Hovering UFO Baffles Astronomy Club Members

Who said astronomers never see UFOs?

www.examiner.com...

The UFO report is not particularly unusual - the Mutual UFO Network receives similar reports of hovering lights in the sky frequently.

Witnesses often take you through a range of what they believe the object "is not," ruling out the obvious, before making a point about how unusual a sighting is.

In this instance - MUFON Case # 20,023 - the group of reporting witnesses is an astronomy club - five individuals who have a passion with explaining exactly what they are observing within a natural landscape.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread Page):
AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events, or important information from other sites; please post one or two paragraphs, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.


[edit on 21/10/2009 by Mirthful Me]

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Heliocentric]

But as we watched it more closely it was very surprising as to the manner in which it morphed into various shapes and sizes. Its brightness would vary some but that was easily seen as being caused by the low-lying clouds on the horizon. As we commonly call it – it was “sitting in the soup”. When they would move in front of it the objects brightness would dim some. Otherwise it would maintain its brightness. That was easily seen via binocular observations.

The longer we watched it the more curious we all became and with that growing curiosity we quickly set two telescopes onto it. Two different sized telescopes were used, one, Celestron 11” Schimdt-Cassegrain telescope and a smaller Orion 4.5” dobsonian telescope. Between the two we could pull it in for a much closer look in a very inquisitive effort to determine just what it actually was. Charts and web sites were checked also to make sure we weren’t simply forgetting perhaps one event that may explain what we were now seeing. Nothing could be found.

The Celestron was using a 40mm eyepiece for a much wider field of view whereas the smaller Orion had a 15mm eyepiece to pull it in much closer. Through the Orion one could easily see what appeared right off as a bell shape. The same was viewed in the other also.

But as mentioned before it morphed into what was clearly seen and could be interpreted as the same basic outline of the Shuttle that anyone would see as it flies over. Again, the same basic shape as to what you would see looking up at the bottom of it. That distinctive shape was easily recognized. At the rear of it you could see what looked like bluish green waves that would both come and go from the main rear line of the object. Nowhere else was this color and wave seen, just at the rear.

The objects color was a combination of the just mentioned bluish green at the rear to a lighter orange yellow up through the main body and then into red orange, much more intense, than any of the other colors at the top or perhaps, from appearance at that time, leading edge. None of us had ever seen a color distribution of this sort before. Especially on either the Shuttle or any other normal day-to-day satellites. From our position/location it appeared to be hovering over either Bristow, Ok or possibly even Oklahoma City.

There was no attempt by any of us then to determine its specific distance or altitude from us. The same applies to its actual size. Visually, it appeared very similar to the size of Jupiter. Other than that comparison we honestly don’t know either its distance or specific altitude. It remained in the same position for approximately 40 minutes and never moved. Close to 8 P.M. we started to notice what appeared to be a ring of lights that was rotating around the bottom portion. The lights were seen in the same location that the bluish green colored waves were at. Several of us noticed this while looking at it through the telescopes.

Needless to say this was surprising to us all. This carried on for one to two minutes and then suddenly the object started to move. The movement was slow at the beginning but increased very rapidly. I had my eye glued to the 40mm eyepiece when this began and once it started I could not move. Within two seconds it had totally disappeared from open visual sight but I still had a lock on it in the eyepiece. Fast, very fast it moved from dead center in the eyepiece field of view upwards and at the same time was getting smaller and smaller as it flew away. Two or three seconds later it was totally gone from view in either of the telescopes.

The speed that it moved was without question way beyond anything that we have knowledge of or is publicly known to be in our military. At the rate it flew away would make a SR-71 Blackbird look very old and slow. Could it have possibly been a new experimental aircraft? Possibly yes but if so what was something such as that doing in Oklahoma? Most generally new experimental, top-secret aircraft of that type are being tested at either Edwards AFB or Area 51, not Oklahoma. In a nutshell, we will never know.
It was unidentifiable, it was in the air and flew away and it most certainly was an object of some unknown kind/type. From this alone it could be justifiably categorized as a UFO.

MUFON case#20.023 Long version:

mufoncms.com...

[edit on 21-10-2009 by Heliocentric]

Thanks for sharing this.

nice find wonder what it was

Star and Flag for you! Your presented this with great detail. I will be looking for more follow up. Great Job

It's a shame no one bothered to contact any of the radar sites in the area to see if RATCC had a possible explanation. Hopefully MUFON will follow up to get more details. Was this picked up by any newspapers?

Originally posted by Xtraeme
It's a shame no one bothered to contact any of the radar sites in the area to see if RATCC had a possible explanation.

A possible explanation for a luminous, multi-colored object which morphs into various sizes and shapes, stays fixed in the same position for 40 minutes, then take off at incredible speed?

