It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


UFO ? (as in possibly floating not flying) Filmed today 19/12/11 UK

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 06:20 PM
reply to post by tarifa37

Thanks for the video. If you look very carefully and concentrate only the area in front of the big light, then you can see the water movements, so it must be on the water. I cannot say if it is a fishing boat, I'm no expert, even though I have seen some and they don't look like this one. The lights are pointing too high for a fishing boat.

My best guess: Rescue mission of some sort.
edit on 19-12-2011 by StringTh because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:07 AM

Originally posted by Arken
An odd coincidence in the same area in October: A Ufo? or Meteorite? had gone into the sea. Pilots and fishermans witnesse the event....

It's actually not at all odd, unless you haven't investigated reports of large meteors in the past, in which case it might seem a bit odd.

Having observed, photographed and studied meteors for the last 14 years, virtually every bright meteor that is seen over a wide area and by many people that I have looked at, has people misidentifying (or not being able to identify) the meteor in question.

In my post here there is one recent example (it happened just 1 month ago today) of just such a case.

Canungra, Queensland, Australia Meteor 7:35 pm 20NOV2011
We saw a huge meteor in the sky tonight at 7.35pm. We had just left Canungra (a town inland from the Gold Coast) and saw it in the sky towards the west - it was travelling north. It was VERY large and close - it continued for about 5-10 seconds. At first we thought it was a plane on fire but it burnt up in the sky so must have been a meteor. It was a bright white light with 2 seperate white heads merging into a single tail which was more orange. Cheers - Donna Thank you Donna!


Toowoomba, Qld, Australia : 7:05 pm - Sunday 20 November 2011
Large fireball (with tail) moving slowly across the western sky (from SSW to NNE) – almost looked like a plane on fire but bigger - say it for about 20 seconds – incredible & once in a lifetime view for me. Looking up, Gayle Thank you Gayle!

Source: click here

Frank M of Brisbane Posted at 4:14 PM November 21, 2011
I saw it. There was this bright flash which looked like a flaming object. My first thought was a plane on fire. Only saw it for a split second out of the corner of my eye and thought I must have imagined it. Apparently not. Very cool sight.

Chris Akenfelds of Brisbane Posted at 5:15 PM November 21, 2011
I saw it. I was running across the Eleanor Schonell Bridge last night when I saw it blazing through the sky. I've seen many meteors in my life and I barely even recognised this as a meteor. Frankly, I didn't know what to think if at at first. It was huge.

Source: couri

That's just one meteor. If you search, there are thousands of cases like it. In some of them, meteorites from the object have been recovered, usually many miles away from where people thought they saw it come down.

Photographic studies show that even fireballs that drop meteorites on the ground usually stop being luminous many tens of km above the ground, even though people who see them often say things like "it looked like it fell on my next door neighbors property".

I've tried to explain at least some of the reasons why people misidentify meteors and UFO's in general here.

edit on 20-12-2011 by C.H.U.D. because: added a bit more info/typo

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 03:35 AM
reply to post by C.H.U.D.

As reported, the whitstable event was also seen by a pilot flying a plane ( I believe was a passenger jet) they are usually highly trained and able to recognise a meteor.

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 06:04 AM
could be a cross channel passenger ferry looks a bit to big to be a fishing boat

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 10:48 AM

Originally posted by dashdespatch
could be a cross channel passenger ferry looks a bit to big to be a fishing boat

They don't go past this stretch of coast you are right though it does appear to be very large judging how far out it is. The camera has zoomed in from a fair distance,

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 11:52 AM
reply to post by tarifa37

container ship?

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:14 PM
Oh dear... it is my first day here and I am already spoiling the party. It is one of the British destroyers coming back from Arabian peninsula and is heading towards Scotland to moor... so says a member of my family in the military. It left the Arabian peninsula two weeks ago and arrived in UK shores late because all ships are ordered to conserve fuel. We are running out of money lol... I prefer the idea of USO though.

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:29 PM
I agree it's a ship/boat. It's probably a touch of mist or fog that's magnifying the brightness of those lights.

It's a braw bricht moon-lit nicht, the nicht.

That boat is bricht.

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 02:34 PM
Within the first 4 seconds of the video I decided it was a boat. By the time I reached the end of the video my mind hadn't changed.

