1968 Minot AFB UFO: B52-H Radar Return

[whynotminot]

With regard to any UAP or known phenomena 'attaching' itself to an aircraft, is there any evidence of that, or mechanism by which it is reasonably explained?

I'm aware of the St Elmo's fire effect (is that what is being suggested?) where it is the craft itself either generating or being affected by an electric field perhaps via thunderstorm-ish acitivity, or static electricity effects like the volcanic dust effect that almost brought down a passenger jet, but I always thought of those effects being reasonably well understood and different to that proposed for plasma balls, ball lightning or even 'foo fighters'.

I've always been a little uncomfortable about the ease with which plasma is often a wild card introduced when everything else seems ruled out. And yet we don't really have a good scientific basis to throw it in there, in many cases (or do we??).. I admit this is not an area where I have spent the necessary hours researching the literature, but when it is hinted that UAP's (or IAP's) are known to follow aircraft, then alarm bells start to go off and I want to see some peer reviewed literature!

^[162] See: Martin D. Altschuler, “Atmospheric Electricity and Plasma Interpretations of UFOs,” in Daniel S. Gilmore, ed., Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (New York; Bantam Books, 1969), 1164-1172. Available from:http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/s6chap07.htm#s7. Additional information regarding ball lightning and its various properties from:http://amasci.com/tesla/ballgtn.htm. In 2012, Chinese scientists were observing lightning with a simple video camera paired with a spectrometer and inadvertently recorded the first natural occurrence of ball lightning: "First instance of ball lightning captured on video and spectrographs" at Phys.Org (17 Jan. 2014): http://phys.org/news/2014-01-instance-ball-lightning-captured-video.html.

^[163] For a compilation of anecdotal reports of ball lightning see: http://amasci.com/weird/unusual/bl.html. See also:http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/ball_lightning.html.

^[164] J. J. Lowke, “A Theory of Ball Lightning as an Electrical Discharge,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 29 (1996), 1237-1244. Available from: http://www.australiasevereweather.com/storm_news/2000/docs/0006-02.htm. More recently from Phys.Org, 12 Oct. 2012: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-mystery-ball-lightning.html#nRlv. More BL theories from: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=periodically-i-hear-stori

^[165] “Plasma UFO Conference” in Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, from: http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/s6chap07.htm#s18. This case is referred to as the RB-47 Radar/Visual case, which occurred over the southern U.S. in July 1957. See: http://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/case05.html; and http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case665.htm. Brad Sparks’ seminal work on the RB-47 case is included in: Jerome Clark, The UFO Encyclopedia: The Phenomenon From The Beginning(Vol. 2) (Detroit: Omnigraphics Books, 1998), 761-790. Available from: http://www.nicap.org/reports/RB47_Sparks_Ency.pdf. Recently, UFO sceptic Tim Printy deconstructed the RB-47 case and published his results in the publication, SUNlite, available from:http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite4_1.pdf. In addition, atmospheric physicist, Dr. James McDonald, refutes Klass’ plasma-UFO theory in a presentation to the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute, Astronautics Symposium, Montreal, Canada, March 12, 1968. Available from: http://web.archive.org/web/20080907132128/http://ufologie.net/htm/mcdonaldca.htm.

Edited January 25, 2014 by whynotminot

[Tim Hebert]

Per whynotminot: "Tim mentioned the paper suggests that what is observed at Hessdalen are plasma phenomena that can exist in the atmosphere for up to several hours. Not sure I get that in my reading."

Your correct, the paper that I had linked to did not state a time duration for up to several hours. I had mistaken Teodorani's 2004 paper as the source. My apologies.

The following is the correct link: http://www.uapreport...tract-13262.pdf

"Optical living time has been observed from milliseconds up to two hours, while radar detection has confirmed living times up to four hours while invisible in the optical range."

Edited January 25, 2014 by Tim Hebert

[lost_shaman]

(1) With regard to any UAP or known phenomena 'attaching' itself to an aircraft, is there any evidence of that, or mechanism by which it is reasonably explained?

(2) I'm aware of the St Elmo's fire effect (is that what is being suggested?) where it is the craft itself either generating or being affected by an electric field perhaps via thunderstorm-ish acitivity, or static electricity effects like the volcanic dust effect that almost brought down a passenger jet, but I always thought of those effects being reasonably well understood and different to that proposed for plasma balls, ball lightning or even 'foo fighters'.

