Saw UFO with my eyes and my drone (pictures)

originally posted by: Stockwell
Hi, here is my video streamable.com...

I'm not really experienced in content like this so apologies if I ramble on a bit. Like I stressed before, I'm not claiming this to be the best video ever taken but at the very least I feel it adds credibility and a bit of flesh to the video posted by JBurns.

My sighting was in Scotland if that helps at all

Cheers

No that video is great Stockwell! Appreciate you sharing it. The time frame and frequency of these sightings add value to the belief of their anomalous non-routine nature

a reply to: fromtheskydown

There was little "balloon like" about this object other than its appearance. However, as the enhanced images I posted up on the last page show, it was seemingly more oblong than circular, despite its appearance to the eye (due to shadows)

a mundane explanation is always the most likely outcome and far easier to conclude than something more exotic

There's nothing "exotic" about UAP. The vast size of the universe makes it impossible for life not to exist elsewhere. And its more likely our understanding of science is flawed vs. it being impossible to travel from star to star (with the appropriate technology)

The only extraordinary claim is those who say UFO/alien life is an impossibility (which you didn't say)

As the observer, I can only say this thing moved with intention and was engaged in powered flight. I've seen plenty of aircraft from time to time with this drone (+50 degree pitch) and they do not behave or look like this. Not even close

A balloon could not hold a static position than accelerate at will. It also could not engage in the type of maneuvers witnessed. It also could not increase and decrease altitude in the way it did. Don't know what it is, but I do know it isn't any sort of balloon. Typically those would ascend and continue doing so until they reached a high enough altitude to burst.

originally posted by: JBurns
The vast size of the universe makes it impossible for life not to exist elsewhere.

No, it makes it only less likely.

As the observer, I can only say this thing moved with intention and was engaged in powered flight. I've seen plenty of aircraft from time to time with this drone (+50 degree pitch) and they do not behave or look like this. Not even close

No, you may say that it looked like it moved with intention but you can never be about it.

A balloon could not hold a static position than accelerate at will.

It could.

It also could not engage in the type of maneuvers witnessed. It also could not increase and decrease altitude in the way it did.

A balloon can change altitude and go back to where it was before, changes in density of the surrounding area can do that.

Don't know what it is, but I do know it isn't any sort of balloon. Typically those would ascend and continue doing so until they reached a high enough altitude to burst.

If you don't know what it is then you cannot really rule out any possibility.

a reply to: ArMaP

No, it makes it only less likely.

It really doesn't. Unless you believe the world is simulated or something along those lines. Otherwise, the idea we're alone in this incomprehensibly vast space is comical at best. It's akin to humans believing the stars revolved around our tiny little spec of dust & water, or that the planet was flat vs. spheroid. All theories should work under the assumption that we aren't special. If there was going to be a 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 organism that survived where no other organism could it wouldn't be our species. Much more likely (99.999999%+) the universe is teeming with life

I can say it is unlikely to the point of exclusion. It could be anything, but I am interested in "most likely." I don't need absolute/concrete proof, just a reasonable explanation that is most likely

Your point is well made & taken, but it most likely wasn't a balloon. Just as the sightings over the last few decades all around the world aren't likely balloons.

What is it more likely to be?

originally posted by: JBurns
All theories should work under the assumption that we aren't special.

I agree with that.

If there was going to be a 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 organism that survived where no other organism could it wouldn't be our species. Much more likely (99.999999%+) the universe is teeming with life

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that, could you rephrase? Thanks in advance.

I can say it is unlikely to the point of exclusion.

I cannot.

It could be anything, but I am interested in "most likely." I don't need absolute/concrete proof, just a reasonable explanation that is most likely

I need absolute proof of any thing to consider it a fact, a reasonable explanation is just that, it doesn't turn into a fact just because the odds are on its side.

Your point is well made & taken, but it most likely wasn't a balloon. Just as the sightings over the last few decades all around the world aren't likely balloons.

That's another thing I do not do, consider all similar sightings as being of the same object or type of object, I always consider each sighting as a specific case.

What is it more likely to be?

For me to present a possible explanation I can only use known objects, so, of all the objects I know, the most likely was a balloon.

You say it moved in a way that couldn't be possible for a balloon, so I accept it as your interpretation of the events, but as I do not see that in video (or any thing at all besides the clouds) I cannot comment on that, so while I think it could have been a balloon I have to accept you opinion that it wasn't.

PS: I don't consider that explaining something by saying it's something we don't know is not an explanation.

a reply to: ArMaP

Thanks for the reply ArMaP

If there was going to be a 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 organism that survived where no other organism could it wouldn't be our species. Much more likely (99.999999%+) the universe is teeming with life

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that, could you rephrase? Thanks in advance.

