Why are Starlink "Racetrack" Flares [Mostly] Reported from Planes?

[flarkey]

Another UFO Report from a Pilot on Reddit, and again these look like Starlink Horizon Flares.


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/168gidk/three_ufos_filmed_by_airline_pilot_mario_bakalov/

Some context - Mario Bakalov is the only Bulgarian pilot in Europe to have piloted the Airbus A380. The video in the post is taken from his Facebook post here
Source: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=857282169189971
. This is what he wrote in the post, translated via DeepL:

"One of the most common questions I get is if I have ever seen a UFO. To most people's disappointment, I've always answered no until now. Sure, there are all sorts of interesting phenomena in the sky like the northern lights, bright meteors, various satellites, reflections, etc, but I've had a logical explanation for all of these sightings.

But here, after nearly 20 years in the air and 12.000 flying hours, my colleagues and I observed for the first time something that impressed us greatly without being able to explain it: on a flight from Casablanca to Frankfurt at night, three lights appeared and disappeared in front of us within half an hour. I asked astronomers such as Tihomir Dimitrov what could be the cause of this phenomenon, but I did not get a concrete answer.

For this I turn to you. I know that in my audience there are pilots, physicists, astronomers, mathematicians, researchers. Has anyone seen anything like this and can tell what phenomenon it is. I am sure that together we will find an answer. Thank you!"



Some relevant Q&A in the comments section, again translated via DeepL:

Question 1: Typical UFO in so-called "formation". What altitude are you at and what do you think the objects were at?

Mario Bakalov: At about 11.000 meters.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Question 2: At what height are you. Are they drones!? Some drones reach up to 10 km., and military drones (UAVs) reach up to 15 km. and more. With military technology and advanced engineering, these drones operate at altitudes where conventional aircraft operate, enabling strategic air operations and intelligence gathering. Otherwise, you can purchase the JOUAV CW-15 VTOL from the market - a drone that reaches the highest altitude with a real-time camera (6500 meters).

Mario Bakalov: At 11.000 meters there are hardly any drones that fly at about 950 km/h and can stand to travel 500 km (because they were visible for about half an hour).

Question 2 asker: among military drones there are those with significantly higher speeds, traveling 4000km and more. There are those with aerial refueling. For example, take a look at a drone that is from 2011 (old)-Northrop Grumman X-47B, reaching speeds up to Mach 0.9+ (1073 km/h. ) Range: 3,900 km. It's entirely possible that you've observed the drone, and the object pairing/building is a visual reflection effect when shooting with your phone through the glass.

Mario Bakalov: Ok, but why would a drone fly in front of us hundreds of miles over Spain where there is no war? And why doesn't ATC know about it?

Question 2 asker: probable military training. In the military, the worlds are parallel. I wonder if ATC in Spain picked up some unidentified signal. Though that's a bean-counter's job not to get caught by radar either. Unless the radars are quantum. After all, these "UFO" bodies were friendly because they were self illuminating. Probably keep them in mind if their engineers made some math errors and intercepted your trajectories. Regarding Spain, it has ordered 27 Airbus Sirtap drones for its air force, which will be "Made in Spain". Airbus Spain will manufacture most of the components in Spain. These drones operate at an altitude of 6500 m, with a flight duration of over 20h. Spain will give 500 million euros of its defence budget to the drone project . Apparently Spain has a close relationship with drone engineers/manufacturers. Someone has demonstrated something, probably .

Question 2 another commenter: likelihood of drone recharging. This is what they do over Italy and Greece. Military training (with possible Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk).These drones reach up to 54,000 ft, flight range : 22,780 km.They are illuminated only with call signs, no navigation, in order not to show gauges and direction. Easy flight and about equal numbers!

---------------------------------------------------------------

Question 3: Ilon Musk's internet satellites .. starlink .

Mario Bakalov: I don't think they are [Ilon Musk's satellites]. They look differently, take minutes to pass and are always lined up like a chain.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Question 4: Cloud reflections .... the surface is too close, the shape of the three is too similar.

Mario Bakalov: Possibly, but there were no clouds in the next thousand miles.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Question 5: Maybe you've thought it through already, but could something from the cockpit have reflected on the windshield for half an hour...

