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.

 

The Awful Truth About UFOs (long) -- not for believers!

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
I keeping getting these thoughts of a blimp society. you know personal blimps and blimp buses and such. It would be economically and ecologically sound.
What's the top end on say a blimp big enough to carry 2 dozen people? And how big would it have to be?

I want my own ultralight blimp (there is such a class!) but I'm not sure how the FAA can determine the "dry-weight" of a vehicle that has a negative takeoff weight (and the FAA's ultralight definition does say "weight", not "mass").

Akron carried a 70-man crew, Macon 80-some-odd. A thirty-passenger blimp might be about the size of a ZPG, say 120 meters long by 20 meters diameter, but it might be made smaller, as it wouldn't have to carry torpedos and 40-foot radar antennae and such, and could be made with lighter materials than the last of the great blimps. Figure an envelope of 1500 cubic meters per passenger (I think).

As for speed, I may know better if I ever get time to explore the Rosenthal archive in Dallas; there's a report from the 50's entitled "Aerodynamic Loads, Load Factors and Speed Limitations for the ZPG-2 Airship". There's another report at the Smithsonian titled (I think) "Proposal for Dramically Increasing the Speed of LTA Craft" from about the same time.

A ZPG3 made 90 mph on 3000 hp; not bad for something the size of football field. Compare that to a DC-3: 20 passengers, 180 mph, 2400 hp. Or a DC-4: 50+ passengers, 250 mph, 5800 hp. It's probably close to a dead-heat.

Since a blimp doesn't use much thrust to maintain altitude, speed is mosty limited by drag (which is remarkably low for a blimp -- a fraction of the resistance of an Airbus or 747) and structural factors. The Bell X-1 looks rather like a blimp, wouldn't you say? It was supposedly modeled after an artillery shell, but I think it tapers more blimp-like.

Wouldn't you love to see a blimp with full afterburners!




posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
It's not quite smoking-gun quality yet, but MadGreebo posted this a few weeks ago:


Originally posted by MadGreebo in the thread
Take a look at this... Russian Air Force shoot down 'spy blimp'.

www.acig.org...
(Scroll down to the botom entry and its there...nato / CIA spy blimp...)


The site perports to have access to declassified Soviet military records. There are 3 downed blimps listed, two in ?1954 and another in 1990, along with the Soviet pilots' names.

Anybody got any ideas where to look for more info?



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I still havent seen the slightest evidence that claims that the most puzzling UFO sightings are blimps. Still waiting.......................

Saying that all unexplained UFO sightings are top secret CIA spy blimps is like saying all animals that eat meat are cats.

Im not a true believer. I do believe that 80-90 percent of UFO explainations are mundane. This 80-90 percent includes secret craft and mis-identified blimps.

the 10-20% of ufo sightings that do not fall in the above categories are the ones of interest to me and most researchers. And by no stretch of the imagination do any of those sightings resemble anything blimp like.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   


www.acig.org...
from Jan 26, 2003, ("Last Update: 08 August, 2003") lists 7 "confirmed" blimp records:

16Jan56 Spy blimp CIA
31Jan56 Spy blimp CIA
31Jan56 Spy blimp CIA
31Jan56 Spy blimp CIA
31Jan56 Spy blimp CIA
1Feb56 Spy blimp CIA
23Sep56 Spy blimp CIA

and one claimed/unconfirmed:

1956? Spy blimp CIA*

www.acig.org...
from Oct 28, 2003 ("Last Update: 9 July, 2005") lists the same as above plus one more "confirmed":

29Jul61 Prop. blimp CIA

www.acig.org...
from Oct 28, 2003 (Last Update: 19 May, 2006) lists the following as "confirmed":

?1954 Blimp USAF
?1954 Blimp USAF
3Sep90 Spy Blimp NATO/CIA



Very strange, and interesting...

Still looking for an email address to check it out.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
And by no stretch of the imagination do any of those sightings resemble anything blimp like.



What about all the "it looked like a blimp..." sightings? You must have a very unstretchy imagination. Loosen up a bit.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by rand



What about all the "it looked like a blimp..." sightings? You must have a very unstretchy imagination. Loosen up a bit.


Seeing how my imagination is fine, I know that the vast majority of sightings that have occurred that stated it looked like a blimp have been already identified as blimps.

