Well, as I have said before UFO's are one thing and Aliens are another  - as we do not know what UFO's are in the first place, speculating on who or what is piloting them is a tad premature.

However, I quite liked the remark made by Professor  James E. McDonald of the Institute for Atmospheric Physics at Arizona University who said that the ET Hypothesis was the least unlikely unlikely explanation based on his extensive research of the subject.  He had no evidence for this but considered it one of the many possible options. Of course he was pilloried for his views by most of his peers, which was very uncharitable of them.

Who said anything about aliens?

On 05/08/2023 at 12:28, maw lod qan said:

Have you personally or have you ever spoken with someone who HAS, seen something you cant explain?

Well, judging from the responses not many, and that might go some way to explaining why the bulk of the posts here are either skeptical or dismissive.

Anyway here is my contribution:

Winter 1968. I was out waiting for the transit of the Echo II balloon satellite, when I noticed a Mag +2.5 star like object ascending towards the zenith from due east. In 10x50 binos it appeared fairly stellar and point like and traveled as I expected a normal satellite to do. When it reached the overhead point however it stopped dead for a few seconds before then describing a complete 360° circle, about 3° in diameter and them a partial second circle before again stopping dead for a few seconds. It then resumed a straight line course, but this time towards the north, and I followed it towards the horizon until it became obscured by buildings. At that tender age, my eyesight and hearing was excellent, the location was on the edge of a National Park and sky conditions were also excellent with no cloud. There was no noise whatsoever, and no alteration in colour/intensity of the point of light and no other lights such as position or strobes. I was at the time a profound plane spotter and was familiar with their appearance and sound both day and night.Some years later I read of a sighting that Arthur C Clarke and Stanley Kubrick had in 1964 from a rooftop in New York when what they thought was Echo I came to an abrupt halt overhead and then went off towards the north. I found that quite spooky.

Summer 1989. One evening whilst I was at work with a colleague at a site in the SW of England, set in a quiet valley, we saw an object moving silently in the sky at a slow speed. It was at an elevation of between 25 and 30° and was a shade under a degree long. It consisted of two banks of four bright white lights, one above the other with two red lights of similar intensity sandwiched in between. The aspect ration was 5:1 length/height. The speed was sufficiently slow that we observed it for a couple of minutes as it transited our field of view, during which time we used a lot of expletives. In a good pair of 7x50 binos which I had, nothing more could be seen detail wise, apart from the lights and the vague hint of a background object to which they may have been attached, as opposed to being individual lights in formation. The lights remained steady in colour and intensity, with no strobing or flashing. There were no sharp edges or protrusions such as you would see with an aircraft such as vertical stabiliser, wings, engines or fuselage, which should have been readily visible at the image scale in the binoculars. The details on airliners transiting the area on the climb out or in-bound from over the Atlantic were clearly visible in binoculars, with the airline colours frequently identifiable on the tail.  The object was completely silent and drifted off westwards behind the hills on the other side of the valley. At the time it was daylight, with scattered cumulus clouds which did not obstruct the view. Being unable to determine its distance it was not possible to estimate size, or speed but at a rough guess I would estimate the distance as below 5 miles – but that is just an estimate.

Later that evening, in deep twilight the same object reappeared on a reciprocal course, which was very thoughtful of it. By this time I had got hold of a what was at the time a high spec image intensifier, but even in this no additional detail was visible just the 2 banks of four white and two red in between. During this apparition the elevation above the horizon and speed were the same or similar to the first sighting and again there was no sound.

The next day I had a long conversation with an RAF Warrant Officer on the UFO Desk (!) at RAF Rudloe Manor. He completed a pro-forma questionnaire, and stated that they took sightings such as this very seriously and spent a considerable amount of money investigating them each year. He advised that someone might come out to the site if more details were required but no one ever did. I have spent years trying to reconcile this sighting with a conventional aircraft of one sort of another but have never been able to do so as it took place in daylight, was unobstructed and with excellent visibility and optical aid was available – and identifying aircraft was a particular interest of mine. It was also witnessed by about 4 individuals.

Over the past 55 years of observing I have seen countless other oddities that I could identify as satellites, balloons, lanterns, aircraft, birds and so on, so I am quite familiar with the prosaic – and these were not. I have also seen other things not so easily explained but those two were the most peculiar.

No personal experience but I understand Egypt is not a bino-friendly country if that is your destination.

Well, this has been an interesting and illuminating thread, but the results are not really a surprise. The subject has been debated enthusiastically on other forums with similar results and with the vast majority of the views being skeptical or highly skeptical and the minority being non-skeptical. There is a well known forum aimed at pilots which has debated the subject at length a few times, and the responses are pretty much the same as what we see on SGL. The agnostics who are out there tend to keep quiet – which may be a sensible strategy.

