What on earth can make a high speed 90 degree turn?

One thing that may be of relevance..

As I mentioned in my first post, the object changed direction after I had pointed it to my friends.

Now this could mean nothing, as we have no way of actually proving what we saw.

Not sure if I've been watching too much sci-fi recently, but it did cross my mind that IF what we saw was of extra terrestrial origin, what if that object was aware of being observed... and moved either to make itself known, or to escape detection.

Just a theory, don't flame me for this idea!

I don't know what you saw, but I'm going to link something some people don't know about:
www.gizmag.com...

reply to post by jonnywhite


Thanks Jonny.

Zorgon actually posted a video of one of these babies.

I think these explain a lot of other UFO reports, but not this one.

To make something clear, when we say "Sharp turn/angle", we mean that it made one or more very sharp turns without any curves and/or decelerating.
It'll look a little like this (red part: what it was doing before going apesh!t very much like a satellite, orange part: The apesh!t part of what it was doing.)


In my case at least, It zig-zagged the entire time until it wasn't on the horizon anymore.
It did not reduce its speed at all whenever it went from right to left.
It was unlike anything we could achieve with our current tech for as far as I am concerned.
Sharp turns = high G forces = death. Especially at high speeds.


IT--

reply to post by edog11


Your link doesn't seem to be working edog11?

reply to post by dsm1664


Strange, It is working here.
How about this:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ae306cd5a563.png[/atsimg]

Edit:
I just made an animated image of what I saw. here it is:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8b4853d18695.gif[/atsimg]

IT--

The Tesla space ship, thats what.
Appearing in the 1950s and attributed to outer space people as a lie
cause people like Willy Ley and Von Braun were most likely involved.

Concentrated gravity stronger than Earth by voltage pressure into the
surrounding space is the apparent drive as the pressure waves at the
speed of light envelope the ship and crew.
No seat belts required and when pressure is switched 90 degrees the
pressure mass moves as directed.

Ruby-throated Hummingbirds! They can also come to a dead stop during forward flight, and in an instant be flying backwards. This is due to their wings being attached to their bodies by a single joint at the shoulder.
My wife and I have witnessed lights in the sky suddenly change their direction of flight by 90 degrees it seemed, without coming to a stop. If any of the lights did stop before making these incredible right and left turns, then they did it too fast for it to be seen. (like a fly changing direction). In case anyone asks if I know what these lights were, the answer is yes, but because someone "in the know" trusted me with certain info, the answer will always remain with me unless I get the ok to pass the info along. I have a reputation for being trustworthy that I refuse to tarnish in any way. I can only say that what my wife and I have seen on several occasions, were indeed e.t.craft.
I'm not here to argue, only to answer a question as best I can, and that's what I've done.

This is just some of my, wild speculation, at this point.
These ET starhips, that have invaded Earth's atmosphere, are highly advanced antigravity machines. The reason they can stop on a dime, and make 90 degree angle turns is that they possibly have an antigravity force shield, outside of the hull of the starship. Unlike poles attract, like poles repel. The starship acts like a lightning stroke in a thunderstorm; focusing a certain polarity[with the required amount of electrons,] with some kind of particle beam projector, that is located just inside the spinning hull of the flying disc; to another existing polarity [be it postive or negative,] outside of the ships antigrav shield.
Since, it has zero gravity inside the antigrav.shield, it is independent of any gravity, except for the gravity created by the spining hull of the flying disc: [gravity is absolutely essential for any living being involved in interstellar travel, due to bone and muscle loss in a weightless enviroment.] Therefore, it possibly negates the effect of inertia for the starship; by stopping on a dime and right angle turns.
The main source of propulsion is provided by a ceramic plate in the bottom hull of the disc, that has been interfused with a certain number of tiny Black Hole dust particles. These B.H. particles were aquired by using an antigrav contained antimatter bomb used to pulverize an existing Black Hole. Then collected and refined into the ceramic plate.
The particle beam projector runs an electric current through the B.H. ceramic plate, focus'es on any outside light, like starlight, then the light hungry B.H. plate, actually pulls the starship towards the light source as many times the speed of light that you want it to go.



Erno

Originally posted by dsm1664
The thing is, there are lots of night vision footage floating around that shows very similar observations to mine. I think the 3rd/4th post in this thread shows one such clip. Have a look at you tube...

