UFOs with Speeds up to 27,000 MPH

[TheMacGuffin]

you don't have counter-arguments? that's why you ignore addressing them? i'm referring to the duration of plasmas, btw...

I do, but you don't seem to want to read anything that I'm posting, so it just begins to feel like a ridiculous discussion. You do that all the time, of course, evidently just for laughs.

Edited November 25, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[TheMacGuffin]

Hi Mac, I am guessing you are familiar with the Kaikoura lights/ufos, location not far from here in Christchurch.

It showed the mysterious film footage for the first time of what is now world renown, and thirty plus years later the object/s remain unexplained.

What do you think Mac? The object/s seemed to do weird acrobatic manouvers, have the ability to shape - change and intensify in different

frequencies.

Maccabee did discuss these sightings on a more recent radio interview, which he called "the best-documented civilian case ever", with multiple witnesses, color film, tape recordings from air traffic control, ground and air radar tracking, recordings from the journalist on the plane. This case was one of the few that ever made it into the scientific press, at least briefly.

It's hard to imagine a more completely documented UFO case. The guy taking the film was crouched down in the cockpit, shaking back and forth with the plane, so it was hard to get steady pictures of the UFOs.

What Maccabee really said was that the cameraman was able to get steadier pictures when he had his arm on the co-pilot's seat rather than trying to hold the camera steady on his own.

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

Edited November 25, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[TheMacGuffin]

The first time they saw the UFOs in front of their plane. They were actually up there reenacting another UFO report from ten days earlier, December 20, 1978, when the UFOs appeared, and then a "formation" followed them on the return trip.

As usual, they were dismissed, ridiculed, accused of perpetrating a hoax, or filming Venus, boats, birds, meteors, harbor lights, Jupiter, or city lights, all of which somehow showed up on radar as well. Like most of the usual UFO explanations, these were all ridiculous, but perhaps silliest of all was the psychiatrist who said they had all lost their faith in God and then started imagining that they were filming "angels"--angels that appeared on radar no less!

Most of these "explanations" are simply too silly and fatuous to spend even a second of my time on.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RN9pxM3_V3U[/media]

Edited November 25, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[TheMacGuffin]

These UFOs on December 20, 1978 were also tracked on radar, and everyone was surprised when the UFOs appeared again in various places around the plane. Here is more of the actual film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_Q3iq4R8MgM

[TheMacGuffin]

This is what the UFO did on one single frame of film, which means it was extremely fast and maneuverable.

[TheMacGuffin]

Hardcase mate... sooo since you asked how many Plasma varieties do you know of that have been simultaneously tracked on radar, air traffic control, witnessed by more than one person and filmed. Thirty years ago this Plasmic Flying Object (PFO) lol, was unique in the world of ufology, but surely comparable sightings have significantly increased exponentially with time and technology? Please refer me a couple of the good cases you know that were then proved to be PFOs lol

Maybe it was a plasma bird reflected in the swamp gas from the planets Venus and Jupiter. I think we should just use our common sense here rather than reaching for all these ludicrous "explanations", none of which has even the slightest bit of proof, like all this talk about Hessdalen lights around the missiles and military bases of New Mexico that appeared then and there for some reason, but never before or since.

It's downright laughable, and obviously intended to be taken that way.

[TheMacGuffin]

because maccabee suggested so? since the lights lasted more than 12 minutes? that's why "place severe requirements on a conventional phenomenon such as glowing plasma or ball lightning"? check page 7 we've already discussed these... oh, and regarding the size & brightness; all moot points...

btw, that ufo plasma looks like casper the ghost...

Yes, it was Casper the Friendly Ghost, a whole bunch of them in fact, now go back to sleep. You obviously know nothing about this particular UFO case or any other UFO case as far as I can tell, and are just here to jerk people's chains. I never found you all that funny, though.

[ChrLzs]

This is what the UFO did.. which means it was extremely fast..

Sighs wearily.

NO, no, NO! Even Maccabee quite correctly and clearly states that the camera was not on a tripod and that image and others were 'SMEARED' by camera movement. When an image shows anything looking like movement, the steadiness of BOTH the object and the CAMERA must be considered. This is one of the first things covered in Photography 101... Tiny movements of the camera create very large movements of the object, especially when the lens is highly zoomed.

Did MacG not read the 'analysis'? If so, did he deliberately ignore what was in it, or does he simply not understand the concept of camera shake? Either way, it's not good...