Mario Bakalov: We thought about it, but determined that this was not the case.

Question 5 asker: and did you share anything with ATC during those 30 minutes?

Mario Bakalov: There was the typical communication and I also asked if there was any military activity but they said they were not aware of any.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Question 6: Helicopters, other aircraft?

Mario Bakalov: Both are unlikely. We've flown at about 950 km/h, it's impossible for helicopters to travel at that speed, and airplanes look different, and have lots of other extra lights (like ships for example).

---------------------------------------------------------------

Question 7: Mr. Bakalov, have you ever had trainings on similar topics and conversations with your colleagues about similar, UNINTELLIGIBLE, objects?

Mario Bakalov: No, I haven't.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Question 8: Could you please specify the date on which the video was taken and at what height it was filmed? I think you've observed meteors entering the atmosphere directly opposite you and burning up. Probably from the Perseid stream /that's why I'm asking for the date/. Due to the fact that you are above the earth's surface, moving at a fairly high speed, you see them seem to slowly appear, glow strongly and then disappear.

Mario Bakalov: The date is 27.8. at about 11.000 meters altitude, direction north.

Question 8 asker: for the Perseids is late, their peak is on August 12-13. But it could have been other objects entering Earth's atmosphere and burning up. Space debris, for example?

Mario Bakalov: I'm not sure. The objects were visible for a long time and didn't seem to change position.

Looks like this was the flight LH1331 Casablanca to Frankfurt.

 

[flarkey]

Another Pilot video on Reddit... Starlink again.


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/168xkbg/my_video_of_unexplained_points_of_light_fading_in/

this statement provided in response to request by Autobot for this submission. The above post is my factual recount of an experience I had on the 30th of august, 2023. In addition to my description in my post, I'm really not sure what else to add as part of this submission statement, as I am not a regular poster to this sub, just a regular reader of this sub and content like this. I have become more and more interested in this phenomena as there have become more and more credible witnesses coming forward describing their experiences. As I describe in my post, this is the first time in over 30 years of flying airplanes that I have seen something that I cannot explain. I have seen plenty of shooting stars, satellites and countless other aircraft in the night sky. This includes over a 20-year career in the military using night vision goggles for all of our night flying. Hopefully this suffices as a submission statement.

 

[flarkey]

Just looking at the video above the aircrfat is approaching DENNI waypoint, expected arrival 04.27Z on the 31th August, 2023.

https://opennav.com/waypoint/US/DENNI is SE of St Louis

37° 37' 22.840" N 88° 42' 03.900" W

Looks like this was the aircraft, passing DENNI at exactly the time shown on the MFD.

10.2nm from DENNI on the J45 track is 37°28'17.48"N 88°29'21.56"W ( 37.471523° -88.489322°) and DAL2776 was there at just before 04.25am UTC.

Checking in-the-sky,org it shows that there were Starlink satellites just below and left of the Big Dipper, they were crossing the day/night terminator and the sun was approx 40° below the horizon - all the conditions under which we expect Starlink flares to occur.

 

[flarkey]

comment from the pilot after watching @Mick West 's video....


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/168xkbg/my_video_of_unexplained_points_of_light_fading_in/jz05h8s/

 

[flarkey]

Another report on Reddit of Starlink flares being reported as UAP by a pilot...


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/16gyhed/my_brother_recorded_this_yesterday_at_36000ft/

My brother recorded this yesterday at 36,000ft. Commercial airline pilot.

He was just east of Houston, Tx circling around to San Antonio last night. Not satellites. Kept reappearing. Would move around and disappear. Get bright then vanish. I've always asked him to send me videos if he ever saw anything and he definitely came through. Sorry for the potato quality video but it gets the point across.

He thinks there is a possibility they weren't even in atmosphere. They were moving extremely fast to be so far away. Looked pretty dang far away to me too. The camera couldn't even tell what to focus on as it kept getting blurry when the light would get brighter.

I've observed satellites spinning and flashing and fading before but they are in a straight trajectory. These clearly are bobbing and weaving.

I've always been a believer but I am not sure if he was before last night. Especially because he's never seen anything and has been in the air for 15+ years.

 

[Mick West]

Another report on Reddit of Starlink flares being reported as UAP by a pilot...

