Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13
Hazzard

Best evidence for ET visitation - 3rd edition

6,154 posts in this topic

Every comparison you have posted of flares that I have seen has shown footage of flares up close. You've never posted footage of flares from 50 miles away or further, and the March 13, 1997 video is of flares 70+ miles away.

I have seen flares fall from several miles away and they don't fall as fast as what you see in the video. At 50 miles, a falling flare that is suspended by a parachute would be seen to hover in the night sky and hardlly moving at all, but take a look at that video, which is indicative of an o bject that is only a hew miles away from the camera.

The velocity of the fall, and the luminosity of the LUU2B flares has been confirmed to match with the videos of March 13, 1997.[/quoe]

Nope, and not from more than 50 miles either because at that distance, a flare would harding been seen to be moving at all, which was another reason why P posted that link to the photo of the Chicago skyline.

These are what flares look like.

[flaress2.jpg

Below:

Note the difference between real flares above, and the lights below. No comparison and why witnesses scoffed at the idea they saw flares that night in 1997.

008flares.JPG

The Lubboock Lights

lubbock.gif

My link

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next, if they had looked at the distance between the furthermost lights and knew the rest of the story, s, they would have understood that there was no way an A-10 could have covered that much distance had those lights truly been more than 50 miles away. A jet cruising at 600 mph would have taken a much longer time to cover such distance between the lights had tnose lights been at more than 50 miles away and the A-10 is much slower than a typical jet airliner. These are the kind of these that I observe when talking UFOs and analyzing responses of the skeptics.

Interesting that you brought this up. I've been toying with such calculations.

Using this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdIdDpJYSOM

If you focus on the string of lights to the right of the frame you'll notice the first two and subsequent third light are all clustered together in an arc, so I timed from the appearance of the 4th light to the 8th light that appears getting a time of 32 seconds.

Note that conveniently the distance between the 4th and 8th light is almost exactly the same as the distance between the 8th light and the edge of the City/base of the Mountains as seen and measured on the video. We know the height difference is around say 3,100 ft and we know the camera is about 30 miles from the Mountains and the 8th light is seen slightly above this then say 3,300 ft @ 30 miles gives an Angle of ~1.19 degrees. Therefore this is basically the Angle between light 4 and light 8 and was covered in 32 seconds.

If the lights are 'Flares' being dropped from an A-10 and at a distance of ~77 miles from the video camera, then 77 miles (406,560 ft) x 1.19 tan = 8,445 ft travelled in 32 seconds = 263.9 ft per second x 3600 = 950,088 ft per hour / 5280 = 179.9 mph.

I think you'll note that 180 mph is well within the A-10's capabilities. Therefore any of this talk about 600 mph being too slow, you can just flick that off the proverbial desk and into the proverbial trash!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just keep following the links until you do come to the discovery date.

There were people who didn't know what a gorilla was until its discovery and confirmation in 1847. And, the mountain gorilla wasn't discovered until years later.

What it is, it shows the importance of knowing the rest of the story and why its official discovery date is listed as 1847 before posting this:

I was already aware of what happened 2500 years ago, and also knew that the discovery is officially listed as 1847, so I got an idea to come up with a way to show skeptics where they were falling short on the UFO enigma.

When I began the experiment, one of the posters, posted what you have posted, but, he was unaware of the reason as to why its official discovery wasn't until 1847, but soon, other skeptics jumped in, but instead of doing homework, there were trying to use what happened 2500 years ago as a basis to debunk my post on its discovery in 1847 and that is what I was banking on. I then posted references on its history and even posted links to universities supporting my claim and yet, they continued to try and debunk its 1847 discovery until I told them to open their own encyclopedias and give me the date of its discovery from their own books.

I can paint the same picture in the way skeptics try to debunk UFOs. The cBookcover looks good for them on the outside, but, I found that many debunker's fail to read the rest of the story inside that book. For an example, the "Phoenix Lights." The skep;tics have claimed that the lights were flares at more than 50 miles away, but if they knew the rest of the story, it would shown by they were not flares at all.

First of all, the characteristics of flares are much different than the "Phoenix Lights," and. if they have begun doing so Time/Distance calculations, they would understand why those lights were not falling flares suspended by parachutes. At more than 50 miles away a flare that is suspended by a parachute would appear to be suspended in mid-air, and hardly falling at all. A good example was Kenneth Arnold and the way he calculated the airspeed of the objects he saw in 1947, which was over 1200 mph and another reason why I posted that Chicago skyline at 50 miles. I was expecting skeptics to begin connecting dots, but as it was, they were unable to figure out why I posted the link to that photo..

Next, if they had looked at the distance between the furthermost lights and knew the rest of the story, s, they would have understood that there was no way an A-10 could have covered that much distance had those lights truly been more than 50 miles away. A jet cruising at 600 mph would have taken a much longer time to cover such distance between the lights had tnose lights been at more than 50 miles away and the A-10 is much slower than a typical jet airliner. These are the kind of these that I observe when talking UFOs and analyzing responses of the skeptics.