However, in the below cases:

Roswell
Washington Nationals
Green Fireballs of New Mexico
Soccoro/Zamora Case
Rendlesham Forest
Cash-Landrum Sightings
Belgian Triangle Wave
Hudson valley UFO sightings
Kirtland AFB sightings
Valentich Case
Valensole Case
Phoenix Lights
Kinross

There is no mention of anything that looks like or even remotely behaves like a blimp. Not even your supposed top secret spy blimps.

And those are just cases off the top of my head.

No matter how secret they maybe, these supposed blimps, if so super high-tech as is claimed, would have remained unknown. The U2, SR-71, and the stealth craft are all public knowledge. Gravity defying hypersonic blimps that can break the sound barrier without making a sonic boom that have remained unknown by everyone including ufo skeptics are alot less believable than flying saucers from other planets. Especially when we are talking about objects observed to be using technology that is for now, theorhetically beyond our ken.

Even the couple of unexplained cases where a UFO was described as cigar shaped, that is about where the blimp similarities end. The behavior of the objects is beyond anything a blimp could do.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
with all due respekt to you rand i do side with Skadi_the_Evil_Elf on this.


believing a blimp can make those out of this world moves takes more faith then believing in out of this world spacemen.




[edit on 18-6-2006 by krossfyter]



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Roswell:
Was not a UFO, it was unidentified debris. What is huge, silver, and looks like a saucer? A deflated blimp. What is huge, silver, looks like a saucer but can be carted off in just six (or so) Army trucks? A deflated blimp. What kind of huge silver craft would have a reason to be flying around the NM desert in 1947? A radar-equipped blimp, which was one of only two ways to provide long-range radar coverage for nuclear facilities (Roswell/Los Alamos) in 1947; the other (build a radar site) took a bit longer. That area was among the first to get fixed-base long-range radar not too long after.

Washington Nationals
The last of the Lashup radar sites covering the East Coast, including those around Washington, were decommissioned in early to mid 1952, and control passed to the Permanent System in July, 1952. At the time, blimps were routinely used for alignment, testing, and calibration of ground-based radar systems. Two were flown back to the West Coast in 1957 for just that purpose. It's my theory that they were, at least once, used to demonstrate how inadequate the c. 1952 early warning system really was.

Green Fireballs of New Mexico
Part of the same radar research program which had blimps running around Washington State the summer of 1947. May have been green flares, which were in common use, towed behind various aircraft, including blimps.

Soccoro/Zamora Case
Silver, blimp-shaped (oval) craft, small (but otherwise normal) people in overalls. Little people or big craft? Zomora got it wrong at first, thinking the object was the size of a car. Then he thought it was the same width as an L-class blimp seen from one end. The Navy was experimenting with jato assisted takeoff for blimps as early as 1950.

Rendlesham Forest
Ah! A good one. The CIA took an interest in the area just prior to the event, taking a series of stereo satellite images. The Navy had a blimp unit devoted to torpedo/debris recovery in the 1940s and was using video-assisted recovery (ie, a tv camera and spotlights on a sled equipped with waldos) from the 1950s. Wrap a recovery sled with black canvas and it will probably look like a pyramid. You'd want it smooth and pointed at the top to keep from snagging the trees on the way back up. Hang it from a blimp, and go recover whatever it is you want to recover. What were they looking for? It's hard to say for sure, but they may have delivered it to the nuclear storages bunkers on the base.

Cash-Landrum Sighting
Look upthread a bit: a blimp can look like a diamond or cross. What do you send out to help rescue a stranded covert blimp? Helicopters, perhaps. By the 1960s, blimps were carrying megawatt pulse radar systems. A pulse like that can heat metal, make you uncomfortable, shut off a car's ignition; the heat can knock a person out; within a few hundred feet the beam can create all the effects of ionizing radiation: burned flesh, radiation sickness, even death.

Belgian Triangle Wave
Hudson valley UFO sightings
I haven't researched these much yet, but so far they sure sound like the fabled Giant Stealth Blimp.

Kirtland AFB sightings
"white, slightly elongated oval", "egg shaped","silver", etc. etc.

Valentich Case
Elongated, but no shape reported otherwise. Engine cut out, pilot apparently lost consiousness. See Cash-Landrum, above.