Yes. I've seen them. To me the footage posted on this thread looks like a bird or more likely a bat, although it is quite short and it's not easy to tell, but it does look very similar to other footage I have seen on ATS in the past.

Originally posted by dsm1664
It is possible that I saw two satellite crossing each others path, while disappearing into a shadow. But really, what are the odds of that happening.

The odds are quite good, considering how many satellites there are in orbit.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2b3f6f404ff7.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by dsm1664
It was fluid.

I'm sure it would have appeared that way. Our brains are surprisingly good at smoothing things out, and giving things the appearance that they are smooth when they are not.

For example, if you watch the TV, that seems to be smooth, does it not? It is in fact not at all smooth, since there are 30 (or less) still frames every second, that give the illusion of smooth movement.

Because our brains process what we see, and interpret this data according to "pre-conceived yard-sticks" (for want of a better phrase), people tend to make poor observers/witnesses (no reflection on you - we are all equally vulnerable to this issue). Illusions can be found all over the place if you look. An experienced observer never takes what he or she sees for granted.

Have you ever seen the Moon low on the horizon, looking huge and orange? Is it really huge and orange?

There are countless examples...

Here is another one I like...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fef6f82b4e56.jpg[/atsimg]

Can you tell me which girl is taller? The one on the left or the one on the right?
Same question goes out to anyone else reading this - lets see how many get it right
If you know where the picture comes from, please don't say anything just yet.

Originally posted by dsm1664
The reason I refer to it as a satellite, as this is what it looked like. A faint light in the sky, going at a constant speed in a straight line. Until it decided to change direction.

I'm certainly not doubting you saying what you saw looked like a satellite. I saw a similar thing occur in the early 80's when I was still a kid.

In the immortal words of Sherlock Holmes - Once you have discounted the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the solution to the problem.

Originally posted by edog11
In my case at least, It zig-zagged the entire time until it wasn't on the horizon anymore.
It did not reduce its speed at all whenever it went from right to left.
It was unlike anything we could achieve with our current tech for as far as I am concerned.
Sharp turns = high G forces = death. Especially at high speeds.

This is a very well known and understood illusion, caused by minute movements in the eye:

A more subtle effect is known technically as the autokinetic effect. In this, natural movements of the eye make a stationary object appear to move irregularly, sometimes zooming up and down or swinging from side to side in a movement sometimes described as like a “falling leaf”. Autokinetic motion can be uncanny when watching artificial satellites, which often appear to zig zag or even make deviations around stars in their path.

Source: Astronomical caused of UFOs


It is even mentioned in the FAA Instrument Flying Handbook:

Autokinesis In the dark, a stationary light will appear to move about

Ive seen this effect many times, and been with other people who have seen this effect, but there is no doubt that it is an illusion since when a satellite that appears to be doing this is photographed with a camera fixed to a tripod, the path is perfectly straight. I've done this myself on many occasions.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.

Originally posted by edog11
In my case at least, It zig-zagged the entire time until it wasn't on the horizon anymore.
It did not reduce its speed at all whenever it went from right to left.
It was unlike anything we could achieve with our current tech for as far as I am concerned.
Sharp turns = high G forces = death. Especially at high speeds.

This is a very well known and understood illusion, caused by minute movements in the eye:

A more subtle effect is known technically as the autokinetic effect. In this, natural movements of the eye make a stationary object appear to move irregularly, sometimes zooming up and down or swinging from side to side in a movement sometimes described as like a “falling leaf”. Autokinetic motion can be uncanny when watching artificial satellites, which often appear to zig zag or even make deviations around stars in their path.

Source: Astronomical caused of UFOs


It is even mentioned in the FAA Instrument Flying Handbook:

Autokinesis In the dark, a stationary light will appear to move about

Ive seen this effect many times, and been with other people who have seen this effect, but there is no doubt that it is an illusion since when a satellite that appears to be doing this is photographed with a camera fixed to a tripod, the path is perfectly straight. I've done this myself on many occasions.

While I do respect your opinion, a satellite is most certainly not what I and my friends saw.
I have seen many satellites in the past and all of them moved in a straight line.
This object did not, it definitely did zig-zag since there were many stars in the sky to use as a reference.
It was not a case where it was even possible that it was an optical illusion, the course-changes were very large and obvious. Definitely not small enough to be just an illusion.