Unfortunately, the subject seems to be so divisive that the two camps have become extremely polarised with little in the way of a middle ground, and someone who hold the alternative point of view is either ignoring the evidence or is a gullible idiot. As a result I suspect objectivity becomes tainted with emotion – difficult to avoid if we feel strongly about something no matter how logical we think we are being – and that applies to both camps. The responses may be telling us more about ourselves than what is, or is not buzzing around in the sky.

Most of us change our minds at some time or another – the same applies to UFO's, so a skeptic can become a non-skeptic, usually instantly and following a sighting that they cannot explain, and there have been many high profile conversion in this way as well as amongst some who are stalking this particular thread I suspect. Non-skeptics can become skeptics, usually when they become exasperated by the huge amounts of complete rubbish the subject attracts – and no doubt there are many of these who have ended up taking their library of UFO books down to Oxfam and wishing they had stuck to Airfix models instead. There is unlikely to be a meeting of minds here.

The debate will no doubt continue to be circular until definitive evidence eventually comes to light for the phenomenon or a logical explanation is presented that explains all the weirdness, but even then I suspect there will be skeptics and non-skeptics – it is, after all, in our nature.

17 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Some people need there to be aliens. They have a deep psychological craving for them. Without them there is a void in their very existence. Some people, often the same ones, have a deep craving to be the ones chosen to meet or see them because they have a deep belief in their own superiority... born of an even deeper belief in their own inferiority.   

So, of course, they see aliens.

That may well be the case, after all people claim to see fairies at the bottom of the garden (I have Slow-Worms), Leprechaun's, Werewolves, Grey Aliens, giant insects and all sorts of other odd things. I would not like to speculate on this or the motivation/psychological state of those who report seeing them as I have no qualifications or interest in the field.

The UFO phenomenon is another matter however and not to be conflated with aliens and such like, as their origins are unknown. At the moment.

Alex Dietrich says it all (and at least she knows what she's talking about)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4JVMXYpLLg

8 hours ago, SwiMatt said:

Hell, with the number of astrophotographers on this forum alone, I would expect very high quality proof regularly

As a large proportion of high quality sightings are made during daylight, maybe birdwatchers would be a better bet?

1 hour ago, Mr Spock said:

Without physical evidence of something - solid science - all it is, is opinion or belief.

Well, thats not quite true, but observational evidence is still evidence and was the foundation of many branches of contemporary science. When analytical techniques became sufficiently developed then these observations could be quantified and incorporated in to the main corpus of science. Thats how we reached the current state of things in medicine, engineering, science and so on. So it's just as well all those observations were recorded and not junked.

But we have two things going on here:

1) Observation by witnesses - these are as we know mostly miss-identifications of the prosaic, but very very many, such as the multiple witness one cited above are difficult to dismiss - and I am not talking about a light in the sky but structured objects which interact with the environment.  This is observational data, pure and simple which can be evaluated and analysed in the same way as the readings off a dial or data points on a graph.

2) What people believe them to be. Well, if their nature is unknown (the clue is in the first letter of UFO), then it is not possible to comment on their origin beyond the speculative - which of course is the thing most skeptics find had to swallow, and with good cause. The subject has been subsumed by the Conspiracy/New Age agenda, which has introduced a massive element of the ridiculous, making it a target for ridicule (which I understand) but this ridicule also spills over into making fun of the witnesses, who mostly have more to loose than to gain by being honest.

The observations and the beliefs projected on to them are separate issues and should not be confused.

1 hour ago, saac said:

No sightings from antiquity not even from 1800s, does seem strange. 

There are plenty of accounts from history that refer to anomalous sightings (see Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained Aerial Objects from Antiquity to Modern Times by Chris Aubeck and Jacques Vallee) but deciphering them is fraught with problems, not least being how people described what they saw by attributing a quasi - religious, contemporary or mythical (angles, swords, shields, dragons and so on) aspect to them. And of course, how can one take seriously anything anyone wearing pantaloons and a ruff said. Alternatively some of the accounts recorded by William R. Corliss, particularly those culled from 19^th Century ship's logs are worth looking at as potential precursors of the modern phenomenon. Many of these are probably atmospheric phenomena of some sort or another, but many are, quite frankly bizarre and may have a bearing on contemporary USO sightings. And ships log's tend to be fairly accurately recorded documents. The Modern era has sightings going back to the late 19^th century, which include the 'Airship' phenomena, primarily in the US but not unknown in the UK (many of which were clearly sensational hoaxes perpetrated mainly by the press ).  From 1940 onwards, the 'Foo Fighter' phenomenon emerges, with very many combat aircrew accounts of encounters with anomalous ariel vehicles or devices, recorded in RAF and USAF squadron records and accounts. A literature search will reveal a lot more to anyone who can be bothered to look. So there is plenty of historical material out there, which to me indicates the possibility of a persistent phenomenon, spanning decades or more, and not a modern malaise perpetuated by generations of nutters.