Valensole Case
Oval, silver object, strange beings; again, small people or large craft? Being was holding a tube; geiger counter, perhaps? The reports I've seen don't say how long the tube was, but maybe the beings were refilling their ballast tanks with a hose. Witness lost conciousness. See above.

Phoenix Lights
Ok, not a blimp, but not an object, either, just points of light. Best explanation so far is flares.

Kinross
Pilots were lost in the Great Lakes, that's not strange; they are still lost at sea today. The military jet probably just tried to close with the object and hit the ice/water. Blimps need a huge amount of water, and the best place to get some might be in the middle of a really big lake. The Superior area was left out of the original Lashup radar system and the Permanent System stations were not active in the area until the late 50s and early 60s; that's a very good place to find a long-range radar picket blimp, to guard the approaches to the main centers of US nuclear research and manufacturing at that time.

You forgot Shag Harbor:
In the early 60s the US was testing missile decoys and etc. -- the Penetration Aids Program sucked up a lot of money and is still highly-classified. As part of that program, the AF probably accidently heaved a Titan II second-stage into Shag Harbor, possibly with the warhead still attached, and later sent a recovery sled via blimp to get it back. A torpedo recovery ship might be too large to navigate the harbor, and, besides, would attract a lot of attention, even at night. The Navy by that time had autonomous manned recovery sleds, whch could both recover and move the debris, whatever it was. The USO moved down the coast to, of all things, a US-manned military base. None of the witnesses thought to get a sample of the brownish-yellow foam seen around the site, which is a true shame. The propellant of a Titan II, when mixed with water, forms an acrid yellow to brownish liquid, and can produce steam and bubbles. Then we did it again a few years ago, dropping a Titan second stage into Canadian fishing grounds off Newfoundland.



[edit on 18-6-2006 by rand]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Rand,

UFO's are very strange objects. People have real difficulty relating UFOs to anytype of Human experience, especially by verbal expression or visual association. The fact is ,and you've pointed this out many times, that UFOs can in some cases aesthetically resemble or have attributes similar to those Blimps may possess.

As Skadi said , the similarities end there and are only superficial or aesthetic in nature.

If you would simply say that SOME UFO sightings may be explained as CIA Spy Blimps, that might be hard to argue with.

I'd personally say o.k. thanks Rand for the great research , I'll consider that (CIA Blimps ) a possibility on a case by case basis.

You see that's not what your saying on this thread, your saying that " "Roswell, Washington Nationals, Green Fireballs of New Mexico, Soccoro/Zamora Case , Rendlesham Forest , Cash-Landrum Sighting , Belgian Triangle Wave , Kirtland AFB sightings , Valentich Case , Valensole Case
, Phoenix Lights , Kinross , and Shag Harbor " are all explainable by way of Secret CIA Blimps because the sightings may superficially resemble Blimps or have superficial characteristics that could be described as being "Blimp-like".

That is a very weak argument.

If you simply desire to debunk all UFO sightings , you should pick up ALL of Philip J. Klass's Books you can get your hands on!

Now here is where things start to get really interesting , as Klass has already attempted to "Debunk" ( In his mind ) most of these cases, so in essence you Rand with your Blimp Hypothesis ( Notice I didn't say "Awful Truth" ? ) basically have to argue against your fellow debunker to qualify your hypothesis in every case before you can even challenge the pro-UFO camp.

( You see myself being , tentatively in the pro-UFO camp , I don't have to argue against you and Klass at the same time , I only need argue against the "Debunker" with the best or most plausible hypothetical. )

Good luck with that BTW. ( OMG! did I REALLY just complement Klass??? ! Eh Gads!!! )

P.S. Oh and Rand , you'd be wrong about Roswell not being a UFO first and only being "debris". The very first reports from the UP mentioned residents in the "Area" reporting a Blue Light flash across the sky, and even Mack Brazel claimed that he heard a deafening report he attributed to a freak "thunder".





[edit on 19-6-2006 by lost_shaman]

[edit on 19-6-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
most good UFO cases were not blimps. iran 76, alaska 86, belgium 89, mexico 04 were not blimps. period. these were the cases that convinced me something was going on.

i notice that rand very much avoids the belgium 89 case even though he has been asked directly about it more than once and has had months to debunk it.

he will also not be able to debunk the others i brought up but that won't stop him from pulling a klass and fighting to the death over his blimp idea. klass had venus, rand has blimps.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 89123
i notice that rand very much avoids the belgium 89 case even though he has been asked directly about it more than once and has had months to debunk it.