It might be hard to get. It would be interesting to know if this object showed up on radar though.

The story's found in some select web sites for now,

Sorry, no video, no photos, no exclusive ATS interview.

Apparently no one at the RMCC Observatory Club thought of bringing a camera.

But this is the type of case you can't argue with. Here's a bunch of people who consider themselves experienced 'qualified observers'. They identify an object in the sky that corresponds with no known celestial object. They run the whole checklist and come up with nothing. It's obviously not a satellite, airplane, helicopter or balloon.

It's obviously intelligently controlled.

It's a water tight case. What are the arguments against? That the Astronomy Club probably made this up as a publicity stunt in order to finance their new sky-roof cafeteria?

Or, we have positively identified an intelligently controlled object that with most likelihood was not of this Earth. The door's open for alternative theories of course...

[edit on 22-10-2009 by Heliocentric]

Originally posted by Heliocentric
Who said astronomers never see UFOs?
www.examiner.com...

Interesting post - apparently its not the first time.
List of UFO sightings by astronomers

Or, we have positively identified an intelligently controlled object that with most likelihood was not of this Earth. The door's open for alternative theories of course...

Might as well be of this Earth, either back-engineered or ET-instructed. There is too much technology out there that we don't know about...

Originally posted by Mythtified
Might as well be of this Earth, either back-engineered or ET-instructed. There is too much technology out there that we don't know about...

Sure, but it boils down to the same thing; indication of other worldy intelligence either in direct or indirect form.

I note that ATS's debunker squad hasn't arrived yet. With all their favorite theories ruled out from the start by people more competent than themselves, their participation in this thread might be scant.

I love how believers can so easily warp what is a really well presented series of factual observances (hats off to the astronomy club) and warp it into something it is not. The story itself is smart, its well documented, the people presenting it have the knowledge base to take a scientific journey to figure our what they saw in a thoughtful way. And in the end, they say, "we don't know what it was." And honestly, that's as far as you can take it.
But then, you get replies that say things like 'obviously it's intelligently controlled,' or you draw a totally unfounded inference like "indication of other worldly intelligence either in direct or indirect form."
None of those things follow from the report, the only thing that follows is that based on this observation it's a UFO. And UFO doesn't mean spacecraft, it means exactly what it means: a flying object we can't identify.
More and more, I find no difference between the credulity of alien folks and young earth creationists. The philosophy is the same: I can't explain it so God( or Gods flying shiny ships) are responsible.

But there are no pictures or videos. I like this story, but how do we know that it is not a hoax? it says just before the article begins:

The following report is unedited and uninvestigated.

I am open to the idea of UFO's & aliens, but how do I know these four guys are indeed four astronomers, and are not trying to pull the wool over our eyes?? baaaaaaad sheep.

reply to post by kenochs


I agree with you that there is no evidence that this object was of ET origin, but it is hard to believe, simply from it's behaviour that it was not intelligently controlled. It stays perfectly still for 40 minutes, then flies off at speeds well exceeding that of any know aircraft to a distance where is could no longer be seen by a telescope within a few seconds and you think this could be a natural phenomenon?

I'll admit that this could have been anything from advanced human tech (who knows how advanced our tech really is?) to an ET craft or even just a hologram (but God knows why this should be) but the physical behaviour of this object suggests intelligent control.

Originally posted by kenochs
More and more, I find no difference between the credulity of alien folks and young earth creationists.

I see what you mean but when dealing with the UFO subject,many cynics are also guilty of wilfully ignoring certain facts:

1) Millions of sightings worldwide and a hundred-thousand-plus sightings are on computer (UFOCAT).


2) 3,000-plus sightings from aircraft (Dr. Richard Haines).


3) 489 radar cases, many radar/visual (Dominique Weinstein); 363 radar cases, 76 as R/V (USAF records alone).


4) 5600 trace cases documented, 4104 involving UFO visual sightings (CUFOS).


5) Over 500 cases of E-M effects associated with UFO sightings (CUFOS) and 185 E-M cases documented involving UFOs near aircraft (Dr. Richard Haines).


6) Hundreds, if not thousands, of excellent close encounters by credible observers whose testimony in court would be taken at face value.


7) About 4,000 (701 originally) UNKNOWNS listed in Project Blue Book files.”

www.ufoevidence.org...



