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

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.

what is so special about them? why doesn't natural phenomenon *cough* plasma apply to those cases? please be specific.. let hear it

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.

do you still think that they should be taken out of the equation because of the duration of the observations?

Microm just brushed all those off with a sentence or two, which never impresses me.

no i haven't... i have repeatedly asked you to point out the ones which you think disqualify natural phenomenon... but in the process hear you shouting back with old data (outdated observations which were fallacious to begin with)... those observations were made at a time when the science behind such phenomenon was in its infancy i.e. was not set in stone... but somehow you think that by making appeals to authority you can get around said arguments.. 'x said'... it doesn't work like that i'm afraid...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

hiya quillius... what they might have thought (individually or collectively ~ a debatable can of worms itself) is a different matter altogether i.e. they could have had various beliefs based on their observations back then... but the very fact that they were still looking for answers in a paranoid manner tells me that they never figured out anything about the phenomenon in the first place imo

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...??

we always look upon them to be in control of what they're doing, perhaps the reason why we think they knew what they were talking about... do you think that is the case?

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

even if, say, roswell was a reality, which i doubt... how could that disqualify the fact that plasmas exhibit all the ufo'y characteristics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I've seen that happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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......

i don't believe that all uaps are plasmas... we still haven't figured out what going on in our skies and that we still have a lot to uncover... uap to me is unidentified aerial phenomena....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

i don't get that...

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.

i wonder how many of those characteristics were recorded in each case study... :unsure2:

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

something we can all agree to.... :tsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29345834.jpg
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no i haven't... i have repeatedly asked you to point out the ones which you think disqualify natural phenomenon... but in the process hear you shouting back with old data (outdated observations which were fallacious to begin with)... those observations were made at a time when the science behind such phenomenon was in its infancy i.e. was not set in stone... but somehow you think that by making appeals to authority you can get around said arguments.. 'x said'... it doesn't work like that i'm afraid...

None of this is true, and I am just not going to keep answering this same type of post over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen that happen.

Me too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of this is true,

:rolleyes:

Life magazine ran an article in 1952 titled "Have We Visitors from Space?" which mentioned Lincoln LaPaz and the "green fireballs". They did indeed give off some kind of copper residue, but they were not meteorites, ball lightning or anything else along those lines:

how did you reach to such a conclusion?

I didn't. LaPaz and others reached it long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did I reach such a conclusion? I have seen the ETs, microm, or at least I saw the pictures of them. More than one of their craft have crashed (or been shot down) and the truth is that they have been shooting at 'em since 1947.

For some reason, though, an order was given not to shoot at this particular bunch, although planes were sent up after them at times, but with orders not to fire.

That much is in the record.

The ones I saw in the pictures came down shortly after the events described here, however, but not all that much later--and in the same part of the world.

Do you think a nuke could knock one of them down? Some people at the time thought so, but of course that required presidential approval.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did I reach such a conclusion? I have seen the ETs, microm, or at least I saw the pictures of them.

3553cl.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

sadly mcrom...you have now reached rock bottom.... :cry:

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bee can you hop on one of those 27,000 mph Star ships ? Texas needs a good soul to help us through the Last Election, There seems to bee still too many Republicans in this state ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3553cl.jpg

You can bet your bottom dollar that I will, old boy, to anybody and everybody. Count on it.

And think of this, microm, nothing you can do or say will change that. It just doesn't matter. How do you like them apples?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

sadly mcrom...you have now reached rock bottom.... :cry:

Psyche was on here saying that we should really take him seriously, but somehow I could never bring myself to do that.'

Now everyone can see why. He also told me to kill myself, just for "laughs".

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I understand. I did not understand where he was coming from at first as well, but when I looked closely at what I had taken for mirth, I was rather shocked at the thought and in depth information presented.

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.

With regards to the theodolite cases, in this thread, the reasoning really does appear to be driven by paranoia as opposed to logic.

"The fireballs mysteriously ceased appearing before the theodolites could go to work. Dr. Mirarchi concludes that spies must have tipped off the saucers' home base."

That sounds very much like war talk exaggerated. Which seems supported by the conclusions drawn at the time by several notable people that the aliens must be coming from Venus and Mars - more a territorial fear.

McLaghlin's UFO wasn't a fireball was it? His evaluations were clearly speculations, he and Clyde Tomanbaugh indeed concluded if they were alien ships that they most likely came from Mars.

LINK <<- Not sure if the link will go to the right page, of not, page 98 states the claim.

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.

Agreed, but again, does not the size indicate a Hessdalen type phenomena?

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.

I can't see that being the case. He specifically refers to and quotes the Koi conclusion offered in part by yourself. If I may, when you stated that Plasmas were discounted, he provided documentation that challenged that conclusion. Namely the Condig report and the Twinning memo, which seem to revolve roughly around the time frame in question. When you brought up Issac Koi's rebuttal, he directed you to a thread where Koi himself offers the same view again over at ATS.

I understand your offence to the death Caricature, as they say it takes all types and mcrom most certainly is a unique personality. But that is a fair call on your behalf I grant. Dark humour is an acquired taste.

I think, and please correct me if I am wrong mcrom, is that the links both state (post #225 mcrom) well after the quote provided in your post that none of the work considered poor makes the subject invalid, it in fact advocates a scientific viewpoint.e.

