Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of

# Best evidence for ET visitation - 3rd edition

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
6153 replies to this topic

### #2581 quillius

quillius

52.0839° N, 1.4328° E

• Member
• 4,955 posts
• Joined:04 Aug 2010

Posted 03 May 2011 - 01:06 PM

booNyzarC, on 03 May 2011 - 04:09 AM, said:

This is the range of speeds I initially came up with (this was based on my first triangulation, which I already know was incorrect, but definitely in the range of acceptable margin of error for horseshoes and hand-grenades)...

After placing flares 3 thru 8, they appear to be separated by roughly .5 and .6 miles.  They also appear to be dropped roughly every 8 seconds.

5280 feet in a mile
0.5 mile = 2640 feet / 8 seconds = ~330ft per second = 225 MPH = 195.52 Knots
0.6 mile = 3168 feet / 8 seconds = ~396ft per second = 270 MPH = 234.62 Knots

I was also working on confirming from R's video, and accurately calculating rate of ascent, which would be easier from R's perspective because flares 4 and 9 appeared to have been dropped on a nearly perpendicular plane from his point of view.  But it was around that point that I realized that I had my triangulation off by a bit.

With a more precise triangulation I expect that I'll be able to derive a more precise flight speed and path.  For now though, I'd say they were definitely flying somewhere between 200 and 300 MPH, for ballpark estimations.  I'd aim a bit on the higher end of that scale personally, around 250 - 270 MPH, but time will tell I guess.

Hey Boon, looks like you have been busy

May I ask did you take into account the easterly motion of the flares, I believe Bruce M estimated this to be around 40mph?

Also can you confirm how many A10s you think were responsible for dropping the flares?

Has it been calculated at what height they were dropped (I notice 15000ft being speculated with)? and at what height they were ignited?

many thanks

edit: couple more questions, do you know how long it would take for the A10s to return to base from the suggested positions at 10pm when dropping flares at 15000ft?

On the videos what is the exact time of light one that is seen? (said to have been plane 1, then plane 2 drops a further 8)

Edited by quillius, 03 May 2011 - 01:15 PM.

### #2582 booNyzarC

booNyzarC

Forum Divinity

• Closed
• 13,536 posts
• Joined:18 Aug 2010

Posted 03 May 2011 - 01:19 PM

quillius, on 03 May 2011 - 01:06 PM, said:

Hey Boon, looks like you have been busy

May I ask did you take into account the easterly motion of the flares, I believe Bruce M estimated this to be around 40mph?

Also can you confirm how many A10s you think were responsible for dropping the flares?

Has it been calculated at what height they were dropped (I notice 15000ft being speculated with)? and at what height they were ignited?

many thanks
I haven't made nearly as much headway as I would like.  Those calculations of speed were from before I essentially started over.  But yes, I believe I'll be able to get a fair estimation of location for several of the flares at the moment of ignition compared to when they disappeared per the K videos considering that the R video tracked the whole thing without visual obstruction and I finally located R's actual address which makes for much better accuracy.  But it will definitely take a lot more time as I do have a job and a life outside of this hobby, and I don't have the software which would probably make this a lot easier...

### #2583 booNyzarC

booNyzarC

Forum Divinity

• Closed
• 13,536 posts
• Joined:18 Aug 2010

Posted 03 May 2011 - 01:31 PM

quillius, on 03 May 2011 - 01:06 PM, said:

edit: couple more questions, do you know how long it would take for the A10s to return to base from the suggested positions at 10pm when dropping flares at 15000ft?

On the videos what is the exact time of light one that is seen? (said to have been plane 1, then plane 2 drops a further 8)
Good questions, but I haven't explored them yet.  First task is to as accurate a placement as I can for the flares themselves, and that is taking a lot of time primarily because this process is all pretty new to me and I find myself making mistakes and needing to go back and redo things.

