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 2
TheMacGuffin

UFOs with Speeds up to 27,000 MPH

472 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 think he is trying to qualify the terminology. If the specific cases that draw more attention are not really "Green Fireballs" It might pay to see if we can make a distinction to separate them from the known natural phenomena. Some appear to be very badly named as they have been described as flares fired from the ground.

If one case is specifically indicative, it might pay to use it as a reference for discussion?

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.

I know you would not post anything mundane, as this is not the section for it. But this is where I see your posting as very valuable. You do have very good case knowledge and can source the most obscure documents. La Paz did see some of these sightings as amazing, such as his own which he felt changed direction to travel upwards. Yet we have seen since that time papers detailing erratic flight paths of meteors. In 1950, it was probably amazing (and it still is to be sure) but La Paz was likely the first person astute enough to notice and record this. With more people carrying that torch today La Paz himself I am quite sure would have much more to say on the subject, and be able to qualify that which he felt was "unnatural" as natural. Whilst La Paz was obviously a very intelligent man, he was hobbled by the technology of the time frame. It sure would be fascinating to see his take on todays papers.

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

Funny enough when I first hit these boards I had mcrom figured for a believer. However like Lost Shaman, I think he is more netral than most of us who are all stuck in the mindset of Believer/Skeptic. He is outside that box, and I would be reluctant to put any sort of label on him. mcrom I have no doubt is more than interested in pushing an ET point if he finds it a valid option. I used to think he was a joker, and have come to quite respect him as I found in those happy posts was some information that turned me on my head. I like his quirky and happy manner, he always leaves me smiling after reading one of his posts. But I am sure with time you would come to agree mcrom is neither believer nor skeptic. He is simply mcrom.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny enough when I first hit these boards I had mcrom figured for a believer. However like Lost Shaman, I think he is more netral than most of us who are all stuck in the mindset of Believer/Skeptic. He is outside that box, and I would be reluctant to put any sort of label on him. mcrom I have no doubt is more than interested in pushing an ET point if he finds it a valid option. I used to think he was a joker, and have come to quite respect him as I found in those happy posts was some information that turned me on my head. I like his quirky and happy manner, he always leaves me smiling after reading one of his posts. But I am sure with time you would come to agree mcrom is neither believer nor skeptic. He is simply mcrom.

I always thought of him as a joker, but not a particularly funny one, just a wise guy who gets his jollies by needling people.

As for the cases, I always thought the ones that they filmed and tracked with the theodolites were important, as were the ones that followed Cmdr. McLauglin's missile.

The strangest UFOs of all were the ones that tripped the radiation detectors at Mt. Palomar observatory, and the small ones that were chasing around Ft. Hood for hours.

Microm just brushed all those off with a sentence or two, which never impresses me. It's also discourteous but that's the world we live in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or do you believe that the 'cover-up' automatically translates to et?

hello mcrom,

I think this is a good place to start......

confirmation of a 'cover up'!

I have always maintained that it seems the powers that be DID believe that some UFO cases were in fact ET.

do you agree or do you believe they just covered up an 'unknown' and did not think it was ET?

If they did think it was ET then I need to ask why? The reason I ask is that we are linking plasma due to the many characteristics mentioned...i.e. duration,metallic appearance, speed, 'attraction' to craft and vehicles etc...what if their belief/knowledge was not because of said characteristics but to do with a more direct event..i.e. have seen aliens, recovered craft, found a drone etc etc...??

If this is the case then further understanding of plasma and other UAP is irrelevant in said context dont you think?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whilst on the subject of plasma and Erling strand, I love this part of his interview a while...

9/ In a recent interview, you have stated that “…you have had several daytime observations, where you have seen flying discs, etc…”Even if not related to the HP, could you please provide more details on such sightings? I have had only three daytime observations, so the word “several” is wrong. I have however seen several unexplainable “things”, – such which goes into another category than HP or ufo. Two of those three observations was a flying disc. The third was a “black hole”. I did not get the impression that I was looking onto a black object, it was more like a hole into something completely black. This “black hole” changed size all the time.

Thanks Erling for this interview and you success with your Project Hessdalen

this alone IMO shows that not all 'flying objects' that are unidentified could fall into the UAP field unless we are to really force the old square peg into that round (disk shaped) hole...

Teodorani himself says that even though there is many elements recorded that show plasma characteristics, there is STILL and overlap of something else......

