What did I see?

[Kierjohn]

About 11.30 pm I was in the back garden letting my dog out before I went to bed. I happened to look up at the sky and saw an object looking like a star slowly glide through the sky. After about 10 seconds a smaller looking '''star' appeared from the other star and shadowed right behind it, then both objects started to zig zag in the night sky for about 45 seconds before the smaller 'star' went back into the other one, as this happened the bigger one flashed much brighter. The object then flew north into the sky then disappeared. It was too high for a plane and there was no noise, it also couldnt have been a satellite as satellites don't zig zag as far as I know. Ive uploaded a video which closely resembles what I saw except the video only shows one of these stars and not a second one coming out of it Any ideas of what I could have seen?

 

 

Edited June 22, 2018 by Kierjohn
Spelling mistake

[Dejarma]

i see aftereffects.. or maybe maya or c4d or 3dsmax

[XenoFish]

No offense to you OP. But I'm rather suspect of videos. Mostly due to personal drones and such. Not saying you've got something you think is real. But I'm kinda skeptical of these things.

[Merc14]

A bit obvious, OP, for this place.  Try and do better next time, that is laughably faked.  ISS and probably Venus with a boatload of poorly done editing (pixellation).  

Edited June 22, 2018 by Merc14

[Kierjohn]

Just to clarify this isn't my video, this is just the closest thing I could find that looked like what I saw. As far as I'm aware what I saw was alot higher than drones are legally allowed to fly in the UK. When I first saw it I thought it was a satellite until I saw the second object follow it.

[XenoFish]

Let me get this straight. You saw some weird lights, presented a representative video that is not your own. Then ask us, what we think you saw.......

Yeah, guys have fun with this thread.

[Kierjohn]

Well I just searched in Google 'zig zagging star in sky' and it seems like quite a few people have seen similar to me. I only posted on here as I thought I could get some feedback or scientific explanation, I wasn't really expecting a backlash aha

[Fila]

1 hour ago, Kierjohn said:

Well I just searched in Google 'zig zagging star in sky' and it seems like quite a few people have seen similar to me. I only posted on here as I thought I could get some feedback or scientific explanation, I wasn't really expecting a backlash aha

Welcome to the forum, lol.

What camera were you using? It sux cause the footage only shows a light.., and doesn't give us a sense of height or manoeuvres. It might be better to zoom out as much as possible.., without losing the object. And letting it film across the screen without moving the camera at all. (Tripod is highly recommended). Take note of what camera you are using.., and what magnification your lens was at. Or if you used digital zoom and let us know. It might also be interesting to see a photograph taken on a long exposure time if you have a camera capable of this.

Here is a map you can use to determine satellites. https://in-the-sky.org/satmap_worldmap.php

You can use this to check for aircraft: https://www.flightradar24.com/-25.92,-231.23/11.., but read this link on how it works as it doesn't cover all aircraft: https://www.flightradar24.com/how-it-works

I don't know what other advice I can give you.

I want to build some type of mini Hessdallen observation station, that runs automatically. I just somehow need to figure which is the best place to put one. All I have are other civilians to rely on providing this type of data.., so it is interesting hearing about places with high amounts of UFO activity.

Edited June 22, 2018 by Fila

[Kierjohn]

Thankyou lol, I didn't manage to catch it on film as it was unexpected. The video I posted was a video I found on YouTube that closely resembled what I saw. The date I saw it was June 19th at approximately 11.30pm, this was in Bristol UK. When I first saw it it was in the north western sky travelling east, after zig zagging it seemed to travel higher into the sky before disappearing. Thankyou for providing the links, I will have a look now to see if it could possibly have been a satellite

[Kierjohn]

Using the satellite link that you provided it looks like a satellite did indeed pass at 11.34pm if I'm using it correctly, so there is a strong possibility that a satellite is what I saw. Out of interest would a trick of the light make it look like a second light was following it and also is there any logical reason as to why a satellite would seem to be zig zagging?

