471 replies to this topic

[TheMacGuffin]

Objects Filmed After V-2 Launch
Aug. 31, 1950
Holloman AFB, Alamogordo, New Mexico

Brad Sparks:

Aug. 31, 1950; Holloman AFB, Alamogordo, New Mexico (BBU)

10 a.m. ­ 1 p.m. (MST). After V-2 missile launch no. 51, Project TWINKLE Askania theodolite crews tracked and filmed multiple objects sporadically several times from several different directions at very high speeds over the course of 3 hrs. Askania cinetheodolite station P-5 filmed object with major axis varying from 8.65 to 13.243 arcmins (0.1442° to 0.22072°), minor axis 3.493 arcmins (0.05822°), one frame per second 60 cm focal length camera, 35 mm color film. Tape recording of audio reporting. Frames 593 and 595 (2 secs of nearly 10 mins? of film of object) show elevation angle changing from 53°44' to 52°38' at a rate of 0.37°/sec. Attempted interception by four F-86 jets from 93rd FIS, Kirtland AFB, for 1 hr failed to locate objects, which apparently returned after jets left. Cinetheodolite observers noted object with definite shape and 3-D depth but indistinct or not sharp edges, no smoke or trail, object seemed to “rock or oscillate,” lost when observer looked away to get angle reading. (McDonald files; Jan Aldrich)


http://www.nicap.org...olloman_dir.htm

[mcrom901]

mcg why do you spam so much? if you're not interested to discuss anything then why don't you start a blog?

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 23 November 2012 - 05:31 AM, said:

mcg why do you spam so much? if you're not interested to discuss anything then why don't you start a blog?

Discuss what?  You're just on here joking around, like DONEATUS!

[mcrom901]

TheMacGuffin, on 23 November 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

Discuss what?  You're just on here joking around, like DONEATUS!

i was referring to the discussions re the fireball phenomenon... you were making some bold claims based on outdated data... and when presented with new info & asked to defend your position... u go on..... 'then there is this......' ad nauseam

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 23 November 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

i was referring to the discussions re the fireball phenomenon... you were making some bold claims based on outdated data... and when presented with new info & asked to defend your position... u go on..... 'then there is this......' ad nauseam

The reason I put "Green Fireballs" in quotes is because it is a misnomer and was known to be so at the time, just like Ken Arnold's "flying saucers" was a misnomer and the "Phoenix Lights" as well.

In reality, as I have pointed out many times on here, the "Green Fireballs" were not all green, were not all fireballs, were not only seen at night, and came in various shapes, sizes and colors.  Many of them also lasted for a duration far longer than meteorites and ball lightning, so those explanations really explain nothing at all.

[mcrom901]

TheMacGuffin, on 23 November 2012 - 06:04 AM, said:

The reason I put "Green Fireballs" in quotes is because it is a misnomer and was known to be so at the time, just like Ken Arnold's "flying saucers" was a misnomer and the "Phoenix Lights" as well.

In reality, as I have pointed out many times on here, the "Green Fireballs" were not all green, were not all fireballs, were not only seen at night, and came in various shapes, sizes and colors.

atmospheric plasma phenomenon doesn't exclusively occur on fixed constructs i.e shape, colour, location, duration, etc...

TheMacGuffin, on 23 November 2012 - 06:04 AM, said:

Many of them also lasted for a duration far longer than meteorites and ball lightning, so those explanations really explain nothing at all.

do you have any data which backs said claim? re duration of uaps?

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 23 November 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

atmospheric plasma phenomenon doesn't exclusively occur on fixed constructs i.e shape, colour, location, duration, etc...

do you have any data which backs said claim? re duration of uaps?

I don't believe that they account for any but a small handful of UFO reports, except maybe those that last a few seconds at most, nor do I think they could possible account for the UFOs tracked, filmed and photographed in this flap, which sometimes lasted 20 or 30 minutes or an hour or more.

That abstract you posted does not match anything that was observed in these UFO cases, or any UFO cases that I am aware of.

It is postulated that ball lightning is initiated by a lightning stroke that forms a large sphere of heated material. The following models are considered: (1) cooling spheres of air; (2) cooling spheres of air containing small amounts of sodium vapor; (3) cooling spheres of mixtures that are by weight (a) 7 / 8 carbon vapor and 1 / 8 air or (3 / 4 copper vapor and 1 / 4 air. For each model calculations are made of the temperature profiles, output radiation, and average mass density as a function of time, taking account of energy transfer due to conduction, radial convection, and emission and absorption of radiation. Models 1 and 2 are deficient in explaining the properties of ball lightning in that the spheres are lighter than the surrounding air and thus rise. With model 3, although the average mass density can approximate that of air so that the ball does not rise, there is insufficient emission of visible radiation. It is possible, however, that chemical processes, which are not considered in the present calculations, occur at the boundary of the sphere of suspended particles and the surrounding air and give relatively constant emission of light.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 23 November 2012 - 06:21 AM.

