Groups of flickering objects - what do you think these are?
- Thread starter water_buffet
- Start date
john.phil
Senior Member.
There are too many events in the footage, and they are probably all uncorrelated, and would have their own explanation individually.
The first footage (00:00 - 00:15) looks like fireworks launched from a far away large balloon, common throughout Latin America and Asia. If you boost the sound, it is possible to hear the distant explosions with a delay, which also allows for the calculation of the distance to the source of noise, if the sound of a specific explosion can be correlated with a corresponding flash.
For the people who have witnessed it before many times, the giveaway is the flickering amber/yellow/orange/red colour of the single light source hanging above the flashes + the physical appearance of the flash itself + the flashing pattern + the sound of a distant explosion when noticeable.
Out of focus unedited frame taken at (00:14):
Example from Brazil, where a balloon was near a major international airport when it started to release the fireworks. The text in the video reads "Balloon releases fireworks near Guarulhos (GRU) airport". The activity is illegal in the country, but a major tradition in the favelas (ghettos):
Source: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=607763173943667
Example of one such balloon during the day:
Source: https://www.tiktok.com/@viniiloopes90/video/7431724405325073669
The first footage (00:00 - 00:15) looks like fireworks launched from a far away large balloon, common throughout Latin America and Asia. If you boost the sound, it is possible to hear the distant explosions with a delay, which also allows for the calculation of the distance to the source of noise, if the sound of a specific explosion can be correlated with a corresponding flash.
For the people who have witnessed it before many times, the giveaway is the flickering amber/yellow/orange/red colour of the single light source hanging above the flashes + the physical appearance of the flash itself + the flashing pattern + the sound of a distant explosion when noticeable.
Out of focus unedited frame taken at (00:14):
Example from Brazil, where a balloon was near a major international airport when it started to release the fireworks. The text in the video reads "Balloon releases fireworks near Guarulhos (GRU) airport". The activity is illegal in the country, but a major tradition in the favelas (ghettos):
Source: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=607763173943667
Example of one such balloon during the day:
Source: https://www.tiktok.com/@viniiloopes90/video/7431724405325073669
Last edited:
water_buffet
New Member
Oh nice find, thanks for that. One more up the sleeve for mundane explanations.
However, if you look at that first clip again and track a single flickering light, it appears to be fixed in place. If it was one of those balloons launching fireworks out, you'd expect the flashes to be in relatively random locations and more spread out. I'll grant that there could be a fireworks balloon configuration that has fixed-in-place fireworks below it?
Below is a more full-length clip. I think the "explosion" you can hear might actually be the camera man bumping the camera, as only one of the three visible explosions correlates to an audible noise. But maybe it's far enough away that none of the visible explosions traveled to the camera through the duration of the recording and the one heard was from an explosion before the recording started.
Do you have thoughts on what the other clips could be? I understand the point that some or all might not be the same thing.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
No splattergunning, please:
-- https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/External Quote:
I have seen a handful of videos showing similar flickering / strobing / sparkling lights. Unfortunately some I've seen that were posted to twitter are no longer available.
No single video ever seems to be compelling enough to raise much attention but I've always been interested by them. I apologize for adding to the "splattergunning" but I think its helpful to collect similar footage in one place, in case there is something to be gained from the group of them.
There is very little detail or context in most of the videos I have seen, so I feel it is hard to say if they are all a demonstration of the same thing or are completely unrelated.
I could imagine balloons, drones or a group of aircraft could generate a similar effect.
Here is one posted to reddit recently from Michigan October 2023 (ignore the obvious lens flares):
Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1gac321/southeast_michigan_twinkling_lights/
Another from Michigan from a different user September 2022:
Source: http://old.reddit.com/r/HighStrangeness/comments/xe13tx/an_experience_from_last_night/
One from Arizona October 2022:
Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/y4ts9v/lights_over_san_manuel_az_101322/
No single video ever seems to be compelling enough to raise much attention but I've always been interested by them. I apologize for adding to the "splattergunning" but I think its helpful to collect similar footage in one place, in case there is something to be gained from the group of them.
There is very little detail or context in most of the videos I have seen, so I feel it is hard to say if they are all a demonstration of the same thing or are completely unrelated.
I could imagine balloons, drones or a group of aircraft could generate a similar effect.
Here is one posted to reddit recently from Michigan October 2023 (ignore the obvious lens flares):
Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1gac321/southeast_michigan_twinkling_lights/
Another from Michigan from a different user September 2022:
Source: http://old.reddit.com/r/HighStrangeness/comments/xe13tx/an_experience_from_last_night/
One from Arizona October 2022:
Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/y4ts9v/lights_over_san_manuel_az_101322/
Last edited:
john.phil
Senior Member.