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 04:06 PM
What an absolute crock!

To the OP, You done the exact same thing over a year ago from the same general location as your newest video.

You started a thread on it, but have since seemingly deleted the video.

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 08:48 PM

Originally posted by tarifa37
As reported, the whitstable event was also seen by a pilot flying a plane ( I believe was a passenger jet) they are usually highly trained and able to recognise a meteor.

Yes, pilots are highly trained, but they are trained to fly, and recognize objects that would be of importance to a pilot.

Do meteors pose a serious danger to pilots or aircraft? No. Are pilots trained to identify astronomical objects? No. Do pilots have the same physical limitations that every one else has? Yes!

That is just generalizing though, and I'm sure there are some exceptions - every pilot has different knowledge and experience.

We know that people in general make EXACTLY the same mistakes I posted here, so please show me some evidence that suggests why we should make special exemptions just for pilots?

Also, how do you know that a meteor can not resemble a plane on fire in the distance? Have you spent enough time observing meteors and meteor showers so that you can say so with certainty?

As an example, here is a case which was originally posted by Arbitrageur, where many pilots misidentified an object that was later confirmed as being a reentering satellite. A satellite re-entry is basically just an artificial meteor, and most people, including experienced observers in some cases, would not be able to tell the difference with any certainty.

Now, what can we make of these impressive testimonials? The satellite reentry was occurring right before their eyes, and these pilots made many, many perceptual and interpretative errors, including:

1. In FSR, the anonymous BA pilot (obviously D'Alton) recalls: "One of the lights . .. was brighter than the others, and appeared bigger, almost disklike." It was just as light, a piece of burning debris, and the "disk" interpretation was a mental pattern conjured up from previous experience, not from this actual apparition. Note that later, Good alters this comment to have the pilot unequivocally call it "a silver disc".

2. The main light "was followed closely by another three that seemed to be in a V formation," according to the pilot. Referring to a "formation" is an assumption of intelligent control. The pieces of flaming debris were scattered randomly in a group and stayed approximately in the same relative positions, but the pilots misinterpreted this to mean they were flying in formation.

3. FSR reports the pilot saying "I watched the objects intently as they moved across my field of view, right to left," but the objects' actual motion was left to right, as reported elsewhere correctly. Either the FSR writer, or the pilot, jumbled this key piece of information.

4. The pilot did not believe the apparition was a satellite re-entry because "I have seen a re-entry before and this was different." These re-entries are particularly spectacular because of the size of the object, and the pilot was speaking from an inadequate experience base here.

5. The RAF military pilots in the Tornadoes concluded that "the lights 'formated on the Tornadoes', which is the kind of thing a fighter pilot is trained to detect and avoid, not dispassionately contemplate. The lights, of course, never changed course, but the pilots who were surprised by them feared the worst.

6. The accompanying Tornado pilot was so convinced that they were on collision course with the lights that he "broke away" and took "violent evasive action". This move would be prudent in an unknown situation, but there's no need to believe that the perception of dead-on approach was really accurate. Since the flaming debris was tens of miles high, no real "collision course" ever existed, outside the mind of the pilot.

7. D'Alton in the National Enquirer is quoted as claiming " it made a sharp turn while flying at high speeds -- an impossible maneuver that would rip any man-made aircraft to bits. " Again, the actual object never made such a turn, and the pilot's over-interpretation of what the object MUST be experiencing was based on mistaken judgments of actual distance and motion.

8. After two minutes of flying straight, said D'Alton, ". . .it took a lightning-fast right-angle turn and zoomed out of sight." But we know that the actual observed object never made such a maneuver, but D'Alton remembered it clearly when trying to explain in his own mind how it disappeared so fast.

Continued in the next post..
edit on 20-12-2011 by C.H.U.D. because: formating/typo

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 08:49 PM
Continued from the previous post.

9. The newspaper account, quoted in Good's book, has D'Alton claiming that "ground radar couldn't pick it up, so it must have been travelling at phenomenal speed." Actually, the speed would have had nothing to do with radar failing to pick it up, but the actual distance -- which D'Alton misjudged, leading to subsequent erroneous interpretations -- did.

10. The Tornado pilots described the flaming debris as " two large round objects, each with five blue lights and several other white lights around the rim." Since they were used to seeing other structured vehicles with lights mounted on them, when they spotted this unusual apparition, that's the way they misperceived and remembered it.