[mcrom901]

TheMacGuffin, on 23 November 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

I don't believe that they account for any but a small handful of UFO reports, except maybe those that last a few seconds at most, nor do I think they could possible account for the UFOs tracked, filmed and photographed in this flap, which sometimes lasted 20 or 30 minutes or an hour or more.

uaps are not tracked on radar? do not last more than a few seconds?

TheMacGuffin, on 23 November 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

That abstract you posted does not match anything that was observed in these UFO cases, or any UFO cases that I am aware of.

It is postulated that ball lightning is initiated by a lightning stroke that forms a large sphere of heated material. The following models are considered: (1) cooling spheres of air; (2) cooling spheres of air containing small amounts of sodium vapor; (3) cooling spheres of mixtures that are by weight (a) 7 / 8 carbon vapor and 1 / 8 air or (3 / 4 copper vapor and 1 / 4 air. For each model calculations are made of the temperature profiles, output radiation, and average mass density as a function of time, taking account of energy transfer due to conduction, radial convection, and emission and absorption of radiation. Models 1 and 2 are deficient in explaining the properties of ball lightning in that the spheres are lighter than the surrounding air and thus rise. With model 3, although the average mass density can approximate that of air so that the ball does not rise, there is insufficient emission of visible radiation. It is possible, however, that chemical processes, which are not considered in the present calculations, occur at the boundary of the sphere of suspended particles and the surrounding air and give relatively constant emission of light.

that was posted to highlight about the presence of copper

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 23 November 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

i was referring to the discussions re the fireball phenomenon... you were making some bold claims based on outdated data.

Why are the reports "outdated"?  At which date do you think that we should start taking UFO reports seriously?  Do you have some kind of cut-off that says we should ignore reports from the 1940s and 1950s?

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 23 November 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

uaps are not tracked on radar? do not last more than a few seconds?

I've been in many discussions like these before, and the type of things you are thinking of simply do not match most UFO reports that I know about.  Certainly I'm not going to set myself up as an expert on plasmas and ball lightning, but my understanding of it is that is is a very short-duration phenomenon and not easily confused with the types of UFOs being discussed in cases like these.

[TheMacGuffin]

This was one response to the 1952 Life magazine article on flaying saucers and possible "visitors" from space:

Captain Daniel McGovern...wrote “I was very closely associated with Projects ‘Twinkle’ and ‘Grudge’ at Alamogordo, N. Mexico where I was chief of the technical photographic facility at Holloman Air Force Base. I have seen several of these objects myself` and they are everything you say they are as to shape, size and speed.” (LIFE, April 28, 1952).


http://www.google.co...ssMZ1Au_e1KfUZw

[mcrom901]

TheMacGuffin, on 23 November 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

Why are the reports "outdated"?  At which date do you think that we should start taking UFO reports seriously?  Do you have some kind of cut-off that says we should ignore reports from the 1940s and 1950s?

don't twist my words.... i was specifically referring to the following train of thought....

TheMacGuffin, on 23 November 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

but they were not meteorites, ball lightning or anything else along those lines:

mcrom901, on 23 November 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

how did you reach to such a conclusion?

TheMacGuffin, on 23 November 2012 - 04:11 AM, said:

I didn't.  LaPaz and others reached it long ago.

and what was his criterion? the following?

TheMacGuffin, on 23 November 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

Second air sampling attempt at Crozier's lab. More copper particles are obtained.  LaPaz is convinced that this is evidence of the artificiality of the fireballs but Crozier is more cautious.

your own link stated...

TheMacGuffin, on 23 November 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

"However, a curious fact has been recorded by aerologists. Concentrations of copper particles are now present in the air of Arizona and New Mexico, particularly in "fireball areas." These were not encountered in air samples made before 1948."

what does that mean?

[mcrom901]

TheMacGuffin, on 23 November 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

I've been in many discussions like these before, and the type of things you are thinking of simply do not match most UFO reports that I know about.  Certainly I'm not going to set myself up as an expert on plasmas and ball lightning, but my understanding of it is that is is a very short-duration phenomenon and not easily confused with the types of UFOs being discussed in cases like these.

read a little more.... and pay close attention....

http://www.mod.uk/De...tiveSummary.htm

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 23 November 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

don't twist my words.... i was specifically referring to the following train of thought....

and what was his criterion? the following?

what does that mean?

If you read the other items I posted, that was hardly his only criterion for arriving at his conclusions.

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 23 November 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:

read a little more.... and pay close attention....

I read the summary, although I do not agree with the premise that a UAP is always and everywhere the same thing as a UFO, or that it could account for all the UFO cases posted here as some sort of catch-all explanation.