To be precise.. at about 1/20 to 1/30 sec exposure time, a small bump to a camera will often create a 'loopy' motion like that shown. This effect is common when a camera is being steadied against something in a vehicle or aircraft, when a bump in the craft will briefly knock the camera away from the support.. It then very quickly returns to roughly the same location, creating the 'loop'. That effect has NOTHING to do with any motion of the 'thing', which might be completely stationary.

[taniwha]

Analysis by Maccabee on the frame in question doesnt mention camera wobble, can you interpret the data for me Chrlz.

[ChrLzs]

Taniwha, read the last paragraph at the bottom of the left column on page 1, starting with "The photographic equipment consisted of.." and note the parts about not using a tripod and the quote "..and consequently most images are smeared".. Then look at Fig 2. on page 2 where it specifically states that particular image is 'smeared'.

[taniwha]

These UFOs on December 20, 1978 were also tracked on radar, and everyone was surprised when the UFOs appeared again in various places around the plane. Here is more of the actual film.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_Q3iq4R8MgM[/media]

Thanks Charlz, Im thinking maybe a smeared image might be attributed in part to extreme speed of object? 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.

[mcrom901]

Hardcase mate... sooo since you asked how many Plasma varieties do you know of that have been simultaneously tracked on radar, air traffic control, witnessed by more than one person and filmed. Thirty years ago this Plasmic Flying Object (PFO) lol, was unique in the world of ufology, but surely comparable sightings have significantly increased exponentially with time and technology?

plasmas do show up on radar....

http://www.das-ufo-phaenomen.de/app/download/5781236779/project_EMBLA.pdf

Please refer me a couple of the good cases you know that were then proved to be PFOs lol

i don't think that there is a single case out there with enough data to favour such a feat... you seem to be taking the word 'prove' too lightly... it doesn't work like that, as far as i'm concerned... anyways, what i've been stressing about in this thread is that said plasmas have all the 'unique' characteristics which are attributed to as being otherworldly or unexplainable... thus the argument, how can natural phenomenon be taken out of the equation? it cannot....

[mcrom901]

Maybe it was a plasma bird reflected in the swamp gas from the planets Venus and Jupiter. I think we should just use our common sense here rather than reaching for all these ludicrous "explanations", none of which has even the slightest bit of proof

[TheMacGuffin]

And on Ignore you go, which is something I should have done long ago.

[TheMacGuffin]

Sighs wearily.

NO, no, NO! Even Maccabee quite correctly and clearly states that the camera was not on a tripod and that image and others were 'SMEARED' by camera movement. When an image shows anything looking like movement, the steadiness of BOTH the object and the CAMERA must be considered. This is one of the first things covered in Photography 101... Tiny movements of the camera create very large movements of the object, especially when the lens is highly zoomed.

Did MacG not read the 'analysis'? If so, did he deliberately ignore what was in it, or does he simply not understand the concept of camera shake? Either way, it's not good...

Yes, I know what he said and what the witnesses said, and I mentioned that the camera was shaking a lot, although sometimes he was able to steady it by resting his arm on the co-pilot's seat.

[TheMacGuffin]

plasmas do show up on radar....

i don't think that there is a single case out there with enough data to favour such a feat... you seem to be taking the word 'prove' too lightly... it doesn't work like that, as far as i'm concerned... anyways, what i've been stressing about in this thread is that said plasmas have all the 'unique' characteristics which are attributed to as being otherworldly or unexplainable... thus the argument, how can natural phenomenon be taken out of the equation? it cannot....

And what Sunny Jim here also fails to mention is that UFOs have been reported giving off high-energy plasmas. That really throws a monkey wrench in his theory, doesn't it? LOL

Edited November 25, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[mcrom901]

And what Sunny Jim here also fails to mention is that UFOs have been reported giving off high-energy plasmas. That really throws a monkey wrench in his theory, doesn't it? LOL

The appearance of ‘‘satellite spheres,’’ composing a cluster around a main nuclear region, is similar to the commonly reported splitting apart of a lightning ball into one or more smaller balls. Turner’s model explains this behavior as a re-minimization of the effective surface energy with the formation of new condensation nuclei (Turner, 2003).

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004JSE....18..217T

[mcrom901]

(Turner, 2003).

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_17_3_turner.pdf

[DONTEATUS]

So tell me just what is the Speed of a UFO ? 27,000 mph, Speed of Light mps. Or point A to B almost in a blink ?

I like the Point A to B in a blink, that way your there B-4 you even left !

