Lights In The Sky- I Am Freaked Out. NO, REALLY.

[Mash]

I understand your point in the first part of your statement Mash, but not necessarily if the technology is superior to ours or if it is some secret government military man-made project that we are not aware of.

Well... if the technology they're using can cloak them from every surveillance technology available to the government... how would we be able to see them?

Even if there is some technology out there that somehow could cloak a ship and keep it from emitting light/radiation/heat/sound/etc EXCEPT on frequencies that human biological faculties could pick up, most surveillance equipment operates on those very same frequencies, in addition to the ones that humans can't perceive.

For the second part, I live in a relatively crime free area{I realize that not all others are so lucky} but there are still cameras and license plate readers monitoring us everywhere; street corners, parking lots, government buildings, stores, banks, shopping malls and even 24hr take-outs such as McDonalds etc. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with, is when it comes to my personal privacy and what I choose to research over the internet, who I chat with, what I post, or having some 3rd party reading my emails or listening in on and recording what I discuss during my phone calls or text messages, even if my activity is harmless.

I get that, and there's no black or white answer when it comes to personal privacy. Everyone has a different level of tolerance when it comes to privacy.

The tricky part is defining when the government has the right to intrude on that privacy. The patriot act is a good example of that tricky grey area. Unfortunately, the individual's right to privacy is hand's down the greatest asset any home-grown terrorist has.

 

[MistressValerie1]

Very good article about the current state of UFO research, including UFO pranks and hoaxes: http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/ufo_research_is_up_in_the_air/

 

[Mash]

I love how most, if not all UFO sightings occur in less-than-ideal viewing situations. There'll be fog, or it'll be on a moonless night, or it'll be overcast... et cetera.

I love it, because the UFOs that are sighted on ideal viewing conditions aren't UFOs. Because people can identify them as common aircraft when they're not birdwatching at 2 in the morning.

 

[Lee47]

But please read my OP again and note that I did identify the aircraft that were in the sky at the same time; which looked nothing like the formation of lights that I had never seen before or since, except in UFO literature or on TV.

I do not pretend to know what they were. But I know they were NOT- any type of aircraft with which I am familiar; any type of natural phenomena ditto; paper lanterns (they travelled in the wrong direction and speed for the wind at the time and exhibited formation-flying ability; unless they were leashed together in some way, which still doesn't account for the fact that they disappeared simultaneously) or ultralights with spotlights (no sound even after the lights disappeared).

I am as skeptical as the next man, so I am sure there is some explanation for what I saw; but so far, none has convinced me. Occam's Razor actually at this point is working in favor of the "extraterrestrial spaceship" theory, because it makes more sense that the planet is being scouted by aliens than to think that humans are creating this phenomenon, with no apparent reward for the work involved. Or that the town I live in was chosen as a test area for top-secret technology.

 

[dentrag1231]

Occam's Razor actually at this point is working in favor of the "extraterrestrial spaceship" theory.

I don't think you understand Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor states the hypothesis with the least assumptions has the highest chance of being correct. The UFO theory is making quite a few assumptions, not the least of which is the existence of extra terrestrials, and that their exists a feasible method of interstellar travel. (Your earlier point about it being likely that in an infinite universe, someone has developed such a method contains the problem that current theories and evidence concludes the universe is finite)

 

[Mash]

I don't think you understand Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor states the hypothesis with the least assumptions has the highest chance of being correct. The UFO theory is making quite a few assumptions, not the least of which is the existence of extra terrestrials, and that their exists a feasible method of interstellar travel. (Your earlier point about it being likely that in an infinite universe, someone has developed such a method contains the problem that current theories and evidence concludes the universe is finite)

This guy knows what's up.

For it to be a UFO, we have to make many assumptions.