I'm thinking NKS1738, around 04:20UTC, looking NW.

 

[Mick West]

I'm thinking NKS1738, around 04:20UTC, looking NW.

Oh, he put a time

Edit: 9/11/23 at 23:46 CST

Which would be 4:46 UTC (Assuming he means CDT)

There's nothing there at 36,000 feet. And that would put the sun at -48°, which seems lower than we've seen before

 

[Mick West]

Oh wait, EAST of Huston, doh! Well, I don't see any good candidate planes at that time.

 

[Mendel]

Not satellites

...., yet, like satellites, ...

they weren't even in atmosphere. They were moving extremely fast

These clearly are bobbing and weaving.

How can he tell when the camera is shaking so much?

The aggravating thing is that there's no abbreviation for "strange moving lights in the sky", which this should've been reported as. The DoD tried to make "unidentified aerial phenomenon" happen, but the UFO community quickly occupied the term, and UAP pretty much means "UFO" to them now, which does nothing to remove the stigma that anyone who reports these things must be a believer. You don't have to be a ufo believer to see a strange light in the sky, but when the "ufo community" uncritically jumps onto any and all of these reports, I'm not surprised that some people'd rather keep quiet about what they see.

 

[flarkey]

Oh wait, EAST of Huston, doh! Well, I don't see any good candidate planes at that time.

Looking at suncalc.org we can get a rough time of when the sun is ~40° below the horizon close to Houston. It says the time is between 3.30am and 4.00am (Local).

https://www.suncalc.org/#/29.8025,-94.7461,6/2023.09.13/03:47/1/3

The OP confirmed the plane was due to land in San Antonio.

Then looking on FlightRadar24 for planes east of Houston going to San Antonio and at 36000 around this time brings up the same Spirit flight NKS1738. The AA 737 just ahead of it is also at 38000ft, and is heading for Austin.

Edit: The OP said his brother doesnt fly for American Airlines.

 

[flarkey]

another report on Reddit of a pilot seeing lights

https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/l5Rev3J2yu

As an airline pilot, I'm used to seeing strange things in the sky that I can later explain… this has stumped me. Myself and the other pilot I was flying with observed these lights illuminate, move in a south easterly direction, and then fade out. One after another, maybe 15-20 seconds in between. I was thinking maybe StarLink, but they would change direction and color. I watched one change complete direction, turning towards the west almost immediately. I watched a few change color from a bright white/blue to a glowing red. Some appeared to circle around as if they were in a racetrack. We were over Savannah, Georgia at 38,000ft. At that altitude, our horizon distance is about 250 miles, meaning these lights were over the Atlanta/Ashville, NC area.

I have pieces together 3 videos. First video shows the light fading in and out. Second video (muted for security reasons) shows two stationary lights, top light fades out and the bottom one changes color. The third video shows a light moving eastward at first and then changes direction to the west.

Also: if anyone can teach me how to focus my iPhone camera while taking a video, I'd appreciate it. I tried taking a bunch of videos of these things but I couldn't get the camera to focus properly while shooting the videos.

 

[flarkey]

Another TikTok / Reddit post by a pilot who saw strange lights on a flight across the Atlantic.


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/17i99gh/active_mexican_pilot_shared_his_video_of_some/

-------------------------------------------

Looks like this was Aeromexico flight AMX007 from Mexico City to London Heathrow on 23 October 2023. The Waypoints shown in the video match the FlightRadar24 archive track.

KML is attached

Looking at the Sitrec NightSky sitch we can see that there would have been Starlink flares occurring towards the eastern horizon at this location and time: https://www.metabunk.org/u/HfHcuM.html

 

[flarkey]

Another potential sighting over the USA. No video this time, just audio:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHgS40aRaUM

Partial transcript

Pilot: UA673 about 2 oclock at my altitude l got a lot of lights moving around out there there uh is there military traffic out there?