### #2584 quillius

quillius

52.0839° N, 1.4328° E

• Member
• 4,955 posts
• Joined:04 Aug 2010

Posted 03 May 2011 - 01:34 PM

booNyzarC, on 03 May 2011 - 01:19 PM, said:

I haven't made nearly as much headway as I would like.  Those calculations of speed were from before I essentially started over.  But yes, I believe I'll be able to get a fair estimation of location for several of the flares at the moment of ignition compared to when they disappeared per the K videos considering that the R video tracked the whole thing without visual obstruction and I finally located R's actual address which makes for much better accuracy.  But it will definitely take a lot more time as I do have a job and a life outside of this hobby, and I don't have the software which would probably make this a lot easier...

well quit your job and lock yourself away from your everyday life.....come on boon you need to learn to prioritise

seriously though I am curious as to the altitude of the planes versus altitude of ignition, I will explain why once I get mu head around a couple of points.

on a side note I believe it was LS a little while back that highlighted to Sky that 6000ft was never the case and it was just said that 'at 6000ft they can be seen upto 150 miles away', the thing that is niggling at me on this part is why even mention 6000ft and its visibility??
Its neither relevant to the discussion about the A10's at 15,000ft nor to the standard use of the flares which is at 1000ft (this is the height where they gain maximum ground illumination, 500sq metres I believe, need to check that though)???

(when I say why it was mentioned I dont mean sky or LS but by Shepherd in relation to this discussion)

I think I should put together a proper post with links etc as its very wishy washy posting at present....I have the same problem as you Boon...work and life get in the way...grrrrr

### #2585 lost_shaman

lost_shaman

Alien Abducter

• Member
• 5,170 posts
• Joined:11 Jul 2006

Posted 03 May 2011 - 07:38 PM

quillius, on 03 May 2011 - 01:34 PM, said:

on a side note I believe it was LS a little while back that highlighted to Sky that 6000ft was never the case and it was just said that 'at 6000ft they can be seen upto 150 miles away', the thing that is niggling at me on this part is why even mention 6000ft and its visibility??
Its neither relevant to the discussion about the A10's at 15,000ft nor to the standard use of the flares which is at 1000ft (this is the height where they gain maximum ground illumination, 500sq metres I believe, need to check that though)???

Hey quillius,

I think that around 3,000 ft would be the normal operating altitude for these Flares. Burn times are between 240/300 seconds, during that time the Flares would be expected to descend up to 2,500 ft.

quillius, on 03 May 2011 - 01:34 PM, said:

seriously though I am curious as to the altitude of the planes versus altitude of ignition

These Flares have a timer that allows them to free fall a preset distance before igniting, 250 ft is the lowest setting and can be set to free fall up to 11,000 ft before ignition.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

### #2586 quillius

quillius

52.0839° N, 1.4328° E

• Member
• 4,955 posts
• Joined:04 Aug 2010

Posted 03 May 2011 - 08:02 PM

lost_shaman, on 03 May 2011 - 07:38 PM, said:

Hey quillius,

I think that around 3,000 ft would be the normal operating altitude for these Flares. Burn times are between 240/300 seconds, during that time the Flares would be expected to descend up to 2,500 ft.

Hey LS, that makes sense to me, as the prime objective for their use would be to illuminate the ground with maximum coverage. This is at the 1000ft quoted,it creates the 500 metre lit up area. So at 3000-3500ft ignition would allow the flare to reach maximum brightness at around 1000ft just at the right time to maximise coverage on the ground.

lost_shaman, on 03 May 2011 - 07:38 PM, said:

These Flares have a timer that allows them to free fall a preset distance before igniting, 250 ft is the lowest setting and can be set to free fall up to 11,000 ft before ignition.

thats right, hence my question as it was leading to this (which I assume you figured...nice) anyway, the only difference being that there are only 5 or 6 preset distances 250 ft being one and the maximum being 11000ft as another, with a few in between. So I think this can actually play a part in calculations..

Key bits of info I am missing are...when the A10's went out to do this training at what height would they normally fly before dropping flares? If we knew this we would know the predetermined settings of flares would we not? I assume also this is done prior to take off as opposed to during flight..although I have no idea.