2 hours ago, SwiMatt said:

......................................hearsay that can easily be dismissed if the witness is discovered (as it so often happens) to be in a state of pathological narcissism that should be cured, not encouraged. 

If that is an attempt at a psychological/clinical diagnosis of individuals who report seeing UFO's - I suspect you are quite wide of the mark, and being somewhat disparaging about the thousands that have, which includes many far more technically qualified than most.

It is a subject that polarises debate as the above responses demonstrate, and in many ways that is almost as interesting as the phenomenon itself, and I quite accept the views of others as having validity until satisfactory evidence, one way or another is provided.

I am also of the view that just because a particular view is espoused by one or more 'academics' this does not mean they are correct or that their opinion should be weighted more positively than certain other opinions, whoever they are. Even Einstein made the odd blunder.

11 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Well, I obviously can't be 100% sure - but we need to look at two things:

1. Who is performing the show, and

2. Which theaters it's playing at

A conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory?

Distracting who?  The vast majority of the Earth's population could not give a monkeys about all this.

11 hours ago, SwiMatt said:

Besides, they haven't said anything, really - but they said nothing in a very respectable and believable way!

Blimey - we must have watched different versions, because the one I watched said rather a lot - not all new - but still pretty interesting stuff.

Many rate "Atlas of the Moon" by Antonin RUKL quite highly, but it is increasingly difficult to get hold of now and the plates are based on drawings - excellent drawings - but drawings nevertheless:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Atlas-Moon-Antonin-Rukl/dp/0600571904/ref=sr_1_3?crid=1GLDKC3V6V4A&keywords=atlas+of+the+moon&qid=1672757277&sprefix=atlas+of+the+moon%2Caps%2C94&sr=8-3

This is a photographic atlas- again hard to get hold of and again at what some may consider daft prices. The plates are based on Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) photos, and includes details on specific areas within each plate - interesting but not particularly useful at the eyepiece.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/21st-Century-Atlas-Moon-Charles/dp/1938228804/ref=sr_1_4?crid=1MQ4FHTHDEBQ5&keywords=moon+atlas&qid=1672757052&sprefix=moon+atlas%2Caps%2C100&sr=8-4

This is the best of the bunch I think - it is in German, but the plates excellent (based again on LRO images) and the features have the same names (surprise!). Again hard to get hold of but I found this:

https://www.omegon.eu/oculum-verlag-buch-reiseatlas-mond/p,33091

And this is an updated version of the last one, looks like it is in English, but not cheap:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Duplex-Moon-Atlas-Generation-Lunar/dp/3949370056/ref=sr_1_1?crid=VLIIQYW8KWCP&keywords=duplex+moon+atlas&qid=1672757079&sprefix=duplex+moon%2Caps%2C96&sr=8-1

The last two, Buch Reiseatlas Mond and Duplex Moon Atlas are on laminated paper so can be used in the damp night air, the 21st Century Atlas is on shiny gloss paper, but I suspect not up to too much dampness and the RUKL one is on normal paper, so best read in front of the fire with a cup of tea.

I have two as well that I use with 80mm binoculars and they appear to be very good value for the price. Of course having a USB connector you cannot plug in to conventional Dew Controller like a Hitech Astro one, but I am sure if you searched you could find an adapter to allow you to do so.  The USB connector is of course fine for use with a Power Bank, and the controller lets you increase the heating as required. What I particularly like is the way the cable attaches to the band - which means that you do not have to snaggle the elastic fastener around the cable or have a 90 degree bend in it when the dew band is in place. Cannot work out why all dew bands do not have this cable configuration.

16 hours ago, Mr_mojo97 said:

Ok, I have a look into this,  sounds like it might be the better option for me. 

The only (potential) complication with this is whether a particular make of binoviewer will come to focus with any small scope you use and without having to resort to glass path correctors and so on - I am sure enough members of this forum will have experience of using this type of combo, so will be able to advise on what will and what will not work. I have used the Williams Optics ones previously - and they come with a pair of 20mm E/P's as well, so ready to use out of the box.  Good luck!

If the Moon is your target then using a binoviewer such as the Williams Optics one coupled with a 70 or 80mm ED Doublet would out perform any binoculars in that price range I suspect. I use a Skywatcher Evostar 80ED DS-Pro with binoviewers and performance on the moon (and sun for that matter with a Herschel wedge) is superb in a compact package. Of course you would need duplicate E/Ps but you would end up with quite a flexible system.