IT--

Originally posted by posterboy
reply to post by harrytuttle

 

Nice, I absolutely agree

Also, imagine a propulsion system that accelerated every atom within the actual vessel, including the all atoms of the vessel, its passengers, and any other object inside of it.

As you make your 90 degree turn, or 180 for that matter (pun intended), you wouldn't feel any force whatsoever.

and thats EXACTLY how they work. and explains why most if not all of them appear to be glowing orbs or glowing most of the time. its the atoms that light up the craft. they swim in earths magnetic field. and its basically a controled world inside their craft. how do they get out? simple. dematerialization.

Originally posted by edog11

I have seen many satellites in the past and all of them moved in a straight line.

With respect, because you have never seen a satellite do that before, it does not mean that they never do.

I have never seen the Aurora Borealis before, but that does not mean it does not exist?

Also, just because one does it, it does not mean all satellites should do it. Sometimes the autokinetic effect is more pronounced, and sometimes it is entirely absent.

I'm not saying that it is definitely what you saw, but from what you have said, it sounds like the most likely possibility to me. Of course it does not have to be a satellite either - sometimes a plane at high altitude will display the same effect, but in my experience it's usually satellites that tend to do this..

Originally posted by edog11
since there were many stars in the sky to use as a reference.

Even having a fixed reference point makes no difference - in the link/quote I posted earlier it even says that a satellite can appear to move round a fixed star. I've seen this effect, and it's quite dramatic.

Originally posted by edog11
It was not a case where it was even possible that it was an optical illusion, the course-changes were very large and obvious.

No one is immune to an optical illusion, except perhaps you and your friends then?

Also, what we see is very subjective. Don't take my word for it - go back to your friends and ask each to give you a detailed account of what they saw, in their own words. I bet they will all have differences. What for instance do you define as "very large"?

When I have seen them in the past they have also appeared to be "very large and obvious"... it's certainly not a subtle effect!

Illusions can be surprisingly dramatic as well as subtle, and although it doesn't have quite the impact of a satellite that appears to zig-zag, here's a good one...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/600e2ab7355a.jpg[/atsimg]
Source: click here
Do the horizontal gray lines look straight to you? You can easily prove to yourself that they are.

Source: wikipedia
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/88fbba7a837f.gif[/atsimg]
This one is more dramatic... the animation is always spinning the same way, yet sometimes it appears to spin clockwise, and then anti-clockwise.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2020174c9d3f.gif[/atsimg]
Source: wikipedia
Stare at the cross, and you start to see a green dot that is not there in reality.

What is more dramatic than seeing something that is "not really there", and please explain to me why you could not possibly seeing something that is "not there"?

Originally posted by edog11
Definitely not small enough to be just an illusion.

What does the size have to do with it? If you've ever seen the moon when it is low on the horizon, it looks huge, but it's just an illusion. Is that now not an illusion because it's "too small"?

What you asked there only shows how we all at times refuse to accept the answer based on their previous misconceptions of a certain subject ("it cant be this because I expect how it must be like in my (limited) experience, even though there may be evidence that suggests that it might look different to my expectations under certain circumstances"), even though it may be correct.

Again, with all due respect, I'm asking you to consider some of the questions, and statements I have made above, bearing in mind that it can be proven that satellites appear to zig-zag, with fairly inexpensive camera gear. Why not give it a go yourself? I'd be more than happy to give you some tips to get you started.

reply to post by C.H.U.D.


No, sorry not buying that I saw two satellites crossing each other’s path at the exact same time the appeared and disappeared from a shadow. It is possible, and so is winning the lottery. But this was not one of those times.

Yes, thousands of sats up there, I know. But this was a single object. Again, my point for this post was not to debate what I saw, but to try and give an explanation to what could have made that movement. I understand what you are saying, and I thank you for the input, but this was a single object...

I live in Spain, and I'm lucky enough to have very little light pollution here. As the nights are warm (March - November) I spend a lot of time outside and by default I sky watch, as the amount of stars and satellites you can see are incredible.

I understand how the mind can play tricks, and I know stars can seem to move if you stare at them. But this is was no illusion.

A single "satellite" like object, travelling through the sky at a constant speed and direction, suddenly made in instant right angle turn, with no arc, no deceleration, an no difference in brightness nor size.

