My Personal UFO Encounter v. I saw a flying saucer, aliens optional!

[robwebster]

If we could all just come to an agreement that I saw a flying saucer we could just move on.
Reality for me...
I can't choose to reason away something right in front of me, as plain as the nose on my face as anything other than what it was, so coming up with any other theory simply won't work for me.
 By now, its pretty damn clear that mindset isn't going to change no matter who says what.

One thing we can all agree on is....
It wasn't lens flare.

I think it's very possible that you did see a flying saucer, and that flying saucer was an experimental aircraft. Makes sense, still exciting, still completely bizarre - but timewise, locationwise, seems to add up.

I'm never going to tell you that you didn't see a flying saucer, cos you know better than me. I am in no position to tell you that you didn't see a big circley thing with lights in the sky. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy" - I'd never dare be as arrogant as to tell someone that they definitely didn't see something they're confident they did. What do I know? Confident throughout the thread that you saw something. See also, this post!

I do think, though, that given there was an aircraft base just down the road... sounds very likely that what you saw came from there. Still wonderful and eldritch and exciting, but even more exciting now you can add two and two together. There'll only be a handful of people that saw that, and doesn't sound like anything that's been glimpsed since. Case isn't necessarily closed, per se... but it's at least ajar, now.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

The insistence that "Well, there MUST be a logical explanation" is lost on me.  There isn't 100% of the time a logical explanation for everything.

[kári]

they saw how awesome I was.

Your story is obviously made up.

[bosk1]

The insistence that "Well, there MUST be a logical explanation" is lost on me.  There isn't 100% of the time a logical explanation for everything.

Well, duh.  Justin Bieber has hit singles, so, yeah, sometimes, there's no logical explanation.

[kári]

The insistence that "Well, there MUST be a logical explanation" is lost on me.  There isn't 100% of the time a logical explanation for everything.

Well that depends on what you define by logical. Is quantum physics logical? Hell no, but it is an explanation for a lot of the effects and behavior of sub-atomic particles and even atoms themselves in some cases.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

I was using the phrase that MJ used and that others probably agree is the right choice of words.  So really, it's more a matter of what MJ, Nick, and others find to be "logical".

[Tick]

@Metal Junkie
You can say whatever you wish. It doesn't bother me, I'm just am not going to agree.

@Sir Coz
Thank you for your unwavering support

@Nick
You saw Elvis? Wow, that's cool. Since you were 12 however, it probably didn't happen. It was probably just some other dead zombie.

@ Rob Webster
What can I say, great post.

@ Bosk
cool cartoon, dude.

[Nick]

I don't think we need something "logical" (and not sure why we're quoting that...), but rather we simply wish to look for an explanation of what Tick saw. And yes, some of those explanations may question what people saw, but the feeling I get from Tick is that any possible explanation that strays from a creepy spooky flying saucer (with all the implications that come with that) can't possibly be right. I'm not looking to tell Tick he's wrong, or that what he saw didn't at very least *look* like a flying saucer, but simply want to look to find exactly what it was or could have been.

[Nick]

@Nick
You saw Elvis? Wow, that's cool. Since you were 12 however, it probably didn't happen. It was probably just some other dead zombie.

Nope, I am 100% SURE it was Elvis.

[bosk1]

@ Bosk
cool cartoon, dude.

Best part was that the zombie put on a helmet before jumping on the motorcycle.  Because...you know...you wouldn't want zombie brains all over the highway if they got in an accident. 

[Tick]

@Nick
You saw Elvis? Wow, that's cool. Since you were 12 however, it probably didn't happen. It was probably just some other dead zombie.

Nope, I am 100% SURE it was Elvis.

Well, I know you think so, but since it was a club it was probably just some guy dressed like Elvis. People do that in clubs. Now if you had said you saw him in a supermarket shopping for fresh fruit.

[MetalJunkie]

Tick, do you have a problem with me at the personal level? That would seem to be the case, indicated by your statement of "say whatever you want, I will disagree." Especially considering I have the same stance as rob, yet you commended his post.

[kári]

Tick, what is there was some kind of machine that could read your memories and record them. And then experts will look at it and point out that obviously you thought you was a flying saucer but in fact you saw "explanation of experts with data to back it up". Would you still believe you saw a flying saucer?

