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

In April 2011, the FBI posted a document from 1950 on their website written by agent Guy Hottel which discussed a report forwarded by an investigator from the Air Force of three alien craft and their occupants having been recovered in New Mexico. The memo stated that "three so-called flying saucers" were recovered, each circular in shape with raised centers, each about 50 feet in diameter. Three occupants of "human shape," each about three feet tall, were found in each craft, and all were dressed "in metallic cloth of a very fine texture."

FlyingSaucersMemorandumMarch22-1950.jpg

http://vault.fbi.gov

Roswell admitted....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing a quick serch on google as to the width of Chicago, I came across this....

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_miles_wide_is_the_city_of_Chicago

which claims that the Chicago/Lake Michigan matchup is 22 miles. However, as we can only see the tallest buildings on the photo, and I do not know the distance between the John Hancock building and the Sears Tower, i'm guessing that we're still looking at a fairly large distance!

My point being... that from that distance, the view of Chicago seems understandably narrow!

And compared with this view of the Phoenix Lights that we seem to have concluded were over 70 miles away....

http://reinep.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/phoenix-lights.jpg

Hi 1963. The Sears Tower and Hancock Center are about 1.5 miles apart, so you're really not looking a very large area in that photo. That's because the camera was zoomed in quite a bit. The camera data is available on the Flickr page (click on the "Canon PowerShot SD790 IS" link in the upper right corner of the page). The data shows that the camera was zoomed in to full telephoto and was also using an extra 2.85x digital zoom. For that camera, that's about equivalent to a 300mm telephoto lens on a 35mm camera. That's a pretty powerful magnification.

The same basic thing is happening with the Phoenix lights "K" video (the source for the screen shot in your link above). Watch the video and notice just how far the camera zooms in to get a closeup of the lights:

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

I think the lights would've actually appeared pretty small to the naked eye from this location. Here's another shot from Google Earth showing a wider view from the hill where the video was shot. To give a bit of perspective, the cameraman is standing on a 300 foot high hill overlooking the neighborhood below, and the hill in the middle distance which blocks part of the mountains is about a mile away. I've added a scaled frame of the video footage for comparison to make it clear just how far zoomed-in the video really is.

KViewwithFlaresVideoOverlay.jpg

I did actually note that Bruce included at least a part of this in his analysis. See figure 18 and accompanying text from this page.

The size of the array is given by the following estimated distances: between the first and second lights to appear was about 7.5 miles and between the second and ninth lights is about 3.7 miles

Hi booNy. Thanks for posting Bruce Macabbee's length estimates (and thanks again for all of the information you've been posting on this topic. You dug up a lot of great stuff!)

The lights I was playing with in Google Earth are flares 5 through 9 using Maccabee's numbering scheme. The pattern I laid out is about 2 miles long. That may be a bit longer than the distance Bruce would have estimated for that portion of the array, but it's pretty close and well within the margin of error considering the coarseness of the data we're working with.

P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love History and I came across this little gem. Allied Fliers reported 'fires' at great distances and Pan-Am 'Captains' worked out this equation during WWII which is an alternative method that neither Perc. or myself have used.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_yYDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=curvature+of+earth+77+miles&source=bl&ots=NtHsJhWSMr&sig=y1LyC_BYsduxF6rZ3MO2B5mj__4&hl=en&ei=b7CrTcClOsW50QHflIz5CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Vision-range&f=false

Very cool, LS. I love this stuff, too. Thanks for posting that! Now I'm gonna have to see if I can figure out how they derived that approximation ... :geek:

P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--

Roswell admitted....

Hi SolarPlexus and a jubilant welcome back. :)

Unfortunately... no, nothing about Roswell in that memo. I'm sure if you look around the forum and the commentary about this re-released memo, you'll see what I mean. If you can't find it, I'd be happy to share the link. Still some room for debate on the memo itself, but nothing around Roswell.

Cheers. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dip out for one week guys...one whole week and this monster of a thread grows by like 30 pages!!! How's a girl to keep up? Maybe I should just assume it's the usual bickering and start from the end? Can anyone tell me if it's worth it go back and try to catch up the proper way or if I can start from here and not feel too lost? :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*snipped more fantastic information from Peri... sheesh, I hate snipping that! But observers can scroll up to see*

Hi booNy. Thanks for posting Bruce Macabbee's length estimates (and thanks again for all of the information you've been posting on this topic. You dug up a lot of great stuff!)

The lights I was playing with in Google Earth are flares 5 through 9 using Maccabee's numbering scheme. The pattern I laid out is about 2 miles long. That may be a bit longer than the distance Bruce would have estimated for that portion of the array, but it's pretty close and well within the margin of error considering the coarseness of the data we're working with.