(3) I've always been a little uncomfortable about the ease with which plasma is often a wild card introduced when everything else seems ruled out. And yet we don't really have a good scientific basis to throw it in there, in many cases (or do we??).. I admit this is not an area where I have spent the necessary hours researching the literature, but when it is hinted that UAP's (or IAP's) are known to follow aircraft, then alarm bells start to go off and I want to see some peer reviewed literature!

Hey ChrLzs,

Where to begin...? I'm suffering a distinct disadvantage here using my old phone for net access! Working single Father and all that so a true connection is on the back burner so forgive me as I do the best I can on my phone ok.

Let me use the number system () as before.

1. Yes. NARCAP discusses this as does the the MOD Condign report. Teodorani discusses this as well, I've directed ppl to read his paper on this thread multiplel times.

2. Yes. Completely different. Not at all what I'm talking about.

3. The evidence from Hessdalen is very convincing and it is peer reviewed to some extent in that the datum gets published for everyone to see. Its kind of a frindge subject still so maybe thats why no Journals have really picked up the subject at all.

[ChrLzs]

^[162] See: Martin D. Altschuler, “Atmospheric Electricity and Plasma Interpretations of UFOs,” in Daniel S. Gilmore, ed., Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (New York; Bantam Books, 1969), 1164-1172. Available from:http://www.ncas.org/...s6chap07.htm#s7....

???? Well, I waded right through that first link (which I would have thought would be the best..), and only found stuff like this:

St. Elmo's fire appears as a glowing luminescence hovering above a pointed object or near a wire conductor...

The primary difference between ball lightning and St. Elmo's fire is that St. Elmo's fire remains near a conductor. It has been observed to move along wires and aircraft surfaces...

Foo-fighters are probably a manifestation of St. Elmo's fire....

The smaller 'ball lightning' I have always associated as being the phenomenon known as St. Elmo's fire; however, St. Elmo's fire generally consists of an infrequent blanket covering the leading edges and trailing edges of an aircraft. It does not blind or brighten but is merely irritating as it prevents clear radio reception...

The 'small ball' formation ...{generally is} apparently unaffected by the movement of the aircraft.

That merely reinforces the exact point I was making - none of that seems to apply except the St Elmo's Fire which seems quite unlike what is being 'hypothesised' here. Do any of those 'references' (which, like that first one, mostly look like they are not peer reviewed and contain little other than anecdotes and suggestions) describe properly evidenced or in-laboratory experimental examples of ball lightning or similar following an aircraft?

To Lost Shaman... I will check those documents, but you did say they merely 'discuss it'. So I could say ALIENZ on the exact same basis - plenty of discussion out there on them too! I'll roll out some of Jaime Maussan's papers...

I did specifically ask - what peer-reviewed, evidenced examples are out there showing plasma following aircraft? To test that, what is the mechanism proposed to explain it?

And which Hessdalen examples have followed aircraft? Or are you referring to them simply changing direction? I am looking at Teodorani right now (and noting with disappointment that it was published and 'peer-reviewed' by the (un)esteemed Journal of Scientific Exploration... sighs wearily..) - can you point me to the page where there is stuff about how it would chase an aircraft?

Frankly, hypothesing an unevidenced phenomenon is pretty much what the 'it wuz alienz' promoters do - I would hope that a proper investigation should rise above that level..

[lost_shaman]

I think it is reasonable to say that the phenomenon at Hessdalen are unexplained natural phenomena and it is least likely that the cause is some sort of contained plasma formation based on the published data. Tim mentioned the paper suggests that what is observed at Hessdalen are plasma phenomena that can exist in the atmosphere for up to several hours. Not sure I get that in my reading. If this were the case I would think that plasma physicists would have a field day being able to study naturally occurring formations that defy current knowledge.

Hey Whynotminot,

Are you being sarcastic?

If so, it's kinda lost on me (pun intended). I guess we will see how crazy Plasma Physicists get over the little Ball Lightning that lasted what 1.2 seconds? you linked to. You know considering they can not re-create that in their Labs either.

The Plasmas observed at Hessdalen are not Ball lighgtning. They exist much longer and behave strangely. Why and how is not completely known.