[TheMacGuffin]

Radiation: When airborne, UFOs emit invisible electromagnetic (EM) wave energy with ionizing capability. There is some evidence and theory (Hill, Section X and XIX) indicating that the EM radiation is about coincident with the UFO's "gravity-like" force fields, i.e. gravity-like waves (used for propulsion and airflow control) and ionizing EM waves go together, the latter being some form of support for the generation of force field waves, or simply a side-effect (i.e. propulsive waves may have an electromagnetic component).

Paul Hill estimated UFO primary radiation to be in a range between the bottom of X-ray band and the lower end of Gamma-ray band. (Wikipedia:Electromagnetic spectrum and Ionizing radiation) These X-rays or mild gamma-rays are quite adequate to create the universally seen "ion sheath" around UFOs. Conversely, the existence of the ionized air around UFOs lends weight to the concept of high-intensity EM radiation from the UFO. X-rays would also penetrate a few inches of soil, giving up their energy to plant-root depths. Soil being a thermal insulator, the heat would escape slowly and the temperature would build up with time below a low-hovering UFO. Much ground heating data is from saucer-type UFOs, which are known to focus their force fields and accompanying ionizing radiation downward with considerable accuracy, because of the observed saucer "ion cones" (refer to the photographic cases on the right column of this webpage: luminous "icecream cone" under the disk in the French Gendarmerie and the four "white beams of light" in Albiosc France 1974) and "saucer ring" on ground data. Mild Gamma-rays are suspected for symptoms similar to radiation sickness in witnesses who have closely approached UFOs. However, lasting radioactivity, which would indicate the presence of particle radiation, has not been found at landing sites.

http://www.hyper.net/ufo/overview.html

[TheMacGuffin]

Physiological effects on human witnesses who came close to a UFO, include a sense of "static" (hair stood on end) or prickling sensation and in some cases a heating / burning sensation, vibration (more on this on section #17 on UFO sounds) and temporary paralysis (attributed to shock/fear, but I think more study is needed since animals are reportedly also affected). After-effects of close encounters may include sunburned-like skin and eye irritation (e.g. conjunctivitis), extreme dryness of the nasal area and of the throat, nausea, vomiting, headaches, general weakness. There have been a few cases of people and animals who stood directly under a UFO who experienced symptoms similar to radiation-sickness. People who have stared at glowing UFOs at close range have suffered "welder burn"-type eye damage, temporary loss of vision and even lasting eye damage (note: UV?). Occasionally odors have been reported, described as "ozone-like", "foul stench", "pungent", "sulphury stink" etc. Accidents have occurred. Further reading: "A catalog of UFO-related human physiological effects" (1996) by John Schuessler and UFO cases involving injury/death by Geoff Dittman.

Interference: EM effects observed include interruption of electrical circuitry and radio communications, magnetic and gyro compasses gyrate and wobble, batteries are burned out. Car gasoline engines stop (but oddly diesel are apparently unaffected). More: 56 aircraft pilot UFO sightings involving EM-effects, strong magnetic field. Absence of heat near a UFO only mild sensation of warmth, so not much infra-red radiation. The surfaces of the UFO are not very hot, nothing is at a red heat. A "corona", i.e. a luminous plasma (ionized air) is produced around specific areas of the UFO, probably created by the intense EM radiation (radiant ionization).

http://www.hyper.net/ufo/overview.html

[TheMacGuffin]

• ejected luminosity is sometimes reported, as shown in photos (e.g. Robert Campbell 2-Aug-1965), night-time videos (e.g. Long Beach, CA Police Department helicopter FLIR 25-Dec-2004
  ), and testimonies (e.g. "throw off glowing particles, like molten metal" -- Col. Halt, case Rendlesham forest Dec-1980). Material remains luminous for some time after falling away from the object. If this material is a plasma then a) it is heavier than air, and it is cohesive enough to survive a fall through the air and retain its luminosity. In some cases, it might also be a luminous liquid (todo: Delphos Kansas USA, 1971) or molten metal (todo: Bob White artifact 1985).
  
• "flashes" of light: UFO reports may mention intermittent flashes ("odd strobe-light effect"), occasionally very bright and noticable even in broad daylight e.g. "like mirror reflecting sunlight". My hypothesis is that it is probably when brilliant plasma surrounding the UFO emits light directly or via reflection off the skin of the UFO.
  