Sure,, I use unorthodox methods at times when posting a response, but, I am doing so to gage responses and what is being presented to me to weed out real open-minded skeptics and debunkers and there are certain characteristics between the two. Having quiet hour around Tucson around the 10:30 PM time frame, would mean that any A-10 "hot-dogging" around the sky that late at night, would have some residence a bit upset when their children had to be ready to go to school in the morning. A check at DM, had shown that the A-10s were already on the ground around 8:30 PM and why the Air Force initially denied any involvment as they were also unable to provide any operational documents to latter support its claim that A-10s were dropping flares over the BGR from 6000 feet to where the Air Force had said, ignited at 3000 feet.

The Air Force didn't expect the public to figure it out so that is why ti provided such a weak story and later, an air demonstration that came nowhere near to the sightings in 1997, and why those who saw the lights with their own eyes, have scoffed at the Air Force's attempt to explain away the "Phoenix Lights' sightings.

When I was flying out of Davis-Monthan AFB, back in 1970, there were places that were off-limits to us, and at times, we have messed up some movie scenes from the Old West films and have received complaints from the movie folks at the Old Tucson location.

On another note, is it a coincidence that just yesterday, I was offered a job at four other places, and one of those is Davis-Monthan AFB?

The bottom line to all of this, if you are going to debate anything, at least know the rest of the story.

Excuse me? Which of your links offer the so called discovery date of 1847? The BFRO? LOL.

I see you have not broached Andrew Batell. I guess tomorrow you will tell me you are an expert on his adventures as well?

Explain this to me:

As Hanno brought back skins to confirm his discovery, and as you claim to be aware of his accounts you should know this as they were displayed proudly in a temple, how do you re-discover something that you already have a physical specimen of?

Try that cross referencing method I mentioned. I am sure this is new to you when I regard your post. Perhaps you are being mistaken when reading description and confusing it with discovered? As is stated in the ONLY reference you gave me with any validity, the Gorilla was recognised as it's own genus in 1847. Try reading the lines instead of between them, you might be surprised at what you will find. I see you also avoided the questions about the dodgy sites you offered, can you explain what that desperate straw grab to bolster your misconception was all about? You did not expect me to actually click on those dodgy links did you? As I said, the only one had any validity and did not support your position. Go back and look at the post, and check the bolded part.

And it is not your tactic, the BFRO proponents have been using this crappy line for ages now to bolster the idea that Bigfoot might be real, also citing the terrible example of the Coelacanth. Heck I even see people coming into the crypto section here and saying the same to support the Bigfoot nonsense! You have even changed tactic on that. Your old story was that "skeptics" got the Mountain Gorilla and the Lowland Gorilla dates mixed up", you were referring to Robert Beringe shooting a Mountain Gorilla. And you have said exactly that, right here for years, I can do a search and post examples, in fact, anyone can. So you are not even being straight about your deceptive tactic that you stole, and claimed as your own. But as has been uncovered here of late, this is far from the first time you have claimed to have done something that you simply poached. Just try being honest man. It is the best policy. I have no doubt that before I mentioned it to you, that you had no idea that Hanno the Navigator so much as existed.

Even your so called proof does not support your claim.

Wyman and Savage's paper, published in the Boston Journal of Natural History in December 1847, was the first full description of the creature that Wyman, mindful of Hanno's account, named Troglodytes gorilla.

And why do you think they did this? Let us refer back to my post and see shall we?

The word "gorilla" comes from the history of Hanno the Navigator, a Carthaginian explorer on an expedition on the west African coast. They encountered "a savage people, the greater part of whom were women, whose bodies were hairy, and who our interpreters called Gorillae".

Your information states the first FULL description. That does not say discovery, it says description. Read it again if you do not believe me.

Again I cannot tell you the value of cross referencing. It is obvious that you have never held an official capacity or recognised trade, as most standards rely on cross referencing themselves.

And you wonder why you are not taken at face value? It is not rocket science pal. The least you could have done is said thanks. What you have shown is the your research could definitely be more thorough and that you do not cross reference your material. As such, it is likely to hold error, and more akin to cherry picking.

And it was Boon and Lost Shaman you were discussing the Phoenix lights with, my input was limited to Mitch Stanley pretty much there. Czero cleared up who was in the air that night from memory. They have successfully falsified your argument. ET has left Phoenix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that you brought this up. I've been toying with such calculations.

Using this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdIdDpJYSOM

If you focus on the string of lights to the right of the frame you'll notice the first two and subsequent third light are all clustered together in an arc, so I timed from the appearance of the 4th light to the 8th light that appears getting a time of 32 seconds.

Note that conveniently the distance between the 4th and 8th light is almost exactly the same as the distance between the 8th light and the edge of the City/base of the Mountains as seen and measured on the video. We know the height difference is around say 3,100 ft and we know the camera is about 30 miles from the Mountains and the 8th light is seen slightly above this then say 3,300 ft @ 30 miles gives an Angle of ~1.19 degrees. Therefore this is basically the Angle between light 4 and light 8 and was covered in 32 seconds.

