Are UFO Sightings Just Misidentified Natural Occurrences?

[Ivan Seeking]

Hello undidly, note that conspiracy theories are not allowed. Also, religion bashing is not allowed. Please review the guidelines at the following link:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5929

 

[infinitenight]

In my opinion it really doesn't matter how many times people try to play off these sightings for everyday natural phenomena because even if a fraction of them are correct, it means that we are being visited by extraterrestrials. Hundreds of cases have been debunked down to natural, even comical explanations but there are still those that cannot be explained even by the most imaginative of skeptics. I think that it really is time we all open our eyes and see that there is so much more to this universe than any of us could imagine. Other races of intelligent beings exist, and they have visited us. Get used to it because this is going to play a huge role in the future of mankind

 

[Evo]

In my opinion it really doesn't matter how many times people try to play off these sightings for everyday natural phenomena because even if a fraction of them are correct, it means that we are being visited by extraterrestrials. Hundreds of cases have been debunked down to natural, even comical explanations but there are still those that cannot be explained even by the most imaginative of skeptics. I think that it really is time we all open our eyes and see that there is so much more to this universe than any of us could imagine. Other races of intelligent beings exist, and they have visited us. Get used to it because this is going to play a huge role in the future of mankind

Please post your proof of visitation.

It's ok to post that you think we have been visited, but it is not ok to say that we have.

 

[DaveC426913]

... there are still those that cannot be explained even by the most imaginative of skeptics...

The fact that they cannot be explained does not mean they must be of extraterrestrial origin. It means simply that we cannot explain them.

Consider the following unrelated but equally-plausible scenario:

We see phenomena that, despite our very best efforts, simply cannot be explained by any known terrestrial event. Flying saucers in our skies, abductions, whatever you care to put on the table.

By process of elimination, since these are not of any terrestrial origin, they must be the only thing left:

Acts of God.

God, for whatever reason he sees fit, is tossing saucer-shaped devices through our skies and kidnapping people.

You see, your process-of-elimination argument works perfectly well. You have just proven that God must exist and we'd better get used to it.

 

[jreelawg]

It is interesting considering NASA, it's position and role in addressing UFO issues, and questions of extra terrestrial life.

My grandfather worked for NASA as a public relations officer, in charge of wester operations. He worked for NASA from it's inception until the late 80's. One of his roles was to address this issue of how NASA would address the public in the event extra-terrestrial life was found on other planets, from intelligent to microbes. This issue was a complex and controversial issue at the time among NASA officials. What would news of such events cause. How would religion be affected, how would the economy be affected, and so forth.

It's important to realize, that NASA, is obligated to have particular stances on the subject independent of observation and science depending on who is in charge. Second, that any NASA obtained evidence of the subject is NASA property and would be illegal for anyone to talk about without NASA permission. Thirdly, some UFO sightings could possibly be classified aircraft developed through or with the help of NASA, or known to NASA which they are not authorized to talk about.

So the thing is, NASA in spite of being the one agency you would expect to be the experts on the Subject of UFO's, most likely would be the last place you are going to get information on the subject.

There are however a lot of older retiring NASA pilots and astronauts who claim to have witnessed extra-ordinary UFO's while on flights/mission. Then again, what they witnessed could always be just another NASA project or project of another government agency which was not privy to them. NASA operates in a need to know basis when it comes to sensitive information, and you can get in a lot of trouble for saying things your not supposed to if you work for NASA.

 

[jreelawg]

I would say:

2.) Eloraborate hoaxes designed both by our government and foreign governments. I have this idea that the US and Soviet Union were in a clandestine UFO War for years during which each was trying to convince the other they had extra-terrestrial technology reverse engineered from crashed flying saucers.

I've had this thought run through my head a few times. What if the these lights which are in formations and perform seaming impossible aeronautical stunts, are nothing more than some kind of sophisticated light show, and illusion designed to make people think they see something extra-ordinarily advanced. This would get around the issue of how many of these sightings report rapid changes of direction and rapid drops and gains in altitude, at the magnitude which would easily kill any human passenger. The only thing is that there are a lot of reports in which UFOs demonstrating seemingly impossible acrobatic stunts were tracked on radar.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I've had this thought run through my head a few times. What if the these lights which are in formations and perform seaming impossible aeronautical stunts, are nothing more than some kind of sophisticated light show, and illusion designed to make people think they see something extra-ordinarily advanced. This would get around the issue of how many of these sightings report rapid changes of direction and rapid drops and gains in altitude, at the magnitude which would easily kill any human passenger. The only thing is that there are a lot of reports in which UFOs demonstrating seemingly impossible acrobatic stunts were tracked on radar.

