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

and what should be the basis for said conviction?

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

That is correct, mricrom, and you can choose to accept it or not, I have no control over that, but I knew about all this decades ago and no one on here has ever been able to change my story even one iota. I saw what I saw and that's it.

A million "skeptics" could never change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

That is why I posted those videos about what Richard Haines was really saying as the head of NARCAP, so people would not simply go by your misleading information.

He said that almost none of the thousands of UFO reports he investigated could be explained as "natural phenomena". If you have a problem with that then I suggest you take it up with him, not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what does he say?

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

Yes, that's exactly what he said. He has been saying that for decades, and either you did not know that or you simply neglected to mention it.

I don't think that ANY of the UFO reports I posted on the first pages of this thread are "natural phenomena" and you have no offered the slightest proof that they were, just a lot of phony speculation and conjecture dressed up to look like 'science", but it is really pseudo-science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is why I posted those videos about what Richard Haines was really saying as the head of NARCAP, so people would not simply go by your misleading information.

misleading information? check the paper above ^^^^

He said that almost none of the thousands of UFO reports he investigated could be explained as "natural phenomena". If you have a problem with that then I suggest you take it up with him, not me.

it's you who's presenting his data.... so either defend it or? but it seems you don't like getting involved in the dirty details... you just love ignoring the facts and making sweeping statements which originate from lalaland...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's exactly what he said. He has been saying that for decades, and either you did not know that or you simply neglected to mention it.

no, he doesn't say that... i have quoted his paper above... in which he has taken the erroneous leap to restricting the reality of plasma phenomena to 'ball lightning' only.... btw, he also mentioned about the research at hessdalen....

Earthlights

Perhaps earthlights (EL) are some kind of physical counterpart of ball lightning. Like BL,

EL have generated a plethora of explanatory hypotheses over the years yet there is little

agreement on any one so far; happily we now see the activity of several highly qualified

teams of investigators willing to actively study them in the field. The work of Strand,

Teodorani, and co-workers is particularly noteworthy (2.4).

with fallacious interpretations....

"It would seem that EL do not generally pose a threat to flight safety because of their low

altitude and short duration. However, if they should occur at or near a runway at night the

situation could change quickly."

as pointed out to you earlier... http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=238097&st=90#entry4553161

The lights could be split in three groups: - 1. Small and strong white or blue flashes, which could show up everywhere in the sky.

- 2. Yellow or yellow-white lights. These lights have very often been seen in the valley, just over the roof of the houses, or even down on the ground. They could be stationary for more than an hour, move slowly around in the valley, and sometimes show large accelerations and speeds. They could also be higher up in the sky. Mostly they moved on a north/south course.

- 3. Several lights together with a fixed distance from each other. Mostly it was two yellow or white lights with a red in front. Many people talked about "The object", when they saw this type of light. These lights could move slowly around the top of the mountains. The direction of "travelling" was mostly on a north/south course.

I don't think that ANY of the UFO reports I posted on the first pages of this thread are "natural phenomena" and you have no offered the slightest proof that they were, just a lot of phony speculation and conjecture dressed up to look like 'science", but it is really pseudo-science.

w000000000000t

According to this 1949 FBI report, the objects were spherical and extremely fast, with speeds of three miles per second up to twelve miles per second, or 27,000 miles per hour. They were first seen in December 1948 and kept returning night after night, usually singly but sometimes in groups.

Their flight path was East to West and usually level, although sometimes vertical motion was also observed, and their altitude was six to ten miles. Almost always the Los Alamos nuclear labs seemed to be their main "target".

Calling them "green fireballs" was inaccurate since they could also be red, orange, white or blue, and one spectrum analysis indicated that they were composed of copper compounds similar to those being used in rocket experiments at that time. Some people speculated that they had a self-destruct mechanism, but in any case they disappeared as fast as they appeared and left no physical traces.

There was no scientific explanation for them, except that there were some never-before seen natural phenomenon or they were man made.

I thought they were explained as typical meteors with an intense shockwave that creates a phenomena similar to an aurora?

I'll have a look for a link - Here it is - Green Fireballs and Ball Lightning. LINK

Never saw that one before.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is correct, mricrom, and you can choose to accept it or not, I have no control over that, but I knew about all this decades ago and no one on here has ever been able to change my story even one iota. I saw what I saw and that's it.

campfire talk?

foudre.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's you who's presenting his data.... so either defend it or? but it seems you don't like getting involved in the dirty details... you just love ignoring the facts and making sweeping statements which originate from lalaland...

Simply untrue,obviously based on your personal dislike for me.

campfire talk?