11. "In Belgium, dozens reported a triangular object with three lights, flying slowly and soundlessly to the south-west," but these were separate fireball fragments at a great distance, which witnesses assumed were lights on some larger structure. Their slow angular rate was misinterpreted to be a genuine slow speed because their true distance was grossly underestimated.

12. "A British pilot . . . reported four objects flying in formation over the Ardennes hills in south Belgium." The pilot may have been over southern Belgium, but the objects he saw didn't have to be, they were hundreds of miles away. And despite his instinctive (and wrong) assumption the lights were "flying in formation", they were randomly-space fireball fragments.

13. Note that Good writes that "Jean-Jacques Velasco,. . . said an investigation would be launched," but Good saw the results of that investigation before his book went to press, and he neglected to tell his readers that Velasco proved the lights were from the satellite re-entry.

Such selective omissions make many such stories appear far stronger than they really are.

14. One Air France pilot told a radio interviewer: '. . . It couldn't have been a satellite (re-entry) because it was there for three or four minutes', but such reasoning is groundless since near-horizontal re-entriers can be seen for many minutes, especially from airplanes at high altitude. The pilot didn't know this, and rejected that explanation erroneously.

15. "In Italy, six airline pilots reported 'a mysterious and intense white light' south-east of Turin. Pilots also reported five white smoke trails nearby." They may have been near Turin when they saw the lights and assumed incorrectly they were 'nearby', but the lights were far, far away.

In general satellite/junk reentries are much slower and longer lasting than a natural meteor, giving time for observers to get a good look at them, yet experienced pilots still managed to misidentify this one.

There are exceptions, but most natural fireball class meteors don't last longer than around 1-10 seconds, giving the observer very little time to think about what he or she is seeing, and making it more likely that an observer might misinterpret what they are seeing.

The reports we get from people after a large fireball are testament to this, but please, don't take my word for it. A search of this site which collects meteor reports will bring up many cases where meteors are misidentified.

I'm sure you are quite capable of finding other sources on the web as you have demonstrated in other posts I have seen from you, but here are a couple more meteor/fireball related events that were posted here on ATS that all had people misidentifying meteors

Mysterious Fireball Prompts Dozens Of 911 Calls

Huge Fireball Reported Over Madison, WI!
Freshly fallen meteorites were recovered in this event, and that together with the lack of crashed planes/UFOs strongly suggests that people who observed the object and reported a plane or UFO crash were mistaken.

Massive object crashes over Edmonton, Canada
Also a case where hard evidence in the form of meteorites was/were recovered.

Meteors can be a mysterious and very deceptive phenomena to people who have not spent time observing and learning about the phenomena, and I know this to be true from my own personal experience of the subject, which I have been interested in for over 14 years now.

Of course, although meteor in this case is the most likely explanation, given the reports, and that bright meteors are surprisingly common... it might have been something else, but apart from the witness reports (which we know are by their very nature unreliable in cases like this), what else is there that suggests it was anything else?

edit on 20-12-2011 by C.H.U.D. because: fixed typo

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 02:46 AM

Originally posted by big_BHOY
What an absolute crock!

To the OP, You done the exact same thing over a year ago from the same general location as your newest video.

You started a thread on it, but have since seemingly deleted the video.

That was a video I took with my phone and I have deleted it because the evidence pointed to it being a aircraft head on and the thread was very dead. I do live in the same county and that's why this one was of interest to me when I spotted it on ytube.

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 04:02 AM
OP where were you when this was filmed, location wise?
I see the previous page shows links to things being seen off Whitstable, and a few years ago, my mum was at Reculver and saw submerged lights in the water at night.
Obviously, the waters around the Kent coast are not terribly deep, so things like submarines are probably not the cause of something like this.
We also don't get cruise ships round our way, the nearst port for things like that (Portsmouth/Hastings) are round the other end of the coast line and don't cross round that way.
There is a sand bank running half way through the channel upon which boats are sometimes accidentally coming ashore on, but I do believe there may be something in the waters around East Kent and Thanet.

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:55 AM
He just posted another video I think of the same thing although the first video has been removed. This one does look as though its airborne although he doesn't zoom out so could be anywhere.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in