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

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" :

Personally I fid the "Black Hole" rather interesting.

Cheers.

Gidday mate, here is a link to interview (havent looked for longer version yet) plus the couple that were by a UM member..

http://www.uapreporting.org/?p=1589

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/column.php?id=207536

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/column.php?id=200292

:tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is quite an interesting read, with Erling Strand, Haines and Vallee all in one

I remember a while back where Vallee alluded to 'trace evidence' whilst giving a talk at a conference.....I think this is what he was talking about.....(approx page 208)

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_12_2_sturrock.pdf?q=ufo

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

hiya matey :tu: absolutely, the condign report had hypothesized that..

"It also seems reasonable to assume that any material which, having sped through the atmosphere at enormous velocity and attained a very high ionisation temperature, must exist in gaseous form before dispersing. It is postulated that it may, instead of (or as well as) forming a gaseous plasma viewed as a visible luminous stream, form (due to variations in atmospheric density and other factors) a single or several plasma bodies."

"Many meteors are of no consequence being microscopic in size. They would not produce a plasma with sufficient energy. However, some of the meteors which have reached the surface as meteorites are known to contain magnetic and other elements. On entering the atmosphere they may already have properties (e.g. electrical or magnetic currents) of unknown magnitude, of which we are unaware and which may influence their final form as they come towards the earth."

"They will either completely burn up, impact as meteorites or, from the rationale above, it is therefore suggested that under certain conditions the residual material from a meteor could form a buoyant plasma or 'fireball' in the lower atmosphere"

with key findings....

"It is noted that the co-incidence of peak meteor dates and UAP reports is statistically very high and cannot be due to chance"

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/541351B2-79D4-4845-9A74-8E2DCDB661A5/0/uap_vol1_pgs56to71_ch3b.pdf

and that's a decade before the austrailian paper validated some of those assumptions... granted that there might be several errors in the above report, but i don't think it disqualifies their objective stance... another mistake which koi was making was that he was setting up prerequisites for the existence of plasmas to begin with i.e. arguments regarding atmospheric conditions, lightning, etc... i don't think that's a wise move provided we are still learning about said phenomena.. in any case, that's why i had referenced persinger's tectonic strain theory.... :st

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

hiya q... if i'm not mistaken it's an outdated stance regarding the very short existence of 'ball lightning' i.e. conventional plasma

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

let's say for a moment that et was indeed flying in the skies... are they just appearing to display their super flying capabilities? is there anything objective which resembles intelligence in what we have observed to date?

Edited by mcrom901

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gidday mate, here is a link to interview (havent looked for longer version yet) plus the couple that were by a UM member..

http://www.uapreporting.org/?p=1589

http://www.unexplain...n.php?id=207536

http://www.unexplain...n.php?id=200292

:tu:

Thanks mate. I had seen them, and now that you have linked them, we can see both seem to be leaning towards a very earthly solution.

L: 5. What about that 5% Hessdalen unsolved case? Is in that percentage just “solid objects” or also plasma with sharp geometric shapes? Do you think that it is another phenomenon? How can plasma have sharp geometric shape?

Massimo Teodorani: This is still an unsolved problem. At present we can only take note of it but we have not yet a rigorous physical theory able to explain it. And of course we do not know how these very particular shapes can match the much more standard spherical one within the same physical mechanism. What we know is that some of these geometric shapes have been surrounded sometimes by smaller spheres in the same clustering mode reported before. We suspect that this is a part of the same phenomenon, but we cannot explain it yet and so far, not even using work hypotheses. I like to think, anyway, that as snow is composed of very geometric snowflakes, maybe also plasmas in particular conditions can form a similar geometric structure: after all, like physicist David Bohm noticed once, plasmas are extremely “cooperative” structures, meaning that electrons and ions do not behave independently but rather collectively within an intrinsic order dictated by electrical forces inside. This happens without any need to think that snowflakes or plasmas are intelligent or that they represent “portals from somewhere”. These are also possibilities, of course, but they are still too exotic to be considered seriously as true scientific work hypotheses. Anyway, the still very exotic question of “intelligence within a plasma formation”, as a possible consequence of “plasma life forms”, has been recently examined by me, within the framework of researches that have been published by other researchers, which show that in particular conditions plasmas may behave like a life form. I will discuss this delicate issue at the end of this interview.

