◆ PARALLAX

I have to eat crow. Last July I posted an observation of what I was certain was an intelligently-controlled craft -- a brilliant, unmoving light at a specific azimuth and altitude, visible for hours. I was convinced. I spent the last seven months cross-referencing that sighting against planetarium software, star charts, and NASA ephemeris data.

It was Venus. Precisely where Venus would be on that date and time, at exactly that brightness and position in the sky. I had the data the whole time. I just didn't look carefully enough.

I'm leaving my original report up. Not because it was right, but because I was wrong, and the board should see that. This is how we do better.

This is the post that keeps this board honest. Thank you, Occams_Razorback. This is exactly the standard we exist for -- the willingness to look again, to follow the data, and to report what you find even when it contradicts what you thought you saw.

More posts like this would transform how people approach this subject.

You'd be surprised how many "structured craft, absolutely unmoving" reports resolve to Venus or Jupiter or a bright star in the wrong place in someone's memory. I've seen it dozens of times. The difference here is you did the work. Most people just get defensive or quietly disappear.

Respect.

In MUFON we talk about this constantly. The single best thing a witness can do is retract. Not disappear, not quietly let the report stand, but come back and say "I was wrong." It happens maybe one time in a hundred cases. The rigor involved in doing that -- the willingness to be proven wrong about your own sighting -- that's what separates honest investigation from folklore.

Thank you for demonstrating it.

I don't mean to be difficult here, but isn't it a bit convenient that a "brilliant, unmoving light" that supposedly defied explanation for months just happens to match a planet in the software? Isn't that exactly what you'd expect them to say? The ephemeris is public data. Venus is the cover story, or at least it could be.

I'm not saying you're lying. I'm just saying maybe the explanation is a little too tidy.

Fair question. But here's the thing -- I can replicate it. I can plug in that exact date and time into three different pieces of planetarium software and get the same result. Venus was at 47 degrees azimuth, 22 degrees altitude. I recorded 47 and 22. The brightness match is exact.

If they're that good at mimicking Venus, then every Venus sighting is suspect, and we can't study anything. At some point you have to test your ideas against the data you actually have, not the data that would be more interesting.

so you ADMIT they can mimic planets to fool you! that proves they're here!

Or it proves that Venus exists and is exactly as bright as Venus is supposed to be. I've made this mistake myself. I was convinced I was watching a structured object hang motionless over the county fair in 1989. Turned out to be a balloon reflecting sodium vapor light. Same story -- wanted it to be something. Didn't check the data carefully. Felt foolish. Learned something.