So I would in summary say that not only can they not confirm that the phenomenon in Hessdalen is a form of plasma, if they could they would still have an unknown that overlaps. So I think its a little way off yet to label all UFO's as plasma when the phenomenon itself that portrays these important charachteristics (mettalic, speed etc) has not been determined as plasma...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Various aspects of atmospheric electricity were reviewed, such as ball lightning, and tornado and earthquake luminescence. Unusual UFO reports were presented for discussion. These included a taped report by a B-47 pilot whose plane was paced for a considerable time by a glowing object. Ground radar reported a pacing blip which appeared to be 16 km from the aircraft. After review the unanimous conclusion was that the object was not a plasma or an electrical luminosity produced by the atmosphere.

Participants with a background in theoretical or experimental plasma physics felt that containment of plasma by magnetic fields is not likely under atmospheric conditions for more than a second or so. One participant listed the characteristics that would be expected to accompany a large plasma. These are

  1. thermal emission,
  2. production of ozone and odor of N2O
  3. convective air motions,
  4. electrical and acoustic noise,
  5. unusual meteorological conditions.

Another plasma physicist noted that a plasma explanation of certain UFO reports would require an energy density large enough to cause an explosive decay. Atmospheric physicists, however, remarked that several reports of ball lightning do indicate unusually high energy densities.

All participants agreed that the UFO cases presented contained insufficient data for a definitive scientific conclusion.

http://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/s6chap07.html

apologies if this has been covered already!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Various aspects of atmospheric electricity were reviewed, such as ball lightning, and tornado and earthquake luminescence. Unusual UFO reports were presented for discussion. These included a taped report by a B-47 pilot whose plane was paced for a considerable time by a glowing object. Ground radar reported a pacing blip which appeared to be 16 km from the aircraft. After review the unanimous conclusion was that the object was not a plasma or an electrical luminosity produced by the atmosphere.

Participants with a background in theoretical or experimental plasma physics felt that containment of plasma by magnetic fields is not likely under atmospheric conditions for more than a second or so. One participant listed the characteristics that would be expected to accompany a large plasma. These are

http://www.project19...n/s6chap07.html

apologies if this has been covered already!!

I posted quite a few things along these lines, but since they got totally ignored I just gave up talking about it.

I just don't see any reason to keep repeating myself and getting no real response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a video about general UFO history that mentions Project Sign, Project Twinkle, the "green fireballs" investigation and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, the Washington DC UFOs of July 1952 should property be described as a radar-visual case since the objects seen on radar were also seen by witnesses on the ground and in the air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, the Washington DC UFOs of July 1952 should property be described as a radar-visual case since the objects seen on radar were also seen by witnesses on the ground and in the air.

hey McG, do you know of any debunks for the 1952 ufos?

What is the lead explanation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey McG, do you know of any debunks for the 1952 ufos?

What is the lead explanation?

The official story was temperature inversions causing radar "ghosts", but this was known to be false at the time, given how many of these "ghosts" had been seen, chased and even shot at.

It's exactly the type of explanation that gives the debunkers such a bad name, so that they just don't seem credible about anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The official story was temperature inversions causing radar "ghosts", but this was known to be false at the time, given how many of these "ghosts" had been seen, chased and even shot at.

It's exactly the type of explanation that gives the debunkers such a bad name, so that they just don't seem credible about anything.

ok thanks.

I have read that there were numerous sightings over approximately 15days in July.....in addition there were some 'eyewitnesses' which I guess kind of goes against temp inversions' (assuming the eye witness part is true)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok thanks.

I have read that there were numerous sightings over approximately 15days in July.....in addition there were some 'eyewitnesses' which I guess kind of goes against temp inversions' (assuming the eye witness part is true)

There were probably hundreds of eyewitnesses and more reports than anyone could keep track of.

Some of them were even seen to go straight up into space at very high speeds, which is how many of them "disappear". Anyone who says that never happens is just telling you something completely bogus.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were probably hundreds of eyewitnesses and more reports than anyone could keep track of.

Some of them were even seen to go straight up into space at very high speeds, which is how many of them "disappear". Anyone who says that never happens is just telling you something completely bogus.

dont worry I am not the most trusting of individuals....paranoia doesnt allow me to be ;):gun:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating subject as ever TMcG, keep up the good work, always enjoy reading the cases you bring to light. :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

deep bows psyche... thanks for your kind words (for understanding me / my position :P ) appreciated mate... :nw:

I think he is trying to qualify the terminology.

mcg is having a tough time swallowing that... i have already stated a few times in this thread that the data from the old cases is simply insufficient to make any positive id... and that i'm not here to say what they definitely were, but rather what cannot be dropped from the qualifying candidate list... but somehow he thinks that i'm ignoring the old cases... he very well knows the difference between meteors & plasma formations, but in the process of ridiculing the labeling of natural phenomenon he portrays himself as a confident confused guy somehow... is it because of the outdated stuff he references? i dunno... :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.