So with this in mind, imagine if they were set at 11,000ft (speculating using the extreme) then they would have to have been launched at 11,000ft higher than the altitude of the lights which I believe you estimated at around 14,000 odd feet (apologies for guestimates here I am just trying to explain what I am driving at) so the planes would have to have been approaching at 25000ft approx using the extreme settings and all the other assumptions I made to reach this point.

couple of other points bugging me are: If each plane can only carry sets of 8 flares....the planes are said not to have completed all training and had some left over....so we have 9 lights seen...I believe the common thought here is that two planes are responsible...plane A for light 1 and then plane B for the next 8....question is why did plane B never use any flares during training?

another point: If they were only allowed to use the area until 10pm why did they launch at this time exactly knowing it takes time to free fall and then slowly burn to ground before the final bolt and furrther freefall to ground? (I am not sure on times here yet but something else to look at if not done so already.

got some more but must put the kids to bed...back later

edit: error on number of settings...its actually four settings which are 250ft,500ft 1000ft and 11,000ft

Edited by quillius, 03 May 2011 - 08:06 PM.

### #2587 lost_shaman

lost_shaman

Alien Abducter

• Member
• 5,170 posts
• Joined:11 Jul 2006

Posted 03 May 2011 - 09:04 PM

quillius, on 03 May 2011 - 08:02 PM, said:

thats right, hence my question as it was leading to this (which I assume you figured...nice) anyway, the only difference being that there are only 5 or 6 preset distances 250 ft being one and the maximum being 11000ft as another, with a few in between. So I think this can actually play a part in calculations..

I'm not so sure... My understanding is that the listed settings are calibrated free fall distances but you could set the timer between two settings and just guesstimate the altitude between the calibrated settings on the timer. Thus you could roughly select any distance between 250 ft and 11,000 ft.

This link shows the Timer and settings, there are 14 calibrated settings listed.

http://www.ordnance.org/luu2bb.htm

quillius, on 03 May 2011 - 08:02 PM, said:

Key bits of info I am missing are...when the A10's went out to do this training at what height would they normally fly before dropping flares? If we knew this we would know the predetermined settings of flares would we not? I assume also this is done prior to take off as opposed to during flight..although I have no idea.

That I'm not sure of either, although I do think the Pilot can change the settings in flight.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

### #2588 quillius

quillius

52.0839° N, 1.4328° E

• Member
• 4,955 posts
• Joined:04 Aug 2010

Posted 03 May 2011 - 09:37 PM

lost_shaman, on 03 May 2011 - 09:04 PM, said:

I'm not so sure... My understanding is that the listed settings are calibrated free fall distances but you could set the timer between two settings and just guesstimate the altitude between the calibrated settings on the timer. Thus you could roughly select any distance between 250 ft and 11,000 ft.

This link shows the Timer and settings, there are 14 calibrated settings listed.

http://www.ordnance.org/luu2bb.htm

That I'm not sure of either, although I do think the Pilot can change the settings in flight.

Hey Ls, I did visit that site, in fact its one of the sites used when I said it had the four settings, as said in the text from your link. However I see your point with regards to calibrated settings. It would be good to know for sure what is the case with regards to the settings.

I have just found somewhere that states they are set pre-flight, not sure on reliability but its a start.

The Aircraft Parachute Flare - as shown below - can be carried by any F-14. Usually it is mounted to a BRU-42 bombrack on weapon station 4 and/or 5 and released like a bomb. Note the Breakaway Lanyard which delays activation until the flare has separated from the aircraft. After separation, the flare's times is activated and the flare will ignite after the flare has fallen for a number of feet (as adjusted before the flight) thus enabling the aircraft to escape and not to be detected by light of the flare.
In recent separation tests the LUU-19 flare is being tested. The LUU-19 is the IR spectrum variant of the LUU-2.

http://www.anft.net/...etail-flare.htm

### #2589 lost_shaman

lost_shaman

Alien Abducter

• Member
• 5,170 posts
• Joined:11 Jul 2006

Posted 03 May 2011 - 11:11 PM

quillius, on 03 May 2011 - 09:37 PM, said:

Hey Ls, I did visit that site, in fact its one of the sites used when I said it had the four settings, as said in the text from your link. However I see your point with regards to calibrated settings. It would be good to know for sure what is the case with regards to the settings.