[Fila]

18 minutes ago, Kierjohn said:

Using the satellite link that you provided it looks like a satellite did indeed pass at 11.34pm if I'm using it correctly, so there is a strong possibility that a satellite is what I saw. Out of interest would a trick of the light make it look like a second light was following it and also is there any logical reason as to why a satellite would seem to be zig zagging?

If you can remember the direction the object was travelling.., you could double check by comparing with the satellites direction.

I have no idea what could make that happen, or know of anything that would do that. I have heard many reports of moving stars though, so its something I will need to plan for camera-wise.

[ChrLzs]

Briefly... 11:30 pm is pretty late for seeing satellites - they would have to be in high orbit, but would also have to be fairly low to the horizon (I know, that sounds like a contradiction but it isn't).  Most bright satellites will be seen in the couple of hours immediately after dusk or before dawn.

'Light tricks' don't cause second lights, but you could have just seen a crossing of orbits.

'Eye tricks' can cause dancing effects or slight zig-zagging..

Satellites do sometimes adjust their orbits, but generally won't zigzag.  High flying military aircraft or even choppers might, as could high-end drones.

 

The example you gave is mostly someone (mis-/ab-)using their camera (zooming, rotating and wobbling) to get those effects.

[Golden Duck]

 

That @Merc14 bloke seems to know what he's talking about...

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/271755-zig-zagging-star-experience/?tab=comments#comment-5296717

 

Edited June 22, 2018 by Golden Duck

[Fila]

48 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

 

That @Merc14 bloke seems to know what he's talking about...

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/271755-zig-zagging-star-experience/?tab=comments#comment-5296717

I have noticed this with stationary stars.., when I stare at them for a long time they may judder. This is quite normal and I don't get excited. But I think this effect is small compared to a star jumping or zig-zagging from what I have read in other reports.

Not sure how we can determine this. Perhaps we could ask the witness how far the objects moved in relation to itself?

If it only moves a small amount infrequently.., and still within itself (see left side of image ) then it could be this effect.

If it the object moves outside of itself (say twice its radius).., in a zig zag.., then I would suggest its not a micro-tremor.

Edited June 22, 2018 by Fila

[Golden Duck]

 

9 minutes ago, Fila said:

I have noticed this with stationary stars.., when I stare at them for a long time they may judder. This is quite normal and I don't get excited. But I think this effect is small compared to a star jumping or zig-zagging from what I have read in other reports.

Not sure how we can determine this. Perhaps we could ask the witness how far the objects moved in relation to itself?

If it only moves a small amount infrequently.., and still within itself (see left side of image ) then it could be this effect.

If it the object moves outside of itself.., in a zig zag.., then I would suggest its not a micro-tremor.

It's been raised before that a fist subtends about ten degrees and an outstretched pinkie subtends about one degree.

These are tools everyone carries.

[Minimalists]

5 hours ago, Kierjohn said:

Thankyou lol, I didn't manage to catch it on film as it was unexpected. The video I posted was a video I found on YouTube that closely resembled what I saw. The date I saw it was June 19th at approximately 11.30pm, this was in Bristol UK. When I first saw it it was in the north western sky travelling east, after zig zagging it seemed to travel higher into the sky before disappearing. Thankyou for providing the links, I will have a look now to see if it could possibly have been a satellite

Quote

The video I posted was a video I found on YouTube that closely resembled what I saw.

You Tube? Honestly? That was your first mistake. Word of advice. Next time you see something like this do your best to explain it without You Tube videos. You Tube is rife with fake stuff like this.......I believe you saw something or you would not have posted it here just be careful with the You Tube videos. 

[stereologist]

Simple experiments show that the situation Merc14 mentioned leads to an apparent  large change in position of an object even when it is completely stationary.

Zig zag movements have been reported even for stationary objects and the amount of zig zag is well outside of the "wobble within the object" suggestion.