I trimmed the original video to separate the first footage (00:00 - 00:14) and boosted the audio, so you can hear the two discernible distant explosions (00:01 and 00:05) more clearly. I also deleted the noise from the "camera bump" you mentioned, to preserve our "dark-adapted" ears, as it was much louder than the explosions:
It is not uncommon for these types of balloons to carry fixed lights or candles suspended from a long line, or to drop the fireworks around the same place. You would think the fireworks would always be set off randomly sideways, but they also point them downwards, or drop flash bombs vertically. Watch this example:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYvPHPSRdBQ
At around 00:30, the balloon in the footage above is zoomed in. I have extracted the zoomed in section and cropped it further, also adjusted it a little bit to try to bring up more detail. If you squint, the volumetric shape of the balloon is perceptible. Below it, there is a trail of white smoke in the shape of a corkscrew. And further down is the point where the dropped fireworks detonate. As they are distributed around the same elevation in the balloons' payload, are of the same type, or point straight down, or are dropped with a lighted short fuse, their light tends to concentrate around the same location:
I have not watched the entire video. You should consider separating the clips, as they are unrelated until proven otherwise, and it helps with the flow of the thread, as people won't be cross-talking each other on different segments.
water_buffet
New Member
Understand it's part of the rule and I will try to not do it. I will say though I completely disagree with the rule and think it restricts inductive reasoning, which is a major part of modern science. But I also understand it's annoying when people put out low quality montages with limited similarity between clips. I think this one is better than usual.
Completely agree with @sigmops on how there's rarely enough data/detail in a single video of a far away object in the sky to say for sure what it is or isn't. I've been looking through UFO evidence for a while now and the most compelling stuff to me is very similar patterns of unusual behavior seen across hundreds of videos with different locations and backstories. I have a handful of pattern types I've been keeping my eye on. Any one case can be plausibly argued away as fake or something prosaic that maybe is a 50% visual match to the footage. But when the same unusual patterns are seen across hundreds of videos, it naturally filters out fakes and increases the merit of an anomalous conclusion. Though I do understand how technically-skilled debunkers operate - they want to put to bed each and every clip (which can take a lot of effort) and so they prefer to see one at a time. Though I don't buy this idea of putting to bed every clip - you often just have to admit there's not enough quality data to say for sure what something is or isn't, no matter how many numbers and diagrams are thrown at it. That's unfortunately where a lot of UFO footage lands.
And for the record - I really do think these flickering lights are anomalous. Chris Bledsoe and @RangerH338, both high profile alleged close encounter cases, often record footage with flickering groups of objects (among other patterns).
water_buffet
New Member
Thanks for compiling those clips and working on the OP clip audio.
I think the lights in the OP clip are sparse enough that it seems unlikely they are being launched. In some instances, they blink on and off twice within a second and it's really apparent they are likely objects fixed in the sky. Though I do see what you mean how it can appear like one is launched, flashes, and then another is launched and flashes near the first giving the illusion of object permanence. You can also usually see smoke being illuminated by the flashes in the known fireworks clips.
The audio of explosions was never really a sticking point for me - both fireworks and hypothetical alien probes with weapons could be explosive. I didn't hear an audible pattern that matches the dual explosions at 0:05.
I guess I'll have to post the other clips in another thread due to the rule of one clip per thread. I do value skeptic/debunker vast knowledge of rare mundane/prosaic objects in the sky. But that's usually a very quick intuitive thing devoid of complex analysis - either you've already seen something prosaic that looks like it or you haven't. That's why I felt the montage would be best. But I do understand the drive to debunk things, which depending on the person, can be a lot of technical effort.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
This is Mick's forum and his rules. I'm not speaking in anyway as a moderator, just a member here, but the idea is to keep things simple and clean and avoid excessive thread drift, which already happens. There are some threads on here that do cover multiple sightings, WHEN it's shown they are related. Starlink is a good example. There are a number of threads showing multiple claims of anomalous lights that in fact all correlate with Starlink launches, deployments or their orbits.
But in general, keeping threads to one claim makes things easier.
Again, I'm not a moderator here, I'm just talking with you, but IF you put together a few clips with what you think is a repeating pattern and an explanation of the pattern that might be different. You can always ask Mick or Landru. And by explanation, I don't mean here is what's causing it, rather, here is the pattern you perceive for us to look at.
Something everyone here agrees on. Sometimes it's just in the LIZ (low information zone) and nobody can quite tell what it is. That's fine.
However, it's common in the UFO world to employ a "sum is greater that the parts" argument, whereby an entire collection of blinking lights in the sky becomes proof of something anomalous or aliens. In rhetoric and debate this is called a "Gish Gallop", moving onto the next argument, or clip, while someone is still working out what the last one was. Therefore, there is first, a compulsion to solve as many as possible to limit the number of examples that can be repeatedly toss up as anomalous or aliens. And second, many people enjoy the challenge of working out the puzzle, it's fun and mentally stimulating.
As you say, a lot of UFO footage ends up "unidentified", and that's fine, as long as it stays unidentified. Many in the UFO world tend to "identify" something as "unidentified". That is, if a prosaic explanation is lacking, the "unidentified" blinking lights now become "identified" as not just blinking lights, but "unidentified" blinking lights. Rather than just lights for which there is insufficient information to form a valid explanation, these "unidentified" blinking lights are in a new category that makes them strange and anomalous and for some alien, just because they can't be explained. A lack of relevant information doesn't make something anomalous. For example, until this thread I had no idea people put fireworks on balloons.
Smythe Bacchus
Active Member
@water_buffet Are hypothetical alien probes with explosive weapons just as likely as fireworks in videos of sparkling lights in the sky? I think not.
Analysis with "technical effort" to identify "prosaic explanations" should be universal regardless of UFO skepticism or enthusiasm. Should it not?