ATC: Missing

Pilot: There's just a lot of lights out at our 2:00 position looking to the Southwest and I just wanted to know if there's some military traffic going on

ATC: Missing

Pilot: yeah to be honest with you this is something that I was seeing I would say December last year um a lot and I had seen it for quite a while I was just curious I heard it might be a SpaceX but they don't seem to all be moving in the same trajectory so it's hard to say

The video says the flight was 18 October but recently N66893 only flew as UA673 from Newark to Atlanta on 22 October, making the time of this video approx 0200UTC on 23 Oct 2023.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n66893

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n66893#328b9a5b

 

[Ravi]

This observation of "lights turning direction, 90 deg", sounds to me like that they observe 1 sat going in one direction, fading out, and at the same time another sat moves at an angle with the 1st one, making it look like it was the 1st, but in reality they observed more than one sat. I have actually seen this effect myself too, when observing sats in the summer night sky.

 

[flarkey]

This observation of "lights turning direction, 90 deg", sounds to me like that they observe 1 sat going in one direction, fading out, and at the same time another sat moves at an angle with the 1st one, making it look like it was the 1st, but in reality they observed more than one sat. I have actually seen this effect myself too, when observing sats in the summer night sky.

Indeed. It makes perfect sense if we accept that these are Starlink satellites in criss-crossing orbits. Shame we dont have any video this time to confirm

 

[flarkey]

Going on the pilots radio calls, if these lights were at his 2 o'clock then I think they'd be more West, or even WNW than South West.

Putting the estimated location, date and time into sitrec we can see that there were Starlink flares occuring in exactly the pilot's 2 o'clock position, or WNW.

Permalink: https://www.metabunk.org/u/95cDfQ.html

 

[FatPhil]

Going on the pilots radio calls, if these lights were at his 2 o'clock then I think they'd be more West, or even WNW than South West.
...
Putting the estimated location, date and time into sitrec we can see that there were Starlink flares occuring in exactly the pilot's 2 o'clock position, or WNW.

And of course, when you're seeing satellites due east or due west, you're much more likely to see both left-to-right (north-to-south) and right-to-left (south-to-north) transits, compared to when you're seeing them due north or due south, as most satellites orbit earth's axis the same way, west to east. (Of course, we spin under them, but inside a geostationary orbit, we're slower than them, so that doesn't change their apparent direction of movement.) So the "criss cross" nature of the various paths is fully expected.

 

[flarkey]

Another sighting on Reddit...


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/17lrlj0/lights_at_40000_ft/

Hi all, We (flight crew) observed some lights whilst flying at 40,000ft, started at approx position 2239S/16507E and carried on for 2 hours. Heading was 240. Initially there was one light which would go full bright and then disappear, after about half an hour of this, another light joined this first light and we observed what seemed like an orbiting pattern. Appreciate feedback on what this could possibly be.

Friday 27 Oct, observed first at around 10:33 UTC

Looks like the aircraft was this Airbus A330...

Sitrec confirms that there were flaring Starlink satellites at the aircraft's 12 o'clock position at the exact time of the sighting.

Sitrec Permalink: https://www.metabunk.org/u/ASXfVt.html

 

[FatPhil]

what seemed like an orbiting pattern. Appreciate feedback on what this could possibly be.

My go to explanation for something in an orbiting pattern around earth would be one of earth's satellites. I guess I'm just weird like that. There are the best part of 10000 of them out there now. Did the question "is there any reason to think this isn't one of the many satellites in orbit around earth?" go through the pilot's head? If so, what was his answer, and internal dialogue? If not, why not?

Sagan was wrong - we're not just in a demon-haunted world, we're in a satellite-haunted world too.

 

[Easy Muffin]

An orbit in pilot-speak usually means a 360° (holding) loop so when they mention an 'orbiting pattern' to ATC I suppose they refer to something that appears to keep moving in circles near a single spot. In the atmosphere by extension, not in space.

 

[FatPhil]

An orbit in pilot-speak usually means a 360° (holding) loop so when they mention an 'orbiting pattern' to ATC I suppose they refer to something that appears to keep moving in circles near a single spot. In the atmosphere by extension, not in space.

However, as Mick has demonstrated, satellite flares do not have the sinusoidal speeding up and slowing down of a circular holding pattern, they're linear (and why do they disappear on their return to the start of the loop?). Their perception is flawed if that's their out.

 

[jarlrmai]

However, as Mick has demonstrated, satellite flares do not have the sinusoidal speeding up and slowing down of a circular holding pattern, they're linear (and why do they disappear on their return to the start of the loop?). Their perception is flawed if that's their out.

