb...
falls below the standard for scientific evidence.

JAMIE1

Jan25-09, 01:21 PM

Thanks dave, I'll remember not to try and have a sense of humor on this forum, and I'm not complaining, this is a great forum.

DaveC426913

Jan25-09, 02:04 PM

Thanks dave, I'll remember not to try and have a sense of humor on this forum, and I'm not complaining, this is a great forum.

It wasn't a comment on the vocabulary, it was a comment on the claim.

We do not take it as a given that there is this mass of evidence of advanced technology.

Ivan Seeking

Jan25-09, 02:04 PM

I realize that you intended no harm, but we do have to be careful that we don't cross the line and entertain unsupportable conclusions. The fact is that we don't know if ET could have been here - the laws of physics may not allow for it. So unless we see scientific evidence to support this claim, it is not going to be a point of discussion. We have the poll on this so that everyone can cast a vote.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=154990

The most important thing to remember is that we have NO known scientific evidence for visiting ETs. The most that we can say is that we can't know they haven't been here, and there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that they have been here. But we can take it no further than that.

boit

Jan26-09, 01:22 PM

To be fair to Jamie. Had it not been an exploding meteorite, the Tunguska blast of 1908 in Russia would have paled our Space shuttle had it realy been a nuclear powered space craft, a theory advanced by a Russian 'scientist'. Our African skies are clearer but unexplained aerial phenomenons are quite rare. How unfortunate. Or are we missing all this due to the clarity of the skies?

Ivan Seeking

Jan26-09, 03:30 PM

A bit about Africa
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1454.htm

boit

Jan30-09, 07:25 AM

Thank you for that informative site. Not suprising most of the UFOs sightings in Africa occured in South Africa, an economic power house in Africa. With mobile phone internet this days I would expect more reporting nowadays, unless the aliens (or their crafts) are giving us (Africans) a wide berth. What a coincidence the visitations stopped with end of colonial rule. Seems these phenomenons (visits) are directly propotional to the prevalance of inteligence/technology of the target population.

Ivan Seeking

Jan30-09, 03:03 PM

What a coincidence the visitations stopped with end of colonial rule.

Visitations? So now you're suddenly an ET believer?

How do you conclude that sightings stopped with the end of colonial rule?

Ivan Seeking

Jan30-09, 03:18 PM

With mobile phone internet this days I would expect more reporting nowadays, unless the aliens (or their crafts) are giving us (Africans) a wide berth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7hrFuE5Kd8

So now it is settled, right? A video is all it took?

Ivan Seeking

Jan31-09, 02:18 AM

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/9404/_Funny__African_UFO/

What more proof do you need? :biggrin:

boit

Jan31-09, 06:13 AM

Ivan Seeking

Jan31-09, 05:20 PM

I promised to read more and write less but broke the promise. I never said I believe in the said visitations. I guess I should have put those words in quotes. The author of that site had insunated that fewer/no cases gets reported due to lack of ICT. I'll be suprised if you didn't suspect any sarcasm in my words.

ICT? Also, I know you were being sarcastic, as I was in return. :biggrin: Unfortunately it is virtually impossible to separate the public sources of information from the true believers. However, with so many countries releasing their military UFO achives, it wouldn't be surprising to see some African countries do the same.

How did I conclude sighting ended with colonial rule? That's easy. I checked the dates. Many people do claim to have seen angles and demons though. These may be the only species of 'extra-terrestials' that preffer 'our' soils (actually their warped minds). I have had a nice laugh anyway.

I googled UFO africa and got 7 million hits. I didn't bother to see how far it goes, but at least the first 14 pages apply.

JAMIE1

Feb19-09, 02:57 PM

Hello everyone.

This is a bit of an update.

I have been speaking to the Image analyst at MUFON about my pictures. I managed to give him a date that we saw the objects and he was able to find out what Satellites were in the area at the time. He thought that what we saw could be Iridium flares because there was a few about on the night we saw the objects. For anyone who doesn't know, an Iridium flare is a Satellite that will appear and glow very bright and then fade out and disappear. I disagreed with him because the 2 flashing objects we saw constantly flashed a bright white light and the 1 smaller object was constantly emitting a bright white light which is different from a light from a Iridium flare appearing and getting really bright, then fading away and disappearing. I told him this and asked him to reread my sighting report which he did and he agrees with me.

Then he suggested that what we saw could have been chinese lanterns or electric powered balloons with lights on. The objects we saw couldn't be chinese lanterns, the main reasons being the bright white lights on the objects and the way they moved when there was no wind that night.

I haven't seen any electric powered balloons that match the objects we saw after looking on the Internet and nobody has suggested any that match the objects, none of the electric balloons I've seen which look like UFOs look like the objects we saw. At the bottom of my Uncles paddock are farmers fields with the nearest house in the direction the objects were coming from about 1000 feet away, beyond that is fields. Its possible, but I think its unlikely that someone would have 3 electric powered balloons which they flew over the fields, the location is such a quiet area and the sighting was late at night. I told him this and asked him to show me any electric powered balloons that match the objects we saw and I am waiting for his reply.

I will post any news I get.

All the best

Jamie

Mammo

Mar25-09, 09:33 AM

JAMIE1

Mar25-09, 09:29 PM

Mammo

Mar26-09, 11:20 AM

Hello mammo.

Thanks very much for the links. The objects me and my brothers saw were round, were moving across the sky and either remained the same brightness or flashed a bright white light so they were similar but a bit different to the objects in that footage. I am in touch with BUFORA and NUFORC and will see what they suggest about the objects we saw. I have sent the pictures to Bruce Maccabe who didn't know what the objects could be. I'm not expecting much but would like to see if they suggest something we haven't thought of and that no one else has suggested which might explain what we saw.

