It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Interesting sighting of multiple glowing fast movers off Irish coast

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Did and search and was surprised to see nothing on this.

At least 3 airline captains report sightings of multiple objects, manoeuvring whilst travelling at high speed near Ireland. The Irish authorities are investigating but at the time said they were not aware of any military presence.

"A second pilot, flying a Virgin Atlantic Boeing 747 and using the callsign Virgin 76, then joined the radio conversation to say that they too had seen more than one bright light or even "multiple objects following the same sort of trajectory." He repeated the details about the objects being very bright and moving at extremely high speeds, likening their appearance to an object re-entering the earth's atmosphere from space.

Another captain is heard saying that they appeared to bank and climb at high speed.

War Zone Article

The article linked includes audio.

Looks like something/s were on their way to a unique environment.

Cheers
Robbie
edit on 19-11-2018 by stratsys-sws because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-11-2018 by stratsys-sws because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: stratsys-sws

Nice find!

Sounds like some new bird was flying around and happened to get “caught”.



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: stratsys-sws

I beat you to it in the UFOs forum sorry mate.



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: stratsys-sws
Dont see why this would not have been meteors.



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

I just looked for your thread but didn’t find it. Though I just did a fast search.

Can you link it please?



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

link



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Woody510


Thank ya mate!

I'm only at the end of page 2 but so far a good thread.



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Woody510

Thanks Woody, I have to admit I never look in there as the debate is often a bit far fetched for me, the AP forum always has more informed points of view and as this may be relevant to a currently flying black project it makes sense we can talk about it in here, however if mods deem it repetitive then please feel free to remove.

@mightmight - You probably haven't seen why its not a meteor as you've not read the transcript or listened to the audio? I don't think I've ever seen a meteor "veer north" or "climb" Also, pilots see meteors and various things re-entry all the time, they don't call it in with a military exercise query.

Cheers
Robbie


edit on 19-11-2018 by stratsys-sws because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-11-2018 by stratsys-sws because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: stratsys-sws

It says that the objects were seen as bright lights...could this not be also interpreted as light beams of some sort and, not necessarily beams coming from the ground, but entering the Earth's atmosphere from space.



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: stratsys-sws
I did read the article when it appeard a week ago. Comments actually explain it pretty well.



Since the only weird thing about this "event" is the trajectory reported by one of the pilots, here a very crude graphic with a possible explanation implying that atmospheric optical refraction is what caused the confusion. Refraction can cause an object to appear higher than it is and the lower on the horizon it is the more it will be affected by it, as the object moves up compared to horizon it's perceived position "re-alligns" with the real one



That is a very nice explanation, Orb, of an extremely plausible and IMHO extremely probable visual mis-identification of a meteor event. Along with the possibility of atmospheric refraction causing an illusory trajectory...there are also the following confounding perceptual factors, that may be in play for this event:

1) We have two objects both in relative motion with each other, the airplane observer(s) and the meteor.

2) The observers are at altitude, and they have no stationary ground objects in field of view (e.g. trees, buildings, mountains, etc.) to act as stationary reference point, by which to judge relative motion. This can present perceptual difficulties in judging motion and vector.

3) A meteor often breaks apart as it burns up in the upper atmosphere. This can create two or more distinct luminous objects appearing to follow the same path/trajectory. Depending on the background brightness of the sky, the meteor may present as a bright fireball, yet with no discernible "tail" or streak. The luminescent ionization trail (normally quite visible in a dark night sky), is washed out by the ambient background light, thus the primary fireball or fireballs may be only visible as discrete, fast moving points of light.

Note that (3) is remarkably consistent with the report from Virgin Airlines plane (Orlando to Manchester) which described the sight as a “meteor or another object making some kind of re-entry”, adding it seemed to be “multiple objects following the same sort of trajectory – very bright from where we were.”

4) As the bollide finishes burning up, the intrinsic and apparent luminosity decreases rapidly. The drop in brightness can be mis-perceived as an object with a constant luminosity, yet rapidly moving away to a distant vanishing point. The same drop in luminosity occurs if the meteor is simply grazing the atmosphere (dipping in, then skipping out).


