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This topic has been archived.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

#2221 booNyzarC

booNyzarC

Forum Divinity

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

Posted 24 April 2011 - 10:40 PM

lost_shaman, on 24 April 2011 - 09:55 PM, said:

Hey booN, nice work!

Here is the calculation I'm currently using to account for Earth's curvature... Distance in Miles (say 50 miles) squared (2,500') divided by 1.513 = 1,652.3'. That can then be converted to Angle in degrees (0.358528). Which would put your calcs. and my own much closer.
Sweet, thanks for the additional details!

After looking at all of this in fairly great detail with the additional contributions between you and Peri, it looks to me like the appearance of the flares is likely in an arc as the Warthogs were angling back toward Tuscon ((edit)As noted by Peri back in post #2058 - to give credit where it is due! (/edit)).  That would make lights 2 thru 9 follow that arcing turn radius away from the point of view of the K video, explaining why lights 2 thru 4 have a tight grouping (flying away turning from right to left) lights 5, 6, and 7 the most distant (the furthest in arc) and 8 and 9 are slightly closer as the angle turns somewhat (but not much) toward the POV.

This quick and rough picture kind of helps to visualize I think.  The intention here is that the outside edge of the red ellipse is a guestimation of the possible flight path from a top down view.

The light on the right is light 2 from the K video and the one on the left is light 9 (order of appearance, with light 1 not shown in this picture, but would be off to the left and below).

Granted, this is a very rough image hastily thrown together, but it seems to match up somewhat with the light grouping.  The lights seem to appear about every 8 seconds or so (estimated from the K video), and they aren't equidistant despite commentary from the witnesses in skyeagle's posted videos (primarily Lynne Kitei).

I think with this and the speed/climb information that you and Peri have put together we could fill in the remaining lights on Google Earth with a fair degree of estimated accuracy for visibility calculation purposes.

Cheers.

Edited by booNyzarC, 24 April 2011 - 11:00 PM.

#2222 arenee

arenee

Psychic Spy

• Member
• 1,594 posts
• Joined:04 Jan 2011

Posted 25 April 2011 - 01:41 AM

Hey guys,
Great job on the math stuff...not that it helps me in anyway and I'm reconsidering going back to school for my math degree now.

As per your correction of my typo BooN, it's Tucson, not Tuscon.  It looks really funny to me when I see it written like that.

LS, Peri, Boon, I'm confused (as usual) as to what this all means.  Is it just describing how the flares disappeared at certain angles/timelines/etc. behind the mountains?  And if so, is this all based on speed of disappearance because I'm thinking eventually anything (not just flares) eventually cannot be seen after so long?

(Sighs in frustration/disappointment of never being able to follow this thread no matter how hard I try)

"A valuable contributor to UM! Always enjoy her clever and often original outlook. - Paxus"

#2223 booNyzarC

booNyzarC

Forum Divinity

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

Posted 25 April 2011 - 01:55 AM

arenee, on 25 April 2011 - 01:41 AM, said:

Hey guys,
Great job on the math stuff...not that it helps me in anyway and I'm reconsidering going back to school for my math degree now.

As per your correction of my typo BooN, it's Tucson, not Tuscon.  It looks really funny to me when I see it written like that.

LS, Peri, Boon, I'm confused (as usual) as to what this all means.  Is it just describing how the flares disappeared at certain angles/timelines/etc. behind the mountains?  And if so, is this all based on speed of disappearance because I'm thinking eventually anything (not just flares) eventually cannot be seen after so long?

(Sighs in frustration/disappointment of never being able to follow this thread no matter how hard I try)
Heya arenee, thanks for the correction.  There are certain words that I always have problems with, and Tucson happens to be one of them.

To help clarify about the calculations, there are multiple things at play here, hopefully this helps to break it down a little...

1.  Triangulation of the lights.  This was achieved by Bruce Maccabee reviewing and comparing the footage from multiple video sources.  This gave a general area for where the lights involved with the sighting actually were, and a fairly specific location for 3 of the lights in question which were mutually shared from all 3 video sources.  And thru discussion, we've confirmed his initial analysis (with very minor adjustments) for the most part.
2.  Visibility of the lights from various vantage points as reported by witnesses is dependent on whether those points of view could legitimately see the lights if they were where the triangulation put them.  Or, the short explanation, could the people have seen flares dropped over the BGR?  To determine this, we've been working on identifying the minimum altitude where such objects could be viewed from various reported locations in and around Phoenix.  This calculation is not exactly simple because the curvature of the Earth and atmospheric diffraction opposingly impact the end results.
3.  More precise positioning for the remaining flares in the array (3 thru 8) based on analysis of the prior information which helped determine not only latitude and longitude location, but also altitude, and the likely flight path of the A-10 Warthog which dropped the flares as it was arcing back in order to return to Tucson.