11. How far did SETV project go in Hessdalen? Is there any new momentum in that direction (possible exogenous probes)?

“Possible exogenous probes”: No, such are speculations, which may be based on some sightings. It is ok to have speculations, but you must never forget it is speculations, which may be wrong. I don’t claim it is wrong, but we don’t have any proves on the existence of such probes.

If the speculations are put forward as facts, the real scientific data can be drowned in the speculations, and people may put everything in the “only speculation” box. That may destroy the facts and the whole field.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best thing about U of M is not the facts,nor the Lack of there in but The Facts that so many of U of M ers see only far enough to get through one of the million words we all put down. So How are we ever going to answer the question ?

Was it a UFO that was going 27,000 MPH. Or was it just some lazy Plasma ?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hiya matey :tu: absolutely, the condign report had hypothesized that..

"It also seems reasonable to assume that any material which, having sped through the atmosphere at enormous velocity and attained a very high ionisation temperature, must exist in gaseous form before dispersing. It is postulated that it may, instead of (or as well as) forming a gaseous plasma viewed as a visible luminous stream, form (due to variations in atmospheric density and other factors) a single or several plasma bodies."

"Many meteors are of no consequence being microscopic in size. They would not produce a plasma with sufficient energy. However, some of the meteors which have reached the surface as meteorites are known to contain magnetic and other elements. On entering the atmosphere they may already have properties (e.g. electrical or magnetic currents) of unknown magnitude, of which we are unaware and which may influence their final form as they come towards the earth."

"They will either completely burn up, impact as meteorites or, from the rationale above, it is therefore suggested that under certain conditions the residual material from a meteor could form a buoyant plasma or 'fireball' in the lower atmosphere"

with key findings....

"It is noted that the co-incidence of peak meteor dates and UAP reports is statistically very high and cannot be due to chance"

http://www.mod.uk/NR...56to71_ch3b.pdf

and that's a decade before the austrailian paper validated some of those assumptions... granted that there might be several errors in the above report, but i don't think it disqualifies their objective stance... another mistake which koi was making was that he was setting up prerequisites for the existence of plasmas to begin with i.e. arguments regarding atmospheric conditions, lightning, etc... i don't think that's a wise move provided we are still learning about said phenomena.. in any case, that's why i had referenced persinger's tectonic strain theory.... :st

Great information mate, indeed you have well illustrated that the meteor solution just wont be quashed easily. Fo people to keep returning to that basic start must mean it has significance, and the only option we are sure of. Whilst many have attempted to extrapolate the natural solution further, as we can see every attempt fails and we and up back at a meteor with a plasma sheath.

I guess what I mostly do not understand is why is there opposition to the modern solutions. I agree early work was very good, and I understand people "pushing the boundaries" but in this case, each push has not come to fruition.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the Condign Report's content, in accordance with the

relevant Terms Of Reference ("TOR"), largely relate to the

statistical analysis performed, one might have expected the

plasma-UFO theory advanced in the report to be supported by the

statistical analysis. With this in mind, readers may wish to pay

particular attention to the page of the report which actually

deals with an attempt to find a correlation between UAP reports

and weather conditions (Volume 1, Chapter 3, page 21, para 50).

