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

Man this is such a tough room ! Lets give the Mc G some room shall we ? :tsu:

There are five posts up above that I have on ignore and will not be responding to, so it is a waste of time for that individual to ask me anything.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a tough room because there's no real doubt that the UFO cases I posted up front here are real and very well-documented. They were unexplained at the time and remain unexplained, regardless of some of the hot air that has been spewed out in response.

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a tough room because there's no real doubt that the UFO cases I posted up front here are real and very well-documented. They were unexplained at the time and remain unexplained, regardless of some of the hot air that has been spewed out in response.

Unexplained is unexplained. I don't think anyone here has tried to say that they were explained, unless I missed something. Can we agree that they are unexplained? I can agree to that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unexplained is unexplained. I don't think anyone here has tried to say that they were explained, unless I missed something. Can we agree that they are unexplained? I can agree to that.

That's easy enough for me to agree to, since I have no idea at all what these things were. If anyone ever knew, there's no record of it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taniwha - first up, thanks for engaging politely and asking questions - makes a pleasant change from some here..

Thanks Charlz, Im thinking maybe a smeared image might be attributed in part to extreme speed of object?
Yes, it might. But it could also be *entirely* explained by camera shake, so that point is moot - neither Maccabee, MacGuffin, I or the finest investigator on the planet can possibly make any determination on that. However, that doesn't stop MacGuffin handwaving and making silly statements that the effect proves enormous speeds - it does no such thing.
Watch Macs post and it seems clearly to show a multicoloured disc shape that exceeds conventional explaination as its motion is described by the eyewitness the best he can, and regardless of obvious camera shake and plane vibrations seems to genuinely capture in very good detail the moments at hand.

That's lovely prose, but is it based on anything measurable or properly describable? Or is it just your personal incredulity? I'm not trying to insult you - but how have you *measured* the movement? How have you decided that it is not camera shake? Do you have experience with cameras of this type and understand the logistics of using one handheld on a plane? And can you quote the statements 'described by the witnesses' that you are basing this on? I'm not seeing what you are seeing...

For me, as a photographer, strange shapes like that loop are easy to create using a camera set to about 1/30 or longer, with a telephoto lens and a bumpy ride. I've even deliberately done it for artistic effect - I'll see if I can dig up the slides (yes, I'm that old that I used film.. :P)

But for someone like you (or MacG) that may not have done much night photography with a decent manual camera, such a thing may seem unexplainable or indicative of tremendous speeds - but it's NOT.

As an analogy - I find much of quantum physics incomprehensible - that's why I don't post at quantum physics forums, because I'd get it wrong just like some here get it wrong so often... One might think they were doing it deliberately, if one was cynical.. But I DO know photography and imaging, really, really, really well. My knowledge on that topic is only exceeded by my modesty. :D

The Kaikoura UFO footage could be stabilised like the Bigfoot footage could it not Charlz?

Nope, sorry. Well, you could stabilise the point of light I suppose, but it wouldn't give you any advantage - stabilisation is only useful when you have an object *and* some background.. BTW, the odd bell like shapes and transparent effects are simply lens bokeh caused by the lens defocusing, either as the cameraman plays with the controls, or as the lens is zoomed (it *must* be refocused after any zoom change). Any decent cameraman MUST have recognised the bokeh - so either he was an inexperienced amateur, or was simply playing along for a good story.

..the signature 'LOOP' lasted 1/10sec so for the camera to be focused on an ever changing/moving target and in that split second time frame be ' knocked ' then ' stabilized ' to the exact starting point while being handheld stretches the realms of belief

No, it's quite normal. If you'd done this sort of imaging in a plane or vehicle you would understand why. You lean your hand/camera up against something - preferably something with a bit of give so you aren't loudly knocking the camera around - eg a plastic window surround and you push the camera against it to stabilise it somewhat. But then the plane/vehicle hits a bump.. and your hand/the camera are very briefly bumped away from the support, ONLY TO IMMEDIATELY RETURN to almost the exact same spot, as that was where you were pressing it to hold it steady. Hence the loop effect - *think about it*. Like I said, if you don't have experience in these situations, then it's only natural that you won't recognise common effects.

BTW, any *decent* cameraman/reporter would have:

- tried to adjust the camera better to show background

- zoomed back to show the cabin interior to help orient us and show whether the camera was being pointed up (or slightly DOWN, as I suspect was the case)

- showed us how the camera rendered *known* objects on the ground, like .. oh .. say .. trawler lights, or townships..

But no, none of that happened.. This all reeks of a reporter desperate for a story, or being told to not come back without some footage they could play on a slow news day.. Quentin Fogarty, are you listening? How about your cameraman that night? I'd love to ask a few questions of them ...