Originally posted by Bkrmn
In case anyone asks if I know what these lights were, the answer is yes, but because someone "in the know" trusted me with certain info, the answer will always remain with me unless I get the ok to pass the info along.

Wow, that is interesting. However so many people say the same. I'm not disbelieving you, but anyone could say that.

Originally posted by Bkrmn
I can only say that what my wife and I have seen on several occasions, were indeed e.t.craft.
I'm not here to argue, only to answer a question as best I can, and that's what I've done.

Looks like you just gave up the answer, no?

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.


With respect, because you have never seen a satellite do that before, it does not mean that they never do.

Hmmm.. to my knowledge they move in a straight line, unless programmed to move on a different course. A course change would be quite subtle.

Originally posted by dsm1664

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.


With respect, because you have never seen a satellite do that before, it does not mean that they never do.

Hmmm.. to my knowledge they move in a straight line, unless programmed to move on a different course. A course change would be quite subtle.

That is my point... we know that satellites can only move in one direction, and they do not deviate from their orbit.

However, we also know that they can appear to deviate and male zig-zag movements due to the autokinetic effect.

Do we agree that what I have written above are facts? If so, then why could it not be the case that what he saw was a satellite apparently moving along a zig-zag path?

Originally posted by dsm1664
No, sorry not buying that I saw two satellites crossing each other’s path at the exact same time the appeared and disappeared from a shadow.

Fair enough. It's your prerogative to accept/not accept the possibility, but so far you have not given a valid reason why it could not be the case.

Originally posted by dsm1664
It is possible, and so is winning the lottery. But this was not one of those times.

So if it is possible... why is it impossible in your case? People do win the lottery. Some people have won it multiple times. I think the record is 6 or 7 times, but here is someone who has won the Texas lottery a total of 4 times.

Why could it not be one of those times? How do you know that you have not underestimated the odds of this happening?

Originally posted by dsm1664
Yes, thousands of sats up there, I know.

So with so many satellites crisscrossing the sky all the time, why is it not likely that they could coincide close to the boundary of Earth's shadow from time to time?

Originally posted by dsm1664
But this was a single object.

But how do you know that for sure?

Which is more likely -

that someone is using craft that defy the laws of physics (or have inertia damping systems), which is something that we have no proof of? Or that two satellites happened to be in the right place, and at the right time to make it seem as though there was one, which is something you have agreed is possible?

There may be some other explanation of course, but I have not seen any that seem plausible so far.

Originally posted by dsm1664
Again, my point for this post was not to debate what I saw, but to try and give an explanation to what could have made that movement.

Is that not what we have been doing?

In any case, I don't see how we could debate something like this with out referencing a real life example and description of what the event looked like. How is it possible to discuss this issue without dissecting, and trying to explain the details of event like this. If you did not want us to talk about what you wrote, then why provide the example you did in the first place?

Originally posted by dsm1664
I understand what you are saying, and I thank you for the input, but this was a single object...

To be honest, I don't think you do understand what I'm saying. To make it clear it is basically that:

We can not trust our own eyes, since we do not see reality. What we actually "see" is our brain's interpretation of reality. We do not see real time, and what we do see has been edited. There has been much research done on the subject, and we still do not understand everything about how it all works, but we do know that what we see is only an interpretation of reality.

"That's a wacky result," said Eagleman. "It means that your brain collects information into the future of an event before it commits to what it thinks it saw at the time of the event."

Source: Yes, We Do Live In The Past

Brain’s visual circuits edit what we see before we see it

Researcher Mark Changizi of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York says it starts with a neural lag that most everyone experiences while awake. When light hits your retina, about one-tenth of a second goes by before the brain translates the signal into a visual perception of the world.

Source: Key to All Optical Illusions Discovered

Effectively, what this means is that all witness accounts should be treated as a photoshopped image that is posted as proof of the existence of UFOs on this forum. In other words, what you think you saw is not necessarily what actually happened.

Originally posted by dsm1664
I live in Spain, and I'm lucky enough to have very little light pollution here. As the nights are warm (March - November) I spend a lot of time outside and by default I sky watch, as the amount of stars and satellites you can see are incredible.