My apologies for the incoherent typing, it is hard on my mobile cell phone with the small keyboard. I am on the Computer now. I just mean that if there was some event like a great filter that some scientists have speculated about that our species wouldn't be the one in a quadrillion to make it through that event. There are a small number of members of our species that are highly intelligent & adaptable, but by and large that does not describe humanity in general. I posit our species would've been one of the extinguished lifeforms should the "great filter" theory be accurate

I need absolute proof of any thing to consider it a fact, a reasonable explanation is just that, it doesn't turn into a fact just because the odds are on its side.

Your right, I am only saying that my goal isn't to prove ET life or crafts, I am just trying to explain it satisfactorily (to myself if nothing else)

So to put it another way, can't rule it out that it is something exceptional

My only point there was I do not see that possibility as exceptional/extraordinary in the slightest

In my opinion one of the biggest lies ever told was by Carl Sagan, when he falsely claimed "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof" The lie there is that the ET hypothesis is extraordinary and in fact there is an embarassingly large field of evidence. I know that is a bit off topic here, that was all I meant by it though

For me to present a possible explanation I can only use known objects, so, of all the objects I know, the most likely was a balloon.

You say it moved in a way that couldn't be possible for a balloon, so I accept it as your interpretation of the events, but as I do not see that in video (or any thing at all besides the clouds) I cannot comment on that, so while I think it could have been a balloon I have to accept you opinion that it wasn't.

I appreciate that

originally posted by: JBurns
In my opinion one of the biggest lies ever told was by Carl Sagan, when he falsely claimed "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof" The lie there is that the ET hypothesis is extraordinary and in fact there is an embarassingly large field of evidence.

Sagan said "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence", and it's a tautology so can't be a lie.

Next, your "ET hypothesis" is not self explanatory, and needs to be defined. Sagan was quite receptive to the existence of alien life, and he even said maybe intelligent life has visited the Earth on occasion, so he didn't have a problem with the concept in general.

What he had a problem with was every time someone sees something in the sky they don't understand, thinking it was aliens when there are many far more likely explanations that should be considered first, which doesn't even rule out aliens, it just means it shows a lack of critical thinking to assume something you don't understand is aliens, which is what some people do.

So is alien life extraordinary? Sagan would say not at all. What is undoubtedly more rare, if it exists at all, is alien intelligent life. Sagan did a couple of calculations using the Drake equation to calculate how many intelligent alien species might be in the Milky way now, and he didn't come up with zero, he came up with at least 10 on the low end and a much higher number on the high end.

The problem with the high number is the Fermi paradox, if you're familiar with that.

For his low estimate, or anything close to it, given the size of the Milky Way, if there are only 10 or 20 other intelligent life forms they could be so far away our SETI efforts couldn't even detect them, and travel distances would be quite vast.

So ET, not so extraordinary, but for all the people who see things in the sky they don't understand to be seeing alien spacecraft would be extraordinary, and evidence shows it's much more likely our brains misinterpret the data from our eyes, than these thousands of UFOs being aliens. There's tons and tons of evidence of misperceptions, and zero scientifically validated evidence of alien spacecraft, so yes all the people claiming the UFO they see is an alien spacecraft is indeed an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence, Sagan was not wrong about that.

This TED talk by a scientist mentions a UFO he saw as a child that defied the laws of physics, but he has a more rational explanation than alien spaceship for that, one which too many people fail to consider. He also explains how life is likely common, but intelligent life could be much more rare than some people think, and he explains why.

Where are all the aliens? | Stephen Webb

originally posted by: JBurns
It is pretty tough to see so it might take a few loops through the video



Made this image to help with where to start looking

I watched your UFO video ten times looking where your arrow was pointing, on a 1920x1080 pixel monitor, but I couldn't see the UFO in the video, I only see it in some of your screen captures. But I can't even see the UFO in this image where you show the arrow, is the arrow pointing to the UFO? Or does it appear after this or something?



Even though I couldn't see the UFO, it was still a pleasure to watch a video that wasn't as shaky as most UFO videos, the drone image is nicely stable!

originally posted by: JBurns
I just mean that if there was some event like a great filter that some scientists have speculated about that our species wouldn't be the one in a quadrillion to make it through that event. There are a small number of members of our species that are highly intelligent & adaptable, but by and large that does not describe humanity in general. I posit our species would've been one of the extinguished lifeforms should the "great filter" theory be accurate

First of all, speculation means nothing, it can be right or wrong, but we don't have a way of knowing.
Also, we do have more adaptable people than you (apparently) think, they just don't have the need to do it on their everyday life, so I think (depending on that "filter event") humans would be able to overcome it and would not be extinct.