BTW, just looking at what is being posted here now, may I offer the comment that continually changing the subject to new and briefly described 'cases', and copy-pasting reams of text that contains technical-looking descriptions is worth nothing if the poster doesn't know how to apply scrutiny to the information or state the logical, step by step analysis in their own words..

And may I now quote MacGuffin:

I have no idea at all what these things were

MacGuffin, I, ChrLzs, totally agree with you on that. Very well put, and an excellent summary of your analyses here.

There. Who says I don't support anything he says?

Edited by Chrlzs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edward Ruppelt did at least get a report about one of these films, though, which showed the "The UFO was 'higher than 40,000 feet, traveling over 2,000 miles per hour, and it was over 300 feet in diameter.'"

Please cite this analysis. I'd LOVE to go over it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please cite this analysis. I'd LOVE to go over it...

I got it from this website:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CE8QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbrumac.8k.com%2FWhiteSandsProof%2FWhiteSandsProof.html&ei=W9yzUN2VJpCk8QSPrYDoDA&usg=AFQjCNHx2rPnlX70iE263jUEYaRcPqlqlg&sig2=lDWFzecbpa6efeMiDzHDGg

They were using these types of things to track missiles, although they also set up others to track UFOs when the reports started getting very frequent. I think this type of thing has been done frequently when there is a UFO wave or flap. They just hope to get lucky and sight one of them so it can be filmed and triangulated, and they also had planes standing by to get a closer look, although in this case they were ordered NOT to open fire.

askanB.jpg

They could get pretty good pictures of missiles using these:

askanC.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to read through that report carefully, because it seems they got pictures of the UFOs on at least three different occasions in April, May and August 1950, but sometimes these seemed to get confused or jumbled together.

The final version of the Project Twinkle report was not accurate and the first project director was criticizing it and his successor.

Ruppelt was calling around and trying to find out what really happened when he became director of Project Blue Book in 1952, although I'm not sure if even he ever saw any of the pictures. As far as I know, they were turned over to the CIA sometime in the 1950s and they may have them still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please cite this analysis. I'd LOVE to go over it...

"He cautioned me that these figures were only estimates, based on the possibly erroneous correction factor; therefore they weren't proof of anything - except that something was in the air."

^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Love the Remote Viewing Forbidden ! Danger Will Robinson ! Danger ! :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I regret about the Ignore feature is that it still shows that the post exists and asks if you want to view it anyway.

I have this person on Ignore and will not respond to anything they say.

I'm sure you read all my posts. However I've made my point to you before you "ignored" me and you didn't bother with an answer then either. Ignoring Facts, or People for that matter doesn't make them go away McG.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unexplained is unexplained. I don't think anyone here has tried to say that they were explained, unless I missed something. Can we agree that they are unexplained? I can agree to that.

We seem to have some very good information from the Queensland University of Technology though that offers a very good possibility. My state has been kicking a few UFO goals recently with Professor Jack Pettigrew's (From UQ as opposed to QUT) paper on Min Min lights leading the charge.

I woud state we do know they are natural phenomena. They display meteor characteristics despite the objections. The only difference being the green discolouration, which QUT seems to have a good answer for, and like all good scientists they cannot release it as the answer until to has been confirmed, much like the current Mars information. Speed is not a factor as they can range from 11kms p/s to 74 kms p/s increasing by 3km p/s due to earth gravity, and the sizes purported are absolute minimum to create the displays described. Most meteors typically measure 1m across and 20km long, and consist of a cylinder of excited atoms and molecules. They are normally seen between 120 and 80km above Earth's surface. Which is what is described (i.e. 40,000 feet up, over 2,000 mps and at least 300 feet in diameter) Whilst papers form the 50's state these sightings are not natural phenomena, there is no way to rule out a meteor with current information. As opposed to "unexplained", I would consider this more "to be confirmed" Some of the meteors described in the linked study draw direct comparisons to the aforementioned New Mexico sightings analysed by La Paz. Outside of these old documents, I do not know of any person in the field of meteorology who has come to a similar conclusion of them based on further study. It is an interesting phenomena, but I cannot see an ET connection.

LINK - Green Fireballs and Ball Lightning.