The relevant page stresses the fact that an attempt was made to

analyze "the most obvious factor - that of the potential of

enhanced electrical conditions in the atmosphere". However, the

results of the consideration of several samples were mixed, with

the overall conclusion being drawn that "there are many

occasions when UAP reports are received when there is no

recorded thunder conditions and hence no enhanced electrical

activity in the form of lightning. On those occasions (other

man-made objects excepted) UAP must be caused by something

else".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hiya q... if i'm not mistaken it's an outdated stance regarding the very short existence of 'ball lightning' i.e. conventional plasma

hello....dont know if 'outdated' is the correct term for it...but yes it relates to ball lightining, I think it is used within the link below to show how conventional plasma is not able to explain the HP. It seems to me (in my layman way of interpreting) that basically the HP as a whole requires various characteristics from differing types of plasma to explain those shown by the HP. Even so I think there are many unknowns in regards to the HP with two of the main being a- what is the energy source and b-does this 'plasma' type display intelligent behaviour that is beyond 'reactions'...is it a possible life form?

let's say for a moment that et was indeed flying in the skies... are they just appearing to display their super flying capabilities? is there anything objective which resembles intelligence in what we have observed to date?

I dont think its so much the flying capabilities alone that determine intelligence but also the timing and locations of such displays. I guess the question itself 'is there anything resembling intelligence' is quite a loaded question which will always fall back onto interpretation without accurate data. I mean, below I will post Teodorani's thoughts on plasma life forms.....this is the part in question 5, which his response ends in 'I will discuss this delicate issue at the end of this interview', Psyche posted the answer to question 11 which is not the follow on he alludes to as 'the end of the interview' (not suggesting Psyche intentionally did this but just thought I would make sure nobody jumped to the incorrect conclusion)

Thanks mate. I had seen them, and now that you have linked them, we can see both seem to be leaning towards a very earthly solution.

L: 5. What about that 5% Hessdalen unsolved case? Is in that percentage just “solid objects” or also plasma with sharp geometric shapes? Do you think that it is another phenomenon? How can plasma have sharp geometric shape?

Massimo Teodorani: This is still an unsolved problem. At present we can only take note of it but we have not yet a rigorous physical theory able to explain it. And of course we do not know how these very particular shapes can match the much more standard spherical one within the same physical mechanism. What we know is that some of these geometric shapes have been surrounded sometimes by smaller spheres in the same clustering mode reported before. We suspect that this is a part of the same phenomenon, but we cannot explain it yet and so far, not even using work hypotheses. I like to think, anyway, that as snow is composed of very geometric snowflakes, maybe also plasmas in particular conditions can form a similar geometric structure: after all, like physicist David Bohm noticed once, plasmas are extremely “cooperative” structures, meaning that electrons and ions do not behave independently but rather collectively within an intrinsic order dictated by electrical forces inside. This happens without any need to think that snowflakes or plasmas are intelligent or that they represent “portals from somewhere”. These are also possibilities, of course, but they are still too exotic to be considered seriously as true scientific work hypotheses. Anyway, the still very exotic question of “intelligence within a plasma formation”, as a possible consequence of “plasma life forms”, has been recently examined by me, within the framework of researches that have been published by other researchers, which show that in particular conditions plasmas may behave like a life form. I will discuss this delicate issue at the end of this interview.

11. How far did SETV project go in Hessdalen? Is there any new momentum in that direction (possible exogenous probes)?

“Possible exogenous probes”: No, such are speculations, which may be based on some sightings. It is ok to have speculations, but you must never forget it is speculations, which may be wrong. I don’t claim it is wrong, but we don’t have any proves on the existence of such probes.

If the speculations are put forward as facts, the real scientific data can be drowned in the speculations, and people may put everything in the “only speculation” box. That may destroy the facts and the whole field.

Massimo Teodorani: Yes. You caught the big point, here. Since three years, after the publication of this prominent physics paper by German and Russian scientists (Tsytovich et al.):

http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/9/8/263/fulltext

I started to consider quite seriously the possibility that some behavior of Hessdalen-like lights might be explained as “plasma life forms”: and this is another work hypothesis that I have decided to ponder and evaluate in depth. I have identified several concrete elements in the Hessdalen-like phenomenology that might match quite well with this possibility. Concerning this I remind you that yet in my 2004 JSE paper (page 233) I mentioned some observations that I did in which some kind of secondary ball ejections mimic very well the cellular multiplication process. In addition to a divulging science article of mine in Italian, I discussed quite extensively this hypothesis also in the last chapter of my 2008 book “Sfere di Luce” (Macro Edizioni). More or less at the same time, after studying some additional hypotheses based on “quantum entanglement” and on brain studies, together with a colleague of mine I prepared a research project in this specific sense. You can find it here as a poster that we presented 3 years ago at the Naturwissenshaften in Salzburg (Austria) during the Quantum Mind 2007 Congress:

http://www.scienzaemistero.com/2007/imm/QM-MTGN2.jpg

( Teodorani M. & Nobili G. (2007). “Anomalous Light Phenomena vs. Brain Electric Activity”. Abstract at: http://www.sbg.ac.at/brain2007/abstracts/posters.htm )