If the lights are 'Flares' being dropped from an A-10 and at a distance of ~77 miles from the video camera, then 77 miles (406,560 ft) x 1.19 tan = 8,445 ft travelled in 32 seconds = 263.9 ft per second x 3600 = 950,088 ft per hour / 5280 = 179.9 mph.

I think you'll note that 180 mph is well within the A-10's capabilities. Therefore any of this talk about 600 mph being too slow, you can just flick that off the proverbial desk and into the proverbial trash!

Good God man, your work is impressive!

This is the sort of research one can not only applaud, but become immersed in. Again may I convey gratitude at your attention to detail and astoundingly in depth research methods. You may humbly claim "you can read" but mate, you are a cut above the average bear.

Cheers Mate

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add that the 180 mph figure represents the shortest path @ 77 miles needed to cover the 1.19 degrees cited. The video, if an A-10 dropping flares, shows the flight path was not perpendicular to the video camera. So 180 mph is the minimum Air speed needed and the true Air speed this Angle represents likely falls into a range of maybe around 190 mph - 220 mph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you focus on the string of lights to the right of the frame you'll notice the first two and subsequent third light are all clustered together in an arc, so I timed from the appearance of the 4th light to the 8th light that appears getting a time of 32 seconds.

Note that conveniently the distance between the 4th and 8th light is almost exactly the same as the distance between the 8th light and the edge of the City/base of the Mountains as seen and measured on the video. We know the height difference is around say 3,100 ft and we know the camera is about 30 miles from the Mountains and the 8th light is seen slightly above this then say 3,300 ft @ 30 miles gives an Angle of ~1.19 degrees. Therefore this is basically the Angle between light 4 and light 8 and was covered in 32 seconds.

If the lights are 'Flares' being dropped from an A-10 and at a distance of ~77 miles from the video camera, then 77 miles (406,560 ft) x 1.19 tan = 8,445 ft travelled in 32 seconds = 263.9 ft per second x 3600 = 950,088 ft per hour / 5280 = 179.9 mph.

I think you'll note that 180 mph is well within the A-10's capabilities. Therefore any of this talk about 600 mph being too slow, you can just flick that off the proverbial desk and into the proverbial trash!

Hi LS,

Very nice bit of work you've done here. I've been playing around with a slightly different method tonight and am getting basically the same answers you worked out. I'll post my details shortly. I'm getting a slightly higher speed of about 210 knots (240 mph), but that's mostly because the distance from observer "K" to the mountains is actually about 26 miles, not 30 miles. I think Bruce Maccabee either rounded off or overstated the distance in his analysis. "K" is listed in the phone book, so his location can be pinpointed almost exactly.

Using 26 miles instead of 30 miles, your method comes up with a speed of about 180 knots (210 mph), so we're in very good agreement -- well within the margin of error for this sort of analysis. I think it's pretty safe to say that the target is doing somewhere in the ballpark of 200 knots which, as you said, is comfortably within the capability of an A-10.

P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Pericynthion, IMO, you always do great work yourself!

That you can refine the calculation and still find similar numbers showing agreement with my BOTE calculations is great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can paint the same picture in the way skeptics try to debunk UFOs. The cBookcover looks good for them on the outside, but, I found that many debunker's fail to read the rest of the story inside that book. For an example, the "Phoenix Lights." The skep;tics have claimed that the lights were flares at more than 50 miles away, but if they knew the rest of the story, it would shown by they were not flares at all.

Ah, yes ... the rest of the story. Well, that story must come from your big book of fairy tales. It's certainly not a technical book because you've shown over and over again here that you're just not able to present a technical argument.

First of all, the characteristics of flares are much different than the "Phoenix Lights," and. if they have begun doing so Time/Distance calculations, they would understand why those lights were not falling flares suspended by parachutes. At more than 50 miles away a flare that is suspended by a parachute would appear to be suspended in mid-air, and hardly falling at all.

See, here's an example. You berate the skeptics for not doing a "time/distance calculations," yet you provide no calculations of your own (and you're ignoring that fact that other posters in this thread and researchers like Bruce Maccabee HAVE provided calculations).

Regarding the descent rate of the flares in the video clip posted by booNy, I'll let you in on a little secret which you have utterly failed to recognize: that video isn't real-time; it's sped up by a factor of about 20. Here's a quote you made in your last post:

I have seen flares fall from several miles away and they don't fall as fast as what you see in the video. At 50 miles, a falling flare that is suspended by a parachute would be seen to hover in the night sky and hardlly moving at all, but take a look at that video, which is indicative of an o bject that is only a hew miles away from the camera.

So you, with your VAST personal experience with flares :rolleyes: , believe that booNy's video clip shows objects only a few miles from the camera. Since we're dealing with small angles here, the fact that the video is ~20x real-time means that your distance estimate is off by about the same factor. Your "few miles from the camera" needs to be multiplied by 20. Congratulations, you've just confirmed that the objects' motions are indeed consistent with flares at a distance of about 75 miles from the camera. :tu:

Next, if they had looked at the distance between the furthermost lights and knew the rest of the story, s, they would have understood that there was no way an A-10 could have covered that much distance had those lights truly been more than 50 miles away. A jet cruising at 600 mph would have taken a much longer time to cover such distance between the lights had tnose lights been at more than 50 miles away and the A-10 is much slower than a typical jet airliner. These are the kind of these that I observe when talking UFOs and analyzing responses of the skeptics.

