It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why a Large Group of People (Astronomers) Rarely Report UFO sightings.

page: 4
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 01:14 AM
link   
'UFOs' (i.e., "aliens") have become a religion unto themselves; with people desperate to believe there is more "out there" than meets the eye of the average work-a-day Joe Halfpenny trudging his way, inexorably to a pauper's grave.

It's little different to why so many spurn their "God" -given logic and espouse fanciful religious dogmata -- they need a crutch and reason to maintain hope. That is to say, a job, car, home and the occasional shag really doesn't do it for most people.
edit on 13-7-2015 by AlexJowls because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-7-2015 by AlexJowls because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Professional and even a lot of amateur astronomers rarely look through a telescope, its often a laptop hooked up to a ccd camera attached to the telescope because most are taking images like a lot of members on here.

When I am out taking night shots with friends using our DSLR's and while the long exposure shots are being taken we are looking at the sky with our eye's or binoculars, we have still to see Mog from Zog even although we have been doing this for a long long time.

I will refer you back to this old chestnut that forms the majority of claims about ufo's


originally posted by: intrptr

I'm a witness of one, believe me, when you see them you will know its not earth tech. They do too many things that violate the accepted laws of physics, regardless if experienced observer or not.


If YOU don't actually KNOW what you are looking at that's what you may think but how many threads/posts do we have on here with that claim only to find out it was a simple terrestrial explanation.

Or how about the claims made for speed and distance when you don't have enough information to work those out

edit on 13-7-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 01:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: angryhulk
I just googled 'astronomer ufo' and blew the premise of your thread to pieces.


Try doing a SPECIFIC search, searching astronomer ufo brings up links with either word or both words.

Most links are to ufo blogs & websites NO surprise there then



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: markymint


"An illuminated object that appears in the 30-60,000ft region that moves from the farthest point of the Western horizon, goes overhead to the fartherst point of the Eastern horizon in 6-7 seconds flat with no apparent change to altitude"



What I would like to see is how that height is worked out 30-60,000 for a dot of light in the night sky

edit on 13-7-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: _BoneZ_

This thread is a joke. How anyone has the nerve to be this intellectually dishonest and gets away with it here, on this website, is beyond me.

Moderation supported disinformation. That about sums up OP and his uneducated opinion.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: yourignoranceisbliss

Well thank you for that well-thought-out response.

Are you saying the sources in the OP are incorrect then? And all the other sources that I didn't include as well? I think not.




posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

Why a Large Group of People (Astronomers) Rarely Report UFO sightings.




...there are objects in the sky that the average person may not be able to identify. This does not mean, however, that no one can identify these objects. It only means that they could appear “unidentified” to someone who is not familiar with the sky or with the full range of sky phenomena that can surprise a novice.

Indeed, upon more careful investigation, many so-called UFOs turn out to be perfectly natural objects or processes in the Earth’s atmosphere or beyond.
An Astronomer Looks at UFOs: A Lot Less than Meets the Eye


This is 100% correct and also why the automated All-Sky cameras operated by many people including astronomers don't seem to catch those pesky aliens either.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 05:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Erno86

You cant work out a speed because you dont have a size or distance for the object.

So what happens is a very high speed is quoted to try to reinforce YOUR opinion of what the object was



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 05:31 AM
link   
It's actually about time some members on here put there money were there keyboard is so to speak.

We have many members on here CLAIMING multiple sightings or even that they can guarantee a sighting because they can communicate with with them


One member I have challenge re that has refused by coming up with the BS excuse they would never visit again how very convenient


It's also fairly obvious from the many youtube videos post on here that the people using the cameras don't know how to use them in the first place. With cameras having auto focus switched on and the resulting hunt for focus becoming a morphing ufo or lens flare/ internal reflections being transparent ufo's.

Or the distant light over a city claimed as s ufo yet no videos closer or directly underneath the object being posted.

Or STUPID qoutes of speed height or distance when you have nothing to compare with.