Of course we do know quite well (even if published almost nothing technical yet in long papers on this specific issue) that very many witness exist in the world who report a kind of “interaction” with this kind of phenomena. This happened also to some scientists (not me and my colleagues, anyway). In the light of what has been published in recent papers concerning the “plasma life hypothesis”, and also supporting ourselves with some recent findings in some applications of quantum theory in mesoscopic situations (such as microtubules in the brain) and the electrically cooperative nature of plamas, we decided to prepare some feasibility study all aimed at a specific goal that may be synthesized in this question: is it possible to demonstrate scientifically that some plasmas are “life forms” and that they are occasionally able to interact with us? We think that this is demonstrable and/or disprovable scientifically if only the experiment we proposed will ever be attempted with the necessary completeness and rigor (we did only a little part of it so far, in particular studying the EEG “theta state” of a witness who was with us somewhere in the Apennines just in concomitance with some sightings we all had). Of course this hypothesis can be also disproved by the fact that it might be the light phenomenon itself (without being “intelligent” at all) to induce hallucinations due to the electromagnetic field that it produces (such as in Persinger’s theory in neurophysiology) in people. We hope to conduct this experiment soon: not easy to carry out, but possible. You’ll see details of this research project in our Austrian 2007 poster.

Of course if really a “plasma life form” exists, after looking how it imitates the DNA replication and evolution, we cannot exclude that such kind of “life” may evolve into a form of “intelligence” here and everywhere in the Universe. This possibility needs to be studied using both experimental rigor and quantitative approach and a healthy open mind, such as Science should require always. If this hypothesis were proved, then we would have a dramatic revolution both in physics and in what we think we know of two processes named Life and Intelligence

Edited by quillius
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello....dont know if 'outdated' is the correct term for it...but yes it relates to ball lightining, I think it is used within the link below to show how conventional plasma is not able to explain the HP. It seems to me (in my layman way of interpreting) that basically the HP as a whole requires various characteristics from differing types of plasma to explain those shown by the HP. Even so I think there are many unknowns in regards to the HP with two of the main being a- what is the energy source and b-does this 'plasma' type display intelligent behaviour that is beyond 'reactions'...is it a possible life form?

I dont think its so much the flying capabilities alone that determine intelligence but also the timing and locations of such displays. I guess the question itself 'is there anything resembling intelligence' is quite a loaded question which will always fall back onto interpretation without accurate data. I mean, below I will post Teodorani's thoughts on plasma life forms.....this is the part in question 5, which his response ends in 'I will discuss this delicate issue at the end of this interview', Psyche posted the answer to question 11 which is not the follow on he alludes to as 'the end of the interview' (not suggesting Psyche intentionally did this but just thought I would make sure nobody jumped to the incorrect conclusion)

Gidday Mate

The "venture" into the possibility of Plasma life forms even though quite specualtive, is still suggesting an earthly source is it not? A type of life, the existence and mechanisms being that which we are unaware of?

Would this not support a "Spiritual" argument as opposed to an ET one?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plasma ? Life ? dont they call our blood plasma ? :tu:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello....dont know if 'outdated' is the correct term for it...but yes it relates to ball lightining, I think it is used within the link below to show how conventional plasma is not able to explain the HP. It seems to me (in my layman way of interpreting) that basically the HP as a whole requires various characteristics from differing types of plasma to explain those shown by the HP. Even so I think there are many unknowns in regards to the HP with two of the main being a- what is the energy source and b-does this 'plasma' type display intelligent behaviour that is beyond 'reactions'...is it a possible life form?

i think it all comes down to our own categorizations i.e. what we think is conventional based on certain observational features, but it doesn't mean that we can contain said phenomena as a whole at any fixed limitation... science progresses & newer data is added to our collective knowledge all the time... what i meant by outdated was regarding the conclusions at the ufo-plasma conference of 1967...