Again, you present no calculations -- just more unsubstantiated opinion.

I thought I'd try a somewhat different approach to try to show you that the lights in the videos are indeed consistent with flares dropped by an A-10 over BMGR. I've been playing around with Google Earth and a three-dimensional model of the light pattern. Google Earth uses a very accurate terrain model overlayed on a WGS84 reference ellipsoid (the same datum used by most GPS receivers). I used Bruce Maccabees's report to locate observers "K", "L", and "R" on the map. I also placed a point at the approximate location of his triangulation result (his estimate of the objects' location).

Using Maccabee's estimated position as a starting point, I placed one "light" as a point in space and moved it until it matched the position of light 8 in the "K" video. I then assumed that the A-10 dropping these flares was on a course back home to Tuscon and using that heading as a baseline, placed another dot along that line so that it corresponded to the position of light 4 in the "K" video. (Note: I'm using the same line of five lights that lost_shaman used in his analysis). Once I had the start and end points placed, I filled in the remaining three lights and then adjusted the absolute altitudes of all five points to roughly match the pattern seen in the videos.

Here's an overview map of the area showing the BMGR North Tactical Range, the Gila Bend airfield, Bruce Maccabee's triangulated positiong, the video observer locations, and my five "flares" (shown as red dots just southwest of the Maccabee location):

Overview.jpg

And here's the resulting view from ground level at observer K's location:

KViewwithFlares.jpg

For reference, I've included a scaled inset photo from booNy's video clip showing the lights just before they disappeared behind the mountain. I placed my lights a bit higher to represent their position shortly after they were dropped.

Here's the same set of lights as viewed from observer L's location:

LViewwithFlares.jpg

For reference, I've placed flare 8 (the last dropped) at an altitude of 14,000 feet. Flare 4 is at 12,500 feet. The other three are evenly spaced between those two altitudes. The horizontal distance between flare 4 and flare 8 is about 11,800 feet. (These are WGS84 ellipsoid altitudes which are very close to the same as altitudes above mean sea level).

This whole exercise is just a rough estimate of one possible solution, but it confirms three things:

1) Lights near 15,000 feet altitude over the BMGR definitely ARE visible over the Estrella mountains.

2) As lost_shaman also showed with his analysis, the light pattern and spacing is consistent with a set of flares dropped by an A-10 on a course back to Tucson at about 200 knots and climbing at about 3000 ft/min.

3) Google Earth is a lot of fun to play with
:yes:

Sure,, I use unorthodox methods at times when posting a response, but, I am doing so to gage responses and what is being presented to me to weed out real open-minded skeptics and debunkers and there are certain characteristics between the two. Having quiet hour around Tucson around the 10:30 PM time frame, would mean that any A-10 "hot-dogging" around the sky that late at night, would have some residence a bit upset when their children had to be ready to go to school in the morning. A check at DM, had shown that the A-10s were already on the ground around 8:30 PM and why the Air Force initially denied any involvment as they were also unable to provide any operational documents to latter support its claim that A-10s were dropping flares over the BGR from 6000 feet to where the Air Force had said, ignited at 3000 feet.

No, that's not true. You're going by early reports for which the Air Force had only checked the status of local aircraft, and on early generic comments about the tactical use of illumination flares. You're ignoring later, more detailed reports. The Maryland A-10s didn't land until 10:30 (just before your quiet hour started):

What Bienz found out about was Operation Snowbird, which brings in aircraft from bases in the northern United States from November to April. Hence the name.

A flight schedule from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, shows that a squadron of planes from Operation Snowbird left at 8:15 p.m. on March 13 and returned at 10:30 p.m.

A spokesman for Luke Air Force Base confirmed that the Maryland planes were authorized to use the Barry Goldwater range from 9:30 to 10 p.m. on March 13.

Source: Ruelas, Richard, "Air Guard Unit Sheds Light on Valley's UFOs", The Arizona Republic, July 25, 1997

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Pericynthion, IMO, you always do great work yourself!

That you can refine the calculation and still find similar numbers showing agreement with my BOTE calculations is great!

Why, thank you, sir. I wouldn't say that my method is any more refined than yours. It's different, but it's just as much a back-of-the-envelope sort of analysis. The fact that we came up with very similar results is pretty encouraging, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That wasn't MacArthur's voice at all. Despite your endless litany of proclamation, you were wrong.

That was the voice of Jeff Hawks, one of the producers for UFO: The Greatest Story Ever Denied.

It was added with creative license to make the sequence appear more emphatic.

Hey booNy, I'm a bit late to the party here, but I've just got to add my thanks for a damned fine piece of research. Extremely well done, sir!

P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i%20like%20where%20this%20thread%20is%20going.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i%20like%20where%20this%20thread%20is%20going.jpg

LOL! Just gotta say: that is one SCARY storm! :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good God man, your work is impressive!