Conclusion

Even on a preliminary review of its content, numerous severe flaws in the Condign Report can be readily identified.

As stated above, the severe flaws in the Condign Report highlighted below do _not_ mean that the plasma theory (or any other theory) is necessarily wrong, and they certainly do not mean that the claims that extraterrestrials are visiting Earth are true. Publications of such sloppy quality give skepticism a bad name.

and that the evaluations despite the harsh review are being validated today with the QUT Paper, both coming to the same conclusions that conditions created by a fireball ignite atmospheric plasmas. Even ones that last a couple of seconds would make a significant show when traveling at 30 times the speed of a bullet. That is still a great deal of ground covered in a short time, and something we would consider extraordinary.

Edited by psyche101
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:

I agree, a vast array of cases to read and consider. McGuffin always provides a thorough and intriguing read.

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.

I agree as well, from the link provided by Quillius:

Picture1.jpg

A most spectacular phenomena.

2 people like 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:

Not at all, I rather enjoy your unique perspective. It has caught me off guard, and I rather like surprises, even slightly embarrassing ones ;) I really think you bring something good to the forum, and I enjoy your posts, and our conversations. Very much so.

And I have always appreciated that you have considered, and complied with requests that avoid getting me strung out, like 911. Your a good with me mate. :tu:

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:

Indeed and I can see that, I hopefully have made the point clearer, hopefully we "old school guys" can come to an agreement ;) There is indeed powerful data from many studies ranging from the time of La Paz to right here and now, indicating that if La Paz chose to scratch this from the list, he was thinking about it decades before others, but as modern technology is starting to show, somewhat hobbled by science. I repeat that I would love for La Paz to be able to give an evaluation with todays findings which support what seems to be even La Paz's initial evaluation for him to eventually disqualify some instances as meteors.

You have given me a challenge or two in the past. I do not think MacGuffin realises what a strong ally you could be. ;)

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...

Gidday mate

I think the interview seems cut short. Do you know if a longer version, or more recent exists, you seem to have a knack for links. In a paragraph above it, he calls these "Phenomena" not "Craft" :

5/ Beside the three main types of HP (i.e. white or blue flashed; big yellow lights, several lights together); could you tell us more about the others kinds of sightings that are reported? Could provide a recent testimony for illustrating this? These three different types consists each of many different types of lights. For instance “big yellow light”, can have many different shapes, lifetime, moving behavior etc. There are also some types which does not fit into any of these “big” boxes. There are daylight observations, which are not a light. But there are very few of such sightings. It can be different solutions to all of these types of phenomena.

Personally I fid the "Black Hole" rather interesting.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

sadly mcrom...you have now reached rock bottom.... :cry:

.

I think that honour is yours today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psyche was on here saying that we should really take him seriously, but somehow I could never bring myself to do that.'

Now everyone can see why. He also told me to kill myself, just for "laughs".

I do not know, I think you handle yourself just fine. I reckon your a tough old bird ;) Nobody can dispute that if a case is mentioned that you are probably the best bet on this forum to have heard of it. And as I always say, it's obvious that you know the case, you do not just Google. You do deserve respect for your vast repository.

Edited by psyche101
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hiya quillius... what they might have thought (individually or collectively ~ a debatable can of worms itself) is a different matter altogether i.e. they could have had various beliefs based on their observations back then... but the very fact that they were still looking for answers in a paranoid manner tells me that they never figured out anything about the phenomenon in the first place imo

morning! however we do not know if it is just what they 'thought' as opposed to 'knew'. I dont agree with the paranoid manner being due to having figured nothing out, it could quite as easily (if not more so) be because they knew they were dealing with an unknown ET who may or may not have war like intent...this would make me paranoid far less so than an unknown.

having said all that what in particular makes you think it was a paranoid manner in which they looked for answers?

we always look upon them to be in control of what they're doing, perhaps the reason why we think they knew what they were talking about... do you think that is the case?

I would just think it strange that they would jump to the ET conclusion when they must have many 'brains' amongst the ranks...look at here on UM and the resounding unwillingness to take that leap of faith without scientific proof....why would the powers that be not be the same way inclined...its quite a big thing isnt it to say ET has visited without some robust information/data with or without knowledge on UAPs gained over the years

even if, say, roswell was a reality, which i doubt... how could that disqualify the fact that plasmas exhibit all the ufo'y characteristics?

hmmmm, I would say firstly I didnt think it was fact that plasma for example can appear mettalic and solid in structure....granted there is a strong suggestion that a phenomena observed in Hessdalen (which may be at best be a type of unknown plasma) has displayed these characteristics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't believe that all uaps are plasmas... we still haven't figured out what going on in our skies and that we still have a lot to uncover... uap to me is unidentified aerial phenomena....

but believe that all UFOs are UAP's, right? (obviously excluding birds planes venus etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't get that...

well, neither do I really however I would guess it is a line of thought based around the Abrahamson model which I believe has restricted conditions....but I could well be talking out of my behind here so need to read up on old notes/docs.

i wonder how many of those characteristics were recorded in each case study... :unsure2:

pass

something we can all agree to.... :tsu:

and that there was a cover up :) (based on either belief OR knowledge)

2 people like this

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.