So the ones posting here claiming regular sightings do something about it . I joined here to see the real deal if I see it I will back it 100% with the same respect if I see some post from an IDIOT on youtube that hasn't got a clue I will use my 35+ years of taking pictures often of the night sky to explain why.
edit on 13-7-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-7-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: _BoneZ_
This is not to say that aliens are not or have not visited Earth. Just simply that most UFO sightings are not of alien origin.


Here we have perhaps the most monumental event in human history (ET visitation/contact), but all anyone around here wants to discuss are insanely mundane aspects like "most UFO sightings are not of alien origin".

Why not discuss the so called small percentage that ARE of alien origin?
edit on CDTMon, 13 Jul 2015 08:09:26 -0500000000America/ChicagoJulAmerica/Chicago262609am by TrueMessiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008


we have still to see Mog from Zog even although we have been doing this for a long long time.

I'm approaching 60 and Iv'e only seen one that one time. Be patient, life is life long.

In light of your inexperience, I'll now respond to your other statements.


I will refer you back to this old chestnut that forms the majority of claims about ufo's..

Old majority chestnut? Based on what, your realm of inexperience?


If YOU don't actually KNOW what you are looking at that's what you may think…

Based on YOUR knowing what I saw even though as you claim, you have never seen one?


how many threads/posts do we have on here with that claim only to find out it was a simple terrestrial explanation.

I do my share of debunking here, finding that out. I am a trained observer. I have a critical mind.


Or how about the claims made for speed and distance when you don't have enough information to work those out?

Thats the thing, if you had been there you would have observed, like the most untrained observer among us that night, the real difference between the two, immediately.

I don't care how little experience you have over a life time of air shows, viewing satellites, bolides, iridium flares, reentries, scintillating stars, whatever.

None of these hold a candle to what we observed, that night.

I keep saying I'll do a thread. The reason I don't is the naysayers, its difficult to argue from a position of no proof.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlexJowls
'UFOs' (i.e., "aliens") have become a religion unto themselves; with people desperate to believe there is more "out there" than meets the eye of the average work-a-day Joe Halfpenny trudging his way, inexorably to a pauper's grave.

It's little different to why so many spurn their "God" -given logic and espouse fanciful religious dogmata -- they need a crutch and reason to maintain hope. That is to say, a job, car, home and the occasional shag really doesn't do it for most people.


Perhaps some? You should avoid painting with such a wide brush however. Many people pursue the study of UFOs because of tangible evidence, and it's a very intriguing subject, and not because they feel the need to justify their dull lives with something fantastical.

As far as scientists go (and other professionals), even hinting that they have seen or believe something extraordinary can be a death knell for their career. Thanks to past efforts at disinformation and making a joke of the subject, it's generally taboo to even hint at it as a professional.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I'm tired of paid and volunteer disinfo agents on sites like this. Yeah some stuff in the sky is regular stuff and some people get it wrong, but in our current society of cell phones everywhere it's easy to a snap when there is genuinely something unique in the sky. So basically publicly the UFO thing will be eventually in plain view for all and no amount of clever commentary will be able to verbally ignore it.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Really now? Less than huh? I'm not the one who thinks they've seen a UFO.
Lol



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

That old nugget. I don't want to de-rail this thread into one about altitude, and I'm not having a go - but after multiple sightings and an entire lifetime of skywatching, it's hard not to have a general feel of night-sky altitudes. And not forgetting I have to feel I was shown these things to be able to fight for them on da interwebs, not just sit idly by


If you're not willing to accept my judgement, just take one of the hundred airline pilots reporting something whizzing past them at 35-40,000 feet. I don't "think" nor do I "believe" - I am fairly certain that type of sighting is connected to mine. I would grant you that it could well have been at satellite altitude, this is why I think it warrants an answer from astromoners, scientists etc no matter what altitude it is.

Beyond "seeing" a UFO for seconds you then have years of "learning" about that UFO, in which you can better understand its (the UFO) role in the phenomena, if other people have experienced it and importantly, how it was presented to you.