Thanks psyche, but only sometimes.

I've been proven wrong many times as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i%20like%20where%20this%20thread%20is%20going.jpg

*LMAO* Well I don't, so I will gently steer it back to our previous discussion;

quillius - Absolutely there could be intelligence deep down in the ocean. We just wouldn't know.

It's like saying, 'well lizardmen could live under the Earth' though...

Evolved down there? That I couldn't say, maybe a biologist could better speculate....

It's nice and fun to think about.

I'm running the whole USO thing through my list of filters at the moment.

I've been steered in this direction by UM because of the arguments against ETH (from some far off planet).

psyche101 - Ok, so you relate USO with crashing ET stories. I don't.

Regardless of what either of us believe, strange machines are said to be seen all over the world by thousands of witnesses of all walks of life. A large portion of them involve water. Unless they are lying or delluded this leaves us with few possibilities (Man made secret, alien, dimensional or time travelor).

I don't believe that all of the people are lying or delluded or mistaken so I have to try to decide which of the other theories fit best.

Interplanetery sounded good but had it's problems like size of space, FLT problem, hardly ever seen coming into our atmosphere from space or vice versa etc etc....

So it should hardly be surprising that one would start considering the USO theory which doesn't suffer from those arguments..

Simply writing off the theory because some people who believe it also say ET crash a lot is unscientific and frankly, not like you!

Regarding your mention of cases where USO have been seen in open/shallow water etc etc

So what?

This doesn't mean they couldn't have bases in the deepest parts of our oceans.

I will also state, as I do so often, that we couldn't possibly know why they do what they do and it's a serious investigative mistake to make assumptions about their motives.

Bump into forcefields?? really??

REALLY??!?

Come on dude... If an ADVANCED race wanted to hide in our ocean, they would.

(maybe even under the ground under the ocean... not that it matters because they have high tech)

I'm not going to keep goin back and forth about this, sorry dude :(

Not to digress, but remember the time travellor or interdimensional travellor theories are still there if you don't like USOs...

The sightings seem a bit too physical, in my personal opinion, to be those....

RE: Cloak and dagger BS - I still disagree and think that Gene Rodenberry got it spot on with the 'Prime Directive'.

I have to ask:

You are personally, on a ship in the middle of the ocean when you see lights zipping around underwater, then suddenly something YOU deem to be a metallic craft breaks through the surface hovers briefly and then flies off at a great rate of knots...

What do you think it is? What is your best guess or explination?

(This is what we are trying to answer - I simply don't buy, that everyone who has seen things like this is lying, mistaken or delluded! - And I don't want to hear anything about plasma or greek gods! :P)

Where's my invitation to check out stuff on your telescope?! Hrm??

Edited by Paxus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentlemen... utterly fantastic work! Pericynthion and lost_shaman, both of you, I'm simply blown away by your precision and attention to detail. I dare say that I am now duly ashamed for having let my math skills atrophy so much over the last 20 years or so. But you can count me among the impressed and know that I truly admire what you've put together.

Simply awesome. Well done!

:nw::nw::nw::tsu::clap::nw::nw::nw:

I have little doubt that there will be need to refer back to these points in the future if past discussions with a certain bird are any indication. As such, I've got these posts bookmarked and ready for the quick draw. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As always, peri (and others) thanks for posting. :nw:

If there ever was any doubt that the Phoenix lights where anything else but flares, that time is now long gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder where they get these pictures from for Lolpics. Some of them are quite impressive, like that one above. It would make a damn good picture if you took away the LOLz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quillius - Absolutely there could be intelligence deep down in the ocean. We just wouldn't know.

It's like saying, 'well lizardmen could live under the Earth' though...

Evolved down there? That I couldn't say, maybe a biologist could better speculate....

It's nice and fun to think about.

I'm running the whole USO thing through my list of filters at the moment.

I've been steered in this direction by UM because of the arguments against ETH (from some far off planet).

psyche101 - Ok, so you relate USO with crashing ET stories. I don't.

Regardless of what either of us believe, strange machines are said to be seen all over the world by thousands of witnesses of all walks of life. A large portion of them involve water. Unless they are lying or delluded this leaves us with few possibilities (Man made secret, alien, dimensional or time travelor).

I don't believe that all of the people are lying or delluded or mistaken so I have to try to decide which of the other theories fit best.

Interplanetery sounded good but had it's problems like size of space, FLT problem, hardly ever seen coming into our atmosphere from space or vice versa etc etc....

So it should hardly be surprising that one would start considering the USO theory which doesn't suffer from those arguments..

Simply writing off the theory because some people who believe it also say ET crash a lot is unscientific and frankly, not like you!

(ed to save space)

So your hypothesis is that UFOs might not necessarily be ET, but might come from beneath our oceans, like from civilisations that have evvolved under there, you mean? Or that ETs might use underwater bases to conduct operations? Personnally, I'm not sure whether a technologically advanced race would be able to evolve quite independently of us without us ever noticing, but I don't see any insuperable technical objections to being able to operate in space as well as underwater. Although I wouldn't want to rule out the, yes, PLASMA theory; there is as we know a great deal of tectonic activity beneath the oceans, and there might be all sorts of energy emissions that we're just scratching the surface of knowledge about.