Can low information zone videos of objects in the sky, regardless of how many are compiled, ever overcome all of the prosaic possibilities?
John J.
Senior Member.
Hi @water_buffet ,
Haven't got round to watching the vid in your OP yet, but looking at the accompanying text, posted by "snacks" on "X":
Yes, there is.
(1) Not all lights in the sky are from crewed aircraft. Poster "snacks" might be unaware of, e.g., the vast number of hobby drones.
(2) It is very well-understood, and has been for a very long time, that the number of visible strobing lights- and therefore the apparent strobe rhythm and frequency of any given aircraft with more than 1 strobe- depends on the position and inclination/ attitude of that aircraft relative to an observer.
The US Federal Aviation Authority understands that, while individual strobe lights are mandated to have a rate of 40-100 cycles per minute, strobes on the same aircraft that are not synchronous -and that is not prohibited- may result in the perceived strobe rate being higher if more than one strobe is visible at a time, in which case the FAA requires that the combined strobe rate- that seen (or filmed) from a distance by an observer- doesn't exceed 180 cycles a minute:
PDF available here Anticollision Light Maintenance FAA 2018
There would be no need for this stricture if all the strobes on one aircraft were always synchronous (though they often are).
Even a very slight change of position of an aircraft might bring a formerly-hidden strobe into the view of an observer
(e.g., a plane in totally level, left-to-right flight relative to a distant fixed viewpoint might bank a little, bringing the strobe on the far wingtip into view- and of course this might happen back-and-forth a number of times).
Cloud can also interfere with the visibility of aircraft lights.
I doubt solid-state strobes malfunction very often. (I think electro-mechanical strobes still exist, though).
But even the (hopefully) very rare event of a strobe playing up might be more frequent than flashing extraterrestrial visitors.
Let's revisit "snacks's" post again'
This is clearly utter, utter nonsense. There is a politeness policy here, but I hope it is acceptable for me to say, that statement is clearly absurd and can be seen to be so by engaging one's critical faculties for just a few seconds.
Seeing flashes of light at irregular intervals does not mean you are definitely looking at an interstellar craft of alien origin.
Were an aircraft strobe to malfunction for any reason, its parent aircraft does not transform into an "orb UFO".
There is nothing to stop one of hundreds of thousands of hobby drone/ kite flyers or RC aircraft enthusiasts from flying their craft with irregularly flashing lights (the law in their location notwithstanding).
Haven't got round to watching the vid in your OP yet, but looking at the accompanying text, posted by "snacks" on "X":
External Quote:
Yes, there is.
(1) Not all lights in the sky are from crewed aircraft. Poster "snacks" might be unaware of, e.g., the vast number of hobby drones.
(2) It is very well-understood, and has been for a very long time, that the number of visible strobing lights- and therefore the apparent strobe rhythm and frequency of any given aircraft with more than 1 strobe- depends on the position and inclination/ attitude of that aircraft relative to an observer.
The US Federal Aviation Authority understands that, while individual strobe lights are mandated to have a rate of 40-100 cycles per minute, strobes on the same aircraft that are not synchronous -and that is not prohibited- may result in the perceived strobe rate being higher if more than one strobe is visible at a time, in which case the FAA requires that the combined strobe rate- that seen (or filmed) from a distance by an observer- doesn't exceed 180 cycles a minute:
Advisory Circular 43-217, 12/12/2018, Anticollision Light Maintenance from the Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of TransportationExternal Quote:
PDF available here Anticollision Light Maintenance FAA 2018
There would be no need for this stricture if all the strobes on one aircraft were always synchronous (though they often are).
Even a very slight change of position of an aircraft might bring a formerly-hidden strobe into the view of an observer
(e.g., a plane in totally level, left-to-right flight relative to a distant fixed viewpoint might bank a little, bringing the strobe on the far wingtip into view- and of course this might happen back-and-forth a number of times).
Cloud can also interfere with the visibility of aircraft lights.
I doubt solid-state strobes malfunction very often. (I think electro-mechanical strobes still exist, though).
But even the (hopefully) very rare event of a strobe playing up might be more frequent than flashing extraterrestrial visitors.
Let's revisit "snacks's" post again'
He or she is clearly claiming that irregular intervals of flashing is an "Orb UFO unique signature".External Quote:
This is clearly utter, utter nonsense. There is a politeness policy here, but I hope it is acceptable for me to say, that statement is clearly absurd and can be seen to be so by engaging one's critical faculties for just a few seconds.
Seeing flashes of light at irregular intervals does not mean you are definitely looking at an interstellar craft of alien origin.
Were an aircraft strobe to malfunction for any reason, its parent aircraft does not transform into an "orb UFO".
There is nothing to stop one of hundreds of thousands of hobby drone/ kite flyers or RC aircraft enthusiasts from flying their craft with irregularly flashing lights (the law in their location notwithstanding).
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
I see a camel, a hedgehog, and a mouse, and therefor conclude all animals have 4 legs
you cannot inductively reason from unknowns.
an inductive proof starts with known facts.
you cannot transform a pile of bubblegum into a 5-course dinner by throwing more bubblegum on the pile.
if the clips are not compelling by themselves, collecting a pile of them does not make them more compelling, it just makes a gish gallop.
Mendel
Senior Member.
