These Stars and Planets Are Often Mistaken For UFO's

reply to post by The Shrike


You make sense to yourself in your own convoluted way, trust me was not a compliment? Now where is my troll spray?

Originally posted by ascension211
reply to post by The Shrike

 

You make sense to yourself in your own convoluted way, trust me was not a compliment? Now where is my troll spray?

You sat on it, now you know where to look.

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by JimOberg

Please read Hendry's handbook on observing UFOs, to broaden your ability to see how many intelligent people can, and have, mistaken celestial objects for craft. Heck, even Jimmy Carter.

Misperceiving a visual stimlus has nothing to do with intelligence or even sobreity -- there are some studies that more intelligent people, able to be 'cued up' into a perception triggering a familiar apparition, may be MORE likely to make the misperception.

edit on 12-11-2012 by JimOberg because: typo

I owned Hendry's "The UFO Investigators Handbook". I still say that anyone mistaking a star and/or planet for a UFO needs to see their opthalmologist.

I beg to differ. You 'see' with your brain processing, not with your sensory organs. It is there that misinterpretation, based on experience and partial perception and misidentification, originates.

A lot has been learned over the decades on why most people 'see' UFOs. It's no dispute that in MOST cases, 'true UFOs' have little to do with it directly, but a lot to do with it indirectly by creating a culture-wide expectation of what a strange apparition might really be.

What worries me is that if you don't understand how these faux-FOs, pseudo-UFOs, whatever, are perceived, you will not develop a workable filter to focus in on the most interesting cases. Instead, you will theorize about witness characteristics that supposedly -- but nobody really knows -- makes them 'better' reporters of UFO perceptions.

And we stay stuck in the swamp of non-understanding even the basic perceptual process, making us helpless to track back to potential stimuli, either mundane or exotic.

As we are today.

reply to post by The Shrike

Sometimes, a star tends to twinkle more than normal, making stars appear to change colors and oscillate. This process is called "scintillation". William Viezee, a research meteorologist, wrote an article titled "Optical Mirage" for the Condon study.

Scintillation defines the rapid variation in apparent brightness, position, or color of a distant luminous source when viewed through the atmosphere.... In general, the effects of scintillation are minimum when the luminous source is viewed near the zenith, and maximum when the source is viewed near the horizon.... When observations are made with the unaided eye, the above-mentioned effects of scintillation are manifested only when the observation concern objects close to the horizon (at low elevation of "low in the sky"). Under these conditions, the most spectacular visual effects can be expected when the effects of scintillation (random refraction) are superposed on any visual image that arises from regular atmospheric refraction.... When the image is small and bright, as may be the case at night, large fluctuations in brightness and under unusual conditions in color can give an illusion of blinking, flashing, side to side oscillation, or motion toward and away from the observer. The effects associated with scintillation can dominate the visual appearance of any bright point-object in the area between the horizon and approximately 14 degrees above the horizon.reply to post by The Shrike

I actually agree with this thread. I'm relatively knowledgeable about the sky, but there has been a time or two where stars have been blinking between red, white and blue and it threw me off, for a few moments at least. Certainly it doesn't explain one orange orb splitting into two and hurtling off in opposite directions though, which I and my dad have both seen on separate occasions.

reply to post by JimOberg


Seems you are talking to a person who is intent on pushing buttons. Thank you for your valuable contribution to the thread. I really appreciate it. There are those of us that get it.


Take care.

Ascension211

reply to post by ascension211


"I've seen Venus many times, but I never saw Venus 50 feet above a road and moving from side to side like this was..."

Portage County Sheriff Ross Dustman to United Press International

There are 2 ways to look at this, not every UFO is a planet or star, but are used to explain UFO sightings.
Not every sighting of a planet or star is a UFO and often are mistaken for them. Certainly there are sightings that cannot be explained away. I think the term UFO gets missed used many times.

This thread was directed at the stars or planets that do often get labeled as UFO's because of their placement in the sky. They do change positions and color, just not in the same manner as we are accustomed to associating with UFO's. Not everyone has the same knowledge of the UFO phenomena and can get rather excited when they view these things for the first time.

I have many years of night watching and UFO interest and I still get caught looking at certain planets or stars and getting mesmerized by them. This does not happen often, but when looking in the sky at a certain angle they do have characteristics that are hard to ignore. We want to believe so badly sometimes that we convince ourselves we are seeing something strange. I have seen day time "strangeness" where something caught my eye that did not seem "normal"; fast moving objects that seemed to change direction quickly and shoot off in a blink of an eye. I would call these UFO's because I was not able to identify what a saw, but I am certain they were not a plane or a satellite or a weather balloon.

I do not think every UFO has to be a moving object though. It is possible that a UFO could materialize and stay stationary for a period of time, we do not know how they function if they are indeed from other dimensions or other galaxies. We only think we have to see them moving because this is the documentation that has been put forth as proof of their existence.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by JimOberg

Please read Hendry's handbook on observing UFOs, to broaden your ability to see how many intelligent people can, and have, mistaken celestial objects for craft. Heck, even Jimmy Carter.

Misperceiving a visual stimlus has nothing to do with intelligence or even sobreity -- there are some studies that more intelligent people, able to be 'cued up' into a perception triggering a familiar apparition, may be MORE likely to make the misperception.

edit on 12-11-2012 by JimOberg because: typo

I owned Hendry's "The UFO Investigators Handbook". I still say that anyone mistaking a star and/or planet for a UFO needs to see their opthalmologist.