It's the just the closest thing that they are familiar with to what they think they are seeing.

 

[Ravi]

An orbit in pilot-speak usually means a 360° (holding) loop so when they mention an 'orbiting pattern' to ATC I suppose they refer to something that appears to keep moving in circles near a single spot. In the atmosphere by extension, not in space.

Similar to the expression "going around like a racetrack", heard often?

 

[JMartJr]

It's the just closest thing they are familiar to what they think they are seeing.

Until, at some point that cannot be TOO far off, seeing flaring Starlinks will become familiar.

There's no way to know, but I wonder how many pilots are seeing them, thinking, "Neat, it's those Starlink flares some guys reported as orbiting UAP awhile back!" and getting on with the business of flying their planes and not bothering to report them to anybody.

The moment I feel we'll have turned the corner on these is the first time we see a pilot post to social media, "Hey, Gang, here is a video of some lights we saw flying from Somewhereville International to Elsewherevia, it's those Starlink satellite flares we've been hearing about. Neat, eh?" First one to find such a post and share it here wins a cookie.

 

[jarlrmai]

Until, at some point that cannot be TOO far off, seeing flaring Starlinks will become familiar.

There's no way to know, but I wonder how many pilots are seeing them, thinking, "Neat, it's those Starlink flares some guys reported as orbiting UAP awhile back!" and getting on with the business of flying their planes and not bothering to report them to anybody.

The moment I feel we'll have turned the corner on these is the first time we see a pilot post to social media, "Hey, Gang, here is a video of some lights we saw flying from Somewhereville International to Elsewherevia, it's those Starlink satellite flares we've been hearing about. Neat, eh?" First one to find such a post and share it here wins a cookie.

Yeah something that Ryan Graves seem to be actively interfering with, ironically given the name of his organisation.

This Starlink/commercial pilot thing is to me an actual semi serious real world issue that UFOology is actively making worse.

 

[Mendel]

Similar to the expression "going around like a racetrack", heard often?

Yes, but in aviation, they have distinct meanings.

Article:

There is also a procedure known as an "orbit", where an aircraft flies a 360° loop either clockwise or anticlockwise. This is usually to allow greater separation with other traffic ahead in the pattern. This can be the result of a controller's instruction.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfield_traffic_pattern

An orbit is understood to be a full circle, and should typically take 2 minutes if it's a coordinated turn. It's often used to delay an aircraft by advising it to fly one orbit.

A racetrack is typically a holding pattern that is flown until the aircraft is cleared to continue, as many times as needed.

Unlike the orbit, it has straight legs typically taking up to a minute (up to 1.5 minutes above 14,000 ft), so it aligns better with a starlink sighting that has a short straight segment of visibility for the individual satellite.

 

[DaveG]

Yeah something that Ryan Graves seem to be actively interfering with, ironically given the name of his organisation.

This Starlink/commercial pilot thing is to me an actual semi serious real world issue that UFOology is actively making worse.

No doubt people in the UFO circle are making it worse, but have West and hard skeptics in general not also contributed to the problem? I was thinking about this the last couple of days, and was thinking the messaging from the skeptics could be a little better. For instance, would there be so much push back from Graves and others, if the hard skepticism from the skeptics which nearly always lands on the conclusion that none of these sightings are of purported truly advanced technological craft, are always something conventional and mundane? (Not talking about these Racetrack sightings only, but sightings in general) For instance, in one video West made recently, (The Mile-Long Mothership UFO, a very well done analysis by the way) his conclusion was that "it's a great example of how even highly trained people like Pilots can be fooled by something they have never seen before", which gave the impression that all such sightings all come down to observational error. I mean, we already know anyone can make a mistake, the video was about pilots mistaking Starlink satellites, and there's now a constant stream of pilot's misreporting Starlinks. To end the video with "even highly trained people like Pilots can be fooled", rubbed me the wrong way, (As I'm sure it would Graves or any other pilot) because I already knew that. Again, I'm trying to find the best way to get the message across. I understand that I'm talking with people here who have concluded that all these UFO reports are mundane, that's fine and I doubt any of you will change your mind without hard evidence. But those of us who have seen things up close and even interacted with, are convinced of what we saw. Maybe if the messaging in these Starlink educational videos were more neutral there would be more acceptance from the UFO field. But even I as a UFO advocate, get attacked for even mentioning West or Metabunk. I can't help feel that this hard skepticism has help fuel a lot of the animosity.