This is less about how debunkers operate, and more about what bunkers do: when one claim is debunked, they go "ah, but you didnt debunk this one" and pull the next one out of their hat. [Often in a circular fashion.] The "one claim per thread" rule prevents that.
Yes. Ultimately, it is up to the person with the claim to show that the evidence is suitable to prove it.
And low-quality evidence cannot achieve that, no matter whether we can identify it or not.
The fact that they can record them often indicates to me that they're not anomalous.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
One last thought.
Compare:
Those anomalous lights have got to be ghosts.
Compare:
A) Humans use regularly blinking lights.
B) These lights don't blink regularly.
C) Therefore, these lights are not human.
D) Alien civilisations use regularly blinking lights.
B) These lights don't blink regularly.
E) Therefore, these lights are not alien.
F) If the aliens wanted their craft to be spotted, we'd have clear pictures of them.
G) We do not have clear pictures of alien craft.
H) Therefore, the aliens do not want their craft to be spotted.
I) Lights in the sky are easy to spot.
J) Therefore, alien craft do not have lights.
B) These lights don't blink regularly.
C) Therefore, these lights are not human.
D) Alien civilisations use regularly blinking lights.
B) These lights don't blink regularly.
E) Therefore, these lights are not alien.
F) If the aliens wanted their craft to be spotted, we'd have clear pictures of them.
G) We do not have clear pictures of alien craft.
H) Therefore, the aliens do not want their craft to be spotted.
I) Lights in the sky are easy to spot.
J) Therefore, alien craft do not have lights.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
I already responded to a similar post some months ago...I forget the thread. Aircraft strobe lights are supposed to be in sync....BUT, it is possible for them to get out of sync because the time intervals for each light may vary by a tiny amount. They drift out of sync but then back into sync again...over a period of time.
water_buffet
New Member
It's more about tracking any single flashing object and noting how it doesn't have a constant flash rate.
John J.
Senior Member.
But what does that demonstrate?
Just adding a bit to post #11, most (all?) airliners have two pairs of flashing lights; (1) wingtips (2) upper and lower fuselage.
Some also have a tail (well, rear end of fuselage) anti-collision strobe (white light).
Again, depending on the viewing angle, the number of lights visible can vary.
Some of the time up to 4 lights might be visible (2 x wingtip, 1 x fuselage, 1 x tail or 1 x wingtip, 2 x fuselage, 1 x tail).
To revisit the Federal Aviation Authority's Advisory Circular 43-217, 12/12/2018, Anticollision Light Maintenance,
Also,External Quote:
So,External Quote:
(1) Individual flashing anticollision lights (whether strobes or rotating beacons) are allowed frequencies of 40-100 /minute.
(2) But as more than one flashing light might be visible, an apparent flash rate (seen at a distance) of up to 180 /minute is compliant, in a well-maintained anticollision light suite.
An apparent flash rate would not exceed 100/ minute if the flashes are synchronous and are from FAA-compliant (40-100 / minute) sources.
I'm sure that's correct, but if it were a regular problem, and lights were meant to be synchronous, the FAA wouldn't allow individual lights of more than 90 flashes /minute, as visible asynchronicity of e.g. 2 x 100 flash /minute lights would result in an effective flash frequency of (100 x 2, -1 =) 199 flashes /minute.
The FAA specifies the flash rate "...as viewed from a distance", almost as if the aircraft were a point source.
The flash rate is not comprised of the number of separately resolved lights of a nearby aircraft flashing:
Looking up at the underside of a fairly close aircraft, we might see 4 (2 wingtip, 1 fuselage, 1 fuselage tail) anticollision lights, even a modest rate of 60 flashes /minute for each light gives us 240 total flashes in a minute (obviously > the 180 limit).
And remember, individual anticollision lights are compliant up to 100/ minute.
So the maximum permissible flash rate of 180 is the number of flashes visible to an observer at some distance, and can only occur because more than one anticollision light's flash is visible to an observer, and at least one of those lights is asynchronous.
I don't have any special insight into any of this. As a casual observer, wingtip lights (when I can see them) seem to be synchronous, or near as dammit. Maybe the wingtip and fuselage anticollision lights sometimes have different rates.
Anyway; it's pretty clear that the apparent rate of flashing caused by an aircraft's anticollision lights can vary as the aircraft travels / manoeuvres relative to the observer.
water_buffet
New Member
The irregular intervals of flashing are of a single object, not multiple objects. Watch a single object and observe its irregular intervals. I understand what you mean by a single aircraft has multiple strobes that usually are in sync, but don't have to be. I don't see that very often either. This activity is often seen in groups that don't make sense for aircraft. It's often seen in areas where it doesn't make sense for groups of drones to be. This is why compilations can be useful to bring additional context, even if against the rules. I don't really buy the broken electromechanical strobe idea for how often it's seen and in the large groups of objects. Statisticially highly unlikely.
How can you type that (and with some hosility you admit) without even seeing the video? Your mind is made up prior to new evidence. There's nothing that can be shown to you to budge you. If a video were to emerge that unambiguously showed exotic physics, it would be fake. The claim isn't that it's alien for sure, the claim is: here is an interesting and maybe anomalous pattern across many UFO videos - maybe it's worth keeping an an eye on in the realm of the anomolous. There's usually not enough info in these videos to confirm or deny what something is with any certainty. The idea is to open up the possibilities, not restrict and ridicule them. Please just watch the video - it's only a couple minutes long. No it's not scientific proof of aliens. Nor is it scientific proof of a particular mundane phenomena. There's not enough info to make a scientific conclusion.