Not saying certain aerospace vehicles dont exist but this event proves nothing.



posted on Nov, 19 2018 @ 05:03 PM
link   
airshow anyone?

bueller? bueller?




posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Thanks mightmight, that's much more sensible than a one line comment which doesn't add anything.

I agree it could have been a bolide, that was also my first thought, but I also see many reasons why it could have been something other than a meteor, perhaps including a failed hypersonic vehicle of some sort, hence why i disagree with your original rather pointless post.

Cheers
Robbie



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

Perhaps Smurfy, but it's the manoeuvring element which would make me doubt a beam of some sort.

Cheers
Robbie



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 05:54 AM
link   
I think these pilots are clearly mistaken.

Nobody can do reliable Hypersonics. There is no such thing as a mature hypersonic programor technologies. Nothing can beat the nine minute mark in hypersonics. The TBCC engine is the only way to possibly do hypersonics. China is the forefront of hypersonics, the western world cant figure it out at all, even with the best scientists and money. Nothing was glowing the pilots had retinal fatigue from staring at their instrument displays all night....AND DONT YOU FORGET IT!!!
edit on 20-11-2018 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
I think these pilots are clearly mistaken.

Nobody can do reliable Hypersonics. There is no such thing as a mature hypersonic programor technologies. Nothing can beat the nine minute mark in hypersonics. The TBCC engine is the only way to possibly do hypersonics. China is the forefront of hypersonics, the western world cant figure it out at all, even with the best scientists and money. Nothing was glowing the pilots had retinal fatigue from staring at their instrument displays all night....AND DONT YOU FORGET IT!!!


Rough translation = HUMMMMM!!!!!!!!




posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Nobody can do reliable Hypersonics. There is no such thing as a mature hypersonic programor technologies.


That you know of. I was building parts for the B-2 before it's existence was acknowledged.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

my personal belief is that even if the 7-9 minute barrier is there at hypersonic speeds that is a large area to dash over.

depending on how high and how fast you are going i will use a what i think to be reasonable mach of 6 as a dash speed at 5 mins is almost 400 miles.

multiply as see fit.

but if you could go 400 miles in 5min at 100,000 feet you would be out running pretty much anything other than energy weapons. an aircraft at it's max altitude like a mig-31 would only get one shot, and it would have to be lucky because they would have to pop up and launch as they are stalling/ed out coasting up and then ejecting as im sure it would crash. much more expensive to intercept then just hide whatever it is you want to hide.

these sightings lasted what? a few mins at best? to an airliner an aircraft going mach 3 the other way would seem very very fast(it is)

lets say you could get 2 MAYBE 3 dash's before refitting the aircraft, expensive ...yeah but it could be the difference in getting the intelligence you need or the the opportunity to take out a VIP target, or not.

if you had 3-5 of them in a rotation it would be doable, by definition they would be able to fly very high and stealthily at low speeds and maybe even loiter a bit and then if needed they could hit it and be gone in an orange flash.


there are clearly things that have an extreme envelope of operation. what exactly that is, is up for debate.

i guess it comes down to your definition of a 'aircraft'. like a TSTO setup, it is hypersonic but not in the air for the most part



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   
also they saw them climbing and banking, usually things(bolides and such) falling to earth don't go back up


ETA:

funny they hit the gas and went up when the radio chatter started happening

not that it is relevant but the Advanced Maneuverable Reentry Vehicle came out in 78 and look what that could do



big difference in warheads and aircraft granted but the warhead survived and didn't vaporise.


link
edit on 20-11-2018 by penroc3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3

I'm not saying that you are wrong. I'm just saying that we don't know. There's the little matter of size and perspective to be concerned with as well. Small objects that are closer and moving at realistic speeds can look like larger objects further away if there isn't a point of reference.



posted on Nov, 20 2018 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

true enough

also autokinesis is a thing but they saw it bank and climb to high altitude means it was something out there.

but like you said what that something is who knows



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join