471 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

TheMacGuffin, on 03 December 2012 - 06:14 AM, said:

I have pointed out many times that he hasn't looked at ANY of the cases I posted, but just keeps painting all of them with the same broad brush.

I think he is trying to qualify the terminology. If the specific cases that draw more attention are not really "Green Fireballs" It might pay to see if we can make a distinction to separate them from the known natural phenomena. Some appear to be very badly named as they have been described as flares fired from the ground.

If one case is specifically indicative, it might pay to use it as a reference for discussion?

TheMacGuffin, on 03 December 2012 - 06:14 AM, said:

I would not have bothered to post any of them if I thought they were ordinary "fireballs" or anything like that.  I'm not in the least interested in these things.  LaPaz did think at least half of the sightings being reported were "anomalous", maybe more, and I have posted some of the most unusual ones.

I know you would not post anything mundane, as this is not the section for it. But this is where I see your posting as very valuable. You do have very good case knowledge and can source the most obscure documents. La Paz did see some of these sightings as amazing, such as his own which he felt changed direction to travel upwards. Yet we have seen since that time papers detailing erratic flight paths of meteors. In 1950, it was probably amazing (and it still is to be sure) but La Paz was likely the first person astute enough to notice and record this. With more people carrying that torch today La Paz himself I am quite sure would have much more to say on the subject, and be able to qualify that which he felt was "unnatural" as natural. Whilst La Paz was obviously a very intelligent man, he was hobbled by the technology of the time frame. It sure would be fascinating to see his take on todays papers.

TheMacGuffin, on 03 December 2012 - 06:14 AM, said:

Microm is simply doing the old Project Blue Book routine and stamping "probably meteor" or "probably plasma" on every single case.

Funny enough when I first hit these boards I had mcrom figured for a believer. However like Lost Shaman, I think he is more netral than most of us who are all stuck in the mindset of Believer/Skeptic. He is outside that box, and I would be reluctant to put any sort of label on him. mcrom I have no doubt is more than interested in pushing an ET point if he finds it a valid option. I used to think he was a joker, and have come to quite respect him as I found in those happy posts was some information that turned me on my head. I like his quirky and happy manner, he always leaves me smiling after reading one of his posts. But I am sure with time you would come to agree mcrom is neither believer nor skeptic. He is simply mcrom.

Edited by psyche101, 03 December 2012 - 07:28 AM.

[TheMacGuffin]

psyche101, on 03 December 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

Funny enough when I first hit these boards I had mcrom figured for a believer. However like Lost Shaman, I think he is more netral than most of us who are all stuck in the mindset of Believer/Skeptic. He is outside that box, and I would be reluctant to put any sort of label on him. mcrom I have no doubt is more than interested in pushing an ET point if he finds it a valid option. I used to think he was a joker, and have come to quite respect him as I found in those happy posts was some information that turned me on my head. I like his quirky and happy manner, he always leaves me smiling after reading one of his posts. But I am sure with time you would come to agree mcrom is neither believer nor skeptic. He is simply mcrom.

I always thought of him as a joker, but not a particularly funny one, just a wise guy who gets his jollies by needling people.

As for the cases, I always thought the ones that they filmed and tracked with the theodolites were important, as were the ones that followed Cmdr. McLauglin's missile.  



The strangest UFOs of all were the ones that tripped the radiation detectors at Mt. Palomar observatory, and the small ones that were chasing around Ft. Hood for hours.  


Microm just brushed all those off with a sentence or two, which never impresses me.  It's also discourteous but that's the world we live in.

[quillius]

mcrom901, on 01 December 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

or do you believe that the 'cover-up' automatically translates to et?

hello mcrom,

I think this is a good place to start......

confirmation of a 'cover up'!

I have always maintained that it seems the powers that be DID believe that some UFO cases were in fact ET.

do you agree or do you believe they just covered up an 'unknown' and did not think it was ET?

If they did think it was ET then I need to ask why? The reason I ask is that we are linking plasma due to the many characteristics mentioned...i.e. duration,metallic appearance, speed, 'attraction' to craft and vehicles etc...what if their belief/knowledge was not because of said characteristics but to do with a more direct event..i.e. have seen aliens, recovered craft, found a drone etc etc...??

If this is the case then further understanding of plasma and other UAP is irrelevant in said context dont you think?

[quillius]

whilst on the subject of plasma and Erling strand, I love this part of his interview a while...

9/ In a recent interview, you have stated that “…you have had several daytime observations, where you have seen flying discs, etc…”Even if not related to the HP, could you please provide more details on such sightings? I have had only three daytime observations, so the word “several” is wrong. I have however seen several unexplainable “things”, – such which goes into another category than HP or ufo. Two of those three observations was a flying disc. The third was a “black hole”. I did not get the impression that I was looking onto a black object, it was more like a hole into something completely black. This “black hole” changed size all the time.
Thanks Erling for this interview and you success with your Project Hessdalen


this alone IMO shows that not all 'flying objects' that are unidentified could fall into the UAP field unless we are to really force the old square peg into that round (disk shaped) hole...

Teodorani himself says that even though there is many elements recorded that show plasma characteristics, there is STILL and overlap of something else......

So I would in summary say that not only can they not confirm that the phenomenon in Hessdalen is a form of plasma, if they could they would still have an unknown that overlaps. So I think its a little way off yet to label all UFO's as plasma when the phenomenon itself that portrays these important charachteristics (mettalic, speed etc) has not been determined as plasma...