All that I'm after here is debunkers' initial intuative take on likely mundane alternatives. The initial @john.phil response alerting me to balloons with fireworks is exactly what I'm after when I make a thread like this. Mundane but rare/obscure is the most difficult category to pin down in UFO space, so I appreciate the combined brains that have seen much more of that than any one person. I don't care at all for the reasoning of "why would aliens do X or Y" in effort to rule anomolous activity out. Just as easily as you can ad hoc rationalize it away, I ad hoc rationalize it back. The possibilities are endless, especially when dealing when potential outliers that don't align with our everyday experiences and sensibilities. I'm probably done in this thread and won't respond anymore, as I think I've exhausted the information that I value (such as @john.phil initial post).
I'll just leave a couple other clips from that montage, since few will even watch the original montage. It's good to expose this forum to some of the more subtle/underground evidence that is put forward versus the mainstream UFO stuff (which I rarely find compelling on its own).
Jack Mallory
Senior Member.
FWIW, that's clearly Bledsoe's voice in the final clip of that original montage you posted in the OP.
But he's good at mistaking prosaic things (like SpaceX) for the supernatural.
water_buffet
New Member
Yea, a lot of people that see maybe anomalous things at one point to open them up to a new worldview then go onto mistake prosaic things for anomalous through that new worldview. It happens. I still think his situation might be legit due to these flickering lights he captures on video, and their prevalence around the world.
Chris Bledsoe 1:
Chris Bledsoe 2:
Chris Bledsoe 3 (steady lit light, at the same event seen in the Chris Bledsoe 1 clip) :
And the reason I don't think it's a hoax (like maybe he's flying drones with weird asymmetric strobes) is because similar activity is filmed around the world, and by others who claim to have close encounters. I think the steady glowing orbs are part of the same activity, but it's a nightmare separating that out from alternative prosaic explanations on an isolated clip by clip basis. I think in some cases is easier to do, but it would be ridiculed here more than these irregular flashes.
Again, please spare me the ad hoc rationalizing of why I'm an idiot to hypothesize this activity is connected between clips and is anomalous and not misidentified prosaic things. Not enough info to say either way. I'm just bring attention to these weird patterns that I've been noticing, and that no one here will notice until I shove a bunch of it in your faces. Maybe it is all misidentified prosaic, but maybe it isn't. I'm perfectly fine admitting I could be wrong, but I currently lean towards this being genuine anomalous activity and just want to expose you all to it (even if it's met with ridicule).
John J.
Senior Member.
Because, as I said, I was criticising the text (posted by "snacks", not you
).Anyone who tells you that irregularly flashing lights in the sky are a "unique signature" not only of a UFO (meaning an exotic flying craft) but of a specific type of UFO is asserting something that is clearly wrong.
There are many reasons why irregularly flashing lights are seen in the sky.
But snacks suggests they all have to be "orb" UFOs.
I had made it clear I hadn't seen the video evidence at that time, so I didn't comment on it. At all.
Well, I've made up my mind about snacks' remarks as they're clearly wrong.
As for the video, see above.
I wouldn't expect a breakthrough in exotic physics to be revealed via a video.
Would you trust a video making a remarkable claim?
I'm aware of the abilities of CGI, now available to many hobbyists.
And I enjoy watching, e.g., David Blaine and (especially) Derren Brown; I've no idea how they do their stuff but I'm wholly confident they're not breaking the laws of physics or using ESP.
You're probably aware that there are many, many videos showing water-as-fuel, over-unity devices, perpetual motion machines, claims of contact with aliens, that vaccines are part of a global conspiracy, etc. etc.
I expect there are videos that have "scientific evidence" that some types of people are "inferior" to the target audience.
Videos can be informative and educational, of course (as well as entertaining).
If a scientific breakthrough is made which the discoverer/ researcher wants to share, the sensible (and responsible) thing to do is to write up the evidence and submit it, along with all data, to a peer-reviewed journal.
Where extraordinary claims are made in good faith, sometimes a systematic review by people familiar with the field uncover mistakes, or find that the claim can't be reproduced, as happened with Fleischmann and Pons' cold fusion affair in 1989.
Totally agree. But misidentifications and hoaxes are not evidence of anything anomalous. We know that there have been many claims about UFOs which have turned out to be one or the other. UFO books still recount the story of Barney and Betty Hill- perhaps the first claimed alien abduction- but omit Barney's testimony under hypnosis- that he saw a friendly Irishman and a Nazi officer in black coat and scarf looking at him from the UFO, or Betty's later claiming the aliens resembled a particular South American native group, because it's, well, not what UFO enthusiasts want to hear.
There is no testable evidence that demonstrates aliens have ever visited Earth. In fact, we have no evidence whatsoever that there is extraterrestrial life of any sort (though I kind of hope there is).
I'm enthusiastic about (the JWST ?) carrying out spectrographic surveys of exoplanet atmospheres in the near future, and think SETI is a good thing (not so sure about CETI; dark forest and all that).