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks psyche, couldn't agree more ^^^ :tu:

i was checking for further research on that paper and noticed it being cited in two new papers... one being regarding the light phenomenon observed during earthquakes... http://www.sciencedi...304388611001495

fascinating stuff... http://en.wikipedia....arthquake_light

c020.gif

Edited by mcrom901
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks psyche, couldn't agree more ^^^ :tu:

i was checking for further research on that paper and noticed it being cited in two new papers... one being regarding the light phenomenon observed during earthquakes... http://www.sciencedi...304388611001495

fascinating stuff... http://en.wikipedia....arthquake_light

c020.gif

Thanks for the links mate, that paper seems to be getting around, hopefully we will have some sort of confirmation one way or the other soon. With the paper citing examples from New Mexico, it seems pretty likely that we are looking at the same phenomena.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the meteors described in the linked study draw direct comparisons to the aforementioned New Mexico sightings analysed by La Paz. Outside of these old documents, I do not know of any person in the field of meteorology who has come to a similar conclusion of them based on further study. It is an interesting phenomena, but I cannot see an ET connection.

I read that, and noted that they had both meteorites combined with ball lightning. Of course, when I mentioned that these UFOs in New Mexico did not resemble ball lightning, several people jumped on me and said that they were something different, not an ordinary type of plasma at all.

When you read all the reports I posted, and how they flew up and down and in all directions, it was clear to LaPaz that no meteors ever behaved like that, and no kind of ball lightning ever lasted for such a long duration as these "fireballs".

As I also mentioned, many of them were not fireballs or meteors at all, and were seen during the daytime.

This is why my critics provided the other explanation that they were some extraordinary and unusual type of plasma phenomenon. No one has to take my word for what was going on, though, just read all the reports I posted. There's no question that they were real, and that people have indeed been straining to find some kind of explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS One of the reasons that LaPaz ruled out meters was because they do not have the long duration of these New Mexico UFOs, nor do they maneuver in the same way.

They definitely were not meteors.

This is why the only real "skeptical" explanation was that they were some kind of extraordinary, rare and unusual plasma phenomenon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are videos of a real green fireball, seen in the US in July 2012. It is unmistakable as a meteor and very short duration, not like the UFOs in all these reports from New Mexico that LaPaz was involved in.

Personally, I don't think either of these was a real UFO but an IFO.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2r_M1PH3xIc[/media]

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another green meteor from 2011, with a very short duration and downward trajectory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would call these typical fireballs as well, not real UFOs.

green_fireball_in_US.jpg

20080930edin.jpg

meteor%252520--%252520fireball.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a fireball or ball lightning, but a laser at Sandia Labs in New Mexico, which has always been a UFO hotspot as well.

laser_hmed_12p.hmedium.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At Los Alamos in 1949, LaPaz and Edward Teller got into a discussion about the anomalous nature of these "green fireballs",

http://www.google.co...,r:4,s:200,i:16

http://www.project19...b/cap21649.html

1. Reference is made to previous reports, file number and subject as above, latest dated 23 March 1949.

2. Transmitted herewith are minutes of the meeting between representatives of the Atomic Energy Commission, Armed Forces Special Weapons Project, University of California, University of New Mexico, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Fourth Army and the Office of Special Investigation.

3. There are numerous errors in the minutes, due to the fact that they were transcribed from a recording of the conference. The combination of a jack hammer outside the window and the number of persons speaking made accurate transcription impossible.

4. Investigation is continuing, and further reports will be forwarded as information is developed.

1 Incl

Minutes of Conference (dup)

[handwritten] 1 copy withdrawn

MCIAXO-3 [illegible]

Edited by TheMacGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meteorites don't typically hover around in the air where everyone can watch them change colors, fly in formation, randomly disappear and reappear. Ball lightning is also not composed of copper as the spectral anaylysis stated. Swamp gas, eh?

None of La Paz's examples hovered. They do change colours, that is quite common, and La Paz evaluated single falls, not green fireballs in formation. What green fireballs do you say approached earth "in formation"? Do you have a specific example in mind?

What an earth are you on about with Ball Lightning? Who said that it was composed of copper? What spectral analysis has proven this? The paper I offered states Ball lightning as being a by product of the plasma sheath.

Do you know the actual story behind the term "Swamp Gas" when being applied to the UFO phenomena? Going by your disrespectful usage of Hynek's terminology, I would say not?

I saw what I suspect was some sort of meteorite, and it travelled horizontally for the duration. I do know what I saw was not an alien craft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, Bee was correct that AFSWP was the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project and AEC was the Atomic Energy Commission, which has long since been renamed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They were both running their own UFO investigations as well.

Who wasn't?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of La Paz's examples hovered. They do change colours, that is quite common, and La Paz evaluated single falls, not green fireballs in formation. What green fireballs do you say approached earth "in formation"? Do you have a specific example in mind?

What an earth are you on about with Ball Lightning? Who said that it was composed of copper? What spectral analysis has proven this? The paper I offered states Ball lightning as being a by product of the plasma sheath.

It wasn't me, but someone else on here was going on about ball lightning being composed of copper, or maybe it was one of those strange plasmas they were talking about.

Edited by TheMacGuffin
1 person likes 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.