[ChrLzs]

{Offtopic...}

Where to begin...? I'm suffering a distinct disadvantage here using my old phone for net access! Working single Father and all that so a true connection is on the back burner so forgive me as I do the best I can on my phone ok.

Believe me, I can relate.. But doing this sort of stuff on a phone could end up turning you into a Zoser or bendigger, if you get my drift... My tightass solution when my last PC died a horrible death was to go to gov't disposals stores where I finally picked up a really nice HP Intel i5 Win7 laptop with 8G Ram and high-spec graphics card for an absolute pittance. I also recently found (in a clearance bin) a bottom of the line refurbished HTC smartphone again for almost nothing (unlocked) and I use it as a WIFI hotspot. Ok It's not blindingly fast, but it's all fine for my needs, was very cheap to buy and is very cheap to run.. Ya can't seriously browse the webz (or type) on a phone, imo..

{/offtopic}

[S2F]

Frankly, hypothesing an unevidenced phenomenon is pretty much what the 'it wuz alienz' promoters do - I would hope that a proper investigation should rise above that level..

I don't think anyone is saying it must be plasma that was responsible, just that plasmas exhibit properties that render it a potential candidate.

As far as energy requirements for plasma generation (brought up by another member) we are talking about the atmosphere, if it can generate lightning then plasmas would seem like a pittance.

[Hawken]

This is trying to explain an unknown phenomena-ufos with another unknown phenomena-plasma/ball lightening.

[lost_shaman]

{Offtopic...}

Believe me, I can relate.. But doing this sort of stuff on a phone could end up turning you into a Zoser or bendigger, if you get my drift... My tightass solution when my last PC died a horrible death was to go to gov't disposals stores where I finally picked up a really nice HP Intel i5 Win7 laptop with 8G Ram and high-spec graphics card for an absolute pittance. I also recently found (in a clearance bin) a bottom of the line refurbished HTC smartphone again for almost nothing (unlocked) and I use it as a WIFI hotspot. Ok It's not blindingly fast, but it's all fine for my needs, was very cheap to buy and is very cheap to run.. Ya can't seriously browse the webz (or type) on a phone, imo..

{/offtopic}

I may have shorter posts than I'd like... but that will never make me a Zoser!

I have a laptop that will work, I just moved and my bills are higher and My 17 yr old daughter moved in with me too so I just have had more pressing needs than to get a wi-fi connection. Which I only use to research and more or less post on UM.

[PersonFromPorlock]

As far as foo fighters are concerned, Gregor Menzel, a Harvard astronomer and 1950s UFO debunker, suggested that they were caused by the sun reflecting from pockets of ice crystals being swirled in vortices trailing behind aircraft. As the War went on, aircraft accumulated battle damage and the repaired damage created more irregularities in the airflow around the planes so that the number of vortices increased and so did the reports of foo fighters.

One explanation among many.

[DONTEATUS]

I think that Stephen Hawkins has proven that all one needs is to just create a new coined phrase,name sake,or apparent Horizon,THen We have a place to put our Zoser`s and the likes !

In the event he`s right ,It will be apparent that the Horizon is indeed got a Firewall, Like my puter ?

[whynotminot]

Hey Whynotminot,

The Plasmas observed at Hessdalen are not Ball lighgtning. They exist much longer and behave strangely. Why and how is not completely known.

What evidence supports your idea that the phenomena at Hessdalen are PLASMAS? Please provide the quotes from Teodorani. I can't find them. Thanks.

[Tim Hebert]

I appreciate all of the input regarding this topic. It's an interesting component to the Minot case.

"And which Hessdalen examples have followed aircraft? Or are you referring to them simply changing direction? I am looking at Teodorani right now (and noting with disappointment that it was published and 'peer-reviewed' by the (un)esteemed Journal of Scientific Exploration... sighs wearily..) - can you point me to the page where there is stuff about how it would chase an aircraft?"

Yes, unfortunately the paper was published in Journal of Scientific Exploration, yet the question to be asked, from a research standpoint, does it provide a basis of sound research methodology? No, my reading of the paper(s) does not show the phenomena chasing or pacing an aircraft.

I don't think anyone is saying it must be plasma that was responsible, just that plasmas exhibit properties that render it a potential candidate.

As far as energy requirements for plasma generation (brought up by another member) we are talking about the atmosphere, if it can generate lightning then plasmas would seem like a pittance.