The idea is to try and establish what the evidence suggests, in order to better understand our Universe.
Snack's claim that irregular flashing lights are a unique signature of a specific type of exotic craft are, frankly, absurd:
In the history of flight, no-one in any nation has ever flown a balloon, kite, hobby drone, flares, military missile, airplane, UAV, rocket with lights that might be seen to flash irregularly when seen from the ground?
How do we know these lights are associated with orbs if we can't see an orb?
I will do, thank you- never said I wouldn't. Had a busy day yesterday and it was past 03:00 when I finished my post, so I prioritized ZZZs over UAPs
.water_buffet
New Member
Again, this whole thing boils down to - when there's not enough data to make a scientific determination, people default to the conclusion provided through their current worldview. That's where most UFO footage falls. This is about opening up to the possibility of paradigm shift, and so these arguments "what is most likely - hoax/misidentified or aliens" are missing the mark. I think all of the above are possible in any single instance and I encourage people to become genuinely open to the possibility of the anomalous. But I of course understand the publically avilable evidence to date is not scientifically rigorous enough (mostly because the data is low quality) to become accepted as scientific fact. I'm hoping someone like Avi Loeb (Galileo Project), Gary Nolan, Diana Pasulka, Michael Masters, etc. can fill that gap in. Academia is slowly opening up to it, it seems, which is great to see. Lots of campus clubs and research is popping up recently. It just takes a LOT of resources (time, money, effort) to get rigrous scientific data (especially from an elusive phenomenon) and so it's understandible to me why it generally escapes that rigrousous effort.
BTW, I don't expect you're viewing of that montage to change your mind. I know too much about psychology in context of these discussions for that. That includes my psychology too. But after seeing it, this pattern will be in your mind for future consideration. That short montage is probably 1/100th of the context in my brain for this flickering pattern and its connection to a possibly anomalous conclusion. It's not really worth me trying to write convincing rhetoric about it until I barrage you all with all the evidence. And so I understand why others aren't as interested in the pattern if all they see is the short montage. The pattern is subtle and can easily be plausibly denied as mundane in any single instance.
I'm not a believer in the sense of dogmatic certainty. What I don't like from both believers and debunkers is dogmatic certainty. I still appreciate the believer's ability to populate the landscape with possible evidence (even if not scientifically rigorous) and the debunker's ability to falsify (if there's enough data for such). Both are necessary to get closer to the truth.
And I know I said I wouldn't respond any more. I'm just pretty confident about this pattern and so I have a bit of energy in me about it.
Ann K
Senior Member.
You want people to give serious consideration to your hypotheses, to the point of "shoving it in our faces". Similarly, we would like you to consider the far greater possibility that they are prosaic objects, as we have seen many, many examples, time and again. Please don't get upset if we are not jumping on your bandwagon without exhausting "the usual suspects" before doing so. We have thoroughly analyzed a number of questionable sightings before; this isn't our first rodeo. We are, sensibly, not inclined to accept things as mysterious and otherworldly until we have FIRST checked out the mundane explanations which have so often proved to be sufficient.
NoParty
Senior Member.
Well, I'm pretty sure you're clear that no one here has, or is saying, that you're an idiot.
Perhaps you'd also allow that you have made some unkind assumptions about others, here.
I believe that you do understand what most people here are telling you:
If there is an incident that, upon inspection, reveals nothing supernatural
or extraterrestrial, most normal people will accept that.
If there is another incident that, upon inspection, reveals nothing supernatural
or extraterrestrial, most normal people will accept that.
If there is third incident that, upon inspection, reveals nothing supernatural
or extraterrestrial, most normal people will accept that.
But if you have a huge file of 500 such incidents, you know that some folks will insist:
"But just look at those 500 incidents! Surely there must be something 'anomalous' in there!!"
But 0 x 1 is still the same as 0 x 500. It's fun to think "There just must be something there"...
But I don't think it's fair to call people close-minded because they won't say,
"Well, there are a busload of claims...maybe in this situation 0 x 500 can = ~15"
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Exactly, because I discern no pattern between the various video. It's just a random collection of videos with not context, times or locations. SOME of them look similar to each other but not others. This is the problem with "shotgunning" stuff.
For example, videos 1,2 and 3 are kinda the same, but not quite. Videos 5 and 6 look similar, but again without any context it's possible it's the same event filmed by 2 sets of people. Yes the person on #5 speaks American English and in #6 they speak something else, but that doesn't mean they are in a different country or that the Americans form #5 weren't visiting someplace.
Video #8 is completly different and seems to be some sort of light on the other side of a hill:
The last video, supposedly by a Chris Bledsoe (though he sounds a lot like Mathew McConaughey) is hardly seen at all and just looks like a glimpse of a plane through the trees:
Totally unrelated. And if this Bledsoe is mistaken in this video, you seem to understand that:
So, we have a number of supposedly unrelated videos, some similar, some not and at least one posted by someone you admit tends to see UFO where there aren't any. All of this posted by "Snacks" who appears to post any light in the sky or the sun poking through the trees as an "anomalous" orb:
Smythe Bacchus
Active Member
@water_buffet In the time I've written this, there have been at least three other replies to this message, so please bear with me:
Whilst the vastness of the universe is a good argument for NHI existence, it is also a compelling argument against the likelihood of advanced NHI existing in our proximity and at the same time as our civilization. Over a million/billion year timeline, there is a very real likelihood the human race could become extinct before surviving long enough to encounter NHI, and the same could also apply to any NHI civilization in our proximity.