Hey quillius,

I see where you got that from the text however you can see the dial shows 14 calibrated atlitude values.

quillius, on 03 May 2011 - 09:37 PM, said:

I have just found somewhere that states they are set pre-flight, not sure on reliability but its a start.

The Aircraft Parachute Flare - as shown below - can be carried by any F-14. Usually it is mounted to a BRU-42 bombrack on weapon station 4 and/or 5 and released like a bomb. Note the Breakaway Lanyard which delays activation until the flare has separated from the aircraft. After separation, the flare's times is activated and the flare will ignite after the flare has fallen for a number of feet (as adjusted before the flight) thus enabling the aircraft to escape and not to be detected by light of the flare.
In recent separation tests the LUU-19 flare is being tested. The LUU-19 is the IR spectrum variant of the LUU-2.

http://www.anft.net/...etail-flare.htm

After looking at this a bit more I agree with you this would be preset before Flight when using an Aircraft mounted launcher.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. - Friedrich Nietzsche

### #2590 skyeagle409

skyeagle409

Forum Divinity

• Member
• 29,586 posts
• Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 04 May 2011 - 01:12 AM

booNyzarC, on 03 May 2011 - 04:09 AM, said:

So once again, you have nothing to offer in this post beyond blathering nonsense.  I do hope that you had a good trip to Phoenix though.

Most definitely, had a nice tiime at the airport, and had a nice view of the mountains from the airport as well, so I would like to reiterate that there were no flares seen over the BGR from the airport either.

Edited by skyeagle409, 04 May 2011 - 01:13 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

### #2591 psyche101

psyche101

Conspiracy Realist

• Member
• 29,824 posts
• Joined:30 Nov 2005

Posted 04 May 2011 - 01:28 AM

Hazzard, on 01 May 2011 - 07:58 AM, said:

Taking the family on a short vacation...

When the going gets tough, hazz goes to spain.

Heya Hazz

I seem to be following your line of thought, I am off to New Zealand again

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101, 04 May 2011 - 01:29 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.

### #2592 psyche101

psyche101

Conspiracy Realist

• Member
• 29,824 posts
• Joined:30 Nov 2005

Posted 04 May 2011 - 01:49 AM

747400, on 29 April 2011 - 07:09 AM, said:

Well, thank you for talking about something other than endless arguing about FLARES, and considering the USO phenomenon, Psyche.

Gidday Mate

No Worries. This one is getting long in the tooth I agree. I am loving the work from Lost Shaman and Boon, but am getting tired of the Master Chook putting in his 2 cents every time they trounce his argument with real time proof.

747400, on 29 April 2011 - 07:09 AM, said:

I do have to say that most of those seem to come under the category of "lights in the sky" (or in this case, the sea), and the couple that do seem to be tangible objects, there doesn't seem to be any conclusive proof that they were craft rather than, say, whales, and we know that tectonic actviity underwater can cause all sorts of submarine disturbances, so i think, sorry as I am to say it, Pax, the PLASMA phenomenon must be a candidate here.

I agree, from a sensational point of view, these recollections sure do leave one wanting. The descriptions do not seem all that much to get excited about.

747400, on 29 April 2011 - 07:09 AM, said:

Like i've said so many times, personally I think FLT and the Speed of light is neither here nor there. If any civilisation did devote vast energy and resources to overcoming FTL, they'd still need to take years and years to get anywhere, so I'm pretty sure that if interstellar travel is at all possible, some other means would be found to do it. I think that the interdimensional question, and my idea of reality existing on a spectrum, like light, is something that might be worth looking at.
Or, of coruse, there's the alternative suggestion; what if they don't need to come hundreds of light years, and they come form somewhere a lot nearer?

If a lot nearer, I think again the dimensional factor needs come into play. I also think there is a good reason to consider that at least in this quadrant that we might be up there in the intelligent stakes. With our own Solar System being formed pretty much right after the big bang, we seem to be in a good position to be in the top ten.
I liked the ideal of dimensional Universes, like a 2D Universe intersecting with our 3D - for sake of explanation. One wonders if the 2D Beings would be able to see the 3D beings.