 

[Mendel]

I can't help feel that this hard skepticism has help fuel a lot of the animosity.

People hate being contradicted no matter the tone.
But not contradicting them doesn't help, either.

For instance, would there be so much push back from Graves and others, if the hard skepticism from the skeptics which nearly always lands on the conclusion that none of these sightings are of purported truly advanced technological craft, are always something conventional and mundane?

(a Starlink satellite is an advanced technological craft)

"Graves and others" are pushing for UFO disclosure because "they know what they saw", or, in case of Grusch, "knows what he heard". Their conspiracy-theorist suspicions of the government exist no matter if we push back or not. This problem is not caused by skeptics, it's caused by believers who are committed to their beliefs.

You say, you "already knew that" "even highly trained people like pilots can be fooled", but then pivot to "those of us who have seen things up close and even interacted with, are convinced of what we saw" as if the preceding didn't apply to you. You even know there is no hard evidence to support your belief.

There is no alternate messaging that's more effective than "please re-examine your convictions".

I'm talking with people here who have concluded that all these UFO reports are mundane

We have concluded that Starlink sightings are mundane. We have seen that there is no evidence of aliens. There is no way to counter the belief that the aliens, just like bigfoot, may just be good at hiding, just as there is no way for the government to counter the conspiracy theory that the government is hiding something. There is no "messaging" that can achieve that. It's something that people have to work through individually.

We don't conclude that all UFO reports are mundane. We go with the evidence.

(though I'd be happy if we could all agree that entities that good at hiding are much less of a threat to "safe aerospace" than birds. even balloons have downed far fewer aircraft than birds.)

 

[DaveG]

"Graves and others" are pushing for UFO disclosure because "they know what they saw", or, in case of Grusch, "knows what he heard". Their conspiracy-theorist suspicions of the government exist no matter if we push back or not. This problem is not caused by skeptics, it's caused by believers who are committed to their beliefs.

For the record, I'm not pushing for any disclosure, I'm more interested in reducing the noise around this subject.

The point I was making was, that we should both be saying (UFO advocates and skeptics alike) that pilots are mistaking Starlink flares for UFOs, but not drawing overarching conclusions that say all observations are then a result of misidentifieds, simply because we have here an example of "highly trained" pilots being fooled. Keep the educational content solely to helping people understand this frequently observed phenomenon that always appears at a distance as flares low on the horizon. Examine each case independently, or in this case a category of cases.

There is no alternate messaging that's more effective than "please re-examine your convictions".

Again, I'm simply asking skeptics to refrain from drawing hard conclusions when discussing things like Starlink flares, (these are distant lights in the sky, the least convincing of reports) because you'll alienate the people you're trying to educate. Likewise, my convictions come from seeing something up close, not far away, from having a background in amateur astronomy, to being lucky enough to have evidence presented to me but not being able to present it to others. Which is why I said it's fine if you conclude all UFO report are observational errors, because the hard evidence is not there to examine, I wouldn't expect you to accept something of such a nature if you didn't see it for yourself. Just try not to extrapolate from one set of examples to everything else, especially if we're talking about a well understood phenomenon like Starlink flares.

 

[flarkey]

For the record, I'm not pushing for any disclosure, I'm more interested in reducing the noise around this subject.

The point I was making was, that we should both be saying (UFO advocates and skeptics alike) that pilots are mistaking Starlink flares for UFOs, but not drawing overarching conclusions that say all observations are then a result of misidentifieds, simply because we have here an example of "highly trained" pilots being fooled. Keep the educational content solely to helping people understand this frequently observed phenomenon that always appears at a distance as flares low on the horizon. Examine each case independently, or in this case a category of cases.