IMO this is definitely a place of open minds, and healthy and even heated evidence-based debate is quite common. This is a receptive environment, and I always learn something new when I read the various posts, many of which have a lot of research effort behind them.
Whilst any explanation for unidentified phenomenon can be considered possible, the most plausible will always be considered the most likely. Yes, I understand your concern, i.e. what may be a genuine observation of NHI could be lost in the background noise of the internet. Unfortunately there are too many enthusiasts unintentionally adding to this noise.
Considering the extreme vastness of our galaxy and the universe in both space and time compared to our relatively tiny planet, and tiny history, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone in this forum that does not believe in the existence of NHI and civilizations. Objectivity is about following any claimed evidence as far as it will go. Being a UFO skeptic is not the same as being a non-believer in NHI. I prefer the term UFO enthusiast, which is inclusive of skeptics and those who believe we are routinely visited by NHI.
Whilst the vastness of the universe is a good argument for NHI existence, it is also a compelling argument against the likelihood of advanced NHI existing in our proximity and at the same time as our civilization. Over a million/billion year timeline, there is a very real likelihood the human race could become extinct before surviving long enough to encounter NHI, and the same could also apply to any NHI civilization in our proximity.
Considering the vast array of human-made and astronomical phenomena (sometimes interacting together) that result in lights in the sky, the burden of objective proof for NHI vessels on this basis is consequently quite high.
IMO this is definitely a place of open minds, and healthy and even heated evidence-based debate is quite common. This is a receptive environment, and I always learn something new when I read the various posts, many of which have a lot of research effort behind them.
John J.
Senior Member.
Ah, I've changed my mind on many things over the years, and sometimes back again!
I know I have believed things that were incorrect (as in demonstrably false)- usually as one of many.
I think that's sensible, dogmatism is rarely useful.
But I think retaining something like a Popperian scientific methodology with hypothesis testing is essential.
Mendel
Senior Member.
I apologize if you feel you've been ridiculed. I'm sure no-one in this thread intended that, myself included.
A big part of Metabunk is examining "claims of evidence". These take the form of a claim, and evidence supporting that claim. "The Earth is flat [claim] because this picture [evidence] isn't possible on a globe." We then analyze (with a fairly open mind) the evidence, and figure out what conclusions can be drawn from it. (It wasn't the jet fuel that melted the steel beams, it was the huge unfought fire that softened them over a longer period, until they failed.)
The "skydentify" forum that this thread is in requires no claim; here, we just try identify unexplained phenomena. For this, we typically require date/time/location, and we've sometimes been successful even with older items that were based on recollections only.
From what you write, you're not doing either.
You seem to be trying to find clips we cannot explain, to then make a claim about them that cannot be contradicted, even though you realize there is not enough information in them to actually support that claim. You talk about "possibilities" that have never been shown to be possible.
But there is a reversal of logic at play here. "If the tooth fairy exists, then she takes kids' teeth and leaves money under the pillow" is not reversible; or rather, the proper reversal is, "if the teeth are still there in the morning, the tooth fairy does not exist". The reason is that "if A, then B" allows for B to be true while A is false. Someone can replace teeth for money who isn't the tooth fairy.
So a light in the sky can be unexplained for a number of reasons, and the foremost is insufficient data. (See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ufo-acronyms-what-is-the-liz.11742/ for more.)
The fact that it is unexplained does not make aliens, ghosts, magic, angels, or "breakthrough physics" any more likely.
In fact, there's no reason to assume that alien visitors would be in any way anomalous ("magical") except for having discovered a practical way to travel interstellar distances. The reason that UFOlogists look for anomalies is not because they want to learn about alien civilisations, they do it because they want to contradict the mundane. (Flat Earthers don't care about the shape of the Earth, they want to contradict science by showing us things many people cannot explain.)
But it's normal to not be able to explain things.
Especially if they're just specks of light in the sky.
There's no need to invent an explanation.
I think you're really in the wrong place for what you're aiming for.
A big part of Metabunk is examining "claims of evidence". These take the form of a claim, and evidence supporting that claim. "The Earth is flat [claim] because this picture [evidence] isn't possible on a globe." We then analyze (with a fairly open mind) the evidence, and figure out what conclusions can be drawn from it. (It wasn't the jet fuel that melted the steel beams, it was the huge unfought fire that softened them over a longer period, until they failed.)
The "skydentify" forum that this thread is in requires no claim; here, we just try identify unexplained phenomena. For this, we typically require date/time/location, and we've sometimes been successful even with older items that were based on recollections only.
From what you write, you're not doing either.
You seem to be trying to find clips we cannot explain, to then make a claim about them that cannot be contradicted, even though you realize there is not enough information in them to actually support that claim. You talk about "possibilities" that have never been shown to be possible.
But there is a reversal of logic at play here. "If the tooth fairy exists, then she takes kids' teeth and leaves money under the pillow" is not reversible; or rather, the proper reversal is, "if the teeth are still there in the morning, the tooth fairy does not exist". The reason is that "if A, then B" allows for B to be true while A is false. Someone can replace teeth for money who isn't the tooth fairy.