Did you really create an account just to rant at me? I'm impressed.

I have not avoided anything, and am quite candid that I've not had time to look closely at many UFO events. But neither am I here to debunk* whatever some or every little pissant thinks is the absolute smokin' gun proof that UFOs are...what? You didn't present any evidence, I notice, any theory of your own, just spout a list of "cases". I have my own timetable, thanks, and my own agenda.

If you have specific objections to anything I've written, I would be delighted to discuss and debate, but in the meanwhile, if it bothers you so much, don't read my posts. It won't offend me a bit.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Although I may take a crack at it when boredom sets in. But there will always be more "cases", more unidentified flying stuff, more (shudder) blurry cellphone movies of aliens, more and more "yeah-but"s.

lost_shaman: I'll get back with you later, dude.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by rand
Did you really create an account just to rant at me? I'm impressed.

I have not avoided anything, and am quite candid that I've not had time to look closely at many UFO events. But neither am I here to debunk* whatever some or every little pissant thinks is the absolute smokin' gun proof that UFOs are...what? You didn't present any evidence, I notice, any theory of your own, just spout a list of "cases". I have my own timetable, thanks, and my own agenda.

If you have specific objections to anything I've written, I would be delighted to discuss and debate, but in the meanwhile, if it bothers you so much, don't read my posts. It won't offend me a bit.


i've been lurking here for months. i did not see your first post because it was back in january. but now i see that you are serious so you were worth registering for.

your stated goal is to explain how the great majority of good UFO cases were actually due to blimps. but in several of the more recent UFO cases that were very credible and remain unexplained, blimps do not even come close to describing what was encountered. yet you vigorously defend your blimp idea to the point of absurdity. that is clearly a philip klass tactic. so yes, you have definitely avoided a huge stack of evidence that directly contradicts your position.

i don't need to provide any evidence, because there are literally a hundred pages or more of it available through google on the cases i mentioned. nor do i have to provide any theory, because i have no idea what was encountered in those situations. but i do know it was not man made blimps. and that's where YOUR theory falls apart. see, this is about YOUR theory, not anything else.

you called me a pissant. that's good. that means you are already starting to lose the argument.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
Your your saying that
    are all explainable by way of Secret CIA Blimps because the sightings may superficially resemble Blimps or have superficial characteristics that could be described as being "Blimp-like".

    That is a very weak argument.

I was specifically answering Scadi's assertion that those events did not have blimpish features. They do, although sometimes the connection may seem tenuous at first glance.

I have a theory here which can explain 60 years of UFO sightings; simple, elegant, fits in a single sentence. That seem powerful enough to me. I am willing to be wrong, and have said so from the begining, but I will not back away just because some people, even most people, find the idea uncomfortable. If I'm wrong, show me I'm wrong, I'm a big boy now and I can take it; however, please don't just point to a list and tell me I have to be wrong because the list is there.

And, no, I don't feel I have to disprove or debunk anything. I don't need to "prove" anything, either. Mathmatics and, to some degree, faith demand proof; science only needs a convenient explanation and the utility of making reliable predictions.

Quantum physics is so wierd it can't possibly be "true", but who cares, as long as your iPod still works? Maybe Satan put all those fossils in the ground to trick us into believing in evolution, but why kick about it if we can pretend evolution really works and use the theory to breed square tomatoes and fat-free chickens?

Maybe all UFOs are not blimps, maybe none are, but so far, the theory fits the facts conveniently and may allow a useful outcome or two. Like what? Well, if I'm right about Cash/Landrum and other close encounters and/or abductions, those folks or their survivors might just have the basis of a lawsuit and finally get some compensation for their suffering.

Speaking of predictions, I realized early on that if the US had covert blimps that someone in the Soviet Union would see one, sometime, and planned to investigate Soviet Block UFO sightings as time allowed. I always figured the witnesses would report a big silver UFO (which, apparently, has happened), but never thought to guess that they might actually shoot one down.

Roswell: nobody actually saw anything flying, which is why I say it wasn't a UFO event; technically, it wasn't. If it happened at all, the stuff probably was a flying object at some point, but there is the possibility it wasn't.

