Kacey Musgraves - UFOs Followed Our Plane ...

[flarkey]

N440JA flew Dallas to Nashville Landed around UTC: 05:11:40 2026-04-10

N440JA flew exactly the same route (less departure & approach) between the DFW and Nashville but was about 1h50m behind AA2979. Both would have had Starlink flares visible on their port side for the duration of their flights.

 

[Mick West]

I found the ground lights in one video:
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=1/KM Ground/20260413_170859.js

It could be either plane, and there's a range of points along the tracks that will look similar, but it narrows things down.

 

[Mick West]

It could be either plane, and there's a range of points along the tracks that will look similar, but it narrows things down.

I think does narrow it down to the second plane, N440JA (or similar time). As the starlinks are too far to the East for the AA.

With this one, I set a target to keep that town (Jonesboro) in view, and you can scrub through to see how things (the three stars, the city lights, the starlinks) all line up.

https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=1/KM with target/20260413_172430.js

 

[Mick West]

Lining up the city lights on a video a couple of minutes after that one:

https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=1/KM with target/20260413_172430.js

Some reasonable matches. I am getting a lot more flares in the sim. I'd really like to get some good ground-truth videos I can calibrate this against. I suspect a few things. Possibly this is just us not having the correct flight, but also the exact angle of the satellite isn't guaranteed, and not all of them seem to flare as much, or for as long. We've seen similar before, where you have to pick the satellites out of a larger set, and the flare durations don't match - even though the geometry is perfect.

 

[jarlrmai]

I tracked flights that went over 40,000ft out of the Dallas / Fort Worth area and landed at Nashville and that is the only one I can find in the period after dusk at Nashville

 

[Montauk]

When all they've got is insults you know you're winning the argument.


Source: https://x.com/UAPWixy/status/2043113336464978417?s=20

Well you've made it easier for to decide who to block. Lol.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Well you've made it easier for to decide who to block. Lol.

"baloon" Heh.

 

[John J.]

The Independent newspaper has altered the headline of its coverage of Musgraves' response to Mick West,
originally
"Kacey Musgraves has hilarious response to 'UFO analyst' debunking her space sighting", Carsen Holaday 12 April 2026,
brought to our attention by @NoParty (post 15).

On 12 April, I submitted (via The Independent's complaint form)

Why is Musgraves response "hilarious"? It is a rude, offensive response to someone who politely pointed out that Starlink satellites would have been visible at the time of Musgrave's UFO sighting, in the direction she was looking.
... ...
It is not unreasonable for people to consider likely explanations for extraordinary claims. If they use the available evidence, and are polite, it IS unreasonable to react as Musgraves did.

When unlikely claims or questionable comments are made by, e.g., members of the Trump administration, and are pointed out, we wouldn't expect the Independent to focus on the "hilarious response" sometimes made by that person (including Trump himself) at the expense of, "...is the criticism correct?"

Singer Kacey Musgraves sees UFOs. Someone explains what she might have seen. Musgraves responds
"Hey Mick if you zoom way into the videos you can also see a really clear angle of Bigfoot riding your mom". Carsen Holiday, writing in The Independent, states this is "hilarious".

The Independent appears to support a childish, offensive post by a celebrity while not taking a stance on the (likely correct) facts made available to her by the person she abuses.
Takeaway lesson: Don't have the temerity to explain to a celebrity they might be mistaken if they make an extraordinary claim, because if they respond they've seen an animal having sex with your mother The Independent will publish this and describe it as "hilarious", regardless of the accuracy of the insulted person's information or the plausibility of their explanation.

Questionable journalism, rewarding offensive online behaviour at the expense of considering checkable facts.

Got a response yesterday (16 April 2026) from Richard Best at The Independent,

Thank you or contacting us and for outlining your complaint.

I broadly agree with you, and so I have asked a colleague to amend the headline. I have also used this complaint to frame a positive and constructive conversation with the author and editor of the piece, as I don't feel that in this instance the article reflected the values of the Independent.

I appreciate you taking the time to get in touch.

The title has been amended to "Kacey Musgraves fires off response to 'UFO analyst' who debunked her space sighting", which is something I guess, but I think the article remains problematic (https://www.the-independent.com/art...musgraves-ufo-sighting-response-b2956099.html).

I've replied to the Independent's response with my remaining gripes, but I'm not holding my breath- in fairness, I was mildly surprised to get the reply above.

 

[Ann K]

"Kacey Musgraves fires off response to 'UFO analyst' who debunked her space sighting"

Am I correct in assuming your further criticism was on the 'UFO analyst' in quotes? From my standpoint that's an implied pejorative.