So a light in the sky can be unexplained for a number of reasons, and the foremost is insufficient data. (See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ufo-acronyms-what-is-the-liz.11742/ for more.)
The fact that it is unexplained does not make aliens, ghosts, magic, angels, or "breakthrough physics" any more likely.
In fact, there's no reason to assume that alien visitors would be in any way anomalous ("magical") except for having discovered a practical way to travel interstellar distances. The reason that UFOlogists look for anomalies is not because they want to learn about alien civilisations, they do it because they want to contradict the mundane. (Flat Earthers don't care about the shape of the Earth, they want to contradict science by showing us things many people cannot explain.)
But it's normal to not be able to explain things.
Especially if they're just specks of light in the sky.
There's no need to invent an explanation.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Just some looking around on YouTube. Some of those lights reminded me of seeing fireflies for the first time, maybe 6 years ago when our youngest moved to the Nashville area. We don't have them in California. Here is an otherwise not very good video, it spends way too much time focusing on the girl, however I have it queued up at 00:50, and for a couple of seconds we get flickering lights with no real rhythmic pattern. Just a thought:
Source: https://youtu.be/Z7VZlaHWR1s?si=slmyuYL9mJ6rivsZ&t=50
Source: https://youtu.be/Z7VZlaHWR1s?si=slmyuYL9mJ6rivsZ&t=50
The other thing is, it's 2024. There are an estimated 9,900 satellites in orbit (most of those in low earth orbit, and 6,000 of them Starlink, which reflect flashes of sunlight in various ways), there are 100,000 commercial flights per day around the world, as well as helicopters, private aircraft, military aircraft and countless civilian drones. Not to mention scintillating stars and planets.
The anomaly would be a sky without the occasional distant flickering light.
Mendel
Senior Member.
With regard to finding convincing patterns, please read https://www.metabunk.org/threads/a-game-designer’s-analysis-of-qanon.11509/ .
That's why my first reply observed that you're claiming a pattern among unknown things, so you have no way to tell if they're even related.External Quote:
It's human to do that, and we need to be consciously aware that we're doing it to not go down a rabbit hole on it.
This is especially true if you've established the pattern by cherry-picking observations that fit it.
You can divide UAPs in 3 categories:
1) with anomalous lights
2) with normal lights
3) without lights
What singles out the first category, except for your choice to create that category?
Last edited:
John J.
Senior Member.
It's very hard to tell, but in the last clip, is there higher ground behind the cabin and trees in the foreground?
As with the other clips, without details of location, time and date etc. it's very hard to tell what's going on.
Frames with the light:
I'm wondering if it's just someone with a torch (or maybe cellphone).
Apologies for the small screengrab sizes, couldn't figure out how to get a capture from the full screen.
The guy filming refers to it as an orb, which means a sphere, but- like some of the other clips- it appears (on screen) to be too small a lightsource for a definite shape to be determined.
Without being facetious, how do we know it's not a light on a black triangle?
Not sure we can define this as irregular flashing; I only saw two flashes, so no irregularity (only one interval can be timed).
There's no compelling reason to believe that these lights were caused by a flashlight or cellphone, but that's a very long way away from "...therefore, it's anomalous", whatever the beliefs or integrity of the film maker.
It could be an LED on the end of a fishing rod. Of course there's no strong reason to believe that either.
But is there a good reason to think these brief flashes are not due to a terrestrial cause? -either natural or (more likely, I think) man-made. We know UFO enthusiasts have been victims of hoaxes, so far we don't know if ETI exists.
As with the other clips, without details of location, time and date etc. it's very hard to tell what's going on.
Frames with the light:
I'm wondering if it's just someone with a torch (or maybe cellphone).
Apologies for the small screengrab sizes, couldn't figure out how to get a capture from the full screen.
The guy filming refers to it as an orb, which means a sphere, but- like some of the other clips- it appears (on screen) to be too small a lightsource for a definite shape to be determined.
Without being facetious, how do we know it's not a light on a black triangle?
Not sure we can define this as irregular flashing; I only saw two flashes, so no irregularity (only one interval can be timed).
There's no compelling reason to believe that these lights were caused by a flashlight or cellphone, but that's a very long way away from "...therefore, it's anomalous", whatever the beliefs or integrity of the film maker.
It could be an LED on the end of a fishing rod. Of course there's no strong reason to believe that either.
But is there a good reason to think these brief flashes are not due to a terrestrial cause? -either natural or (more likely, I think) man-made. We know UFO enthusiasts have been victims of hoaxes, so far we don't know if ETI exists.
Mendel
Senior Member.
From another thread:
Falcon BMS manual TO 1F-16CMAM-34-1 section 20.2 says the F-16 has selectable strobe light patterns as follows, I assume the F-35s have similar options. I thought each plane in a formation was supposed to select a unique pattern, but looking at the videos I feel like I see two of the objects flashing 3 times and I cannot make out the others. Also apparently the strobe can be IR only, which I didnt know.
I'm not sure if this applies here, but some of these patterns can be somewhat irregular
Similar threads
Trending content
-
-
-
-
-
Thread 'Explained: Mysterious lights over Milwaukee [Seagulls, Night Exposure Trails]'
- Mick West
Replies: 32