[quillius]

Various aspects of atmospheric electricity were reviewed, such as ball lightning, and tornado and earthquake luminescence. Unusual UFO reports were presented for discussion. These included a taped report by a B-47 pilot whose plane was paced for a considerable time by a glowing object. Ground radar reported a pacing blip which appeared to be 16 km from the aircraft. After review the unanimous conclusion was that the object was not a plasma or an electrical luminosity produced by the atmosphere.



Participants with a background in theoretical or experimental plasma physics felt that containment of plasma by magnetic fields is not likely under atmospheric conditions for more than a second or so. One participant listed the characteristics that would be expected to accompany a large plasma. These are

• thermal emission,
  
• production of ozone and odor of N₂O
  
• convective air motions,
  
• electrical and acoustic noise,
  
• unusual meteorological conditions.

Another plasma physicist noted that a plasma explanation of certain UFO reports would require an energy density large enough to cause an explosive decay. Atmospheric physicists, however, remarked that several reports of ball lightning do indicate unusually high energy densities.
All participants agreed that the UFO cases presented contained insufficient data for a definitive scientific conclusion.

http://www.project19...n/s6chap07.html

apologies if this has been covered already!!

[TheMacGuffin]

quillius, on 03 December 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

Various aspects of atmospheric electricity were reviewed, such as ball lightning, and tornado and earthquake luminescence. Unusual UFO reports were presented for discussion. These included a taped report by a B-47 pilot whose plane was paced for a considerable time by a glowing object. Ground radar reported a pacing blip which appeared to be 16 km from the aircraft. After review the unanimous conclusion was that the object was not a plasma or an electrical luminosity produced by the atmosphere.



Participants with a background in theoretical or experimental plasma physics felt that containment of plasma by magnetic fields is not likely under atmospheric conditions for more than a second or so. One participant listed the characteristics that would be expected to accompany a large plasma. These are
http://www.project19...n/s6chap07.html

apologies if this has been covered already!!

I posted quite a few things along these lines, but since they got totally ignored I just gave up talking about it.

I just don't see any reason to keep repeating myself and getting no real response.

[TheMacGuffin]

This is a video about general UFO history that mentions Project Sign, Project Twinkle, the "green fireballs" investigation and so on.

[TheMacGuffin]

By the way, the Washington DC UFOs of July 1952 should property be described as a radar-visual case since the objects seen on radar were also seen by witnesses on the ground and in the air.

[quillius]

TheMacGuffin, on 03 December 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

By the way, the Washington DC UFOs of July 1952 should property be described as a radar-visual case since the objects seen on radar were also seen by witnesses on the ground and in the air.

hey McG, do you know of any debunks for the 1952 ufos?

What is the lead explanation?

[TheMacGuffin]

quillius, on 03 December 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

hey McG, do you know of any debunks for the 1952 ufos?

What is the lead explanation?

The official story was temperature inversions causing radar "ghosts", but this was known to be false at the time, given how many of these "ghosts" had been seen, chased and even shot at.  

It's exactly the type of explanation that gives the debunkers such a bad name, so that they just don't seem credible about anything.

[quillius]

TheMacGuffin, on 03 December 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

The official story was temperature inversions causing radar "ghosts", but this was known to be false at the time, given how many of these "ghosts" had been seen, chased and even shot at.  

It's exactly the type of explanation that gives the debunkers such a bad name, so that they just don't seem credible about anything.

ok thanks.

I have read that there were numerous sightings over approximately 15days in July.....in addition there were some 'eyewitnesses' which I guess kind of goes against temp inversions' (assuming the eye witness part is true)

[TheMacGuffin]

quillius, on 03 December 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

ok thanks.

I have read that there were numerous sightings over approximately 15days in July.....in addition there were some 'eyewitnesses' which I guess kind of goes against temp inversions' (assuming the eye witness part is true)

There were probably hundreds of eyewitnesses and more reports than anyone could keep track of.

Some of them were even seen to go straight up into space at very high speeds, which is how many of them "disappear".  Anyone who says that never happens is just telling you something completely bogus.

[quillius]

TheMacGuffin, on 03 December 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

There were probably hundreds of eyewitnesses and more reports than anyone could keep track of.

Some of them were even seen to go straight up into space at very high speeds, which is how many of them "disappear". Anyone who says that never happens is just telling you something completely bogus.

dont worry I am not the most trusting of individuals....paranoia doesnt allow me to be  

[HMS Dreadnought]

Fascinating subject as ever TMcG, keep up the good work, always enjoy reading the cases you bring to light.

[mcrom901]

deep bows psyche... thanks for your kind words (for understanding me / my position ) appreciated mate...

psyche101, on 03 December 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

I think he is trying to qualify the terminology.

mcg is having a tough time swallowing that... i have already stated a few times in this thread that the data from the old cases is simply insufficient to make any positive id... and that i'm not here to say what they definitely were, but rather what cannot be dropped from the qualifying candidate list... but somehow he thinks that i'm ignoring the old cases... he very well knows the difference between meteors & plasma formations, but in the process of ridiculing the labeling of natural phenomenon he portrays himself as a confident confused guy somehow... is it because of the outdated stuff he references? i dunno...