PS: Noticed your Yahoo! address a while back; are you Native American? Just curious.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by rand

I was specifically answering Scadi's assertion that those events did not have blimpish features. They do, although sometimes the connection may seem tenuous at first glance.


Right , so what was it you showed? That you can spin a UFO event so that in some small minute way you can make it sound like a description of a blimp.

Look what you said about Green Fireballs, Blimps carried Green Flares. When we know for a fact that Green Blimp Flares had absolutely nothing to do with the Green Fireballs that would traverse across entire States in a matter of seconds.



Originally posted by rand

I have a theory here which can explain 60 years of UFO sightings; simple, elegant, fits in a single sentence.


See this is exactly what I object to. Your theory does not explain the UFO Phenomena for the last 60 years. At best it is a possible explanation for a handful of cases and certainly not the Major cases that are researched extensively and things like Blimps are already ruled out.






Originally posted by rand

And, no, I don't feel I have to disprove or debunk anything. I don't need to "prove" anything, either. Mathmatics and, to some degree, faith demand proof; science only needs a convenient explanation and the utility of making reliable predictions.


If that were true we would have thousands of theories ( Convenient Explanations ) for everything ( Old Wives Tales ). What a theory must do is to show that it should be the PREFERED THEORY. If not then you have to change your theory.

All we must do is to show that your theory is not accepted or PREFERED to explain the entire modern UFO phenomena.

Then what you should do is alter your Theory so that is says SOME UFO sightings over the last 60 years MAY be explained by Secret CIA Blimps upon further careful examination of the event.

That would be a truly viable Theory.



Originally posted by rand

Maybe all UFOs are not blimps, maybe none are, but so far, the theory fits the facts conveniently and may allow a useful outcome or two. Like what? Well, if I'm right about Cash/Landrum and other close encounters and/or abductions, those folks or their survivors might just have the basis of a lawsuit and finally get some compensation for their suffering.


Exactly!




Originally posted by rand

Roswell: nobody actually saw anything flying, which is why I say it wasn't a UFO event; technically, it wasn't. If it happened at all, the stuff probably was a flying object at some point, but there is the possibility it wasn't.



Roswell Daily Record July 8, 1947

Mr. and Mrs. Dan Wilmot saw a large glowing object zoom out of the southeast and head toward the northwest at a high rate of speed before disappearing over the treetops. The entire object glowed as if showing through from inside. Wilmot estimated it was in sight less than a minute, perhaps 40 to 50 seconds. It looked oval in shape like two inverted saucers or two old type washbowls faced mouth to mouth. Wilmot guessed it was 5 feet thick and 15 to 20 feet in diameter, 1500 feet high, and traveling 400 to 500 mph. He said he heard no sound, but Mrs. Wilmot claimed to hear a swishing sound. Wilmot was called "one of the most respected and reliable citizens in town."


That was what the Wilmot's saw July 2, 1947.

There where many , many other sightings all during this time as well.

roswellproof.homestead.com...



Originally posted by rand

PS: Noticed your Yahoo! address a while back; are you Native American? Just curious.


Yeah , I am some. I have Grt. Grandmothers on both sides of the Family who were full blood NA's. So mainly Crow and Cherokee , but I have a few other Native American Ancestors too.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
Right , so what was it you showed? That you can spin a UFO event so that in some small minute way you can make it sound like a description of a blimp.

Yep. Probably couldn't do that with '57 Chevys, so maybe they're not '57 Chevys.

Green Fireballs: they had, from what I've read, flat trajectories, at least those for which the trajectory could be calculated. That argues for something like a winged aircraft or airship, and not all those fireballs were moving at hundreds of miles per hour. It's quite possible and even probably that someone up towards Los Alamos was testing some kind of tracking system, especially since an AF group was up that way on classified orders to set up a radar site; a copper-rich green flare might make a good target for both radar and telescope. Since blimps were used for testing and calibrating radar systems, and since I think blimps were used for picket duty starting the previous year, it's not too much of a stretch to think that one or more blimps were involved.


...we would have thousands of theories ( Convenient Explanations ) for everything...What a theory must do is to show that it should be the PREFERED THEORY. If not then you have to change your theory.


