471 replies to this topic

[mcrom901]

TheMacGuffin, on 06 December 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

And here Haines tells about a famous case that Hynek investigated of a very large UFO that was most definitely not a meteor, plasma or anything like that.

and which case is that that hynek definitely ruled out natural phenomena?

TheMacGuffin, on 06 December 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

None of the cases I posted on here were either.  

[mcrom901]

TheMacGuffin, on 06 December 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

And here were have a report on 600 "UAP" cases, 27% of which are radar-visual, 14% reported electromagnetic effects, and 78 were on a collision course with aircraft, etc.

http://narcap.org/fi...NEW_3-21-12.pdf

where in that report does it state that natural phenomenon had been ruled out?

TheMacGuffin, on 06 December 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

In 31 cases, pilots had to take evasive action to avoid an actual collision.

because the aliens were too dumb to avoid the collision on their part?

TheMacGuffin, on 06 December 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

Anyone who reads this should be convinced that in many cases, these "UAPs" are certainly not plasmas, ball lightning, meteors or anything even remotely similar.

and what should be the basis for said conviction?

TheMacGuffin, on 06 December 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

This is yet another reason I simply cannot accept microm's views on UFOs.

i know the main reason behind that one... i'll quote...

TheMacGuffin, on 04 December 2012 - 01:49 AM, said:

I have seen the ETs, microm, or at least I saw the pictures of them.

[taniwha]

Hi mcrom I guess you have never seen a ufo?

Have you even ever seen a plasma or UAP?

I expect you dont know if you have... or have not?...

Have a nice day

[mcrom901]

taniwha, on 06 December 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

Hi mcrom I guess you have never seen a ufo?

Have you even ever seen a plasma or UAP?

I expect you dont know if you have... or have not?...

Have a nice day

[mcrom901]

mcrom901, on 06 December 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

4.3 Ball Lightning and Earthlights  (R. Haines)

ok, i read the above report and will quote some of the criteria (restricted to ball lightning) which he uses to highlight a distinction....

Comparison of BL and UAP Reported by Pilots and Others
While a strong supportive case can be made that an individual pilot sighting report was
caused either by BL or a UAP because it "fits" most of the distinctive characteristics of either
phenomenon this does not prove that all UAP actually are BL nor does it prove the opposite.
When pilot sighting reports contain sufficient supporting data and are carefully analyzed it
becomes clearer than the two phenomenon are indeed different from one another in several
ways. Here we shall consider three of them: appearance, motion (behavior), and duration of
so-called UAP. For the sake of discussion we will make the still unproven asserttion that they
are different phenomenon.

bolded for emphasis.... bear in mind that the argument isn't about what they are but what they could be...

Appearance: Do most UAP look any different from BL or put another way, are the
appearances of each one so different that they do not overlap in their visual characteristics at
all? Of course, the obvious answer must be yes and no, depending on the particular data that
is being analyzed. In Section IX of his review of sightings over the thirty year period of 1964
to 1994 Hall (2001) shows how diverse the appearance of UAP (he calls them UFO) are; he
covers structure (i.e., shape), lights, and colors. Elsewhere in this report (5.2) the author has
reviewed a number of other investigators' work to find out what percentage of the total
sightings were represented by each shape. Table 2 summarizes the key points from this review
to illustrate the relatively high percentage of spheres that were reported.

and what are the shapes in question? spheres? or, deformed spheres?



anyways....

cntd...

In order to carry out a comprehensive comparison of UAP and BL visual features it would
require an enormous amount of time and resources.16 Nevertheless, we have noticed that a
relatively large percentage of UAP are described as large, reflecting or self-luminous, solid (or at
least rigid) objects (spheres in the present case) that are on the order of several m or more in
diameter). It may be pointed out from Rayle's survey data that the estimated diameters of BL
range in the 1 to 35 inch range with a few somewhat larger.17

It is understandable that there are so few accurate measurements either of BL or UAP
because humans are notoriously error-prone in making this judgement for many reasons (Haines,
1980). Nevertheless, there are enough pilot reports of extremely large spherical UAP that are
(later) shown not to be balloons to suggest that they are not BL.

they're not ball lightning because of the size? i see where the flaws are beginning to creep in from...

to the rest of the points in question...