I don't think anyone is saying it must be plasma that was responsible, just that plasmas exhibit properties that render it a potential candidate.

As far as energy requirements for plasma generation (brought up by another member) we are talking about the atmosphere, if it can generate lightning then plasmas would seem like a pittance.

Yes, that is correct, I would look at it as a possibility, but not conclusive.

This is trying to explain an unknown phenomena-ufos with another unknown phenomena-plasma/ball lightening.

This is trying to explain an unknown phenomena-ufos with another unknown phenomena-plasma/ball lightening.

That's the stumbling block for sure, but research into the plasma/ball lightning phenomena has been going on for decades. Most of the research papers that I had came across dealt with then-Soviet scientist trying to duplicate the phenomena in the laboratory back in the 1960s and those results were questionable. Be that it may, your comment is spot on concerning the Minot case.

[whynotminot]

Per whynotminot: "Tim mentioned the paper suggests that what is observed at Hessdalen are plasma phenomena that can exist in the atmosphere for up to several hours. Not sure I get that in my reading."

Your correct, the paper that I had linked to did not state a time duration for up to several hours. I had mistaken Teodorani's 2004 paper as the source. My apologies.

The following is the correct link: http://www.uapreport...tract-13262.pdf

"Optical living time has been observed from milliseconds up to two hours, while radar detection has confirmed living times up to four hours while invisible in the optical range."

Thanks, Tim:

I would be interested in knowing what he means when he states in the abstract "huge light balls moving horizontally around in the valley for four hours." I would assume that they were able to obtain a considerable amount of scientific data given the duration of the phenomena. Unfortunately, the paper is not available anywhere on line to read.

The following is interesting and provides useful information. Note that Fryberger's model is dependent on lightning discharges due to thunderstorm activity and frequency. Occasionally, I've run across references to ball lightning occurring in clear weather but have yet to see any evidence that this is possible, or not a result of adjacent activity, or anything more than anecdotal. In any event, a thunderstorm forming in northern Dakota at the end of October would be a phenomenal event and is not in the least supported by the weather data included in the PBB documents (Basic Reporting Data) for the case.

http://www.slac.stan...ac-pub-6473.pdf

Since this was mentioned previously... Temperature inversion conditions in North Dakota occur about 36 percent of the time on an annual basis ranging from 28 percent in spring to 50 percent in winter. So it is not surprising that Quintanilla would incorporate this detail as an effect to explain a cause of misreporting, or an explanation for the radar return. According to Martin Shough: "reliance on temperature lapse rates alone is not at all meaningful since humidity is a much more important contributor to radar refractivity." In addition, the PBB data was obtained from Glasgow, MT, and according to Martin: "there is no sign in the Glasgow radiosonde data of the elevated anomalous propagation conditions inferred by Blue Book from the temperature figures." Finally: "Reliable and more complete archival data were obtained from the NCDC for the nearest balloon releases bracketing the period of observation. These soundings indicate gradients generally quite close to the mean up to the highest readings at 500 mbar, [and] are only marginally (<5 N-units / kft) outside the nominal limits of "standard" refractivity and do not indicate any obvious cause of strong unexplained echoes on the airborne radar.

I think it is a mistake to quote Q without first verifying his statements against the data.

http://minotb52ufo.c...s_sec6.php#6-11

Edited January 25, 2014 by whynotminot

[Hawken]

As far as foo fighters are concerned, Gregor Menzel, a Harvard astronomer and 1950s UFO debunker, suggested that they were caused by the sun reflecting from pockets of ice crystals being swirled in vortices trailing behind aircraft. As the War went on, aircraft accumulated battle damage and the repaired damage created more irregularities in the airflow around the planes so that the number of vortices increased and so did the reports of foo fighters.

One explanation among many.

It looks good on paper.

[whynotminot]

In order to clarify my previous statement, and underscore the fact that Quintanilla and PBB had no independent authority to actually investigate UFO reports, and were not expected to do so by his superiors:

For nearly two decades Air Force officials misled the public, as well as members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, to believe they were engaged in a meticulous and objective investigation of the UFO phenomenon. Following a series of events in late 1952, they began to view the UFO program as simply a public relations problem that they were mandated to perform in order to assure the public of their responsibility to the nation’s air defense.

