Major UFO experiences are specific to the observer

[JMartJr]

If only we had a time machine! We could go back together and look at it again.

And being forewarned, could show up with a metric ton of recoding and measuring equipment, a phalanx of other witnesses (I always wanted to use "phalanx" on here!), a crew from as many news networks as possible, and perhaps a "Stop and be friendly" sign, as a "Close Encounters" homage.

It is not often we get advance word of these things... let's take full advantage!

 

[JMartJr]

Rather than a dime, what was the size compared to (say) a full moon?

So many people overestimate the size of the moon in the sky (I did until I was induced to check), I'd hang on to that dime comparison!

 

[Todd Feinman]

But if this event occurred near the McMinnville UFO festival, why didn't anyone at the festival see them? Unless it was a scheduled event.

It's a good question. Perhaps they were only visible or from a certain perspective. Perhaps that's something that they can do. They seemed very crisp and focused on me. You can see the illustrations on my about page.
Later when the officer and military pilot saw them, others did too. There were a number of people pulled off at the entrance to Roseburg along with the two who filed the report (NUFORC), and perhaps pictures were taken. Then they flew overhead and away.

 

[Eburacum]

So many people overestimate the size of the moon in the sky (I did until I was induced to check), I'd hang on to that dime comparison!

That is my point. A lot of people think the Moon is similar in size to a dime held at arm's length; this is not the case.

 

[Todd Feinman]

They weren't perfectly horizontal initially, they were in a line at a slight angle to the horizon, as in my illustration. If you imagine being in that driver seat in the illustration and held out your arm with a dime, that's how I drew them, how they appeared.

 

[Eburacum]

Would a dime cover them all, or just one?

And, as a question of interest, how big were they compared to a full moon? Larger? Smaller? The same size?

 

[Todd Feinman]

Would a dime cover them all, or just one?

And, as a question of interest, how big were they compared to a full moon? Larger? Smaller? The same size?

Just one; each was the size of a dime. I think they would be smaller than the full moon but not by much. I think the illustration shows their apparent size pretty well. When they showed up in front of me in the echelon-type formation they were glowing orange. I got the impression that they were giving off less energy; they were not as bright. I wonder if I got zapped by them initially. I did get shingles afterward and had a strange blood test.

 

[Eburacum]

Thing is, a dime at arm's length is actually twice as wide as the Moon (four times the surface area), so it seems likely that your remembered size for these objects is not entirely accurate.

The fact that you were in a car at the time may have affected your estimation of the apparent size as well, since your field of view would be diminished.

 

[Ann K]

If it was advertised (or expected) that would explain why few people were fooled by the event, or at least not enough to mention it.

 

[Eburacum]

I was hoping that someone here might have details of a 'Hudson Valley' type hoax flight at this event.
It could be done, I think, but there are several problems.

 

[Todd Feinman]

If it was advertised (or expected) that would explain why few people were fooled by the event, or at least not enough to mention it.

There is nothing that I know of that resembles what I saw. They were in the direction as the crow flies but not from event. Everyone would have seen them if it was something at the event. Also you could take my sighting out and still have the other two sightings describing the same thing to back each other up; cop, military pilot (both with aircraft ID as a hobby), and the truck driver later on. If more folks came forward from Roseburg sighting, you'd have even more.

 

[Todd Feinman]

If only we had a time machine!

We'd go to ancient Egypt instead!

 

[Todd Feinman]

I was hoping that someone here might have details of a 'Hudson Valley' type hoax flight at this event.
It could be done, I think, but there are several problems.

I've often dreamt it would be possible to get ahold of the other witnesses, Cop and pilot. They must not look at forums about this stuff.

 

[Ann K]

Perhaps that's something that they can do. They seemed very crisp and focused on me.

You've been hinting at this since you started coming here, without bothering to tell us until now (AFAIK) that you saw them at the same time and place as the McMinnville events. Now with these comments, as well as your statement that you "know" you can't be debunked, you're deep in woo territory. I hope you understand, to an outside observer this makes your story less credible, rather than more.

One of the principles of being a skeptic is an ability to detach one's feelings and pay attention to what others might think of your personal accounts. You seem to be having difficulty with that.

 

[Todd Feinman]

You've been hinting at this since you started coming here, without bothering to tell us until now (AFAIK) that you saw them at the same time and place as the McMinnville events. Now with these comments, as well as your statement that you "know" you can't be debunked, you're deep in woo territory. I hope you understand, to an outside observer this makes your story less credible, rather than more.