Edited by 747400

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So thats It ? Nobody even wants to know the Truth?

Your just going to let it end at this ! "Flares"

Come On , theres got to be some in here that want to know what really happened that night in Phoenix .

I bet we havent heard the end of this thread?

As for the the Kool photo psyche101 I`ve actually seen a front just like that at sea about 20 years ago in the Southern Pacfic.

It was a wild ride!

Edited by DONTEATUS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*LMAO* Well I don't, so I will gently steer it back to our previous discussion;

Really? I was quite stunned at the impressive work from LS and Perc. That the calcs matched up close enough to match is a significant push forward with the Phoenix lights, they have now determined the speed, which was an ETH argument against the flare theory. Just awesome work from these fellows, I would like to see such from the likes of Friedman, who makes a living from peddling crap not half as impressive. Not even all his work tied together and folded over is as impressive or insightful as a simple discussing any UFO subject with any one of these fellows.

What I have witnessed here is indeed, best evidence. The Phoenix lights I feel now exclude ET as a possibility. And that be the aim of this thread - to determine best evidence. Best evidence is right under our noses on that one.

quillius - Absolutely there could be intelligence deep down in the ocean. We just wouldn't know.

It's like saying, 'well lizardmen could live under the Earth' though...

Evolved down there? That I couldn't say, maybe a biologist could better speculate....

It's nice and fun to think about.

I'm running the whole USO thing through my list of filters at the moment.

I've been steered in this direction by UM because of the arguments against ETH (from some far off planet).

Perhaps try talking with members Mattshark and Cetacea. Marine Biologists who will tell you pretty much what I told Quillus, as they taught me a great deal about Ocean depths in past conversations about cryptids and the Sea Shepard.

psyche101 - Ok, so you relate USO with crashing ET stories. I don't.

Regardless of what either of us believe, strange machines are said to be seen all over the world by thousands of witnesses of all walks of life. A large portion of them involve water. Unless they are lying or delluded this leaves us with few possibilities (Man made secret, alien, dimensional or time travelor).

I don't believe that all of the people are lying or delluded or mistaken so I have to try to decide which of the other theories fit best.

Interplanetery sounded good but had it's problems like size of space, FLT problem, hardly ever seen coming into our atmosphere from space or vice versa etc etc....

So it should hardly be surprising that one would start considering the USO theory which doesn't suffer from those arguments..

How does the USO argument not suffer from the same constraints? One still has to get here to hide in the Oceans? It would simply offer a hiding place once here. Unless of course you are going with the "evolved here" ideal that 747400 touched on. I got the impression that was not your argument.

I do not think the large majority enter water bodies, I have heard reports of UFO's "sucking up" water, that is a markedly different description. I do think many are lying or deluded, one of the first argument you hear, and one we will hear about here no doubt is the Christopher Columbus tale, which is plainly not ET. Also, by deluded, I am not thinking like the cat lady on the Simpson's, but forced into an alternate mindset by way of personal preference and pop culture. Many are simply drawn to the ideal of ET, and that is good enough for them, and we have seen such here *cough viper2 cough* There may be one or two intriguing tales, but I do think the majority can be explained here on earth, and the strong minority where total sightings are tallied. As such, I can put those fewer instances down to embellishment. I do feel that you have a tendency to believe people's personal interpretations quite readily as opposed to looking at the many possibilities? Who are "all these people" that you believe saw something that cannot be readily explained? Personal interpretation skews investigation, as an example, I woud cite that some still claim the failed rocket launches, like the more recent example from Norway, are alien dimensional vortexes. How are you determining the zealots from the genuine articles here. Should they not all be regarded as simply a UFO, and then we take the step to ET, Natural Phenomena or other? Albeit that step might be our discussion, but I get the impression that you are pushing that some are likely Alien, which is an assumption and at this point no more than a preference. I do not think you can move forward with investigation based on such a loose assumption, as I do not see what else has been seriously considered. Peoples first impressions might be good enough for you (I mean that in a respectful way), but personally I need more meat in that sandwich.

I do not think that this only leaves us with the above, in addition to Man made secret, alien, dimensional or time traveller, I would like to add natural phenomena. Twisters and the like funnel water up into the sky, and for an abstract tie in, what about all the fish, frogs, and other water creatures that "rain down" from time to time, or red rain - where does this come from? Could this strange phenomena be explained by a natural process very much like this?

Simply writing off the theory because some people who believe it also say ET crash a lot is unscientific and frankly, not like you!

Hey, both theories come from the same crowd! They are nominating ET to begin with. You may pick and choose what seems more plausible to you, but is that being objective? One must consider the common denominator here. I do feel I offered much more than that, which I am sorry to say you seem to have missed. As in the very next paragraph - shallow waters, and where these things actually are sighted mostly.

