UFOs with Speeds up to 27,000 MPH

[mcrom901]

These were UAPs, as anyone can see, and were sometimes even called that at the time, but they certainly weren't the same kind you're thinking of. LOL Not even close.

you're the one who's claiming what they cannot be... i'm simply questioning that premise i.e. whether atmospheric plasma formations can definitely be ruled out or not... so, it's you who needs to close in to the facts...

[mcrom901]

Of a sample of 130 cases of ball lightning observed since 1986, none of the plasmas lasted much longer than 10-15 seconds and many even less than that.

the question wasn't about "ball lightning" but about the duration of aerial plasmas in general...

[mcrom901]

Upper atmosphere plasmas look like these, although these are also short-duration events, like ball lighting.

were those the only examples you could find?

[mcrom901]

As far as I'm concerned, it's up to mcrom901 to explain to me specifically which of the UFO reports I've posted on here can be explained as ball lightning or upper atmospheric plasmas, and why.

*snipped*

as i have mentioned earlier, nobody can definitely claim what those objects might have been, the data is simply insufficient.... however that doesn't mean that natural phenomenon can definitely be ruled out... those who think otherwise are simply grasping at straws....

you seem to downplay the involvement of plasmas based on your understanding that they're short lived... but did you pay any attention to ls' comments last time you made that same claim??

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=228442&st=135#entry4336236

it didn't interest you? right?

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.

http://www.hessdalen.org/reports/hpreport84.shtml

[TheMacGuffin]

you're the one who's claiming what they cannot be... i'm simply questioning that premise i.e. whether atmospheric plasma formations can definitely be ruled out or not... so, it's you who needs to close in to the facts...

Since you will keep joking around as ling as I continue to humor you, let me ask thus another way. What makes you think that all these UFO sightings I posted here are plasmas, ball lightning or UAPs?

[TheMacGuffin]

it didn't interest you? right?

http://www.hessdalen...preport84.shtml

Of course I downplay it, especially because I know you're just kidding around and playing Devil's Advocate as usual, but I just doubtt that any of the UFO cases I posted are at all similar to what you're talking about.

Maybe I'm wrong, though, and I just can't see it. If so, point it out to me--specifically.

Edited November 24, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[TheMacGuffin]

were those the only examples you could find?

No, but any other examples I could find look even less like UFOs.

[TheMacGuffin]

Ball lighting is typically short lived, yes, but it is hardly the only kind of plasma associated with UAP. Plasmas can range from very small to very large, from no motion to high speed, from white lights, to colored lights, to metallic looking. This is a very versatile phenomena, and durations range from very short to considerably long. Take a look at some of the accounts from Hessdalen for example.

Yes, I've heard of these other kinds of plasmas, which sound like they can be anything or everything. Of course, that makes it very hard to prove that they are anything at all, or tied to any specific UFO cases.

As I said, one can postulate that they are responsible for any and all UFO reports from the past because people didn't know enough about what to look for, but I still don't think that they explain any of the UFO cases I posted. I just don't see the similarities.

[TheMacGuffin]

Of course there are many forms of plasmas.

They were first discovered in 1879, so the idea isn't all that new.

Plasma consists of a collection of free moving electrons and ions - atoms that have lost electrons. Energy is needed to strip electrons from atoms to make plasma. The energy can be of various origins: thermal, electrical, or light (ultraviolet light or intense visible light from a laser). With insufficient sustaining power, plasmas recombine into neutral gas.

Plasma can be accelerated and steered by electric and magnetic fields, which allows it to be controlled and applied. Plasma research is yielding a greater understanding of the universe. It also provides many practical uses: new manufacturing techniques, consumer products, the prospect of abundant energy, more efficient lighting, surface cleaning, waste removal, and many more application topics.

http://www.plasmas.o...are-plasmas.htm

Edited November 24, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[TheMacGuffin]

By definition, a plasma is not a solid, liquid or gas and they have a different appearance and physical properties.

[TheMacGuffin]

They know how to create plasmas in the laboratory, under the right conditions.