Hope that actually helps and doesn't add to the confusion.

#2224 arenee

arenee

Psychic Spy

• Member
• 1,594 posts
• Joined:04 Jan 2011

Posted 25 April 2011 - 02:04 AM

booNyzarC, on 25 April 2011 - 01:55 AM, said:

2.  Visibility of the lights from various vantage points as reported by witnesses is dependent on whether those points of view could legitimately see the lights if they were where the triangulation put them.  Or, the short explanation, could the people have seen flares dropped over the BGR?  To determine this, we've been working on identifying the minimum altitude where such objects could be viewed from various reported locations in and around Phoenix.  This calculation is not exactly simple because the curvature of the Earth and atmospheric diffraction opposingly impact the end results.

Hope that actually helps and doesn't add to the confusion.
I read this post about fifty times.  It's just me guys, I get confused easily.

This particular one #2...Are we/you guys actually, determining whether or not the people actually saw something based on their location??  As in they may have lied about witnessing something because of their location and the likely impossibility of seeing something when and where it was claimed?

"A valuable contributor to UM! Always enjoy her clever and often original outlook. - Paxus"

#2225 booNyzarC

booNyzarC

Forum Divinity

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

Posted 25 April 2011 - 02:16 AM

arenee, on 25 April 2011 - 02:04 AM, said:

I read this post about fifty times.  It's just me guys, I get confused easily.

This particular one #2...Are we/you guys actually, determining whether or not the people actually saw something based on their location??  As in they may have lied about witnessing something because of their location and the likely impossibility of seeing something when and where it was claimed?
No, not whether they actually saw something, but whether they could have seen the flares which were dropped over the BGR.  Perhaps I should try to work up some graphics to help make a little more sense of it, but for now what I was trying to say with #2 was that when you are viewing something in the distance (over the BGR, specifically) and there is a tall object between you and the thing you are observing (the Estrella mountain range, specifically), there is a point at which you would no longer be able to view that thing (flares, specifically) because it has fallen behind the obstruction (the mountains).  A big chunk of the calculations have been to determine at what specific altitude such an event would occur.

Or, when will a flare falling behind the mountains not be visible?

From there we can determine whether or not flares dropped at the reported 15,000 foot altitude would be visible from a given witness location.

Does that help clarify?

I haven't said that any of the witnesses are lying, mistaken, or that they didn't see anything.

I trust that each witness who came forward did in fact see something.  Several of them, I believe, have probably embellished the sighting somewhat in an effort to validate their beliefs about the sighting, but I'd rather not get into that right now.

Does that clarify?  Or should I put together a graphic?

(Edited to remove a minor, insignificant portion which I may or may not address in the future... )

Edited by booNyzarC, 25 April 2011 - 03:03 AM.

#2226 DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

Forum Divinity

• Member
• 19,031 posts
• Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 25 April 2011 - 02:36 AM

I would Love to See the Line of people that would say that what they saw that night was not Flares. And then the Line of people that say that what they saw ,was Flares.
We could Line them all up 70 miles away out in the desert and I`ll Fly my B.B.Q smoker across the sky at Thirty three thousand feet at ,? Lets say Mach 30 or there abouts twenty knts might be better.
Then we can ask what each group thought they saw.
Very scientific ! you see. So nyone for a Cruise to Phoneix?
p.s. On a Very Serioue note I have word that Mid is doing well and may be back soon to post on the Space Threads.
We can Thank Waspie and Saru for this ! Way to Go Mid ! We all Miss you !

Attached Thumbnails

This is a Work in Progress!

#2227 arenee

arenee

Psychic Spy

• Member
• 1,594 posts
• Joined:04 Jan 2011

Posted 25 April 2011 - 02:44 AM

I think I get it BooNy thank you.   Let's not hold our breath though.

"A valuable contributor to UM! Always enjoy her clever and often original outlook. - Paxus"

#2228 Spiritual One

Spiritual One

Alien Embryo

• Member
• 27 posts
• Joined:15 Apr 2011

Posted 25 April 2011 - 05:30 AM

[Best Evidence]

Actual Video of an Abduction taking place.

Also check blog source below for Alien Abduction explained in detail

Blog Source: http://bit.ly/fUmxTR

#2229 Czero 101

Czero 101

Earthshattering Kaboom

• Member
• 5,619 posts
• Joined:24 Dec 2007

Posted 25 April 2011 - 05:50 AM

Czero 101, on 22 April 2011 - 07:29 PM, said:

That said, the old laptop I'm using is on its last legs, so I might be back to only my iPhone sooner than I want...

