 |
| MUFON case 62491, submitted drawing. Accessed at MUFON.com |
Looking at the case, provides the possibilities for evaluating the sighting using subjective and objective criteria, whereas, subjective is the witnesses description of the event and objective being a combination of measurable data, if possible.
Here is the actual submitted report to MUFON:
On the way to a gas station in northern Durham, North Carolina, my girlfriend and I witnessed an extremely bright hovering object, amber in color. We decided to drive around to get a better view of it over the treetops and witnessed what looked like a triangular light pattern -- one very large, very bright amber light in the nose and a smaller flashing light on each wingtip and center which stayed illuminated but strobed brighter in order from left to right. It passed in the opposite direction of our car. Because it was so far away we could not make out any structure. The large light was unlike anything we had seen in the sky before in terms of its size and brightness. Once it was out of view we continued to the gas station.
On the way back to the house we saw the object again, hovering back close to its original position. It was much closer and we turned into a neighborhood to get a good look:
The object was very close. I would compare it to watching a plane in take-off pass overhead in terms of its distances. As we pulled into the neighborhood it stopped hovering and began moving -- drifting might be a more fitting verb -- across the sky towards us. We parked the car and got out as the object passed directly overhead. As it did we both witnessed the solid black outline of an equilateral diamond: a small white running light in the center and at each tip with an over-sized, amber-colored seemingly directional (forward to forward-down) light at its nose and a significantly dimmer light on its tail. The three lights from wingtip to wingtip constantly strobed in a right-to-left direction as it moved away from us. The object was silent as it passed over and disappeared behind the treeline.
We jumped back into our car to try and get a better angle to continue watching it but as we circled the woods which it had passed over it was nowhere in sight -- until we happened to catch the faint strobe of the object now a great distance away.We drove to my girlfriend's parents' house and watched this object glide back and forth across the sky at a great distance -- like a commercial plane at altitude -- for over an hour. At one point her mother came outside to watch it pass at about 45 degrees above the horizon close enough to make out the triangular front of the object. We kept noticing that it seemed to pass in a straight line until we could not see it anymore and then begin its trajectory again from where it started -- but we never saw it fly back. We assumed that we simply missed its return path. Finally we watched one disappear not behind trees but simply into the distance and made sure to watch for its return. It never flew back. Suddenly it was once again close and over our left shoulders. faint strobe of the object now a great distance away.We drove to my girlfriend's parents' house and watched this object glide back and forth across the sky at a great distance -- like a commercial plane at altitude -- for over an hour.
We tracked the object as it passed about 60 degrees above the horizon when suddenly we noticed a second, identical object flying towards us from a great distance. We continued watching these two objects pass back across the sky.
The total sighting lasted from 9:20pm to 10:45pm. Which is to say that at 10:45pm I finally came inside out of the frigid cold to write this report.
End of submitted report.
Let's look at the subjective portion of this case.
1. "...my girlfriend and I witnessed an extremely bright hovering object, amber in color."
2. "... looked like a triangular light pattern -- one very large, very bright amber light in the nose and a smaller flashing light on each wingtip and center which stayed illuminated but strobed brighter in order from left to right."
3. "The large light was unlike anything we had seen in the sky before in terms of its size and brightness."
4. "I would compare it to watching a plane in take-off pass overhead in terms of its distances. As we pulled into the neighborhood it stopped hovering and began moving -- drifting might be a more fitting verb -- across the sky towards us."
5. "... we both witnessed the solid black outline of an equilateral diamond: a small white running light in the center and at each tip with an over-sized, amber-colored seemingly directional (forward to forward-down) light at its nose and a significantly dimmer light on its tail. The three lights from wingtip to wingtip constantly strobed in a right-to-left direction as it moved away from us. The object was silent as it passed over."
6. "...faint strobe of the object now a great distance away.We drove to my girlfriend's parents' house and watched this object glide back and forth across the sky at a great distance -- like a commercial plane at altitude -- for over an hour."
This appears to be the main subjective data for the case. Subjectively, the observer(s) describe an object as: large,bright, amber, triangular light pattern, strobing, hovering, gliding, drifting, and silent.