P.

Thanks mate, sincerely. Praise from one as diligent as you is high praise indeed and your praise in post #2060 was much appreciated too.

I must defer such, however, if I'm to be honest with myself. A great deal of the information about the Phoenix Lights comes from much more deserving sources like Bruce Maccabee, Czero 101, lost_shaman, psyche, and yourself. My additions have been modest at best. Almost everything that I have brought to the table regarding the Phoenix Lights has been from others and I can take virtually no credit. :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dip out for one week guys...one whole week and this monster of a thread grows by like 30 pages!!! How's a girl to keep up? Maybe I should just assume it's the usual bickering and start from the end? Can anyone tell me if it's worth it go back and try to catch up the proper way or if I can start from here and not feel too lost? :angry:

I've been wondering where you were arenee. No need to read through the whole 30 pages, I'll give you a synopsis:

Skyeagle was wrong.

Then, Skyeagle was wrong again.

Then, people (like your man and quillius) started talking about cases which weren't completely refutable. That lasted a bit.

Then skyeagle continued to be wrong.

And we argued with him.

And then skyeagle was wrong again.

And we continued to argue with him.

Along the way there were snippets about cases which haven't been solved. But those discussions were broken up because skyeagle refused to admit that he was wrong and continued to argue.

Welcome to the present. And we'll probably continue arguing with skyeagle about how he is wrong, but he won't admit it.

That about sums it up.

Hope you had a great vacation! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi 1963. The Sears Tower and Hancock Center are about 1.5 miles apart, so you're really not looking a very large area in that photo. That's because the camera was zoomed in quite a bit. The camera data is available on the Flickr page (click on the "Canon PowerShot SD790 IS" link in the upper right corner of the page). The data shows that the camera was zoomed in to full telephoto and was also using an extra 2.85x digital zoom. For that camera, that's about equivalent to a 300mm telephoto lens on a 35mm camera. That's a pretty powerful magnification.

The same basic thing is happening with the Phoenix lights "K" video (the source for the screen shot in your link above). Watch the video and notice just how far the camera zooms in to get a closeup of the lights:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=KdIdDpJYSOM

I think the lights would've actually appeared pretty small to the naked eye from this location. Here's another shot from Google Earth showing a wider view from the hill where the video was shot. To give a bit of perspective, the cameraman is standing on a 300 foot high hill overlooking the neighborhood below, and the hill in the middle distance which blocks part of the mountains is about a mile away. I've added a scaled frame of the video footage for comparison to make it clear just how far zoomed-in the video really is.

KViewwithFlaresVideoOverlay.jpg

Hi booNy. Thanks for posting Bruce Macabbee's length estimates (and thanks again for all of the information you've been posting on this topic. You dug up a lot of great stuff!)

The lights I was playing with in Google Earth are flares 5 through 9 using Maccabee's numbering scheme. The pattern I laid out is about 2 miles long. That may be a bit longer than the distance Bruce would have estimated for that portion of the array, but it's pretty close and well within the margin of error considering the coarseness of the data we're working with.

P.

People down below in the valley, and across Phoenix, saw the same lights, which indicates that those lights were just a few miles from the camera, not over the BGR as they were high overhead as indicated by the fact that people down in the valley had watched the lighs as well, and, they were not flares over the BGR either. They should have been an indicator right there that the lights were not flares over the BGR. Another reason why the Air Force initially denied involvement and another is that the Air Force was unable to provide any operational report at all when requested, which indicates that the

A-10s were nowhere over the BGR at 10 PM, but then again, those lights were not indicative of flares from more than 50 miles away.

There are many indicators that the lights were not flares and others that such lights cannot be seen from the Phoenix area, and I am surprised that those indicators are still being overlooked.

And, once again, the 'rate of movement,' of the lights, and you will notice that I didn't say 'rate of decent,' are not indicative of flare drops from more than 50 miles away. In addition, I have provided the elevations of both, Phoenix and of the BGR, and that is very significant as well.

Tons of indicators, and yet, the dots are not being properly connected, so once again, others who have seen the Air Force demonstration and the earlier sighttings, have said there were no comparison between the events.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been wondering where you were arenee. No need to read through the whole 30 pages, I'll give you a synopsis:

Skyeagle was wrong.

Then, Skyeagle was wrong again.

Then, people (like your man and quillius) started talking about cases which weren't completely refutable. That lasted a bit.

Then skyeagle continued to be wrong.

And we argued with him.

And then skyeagle was wrong again.

And we continued to argue with him.

Along the way there were snippets about cases which haven't been solved. But those discussions were broken up because skyeagle refused to admit that he was wrong and continued to argue.

Welcome to the present. And we'll probably continue arguing with skyeagle about how he is wrong, but he won't admit it.