Looks like I spoke - or rather typed - too soon... The old laptop packed it in tonight so I am back to only having my iPhone for the time being, which will once again limit my posting here.

From the looks of things, though, Peri, booNy and LS have everything here well in hand...

Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan
"I'm tired of ignorance held up as inspiration, where vicious anti-intellectualism is considered a positive trait, and where uninformed opinion is displayed as fact." - Phil Plait
"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." - H. L. Mencken

#2230 booNyzarC

booNyzarC

Forum Divinity

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

Posted 25 April 2011 - 06:09 AM

Sucks to hear that Cz, sorry man.  Hopefully you'll be back on an actual machine before too long.  But I guess the iPhone is better than nothing.

#2231 lost_shaman

lost_shaman

Majestic 12 Operative

• Member
• 5,986 posts
• Joined:11 Jul 2006

Posted 25 April 2011 - 06:29 AM

booNyzarC, on 24 April 2011 - 08:11 PM, said:

Then I used a bastardized estimate from lost_shaman's previous calculations for each of these three lights (final values in green). The numbers came out somewhat higher using LS's calcs versus the approximations from the above web site,

Hey booN,

Just for reference and clarification purposes, below are your calcs. plugging your numbers vs. my own for Tom Chavez and the Tower.

Tom Chavez -

Left light.
booN ~12513.8' minimum visible altitude
l_s...  ~12519.3' minimum visible altitude

Right Light.
booN ~13206.2' minimum visible altitude
l_s...   ~13348.9' minimum visible altitude

Middle Light.
booN ~13712.6' minimum visible altitude
l_s...   ~13935.2' minimum visible altitude

Sky Harbor Tower -

Left Light.
booN ~7935.7' minimum visible altitude
l_s...   ~8074.1' minimum visible altitude

Right Light.
booN ~10938.9' minimum visible altitude
l_s...   ~11094.8' minimum visible altitude

Middle Light.
booN ~12715.1' minimum visible altitude
l_s...   ~12615.5' minimum visible altitude

This shows using your numbers that our calculations are very close in agreement.

Edited by lost_shaman, 25 April 2011 - 06:34 AM.

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

#2232 lost_shaman

lost_shaman

Majestic 12 Operative

• Member
• 5,986 posts
• Joined:11 Jul 2006

Posted 25 April 2011 - 06:38 AM

booNyzarC, on 25 April 2011 - 06:09 AM, said:

Sucks to hear that Cz, sorry man.  Hopefully you'll be back on an actual machine before too long.  But I guess the iPhone is better than nothing.

I'll Second that booN!

Hope you get back on your 'digital' feet sooner rather than later Cz!

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

#2233 Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

A complete moral vacuum

• Member
• 30,125 posts
• Joined:09 May 2005

Posted 25 April 2011 - 06:38 AM

arenee, on 25 April 2011 - 01:41 AM, said:

Hey guys,
Great job on the math stuff...not that it helps me in anyway and I'm reconsidering going back to school for my math degree now.

As per your correction of my typo BooN, it's Tucson, not Tuscon.  It looks really funny to me when I see it written like that.

LS, Peri, Boon, I'm confused (as usual) as to what this all means.  Is it just describing how the flares disappeared at certain angles/timelines/etc. behind the mountains?  And if so, is this all based on speed of disappearance because I'm thinking eventually anything (not just flares) eventually cannot be seen after so long?

(Sighs in frustration/disappointment of never being able to follow this thread no matter how hard I try)
I think it's to do with sines and cosines.

If, as it seems, we are in the process of becoming a totalitarian society in which the state apparatus is all-powerful, the ethics most important for the survival of the true, free, human individual would be: cheat, lie, evade, fake it, be elsewhere, forge documents, build improved electronic gadgets in your garage that’ll outwit the gadgets used by the authorities.

- Philip K. Dick.

#2234 booNyzarC

booNyzarC

Forum Divinity

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

Posted 25 April 2011 - 06:41 AM

lost_shaman, on 25 April 2011 - 06:29 AM, said:

Hey booN,

Just for reference and clarification purposes, below are your calcs. plugging your numbers vs. my own for Tom Chavez and the Tower.

Spoiler

This shows using your numbers that our calculations are very close in agreement.
Very cool, good to know that we are in the same ball park.

#2235 Hitman

Hitman

Ectoplasmic Residue

• Member
• 164 posts
• Joined:27 Feb 2004

Posted 25 April 2011 - 07:52 AM

Hazzard, on 11 March 2011 - 12:10 PM, said:

UFOs, Alien abductions, Area 51, Cattle mutilations, Crop circles, Alien structures and artifacts on the moon and Mars...

I call crop circles "crap circles". That's because they're hoaxes to be sure.

HItman