747400, on 29 April 2011 - 07:09 AM, said:

They may exist on different dimensions, and sort of be able to fade in and out of orus as they wish, or perhaps they might use different dimensions (if we look at them as being at different parts of a "spectrum" of reality) to travel to and for. Either way, it's an exciting idea, and needn't offend our good friend Einstein.

Agreed, no need for Einstein to be offended, this is an entire new field when considering E=MC2, I agree with Lost Shaman, I think Einstein would be all for it.

Cheers.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.

### #2593 psyche101

psyche101

Conspiracy Realist

• Member
• 29,824 posts
• Joined:30 Nov 2005

Posted 04 May 2011 - 01:52 AM

quillius, on 29 April 2011 - 09:54 AM, said:

Hey Psyche, Just had a thought, it would be very interesting to know what cases that Jacques Vallee was alluding to when mentioning metallic debris. Hessdalen project has suggested that particles are deposited by certain plasma down in the valley, so I think it would be prudent to see if any correlation exists between the cases JV is discussing and the characteristics of plasma in Hessdalen.
Would be good to know LS's take on this also.

Very interesting, I might have a look at that idea myself. Let me know how you go with it.

quillius, on 29 April 2011 - 09:54 AM, said:

As for Gilfaer's thread, I too am very dubious, however he does seem to handle himself very well and it is an interesting thread.

By any chance has anyone presented him with James OBergs list of questions to ask an Alien?

Quote

GEOPHYSICS

What are the electromagnetic signatures of rock under extreme tension? That is, how can earthquakes be predicted?

When and where will the next major Earthquake strike?

When will Earth's next magnetic polarity reversal occur?

MATHEMATICS

Provide a short proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.

Develop a rational expression for computing pi.

EXOBIOLOGY

Explain the dominant "left-handedness" of Earth's organic compounds, and compare these to samples from other biospheres.

METALLURGY

Describe the most promising crystallization techniques for zero-G factories.

Provide guidance to achieve room-temperature superconductivity.

METEOROLOGY

Describe the proper chemical species for clearing CFCs out of the upper atmosphere, where they are attacking the ozone layer.

How can jet streams, hurricanes, and El Nino be artificially steered?

How do you kill a tornado?

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

What is the atomic number of the first stable trans-uranic element (some people already claim it will be 115)?

What's the trick to building a workable neutrino telescope?

MATERIALS

How can metallic hydrogen be created, and then preserved at low pressure?

What's going to be the most valuable but as yet unknown application of recently discovered carbon buckminsterfullerenes ("Bucky Balls")?

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.

### #2594 psyche101

psyche101

Conspiracy Realist

• Member
• 29,824 posts
• Joined:30 Nov 2005

Posted 04 May 2011 - 01:56 AM

skyeagle409, on 30 April 2011 - 07:17 PM, said:

Yepper, Just look at that tall skyline reaching high into the sky in the distance......ah, where is my telescope?

A picture can be worth a thousand words, or should I say, numbers.

The picture that you have presented certainly offers a thousand words. I just do not think they are the ones you are thinking of.

Hazzard, on 01 May 2011 - 07:58 AM, said:

Taking the family on a short vacation...

When the going gets tough, hazz goes to spain.

*triangulates height of moon - does not bother, we have a picture*

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.

### #2595 psyche101

psyche101

Conspiracy Realist

• Member
• 29,824 posts
• Joined:30 Nov 2005

Posted 04 May 2011 - 01:59 AM

lost_shaman, on 02 May 2011 - 12:46 AM, said:

Of course I still haven't said which are Streetlights in the line-up so you still have a chance to 'prove' that 'Eagle-eye' of yours!

I won't be holding my breath waiting however!

He will be waiting for you to do that so he can claim the work and victory. Of course one must also take into account that identifying flares from street lights means the Government is hiding ET!

LOL

Cheers Mate

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.