Yes, the point would not be that any craft have to be able to actually do any of these remarkable things, they just have to appear to be able to do them. The brains behind the stunts would be David Copperfield caliber magicians let loose on all the technology available to the military. They would study things like radar and focus on all the loopholes and glitches that could be exploited to make craft seem like they're doing impossible things.

The US did, in fact, hire a magician to create a bedazzling light show in the Panama Canal when it was suspected axis forces were planning on bombing it during WWII. It was some sort of rotating configuration of mirrors and searchlights that just outright blinded airplane pilots looking down on the ground at it. They became disoriented and couldn't see where to drop the bombs. Plus we know, from WWII both sides went way out of their way to create false, "dummy" battalions of tanks and trucks to make it look like troop strength was building up in places it wasn't.

I happened just today to see a UFO program on the History Channel. They interviewed two former Soviet Generals. When Andropov was in power he ordered the military to keep nightly watch of the skies everywhere for UFO's. This went on for 13 years. Many reports were collected. One general said they automatically suspected any report they could not otherwise explain was some sort of new US spy plane or attempt to create disinformation. Military strategists think about deception all the time and it would not be the least unusual for both sides to have a UFO distraction/deception program going.

 

[ecsspace]

What people claim to see in the sky tells you more about the observer than what's in the sky. You can go out at night with a large group of people to "watch for UFO's", and depending where you are and with enough time a normal airliner will pass over. There will always be be someone in the crowd who insists it's "a UFO"; from their perspective meaning they see this airliner as an alien spacecraft .
Because: they want it to be, and their desire to see it as such is more important to them than any sense of reason and experience (they may or may not possess) that tells them it's a common jet.
I mean, your parents said "Santa Claus, oh sure' They leave the room, you go look up the chimney - someone of the dimensions they describe is going to fit through a four inch flue? Yet you have friends in elementary school, and here comes some guy in the Santa suit, and to them he's the man, no question. Even after you say, no, it's coach in a red suit and beard. Some of your friends actually
start to cry because you ruined the ride.
I still have that bad ruin-the-ride habit. Maybe there's some twelve step program: AA - Assholes Anonymous. Or even better: AO 'Assholes Obvious"

 

[jreelawg]

What people claim to see in the sky tells you more about the observer than what's in the sky. You can go out at night with a large group of people to "watch for UFO's", and depending where you are and with enough time a normal airliner will pass over. There will always be be someone in the crowd who insists it's "a UFO"; from their perspective meaning they see this airliner as an alien spacecraft .
Because: they want it to be, and their desire to see it as such is more important to them than any sense of reason and experience (they may or may not possess) that tells them it's a common jet.
I mean, your parents said "Santa Claus, oh sure' They leave the room, you go look up the chimney - someone of the dimensions they describe is going to fit through a four inch flue? Yet you have friends in elementary school, and here comes some guy in the Santa suit, and to them he's the man, no question. Even after you say, no, it's coach in a red suit and beard. Some of your friends actually
start to cry because you ruined the ride.
I still have that bad ruin-the-ride habit. Maybe there's some twelve step program: AA - Assholes Anonymous. Or even better: AO 'Assholes Obvious"

This is all true, yet really tells us nothing of the mystery of the UFO phenomena. The only reports you can explain by this phenomena, are ones that no rational person would take serious anyways.

Santa Clause is a proven fictional character, whereas the UFO mystery is still, as far as you or I know, unsolved. So in my opinion people who claim to represent any certainty about the UFO phenomena without evidence, should take the JAA twelve step program, Jack-A**'s-Anonymous.

 

[FlexGunship]

Obviously a lot of reports are of misidentified mundane phenomena and outright hallucinations. Dave asked for personal opinion about "the more interesting and inexplicable reports".