Interesting footage, do you know if this is still UFO footage or has it been identified?

Cheers

JamieStill unidentified as far as I know. Now that I have seen the BBC TV programme BBC Why Can't We Predict Earthquakes? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mgxf) (move slider to 40 min +) and have seen the photograph of Earthlights, I think that the Taiwan footage could be the effect produced from geological crushing of rock within magma tubes from extinct volcanoes. It just seems to fit in my opinion. The south-east asian area has an ancient history of volcanic activity. The best explanation that I can think of at the moment.

JAMIE1

Mar26-09, 01:27 PM

Mammo

Mar27-09, 07:37 AM

Hello Mammo.

I saw that program advertised but didn't watch it but I think I know what picture you mean. I think it is a black and white photo with an aura around the tops of some big mountains? Do you know if there was earthquake activity at the time of the UFO Taiwan footage? Cheers
JamieYes, the photgraph can be seen at 41 min in the above BBC link. I think that this footage is an important piece of research that should be saved and archived. Is anyone clever enough to do this? I don't have additional information for the Taiwan TV clip, but assume that there wasn't associated earthquake activity (although I could be wrong). The mechanism of crushed rock producing a peizo-electric effect suggests to me that actual earthquake activity isn't essential for the Earthlight phenomena. The BBC Horizon programme states that Earthlights can be produced before, during and after regional earthquakes.

JAMIE1

Mar27-09, 07:39 PM

Hello Mammo.

The mechanism of crushed rock producing a peizo-electric effect suggests to me that actual earthquake activity isn't essential for the Earthlight phenomena.

Could you explain this a bit more to me, I am interested in how you think Earthlights can occur without Earthquakes.

Thanks

Jamie

Ivan Seeking

Mar28-09, 01:32 AM

Hello Mammo.

Could you explain this a bit more to me, I am interested in how you think Earthlights can occur without Earthquakes.

Thanks

Jamie

A casual and brief explanation of your thinking is okay, but be careful that we don't dive into pseudoscience here. Ideally we would prefer a scientific reference for something like this.

Note that I have some thoughts about ball lightning that I mentioned but didn't share because I have no credible reference.

Mammo

Mar28-09, 05:59 AM

Hello Mammo.

Could you explain this a bit more to me, I am interested in how you think Earthlights can occur without Earthquakes.

Thanks

JamieIt's just guess work. Geological movement which results in rock being crushed, but not slippage of a fault. I don't have a scientific source as a reference to this idea.

JAMIE1

Mar28-09, 02:24 PM

Thanks Ivan and Mammo I understand.

I have ordered this DVD http://www.ufocongressstore.com/servlet/the-826/Jaime-Maussan-and-Santiago/Detail

Has anyone else seen one of these DVDs from previous conference years?

Cheers

Jamie

Chronos

Mar29-09, 01:59 AM

What is your point, Jamie? Flashing lights captured by cameras proves nothing.

Chronos

Mar29-09, 02:05 AM

JAMIE1

Mar30-09, 07:18 PM

Hello Chronos.

I was interested to see if other people had seen similar UFO DVDs like the Mexico one that I ordered because, in my opinion, it is very interesting.

Could you say what your opinion is as to what is happening in Mexico with regards to the UFO phenomena.

Thanks

Jamie

Ivan Seeking

Mar30-09, 10:14 PM

k, am going umbilical on ufo's

1. Beings able to travel at superluminal velocities are very bright [compared to humans]
2. They know physics far beyond our understanding
3. They harness physics in ways we have not yet conceived.
4. They could care less about our sense of morality
5. So where are they?

We have no way to know if any UFOs are TRUFOs, but many people say they've seen things that would seem to be. What do you mean "where are they"? Do you mean, "why haven't they landed and said 'take me to your leader', or "why don't they land at NBC"?

Why do you mention morality?

rosie

May7-09, 05:41 PM

Jamie - how amazing. Clearly you think you saw a UFO. And you photographed it - and you had witnesses. That's way up there for evidence.

The problem in getting physicists to accept the evidence is that they refute the possibility of UFO's because they refute faster than light speed. I think it's precluded in Einstein's special theory of relativity. Very good arguments that relate to the age of the universe - and the distance required to travel here - and so it goes.

The truth is that there are paradoxes that question constraints to light speeds. It's to do with questions of locality. Even Einstein wrestled with this - referred to as the EPR effect. What is known - that indirectly relates to this effect - is that twin particles - spatially separated - can instantaneously adjust their position in relation to the other. This has been proven over distances of up to 11 kilometers. In other words, if the one particle is moved 'up' say, then - at that same moment - at faster than light speed - the other moves 'down'. It's as if they are not spatially separated. it's a paradox - and very rarely referred to. It's counter-intuitive. If you want to look it up you'll probably find it under questions of non-locality - or just look up the EPR effect. It stands for Einstein, Podolsky Rosen effect.

Generally speaking you'll find that scientists prefer to deal with what they can explain rather than what they can't. Which is fair enough. The point is that IF one could travel at faster than light speed - then indeed we may have been visited or may be visted by ET's. The alternative is that you saw ball lightning. But I've looked through the forum and it seems that ball lightning has a limited life of minutes. How long did you sighting last? If longer - then it could be the unmentionable. If as long as or shorter - then it could be the more acceptable ball lightning phenomenon.

There are many scientists that do study sightings. I'll get back to you with a list. Some of them are respectable researchers. I'm sure that's where you need to take this story.