471 replies to this topic

[bee]

TheMacGuffin, on 01 December 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

As for Steve Wilson, he wasn't a real colonel at all but a fraudster.  I don't know where he picked up the name Project Pounce, but it existed long before the Paul Bennewitz case in 1980.  

Of course, anything about those events is suspect given the involvement of Richard Doty and his tendency to "leak" all kinds of fake documents for disinformation purposes.  Bennewitz really saw UFOs, but Doty then began to manipulate UFO researchers and lead them down the garden path.

thanks for that TMG....I thought it was a bit over the top..... ...interestingly it was on the first page of a search about 'Project Pounce'

I suppose it's just standard practice in the world of 'Intelligence' to confuse a sensitive subject with disinfo...



It was that bit about the green light that made me post it...but now I wish I hadn't...lol



.

[bee]

TheMacGuffin, on 01 December 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

Yes, of course I do.

mcrom doesn't like your certainty...but I do....

cheers

.

[TheMacGuffin]

bee, on 01 December 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

thanks for that TMG....I thought it was a bit over the top..... ...interestingly it was on the first page of a search about 'Project Pounce'

I suppose it's just standard practice in the world of 'Intelligence' to confuse a sensitive subject with disinfo...



It was that bit about the green light that made me post it...but now I wish I hadn't...lol

Kevin Randle found out quite a while ago that there was no record of a "Col. Steve Wilson" doing any of the things this guy claimed, but he still lingers on the Internet, 15 years after his death.

There was a real Project Pounce connected with UFOs, but this "colonel" was a fake.


http://www.google.co...UlRYa4d9GT70fDQ

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 02 December 2012 - 01:38 AM.

[mcrom901]

bee, on 01 December 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

hi mcrom....ok...from your previous statement I thought you thought you might know what was going on.

You seem to be saying you don't know what's going on and you don't think anyone else does/did either?

Fair enough, if that is your opinion

hi bee... as you might have noticed i've been arguing that natural phenomenon, specifically plasma formations, cannot be ruled out i.e. it is definitely a possibility and the most likely candidate.... but at the same time, i'm afraid that the data is insufficient to reach any firm conclusions; that doesn't mean that we have no idea as to what might have been going on in the skies back then tho...

Edited by mcrom901, 02 December 2012 - 03:42 AM.

[mcrom901]

TheMacGuffin, on 01 December 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

Since this thread that I started is about the New Mexico UFOs of the 1940s and 1950s, Project Twinkle, White Sands and so on, my posts are a lot more relevant to the subject than Project Condign and all that, which have only a very tenuous connection (at best) to my thread.

tenuous? how?

TheMacGuffin, on 01 December 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

I notice that you almost never respond to any of the UFO cases I have posted on here, except to dismiss them out of hand.  I did not start this thread to discuss Project Condign and plasmas.  If you want to do that, then please start your own thread.

i'm afraid that plasmas very much apply to all ufo cases (its discussion)

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 02 December 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

tenuous? how?

i'm afraid that plasmas very much apply to all ufo cases (its discussion)

No they don't, so I said if you all you want to do is talk about those then start your own thread.

[mcrom901]

TheMacGuffin, on 02 December 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:

No they don't,

all the arguments you've brought up i.e. short duration, etc. have been knocked down? how is it that they're not applicable?

TheMacGuffin, on 02 December 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:

so I said if you all you want to do is talk about those then start your own thread.

since you're trying to make ufos sound soooooo mysterious, i would like to show you otherwise... but it seems you're in the business of ctrl ^c ctrl ^v 'ing *cough* blog posting (and promoting same)... this is a discussion thread and i'm here to discuss the alternatives? you have a problem with that?

[TheMacGuffin]

mcrom901, on 02 December 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:

all the arguments you've brought up i.e. short duration, etc. have been knocked down? how is it that they're not applicable?

since you're trying to make ufos sound soooooo mysterious, i would like to show you otherwise... but it seems you're in the business of ctrl ^c ctrl ^v 'ing *cough* blog posting (and promoting same)... this is a discussion thread and i'm here to discuss the alternatives? you have a problem with that?

You have hardly addressed a single UFO case I posted on here, but simply insist on diverting the thread to suit your own little pet theories and notions.

Yes, I have a problem with you.

[psyche101]

bee, on 01 December 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

hi mcrom....ok...from your previous statement I thought you thought you might know what was going on.

You seem to be saying you don't know what's going on and you don't think anyone else does/did either?

Fair enough, if that is your opinion






.

That does not mean he has not made an educated and qualified suggestion that fits the circumstance better then any other. And that is exactly what he has done here. The Green Fireballs exhibit every characteristic that a meteor does, and a paper has been provided to prove every claim. The fact of the matter is that Universities have cracked the mystery, and are not in the final throes of confirmation. New Mexico cases have been specifically cited with regards to comparisons for the plasma hypothesis. As such, this leaves little doubt that the same phenomena is being discussed. Old data has new methods applied to it. What is possibly more conclusive than that, and how do 50 year old papers factor in with modern developments?