"More interesting and inexplicable reports" can still be explained by mundane misunderstandings.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"More interesting and inexplicable reports" can still be explained by mundane misunderstandings.

"Might", not necessarily "can".

And there is no way this applies to all reports.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Note that you and Russ had to posit a conspiracy theory [with no basis other than wild speculation, I might add] to explain the Iran 1976 event. And there are others, like the case of the RB-47 over the Gulf. Even the Condon committee, which is well known for its bias and failure to accurately reflect the body of the report in the summary by Condon, had to concede that there was no known explanation for this.

The Condon Committee toyed with several explanations, but found none to be satisfactory listed this as an unknown.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case665.htm

 

[FlexGunship]

"Might", not necessarily "can".

And there is no way this applies to all reports.

You are correct about the distinction between "might" and "can" and I accept your modification.

However, there is no fundamentally-implicit reason why it couldn't apply to all reports. That's really a tautology.

 

[DaveC426913]

However, there is no fundamentally-implicit reason why it couldn't apply to all reports.

It is meaningless to suggest that all observations might, in an ideal circumstance, be explainable by mundane means.

We explain what we can, and the rest is unexplainable. No one is suggesting that unexplainable===extraterrestrial.

 

[ecsspace]

I can say this only for myself, but I know that a certain % of these cases are not "crackpottery", as me and a group of friends all saw the same UFO, totally unexplainable by any known phenomenon. 0 feasible alternative explanations exist, so until more variables come my way I am happy to say that I probably saw an alien spaceship.

I once saw something myself that by it's behaviour did not exhibit any traditional human-created flight characteristics, but did demonstrate behaviour that could very easily be considered to be under some conscious control.
But even now many years later I shy from considering that it could be a vehicle or some conveyance of an extraterrestrial origin.
The most remarkable aspect of the sighting was how unremarkable it seemed at the time, which I still think about once in a while. There was no accompanying emotion of any kind, yet I would imagine that most people would expect some sense of awe or fear. My father saw it with me, and seemed equally nonplussed, as if it was no more remarkable than the overflight of a normal airplane.
Following from this experience I tend to be closer to dismissing outright claims of people who speak of sightings and then relate their emotional state, as if they are attempting first to illicit the emotional state in any listener as a means of qualifying the veracity of their sighting. For instance, I only know personally one other person who saw something unusual 9whose story I 'believe'), and she too described it as if it was 'no big deal', and her sighting was far more detailed than mine. She seemed convinced that it was an actual craft from another world, but it seemed as though she took no more regard for it's presence at the time as if she had seen a billboard or any other common roadside object. Somehow, her emotional detachment made her story more 'believable' to me.

When you and your friends saw this UFO, do you recall any particular emotional state of your own, or if any of your friends seemed more affected by it emotionally than others? Did the sighting cause any kind of uncomfortable emotions in any of you while you were seeing it, and was that ever a topic of discussion amongst any of you later?

 

[davenn]

Even the Condon committee, which is well known for its bias and failure to accurately reflect the body of the report in the summary by Condon, had to concede that there was no known explanation for this.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case665.htm

Thanks for the link Ivan, amazing reading and also amazing is the lack of serious reporting of events (as commented on) in the Condon and Bluebook reports
I also followed some of the other links at the top of that first page and 1.5 Hrs later had to call it quits and go do something else for a break.
thanks again happy NY

Dave

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"More interesting and inexplicable reports" can still be explained by mundane misunderstandings.

You are correct about the distinction between "might" and "can" and I accept your modification.

However, there is no fundamentally-implicit reason why it couldn't apply to all reports. That's really a tautology.

A misunderstanding does not explain the Iran report, nor the RB-47 or other miliary reports, nor thousands of anecdotal and undocumented [civilian] reports.

You and Russ invented a conspiracy theory with no basis in known facts, in order to explain the Iran '76 report. While I think your suggested conspiracy is highly unlikely given the number of people involved and the highest level of reporting that took place within the US governemnt, up to an including the White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I didn't object because it is possible. However, a conspiracy is not a misunderstanding.

Seriously, I don't understand why I should have to make this point given that the conspiracy bit was your own argument.