One of the principles of being a skeptic is an ability to detach one's feelings and pay attention to what others might think of your personal accounts. You seem to be having difficulty with that.

I 've been pretty clear about the McMinnville connection for a long time --from the beginning, at other forums, too. It's probably my fault for not formally posting all of the details here, but they are now in my profile.
I guess I should say that I am pretty sure it can't be debunked; but I am open to the possibility. I just don't know what mundane objects they could all possibly be. Many of you are certain everything can be debunked; is a balloon or camera artifact. I'm here to tell you there is more.

 

[Todd Feinman]

One of the principles of being a skeptic is an ability to detach one's feelings and pay attention to what others might think of your personal accounts. You seem to be having difficulty with that.

I'm not skeptical about the existence of UFOs as anomalous objects after seeing what I have, looking at reports from the past, and interviewing people for years. If I hadn't seen them (twice), I would be unable to leave the fence completely. If I was a scientist I would have to have proof. But I've proffered my experiences to skeptics for years and not been successfully debunked. The experiences were so amazing and unlike anything I have ever seen or know of. Why do I think they were interested in me? They isolated me on I-5. Then there is the weird synchronistic stuff around the event. Then I saw them a second time. Pretty improbable.
Spielberg is a real UFO believer; he's not seen them but is willing to believe in them based purely on circumstantial evidence and witness testimony..

 

[Smythe Bacchus]

Regarding the fallibility of witness testimony without getting into how it is indeed used with circumstantial evidence to prove cases in court, I think it depends on the specific circumstances.

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, e.g. a footprint or a plausible motive, which must then be linked by a logical step (rather than other evidence) to the case being presented. The balance of probabilities is what carries the weight.

Circumstantial witness statements can be useful, e.g. "the defendant who was always complaining about the cost of living suddenly started to splash the cash". It will carry weight if the defendant cannot show where this cash came from.

Imagine if a hard-boiled detective gave testimony like "in my gut I know this person is guilty" without being able to present compelling evidence to support this position. No self-respecting prosecutor would even dare to present it to a jury.

If three other detectives testified the same way, would it add any weight before a jury? They have no choice but to focus on gathering and following the evidence. The burden of proof doesn't change based on personal feelings and instincts.

I guess I should say that I am pretty sure it can't be debunked; but I am open to the possibility. I just don't know what mundane objects they could all possibly be. Many of you are certain everything can be debunked

Considering the balance of probabilities is what skeptics do. Is it unreasonable to begin a "lights in the sky" investigation of a report, photo, or video against known phenomenon before leaping into the unknown? Can we proceed further if the information is scant?

I can't think of any regular contributor to this forum that believes every sighting "must" have a prosaic explanation. That goes against the principle of following the evidence.

I've proffered my experiences to skeptics for years and not been successfully debunked. The experiences were so amazing and unlike anything I have ever seen or know of. Why do I think they were interested in me? They isolated me on I-5.

I've read the two sightings in your About page. The first in 2010 is reminiscent of a tight formation of military aircraft. You were driving south. If they were flying SSE, they would appear almost stationary, and gradually cut across your path from the right (where you first spotted them) to your left (when you saw them again).

In that direction is the Kingsley Field Air National Guard Base where the 173rd Fighter Wing has been flying the F-15 since 1998. Camouflage is supposed to make them hard to identify from a distance. Being non-stealth, the jet engines would remain prominent from the rear, especially when the afterburners are ignited.

Military aircraft in decades past used to have bare metal finishes making them highly reflective, which could also obscure the detail. Could it be a heritage flight of aircraft?American Airlines also retained a legacy polished metal livery until 2013.

Your second sighting has little to go on. It is reminiscent of either a satellite or meteor.

Since I wasn't there, I can only work off the details you've provided. To argue "it could only be otherworldly" in court would require the jury to accept a logical leap over the equivalent of the Grand Canyon, and an exceptionally talented prosecutor

Nobody here wants to detract from your own experience, that will always be your own.

 

[John J.]

It's probably true to say that many UFO sightings and reported experiences of paranormal phenomena whose only evidence is eyewitness testimony can't be debunked to the satisfaction of the witness, perhaps others. People might offer alternative explanations, but there are many accounts where claimants are adamant that they've seen structured exotic craft (and aliens), big hominids in America that are clearly, to the witness, not bears, Roman soldiers marching through a cellar etc. etc. in good viewing conditions.

I am sure that some of these accounts are honest reports by competent people who are attempting to recount what they believed they saw/ what happened as accurately as possible. Some of these experiences must have a profound impact on the experiencer.