It was presented to me in a manner that I would not be able to mistake its similarities to those of airline pilot reports. For someone else, their UFO object presents itself to them in such a way they will be able to distinguish it amongst other reports. Some people see the disc type and can relate it to some other disc style case. I saw the airline pilot whizzing past light-kind. I'll take that estimate of 40,000ft to my grave.

Surprisingly, there is still a "real" element to seeing UFOs. They are actually in physical space. So damned if you want to try and convince human beings they have no concept of physical space. If it was higher then it was a gigantic object. If it was lower, it should have been an audible fighter jet of some kind.

Of course I'm no expert on altitude but we (or I) will never get a straight answer from a professional if scrutiny of altitude comes into it. I'm pretty sure, if you had 4 white dots in the sky, most people would be able to tell you which is the star, which is the satellite, which is the plane and which is the chinese lantern. And all 4 of those sit at different altitudes. So you're getting someone's best guess when I say that - is it really that laughable? It certainly could have been higher than that, yes, way higher, but that makes it more spooky. Even if it was lower, everything about it still doesn't add up, so ultimately, altitude is irrelevant.

So I rephrase, simplify


"What silent object in the night sky, that looks like a magnitude 1 star, moves from the far side of one horizon, overhead to the far side of the other horizon in 5-10 seconds flat" (giving a person minimal time to spot it and have to turn 180 degrees through the short experience to follow its movement)

PS. I have often wondered, could it be a static object? we are afterall the ones moving at so many thousands per hour in a circle... What would observing a static object (somehow not part of earth's rotation but still within our atmosphere) be like?


edit on 13-7-2015 by markymint because: tidy up 2: tidy up returns

edit on 13-7-2015 by markymint because: tidy up 3: the tidying

edit on 13-7-2015 by markymint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657


I'm not the one who thinks they've seen a UFO.

If I had been the only one, then yah, self doubt might prevail. But I wasn't the only one. About a dozen people, some close friends, some complete strangers. But you weren't there to know that either.
edit on 13-7-2015 by intrptr because: clarity



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Every light in the sky is a UFO unless you know what you are looking at.

I remember when I was a kid and I saw a light moving in the sky, and I said "Dad, look-a UFO!" He turned to me and said "no, that's a satellite."

What I don't understand is how some people who see a UFO automatically equates it to an alien craft. If you see a light in the sky that behaves erratically, it is a light and nothing more until there is an explanation.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: _BoneZ_


originally posted by: Kandinsky
I'm thinking of Sturrock's Survey on the Membership of the American Astronomical Society (pt.1 pdf) for starters.

Where only 5% of respondents (62 out of 1356) saw something they could not explain. That's a very low percentage.



If the brakes on your car failed to work 5% of the time, would you say "well, that's a pretty rare occurrence, no point in getting that checked out"? Five percent, in the context of what we're discussing, is not rare at all. It's huge. Remember, we only need one of these to be genuine, percentages be damned.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I didn't say you didn't see anything. I said you didn't see a UFO and by that I certainly do mean a craft from another planet. You saw something you and your friends couldn't identify. So automatically oh it's an alien craft. No that's completely the wrong conclusion to come to Because so far there has been no proof ever . It is all debunked or its inconclusive and inconclusive doesn't mean likely or probable like some think. Even if it's ten percent unexplained or inconclusive still doesn't mean the answer is aliens but so many cling to that. They investigated it but couldn't explain it to some people equals a confirmation that it's extraterrestrial but that's a false assumption.



posted on Jul, 13 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: AutumnWitch657


I didn't say you didn't see anything. I said you didn't see a UFO and by that I certainly do mean a craft from another planet. You saw something you and your friends couldn't identify.

The distinction is made when something violates not only known aircraft performance envelopes and capabilities, but the known laws of physics as well.

Of course, thats not preventing you from telling me that I don't have any experience with that… how could you know that, either?

My position is simple, you weren't there. When I said obviously, that not an insult. Thats a statement reflecting you couldn't possibly know what was witnessed precisely because you weren't there.

That shouldn't offend you. Unless you judge others based on your beliefs.




top topics



 
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join