Beyond that, rarely does anyone invoke the ET explanation in a high-quality UFO report. Your statement implicity assumes that they do. If a report merely describes what was observed, it can't be a misunderstanding. It was an observation. A misunderstanding is only possible if an explanation, or an interpretation of the facts, is offered.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

totally unexplainable by any known phenomenon.

I should have interjected [last May] to say this is not an assertion that can be made here. We don't know that you are qualified to make that judgement. However, you are free to describe what you saw.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is the additional use of the word "mundane". We can only assume that all can be explained as mundane if we assume that all non-mundane reports and stories are lies. That is circular logic. While it might be true, we certainly can't state it as fact. It is a guess.

The reason that some attempt to explain the Iran '76 event as a conspiracy, is that any other explanation would not be "mundane". However, I wouldn't call a conspiracy involving a General, two pilots, and at least one tower operator, who falsely claim a seemingly impossible encounter with an unknown craft, a claim that went all the way to the White House via the CIA, mundane. That is still an exotic explanation as we wouldn't expect it. And it certainly wasn't a mundane misunderstanding.

However, it is also true that "not mundane" [I like to use the word "exotic"] reports, even if true down the last word, do not necessarily require that ET is here. Some do, [for example the case of Travis Walton] but not all by any means. It is possible that there are exotic but terrestrial explanations for many cases. Imo, the most obvious suggestion would be, assuming many reports of a particular variety are true, that ball lightning, or something like it in appearance, is far more interesting that we know. This is not a mundane explanation as that would imply a common or familiar explanation. But there is no accepted model for ball lightning. So to say case X can be explained as BL is to say that we don't know how to explain it! It may represent an opportunity for scientific discovery.

 

[Radrook]

I once saw something myself that by it's behaviour did not exhibit any traditional human-created flight characteristics, but did demonstrate behaviour that could very easily be considered to be under some conscious control.
But even now many years later I shy from considering that it could be a vehicle or some conveyance of an extraterrestrial origin.
The most remarkable aspect of the sighting was how unremarkable it seemed at the time, which I still think about once in a while. There was no accompanying emotion of any kind, yet I would imagine that most people would expect some sense of awe or fear. My father saw it with me, and seemed equally nonplussed, as if it was no more remarkable than the overflight of a normal airplane.
Following from this experience I tend to be closer to dismissing outright claims of people who speak of sightings and then relate their emotional state, as if they are attempting first to illicit the emotional state in any listener as a means of qualifying the veracity of their sighting. For instance, I only know personally one other person who saw something unusual 9whose story I 'believe'), and she too described it as if it was 'no big deal', and her sighting was far more detailed than mine. She seemed convinced that it was an actual craft from another world, but it seemed as though she took no more regard for it's presence at the time as if she had seen a billboard or any other common roadside object. Somehow, her emotional detachment made her story more 'believable' to me.

When you and your friends saw this UFO, do you recall any particular emotional state of your own, or if any of your friends seemed more affected by it emotionally than others? Did the sighting cause any kind of uncomfortable emotions in any of you while you were seeing it, and was that ever a topic of discussion amongst any of you later?

Interesting that you should point that out. My lack of strong defensive emotion has indeed come repeatedly to my mind whenever I remember the incident and I have often wondered whether it was induced. Here's a brief description of how the incident went.

I saw a UFO one night while waiting for a public bus in the outskirts of Miami back in the seventies. As I waited for the bus on an isolated dark street under slight drizzle and below a low fog, I noticed this white light slowly approaching from the city's direction just below the fog and exhibiting quavering lateral movements.


When it got closer and was about to pass me the light's glare revealed that it was attached to the "rim?" of this large diamond-shaped object. How large is hard to say but since it began passing above a house I would say about the size of a three-storied residential house.

I thought it would continue but it stopped and silently hovered. Then it suddenly doused its frontal white light and refocused it on me. It's extreme diamond shape became more visible then and its dull brown nonmetallic texture seemed menacingly organic. The only beauty in it were the bright large round, Red, White and Green lights it focused on me one after the other for few seconds each before dousing them. Then it repositioned the white light toward its direction of travel which was to my left and silently resuming its course at about 3mph toward the Miami airport area.