Every physical theory is just a convenient explanation of observation Useful ones get used and produce useful results. There are at least four fairly common theories of gravity, not counting the newest superstring and other esoteric ideas. According to newtonian physics, baseballs don't really fall down, and by the time we get to general relativity they don't fall at all, just travell in locally straight lines (geodesics), and now it seem they may not even move -- but that "everything that goes up comes down" thing seems to work just fine in the Major Leagues.

There are already thousands of theories about UFO events; it seems to me that at least one different theory is required (and proffered) for every event.

Roswell: now we're arguing definitions, which is counter-productive.

For those reading this thread for the first time, or somehow missed the opening post

Originally posted by rand
The sad and awful truth is, they've mostly been blimps [emphasis added].
so do please stop complaining that I'm trying to classify ALL ufo events as blimp sightings.

Heritage: Thought so; I'm supposed to have Cherokee on at least two sides of the family, too, which may explain the skull knot and the teeth thing, but mostly I think I got the Scotch-Irish genes instead (except Dad's beautiful curley red hair, drat the luck).



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by rand

Yep. Probably couldn't do that with '57 Chevys, so maybe they're not '57 Chevys.


LOL Yep, but we also know they are not '57 Chevy's don't we?



Originally posted by rand

Green Fireballs: they had, from what I've read, flat trajectories, at least those for which the trajectory could be calculated.



Right.


Originally posted by rand

That argues for something like a winged aircraft or airship, and not all those fireballs were moving at hundreds of miles per hour.


Or dare I say it... UFOs? ( You forgot to add those on your list there. )

Here is what Dr. La Paz who investigated the Green Fireballs said about the speed of the Green Fireballs.


www.project1947.com...

Dr. LaPaz: Duration estimates range from 5 to around 14 seconds. I think that a 10 second average is about the best, that would give about 10 miles per second.



Note that 10 miles per-second is 36,000 m/p/h .







Originally posted by rand

There are already thousands of theories about UFO events; it seems to me that at least one different theory is required (and proffered) for every event.


I was of the opinion that only one theory was needed , the ETH.



Originally posted by rand

Roswell: now we're arguing definitions, which is counter-productive.


I didn't argue a definition with you , I offered a quote from the July 8, 1947 Roswell Daily Record.


Originally posted by rand

Heritage: Thought so; I'm supposed to have Cherokee on at least two sides of the family, too, which may explain the skull knot and the teeth thing, but mostly I think I got the Scotch-Irish genes instead (except Dad's beautiful curley red hair, drat the luck).


Man thats cool or weird , I have Scottish and Irish Heritage too! Even my dad has hardcore curly hair , but I didn't inherit that trait.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   
in the 2004 mexico airforce case, it looked pretty credible. 3 trained men on a routine patrol for drug dealers had radar and infrared contact with 11 UFOs and recorded about 20 minutes of the encounter. the video was released to the public because the mexican airforce could not explain what happened. it was reported on CNN.

it turns out that they probably just got confused, and a few radar contacts led them to fly near the coast where they picked up oil well fires that were miles away with their infrared camera. there's a few minor things that don't add up in that explanation, but it seems likely.

in no instance of the investigation did anybody suggest it was blimps. ball lightning, atmospheric gases, meteors, space debris, weather balloons, and flares were all suggested and rejected until the plausible oil well fires idea came up. this was a major case that a lot of airforce and science personel investigated.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by 89123
in the 2004 mexico airforce case...it turns out that they probably just got confused, and ... they picked up oil well fires...


Your point here is not clear to me. The case was pretty well solved about the time I joined ATS, and was never of particular interest.


Originally posted by lost_shaman
Here is what Dr. La Paz who investigated the Green Fireballs said about the speed of the Green Fireballs.
"Duration estimates range from 5 to around 14 seconds."

That's out of context; the way I read it, La Paz was referring there to a single sighting, trying to explain the variations in distance and timing measurements. He did earlier say "In the case of the green fireballs something between 3 miles per second and 12 miles per second", but there was a lot of uncertainty there, in both duration and path length. There were never any really precise measurements, so we'll never know for sure.

But, hmmm...you've given me an idea....if I was asked to set up radar sites in and around New Mexico to protect Los Alamos and Roswell, I'd want to run to some tests beforehand to see what kind of coverage was possible. Up to that time, nobody had ever set up a radar system that far inland, around mountains and other big obstacles; most -- maybe all -- long range radar sites up to 1948 had been along coastlines; even blimps were coastal-bound. It might be productive to map green fireball sightings versus the eventual location of NM/Southwestern radar sites. Back in a sec.