Motion (Behavior): As Singer (1971) has documented, a phenomenon called BL or "fireballs"
have appeared near airplanes in flight and some have entered the interior, often by passing
directly through the cockpit windshield!18 There are no reported instances of UAP doing this,
usually because of their enormous size as discussed above. Also, some UAP are described as
performing complete and even repetitive loops around an airplane in the vertical plane and others
in a horizontal plane. If BL is the cause of these reports one must explain how it carries out such
complex trajectories. The hypothesis that BL follows an ionized pathway near an airplane fails in
this regard. Finally, some UAP are described as coming to a complete stop in the air while the
airplane continues flying away; the phenomenon then accelerates at a high rate to catch up with
the airplane and then slow to its exact forward velocity for a time before departing or
disappearing. Again, proponents of this hypothesis must explain how it occurs.
Even a cursory review of the serious literature describing UAP shows that some can attain
velocities many times the speed of sound as well as extremely high accelerations. BL, on the
other hand, are very seldom described in these terms.

an incomplete hypothesis doesn't discount the phenomena at large i'm afraid... again, a lot of restrictive comparisons to ball lightning & hence the insufficient data... most of those characteristics have been observed to have been displayed by 'non-conventional' plasmas...

Duration: As shown in Table 3, pilots in flight see UAP over a wide range of durations as
might be expected. Nevertheless, with a grand mean duration of more than eleven minutes this
translates to many miles of sustained travel beside (or in the vicinity) of the airplane. Whether BL
can achieve this is open to serious question based on current knowledge of this ubiquitous
phenomenon.

i think we have covered this point a few times already...

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 06 December 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

and what should be the basis for said conviction?

i know the main reason behind that one... i'll quote...

That is correct, mricrom, and you can choose to accept it or not, I have no control over that, but I knew about all this decades ago and no one on here has ever been able to change my story even one iota.  I saw what I saw and that's it.

A million "skeptics" could never change that.

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 06 December 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

and which case is that that hynek definitely ruled out natural phenomena?

That is why I posted those videos about what Richard Haines was really saying as the head of NARCAP, so people would not simply go by your misleading information.

He said that almost none of the thousands of UFO reports he investigated could be explained as "natural phenomena".  If you have a problem with that then I suggest you take it up with him, not me.

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 06 December 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

what does he say?

he knows what? that ufos are almost never misidentified natural phenomena?

Yes, that's exactly what he said.  He has been saying that for decades, and either you did not know that or you simply neglected to mention it.  

I don't think that ANY of the UFO reports I posted on the first pages of this thread are "natural phenomena" and you have no offered the slightest proof that they were, just a lot of phony speculation and conjecture dressed up to look like 'science", but it is really pseudo-science.

[mcrom901]

TheMacGuffin, on 06 December 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

That is why I posted those videos about what Richard Haines was really saying as the head of NARCAP, so people would not simply go by your misleading information.

misleading information? check the paper above ^^^^

TheMacGuffin, on 06 December 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

He said that almost none of the thousands of UFO reports he investigated could be explained as "natural phenomena".  If you have a problem with that then I suggest you take it up with him, not me.

it's you who's presenting his data.... so either defend it or? but it seems you don't like getting involved in the dirty details... you just love ignoring the facts and making sweeping statements which originate from lalaland...

[mcrom901]

TheMacGuffin, on 06 December 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

Yes, that's exactly what he said.  He has been saying that for decades, and either you did not know that or you simply neglected to mention it.  

no, he doesn't say that... i have quoted his paper above... in which he has taken the erroneous leap to restricting the reality of plasma phenomena to 'ball lightning' only.... btw, he also mentioned about the research at hessdalen....