Simply untrue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, he doesn't say that... i have quoted his paper above... in which he has taken the erroneous leap to restricting the reality of plasma phenomena to 'ball lightning' only..

Also untrue. You have made three statements on here that are completely false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont you love stuff that goes bump in the night ? :no:

post-68971-0-81572900-1354848303_thumb.j

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

I saw a UFO in New Zealand, I had no reason at all to think it was anything but natural phenomena.

Do you not find mcroms information valid?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My UFO was doing at least 27,000 MPH then to a stationary pace with my aircraft,then back out of sight ,One thing for certain IT WAS NOT PLASMA NOR NATURAL ! Stuff like that ,if your lucky happens in your life time !

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a UFO in New Zealand, I had no reason at all to think it was anything but natural phenomena.

Do you not find mcroms information valid?

Hi psyche the most valid point mcrons made is...

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

He has me convinced the whole universe is strewn with plasma but I believe that LIFE is just as universal.

Convince me UFOs and ET arent real...

Until then, do you not find the Macs information valid..?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The terrestrial UFO speed limit for earth is 20,000 mph. I've already issued a ticket. :passifier:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi psyche the most valid point mcrons made is...

He has me convinced the whole universe is strewn with plasma but I believe that LIFE is just as universal.

Well, you would be right to believe him. It's created in every sun. That's pretty much the whole Universe.

Convince me UFOs and ET arent real...

Now why would I do that? I have never said UFO's are not real, nor have I said ET is not real, I am just saying the evidence is not convincing enough to say UFO's and ET are related. As I mentioned, I have seen a UFO myself in recent times, and two, possibly three in my life. I am also an avid astronomer who looks at the stars often. I know that the building blocks for life have been detected in many parts of space, I feel ET is out there, and UFO's are yet to be explained. IMHO, UFO's will have many explanations eventually, not just one.

If you have a specific case that you find convincing, I would be more than happy to discuss it.

Until then, do you not find the Macs information valid..?

Indeed I do, and have said so, it has formed the basis for modern research which has carried that torch. All I am saying is that every paper McGuffin has presented is quite old - mainly 50's and 60's and that those papers influenced people to continue studies that today offer new and exciting solutions to these aged conundrums. Once the QUT Paper is peer reviewed, it will indeed answer pretty much all of the questions I have seen about Green Fireballs.

Being a keen amateur astronomer, I am reasonably aware of meteor facts, and they cover all anomalies listed, and I have pointed that out and listed them. McGuffin has laid out a beautiful paper trail that shows a learning path man has taken. It's quite worthy and valuable, but not with regards to modern conclusions.

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The terrestrial UFO speed limit for earth is 20,000 mph. I've already issued a ticket. :passifier:

If you cited a figure ten times that fast, you might be getting closer to the truth. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of plasmas are seen, but usually in short bursts. Plasma weapons are another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Haines has indeed written about plasmas and "earth lights", but don't expect someone like microm to tell you the truth about what he REALLY said. He doesn't dare, because it shoots his ideas all to hell.

Piezo-electric Effects. Persinger has postulated in many papers that intense E-M field generated by the stress of tectonic plate movements in the Earth's crust can produce plasmoid luminous balls of varying color, size, and brief duration (typically under 15-20 seconds) (1976, 1979). Klass (1968) has proposed a somewhat less precise but similar hypothesis for the UFO phenomena involving ball lightning. Both gentlemen have failed to explain how such a phenomenon can travel high into the atmosphere (as is reported by many airplane pilots) or how the contained plasma can sustain itself for periods of time as long as those reported here (conservatively up to 20 minutes).

And, as Rodeghier (1988) has stated, ". . . there is no a priori reason to expect anything but a random distribution of piezo-electric events by hour of the day. in direct contrast with the bimodal distribution shown in Figure 1. Until such explanations are forthcoming and are supported by field observations and laboratory research the piezo-electric effect should be placed near the bottom of any list of credible explanations of the present high altitude E-M events.

92-figure1L.gif

Plasma Sheath Interference. A plasma is a particular region within a gas discharge containing very nearly equal number of positive and negative ions. Apparently, its neutral charge affords it some stability of character over time. It's form is thought to result from magnetic fields which establish a reasonably defined interface with surrounding air. It is well known that radio transmission can be disrupted or blocked altogether by atmospheric ionization. This occurred during the re-entry of manned spacecraft into the Earth's atmosphere as the plasma sheath surrounding the space capsule blocked radio communication.