Or what if in ten years the government admits that they projected a flying saucer shape in he sky using a super real life like objects projector just to see people's reactions?

I'm not saying you didn't see a flying saucer. However unlikely, it is possible. But you seem to instantly reject any other theory on what you saw. Which leads me to believe that you want to have seen a flying saucer.

[MetalJunkie]

Kari, Tick's not saying the saucer was of extraterrestrial origin.

[kári]

Of course not. But he doesn't seem to admit either that it is possible that it was something that looked like a saucer but was in fact something else.

[Zook]

How many times are you guys going to go in circles about this?

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

Until someone finally locks it.

[kári]

Look. My point is this: say you look out the window, and you see a tree. Then it is entirely possible that there wasn't a tree at all but you just saw something else and mistook it for a tree or something. Anyway, whether or not the tree actually existed does not influence the fact that you had a real "tree seeing experience". In your mind, there is no difference at all between seeing a tree that is not there and seeing one that is. You just see a tree.
In exactly the same way, Tick could have had a 100% real and genuine "saucer seeing experience", while there wasn't a saucer at all. Again, I'm not saying that there definitely wasn't a saucer. I'm just saying that if there wasn't, that doesn't change the genuineness of Tick's "saucer seeing experience".

[MetalJunkie]

Of course not. But he doesn't seem to admit either that it is possible that it was something that looked like a saucer but was in fact something else.

That doesn't mean it wasn't a saucer. The government has had all sorts of experimental crafts that were, in fact, saucer shaped.

[Tick]

How many times are you guys going to go in circles about this?

Ever see Groundhog day?

Tick, do you have a problem with me at the personal level? That would seem to be the case, indicated by your statement of "say whatever you want, I will disagree." Especially considering I have the same stance as rob, yet you commended his post.

I do not have a problem with you, at all. Relax. I'm just saying, you are free to throw theory's out there if you wish. Its clear by now I'm going to stick to what I have said without wavering. That's all I'm saying. I don't have it in for you.

I'm not saying you didn't see a flying saucer. However unlikely, it is possible. But you seem to instantly reject any other theory on what you saw. Which leads me to believe that you want to have seen a flying saucer.

So what if I reject any theory? Why is it driving people so crazy that I gave an account of something, and I don't want to entertain any thoughts to the contrary?
That is not my problem folks, its yours. Everyone is free to reject the account of what I claim I saw, but don't expect me to consider any other explanation for it. I am clearly not going to.
(Deep breath......)
Ok?

[Super Dude]

[kári]

Look if you put something in front of me, I look at it and you take it away. And I say "wow that was a tasty looking cheeseburger". And you say "no it wasn't a cheeseburger, it was just a hamburger with a yellow colored piece of lettuce that looked like cheese"... In this case you obviously didn't put a cheeseburger in front of me. But whether it was a real cheeseburger or just a hamburger with something that looked like cheese does not influence the experience I had when you put it in front of me before you told me what it was.

Would you say that it was still correct of me to say that you put a cheeseburger in front of me?

Obviously if I was really stubborn I would not believe that you had in fact not put a cheeseburger in front of me since I really saw somthing I perceived as cheese without a doubt in my mind. ANd I could also argue that when you show me the hamburger and the yellow coloured cheese-looking piece of lettuce I could still argue that it isn't the same thing as that you had put in front of me.

But it does not change the fact that in this case you did not put a cheeseburger in front of me, no matter who I tell that you did, you didn't.

[Tick]

Look if you put something in front of me, I look at it and you take it away. And I say "wow that was a tasty looking cheeseburger". And you say "no it wasn't a cheeseburger, it was just a hamburger with a yellow colored piece of lettuce that looked like cheese"... In this case you obviously didn't put a cheeseburger in front of me. But whether it was a real cheeseburger or just a hamburger with something that looked like cheese does not influence the experience I had when you put it in front of me before you told me what it was.

Would you say that it was still correct of me to say that you put a cheeseburger in front of me?

Obviously if I was really stubborn I would not believe that you had in fact not put a cheeseburger in front of me since I really saw somthing I perceived as cheese without a doubt in my mind. ANd I could also argue that when you show me the hamburger and the yellow coloured cheese-looking piece of lettuce I could still argue that it isn't the same thing as that you had put in front of me.