Astrophysicist Bernard Haisch also makes an interesting point here about astronomers:

“A 1977 poll of American astronomers, published in JSE, showed the following. Out of 2611 questionnaires 1356 were returned. In response to whether the UFO problem deserved further study the replies were: 23% certainly, 30% probably, 27% percent possibly, 17% probably not, 3% certainly not.
Interestingly, there was a positive correlation between the amount of reading done on the subject and the opinion that further study was in order…”

www.ufoevidence.org...

reply to post by nik1halo

I'm totally with you. I found this post one of the more fascinating ones that I've found on the site, and I troll it every day.
It's unusually credible based on the way the astronomers approached the subject and in their thoughtful attempts to negate or explain what they were seeing.
My only thing is I this and it's always been this. Funny light in the sky (no matter how many people see them) does not equal aliens. It equals unexplainable funny light in the sky. Just because I'm not equipped to explain it doesn't mean it's supernatural.

Originally posted by kenochs
I love how believers can so easily warp what is a really well presented series of factual observances (hats off to the astronomy club) and warp it into something it is not. The story itself is smart, its well documented, the people presenting it have the knowledge base to take a scientific journey to figure our what they saw in a thoughtful way. And in the end, they say, "we don't know what it was." And honestly, that's as far as you can take it.
But then, you get replies that say things like 'obviously it's intelligently controlled,' or you draw a totally unfounded inference like "indication of other worldly intelligence either in direct or indirect form."
None of those things follow from the report, the only thing that follows is that based on this observation it's a UFO. And UFO doesn't mean spacecraft, it means exactly what it means: a flying object we can't identify.
More and more, I find no difference between the credulity of alien folks and young earth creationists. The philosophy is the same: I can't explain it so God( or Gods flying shiny ships) are responsible.

Excuse me, but I posted that, and I am not a "believer".

Religious people "believe", many of them invest emotionally and intellectually in a belief system passed on to them through hearsay.

I am a 42 year old teacher at a European university, schooled in a scientific approach and empiric reasoning. What I say about the UFO phenomenon is based on personal experience plus more than 20 years of studying it, and I personally consider that it is beyond reasonable doubt - based on the bulk of incidents during the last 60 years, with direct and indirect evidence - that the phenomenon is real, and cannot be explained by conventional means.

If the witness statements are correct, then some type of object positioned itself in the night sky, stayed there for approximately 40 minutes, then flew off at great speed. Does that not indicate intelligent action? Is such a conclusion unfounded?

reply to post by karl 12

Hey there, I think you misunderstand me.
I'm not negating what these folks are seeing. I'm not in any way suggesting that there aren't hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of sightings that are just as credible as this one (which as I said earlier is unusually credible).
But for me, (I'm not a cynic, but I am a skeptic) unexplainable light in the sky does not automatically equal intelligent control. What it suggests is that I (or all of us perhaps) don't have the knowledge to successfully explain what is is we've seen.
Heliocentrism, which seemed heretical at the time didn't become accepted law because millions of people noticed that moons circled planets. It became law because we eventually equipped ourselves with the math, and the scientific understanding to prove it.
I think (hope) that we'll get to the point where we can understand some of these funny lights, maybe in my life time.
If it turns out there are vulcan/protoss/elder races hanging around, all the better.
But call me Thomas, I'm saying no, until someone can prove otherwise.

reply to post by Heliocentric

I hate to break it to you but of course such a conclusion is unfounded, it absolutely does not suggest intelligent control.
Honestly, to someone who doesn't know better the moon changes luminosity, and color, and shape over a set period of time and moves inexplicably across the sky amazingly in a documentable period of time. That doesn't mean it is intelligently controlled does it?
So does the ISS (arguably that's not intelligently controlled either, ha), so do Jupiter and Venus, and the stars.
That you personally consider it beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean that it is. It just means that you believe it.



[edit on 22-10-2009 by kenochs]

It is all about preconceived notions.

If someone thinks that the existence of aliens is unlikely they will believe other rationalizations for the evidence to be more likely...

Objectively it seems difficult to justify creating other explanations for the evidence because there is no proof of some other amazing phenomenon.

In my opinion the idea that this UFO may be something that is NOT intelligently controlled is a bigger leap in logic.

I vote for this being one of ours. There are many "family jewels" the US Government has in operation and this one has characteristics reported in advanced vehicle propulsion. As I read more reports like this, a pattern emerges where many sightings fit a small subset of characteristics.

If you think about extreme speed and abrupt changes in direction that have been reported by UFO's, it makes people jump to the conclusion that it can't be from this planet because it doesn't look like anything we know about flying around. Well, those same movements by UFO's happen to be very desireable for military and intelligence gathering. We've been working to make stuff do that for 60-70 years, why is it so hard to think we don't have articles operational that we don't know about?

And since (now) we're thought to be the only country with the means to make stuff like this, there is no public outcry that foreign aircraft are operating over the US with a threat to our national security. So unless someone really screws up, these unconventional projects will remain undisclosed and we'll continue to see these things. The government is silently happy to let people think ET is involved, because that rubs off on those we're using these craft against. Great cover, and no one's the wiser.