That about sums it up.

Hope you had a great vacation! :P

:tu::lol::rofl:

I was in North Carolina trying to get killed by a tornado. :o I put it in my status sheesh! ;)

Well thanks for the update. Any chance we might bring up some of the cases that were forgotten in lieu of bickering? Those might be fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing Sky's hung up on IMO is that an Air Force Officer had said that a 'Flare dropped at 6,000 ft and ignited at 3,000 ft would be visible at 150 miles.' I'm paraphrasing but that is the gist of the statement. Sky somehow seems to think this is proof that the 'Flares' were actually dropped at that Altitude.

Nope. there were no flares involved. Even at higher altitudes, you are not going to see any flares over the BGR down in the valley, which makes it all the more compellng the lights were not flares over the BGR, but there is more as well.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been wondering where you were arenee. No need to read through the whole 30 pages, I'll give you a synopsis:

Skyeagle was wrong.

Then, Skyeagle was wrong again.

Then, people (like your man and quillius) started talking about cases which weren't completely refutable. That lasted a bit.

Then skyeagle continued to be wrong.

And we argued with him.

And then skyeagle was wrong again.

And we continued to argue with him.

Along the way there were snippets about cases which haven't been solved. But those discussions were broken up because skyeagle refused to admit that he was wrong and continued to argue.

Welcome to the present. And we'll probably continue arguing with skyeagle about how he is wrong, but he won't admit it.

Sorry, but I am 'RIGHT ON THE MONEY!!'

Those lights were not flares over the BGR more than 50 miles away, and another indicator was that the Air Force was unable to produce any after action reports when requested and that should have opened some eyes then, especiallyl when the Air Force denied any involvement in the first place.

That should have set off the alarm bells right there!!.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, the photo.

Draw and straight line to the top of the highest building at 1400 feet and note the degrees above the horizone from more than 50 miles away.

Now, place a 3000-foot mountain between the Chicago skyline and the camera. The challenge is the find what happened to the Chicago skyline as it is no longer visible..

Next, elevate yourself 1500 feet higher and try to find what happened to the Chicago skyline.

Where is it? Definitely still not in view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. there were no flares involved. Even at higher altitudes, you are not going to see any flares over the BGR down in the valley, which makes it all the more compellng the lights were not flares over the BGR, but there is more as well.

.

Sky,

Yes, you can see those 'flares'.

I've presented evidence that Allied Fliers could see 'fires' burning in Germany at Altitude over the 'Channel'. Here we are only talking about 77 miles at most. These 'flares' would be brighter than the brightest stars if someone bothers to calculate the luminosity which is directly related to distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky,

Yes, you can see those 'flares'.

I've presented evidence that Allied Fliers could see 'fires' burning in Germany at Altitude over the 'Channel'. Here we are only talking about 77 miles at most. These 'flares' would be brighter than the brightest stars if someone bothers to calculate the luminosity which is directly related to distance.

From Skeptoid.com - The Alien Invasion of Phoenix, Arizona:

The Barry M. Goldwater Range is a big place — over 4,000 square miles — and the Phoenix metropolitan area is even larger, about 14,000 square miles. The distance between the two is usually cited at 60 to 80 miles, but as we can see, that's going to depend on a lot. We do know a little about where the A-10's were flying inside the Goldwater Range. The guy who was in the lead A-10, Lt. Col. Ed Jones, says they were near Gila Bend when they ejected the leftover flares, and Gila Bend is just about exactly 50 miles from downtown Phoenix. Mesa and Scottsdale are farther away, so let's take a super rough stab at it, be conservative, and say that the average observer of the Phoenix Lights was 70 miles away from the A-10's. The brightness of the LUU-2 seen from 70 miles away is roughly equal to a star with an apparent magnitude of somewhere between -3.2 and -4.3, which is significantly brighter than any stars visible in the sky, but not as bright as the full moon. The magnitude scale was developed by the astronomer Hipparchus, where +1 represents the brightest star in the sky, and +6 represents the faintest. -3.2 is quite a bit brighter than the brightest star. The noonday sun has an apparent magnitude of -26.7. Thanks to the guys on the Bad Astronomy and JREF forums who helped me with these calculations.

And for booNy, regarding your earlier post about the effective candlepower of the flares, you were off just a bit...