For instance, in July 1968, a research assistant to the USAF-funded, University of Colorado UFO study, Herbert Strentz, queried Project Blue Book chief Lt. Col. Hector Quintanilla regarding the nature of the Blue Book investigations:

It would be correct to view the primary goal of Blue Book as Air Defense and not UFO investigation…. Our primary responsibility is to collect data and then check the subjective material to see what the stimulus might be … We’re not an investigative force…. We collect data. It’s a misnomer to think we investigate.

Quintanilla was then asked to clarify his statement since it was contradictory to published statements by Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Thomas D. White, that “all unidentified flying object sightings are investigated in meticulous detail by Air Force personnel and qualified scientific consultants,” and by Secretary of the Air Force, Harold Brown, who assured the House Committee on Armed Services on 5 April 1966, that

the Air Force is both objective and thorough in its treatment of all reports of unusual aerial objects over the United States…. In evaluating these sightings, the Air Force has used carefully selected and highly qualified scientists, technicians, and consultants. These personnel have utilized the finest Air Force laboratories, test centers, scientific instrumentation, and technical equipment for this purpose. The Air Force will continue to investigate such phenomenon with an open mind and the finest technical equipment available.

To which Quintanilla clarified,

We are more or less a collection agency…. We contact everybody we can with regards to trying to identify the stimulus which caused the observer to report a UFO sighting, however, this is not really investigating, this is checking details. We do use scientific disciplines to evaluate the information, however, this is an after the fact evaluation. We have only subjective statements made by the witnesses to work with … but we are not empowered to check the individuals background … Collection is part of the investigative process and we accept the data as fact, however, we seldom really complete the cycle…. You don’t really do much investigating when you check out satellite observations, astronomical observations, moving lights, weather balloons, etc…. We have certain characteristics for sightings … characteristics for astronomical reports, aircraft, balloons. If any of these (UFO reports) have characteristics that fall into such categories, the plausible answer is that it (the UFO) was that…. Sometimes there is a thin line in classifying a UFO, but if it falls in the category, it’s in the category. You can quibble…. But I cut them off when I think we’ve got the answer.

^[6]

[whynotminot]

In 1968, Lt. Marano, in corroboration with Phil Klass, established a project that was attempting to identify UFO reports that could be explained as plasmas. In effect, they established a new category for classifying and explaining reports.

The year-end statistical data for 1968 identified the Minot case as being explained by radar analysis as plasma. (Data for 1968 following p. 95 at: http://www.minotb52ufo.com/pdf/Quintanilla-afdilemma.pdf)

http://www.minotb52ufo.com/pdf/PBB_PlasmaProject.pdf

[lost_shaman]

What evidence supports your idea that the phenomena at Hessdalen are PLASMAS? Please provide the quotes from Teodorani. I can't find them. Thanks.

Hey Whynotminot,

Use the search function here on UM. Teodorani siad so himself right here on UM. Or in Paper I refered you to on the NARCAP site. Or you could find this on the Hessdalen site.

I'm sorry but if you are serious in that you can't find any mention that the Hessdalen Phenomena is plasma then I have to assume you didn't actually look.

[whynotminot]

Hey Whynotminot,

Use the search function here on UM. Teodorani siad so himself right here on UM. Or in Paper I refered you to on the NARCAP site. Or you could find this on the Hessdalen site.

I'm sorry but if you are serious in that you can't find any mention that the Hessdalen Phenomena is plasma then I have to assume you didn't actually look.

I looked!

Nevertheless the light phenomenon, in both a photometric and spectroscopic sense, does not have the characteristics typical of a classic plasma of free electrons and ions (Teodorani & Nobili, 2002).

An ‘‘Abrahamson ball lightning’’ (Abrahamson & Dinniss, 2000) would seem to be one possible natural phenomenon which, at least in some aspects, might produce a light distribution of that kind. In such a case luminosity is produced by a heated non-plasma spheroid constituted of silicon nano-particles extracted from the ground by very strong electric discharges. Such a light ball, which is not a plasma but rather a concentration of heated, chained nanoparticles deposited on a surface, might simulate a uniformly illuminated solid object.