The motion is due to the manner in which the eye works, and the motion of our bodies as we try to watch an object. Some aspects of an observation tend to remain constant. That allows us to track objects, but without a strong background to use as a reference position is not tracked well. In the following link we see that position is not a part of constancy.

http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/const.htm

[Fila]

On 24/06/2018 at 2:40 AM, stereologist said:

Simple experiments show that the situation Merc14 mentioned leads to an apparent  large change in position of an object even when it is completely stationary

What experiments exactly?

On 24/06/2018 at 2:40 AM, stereologist said:

Zig zag movements have been reported even for stationary objects and the amount of zig zag is well outside of the "wobble within the object" suggestion.

Even for stationary objects? So you are implying its more common in moving objects.., and has even been reported in stationary objects. Can you actually provide evidence to support these claims?

On 24/06/2018 at 2:40 AM, stereologist said:

The motion is due to the manner in which the eye works, and the motion of our bodies as we try to watch an object. Some aspects of an observation tend to remain constant. That allows us to track objects, but without a strong background to use as a reference position is not tracked well. In the following link we see that position is not a part of constancy.

http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/const.htm

How about quoting the exact data you are referencing.., rather than making claims, and simply leaving a link.

[Merc14]

5 hours ago, Fila said:

What experiments exactly?

Even for stationary objects? So you are implying its more common in moving objects.., and has even been reported in stationary objects. Can you actually provide evidence to support these claims?

How about quoting the exact data you are referencing.., rather than making claims, and simply leaving a link.

I believe Stereologist means ChrLzs, not me.

[ChrLzs]

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

I believe Stereologist means ChrLzs, not me.

While I did briefly mention this eye-motion effect earlier, your excellent post here:

was mentioned about 5 posts back, so that's why you were named.

Me, I've now given up on Fila.  He's not listening & not learning and threads like these are a total waste of time - it's like listening to a scratched record that keeps replaying the same annoying few seconds of a broken tune....

 

[stereologist]

ChrLzs and Merc14 both of you have mentioned that the eye has the ability to follow an object but that it is often  incapable to determining the track of an object especially when it is a point of light.

The problem has been demonstrated even for non-moving points of light. People have been shown a bright point of light in a dark room and told to show its movement by drawing on a pad of paper. Observers report movement even for a stationary light. The problem is a result of the motion of the eye and the motion of the observer's body.

A friend of mine from Dartmouth University used to study this issue and determine how we see a none shifting, jerky world around us when the input to the visual system is a bouncing world. This is similar to the stabilized images cameras produce. They do it through mechanical means. Our visual system does this through other means. When we lack strong references such as a night sky, the system fails and we can imaging jerky movements that are not there.

[Fila]

Whatevs. I just questioned Merc14's post.

Do my points not make sense? Am I wrong to say we should ask the witness more to find out?
No. Its just the tag team bro's at it again. "Liking" each others posts.., Ignoring questions I pose., and getting upset because they cannot dismiss my points.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Fila

[Merc14]

9 hours ago, Fila said:

Whatevs. I just questioned Merc14's post.

Do my points not make sense? Am I wrong to say we should ask the witness more to find out?
No. Its just the tag team bro's at it again. "Liking" each others posts.., Ignoring questions I pose., and getting upset because they cannot dismiss my points.

The phenomenon is well known and is caused by ocular saccade which is the rapid movement (up to 900°/s) of the eyeball.  The function of this movement is to allow the iris, which is relatively small at 1°-2° across,  to get a full picture of what you are looking at.  As said above looking at a "bright" star in a black field is a worse case scenario for the zig-zag the witness saw.  The phenomenon is not uniform across all people which means some people see large zig-zags and some see almost no movement.  The eyeball activity is completely involuntary. 

Saccade  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade

Optical illusion  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade

Asking the witness how much the star moved after such a long period of time would likely be a waste of time as there is no way they are going to remember exactly what they saw which means exaggeration is likely.  That is not an insult towards the witness, it is simply human nature to adjust our memories as time goes on. 