What I am not seeing is why ET always the first instance, let alone at all? Where is the tie in past "we cannot do that". How do these people reporting things like this know the forefront of technology, and what is being experimented on at the moment? How do they rule out all other processes? ET is but one possibility, and to me way down the list when saddled on it's own supporting evidence

Regarding your mention of cases where USO have been seen in open/shallow water etc etc

So what?

This doesn't mean they couldn't have bases in the deepest parts of our oceans.

I will also state, as I do so often, that we couldn't possibly know why they do what they do and it's a serious investigative mistake to make assumptions about their motives.

It is not logical though is it? Why would a craft that went to all the trouble to hide from us by building som e incredible undetectable base at the bottom of the Ocean, and then scoot along under the surface to breach close to shore in full view of those you just put all this effort into hiding from?

Do you not think ET itself is a very major assumption?

Bump into forcefields?? really??

REALLY??!?

Come on dude... If an ADVANCED race wanted to hide in our ocean, they would.

(maybe even under the ground under the ocean... not that it matters because they have high tech)

I'm not going to keep goin back and forth about this, sorry dude :(

Well I do not think you have any arguent at all there. You are imagining that something might be able to hide an imaginary being! The "tech we do not understand"argument is less sensible than Greek Gods man! I know you do not like the analogy, but we were very wrong on that one, and I ask that you point out to me the major difference? All I can see is this explanation bruises egos?

How are you proposing they do hide? If using this as a solution, surely it is not out of line to ask you to justify the/a solution? You do not want me to just say "well, something we have not thought of yet!" Surely! How is that any better than Greek Gods?

Not to digress, but remember the time travellor or interdimensional travellor theories are still there if you don't like USOs...

The sightings seem a bit too physical, in my personal opinion, to be those....

Some do sound intruiging, but seem to have a better and quite earthly explanation. One of the best cases I can tink of is Shag Harbour, and that object was tracked from Siberia.

According to one military witness, he was allegedly briefed that the object had originally been picked up on radar coming out of Siberia.

LINK

RE: Cloak and dagger BS - I still disagree and think that Gene Rodenberry got it spot on with the 'Prime Directive'.

Mate, that is not what I said. I said that the UFO/America conspiracy BS is ridiculous, and far from and advanced race, and would violate GR's prime directive.

I have to ask:

You are personally, on a ship in the middle of the ocean when you see lights zipping around underwater, then suddenly something YOU deem to be a metallic craft breaks through the surface hovers briefly and then flies off at a great rate of knots...

What do you think it is? What is your best guess or explination?

(This is what we are trying to answer - I simply don't buy, that everyone who has seen things like this is lying, mistaken or delluded! - And I don't want to hear anything about plasma or greek gods! :P)

My first thought? This

JL-1-missile-300x226.jpg

I feel such would be an amazing sight, and probably not what one would expect to see. Firing from beneath the waves could have many advantages in war. I have little doubt much research is placed in this arena.

Where's my invitation to check out stuff on your telescope?! Hrm??

See your PM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So thats It ? Nobody even wants to know the Truth?

Your just going to let it end at this ! "Flares"

Come On , theres got to be some in here that want to know what really happened that night in Phoenix .

I bet we havent heard the end of this thread?

As for the the Kool photo psyche101 I`ve actually seen a front just like that at sea about 20 years ago in the Southern Pacfic.

It was a wild ride!

Damn I bet that was some ride mate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, yes ... the rest of the story. Well, that story must come from your big book of fairy tales. [/qu9ote]

Only in your dreams

It's certainly not a technical book because you've shown over and over again here that you're just not able to present a technical argument.

See, here's an example. You berate the skeptics for not doing a "time/distance calculations," yet you provide no calculations of your own (and you're ignoring that fact that other posters in this thread and researchers like Bruce Maccabee HAVE provided calculations).

Regarding the descent rate of the flares in the video clip posted by booNy, I'll let you in on a little secret which you have utterly failed to recognize: that video isn't real-time; it's sped up by a factor of about 20. Here's a quote you made in your last post:

So you, with your VAST personal experience with flares :rolleyes: , believe that booNy's video clip shows objects only a few miles from the camera. Since we're dealing with small angles here, the fact that the video is ~20x real-time means that your distance estimate is off by about the same factor. Your "few miles from the camera" needs to be multiplied by 20. Congratulations, you've just confirmed that the objects' motions are indeed consistent with flares at a distance of about 75 miles from the camera. :tu:

Again, you present no calculations -- just more unsubstantiated opinion.

I thought I'd try a somewhat different approach to try to show you that the lights in the videos are indeed consistent with flares dropped by an A-10 over BMGR. I've been playing around with Google Earth and a three-dimensional model of the light pattern. Google Earth uses a very accurate terrain model overlayed on a WGS84 reference ellipsoid (the same datum used by most GPS receivers). I used Bruce Maccabees's report to locate observers "K", "L", and "R" on the map. I also placed a point at the approximate location of his triangulation result (his estimate of the objects' location).