I only experienced a slight apprehension at the thing's texture and color which seemed non-machinelike, its ability to hove silrntly and effortlessly despite its size and was awed by the beauty of those lights. Only after reading the newspaper reports the next day about UFO interferences at the Miami International Airport that previous night aprox the same time I had that encounter did I begin to get a bit anxious about it. I also wondered and still wonder why I let that thing focus those lights on me since I had recently read that some persons had suffered burns after undergoing similar experiences where lights were focused on them by UFOS.

 

[SpeedOfDark]

Stephen Hawking wants to know "Why do they only appear to the cranks and weirdos"

http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_hawking_asks_big_questions_about_the_universe.html

I call it the "Why don't normal people see crazy stuff phenom"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Stephen Hawking wants to know "Why do they only appear to the cranks and weirdos"

http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_hawking_asks_big_questions_about_the_universe.html

I call it the "Why don't normal people see crazy stuff phenom"

Obviously Dr. Hawking is ignorant of the facts, as are you. Many of the best [more impressive] UFO reports involve the military are found in government files that are available to the public.

 

[nismaratwork]

Stephen Hawking wants to know "Why do they only appear to the cranks and weirdos"

http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_hawking_asks_big_questions_about_the_universe.html

I call it the "Why don't normal people see crazy stuff phenom"

Not bad, but you appeal to authority too much, and you'd do better if you went with something more along the lines of: "Why do most people who see things in the night sky, NOT misinterpret them and stick with that?"

It's not so much about what we see, as Flex keeps trying to point out, but what our brains and personalities do with that info. Do we run indoors and start yelling to "ma" that the aliens are coming? Do we stop, call for others, and try to carefully examine whatever "it" is?

The former (often in less extreme forms) is going to see only what they first believed they saw... they had no other chance to form a different view. The latter, while still possibly ending at a wrong conclusion, at least isn't running with assumptions, and continuing observation.

After all, a lot of "strange LOOKING things" in the sky don't seem very strange once you observe them, and think for a bit.

Or everyone is lying... which is actually MORE likely? A mix of motives and causes, or a universal human truth about lies around a SINGLE subject, when those lies yield dubious results?

 

[nismaratwork]

Obviously Dr. Hawking is ignorant of the facts, as are you. Many of the best [more impressive] UFO reports involve the military are found in government files that are available to the public.

I'm still not sure that military/government/official = better, but we have a thread for that so I'll leave it at that. I agree that impressive is an exceptional adjective in this extraordinary situation.

 

[pftest]

Stephen Hawking wants to know "Why do they only appear to the cranks and weirdos"

It could be because of circular reasoning.

1. assume that anyone who reports a UFO is a crank
2. conclude that UFOs are only seen by cranks

Id be a bit surprised if Hawking were so sloppy (as opposed to being merely ignorant about the subject), but its well known that even rational people go haywire when the topic is UFOs.

 

[FlexGunship]

Okay, totally sorry everyone, but this is bugging me.

The man's name is Hawking. There's only one of him. So there is no "s" at the end.

 

[Radrook]

Sure seem to be a lot of cranks and weirdos out there! LOL



UFO Quotes from Presidents, Astronauts, Senior Military and more. UFO Cover Up? These people say YES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Excerpt:
This is a list of UFO-related quotes from Presidents, Prime Ministers, NASA Astronauts, retired military personnel, airline captains and more.

When large numbers of people of this caliber go on record, under oath and affirm the existence of a UFO cover up, it poses some serious questions


http://www.squidoo.com/ufo-coverups

 

[ecsspace]

Okay, totally sorry everyone, but this is bugging me.

The man's name is Hawking. There's only one of him. So there is no "s" at the end.

That one you'll have to let go. People are good at ship-in-the-bottle math, but not proper nouns.
There's a thread somewhere else on here where they discuss 'John Edwards, the TV psychic guy'
"John Edward" is the only TV psychic guy I know of, but that doesn't mean there isn't a TV psychic
guy named "John Edwards" that I have never heard of who they are discussing.
"John Edwards", as far as I know, is the name of a guy who was a senator from N.C.
and ran for president of the USA.