The light balls show apparently ‘‘non-thermodynamic’’ characteristics (Teodorani et al., 2001, Teodorani & Nobili, 2002). If the illuminated matter were a classical thermal plasma, two main after-effects would be predicted: a) gradual cooling due to adiabatic expansion (no energy exchange with the surroundings during expansion) or explosion after a very short time (as in the case of some ball-lightning reports), or colorimetric decay with a fast transition from blue or white to red and final disappearance (Fryberger, 1997). These effects are not seen at all in the Hessdalen phenomenon.

For a conventional plasma, the Stefan-Boltzmann law (Lang, 1998) gives the absolute luminosity as PABS 1⁄4 4 p R2 r TE4 (where R is the radius of the luminous phenomenon, r 1⁄4 5.6697 3 10ÿ8 J sÿ1 mÿ2 Kÿ4 is the Stefan- Boltzmann constant, TE is the effective temperature). If the ball is assumed to be a plasma that expands adiabatically, then the temperature should drop when the volume of the ball increases. If the plasma is approximated as an ‘‘ideal gas’’ the adiabatic expansion obeys the law, TVcÿ1 1⁄4 a constant, where c .1. Therefore, if V increases, T decreases proportionally. Thus the radiant power increases in proportion R2 but decreases as (1/V)4cÿ1, i.e. (1/R3)4cÿ1, in other words the power decreases as (1/R)12cÿ10—adiabatic increases in size should be accompanied by less total radiated power and, hence, lower image brightness. The observed behavior of the light balls is different from this prediction. They radiate more power as they increase in size. Furthermore, white balls (very hot, if a plasma) can coexist with red ones (very cool, if a plasma) of the same size, again violating the predicted behavior of a conventional plasma.

Nevertheless, the production of balls of distinctly different color, recorded at Hessdalen (see Figs. 5, 7), differs from standard (commonly reported) ball- lightning behavior; that may be a distinguishing mark of earth lights, as the Hessdalen phenomenon is usually assumed to be. . . . Plasma confined magnetically to produce self-contained light balls (Stenhoff, 1999) cannot account for the observed characteristics. There is no need to invoke confining magnetic fields, central forces (other than chemical ones) or gravitational collapse, all of which have been proposed as models for ball lightning.

The strong variability of the Hessdalen lights seems to be a peculiarity of earth lights. There is not yet any solid demonstration of such behavior by ball lightning (Stenhoff, 1999).

The geometric shape found in a minority of light phenomena cannot be explained by any available ball-lightning theory,

These anomalous signals cannot be explained by the same ball-lightning theory that seemingly is able to explain some aspects of the optical phenomenology (Turner, 2003). An alternative ball-lightning theory involving a fast spinning pulsar-like ball lightning (Endean, 2000) might account for the recorded signals if their interpretation is correct, but the standard nature of the plasma, which is predicted to be produced by nuclear fusion inside the spinning light ball, simply cannot explain the observed optical features.

It does not seem that the spherical iron particle could be explained by any after- effect of a phenomenon similar to ball lightning.

Many theories have been proposed to explain ball-lightning phenomena (Stenhoff, 1999) and a few have been proposed to explain the specific Hessdalen phenomenon and earth lights in general (Strand, 1994). The present evidence of Hessdalen phenomena makes it necessary to consider whether or not earth lights and ball lightning are two sides of the same phenomenon. This was discussed during a workshop held in Hessdalen in 1994 (Strand, 1994; Teodorani & Strand, 1998), where, in addition to the presentation of the experimental evidences and of observational techniques, three physicists in particular discussed ad-hoc theories (Fryberger, 1997; Smirnov, 1994; Zou, 1995), which were adaptations of their own theories on ball lightning to the Hessdalen phenomena. At that time, such theories could be compared mostly with simple witnesses of the phenomenon and not with real observational data. Now, with some real data in hand, it appears that two of these theories cannot explain the most important aspects of the Hessdalen light phenomenon in a satisfactory way.