Edited November 25, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[TheMacGuffin]

• full body luminosity / halos (e.g. "an eerie glow surrounded the UFO like an aura", "each UFO was engulfed by a sphere of light") which may change colors (predominantly orange/yellow, but sometimes white, red, green, blue) and brightness in a "flickering" / "pulsating" manner. Full body luminosity is usually observed on UFOs in flight. In rare cases it is observed in a landed or hovering UFO, however, in those cases, the object usually almost immediately engages in flight. Hill (p.316) thought "there seems to be considerable leakage or random radiation, because the UFO is sometimes surrounded with an ion zone", however I would offer the idea that the "UFO ion sheath" may be a boundary layer effect due to the -hypothetical- "airflow-control force field" a/k/a ACFF, a short-range, continuous, radial field, having components which are uniformly distributed with respect to direction; I discuss this in the section on Propulsion and Radiation and the featured photographic examples of Albiosc France 1974 and Lynn, MA USA 2006.
  

• Interpreting the "UFO sphere of light" based on my idea: The ACFF (similarly to a glass around the filament of an incandescent light bulb) pushes the air/water away from the surface of the UFO in a radial pattern, creating a spherical shell of rarified air (near vacuum) close to the surface of the UFO. The sphere of luminous ionized air (plasma) at some distance around the UFO is a boundary layer effect, at distance r0 and of thickness Dr, the latter being the zone where the density of rarified air is "just right" to be ionized by the EM radiation accompanying the ACFF.
  

• Note: Depending on the density of the surrounding plasma sheath, a UFO's shape and structural details may either be visible or obscured. If the UFO plasma sheath is thin, a UFO at night may appear to be "inside a transparent globe of light". But if the plasma sheath around the UFO is dense, a UFO's actual shape may be obscured and e.g. a diskoid UFO may appear like a huge spherical / oval / oblong-shaped light. However, when the ACFF is turned down / switched off, the actual shape UFO may be seen, hence giving rise to all the sighting reports of UFO spheres "shape-shifting" i.e. transforming into other shapes, e.g. "dark triangle emerged from inside the orb of light" or "orb transformed into disk", "huge globe released egg-shaped craft" etc. Examples: photo Albiosc France 1974, USAF Captain, Selma, AL 1957, Sheriff of Sibley County, Minnesota, 1965, Estes Park, CO 6-Sep-2000, color-changing orb ejects triangle May-2009 Oregon USA, vike: 1 2 3
  

• patchy body light light is emitted from certain areas of the UFO's geometry, e.g. several "lights" on their underside and sides. Saucer-shaped UFOs often emit light from their underside or rim. Triangles often have 3 lights on their underside, one at each corner, which point downwards. [todo: PFF]. Examples: Green Bay Wisconsin USA Jan-2007, Weyauwega, WI USA, Feb-2003, pilots of Chicago airlines DC3 Mar-1950.
  

http://www.hyper.net/ufo/overview.html

Edited November 25, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[booNyzarC]

And what Sunny Jim here also fails to mention is that UFOs have been reported giving off high-energy plasmas. That really throws a monkey wrench in his theory, doesn't it? LOL

I don't see how this would throw any kind of wrench, monkey or otherwise, into the idea. I'm assuming that you might be suggesting that plasma may be the product of, or even means of, propulsion for these UFOs, but could it not also simply be that the whole UFO is in fact plasma in such cases?

I know that you're ignoring mcrom after that meme (how many memes have you posted by the way? not saying it's bad, but seems odd to me that it is okay for you to post memes, but when someone else does it they are suddenly ignore-worthy...), but you might want to take a look at the information he provided in posts 142 and 143 anyway.

[TheMacGuffin]

See also UFO encounters that resulted in injury or death, although sometimes this appears to be unintentional, but not always.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080205041842/http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/2653/injurywriteup.html

This was probably unintentional, for example, and there are many of these on record:

Witness: Harry Sturdevant

Location: Trenton, New Jersey, USA

Date: October 2, 1956

Time: 0345

The close encounter caused burns to the witness's face, made him vomit, temporarily deaf in one ear, and (presumably temporarily) lost his sense of taste and smell. (Schuessler, UFO Related…)

This type of thing was very likely intentional.

Witness: Multiple

Location: Kentucky or Tennessee, USA

Date: Mid-1950s

Time:

According to General Arthur Exon, four USAF fighters disappeared after attempting to intercept a UFO. No wreckage was ever found. (Randle, Conspiracy of Silence, p.p. 138-139)