In my opinion one of the biggest lies ever told was by Carl Sagan, when he falsely claimed "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof" The lie there is that the ET hypothesis is extraordinary and in fact there is an embarassingly large field of evidence. I know that is a bit off topic here, that was all I meant by it though

I never liked Carl Sagan, and to me that sentence is just a slogan.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
This TED talk by a scientist mentions a UFO he saw as a child that defied the laws of physics, but he has a more rational explanation than alien spaceship for that, one which too many people fail to consider. He also explains how life is likely common, but intelligent life could be much more rare than some people think, and he explains why.

At what time does he talk about that?

a reply to: ArMaP
The UFO he saw as a child is the first thing he talks about, after the 10 seconds of applause.
After that he talks about all the aliens that should be everywhere. (He doesn't call it the Fermi paradox, but that's basically what it's about).

Then from 7:30 forward, he talks about some reasons why we aren't seeing intelligent aliens everywhere. Some of them are built into the famous Drake equation, but as an astronomer he discusses some research done since the Drake equation was developed which many people haven't considered. For example, not only does Earth enjoy a "goldilocks" orbit (not too hot, not too cold, but just right for liquid water), but relatively recent research has shown that we have a "goldilocks" moon size, which is the right size, not too big, not too small. The research indicates if our moon was much larger or much smaller, it would have adverse consequences for intelligent life (though that might not be a barrier for more simple forms of life).

JBurns assumes we're not special. Stephen Webb says, maybe not special, but maybe very, very lucky. Our moon is unusual even in our own solar system, it's by far the largest moon relative to the planet it orbits. That's just one more barrier for intelligent life some people haven't even thought much about, and he discusses I think about 8 barriers in total. If each of the 8 barriers allows only a 1/1000 chance for intelligent life like ours to develop technology, then the math is roughly:
.001 x .001 x .001 x .001 x .001 x .001 x .001 x .001= a very small number, even if there are a trillion planets in our galaxy alone.

One thing I think about is that technologically capable life is exceptionally rare, even on Earth. The Earth has been around for over 4 billion years, of which the entire time of Earth's existence there has not been any technologically advanced civilization except for a very short time, and technological advancement doesn't seem to be an inevitable consequence of evolution. So you could look at Earth on a time basis and see the time we've had technology like radio is nothing compared to over 4 billion years. Or you could look at Earth on a species basis, where the Earth has had countless species, some of them with some intelligence (like elephants, which he mentions in the TED talk), yet elephants never developed radio technology and probably never will for numerous reasons.

So even if life is everywhere, and even if some other planet has elephant-like creatures with elephant-like intelligence, that doesn't mean the elephants or any other creature on that planet will ever develop radio technology.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for the description.

The odds are just that, odds, they say nothing about reality, and the fact is that we haven't seen any life form that is not from this planet, at least not yet.

Check this out, you have been vilified

curiosmos.com... GnbhcUJ12QtX3S03Y

From the article.

At 30,000 feet, temperatures are close to -50 degrees Celsius. That was one of the conditions that most challenged Murillo: “I would think it was a balloon, but the conditions do not lend itself to it. I doubt it, above all, because of the altitude and the physical characteristics,” the airplane pilot revealed.

a reply to: baddmove
That's a different UFO, There were already two threads for that UFO so you posted in the wrong thread, this one is about a different UFO. These are the threads for that UFO:

Video Posted on TikTok by a Commercial Pilot: Medellín UFO
New UAP Video Taken By a Pilot (Duplicate thread)

The pilot makes no sense, he realizes balloons can easily reach that height, so why does he have a problem with the possibility it's a balloon?

Although the pilot isn’t sure what exactly he recorded, he emphasizes that there are certain types of scientific balloons that can reach these types of heights, such as those used by Google or even weather balloons.

Balloons can reach heights much higher than that, the article links to a wikipedia page saying weather balloons can get 4 times higher than 30,000 feet (40 km) so they obviously survive the cold temperatures to do that, so the pilot sounds rather incoherent talking about cold temperatures when he knows balloons can go much higher in cold temperatures than what he saw.

Someone on twitter commented it's a weather balloon and the speed is an illusion. We see a type of speed illusion like that on the "GoFast" video the Pentagon released recently, which looks like it's going fast, but it's not. Here's the twitter discussion where someone claims to have seen that kind of weather balloon before:

mobile.twitter.com...

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: JBurns

Silver sphere. I saw one about 15 years ago.

Remains unexplained but your pictures are exactly what I saw at a lower altitude.

Did you say you have video footage?

I too can confirm that I've seen a silver sphere during a cloudy evening dusk, among the backdrop of orange, yellow and purple, you could see it as clear as day, then in typical fashion, enter through a cloud, never saw it exit.

Not saying it's THE same one,

just saying it's the same KIND.

