[Retra]

> very clearly mechanical in nature.

What does this mean? Did it have metal plates and gears on it? Ailerons, flaps, and windows? You cannot identify something as mechanical on the basis of its motion.

>It did a figure 8 in the sky, stopped in mid-air,

You say 'stopped', but things moving far in the distance are insensitive to depth perception. Probably it was moving toward or away from you. Any idea how you would know the difference?

>I have no idea what I saw

Yet here you are saying it must be an antigravity device, and not some ball lightning. A rational conclusion, if ever there was one.

[egfx]

I was hoping someone would comment but it looks like you already dismissed it by down voting so that tells me you aren't really curious about my answer. As such this comment is meant for everyone else who is. But I'll directly answer all your questions.

When I say it was clearly mechanical. I don't mean that it looked mechanical. I said it was clearly mechanical in nature by the way it moved. My brain instantly went there. Maybe it's instinctual.

The object resembled a star or meteor. It was so small that if it was moving forward or backward, I wouldn't know it.

And finally. I think you all have to deduce. Am I trying to justify my original comment on a post that had nothing to do with UFO's with a wacky comment that I saw one in the 90's or did I see this object, saw this post and put it together that way.

Edit: sure, it could have been a supersonic spec of ball lightning. I'll give you that one. Except for the fact, my dad, a witness who actually saw ball lightning in the former Soviet Union said it looked nothing like that. He's sitting next to me and I just asked him about it.

[Retra]

Why would one expect ball lightning to look the same each time?

I shouldn't be asking these questions, you should be. But you'd rather say "oh, we all know these things about fundamental physics because they are necessary to power the alien spaceships I imagine must exist."

That's not a healthy or useful attitude. If it were, you'd have something to show for it.

[egfx]

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but from my understanding ball lightning floats. What I saw wasn't floating. It was moving with force and propulsion. Plus it was a very clear day with no weather disturbance of any kind.

And what I have to show for it is a personal account from myself at 15 and two other members of my family. In retrospect, I went half-way to my parents room to grab the camera but ran back fearing I would miss it entirely. I'm glad, because I'm sure I would have missed it had I looked for the camera. And this phenomenon seems ubiquitous enough that I'm sure there is plenty of footage depicting the exact same thing at least in the private archive. I'm actually pretty disappointed because the footage in the public sphere is much more mild then what I saw. This object wasn't stationary, it was a white ball that moved like a zigzagging rocket; though it didn't look at all like it was out of control. It seemed to move very purposefully.

[Retra]

The standard of "something to show for it" is reproduction, not personal experiences. Society simply doesn't give a shit about anyone's personal experiences unless they can be reproduced and shared. Otherwise, you may as well have dreamed it.

[egfx]

Who's society? Your society? Judging by your activity here, you seem to negiate pretty much everything. Sorry you didn't witness a UFO like I did. It was a pretty cool experience. If I produced a video, you would call it fake. If it was proved real you would call it some new form of ball lightning. If it was proved to be real footage of a UFO, you would cast doubt on that too and tell me not to believe my lying eyes.

BTW, I'd happily take a lie detector test if I was ever presented with one. And don't forget, I'm not the only witness.

Oh and there is that footage from trained fighter pilots. Which gives me all the validation I'll ever need to my own experience prior. I'm happily validated.