posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 09:44 PM
Firstly, thanks to everyone for your replies and comments. I've starred all the posts that made good points.
Secondly, there were a few more points that I would have liked to make, but since I've posted, other posters have made many of the points for me. So
just to try and fill in a few gaps, I'd like to add that:
If we have an unknown light/object in the sky that is moving, because we don't know what the object is, or how far away it is, we can't tell how
fast it's moving. Yes, we can estimate the angular velocity, but without having an idea what kind of object we are dealing with, we cant estimate the
If the object passes in front of or behind cloud, that may give clues as to the true distance, but it could also be misleading, since with the right
type/thickness of cloud, a bright light above/behind the cloud can sometimes seem to be in front of the cloud.
As lifeform11 pointed out, with a familiar object (eg. hot air balloon, aircraft) we can usually make good educated guesses as to
distance/altitude/size/speed, but, that is only as long as a correct identification is made, and for 99% of the time I think people do identify
objects correctly. The problem is, the 1% that don't.
In all fairness, I don't think we can expect everybody to be able to identify everything they see.
intrptr... interesting sighting, but without more detail I wouldn't like to comment, except to say, we might not be able to identify
everything we see, but that does not mean everything we can't explain has to be something to do with aliens, although it might be the case.
As you say, there is no way to tell how large or fast the objects/lights are in the footage you posted. I don't think we can even say for sure that
anything exited the atmosphere, or for that matter if the footage has been messed with in some way. It certainly is interesting if it is real footage,
but without any background info on the footage, and/or witness reports, I'm not sure what purpose posting the footage here serves.
Kandinsky... You make some very good points.
I don't think anyone can be 100% free of bias, but a good investigator would be aware of this and try to be as impartial as possible.
Taking my case as an example, since I concentrate on meteors, some might expect that I would have a tendency to classify anything I see that appears
to me to have meteor like characteristics, as a meteor.
Well, if it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck...
Of course there is always the possibility that whoever "they" are, they are disguising themselves as "ducks", but if that's the case. why? It
doesn't make much sense.
Of course even experts can be wrong, and make mistakes. It is true, that "we see what we want to see", but a properly trained observer would be
aware of this, and all their other limitations.
I certainly don't think our limitations should be used to dismiss every account, but in the cases where there is fair possibility that our
limitations have come into play, without independent evidence from another source that corroborates the witness testimony, there should certainly be
question marks over the accuracy of the testimony.
BagBing... good point about our perception of brightness/size, and one which I meant to make in my OP, but never got around to.
mcrom901... if you are saying people are assuming that the simplest explanation must be true. I'm not sure that's the case. I would say that
it's true that the most likely explanation which fits the facts is usually chosen in a thorough investigation.
eagleeye2... yes, that is the question, or rater, "Is it really close, or is it really big or bright"
TheMindWar... That is true, but they were trained to spot familliar objects, and I'm sure they would have been good at that. The problems
arise when an unknown object is observed, or a known object is misidentified.
Apologies to all those who I have not replied to directly, but it's getting late (again), and I will try to reply at some point later when I get the
chance. Thanks again to everyone for their contributions to this thread.