Most of the time, it is not unreasonable that we trust the evidence of our senses, although there is compelling evidence that, rarely, people can make radically incorrect interpretations of what is there to be seen.

In the absence of other testable evidence, any eyewitness accounts of extraordinary happenings remain anecdotes. The confidence that the claimant has in their claim, the firmness of their convictions, doesn't change that. It isn't additional evidence for the accuracy of their claim.

A claim might not be "debunkable", just as some propositions and theories are not falsifiable. But unfalsifiable theories are of little scientific use.
(A falsifiable theory need not, of course, be false, but it can be tested).

 

[Ann K]

I just don't know what mundane objects they could all possibly be. Many of you are certain everything can be debunked; is a balloon or camera artifact. I'm here to tell you there is more.

That's called the "argument from ignorance". If you don't know what they could be, then you don't know, that's all. You cannot possibly tell us "there is more", because, as you said, you don't know.

Sometimes that's all that can be said about an item in the LIZ, and they don't get much deeper in the LIZ than "somebody told us that he saw something". We are not in the head of a witness, we don't know his state of mind when he saw something, we do not have any other descriptions, and we don't have any pictures. There is no way for us to tease out any more information from a witness' description, so sometimes "we don't know" is all we can say.

 

[John J.]

Why do I think they were interested in me? They isolated me on I-5.

What makes you think they were interested in you?
You're a unique and valuable human being, but there are many human beings. Maybe they were interested in your car's windscreen wipers or something, or lichen along the edge of I-5.

Are the hypothetical aliens (or whatever) interested in everyone who sees their craft, or only the people who believe that they're alien craft?
If the latter, how can they tell?

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

As much as I agree that there's no hard science that comes with @Todd's sighting, and there is no video to work on, it's interesting to notice that similar "objects" are reported at least since the 40s. Some "foo fighters" were described as glowing balls of light.
The problem is that a featureless light can appear almost spherical if distant enough (landing lights, Chinese lanterns, afterburners from fighters). In some cases, however, these "things" are seen from closer distances, making it more difficult to debunk, I think.
Unless we want to say that every time that happens, either the memory was naturally corrupted over time or there are psychological factors involved in the "distortion" of something totally banal and excluding hoaxes, I think it wouldn't hurt to entertain the idea of setting up non-military sensors (thus, free of sensor secrecy) that could potentially catch some of it.
Honestly though, we haven't seen a single video of a real, up-close orb so far.

 

[Todd Feinman]

Considering the balance of probabilities is what skeptics do. Is it unreasonable to begin a "lights in the sky" investigation of a report, photo, or video against known phenomenon before leaping into the unknown? Can we proceed further if the information is scant?

No, and that is the limit of the kind of science being practiced. I believe even AARO was looking at correlations and corroborative sightings in NUFORC. So, you must set things you cannot explain on the shelf to hopefully be debunked later.

I can't think of any regular contributor to this forum that believes every sighting "must" have a prosaic explanation. That goes against the principle of following the evidence.

I think there are more than a few!

 

[Todd Feinman]

What makes you think they were interested in you?
You're a unique and valuable human being, but there are many human beings. Maybe they were interested in your car's windscreen wipers or something, or lichen along the edge of I-5.

Are the hypothetical aliens (or whatever) interested in everyone who sees their craft, or only the people who believe that they're alien craft?
If the latter, how can they tell?

If a helicopter waited until you were alone on I-5 and then showed up near you hovering, you'd be suspicious. I also might have just been in the right place at the right time; I've considered this as a possibility. But I was a nexus for McMinnville and UFOs when it occurred --the odd coincidences. And then to see a second object fly off in 2013; how many people does this happen to?

 

[Todd Feinman]

That's called the "argument from ignorance". If you don't know what they could be, then you don't know, that's all. You cannot possibly tell us "there is more", because, as you said, you don't know.

Sometimes that's all that can be said about an item in the LIZ, and they don't get much deeper in the LIZ than "somebody told us that he saw something". We are not in the head of a witness, we don't know his state of mind when he saw something, we do not have any other descriptions, and we don't have any pictures. There is no way for us to tease out any more information from a witness' description, so sometimes "we don't know" is all we can say.

Right! And neither do scientists in some cases, full stop. I don't know they are "aliens" but they are anomalous, in my book.

 

[Todd Feinman]

it's interesting to notice that similar "objects" are reported at least since the 40s. Some "foo fighters" were described as glowing balls of light.

I think it is the same phenomenon, Also the same seen by Leroy Chiao, the scientists in NV in the '50s, and others too, over time.