Earthlights
Perhaps earthlights (EL) are some kind of physical counterpart of ball lightning. Like BL,
EL have generated a plethora of explanatory hypotheses over the years yet there is little
agreement on any one so far; happily we now see the activity of several highly qualified
teams of investigators willing to actively study them in the field. The work of Strand,
Teodorani, and co-workers is particularly noteworthy (2.4).

with fallacious interpretations....

"It would seem that EL do not generally pose a threat to flight safety because of their low
altitude and short duration. However, if they should occur at or near a runway at night the
situation could change quickly."

as pointed out to you earlier... http://www.unexplain...90#entry4553161

The lights could be split in three groups: - 1. Small and strong white or blue flashes, which could show up everywhere in the sky.
- 2. Yellow or yellow-white lights. These lights have very often been seen in the valley, just over the roof of the houses, or even down on the ground. They could be stationary for more than an hour, move slowly around in the valley, and sometimes show large accelerations and speeds. They could also be higher up in the sky. Mostly they moved on a north/south course.
- 3. Several lights together with a fixed distance from each other. Mostly it was two yellow or white lights with a red in front. Many people talked about "The object", when they saw this type of light. These lights could move slowly around the top of the mountains. The direction of "travelling" was mostly on a north/south course.

TheMacGuffin, on 06 December 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

I don't think that ANY of the UFO reports I posted on the first pages of this thread are "natural phenomena" and you have no offered the slightest proof that they were, just a lot of phony speculation and conjecture dressed up to look like 'science", but it is really pseudo-science.

w000000000000t

TheMacGuffin, on 22 November 2012 - 06:09 AM, said:

According to this 1949 FBI report, the objects were spherical and extremely fast, with speeds of three miles per second up to twelve miles per second, or 27,000 miles per hour.  They were first seen in December 1948 and kept returning night after night, usually singly but sometimes in groups.  

Their flight path was East to West and usually level, although sometimes vertical motion was also observed, and their altitude was six to ten miles. Almost always the Los Alamos nuclear labs seemed to be their main "target".  

Calling them "green fireballs" was inaccurate since they could also be red, orange, white or blue, and one spectrum analysis indicated that they were composed of copper compounds similar to those being used in rocket experiments at that time.  Some people speculated that they had a self-destruct mechanism, but in any case they disappeared as fast as they appeared and left no physical traces.

There was no scientific explanation for them, except that there were some never-before seen natural phenomenon or they were man made.

psyche101, on 22 November 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:

I thought they were explained as typical meteors with an intense shockwave that creates a phenomena similar to an aurora?


I'll have a look for a link - Here it is - Green Fireballs and Ball Lightning. LINK

TheMacGuffin, on 22 November 2012 - 06:35 AM, said:

Never saw that one before.

[mcrom901]

TheMacGuffin, on 06 December 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

That is correct, mricrom, and you can choose to accept it or not, I have no control over that, but I knew about all this decades ago and no one on here has ever been able to change my story even one iota.  I saw what I saw and that's it.

campfire talk?

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 06 December 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

it's you who's presenting his data.... so either defend it or? but it seems you don't like getting involved in the dirty details... you just love ignoring the facts and making sweeping statements which originate from lalaland...

Simply untrue,obviously based on your personal dislike for me.

mcrom901, on 06 December 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:

campfire talk?

Simply untrue.

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 06 December 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

no, he doesn't say that... i have quoted his paper above... in which he has taken the erroneous leap to restricting the reality of plasma phenomena to 'ball lightning' only..

Also untrue.  You have made three statements on here that are completely false.

[DONTEATUS]

Dont you love stuff that goes bump in the night ?

Attached Files

•  tn.jpeg   10.05K   4 downloads

[psyche101]

taniwha, on 06 December 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

Hi mcrom I guess you have never seen a ufo?

Have you even ever seen a plasma or UAP?

I expect you dont know if you have... or have not?...

Have a nice day

I saw a UFO in New Zealand, I had no reason at all to think it was anything but natural phenomena.


Do you not find mcroms information valid?

Edited by psyche101, 07 December 2012 - 03:34 AM.