"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."

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

one of the reasons the b-47 case was considered unusual was because of the duration of the observation... hence why i feel that the data they were using to reach any specific conclusion was outdated, or it didn't simply apply, because it was not a simple 'ball lightning' i.e. of the type that we have categorized as such.....

I dont think its so much the flying capabilities alone that determine intelligence but also the timing and locations of such displays.

are you referring to military installations? i don't think that we have any statistical data which makes any such distinction i.e. the percentage of occurrences compared to other locations... but it would be interesting to hear your thought about this...

I guess the question itself 'is there anything resembling intelligence' is quite a loaded question which will always fall back onto interpretation without accurate data. I mean, below I will post Teodorani's thoughts on plasma life forms.....this is the part in question 5, which his response ends in 'I will discuss this delicate issue at the end of this interview', Psyche posted the answer to question 11 which is not the follow on he alludes to as 'the end of the interview' (not suggesting Psyche intentionally did this but just thought I would make sure nobody jumped to the incorrect conclusion)

no worries, you can ignore my earlier question... on the other hand, teodorani has some fascinating ideas, i never heard about those experiments... though it was a research proposal... was it ever carried out? from your link... https://www.sbg.ac.a...cts/posters.htm it is mentioned...

a) to verify quantitatively the existence of one very particular kind of mind-matter interaction and to study in real time its physical and biophysical manifestations; b.) to repeat the same kind of experiment using the same test-subject in different locations and under various conditions of geomagnetic activity. REFERENCES. 1. Nobili G. (2002) “Possible bio-physical interference of the electromagnetic field produced by Hessdalen-like lights with human beings”. Workshop on Future Research on the Hessdalen Project, Hessdalen, August 10, 2002 : http://hessdalen.hio...ia_ABSTRACT.pdf

i tried locating that paper from nobili, but couldn't find any published literature in the database... just the workshop pdf which is mentioned above... without any real data... i will try looking for it again... cheers :tu:

Edited by mcrom901
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Call mate.

The folks at NARCAP are doing a great service.

If the UAP was at a higher altitude than the witness and in straight and level flight, perceptu- ally speaking, it would have appeared to be rising as it passed him.

Exactly how La Paz hypothesised intelligent behaviour :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly how La Paz hypothesised intelligent behaviour :tu:

I have yet to see 'intelligent control' explained or defined in a manner that successfully excludes reactionary behaviors exhibited by natural phenomena like plasmas. I'm not sure that it can be without adding to the amount of data required to come to such a conclusion (i.e. more than just performance characteristics).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have yet to see 'intelligent control' explained or defined in a manner that successfully excludes reactionary behaviors exhibited by natural phenomena like plasmas. I'm not sure that it can be without adding to the amount of data required to come to such a conclusion (i.e. more than just performance characteristics).

I agree, what we perceive as intelligent may not be at all, it seems to be more a persons perspective than anything else.

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of NARCAP, what does Richard Haines really say about UFOs? This is what I'm talking about here when I say they are not just plasmas and meteors. Nothing I post ever has anything to do with those, which do not interest me in the slightest.

He insists that UFOs are almost never "misidentified natural phenomena" and that's the truth. He knows that from investigation thousands of UFO cases.

[media=]

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here Haines tells about a famous case that Hynek investigated of a very large UFO that was most definitely not a meteor, plasma or anything like that.

None of the cases I posted on here were either.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=b_Dm3vzhNYo[/media]

Edited by TheMacGuffin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here were have a report on 600 "UAP" cases, 27% of which are radar-visual, 14% reported electromagnetic effects, and 78 were on a collision course with aircraft, etc.