The charged particles of a natural plasma move at random and would be expected to produce an apparently random interference pattern known as white noise or static in radio and television transmissions. Klass (1968; pg. 95) has suggested that most UFO phenomena are explained by natural atmospheric plasmas without ever considering the possibility that such plasmas are not a natural phenomenon at all but a by-product of the UFO phenomenon itself! Of course a contained ball of plasma could not reach beneath the hood of a car without being dissipated by the metal hood of an automobile or the engine cowling of an airplane, or could it?

There are numerous verified accounts of ball lightning contacting a commercial aircraft in flight and somehow finding its way inside the passenger and crew compartment(s), sometimes to exit silently at some point or other times to explode with a loud clap. How the plasma enters the fully enclosed volume has never been explained but it does! It is a scientific fact that a magnetic field will be generated by the electrically charged particles within a plasma.

http://www.google.co...pSGDmyDP4KO2nxA

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haines wrote this article in 1992, by the way, not in the 1950s or 1960s.

Reports of anomalous aerial objects (AAO) appearing in the atmosphere continue to be made by pilots of almost every airline and air force of the world in addition to private and experimental test pilots. This paper presents a review of 56 reports of AAO in which electromagnetic effects (E-M) take place on-board the aircraft when the phenomenon is located nearby but not before it appeared or after it had departed. These effects are not related to the altitude or airspeed of the aircraft. The average duration of these sightings was 17.5 minutes in the 37 cases in which duration was noted. There were between one and 40 eye witnesses (average = 2.71) on the aircraft. Reported E-M effects included radio interference or total failure, radar contact with and without simultaneous visual contact, magnetic and/or gyro-compass deviations, automatic direction finder failure or interference, engine stopping or interruption, dimming cabin lights, transponder failure, and military aircraft weapon system failure. There appears to be a reduction of the E-M energy effect with the square of increasing distance to the AAO. These events and their relationships are discussed. This area of research should be concentrated on by other investigators because of the wealth of information it yields and the physical nature of AAO including wavelength/frequency and power density emissions.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CD8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nicap.org%2Fpapers%2F92apsiee.htm&ei=CIPBULbZLpGc9QSlmoBQ&usg=AFQjCNH1w8KJaMW1l8H2NMLoJaV-PWknMw&sig2=f554XNepSGDmyDP4KO2nxA

92-figure4L.gif

92-figure5L.gif

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haines and many others have reported and investigated UFOs that also have plasma sheaths, but mircom will never tell you about that either. For example:

UAP, as many of you know, is the acronym preferred by National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena in an effort to delouse the UFO stigma. Just this year, NARCAP founder Richard Haines, a retired NASA scientist, completed an extensive UAP analysis that didn’t rate any press whatsoever. And unlike the Turner-Loeb scenario, there was nothing hypothetical about it.

On Sept. 17, 2010, as five prop-job planes flew in wingtip formation some 3,500 feet above the Chilean capitol, something sublime and bizarre passed above them. No one saw it at the time, but the UAP turned up on a series of 12 photos taken over an 11-second span. In his 39-page report, the cautious but exacting Haines discovered that while the UAP maintained its relative size throughout the sequence, it appeared to change shape, which was more or less a “vertically oriented spindle or Saturn shape.”

Haines, using wind data, was able to disqualify balloons from the suspect list. With an assist from “luminance stretching,” he detected a “halo” above and around the object. That effect, he stated, “may represent heat radiating (and rising) from the core of the UAP.”

The sequence left Haines stumped. Though the skies were clear and cloudless that day, his best guess was a “luminous contained plasma.” He also noted the somewhat geometric UAP nearly morphed into translucence in several frames. “If this is an accurate observation,” Haines wrote, “then further research is called for on physical mechanisms that can produce this type of periodic ‘transparency’ or ‘cloaking’ effect.”

What may be more remarkable than the UAP, however, is the source of the photos. They were recorded by an official Chilean Air Force photographer. The images worked their way up the military chain of command and were eventually forwarded to Haines via Chile’s Committee for the Study of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena, under a data-sharing agreement signed with the nonprofit NARCAP last year.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CHIQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdevoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com%2F12466%2Fthe-curious-gratification-of-nimby-science%2F&ei=CIPBULbZLpGc9QSlmoBQ&usg=AFQjCNHxfQpeeGhq2D_OxYOF_ApetPMa2g&sig2=Cu6V1mtue5tLAJb-V6bECg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is a link to the Haines report of the 2010 UFO pictures from Chile, which once again was not in the 1950s and 1960s. He stated that these UFOs shown in the 12 pictures were surrounded by plasmas.