1) Extraterrestrial life exists.
2) Extraterrestrial life with space-age technology exists.
3) Extraterrestrial life with space age technology exists that can perform interstellar travel.
4) Said species are interested in us.
5) Said species have either contacted our world governments in secrecy, OR are able to slip past all known surveillance EXCEPT our clever little biological ones, OR the government has noticed them, and are just pretending they aren't there.

For it to be a terrestrial aircraft (or object), we have to only make one assumption.

1) It's an aircraft or object that you have not seen before.

Occam's Razor stands by the latter.

 

[dentrag1231]

There's an additional assumption to make: They have interstellar travel, but are unable to acquire the information they desire from orbit, but can acquire it from the atmosphere (and consider how much our level of technology allows us to acquire from orbit)

 

[Mash]

Now, don't get me wrong, here. As far as I'm concerned, it is statistically unlikely there we are the only life forms in this vast universe. Out of the billions upon billions of galaxies out there, and the trillions upon trillions of star systems contained therein, it is astoundingly unlikely that none of them contain a planet similar to earth. (And that of course, is excluding life forms that can survive in much harsher conditions.)

However, it is not confirmed. We can only assume and make predictions. If you're using Occam's Razor, you have to go by what you know, not by what is likely.

To quote one of my favorite shows...

Okay, so, given two equally predictive theories, you choose the one that has fewer assumptions. So, a tree has fallen in a forest after a storm. The first hypothesis holds that the tree was blown over by the storm. The second rival hypothesis claims that the storm forced an alien spacecraft to crash into the tree.

 

[Lee47]

Yeah, so, OK, I should not have used the technical term Occam's Razor, you got me on that. I should have said something like; "The investment of some human being's time and effort in creating these lights in the sky, simply to amaze some random mooks like me, with no certainty of said mooks even seeing the lights much less reporting them/ filming them/ etc., seems so great that it is unbelievable to me that these were the product of human invention." And their appearance/movement did not conform to anything I have yet been able to identify. Likewise, if it were the lights of some USAF/NASA experimental top secret aircraft, why the frak put lights on it to start with?
So I plead guilty on misusing a technical term, but the point I was trying to make with it was- the UFOs I observed (technically true- it/they were flying objects which I could not identify, hence unidentified flying objects) made no sense to me as human manufactured objects. Still not proof that it/they weren't, but I have yet to get a convincing theory of what it(they) was(were) and why such things would be flying over my neck of the woods.

 

[Lee47]

I don't think you understand Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor states the hypothesis with the least assumptions has the highest chance of being correct. The UFO theory is making quite a few assumptions, not the least of which is the existence of extra terrestrials, and that their exists a feasible method of interstellar travel. (Your earlier point about it being likely that in an infinite universe, someone has developed such a method contains the problem that current theories and evidence concludes the universe is finite)

The universe is finite? When did that happen?

 

[Mash]

It makes even less sense as to why a species that has made zeeeeero contact with the general public of human kind would decide to take a joyride in their spacemobile for our viewing pleasure.

There are a million different reasons as to why a aircraft you haven't seen before might be flying around at night. Just because you haven't seen it before, doesn't mean it's a secret project. It might be a prototype that the government hasn't leaked to the press yet, or it might just be a new model of surveillance drone.

In any case, the odds are vastly in favor of this being a terrestrial ship.

 

[Hootus1]

Lee, I was going to tell you to contact the mutual u.f.o. network a.k.a. mufon, but after watching that youtube vid, i'm wondering if that would be a waste of time? And for those who think the lights are drones, if you are spying on the public, at the order of the administration, you sure as hell don't want to be SEEN! Having lights on your drone come on at any time isn't a real smart idea. The lights on that video reming me of the ones over Phoenix, Arizona a few years back.

 

[Mash]

The point is that those lights are about as likely to be extraterrestrial as the loch ness monster is.

It's a possibility, but not a very big one, considering all other relevant factors.

If that ship were anything other than a US Airspace-certified vessel, it would have been intercepted or shot down. Plain and simple.