In 31 cases, pilots had to take evasive action to avoid an actual collision. Anyone who reads this should be convinced that in many cases, these "UAPs" are certainly not plasmas, ball lightning, meteors or anything even remotely similar. This is yet another reason I simply cannot accept microm's views on UFOs.

http://narcap.org/files/narcap_IR-4_DWeinstein_NEW_3-21-12.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of NARCAP, what does Richard Haines really say about UFOs?

what does he say?

This is what I'm talking about here when I say they are not just plasmas and meteors.

and what is that?

Nothing I post ever has anything to do with those, which do not interest me in the slightest.

so, none of the cases you present here are due to natural causes? how is that? i've asked you a few times already to point them out... but it seems that you're still confused with regards to the distinction i.e. uap vs ufo.... what sets them apart? point it out... prove it... which case.... data please...

He insists that UFOs are almost never "misidentified natural phenomena" and that's the truth.

i haven't watched the clips you posted... but i can guarantee beforehand that you're putting words in his mouth...

UFOs are almost never "misidentified natural phenomena"

:rolleyes:

from narcap...

"An unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) is the visual stimulus

that provokes a sighting report of an object or light seen in the sky,

the appearance and/or flight dynamics of which do not suggest a

logical, conventional flying object and which remains unidentified

after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are

technically capable of making both a full technical identification as

well as a common-sense identification, if one is possible." (Haines,

Pp. 13-22, 1980)

The term "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena" or UAP is an attempt to address

the fact that not all UAP are described as unidentified flying objects or UFO.

Many are simply described as unusual lights. NARCAP feels the term "UAP"

more accurately reflects the broad scope of descriptions in aviation reports as

well as the possibility that these phenomena may arise from several different

sources.

The answers to the questions regarding the existence, source and nature of the

subcategory of UAP referred to as UFO will be found in the data. Given that

pilots do report aerial phenomena that they describe as structured objects,

NARCAP feels it is appropriate to give attention to the witness' description of

what was seen or detected and engage it objectively.

so.. let's cut the chase... which cases are you referring to? i'm talking about the ones re 'structured objects'

i haven't seen any data which suggested otherwise from what i've seen so far from him... http://narcap.org/Project_Sphere.html

Possible Explanations for Sighting Reports

4.1 Weather and Other Types of Balloons (Kim Efishoff)

4.2 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and Other Airborne Objects

(Terry Osborn and R. Haines)

4.3 Ball Lightning and Earthlights (R. Haines)

so, what are you talking about here? specifically?

He knows that from investigation thousands of UFO cases.

he knows what? that ufos are almost never misidentified natural phenomena?

Edited by mcrom901
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here Haines tells about a famous case that Hynek investigated of a very large UFO that was most definitely not a meteor, plasma or anything like that.

and which case is that that hynek definitely ruled out natural phenomena?

None of the cases I posted on here were either.

40060b32-634c-4a4c-9fbb-68853851c524.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here were have a report on 600 "UAP" cases, 27% of which are radar-visual, 14% reported electromagnetic effects, and 78 were on a collision course with aircraft, etc.

http://narcap.org/fi...NEW_3-21-12.pdf

where in that report does it state that natural phenomenon had been ruled out?

In 31 cases, pilots had to take evasive action to avoid an actual collision.

because the aliens were too dumb to avoid the collision on their part?

Anyone who reads this should be convinced that in many cases, these "UAPs" are certainly not plasmas, ball lightning, meteors or anything even remotely similar.

and what should be the basis for said conviction?

This is yet another reason I simply cannot accept microm's views on UFOs.

i know the main reason behind that one... i'll quote...

I have seen the ETs, microm, or at least I saw the pictures of them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi mcrom I guess you have never seen a ufo?

Have you even ever seen a plasma or UAP?

I expect you dont know if you have... or have not?...

:yes: Have a nice day

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi mcrom I guess you have never seen a ufo?

Have you even ever seen a plasma or UAP?

I expect you dont know if you have... or have not?...