From the paragraph immediately preceding the one quoted above:

Let's spend a moment examining the flare said to be used in the incident. The A-10 drops two different kinds of flare: a countermeasure flare, used to confuse heat-seeking missiles; and an illumination flare, used to light up the ground at night either for the benefit of troops on the ground or to light up a target so it can be visually targeted for weapons release. The illumination flare is the one we're talking about. It's called the LUU-2 air-deployed high intensity illumination flare. It's made by defense contractor ATK Thiokol. The variant in use at the time of the Phoenix Lights incident was the LUU-2B/B. It weights 30 pounds and its canister is three feet long and 5 inches in diameter. Once it ejects its parachute and ignites, it puts out 1.8 million candela for 4 minutes, or 1.6 million candela for 5 minutes. It falls in its parachute at 8.3 feet per second. At 1000 feet above the ground, it lights up an area half a kilometer wide at 5 lux. The LUU-2's pyrotechnic candle burns magnesium, which produces an intense white light. Because it burns so hot, it also ends up burning the aluminum canister, which adds an orange hue to the light for most of the burn. About halfway through the burn, enough of the canister has been burned away that it actually lightens the load and it falls more and more slowly. Once it's almost completely out, an explosive bolt disconnects the parachute and the flare drops, burning out completely sometime hopefully before landing on someone's wood shingle roof.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, the photo.

Draw and straight line to the top of the highest building at 1400 feet and note the degrees above the horizone from more than 50 miles away.

Now, place a 3000-foot mountain between the Chicago skyline and the camera. The challenge is the find what happened to the Chicago skyline as it is no longer visible..

Next, elevate yourself 1500 feet higher and try to find what happened to the Chicago skyline.

Where is it? Definitely still not in view.

And you've accounted for the curvature of Earth by doing what?

Ignoring it. That's impressive.

Not only that but this photo is meaningless. If you think there is something to see then spell it out so it can be checked and confirmed, or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dip out for one week guys...one whole week and this monster of a thread grows by like 30 pages!!! How's a girl to keep up? Maybe I should just assume it's the usual bickering and start from the end? Can anyone tell me if it's worth it go back and try to catch up the proper way or if I can start from here and not feel too lost? :angry:

There was a lot of stuff about sines, cosines and tangents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to think I'm arguing with you, when I am in fact, or so i thought, agreeing that aircraft flying slowly can look like UFOs, and so can flares, probably.

Hey 747400,

I'm used to disagreeing with people a bit, it's nothing personal and sometimes text just doesn't come across as it is meant to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The magnitude scale was developed by the astronomer Hipparchus, where +1 represents the brightest star in the sky, and +6 represents the faintest. -3.2 is quite a bit brighter than the brightest star. The noonday sun has an apparent magnitude of -26.7.

That seems a bit counter-intuitive, doesn't it. You'd expect the brightest things to register highest on the scale, you'd expect something measuring +6 to be a bit brighter than -26.7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those lights were not flares over the BGR more than 50 miles away, and another indicator was that the Air Force was unable to produce any after action reports when requested and that should have opened some eyes then, especially when the Air Force denied any involvement in the first place.

That should have set off the alarm bells right there!!.

But the Air Force lie about things routinely, don't they? What about all those R

oswell

cover stories? So are you saying that it should be suspicious that they denied any involvement, or their denial of involvement shows that they weren't there at the time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems a bit counter-intuitive, doesn't it. You'd expect the brightest things to register highest on the scale, you'd expect something measuring +6 to be a bit brighter than -26.7.

Well, you can thank the ancient Greeks for that...

From Wiki - Magnitude (Astronomy)

The magnitude system, and the reason that objects get brighter with decreasing magnitude, dates back roughly 2000 years to the Greek astronomer Hipparchus (or the Alexandrian astronomer Ptolemy—references vary) who classified stars by their apparent brightness. Originally the brightest stars were rated magnitude 1, the next brightest were magnitude 2, and so on down to magnitude 6 for the faintest stars visible to the naked eye.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you can thank the ancient Greeks for that...

you can read more about them here.....> link

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the Air Force lie about things routinely, don't they? What about all those R

oswell

cover stories? So are you saying that it should be suspicious that they denied any involvement, or their denial of involvement shows that they weren't there at the time?

i guess q was recently speculating about the af acting out weirdly because of their concerns that the plasma phenomenon would be perceived as eti... :mellow:

link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Skeptoid.com - The Alien Invasion of Phoenix, Arizona:

And for booNy, regarding your earlier post about the effective candlepower of the flares, you were off just a bit...

From the paragraph immediately preceding the one quoted above:

Cz

Thanks for the clarification regarding the optional candela strengths Cz. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:tu::lol::rofl:

I was in North Carolina trying to get killed by a tornado. :o I put it in my status sheesh! ;)

Well thanks for the update. Any chance we might bring up some of the cases that were forgotten in lieu of bickering? Those might be fun.

Zoiks, that sounds exciting! Trying to find an alternate route to Oz are we? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe me arenee already Lives in Oz ! And she`s got a FTL craft to get her there !justr ask her !

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.