But it does not change the fact that in this case you did not put a cheeseburger in front of me, no matter who I tell that you did, you didn't.

You used my cheeseburger analogy? I liked my use of it better.
Anyhow, why are you trying so hard to get me to consider it wasn't a saucer? or, it could have been a government saucer hologram.
Just to make you and others happy, I will reword my stance.
I will vehemently stick to my account of what I perceived I saw that night, so we can all just stop trying to make me say it might have been a this, or a that.

[Tick]

HOLY FUCK, THIS  IS AN AWESOME FIND!!!

I was looking to find out if any sightings in Connecticut were reported from 1978. When I saw a person telling his story which happened in 1979, I thought, wow! this was it! I always think 78 cause I was in 8th grade and thats when it took place. but I was still in 8th grade in the spring of 79 which is when the event took place. Now if screwing up the year futher damages my credibilty I can't change that but I found this link and I found it an exciting read!

https://ufocasebook.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1107876146

I'll quote this post one more time for those who missed it. This guy is spot on in his account, as far as saying exactly what I saw that night.

[Tick]

Hey! Raven stole this guys hairstyle!

[kári]

why are you trying so hard to get me to consider it wasn't a saucer?

Because somehow you want to convince us it was a saucer. You are completely ignoring or oblivious to the fact that it could have been something else. Somehow you don't consider that as an option. Also good job on completely ignoring the questions I asked you.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

Look if you put something in front of me, I look at it and you take it away. And I say "wow that was a tasty looking cheeseburger". And you say "no it wasn't a cheeseburger, it was just a hamburger with a yellow colored piece of lettuce that looked like cheese"... In this case you obviously didn't put a cheeseburger in front of me. But whether it was a real cheeseburger or just a hamburger with something that looked like cheese does not influence the experience I had when you put it in front of me before you told me what it was.

Would you say that it was still correct of me to say that you put a cheeseburger in front of me?

Obviously if I was really stubborn I would not believe that you had in fact not put a cheeseburger in front of me since I really saw somthing I perceived as cheese without a doubt in my mind. ANd I could also argue that when you show me the hamburger and the yellow coloured cheese-looking piece of lettuce I could still argue that it isn't the same thing as that you had put in front of me.

But it does not change the fact that in this case you did not put a cheeseburger in front of me, no matter who I tell that you did, you didn't.

The difference here is that none of you has absolute knowledge that what was in front of him wasn't what he claims to have seen, whether anyone believes it to be unlikely or not.  So it's almost the same thing as your cheeseburger analogy above, but that one little piece of info changes it entirely.

Also, I have not understood any of this as him trying to convince anyone else that it absolutely was a saucer 100% and that you simply HAVE to believe him.  He said what he saw and has pretty much said "whether you believe it or not, I know what I saw".  It appears to be everyone else trying to convince him that it could be something else.

[kári]

The difference here is that none of you has absolute knowledge that what was in front of him wasn't what he claims to have seen, whether anyone believes it to be unlikely or not.  So it's almost the same thing as your cheeseburger analogy above, but that one little piece of info changes it entirely.

It doesn't change the point I was trying to make which is that it could have been something else, even if it's not very likely.

Also, I have not understood any of this as him trying to convince anyone else that it absolutely was a saucer 100% and you HAVE to believe me.  He said what he saw and has pretty much said "whether you believe it or not, I know what I saw".  It appears to be everyone else trying to convince him that it could be something else.

Yes perhaps I was wrong in saying that Tick is trying to convince us it was a saucer but that doesn't change the validity of the three other sentences I made in that post.

[Tick]

Look if you put something in front of me, I look at it and you take it away. And I say "wow that was a tasty looking cheeseburger". And you say "no it wasn't a cheeseburger, it was just a hamburger with a yellow colored piece of lettuce that looked like cheese"... In this case you obviously didn't put a cheeseburger in front of me. But whether it was a real cheeseburger or just a hamburger with something that looked like cheese does not influence the experience I had when you put it in front of me before you told me what it was.

Would you say that it was still correct of me to say that you put a cheeseburger in front of me?