I don't think we are saying that. Certainly not that all sightings are misidentifications - we wouldn't make sweeping open statements like that. However, in relation to the 'racetrack UAPs' we are (or at least I am) saying that every Racetrack UAP sighting with video that has been shared has been identified as Starlink Satellites. We simply don't know about other sightings or what hasnt been caught on video. As far as I know Ryan Graves hasnt even accepted that a single one of these sightings has been identified. He even dismissed the Starlink explanation as 'the new weather balloon'. How insulting is that? After all the hours we have spent on here taking the Pilots statements seriously and investigating their sightings for them!

Unfortunately Mick's videos are usually a response to someone else's claim, or if not one person's claim then the combined group position of forums such as Reddit.com/r/UFOs or #ufotwitter, so its hard to make a video without disagreeing with them or being critical of their methods. But even in these times Mick usually doesn't make sweeping statements, and always puts 'it might be aliens' on his list of possible solutions , even if it is at the bottom of the list.

 

[DaveG]

I don't think we are saying that. Certainly not that all sightings are misidentifications - we wouldn't make sweeping open statements like that. However, in relation to the 'racetrack UAPs' we are (or at least I am) saying that every Racetrack UAP sighting with video that has been shared has been identified as Starlink Satellites. We simply don't know about other sightings or what hasnt been caught on video.

Flarkey, I know you're careful to treat each case individually and not make overarching conclusions. For the most part anyhow. And I'm on the same page as you with these Racetrack UFOs, as each has been shown to correlate with Starlink flaring positions. My only issue was with the quote from Mick at the end of the "Mile-Long Mothership" video which gave the impression of an overarching conclusion. And I see this echoed in the forums every time these reports come in, that this is reason to not trust highly train pilots. Of course seeing distant lights is very different than maneuvering around said object.

As far as I know Ryan Graves hasnt even accepted that a single one of these sightings has been identified. He even dismissed the Starlink explanation as 'the new weather ballon'. How insulting is that? After all the hours we have spent on here taking the Pilots statements seriously and investigating their sightings for them!

Yes, it's very insulting, and quite ignorant too I must say. As I've said before, I suspect he's trying to build a case for "air safety", and so whether there was or wasn't any animosity between the UFO camp and skeptic camp, it may not have made any difference. In any case, it's always better to foster better relations.

 

[Mendel]

As I've said before, I suspect he's trying to build a case for "air safety",

No, he's not. The ASA website is clear that Graves is trying to build a case for disclosure under the pretext of safety. UAPs have never actually threatened aviation or spaceflight. Graves is playing to a specific crowd to gain political influence.

For instance, in one video West made recently, (The Mile-Long Mothership UFO, a very well done analysis by the way) his conclusion was that "it's a great example of how even highly trained people like Pilots can be fooled by something they have never seen before", which gave the impression that all such sightings all come down to observational error.

To interpret "it's a great example" as "all such sightings" is you building a straw man, because Mick never said that. But we've had a lot of these sightings.

Mostly, they're not even "observational error", there are actual lights in the sky, and if you don't understand what they are, you might be tempted to call them "unidentified aerial phenomena", and we could have a rational conversation about it. But the UFO believers have poisoned this debate by effectively equating UAP with UFOs. That one is not on the skeptics.

all observations are then a result of misidentifieds,

Misidentifications are the result of observations, not the other way around.

Keep the educational content solely to helping people understand this frequently observed phenomenon that always appears at a distance as flares low on the horizon.

We frequently observe the phenomenon that even smart people misidentify what they see when there's not a lot of detail to the observation. Mick was pointing that out.

Just try not to extrapolate from one set of examples to everything else,

Just try not to extrapolate from what you imagine we do to what we actually do.

 

[DaveG]

To interpret "it's a great example" as "all such sightings" is you building a straw man, because Mick never said that. But we've had a lot of these sightings.

Is it really me building a straw man? I'm not intentionally trying to do that, only trying to point out the way it's being interpreted. After all, Mick is the boogeyman to a lot of UFO proponents. Why is he the boogeyman? Is it not because he thinks all UFO reports can be explain by something mundane or conventional? Is there any case he can point to and say, 'yeah, maybe that was some new technology we're not aware of?"

I understand the belligerence of those in the UFO camp, but the messaging from skeptics is always "nothing to see here" which is harming your ability to educate people when it comes to issues like Starlink.