"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.

[-M7]

Well...this might explain why that UFO seen in Denver was moving so fast the only way to see it was to video tap it and slow down the video to see it.

[TheMacGuffin]

psyche101, on 03 December 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

That does not mean he has not made an educated and qualified suggestion that fits the circumstance better then any other. And that is exactly what he has done here. The Green Fireballs exhibit every characteristic that a meteor does, and a paper has been provided to prove every claim. The fact of the matter is that Universities have cracked the mystery, and are not in the final throes of confirmation. New Mexico cases have been specifically cited with regards to comparisons for the plasma hypothesis. As such, this leaves little doubt that the same phenomena is being discussed. Old data has new methods applied to it. What is possibly more conclusive than that, and how do 50 year old papers factor in with modern developments?

I don't think that's what happened at all.  Some of these more recent theories REFERRED to the New Mexico UFO cases from the 1940s and 1950s, just like microm is  doing, but they never looked at all of them in any detail.

If they had, they would have known that they were all fireball, plasmas or ball lightning, which is the point I have been trying to drive through microm's head.

Without much success since he simply repeats the same things over and over again no matter what I said, which becomes very annoying after a while.

[TheMacGuffin]

I would go far to say that no one except UFO researchers has ever looked at all the New Mexico cases I posted on here, at least no one since the 1940s and 1950s.

Sure, many people keep referring to them as "green fireballs", which is why I put the term in quotes right at the start, but they haven't looked at all the actual cases.

There are many of them.

[DONTEATUS]

Nah ! Mc-G we all look at the post !

[psyche101]

TheMacGuffin, on 03 December 2012 - 01:36 AM, said:

I don't think that's what happened at all.  Some of these more recent theories REFERRED to the New Mexico UFO cases from the 1940s and 1950s, just like microm is  doing, but they never looked at all of them in any detail.

If they had, they would have known that they were all fireball, plasmas or ball lightning, which is the point I have been trying to drive through microm's head.

Without much success since he simply repeats the same things over and over again no matter what I said, which becomes very annoying after a while.

TheMacGuffin, on 03 December 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

I would go far to say that no one except UFO researchers has ever looked at all the New Mexico cases I posted on here, at least no one since the 1940s and 1950s.

Sure, many people keep referring to them as "green fireballs", which is why I put the term in quotes right at the start, but they haven't looked at all the actual cases.

There are many of them.

There were many of them, which also begs the question, how many objects did anyone have ET concern's about? 75%? 5%? We have no idea if or what La Paz thought was "Man made" or "Artificially made" as an overall count so it seems wrong to dump "Green Fireballs" as a phenomena into the ET basket, when what we have studied in modern times are without doubt natural phenomena and comes under the very same description. If La Paz is indicating "all" then without doubt he was certainly incorrect. If he is indicating some, then I think the "some" need to be identified and removed from the others for the sake of confusion.

As it stands. it is a bit confusing, because a natural phenomena with the same name most definitely exists.

I do not think mcrom is out to derail anything, I get the impression he is asking the same thing as well, if one Green Fireball is ET, which one and why? As it stands the term is too broad to be considered ET specific. As you say, many cases are up, but perhaps it might be best to pick out those that are suspected to be more than natural and start there. It has managed to get a little convoluted. I think there is much value in applying current findings to any older data that it can be successfully applied to.

Terminology will continue to create confusion, as with the Foo Fighters. Many reports I read were basketball sized balls of light that would pass right through a plane, which sounds 100% like natural phenomena, but some other reports exist that some find indication of extra terrestrial influences. Broad brushing the terms creates much confusion when the term also applies to that which is definitely terrestrial.


References from the paper:


Nininger, H. H. 1934a The great meteor of March 24, 1933. Pop. Astron. 42, 291.
Nininger, H. H. 1934b The Pasamonte, New Mexico, Meteorite. Pop. Astron. 42, 291.

Mcroms sources seem pretty sound. I am not understanding objection to his input. It might be repetitive, but he is discussing a valid option and not getting much response. If his options do not apply, surely it would be prudent to point out the reason why not?

[TheMacGuffin]

psyche101, on 03 December 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

There were many of them, which also begs the question, how many objects did anyone have ET concern's about? 75%? 5%? We have no idea if or what La Paz thought was "Man made" or "Artificially made" as an overall count so it seems wrong to dump "Green Fireballs" as a phenomena into the ET basket, when what we have studied in modern times are without doubt natural phenomena and comes under the very same description. If La Paz is indicating "all" then without doubt he was certainly incorrect. If he is indicating some, then I think the "some" need to be identified and removed from the others for the sake of confusion.

Mcroms sources seem pretty sound. I am not understanding objection to his input. It might be repetitive, but he is discussing a valid option and not getting much response. If his options do not apply, surely it would be prudent to point out the reason why not?

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 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.

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