 

[ecsspace]

Stephen Hawking wants to know "Why do they only appear to the cranks and weirdos"

http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_hawking_asks_big_questions_about_the_universe.html

I call it the "Why don't normal people see crazy stuff phenom"

'Normal' people consider that if they talk about it they may appear to be cranks and weirdos.

 

[ecsspace]

Sure seem to be a lot of cranks and weirdos out there! LOL



UFO Quotes from Presidents, Astronauts, Senior Military and more. UFO Cover Up? These people say YES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Excerpt:
This is a list of UFO-related quotes from Presidents, Prime Ministers, NASA Astronauts, retired military personnel, airline captains and more.

When large numbers of people of this caliber go on record, under oath and affirm the existence of a UFO cover up, it poses some serious questions


http://www.squidoo.com/ufo-coverups

The J Edgar Hoover quote is out of context, he was talking about wax recording discs during one of those 1950's era red scare conflicts that had the Army's interests intertwined with the FBI's. (You can see a very good example of this wax recording technology in the movie "The King's Speech")

 

[nismaratwork]

Okay, totally sorry everyone, but this is bugging me.

The man's name is Hawking. There's only one of him. So there is no "s" at the end.

I think Speedofdark started that one... which could be a simple error. It's HILARIOUS that pftest simply ran with it though, proving that intimate familiarity with the issues that makes him indispensable around here.

ecsspace: Your response to Flex... what the hell is that?

Could you please explain the following:

People are good at ship-in-the-bottle math, but not proper nouns.

and a two for..

There's a thread somewhere else on here where they discuss 'John Edwards, the TV psychic guy'
"John Edward" is the only TV psychic guy I know of, but that doesn't mean there isn't a TV psychic
guy named "John Edwards" that I have never heard of who they are discussing.
"John Edwards", as far as I know, is the name of a guy who was a senator from N.C.
and ran for president of the USA.

First: Are you aware that you have a very wandering style? I don't mean that as an insult or critique, but in the course of essentially saying:

'That 's' is a common error, get used to it. People aren't very good with proper nouns [so you say], so you find this kind of confusion around John Edward the TV psychic, and John Edwards the former Senator and VP candidate.'

You kind of... talked to Flex like he about 5 years old. In what I find amusing, John Edward the "psychic" is in fact, not a John Edward... full stop... at all. His name is, John Edward McGee Jr... so in common parlance: he's John Jr., or John McGee Jr. which I guess doesn't sound sufficiently spoooooky to convince his fans.

 

[nismaratwork]

'Normal' people consider that if they talk about it they may appear to be cranks and weirdos.

...Or they correctly interpret stimuli, thus coming to conclusions other than those "cranks and weirdos" do?

 

[ecsspace]

Sure seem to be a lot of cranks and weirdos out there! LOL

http://www.squidoo.com/ufo-coverups

The polite term for it used among sociologists is the 'theory of deviance'; meaning
that no matter how many people your point of view makes sense to, there will
always be other people who will think of you as a
A. crank
B. weirdo
C. imbecile
D. loon
E. someone who posts at online forums (aka: all of the above)

I remember we were all so enchanted by this "theory of deviance" thing,
the whole class took it as open license to behave however they pleased, for
if the professor did not like it, surely there was someone somewhere who would.
PT Barnum's famous quote comes to mind:
"Did you guys remember to get all the tent pegs out of the ground this time?"

 

[ecsspace]

You kind of... talked to Flex like he about 5 years old. In what I find amusing, John Edward the "psychic" is in fact, not a John Edward... full stop... at all. His name is, John Edward McGee Jr... so in common parlance: he's John Jr., or John McGee Jr. which I guess doesn't sound sufficiently spoooooky to convince his fans.

Does that also mean that the senator's full name is John Edwards McGees? (Jnr?)
Now there is an example of deductive reasoning in action!

'ship-in-the-bottle math' is a term some friends of mine used to tease a guy who was convinced that
anything 'that looked good on paper' was executable in reality, eventually. Math was his cocaine.
Big fan of MC Escher, you betcha.

 

[pftest]

I see i have fans

As for the "mundane" explanations... i think anyone who has even glimpsed at some of the UFO cases from the UFO napster will admit that there is some pretty bafflingly weird stuff going on in the skies.