I beg to differ. You 'see' with your brain processing, not with your sensory organs. It is there that misinterpretation, based on experience and partial perception and misidentification, originates.

A lot has been learned over the decades on why most people 'see' UFOs. It's no dispute that in MOST cases, 'true UFOs' have little to do with it directly, but a lot to do with it indirectly by creating a culture-wide expectation of what a strange apparition might really be.

What worries me is that if you don't understand how these faux-FOs, pseudo-UFOs, whatever, are perceived, you will not develop a workable filter to focus in on the most interesting cases. Instead, you will theorize about witness characteristics that supposedly -- but nobody really knows -- makes them 'better' reporters of UFO perceptions.

And we stay stuck in the swamp of non-understanding even the basic perceptual process, making us helpless to track back to potential stimuli, either mundane or exotic.

As we are today.

I beg to differ. You're not explaining STS-48, which you never did well. When one looks up whether day or night, one uses everything one has learned to distinguish aerial objects. During the day it's easier to see if perceived object is a human craft, a natural event such as a "shooting star", bird, balloon or whatever. If one doesn't have enough visual cues one may wonder what one is seeing but one cannot jump to conclusions and call it a UFO. A real UFO does things human craft or natural events don't do. If one sees a "star" move and make right angle turns, it isn't a "star", it's a UFO. Satellites don't make right angle turns. "Shooting stars" may leave a trail that may be angled by the wind.

There are UFOs and there are misperceptions. Don't call misperceptions UFOs.

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by JimOberg

Please read Hendry's handbook on observing UFOs, to broaden your ability to see how many intelligent people can, and have, mistaken celestial objects for craft. Heck, even Jimmy Carter.

Misperceiving a visual stimlus has nothing to do with intelligence or even sobreity -- there are some studies that more intelligent people, able to be 'cued up' into a perception triggering a familiar apparition, may be MORE likely to make the misperception.

edit on 12-11-2012 by JimOberg because: typo

I owned Hendry's "The UFO Investigators Handbook". I still say that anyone mistaking a star and/or planet for a UFO needs to see their opthalmologist.

I beg to differ. You 'see' with your brain processing, not with your sensory organs. It is there that misinterpretation, based on experience and partial perception and misidentification, originates.

A lot has been learned over the decades on why most people 'see' UFOs. It's no dispute that in MOST cases, 'true UFOs' have little to do with it directly, but a lot to do with it indirectly by creating a culture-wide expectation of what a strange apparition might really be.

What worries me is that if you don't understand how these faux-FOs, pseudo-UFOs, whatever, are perceived, you will not develop a workable filter to focus in on the most interesting cases. Instead, you will theorize about witness characteristics that supposedly -- but nobody really knows -- makes them 'better' reporters of UFO perceptions.

And we stay stuck in the swamp of non-understanding even the basic perceptual process, making us helpless to track back to potential stimuli, either mundane or exotic.

As we are today.

I beg to differ. You're not explaining STS-48, which you never did well. When one looks up whether day or night, one uses everything one has learned to distinguish aerial objects. During the day it's easier to see if perceived object is a human craft, a natural event such as a "shooting star", bird, balloon or whatever. If one doesn't have enough visual cues one may wonder what one is seeing but one cannot jump to conclusions and call it a UFO. A real UFO does things human craft or natural events don't do. If one sees a "star" move and make right angle turns, it isn't a "star", it's a UFO. Satellites don't make right angle turns. "Shooting stars" may leave a trail that may be angled by the wind.

There are UFOs and there are misperceptions. Don't call misperceptions UFOs.

Someone needs a hug!!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I explained it about as well as could be explained. Not my fault you are too arrogant to pay attention.

reply to post by The Shrike


en.wikipedia.org...

Unidentified flying object

An unidentified flying object, often abbreviated UFO or U.F.O., is an unusual apparent anomaly in the sky that is not readily identifiable to the observer as any known object, often associated with extraterrestrial life. Studies Studies have established that the majority of UFO observations are misidentified conventional objects or natural phenomena—most commonly aircraft, balloons, noctilucent clouds, nacreous clouds, or astronomical objects such as meteors or bright planets with a small percentage even being hoaxes.[7] After excluding incorrect reports, however, most investigators have acknowledged that between 5% and 20% of reported sightings remain unexplained, and therefore can be classified as unidentified in the strictest sense. Many reports have been made by such trained observers as pilots, police, and the military; some have involved simultaneous radar tracking and visual accounts.[8] Proponents of the extraterrestrial hypothesis suggest that these unexplained reports are of alien spacecraft, though various other hypotheses have been proposed. While UFOs have been the subject of extensive investigation by various governments and although some scientists support the extraterrestrial hypothesis, few scientific papers about UFOs have been published in peer-reviewed journals.[9] There has been some debate in the scientific community about whether any scientific investigation into UFO sightings is warranted.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] The void left by the lack of institutional scientific study has given rise to independent researchers and groups, including NICAP (the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena) in the mid-20th century and, more recently, MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) [17] and CUFOS (Center for UFO Studies).[18] The term "Ufology" is used to describe the collective efforts of those who study reports and associated evidence of unidentified flying objects. According to MUFON, as of 2011 the number of UFO reports to their worldwide offices has increased by 67% from the previous three years and now averages around 500 reported sightings per month.[19] UFOs have become a relevant theme in modern culture,[20] and the social phenomena have been the subject of academic research in sociology and psychology.[9]

There is much more....go read up on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!