Using Maccabee's estimated position as a starting point, I placed one "light" as a point in space and moved it until it matched the position of light 8 in the "K" video. I then assumed that the A-10 dropping these flares was on a course back home to Tuscon and using that heading as a baseline, placed another dot along that line so that it corresponded to the position of light 4 in the "K" video. (Note: I'm using the same line of five lights that lost_shaman used in his analysis). Once I had the start and end points placed, I filled in the remaining three lights and then adjusted the absolute altitudes of all five points to roughly match the pattern seen in the videos.

Here's an overview map of the area showing the BMGR North Tactical Range, the Gila Bend airfield, Bruce Maccabee's triangulated positiong, the video observer locations, and my five "flares" (shown as red dots just southwest of the Maccabee location):

Overview.jpg

And here's the resulting view from ground level at observer K's location:

KViewwithFlares.jpg

For reference, I've included a scaled inset photo from booNy's video clip showing the lights just before they disappeared behind the mountain. I placed my lights a bit higher to represent their position shortly after they were dropped.

Here's the same set of lights as viewed from observer L's location:

LViewwithFlares.jpg

For reference, I've placed flare 8 (the last dropped) at an altitude of 14,000 feet. Flare 4 is at 12,500 feet. The other three are evenly spaced between those two altitudes. The horizontal distance between flare 4 and flare 8 is about 11,800 feet. (These are WGS84 ellipsoid altitudes which are very close to the same as altitudes above mean sea level).

This whole exercise is just a rough estimate of one possible solution, but it confirms three things:

1) Lights near 15,000 feet altitude over the BMGR definitely ARE visible over the Estrella mountains.

2) As lost_shaman also showed with his analysis, the light pattern and spacing is consistent with a set of flares dropped by an A-10 on a course back to Tucson at about 200 knots and climbing at about 3000 ft/min.

3) Google Earth is a lot of fun to play with
:yes:

No, that's not true. You're going by early reports for which the Air Force had only checked the status of local aircraft, and on early generic comments about the tactical use of illumination flares. You're ignoring later, more detailed reports. The Maryland A-10s didn't land until 10:30 (just before your quiet hour started):

What Bienz found out about was Operation Snowbird, which brings in aircraft from bases in the northern United States from November to April. Hence the name.

A flight schedule from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, shows that a squadron of planes from Operation Snowbird left at 8:15 p.m. on March 13 and returned at 10:30 p.m.

A spokesman for Luke Air Force Base confirmed that the Maryland planes were authorized to use the Barry Goldwater range from 9:30 to 10 p.m. on March 13.

Source: Ruelas, Richard, "Air Guard Unit Sheds Light on Valley's UFOs", The Arizona Republic, July 25, 1997

Do you even know why I posted the link of the Chicago skyline from 50 miles? I guess you didn't. You know, there is this tihing about skeptics falling into traps because they don't do their home right and here is yet another example.

A bit difficult when at the time that video was taken, the A-10s were still the ground at DMAFB. Ever wondered why the Air Force initially denied its involvment in the "Phoenix Lights" sightings??

If you don't know the rest of the story,, then it is time to take a seat and watch the action on the sideline. Seems. you have never seen real flares in real life. If you are going to post in a debate, for goodness, sake, at least understand what it is, that you are posting about.

Why did I post that Chicago skyline from 50 miles away? And,

How long would it take a flare, that suspended from a parchute, to fall 1400 feet?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi LS,

Very nice bit of work you've done here. I've been playing around with a slightly different method tonight and am getting basically the same answers you worked out. I'll post my details shortly. I'm getting a slightly higher speed of about 210 knots (240 mph), but that's mostly because the distance from observer "K" to the mountains is actually about 26 miles, not 30 miles. I think Bruce Maccabee either rounded off or overstated the distance in his analysis. "K" is listed in the phone book, so his location can be pinpointed almost exactly.

Using 26 miles instead of 30 miles, your method comes up with a speed of about 180 knots (210 mph), so we're in very good agreement -- well within the margin of error for this sort of analysis. I think it's pretty safe to say that the target is doing somewhere in the ballpark of 200 knots which, as you said, is comfortably within the capability of an A-10.

P.

Hey Pericynthion,

Yeah, running the numbers with K's position @ 26 miles from the Mountains and at 77 miles from the lights then I get ~208 mph. However, if this also means K's position is 4 miles closer to the lights as well then @ 73 miles I calculate 197.4 mph. Which again this is the minimum Air speed needed if Flying perpendicular to the camera to cover the angular distance of 1.377 degrees. Therefore if I revise my original estimates of true Air speed up this much then I estimate something around 214 mph - 244 mph. However that may be somewhat unconvincing as a guess so the true Airspeed depends on the angular offset from perpendicular to the camera that the Aircraft was flying so then @ 15,20,25 degrees offset I get 204.3 mph, 210 mph, and 217 mph respectively. At 30 degrees 227.9 mph and at 35 degrees 240 mph.

So we are definately in close agreement using K's revised position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you even know why I posted the l nk of the Chicago skyline from 50 miles? I guess you didn't. :w00t: You know, there is this tihing about skeptics falling into traps because they don't do their home rigtht. :w00t:

Wow... you didn't even read what he wrote there did you? And if you did, you certainly didn't appear to understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 13

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.