The following is to be considered as "soft" objective data:
1. Late evening hours, 9:20 pm to 10:45 pm on Jan. 7, 2015.
2. Durham, NC
3. Outside temperature alluded to be "frigid cold."
4. Direction of flight path is not listed.
5. Object may have been 45 to 60 degrees above the horizon.
The following is considered "hard" objective data for Durham, NC.
1. Temperature range from 19 F to 20 F.
2. Clear skies, visibility at 10 miles, waning gibbous moon (ending phase of a full moon).
3. Winds out of the North, 6.9 to 8.1 mph, gusting to 17.3 mph. (weather data retrieved from weatherunderground.com)
Discussion
The evaluation of the subjective aspects of the case from the reference point of the observer reveals a very detailed and descriptive sighting. I hesitate to add that it may be too detailed, but it must be taken into account that the sighting supposedly lasted one hour and twenty five minutes. This is an area of evaluation that invites either too much or too little criticism based on the content of any given UFO report.
What is peculiar is that the boyfriend provides the narration of the observation. What is missing is the actual thoughts from his girlfriend. Did she perceive the sequence of events the same as the boy friend? The same can be said of the girlfriends mother. According to the report, the mother came outside of her house and supposedly saw the object. What were her thoughts, in her own words, concerning what she believed to have seen?
The couple where on their way to a gas station. Where were they coming from prior to the sighting? A movie, friend's house, or a bar? This may be of importance to know for the purpose of fully evaluating the report.
The object(s) where given elevations of either 45 or 60 degrees above the horizon. In fairness, the observer did predicate the elevations with "about", but the question remains as to how one came to that possible conclusion. Perhaps the elevation was 30 or 40 degrees instead, or the elevations are not really germane to the total report.
Noted is the lack of direction or heading of the object. The speed is merely described as either drifting, gliding or simply hovering. Wind speeds for the night were listed between 7 to 8 mph out of the North. There were wind gust up to 17 mph with earlier evening gusts exceeding 20 mph.
Durham is a fairly large size city with a population greatly exceeding 200,000 people. A check of local media outlets show no unusual reports for the night in question. MUFON's data base shows only this case for the Durham area. Given the length of the visual sighting and the slow speed of the object, one would think that other citizens would have happened to glimpse/observe this object.
What works in favor of the observer is that the sky was clear. The full moon was ending [94 percent of moon in full view], but missing in the report is a description of the moon, nor does the observer state the actual conditions of the sky.
Tentative Conclusion
1. Unknown flying objects with the possible shape of either a triangle or diamond.
2. Descriptive observation report, but missing is a separate report from the girlfriend and her mother. These two could independently help corroborate the sighting.
3. Unusual event that happened in a high population area. There appears to be no corroborating reports from others. Based on the length of time of the observation, one would think that others would have seen and reported the object.
4. Bright nearly full moon in the sky. Could it have been possible that the initial sighting was that of the moon?
5. No photos of the object despite the long duration of time under observation. A drawing is presented to MUFON. Missing is the direction that the object was moving.
6. A possible hoax report can not be ruled out at this time.
The 6 areas of the conclusion are listed as tentative. More data, if possible, could help explain the sighting. Minus more data, a hoax cannot be ruled out. The subjective data is descriptive and provides details based on what the observer saw on the night in question. Objective data shows that the weather and condition of the sky may tentatively support some of the subjective data, but can not fully explain the sighting.
I'm wondering if the person writing the report saw an aircraft, that was quite literally the first thing I thought of when I read the report.
ReplyDeleteAs for the estimate of height/speed, they are much, much trickier to estimate than people think. The second episode of the Exposing PseudoAstronomy podcast covers the issue quite nicely.
http://podcast.sjrdesign.net/shownotes_002.php
Hi Graham,
ReplyDeleteTrue, it's certainly possible that the object could have been an aircraft, but the description provided by the observer makes it difficult to pinpoint such. I further wonder about the lack of identification of an "almost" full moon which begs the question as to whether the moon's brightness played a part in the visual observation.