Why eyewitnesses are the worst evidence  http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

As an aside, and something you can try on your own, while in the Navy and training for air to air combat we were taught to not stare at a piece of sky when looking for the bogey, which will appear as nothing more than a small dot at 12-15 miles, but to scan the sky and try and catch the movement of that small dot across the sky with our peripheral vision rather our focus point.   What they have learned is the human eye is designed to pick up movement with our peripheral vision rather than the focus point and once you catch that minute movement you can then focus on it with that 1°-2° iris.  Makes perfect sense when you think about and ancient hominid squatting in the grass focusing on its meal with the lion sneaking up off to the side. 

Edited June 29, 2018 by Merc14

[Fila]

19 hours ago, Merc14 said:

The phenomenon is well known and is caused by ocular saccade which is the rapid movement (up to 900°/s) of the eyeball.  The function of this movement is to allow the iris, which is relatively small at 1°-2° across,  to get a full picture of what you are looking at.  As said above looking at a "bright" star in a black field is a worse case scenario for the zig-zag the witness saw.  The phenomenon is not uniform across all people which means some people see large zig-zags and some see almost no movement.  The eyeball activity is completely involuntary. 

Saccade  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade

Optical illusion  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade

Your links don't back up your claims. Saccade does not produce this effect.

19 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Asking the witness how much the star moved after such a long period of time would likely be a waste of time as there is no way they are going to remember exactly what they saw which means exaggeration is likely.  That is not an insult towards the witness, it is simply human nature to adjust our memories as time goes on. 

Why eyewitnesses are the worst evidence  http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

Of course its best to ask more questions. You are just being dismissive because you think its all baloney. I understand, but we can't use "most likely" to form conclusions.., and we can't use negative results to dismiss positive results.

19 hours ago, Merc14 said:

As an aside, and something you can try on your own, while in the Navy and training for air to air combat we were taught to not stare at a piece of sky when looking for the bogey, which will appear as nothing more than a small dot at 12-15 miles, but to scan the sky and try and catch the movement of that small dot across the sky with our peripheral vision rather our focus point.   What they have learned is the human eye is designed to pick up movement with our peripheral vision rather than the focus point and once you catch that minute movement you can then focus on it with that 1°-2° iris.  Makes perfect sense when you think about and ancient hominid squatting in the grass focusing on its meal with the lion sneaking up off to the side. 

That's really cool. I notice stars shudder when I stare at them for extended periods of time.., to the point where I am so focused and "zoomed" in I lose peripheral vision.

But.., If someone is seeing an object "zig-zag" instead of maintaining a solid trajectory.., they should seek medical help. This is not "normal" or "well known" that we can just brush this off. Don't you agree? Who do you know.., has ever done this with any object? And if someone you knew was starting to see things "shudder".., you'd tell them to get help.

The link you provided really doesn't explain seeing a satellite zig-zag.., rather than going straight.

Edited June 30, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

Clearly, saccades do back up Merc14's statements. This is simply a complete lack of understanding of the issue and an inability to understand the basic material being presented.

The problem in the saccade is that not only is the eye moving rapidly, but it moves not in a straight line. This makes the view of the world jumpy. But that is not what we experience. We see a constant and unmoving world. There are theoretical commands sent within the brain that are used to inform the visual system something along the lines of, its going to be bumpy for a bit. These commands are theoretical because they exist in a theory. They have not been detected, but each experiment confirms that these commands exist (at least as of 10 years ago).

In addition, the brain has to remodel the world it sees. As we move about or things move in the scene we see the brain understands things like size constancy. It tells us that an object is approaching instead of changing its size. We understand that object are not moving or not moving in a scene despite conflicting input signals such as one object obscuring another, or motion parallax.

Our visual system makes understandings about the world we see. Those understandings do lead to things that are not happening. This is especially true when there are limited references to work out what is happening. This leads to such thins as seeing a motion in a stationary light or a nonlinear travel of an object moving in a straight line.