Obviously if I was really stubborn I would not believe that you had in fact not put a cheeseburger in front of me since I really saw somthing I perceived as cheese without a doubt in my mind. ANd I could also argue that when you show me the hamburger and the yellow coloured cheese-looking piece of lettuce I could still argue that it isn't the same thing as that you had put in front of me.

But it does not change the fact that in this case you did not put a cheeseburger in front of me, no matter who I tell that you did, you didn't.

The difference here is that none of you has absolute knowledge that what was in front of him wasn't what he claims to have seen, whether anyone believes it to be unlikely or not.  So it's almost the same thing as your cheeseburger analogy above, but that one little piece of info changes it entirely.

Also, I have not understood any of this as him trying to convince anyone else that it absolutely was a saucer 100% and that you simply HAVE to believe him.  He said what he saw and has pretty much said "whether you believe it or not, I know what I saw".  It appears to be everyone else trying to convince him that it could be something else.

Thank you! Well said, Coz.
I don't even know if you believe I saw what I say I did, but you have just taken my account for what it is, and are not trying to make me consider it was something else.

[Tick]

The difference here is that none of you has absolute knowledge that what was in front of him wasn't what he claims to have seen, whether anyone believes it to be unlikely or not.  So it's almost the same thing as your cheeseburger analogy above, but that one little piece of info changes it entirely.

It doesn't change the point I was trying to make which is that it could have been something else, even if it's not very likely.

Also, I have not understood any of this as him trying to convince anyone else that it absolutely was a saucer 100% and you HAVE to believe me.  He said what he saw and has pretty much said "whether you believe it or not, I know what I saw".  It appears to be everyone else trying to convince him that it could be something else.

Yes perhaps I was wrong in saying that Tick is trying to convince us it was a saucer but that doesn't change the validity of the three other sentences I made in that post.

Why can't you just accept my account as what I believe, and just disagree with me. You can feel it wasn't and I'm fine with that. Just don't keep trying to make me have to consider the options of things it may have been. I'm not going to.
This is exhausting.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

I don't even know if you believe I saw what I say I did, but you have just taken my account for what it is, and are not trying to make me consider it was something else.

Which is all anybody should do.  I have no idea why there is this massive collective hard-on to make you consider that you may have been wrong.

[kári]

Ok so if your best friend is about to kill his/her self because he/she saw Jesus earlier that day and Jesus told him/her to commit suicide, you would not stop them because "it is what they saw" and you don't have to try to convince them that they may be wrong...?

The point here is that when you are not able to admit that you may be wrong about something you saw or something you perceived in another way, especially about sensitive subjects like UFOs or Jesus, there is something not right.

[Tick]

Ok so if your best friend is about to kill his/her self because he/she saw Jesus earlier that day and Jesus told him/her to commit suicide, you would not stop them because "it is what they saw" and you don't have to try to convince them that they may be wrong...?

The point here is that when you are not able to admit that you may be wrong about something you saw or something you perceived in another way, especially about sensitive subjects like UFOs or Jesus, there is something not right.

Ok then, there is something not right. UFO's are sensitive, I should say it probably was something else.
If the flying saucer comes back and asks me to kill myself, you have my consent to talk some sense into me.

[kári]

Cool.

[BlobVanDam]

Why can't you just accept my account as what I believe, and just disagree with me. You can feel it wasn't and I'm fine with that. Just don't keep trying to make me have to consider the options of things it may have been. I'm not going to.
This is exhausting.

Damn right it's exhausting.
Trusting your recollection of a very brief event 35 years ago when you were but a young kid, which you couldn't even remember the year of correctly, over even accepting even the remotest possibility that it was something rational, is not only stubborn, but downright dishonest to yourself.
I think you're trying to convince yourself at this point more than us, because you have demonstrated absolutely zero interest in listening to anyone in this thread. We accept your account of what you saw, we're only arguing about what it actually could have been, because few of us give any credibility to the idea that it was an alien flying saucer or some super top secret area 51 style flying saucer experiment. But nobody thinks you're lying about seeing something that looked like a saucer.

A lot of things look like flying saucers under certain circumstances, many of which have been offered as possibilities, and you just stick your fingers in your ears and hum loudly to yourself. The fact that you apparently lived right near a base known for vehicles that happen to be often mistaken for UFOs makes this stance appear even more silly.

You choose to believe what you want to believe. Ultimately it's not our loss......