:yes: Have a nice day

memes-not-sure-if-all-the-things-or-just-the-similar-things.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, i read the above report and will quote some of the criteria (restricted to ball lightning) which he uses to highlight a distinction....

Comparison of BL and UAP Reported by Pilots and Others

While a strong supportive case can be made that an individual pilot sighting report was

caused either by BL or a UAP because it "fits" most of the distinctive characteristics of either

phenomenon this does not prove that all UAP actually are BL nor does it prove the opposite.

When pilot sighting reports contain sufficient supporting data and are carefully analyzed it

becomes clearer than the two phenomenon are indeed different from one another in several

ways. Here we shall consider three of them: appearance, motion (behavior), and duration of

so-called UAP. For the sake of discussion we will make the still unproven asserttion that they

are different phenomenon.

bolded for emphasis.... bear in mind that the argument isn't about what they are but what they could be... :cat:

Appearance: Do most UAP look any different from BL or put another way, are the

appearances of each one so different that they do not overlap in their visual characteristics at

all? Of course, the obvious answer must be yes and no, depending on the particular data that

is being analyzed. In Section IX of his review of sightings over the thirty year period of 1964

to 1994 Hall (2001) shows how diverse the appearance of UAP (he calls them UFO) are; he

covers structure (i.e., shape), lights, and colors. Elsewhere in this report (5.2) the author has

reviewed a number of other investigators' work to find out what percentage of the total

sightings were represented by each shape. Table 2 summarizes the key points from this review

to illustrate the relatively high percentage of spheres that were reported.

and what are the shapes in question? spheres? or, deformed spheres? :huh:

ub50c0a60f.jpg

anyways.... :unsure2:

cntd...

In order to carry out a comprehensive comparison of UAP and BL visual features it would

require an enormous amount of time and resources.16 Nevertheless, we have noticed that a

relatively large percentage of UAP are described as large, reflecting or self-luminous, solid (or at

least rigid) objects (spheres in the present case) that are on the order of several m or more in

diameter). It may be pointed out from Rayle's survey data that the estimated diameters of BL

range in the 1 to 35 inch range with a few somewhat larger.17

It is understandable that there are so few accurate measurements either of BL or UAP

because humans are notoriously error-prone in making this judgement for many reasons (Haines,

1980). Nevertheless, there are enough pilot reports of extremely large spherical UAP that are

(later) shown not to be balloons to suggest that they are not BL.

they're not ball lightning because of the size? i see where the flaws are beginning to creep in from... :yes:

to the rest of the points in question...

Motion (Behavior): As Singer (1971) has documented, a phenomenon called BL or "fireballs"

have appeared near airplanes in flight and some have entered the interior, often by passing

directly through the cockpit windshield!18 There are no reported instances of UAP doing this,

usually because of their enormous size as discussed above. Also, some UAP are described as

performing complete and even repetitive loops around an airplane in the vertical plane and others

in a horizontal plane. If BL is the cause of these reports one must explain how it carries out such

complex trajectories. The hypothesis that BL follows an ionized pathway near an airplane fails in

this regard. Finally, some UAP are described as coming to a complete stop in the air while the

airplane continues flying away; the phenomenon then accelerates at a high rate to catch up with

the airplane and then slow to its exact forward velocity for a time before departing or

disappearing. Again, proponents of this hypothesis must explain how it occurs.

Even a cursory review of the serious literature describing UAP shows that some can attain

velocities many times the speed of sound as well as extremely high accelerations. BL, on the

other hand, are very seldom described in these terms.

an incomplete hypothesis doesn't discount the phenomena at large i'm afraid... again, a lot of restrictive comparisons to ball lightning & hence the insufficient data... most of those characteristics have been observed to have been displayed by 'non-conventional' plasmas... :alien:

Duration: As shown in Table 3, pilots in flight see UAP over a wide range of durations as

might be expected. Nevertheless, with a grand mean duration of more than eleven minutes this

translates to many miles of sustained travel beside (or in the vicinity) of the airplane. Whether BL

can achieve this is open to serious question based on current knowledge of this ubiquitous

phenomenon.

i think we have covered this point a few times already... :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.