[TheMacGuffin]

They made these plasmas in a lab in 1951-52.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/02/26/essential-guide-to-the-eu-chapter-9/kink_instability-aldermaston-circa-1951-52/

[TheMacGuffin]

NASA studies plasmas in different atmospheres.

Laser Plasmas on Earth and Mars

This image shows laser plasmas in a test lab at Los Alamos National Laboratory, N.M., under typical atmospheric pressures on Earth and Mars. A plasma is an ionized, glowing gas. The pressure on the Red Planet is only about one percent of that at sea level on Earth, allowing the plasma to expand more and become brighter. The laser beam, which is invisible, crosses the image from the left and strikes a metal target, creating the plasmas. Each image covers about 3 by 3 inches (75 by 75 millimeters). Image credit: LANL

http://www.nasa.gov/...a/pia16088.html

Edited November 24, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[TheMacGuffin]

Well, you get the idea. These are the reasons that plasmas just cannot serve as a catch-all explanation for all UFO reports that cannot otherwise be identified, and I posted many of them in connection with Project Twinkle and the so-called "Green Fireballs" cases.

No one doubted that they were real or that they were often observed by scientists, filmed, photographed and triangulated, doing all kinds of high-speed maneuvers, etc, etc. They were real and of great concern to the military and those connected with the missile and nuclear programs.

I just don't think we can slap the word "Hessdalen" on all these events and call it good enough.

Edited November 24, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[lost_shaman]

Well, you get the idea. These are the reasons that plasmas just cannot serve as a catch-all explanation for all UFO reports that cannot otherwise be identified, and I posted many of them in connection with Project Twinkle and the so-called "Green Fireballs" cases.

No one doubted that they were real or that they were often observed by scientists, filmed, photographed and triangulated, doing all kinds of high-speed maneuvers, etc, etc. They were real and of great concern to the military and those connected with the missile and nuclear programs.

I just don't think we can slap the word "Hessdalen" on all these events and call it good enough.

You only come by that reasoning by deliberately confusing Plasmas observed in Hessdalen with conventional Plasmas. They are not conventional Plasmas and so far their mechanism of existence remains unexplained while conventional Plasmas are well understood.

[TheMacGuffin]

You only come by that reasoning by deliberately confusing Plasmas observed in Hessdalen with conventional Plasmas. They are not conventional Plasmas and so far their mechanism of existence remains unexplained while conventional Plasmas are well understood.

The only thing I regret about the Ignore feature is that it still shows that the post exists and asks if you want to view it anyway.

I have this person on Ignore and will not respond to anything they say.

[taniwha]

Hi Mac, I am guessing you are familiar with the Kaikoura lights/ufos, location not far from here in Christchurch.

I was intrigued as a youngster seeing the original tvnz broadcast on the sightings it was headline news, live and absolutely sensational.

It showed the mysterious film footage for the first time of what is now world renown, and thirty plus years later the object/s remain unexplained.

Atmospheric plasmas and orbs have been ruled out but one of the more laughable theories, or debunkings, is that it is merely moonlight reflecting off cabbages in someones garden! ooops!'

I havent found any reference to air speed estimates on these object/s so far and was wondering if you could help. Perhaps having the technical ability to disappear then reappear in different space at unbelievable speed on occassion, might explain why air control and bewildered pilot seemed out of sync on their visuals at different times.

What do you think Mac? The object/s seemed to do weird acrobatic manouvers, have the ability to shape - change and intensify in different

frequencies.

[mcrom901]

Since you will keep joking around as ling as I continue to humor you, let me ask thus another way. What makes you think that all these UFO sightings I posted here are plasmas, ball lightning or UAPs?

as mentioned, plasmas exhibit all those same 'unique' attributes which you seem to be wanting to associate with et... i was interested to know why you confidently thought that natural phenomenon should be ruled out... not that i was hoping that you would come up with a convincing argument, but nonetheless... never mind....

[mcrom901]

Of course I downplay it, especially because *snip*

you don't have counter-arguments? that's why you ignore addressing them? i'm referring to the duration of plasmas, btw...

[mcrom901]

Atmospheric plasmas and orbs have been ruled out

can you please reference the data in question?