 

[JMartJr]

I'm going to come at this from a slightly different point of view. I would love for there to be evidence of somebody else in the Universe before I die (regrettable, but inevitable!) Because of this, I've followed UFOs for a long time. After enough years of seeing nothing but mistaken observations (and a large number of hoaxes, of course) I'll admit that my initial position is "What mundane thing is THIS report going to show us, misinterpreted as a UFO?" That's where my head starts when we get a new report here, whether it should be or not.

However, that does not mean I don't want to see evidence -- because it is always possible that the next report will finally be the one to confound the expectations years of following this stuff have built up.

I'd rather explain that point of view honestly than pretend I don't have it, and hope that this will not offend anybody who believes any more than their believing offends me.

 

[Mick West]

For instance, in one video West made recently, (The Mile-Long Mothership UFO, a very well done analysis by the way) his conclusion was that "it's a great example of how even highly trained people like Pilots can be fooled by something they have never seen before", which gave the impression that all such sightings all come down to observational error. I mean, we already know anyone can make a mistake, the video was about pilots mistaking Starlink satellites, and there's now a constant stream of pilot's misreporting Starlinks. To end the video with "even highly trained people like Pilots can be fooled", rubbed me the wrong way, (As I'm sure it would Graves or any other pilot) because I already knew that.

You might know it, but many people seem not to.

If someone can be fooled, that gives zero indication as to how often they are fooled. It's just a possibility that needs to be considered - one that the pilot advocates (and the pilots themselves) seem to often discount.

 

[Mendel]

Is it really me building a straw man? I'm not intentionally trying to do that, only trying to point out the way it's being interpreted. After all, Mick is the boogeyman to a lot of UFO proponents. Why is he the boogeyman?

Mick regularly disagrees with UFO believers. The evidence is largely in his favor, so their only defense is to go ad hominem.

Is it not because he thinks all UFO reports can be explain by something mundane or conventional?

No.
A lot of UFO reports can't be explained at all because they lack information. But there's nothing in them that runs counter to "conventional" experience.

Is there any case he can point to and say, 'yeah, maybe that was some new technology we're not aware of?"

Yes, the Starlink racetrack flares were a new technology that @flarkey and @Mick West worked hard to understand. GIMBAL is based on classified technology that Mick worked hard to understand. From our view, this was "new technology".

I understand the belligerence of those in the UFO camp, but the messaging from skeptics is always "nothing to see here" which is harming your ability to educate people when it comes to issues like Starlink.

When there is "nothing to see here", what do you suggest the messaging should be?
It's not our fault that evidence of alien visitation is still absent.

 

[Mendel]

A lot of UFO reports can't be explained at all because they lack information. But there's nothing in them that runs counter to "conventional" experience.

To elaborate on that: of course a faraway light in the sky could be an aircraft or a flying saucer—we don't know. But because we don't know, there's no reason to assume it's a flying saucer when we don't know if they even exist—when we do know that aircraft exist.
I'd like to say that's common sense, but maybe it's not?

 

[flarkey]

Lights reported over the Rockies by this pilot on Twitter. I replied saying we'd plug the details into sitrec.


Source: https://x.com/marclivolsi/status/1724547072693600598?s=20

Flight Details: 5X957, 12 Nov, OAK-SDF, maybe 0930-ish UTC. (kml attached)

0930UTC puts him at approx 38.817969° N -116.738764°W

https://www.metabunk.org/u/hZ0CT4.html

 

[RTM]

I saw what I think may have been star links flares last night, after googling I can't find any record of launches last night. It was approximately 6pm (give or take), it was in the San Francisco Bay are and I was looking West (an approximate using the compass on my iphone). The lights appeared as the other descriptions state, moving from my left to right.
I also saw something similar near Mammoth lake in CA back on September 2nd, these were much more dramatic due to the lack of light pollution.

 

[jarlrmai]

I saw what I think may have been star links flares last night, after googling I can't find any record of launches last night. It was approximately 6pm (give or take), it was in the San Francisco Bay are and I was looking West (an approximate using the compass on my iphone). The lights appeared as the other descriptions state, moving from my left to right.
I also saw something similar near Mammoth lake in CA back on September 2nd, these were much more dramatic due to the lack of light pollution.

The flares are not linked to launches they come from already fully deployed satellites.