They were also metallic objects, flying 18 times faster than the jets, but mircom will never tell you about cases lie these either. What will he tell you about? He talks a lot but says very little.

http://www.narcap.org/files/narcap_CEFAA_BanderaFINALFINAL_summary.pdf

chiliel_bosque_nov_4__2010__jpg_disc1.jpg

chiliel_bosque_nov_4__2010_.jpg

chiliel_bosque_nov_4__2010__jpgcloser.jpg

http://www.nationalufocenter.com/artman/publish/article_442.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't believe anything these people like mircom say about me, or about UFOs, just look at what I post and then judge for yourselves.

"Gen. Bermúdez showed the analysis done by the astronomers from CEFAA’s External Committee of Advisors, which established that the object was not a meteoroid, a comet, reentry of space junk, a bird or an airplane. Furthermore, the scientists’ report stated the UFO undertook “a risky maneuver in front of the Halcones from west to east” and that it did “a flight maneuver at low altitude and high speed.” The report also established that “the object shows light and shadow effects of metallic like reflections and shows ellipsoidal shape” and that “the land observers do not detect the object in spite that it passes over their heads, thereby it is not accompanied by a sound wave.” Finally, the report’s final significant point indicates “the object moves east with 25 degrees inclination. This is the same angle spacecraft enter the atmosphere.”

To recap the salient details about the El Bosque multiple footage case, Gen. Bermúdez stated in his IUFOC lecture that, “we have studied this case in different ways. First we gave it to the astronomers, who used their own software; second, we gave the film to the air force specialists (FACH’s Aerial Photogrammetric Service). Third, we did our own internal study; we also asked the opinion of Dr. [Richard] Haines and Bruce Maccabee. Maccabee agreed with our astronomers and Richard [Haines] said that there is an unknown aerial phenomenon.”

http://www.nationalu...article_442.php

chile_multiple_ufo_screen_capture_kean.jpg

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leslie Kean is another person who is telling the truth about UFOs, and naturally she's taking a lot of flak for it from the cover up boys, but that will happens to ANYBODY who does so.

The Chilean “Committee for the Studies of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena” (CEFAA), is located within the Department of Civil Aeronautics (DGAC), the equivalent of our FAA. It is the official organization dedicated to investigate UFOs/UAP.

General Ricardo Bermúdez is the director of the CEFAA. A former fighter pilot, who later served as an air attaché in London, he was chief commander of the Air Force´s Southern Area. He was also the Director of the Technical School of Aeronautics, the School of Engineers, and the sub-Director of Chile’s Air Force Academy. He co-founded the CEFAA in 1998.

The mission of the CEFAA is to “record and analyze all relevant reports concerning UAP occurring within the national territory, on the basis of a serious, objective and scientific analysis with the purpose of determining any possible risk to air operations.” This issue is taken seriously and accepted throughout the country, among the citizens and the institutions.

The CEFAA meets regularly with an external committee of scientists in different fields, an internal committee from within the Aeronautics Department, and liaison officers from the Army, Air Force, Navy and Police, which provide their own cases for analysis.

The CEFAA’s example should be followed all over the world. Officials at the DGAC accept that this phenomenon is a serious issue worthy of attention. They recognize that it is something that concerns many people and cannot be ignored. To do so would be irresponsible.

http://ufosontherecord.com/research/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Gidday,

not so sure its suggesting an earthly source.....I mean there is no understanding of the energy source as it stands without invoking plasma life forms into the equation...

I dont entirely follow with regards to the spiritual v ET argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.....

well yes to an extent however this may not be the only factor considered in reaching said conclusion, plus there is still the small problem of 'the HP could be intelligent/life'.....so who is right in that instance :)

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...

yes military is part of my thought process. I mean if you look at the document that McG posted, we can see that there are cases where the missiles/guns on the aircraft were disarmed at the time they were about to engage target....now granted the detail of said claims needs to be looked at but I think if this is teh case then again the timing of malfunction would raise an eyebrow an indicate 'intelligence' to me....

I will come back to you on this.

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:

I have been looking but to no avail....however I am finding some fascinating things which probably deserve a thread of their own.....woudl be based around 'intelligence/probability' in regards to some of these encounters with pilots etc....(and maybe even cases like portage county.

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).

Hey S2F,

yes I think this is the key really, I have considered a thread where we can discuss just this aspect and provide examples of cases that go towards excluding reactionary behaviour.

wording such as this (if accurate)

military aircraft weapon systems were momentarily ineffective when targeted towards the UAP .

if a one off then coincidence comes into play...if it happens a few times then probability starts working against 'randomness' and may possibly suggest 'intelligence', so I dont think we should be restricted to manouverability alone when discussing intelligent behaviour but all collective factors should be considered.

Edited by quillius
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.