 

[Lee47]

But I would be much more inclined to the "experimental aircraft" explanation if I lived near anything like a major military or commercial test range. Or anything more military than the 156 Signals Group (Army National Guard) depot. (Which ought to tell you where I live :cool.)

So, like many before me, I still lack a convincing explanation. But I'm working on it. I have still to go up to the college and consult a meteorology professor to get his/her take on the event. (Now, if this were an episode of The X-Files, it would turn out to be a sultry female professor with whom I would become romantically linked for the duration of the episode. Or, in my fantasy world, a dominant sultry female professor with a thing for F/M bondage tickling. LIGHT BULB.....)

 

[Lee47]

If that ship were anything other than a US Airspace-certified vessel, it would have been intercepted or shot down. Plain and simple.

And your point is noted, however...

Sir Arthur C. Clarke once wrote that, in his opinion, the proliferation of radar systems on this planet made it next to impossible for any extraterrestrial craft to be seen and yet undetected by radar. A few years later saw the unveiling of the F-117 Nighthawk, first of the revolutionary Stealth aircraft, with a radar reflection of 0.269 square feet, akin to a sparrow in size.

Once it is accepted in theory that interstellar craft are possible, it is not a big leap to accept that they have low-RCS stealth as well. In fact, I suppose I may well have seen a B-2 Spirit making a transit over my area, with its formation lights on to avoid collisions- except that that would be fucking insane since 1) they don't have formation lights like that, 2) there is no reason for a multi-multi-million dollar stealth bomber to fly at that altitude, and shining spotlights at the ground yet, and 3) to appear as large as this formation of lights did, it would have had to be at treetop level already; so surely even when the lights went out, there would have been some sound.

And also, B-2s are wedge-shaped; my lights were in a curve.

Then again, it could have been a 10-ship of stealth fighters? which also makes no sense to me. I know what aircraft lights look like, Mash. This wasn't them. I ask you please to respect that, plus that I am a trained observer with military and civilian experience- not in the specific field of aircraft, but in law enforcement, making specific and precise observations, which carries over to this area.

 

[Mash]

Well in that case, I suppose I have no choice to assume that it was aliens having a rave in the middle of nowhere.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but for someone who uses logical tools like Occam's Razor in their arguments, you're taking an extremely illogical approach to this. You only assume it's aliens when it CAN NO LONGER be a terrestrial craft.

To quote one of my more favorite fictional characters, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

 

[dentrag1231]

The universe is finite? When did that happen?

1. The big bang theory, which is the prevailing theory explaining the beginning of the universe, states that the universe began at at specific point and started expanding outwards. It would be impossible for anything that started at a finite point to become infinite, as that would require expanding an infinite amount.
2. The same theory states that the universe will eventually stop expanding, and collapse in on itself (the big crush), which also would not be possible in an infinite universe.
3. Several other observations support the theory of a finite universe. For example, an infinite universe would have infinite stars, and as such the night sky would likely be white as a result of the infinite amount of light being cast in every direction.

 

[Mash]

And on the topic of the Universe, I have to agree that it's likely to be currently finite.

An infinite object cannot expand, and we know the Universe is expanding.

 

[MistressValerie1]

I have read of cases where strange lights appearing in the sky were caused by unusual reflections of lights from the ground, such as vehicle headlights. This astronomy article explains the phenomenon: http://www.astronomycafe.net/weird/lights/mirUFO.htm

An article about a specific case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marfa_lights

 

[U.N.Owen]

I have read of cases where strange lights appearing in the sky were caused by unusual reflections of lights from the ground, such as vehicle headlights. This astronomy article explains the phenomenon: http://www.astronomycafe.net/weird/lights/mirUFO.htm

An article about a specific case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marfa_lights

That kind of atmospheric lensing, letting you see things over the horizon, is surprisingly common. Someone has a theory that a phenom like that stopped the Titanic's lookouts from seeing the iceberg until it was too late. I'm not completely sold, but he does have some interesting arguments.