I think there was a bit of an attempt to kill off TLP's as a phenomenon a few years ago, but I suspect that was quite unwarranted. The Moon seems to be pretty inert geologically, but stuff still goes on such as impacts which as mentioned above have been observed and imaged numerous times, as well as moonquakes which are probably caused by tidal stresses especially at around the times of apogee and perigee. These could cause avalanche type activity on some steeper slopes which together with electrostatic forces operating on the fine regolith component exposed, might produce dust cloud type phenomenon that could account for some of the brightening and obscurations seen. Of course the unpredictability of these things makes them difficult to study and might lead many to dismiss them as being down to spurious effects lighting/atmospheric/instrument effects. However many quite experienced observers have reported them, and some of the sites of previous reports do have unusually fresh looking deposits on their slopes (though fresh in lunar terms can be very ancient in terrestrial terms) so I think it would be unwise to dismiss them just yet. I monitor a few of the sites of what I consider to be the more convincing reports made by experienced observers - obviously not seen anything yet but I live in hope, and by concentrating on them repeatedly I hope to become familiar with their changing appearance so that anything out of the ordinary should be apparent.

Oh Dear!  I guess it did not live up to expectations then - it looked like a lovely scope! What was it that it down if I may ask?

Using similar equipment (ED80, Baader Solar Film and Continuum Filter) I have regularly seen the phenomenon you describe and concluded they were either insects, plant seed such as dandelions or birds passing through the FOV both in front of the disk, as well as outside the disk and visible as bright moving points. The occasional bird crosses the disc and is in sharp focus and clearly identifiable, but many of these objects are are much smaller in angular size and out of focus - but occasionally movement similar to flapping wings can be seen. So my guess is airborne wildlife of some or many sorts - lets face it, Swifts, Martins and Swallows would not be up there all the time if the air was not full of tasty stuff to eat. Oddly enough I have just started using a Baader Herschel Wedge and have not noticed anything crossing the FOV. I would imagine satellites would be too small to be seen either transiting the disc or lit up whilst passing nearby - but I stand to be corrected!

Looks like a piece of Pre-Cambrian chert to me, the lamination might suggest it is a fragment of a Stromatolite  which is a fossil formed by layers of cyanobacteria which trapped sentiment to build up reef like structures.  Almost as exciting as a a meteorite, but not quite. If complex life ever got established on Mars it might well have looked like this.

1 hour ago, Jules Tohpipi said:

Was reading the thread with interest and wondered if you had given the coma corrector a go?

I have a SW 250 F4.7 Flextube Dobsonian and am cursed by being a sensitive soul to coma. A Parcorr is above budget but I see FLO sell the StellaLyra for £99 - which appears to be the same as the GSO CC.

Silly question, I assume it's OK to use a 1.25" adapter and 1.25" eyepieces with the GSO? I don't have any 2" EPs.

Anyone using the GSO/StellaLyra with the SW250 F4.7 have to use some spacers or just drop it in?  I don't mind a bit of fiddling around if it works.

 

Well so far - no I have not taken the plunge. I mainly use TV Delos E/P's and to be honest coma is not something that has bothered me sufficiently to shell out on a CC - maybe if I spend more time using the Newtonian I might re-consider. Until then I will just concentrate on the center of the FOV and resist the temptation to look at the edges!

'The Moon' by Bill Leatherbarrow available via that large South American river is a super book on lunar history and geology at a reasonable price with lots of up to date research and conclusions.

'Epic Moon: A History of Lunar Exploration in the Age of the Telescope' is really the best book on the history of lunar observing up to modern times -out of print but second hand copies can be found - if you are quick there is one available relatively cheaply on the American version of the above web-site for about £26 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01FEL1HBA/ref=olp-opf-redir?aod=1&condition=used&tag=bookfinder-test-b2-20)

You can also learn a lot from 'To a Rocky Moon: A Geologist's History of Lunar Exploration' which might confirm your view that the moon is a rubble pile - but a very interesting one.

To give you an idea, I have read all three several times - they do stand re-reading very well as they as so well written and just plain interesting.

I am not sure why this announcement has elicited so little in the way on interest so far https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-to-set-up-independent-study-on-unidentified-aerial-phenomena/

Another governmental body privyto a lot of relevant data, a lot of it classified, who appear consider UAP's (UFO's in old money) potentially a real phenomenon, requiring serious scientific study without the accompanying sniggering that usually attends the topic. Lets hope the trend continues and the discussion proceeds in a manner more in keeping with the principles of scientific investigation and not in a manner the Witchfinder General might have found acceptable.