Some of the available data concerning the Hessdalen phenomenon, in particular its optical behavior, seem to show that the most important aspects of the intrinsic structure of earth lights can be explained by the same physical process that characterizes ball lightning. The better established differences between ball lightning and earth lights concern the normal ranges of size and life-time. The largest sizes and lifetimes are typical of earth lights. It has been suggested (Turner, 2003) that the differences may be partly a result of differences in the air’s electrical space-charge between fine and thundery weather conditions.As a working hypothesis, another important difference between earth lights and ball lightning, according to some of the data acquired so far, seems to consist mainly in the external cause that triggers initiation of the light phenomenon. Earth lights are more probably triggered by piezo-electric and related electromagnetic phenomena (Zou, 1995), which may account for the relatively long duration of these typically blinking light events (several minutes or more), compared to the short duration of ball-lightning phenomena (several seconds). If earth lights are phenomena that depend on the geophysical nature of the territory and on its more or less long-lasting tectonic stresses, then their precise spatial recurrence is to be expected. Variations of the phenomenon on hourly, daily, and monthly scales are likely due to (normally periodic) variations in humidity, while longer-time-scale changes are possibly due to different (possibly transient) phases of seismicity. Other time changes on various scales might be due to variation of cosmic-ray showers, and the possibility of an ‘‘Earth-sky’’ connection, due to possible interactions between geophysical and cosmic processes. These clearly need to be studied more extensively. Ball lightning (Stenhoff, 1999) is more probably triggered by atmospheric electricity and its typically very short duration is probably (or partly) due to single shots of energy such as lightning during thunderstorms.

[mcrom901]

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

[mcrom901]

http://www.narcap.org/Projsphere/narcap_ProjSph_2.4_MaxTeo.pdf

[ChrLzs]

Just sampling what has been posted above, I really love this sort of stuff...

....the Stefan-Boltzmann law (Lang, 1998) gives the absolute luminosity as PABS 1⁄4 4 p R2 r TE4 (where R is the radius of the luminous phenomenon, r 1⁄4 5.6697 3 10ÿ8 J sÿ1 mÿ2 Kÿ4 is the Stefan- Boltzmann constant, TE is the effective temperature). If the ball is assumed to be a plasma that expands adiabatically, then the temperature should drop when the volume of the ball increases. If the plasma is approximated as an ‘‘ideal gas’’ the adiabatic expansion obeys the law, TVcÿ1 1⁄4 a constant, where c .1....

Gee, thank heavens that essential point was clarified, along with the Hessdalen color schemes.... We can all go home now.

Please, can we try to keep posts short and directly relevant? Some of us have other stuff to do, and I'm finding it very difficult to see the point of what has been posted on this page.

[Tim Hebert]

Let's take this topic on a somewhat parallel course. We know that the B-52's radar scope photos show a radar return. Per the RAPCON transcript we have the following,http://minotb52ufo.com/doc.php#sd:

0852 - controller to aircrew: "UFO being picked up by weather radar also...should be at your 1 o'clock position 3 miles now."

aircrew to controller: "Nothing on our airborne radar..."

Notice that BB had underlined "weather radar" followed by "?".

This was 6 minutes prior to loss of UHF transmission capability and presumably when the aircraft's radar picked up a return. What is to be made of the weather radar return. This information appears to have never been followed up by Werlich. The last of the BB memo for records show that BB was still asking Minot for the weather radar data. Can we say that there is a possibility that RAPCON was mistaken and no such data existed?

Of equal, if not greater, importance was the lack of any radar returns by the nearby SAGE facility (Air Defence Command). No interceptors were scrambled for this event. If we have a true radar returns, would not the SAGE unit's system have picked up the object in question?

This begs the question that maybe the B-52's radar return may have been an anomaly in conjunction with the radio issues. More to the point, maybe the radio issues was the prime factor driving the radar problem. Of course, I'm merely tossing these questions and possible far reaching speculations out for discussion.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Tim Hebert

[whynotminot]

Just sampling what has been posted above, I really love this sort of stuff...

Gee, thank heavens that essential point was clarified, along with the Hessdalen color schemes.... We can all go home now.

Please, can we try to keep posts short and directly relevant? Some of us have other stuff to do, and I'm finding it very difficult to see the point of what has been posted on this page.

Just sampling what has been posted above, I really love this sort of stuff...

Gee, thank heavens that essential point was clarified, along with the Hessdalen color schemes.... We can all go home now.

Please, can we try to keep posts short and directly relevant? Some of us have other stuff to do, and I'm finding it very difficult to see the point of what has been posted on this page.

OK, sorry. i was not aware that there were limitations on posting.

Edited January 26, 2014 by whynotminot

[Mike G]

Is that photo available anywhere?

One can only imagine how grainy and lacking detailed it must be if it does exist.