[taniwha]

can you please reference the data in question?

[mcrom901]

because maccabee suggested so? since the lights lasted more than 12 minutes? that's why "place severe requirements on a conventional phenomenon such as glowing plasma or ball lightning"? check page 7 we've already discussed these... oh, and regarding the size & brightness; all moot points...

btw, that ufo plasma looks like casper the ghost...

[taniwha]

because maccabee suggested so? since the lights lasted more than 12 minutes? that's why "place severe requirements on a conventional phenomenon such as glowing plasma or ball lightning"? check page 7 we've already discussed these... oh, and regarding the size & brightness; all moot points...

btw, that ufo plasma looks like casper the ghost...

Hardcase mate... sooo since you asked how many Plasma varieties do you know of that have been simultaneously tracked on radar, air traffic control, witnessed by more than one person and filmed. Thirty years ago this Plasmic Flying Object (PFO) lol, was unique in the world of ufology, but surely comparable sightings have significantly increased exponentially with time and technology? Please refer me a couple of the good cases you know that were then proved to be PFOs lol

[ChrLzs]

I'd suggest that the most interesting stuff on those scanned pages is the response letter, sadly truncated. Maccabee has some very bad habits:

- tunnel vision - he refuses to think outside his preferred solutions, and often completely ignores obvious possible explanations

- unsupported inferences - he frequently makes assertions that are not backed up by facts, examples or cites

- unsupported conclusions - he often jumps from one fact to another without offering any reasoning nor proof that B must follow A

In this case - a few examples.

1. He cites (an effectively useless) claim that the object must have been '100,000 cd' in brightness. But he bases that on an illogical and unjustified set of assumptions (see below), and assumes that the supposed radar information must be the same object. He doesn't compare the figure with anything anyway, so what was the point? He admits it is an estimate, but offers no error range? - that is exceptionally unscientific - if a uni graduate offered that in their thesis or even as an answer in an assignment, it would gain a big fat zero. What is more, he later admits that the radar readings (see below) could not be corroborated to the images!! Yet the initial claim of 100,000 cd stands. Ridiculous - and it gets worse - see below.

2. There is no reference to the actual radar data. Radar is notorious for false returns and 'ghosts', and without an expert examination of that data and the fact that no data is available, such claims are useless.

3. Later in the report, Maccabee states that due to handholding "most images are smeared", and then, for those few images that may not be so smeared, "for such highly overexposed images it is difficult to estimate the illuminance on the film". He's right there.. once you near the (non-linear) limits of the film response curve (the 'heel' and 'toe' effects) such data is very unreliable and error prone.

But then, in typical Maccabee look-at-all-these-cool-equations style, he blazes on and creates his numbers using a wealth of impressive looking equations. But no error ranges or proepr statement of assumptions, and the calculations fly in the face of his own comments about how the data does not support what he is doing. And the final result? - a number that has no apparent relevance to anything anyway...

4. The 'analysis' includes a rather odd calculation of the size of the object. He makes several assumptions, including that the object was stationary (what did he mean - in the sky, relative to the camera (clearly not)?). What's more, there is a clear implication that the camera is in focus - an assumption that he doesn't even mention. Then he gives a couple of answers that depend on guessed distances from the uncorroboratable radar data, and then .. he simply picks one..

I could go on, but I'm losing the will to live.. I'm sorry - Maccabee's stuff is often good for a laugh, but that's about it. I invite readers to look at the response letter that appears to the lower right of the analysis. It is truncated, but it rightly begins with a number of criticisms of Maccabee's 'analysis' - I think you can see where it is going...

[TheMacGuffin]

as mentioned, plasmas exhibit all those same 'unique' attributes which you seem to be wanting to associate with et... i was interested to know why you confidently thought that natural phenomenon should be ruled out... not that i was hoping that you would come up with a convincing argument, but nonetheless... never mind....

Okay, never mind.

I have yet to see you link even ONE of the UFO cases that I posted to the Hessdalen lights or anything like that. Not one. I think you're just talking through your hat here.

Edited November 25, 2012 by TheMacGuffin