Therefore he's vilified in proving it's really out there.

While it may be true that there are intelligent aliens somewhere out there in the vast cosmos, and while someone might have an encounter or personal experience that convinces them beyond a doubt that there are aliens and they're interacting with humanity in some way, the rest of us are still going to rely on a consensus to define that reality.

I've never seen a black hole, but I'm pretty sure they exist because people I believe are smarter than me about the subject say they do, the physics seem to hold together, and I've seen a blurry, fuzzy image of one.

But nobody with any real authority has laid out the truth of intelligent aliens to me yet. So while the objective truth might be that there are intelligent aliens out there (or flying around Earth), it has never been proven to me to my satisfaction by consensus so it remains inconclusive to me and most other people.

Intelligent Life "Rare" Says Astronomer Using Bayesian Analysis

originally posted by: baddmove
Therefore he's vilified in proving it's really out there.

In what sense are you using "vilified"?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: baddmove
Therefore he's vilified in proving it's really out there.

In what sense are you using "vilified"?

I'm not sure baddmove knows what "vilified" means, or if he does, he's not using it in proper context here. A possible word that might fit in such a context is "vindicated", however, I don't think the UFO in this thread looks the same as the pilot's UFO in the other thread, so I don't think the real UFO JBurns captured with his drone proves anything about the pilot's UFO, or "vindicates" him, and it certainly doesn't "vilify" him.

If you read the other thread on the pilot's UFO and some of the twitter discussions, some people thought the pilot's UFO was a fake, so one might say the pilot in the other thread was "vilified" with the accusation his UFO video was fake.

I didn't see anybody accuse JBurns video in this thread of being a fake, so I guess he's saying since JBurns video of a "balloon-like" object is real, that means the pilot's video of a balloon-like object is real too. I don't really see the logic in that since they look different to me (JBurns even points out he doesn't think his UFO is spherical, while the pilot's UFO does look spherical), and I don't see the need to fake something that looks like a balloon since there are balloons everywhere and it would make more sense to fake something more interesting if someone wants to make a fake.

I can understand people's skepticism about UFO videos since so many fakes are made these days. Here's a researcher saying at time 10:30 that ""My attitude is, every UFO video is a hoax until proven otherwise"

I don't take that as him trying to vilify people making UFO videos so much as acknowledging there are a lot of fakes out there.

Folks just to be clear I'm not saying this thing is alien and I'm not saying its not either, heck if I know what it actually is. At this point I rule nothing out, and it could be anything from a weather balloon to a genuine ET operated craft. I will say this much I got absolutely no indication it was hostile, no sort of fear or anxiety in the least with it. The whole experience was interesting to me (as a near life long UFO believer who had never seen one of these things before) and I look back on the moment with reverance

I could be mistaken and my own eyes tell me I am, but what I saw in the pictures did appear to be more egg like or football shaped. To the eye it appeared like someone knocked a golf ball way too high and had a perfect backspin to cause all sorts of strange movements. So visually it appeared perfectly round/spherical, and in the photos you can say "sphereoid" might be more accurate

The definite color changing was another bewildering aspect of this. It went from being shiny and silver-metalic to a solid white blip faster than my eye could even register. One minute it was shining and the next it was cloud-matching

I can understand people's skepticism about UFO videos since so many fakes are made these days. Here's a researcher saying at time 10:30 that ""My attitude is, every UFO video is a hoax until proven otherwise"

I am sure there is a way to authenticate the images/video itself, but I assure you (as anyone who seen my info graphics will attest to) I neither have the skill or inclination to fake such a thing. I am a user of MS Paint, if that tells you anything

and I don't see the need to fake something that looks like a balloon since there are balloons everywhere and it would make more sense to fake something more interesting if someone wants to make a fake.

A Very Good Point! The video/images were a luck of the draw I just so happened to already have a decent pro grade drone in the sky and was able to at least capture some sort of corroborating evidence to that affect. It proves, to myself, that UFOs are indeed out there (as if more proof was actually needed......) but sadly doesn't do anything to further the "OK, its an unidentified object in the air...now what is it?" answer

I know we have some real image gurus here on ATS, and I look forward to the analysis done by you ladies & gents

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: JBurns

Silver sphere. I saw one about 15 years ago.

Remains unexplained but your pictures are exactly what I saw at a lower altitude.

Did you say you have video footage?

I too can confirm that I've seen a silver sphere during a cloudy evening dusk, among the backdrop of orange, yellow and purple, you could see it as clear as day, then in typical fashion, enter through a cloud, never saw it exit.

Thats exceptional Arnie123!

I can only say I appreciate you reaching out and sharing this. It is pretty incredible to read just how many of our fellow ATSers in the US & abroad have seen this same phenomenon

Really makes you scratch your head