Well you are lucky to have little light pollution where you are. I live in the UK, and it's always been on city outskirts, so I have to travel to find dark skies. I often get away from the city and spend the whole night under the stars (sometimes a few nights in a row), and my cameras have been coming along with me for over 10 years now. I've also traveled to the US, Spain and Australia to observe and photograph the night sky..Australia and Spain were by far my favorite countries for observing the stars from

So yes, you are not the only one who has seen a few stars/satellites...

Originally posted by dsm1664
But this is was no illusion.

How do you know that though? An illusion (as it relates to this thread) is something that is basically either-

an inability to recognize that something is there when it really is there

or

seeing something there when there is nothing there


How can you recognize an illusion if it looks real? or How can say you have not witnessed an illusion, when the very definition of an illusion is something that seems real, but is not? See what I'm saying?

Originally posted by dsm1664
A single "satellite" like object, travelling through the sky at a constant speed and direction, suddenly made in instant right angle turn, with no arc, no deceleration, an no difference in brightness nor size.

You are actually contradicting yourself there. Earlier you said it was "smooth". An "instant right angle turn" can not by definition be "smooth".

Was it really smooth, or was it an apparent right angle turn? It can't be both. Is your recollection of the event so precise that you can say with 100% certainty either way?

If it did appear to be a true right angle turn, would that not suggest that there were in fact two satellites, since to explain what we see, we don't need to make any speculative assumptions about the laws of inertia/motion being somehow overcome, which is the only way a real object (with weight/mass) could perform such a maneuver? Do you not agree that two satellites, crossing each others path at right angles, would not appear to ark?

If the timing was right it would look as if one had taken over just as the other one disappeared.

Even if the timing was not *perfect*, have I not cast doubt that our brains would smooth over the gaps, to make it seem as though what happened was smooth?

Can I ask, were you expecting a single object to continue on from the event you thought you saw, given that you could have no idea (at the time) that another satellite was about to cross the first satellite's path at a right angle?

Be honest - the event took you by surprise, and from previous experience, it would make sense that the satellite you were seeing in the first place would have to carry on even though it was a seemingly impossible angle? In other words, would it not be fair to say, that it would be natural to assume this instinctively (at the time)? Did you know that preconceptions can affect your recollections of events?

Preconceptions can also influence what a witness remembers, i.e. if they hear an explosion, they expect to see fire and will remember seeing it. Children have more open minds and are often more reliable than adults.

Note that gender is not a factor in assessing reliability. No significant variation seems to exist in comparing the accuracy of adult female and male observers.

7.3. Credibility. Certain aspects of human nature come into play when a person witnesses, or is part of, a dramatic event:

- Witnesses rarely observe all of an occurrence, and even if they do the tendency is to report those events which were most vivid.


- Witnesses, when questioned in detail, become aware of gaps in their observations and, in hope of saving face, apply logic, answer in generalities, and add to their statements to make their observations seem more plausible.


- Witnesses who offer very specific information about altitude, airspeeds, or maneuvers must be viewed with caution, since even eyewitnesses with aeronautical experience have difficulty with these estimates.

USAF Witness Interview Guidelines

I've bolded some important bits.

I can't see how much clearer I can make it, or how much evidence you need to see that, when you see events such as there we have been discussing, it's more than likely that some form of optical illusion was involved, and how something seemed may not have been exactly how it was in reality.

If you want to ask the question "what could possibly make a right angle turn (whilst traveling at high speed)?" The answer is "Nothing that we have any real proof for".

IMO a better question would be "what could possibly appear to make a right angle turn (whilst traveling at high speed)?"

You can carry on "chasing your tail" with the former question if you like, but considering the latter question would save you a lot more time IMO.

In the end, how can either of us prove anything either way, without hard evidence to back up what you saw. If you really want to get to the bottom of the mystery, I have given you plenty of pointers, but as they say "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".

Adios amigo, and good luck solving your mystery.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.
Do the horizontal gray lines look straight to you?

yes they do actually...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/88fbba7a837f.gif[/atsimg]
This one is more dramatic... the animation is always spinning the same way, yet sometimes it appears to spin clockwise, and then anti-clockwise.

If you are looking at that and cannot tell it is only spinning in one direction, then I suggest you are not qualified to tell us what is or is not an illusion.

I like this one better... It seems the speaker is begin suggestive to make you see the effect, but my brains doesn't refuse to see that it is hollow, no matter how much he tells it's impossible