Ok, to see something in the air 200 miles away it needs to be at an altitude of about 32000 feet (on flat terrain, etc., etc., YMMV). The green fireballs were estimated to be, let's see, 8 to 10 miles, call it 40000 to 50000 feet. So the horizon is more like 287 miles...ok, thats almost the precise distance from Amarillo to El Vado, and pretty close to Amarillo-Albuquerque. Roswell to Ft. Hood is a longer stretch but then, there's no mountains in the way.

What was the estimated ceiling of Soviet bombers of the time? Hmmm..I see 35000 feet around 1948, over 39000 feet by the 50s; that about right?

So, we shoot off some green rockets, or drag flares behind a high-altitude aircraft, while watching on radar and telescope from around the areas we're thinking of using for fixed radar sites. Sounds reasonable to me.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by rand
Your point here is not clear to me.


oh. you're a moron. sorry, i did not realize this until now. you see, a recent major UFO case stumped a lot of people for months, and not a single researcher suggested that it might be blimps. not a single one. and not only that, but it turns out that it WASN'T blimps. but my point here is not clear to you.

it's interesting that somebody as stupid as you could also be so technical when discussing aeronautics. maybe you copied your blimp arguments from somewhere else?



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by rand

That's out of context; the way I read it, La Paz was referring there to a single sighting, trying to explain the variations in distance and timing measurements. He did earlier say "In the case of the green fireballs something between 3 miles per second and 12 miles per second", but there was a lot of uncertainty there, in both duration and path length. There were never any really precise measurements, so we'll never know for sure.


Its not out of context I've read this entire transcript three times in the last 48 hours and its an accurate assessment of speed in general according to Dr. La Paz. Did he mention the 3 miles per second speed ? Yes ,but he also said in his opinion the average speed would be around 10 miles a second.





Originally posted by rand

But, hmmm...you've given me an idea....if I was asked to set up radar sites in and around New Mexico to protect Los Alamos and Roswell, I'd want to run to some tests beforehand to see what kind of coverage was possible.



Its always fun to say "if" I do it all the time myself... But for one thing your forgetting that White Sands Proving Ground has had a RADAR for several years by this time. ( 1948 -1949 )

Remember that Roswell debris was supposed to be a RAWIN RADAR reflector?









Originally posted by rand

Ok, to see something in the air 200 miles away it needs to be at an altitude of about 32000 feet (on flat terrain, etc., etc., YMMV). The green fireballs were estimated to be, let's see, 8 to 10 miles, call it 40000 to 50000 feet. So the horizon is more like 287 miles...ok, thats almost the precise distance from Amarillo to El Vado, and pretty close to Amarillo-Albuquerque. Roswell to Ft. Hood is a longer stretch but then, there's no mountains in the way.


What are you getting at?


Originally posted by rand

What was the estimated ceiling of Soviet bombers of the time? Hmmm..I see 35000 feet around 1948, over 39000 feet by the 50s; that about right?


So what?


Originally posted by rand

So, we shoot off some green rockets, or drag flares behind a high-altitude aircraft, while watching on radar and telescope from around the areas we're thinking of using for fixed radar sites.



Green Rockets? Thats new. Aircraft ? Ours or Russian?





Originally posted by rand

Sounds reasonable to me.



You said it. I don't think its reasonable. You've just given multiple explanations for the same thing, and say "sounds reasonable"?

How do you figure that? Chuck Yeager only broke the sound barrier on October 14 1947 in the X-1. Possibly that George Welch broke the "barrier" two weeks earlier in a dive with the predecessor of the Jet-Powered F-86 "Saber". ( X-1 was Rocket Powered) The first Jet to achieve Super Sonic speed in Level flight , was George Welch on may 25, 1953 in the YF-100.

So from a Historical perspective , we did not even have "Aircraft " that could travel 3 miles per second , much less 10 miles per second!

So no I don't think it sounds reasonable at all.



BTW, Rand I really enjoy these conversations , so don't think I'm being snide or offensive.




You have voted rand for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.




[edit on 21-6-2006 by lost_shaman]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join