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.

 

UFO Prediction

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
The Prediction:

Anyone who's read some of my earlier posts knows that I'm adamant that the real power of any theory is it's use to make valid predictions. I'm ready to make one.

The next 24-48 hours* will be an excellent period for UFO sightings, especially of a Giant Stealth Blimp aka Black Triangle, in an area of the south-central US extending approximately from the Oklahoma/Arkansas border; through south-central Texas, between Dallas and Wichita Falls, Lubbock and Larado, and El Paso and Roswell, NM; across Southern New Mexico; and sweeping northwest across Arizona and Nevada from Tuscon through Las Vegas and Reno. Basically, a big U-shape from Reno to Ft. Smith.



However, keep in mind this is just a prediction, not a guarantee, and is only the first test of a new theory which has yet to be refined.

So, if any ATSer happens to see/photograph a GSB/BT in the next few days, or hear of a report of same, could you post the details on ATS? Thanks.

The Theory:

Blimp dynamics are a bit different from hard-wing aircraft. A Giant Stealth Blimp aka Black Triangle probably cruises comfortably at 50 knots or so with excellent efficiency, requiring only around 3000 HP, depending on its actual size (I'm assuming 400 feet long here).

Moving such a beast west-to-east in the Northern Hemisphere presents no real problem: just grab a jet stream or ride the prevailing weather. However, if a GSB/BT commander needs to fly east-to-west, from, say, the US east coast to the west coast, the options are more limited. That's because this wonderously efficient machine -- which only needs 3000 hp to cruise -- would need 24,000 thousand hoursepower just to stand still in a 50-knot headwind (a breeze which is not at all unusual at higher altitudes). To make it to a reasonable cruising speed would take an additional one-hundred-sixty-eight thousand horses. That's a lot of jet fuel to crawl along at mere highway speeds.

So, to get back from the Eastern Seaboard to your GSB/BT hanger in the Nevada desert, you could:
-- use an awful lot of fuel, assuming that you had the ponies to pull it off at all;
-- fly over the North (or South) Pole;
-- fly around the globe westward, across Europe, Russia, and China, perhaps;
-- drop down below Florida and ride the Trade winds;
-- wait until the conditions are right to fly westward.

It's that last option I've been exploring.

Although it is rather difficult to pry real data from the BT "databases" that exist on the 'net right now, I've satisfied myself that there seems to be a correlation between wind-speed and BT sightings, and between weather systems and BT direction-of-travel. And in general, the best time for BT sightings on the US mainland seems to be when winds below 6000 feet are "light and variable" and create a corridor from east to west.

That's what we've got right now: at all altitudes north and south of the zone shown, and above 6000 feet in the area indicated, the winds for the next coulple of days will blow from the west, northwest, and southwest at speeds above 20 knots, sometimes well above. However, in the highlighted area, the winds below 6000 feet will be essentially zero. We've got an airship highway across the USA.

Add to the theory the observations that UFOs seem attracted to highways and bodies of water, especialy lakes, and including slow-moving rivers and streams, and even cattle stocktanks. Well, streams and lakes and highways all tend to be found along lowlands, so it makes sense to look for UFOs in low-lying areas without much wind.

You may have already noticed that the dead-air zone follows flatlands, valleys and mountain passes; it also and runs across a number of well-placed watering holes (airships need large amounts of water for ballast). In fact, the area shown matches almost exactly with the route taken by US Navy blimps travelling from Ohio to California and back in the 50's and 60's, and by the last blimps to leave Moffett Field back in 1947.

There's one other correlation which seems valid here: UFOs gravitate toward rural areas; that is, they are seen in disproportionate numbers in low-population areas. The crescent on the map above cuts across areas of relatively low population density.
2000 US Census Population Density Map (Wikipedia)
Look at this map carefully and you can see a low-density, flat-ground corridor running from Indiana and Illinois right through Texas which lines up near perfectly with our low-wind corridor.

This, then, is a rare and perfect time for GSB/BTs to be travelling westward, close to the ground. Keep looking skyward.

(* NOAA's wind forecasts only run 24 hours out; however, the pattern is stable for that entire time, and I feel it will hold for another day, at least. In any case, it takes a full 48 hours to travel coast to coast at blimp speeds.)




posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
It's not considered a UFO if you know or others know what it is.

Why did you post this irrelevant information? no one here believes that most are what you're describing. This should be in the Military and Government Projects section.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
incunabula,

rand postulates that many, or most, UFO sightings are of blimps. He posted it in this forum because it's relevant to denying ignorance vis a vis UFOs. Check out the link in his sig.


Perhaps the title should be re-christened "'UFO' Prediction"...?

[edit on 23-9-2006 by Tuning Spork]



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by incunabula
Why did you post this irrelevant information? no one here believes that most are what you're describing.


It makes perfect sense to me, frankly, and I think that if we spend a lot of time in this aliens forum talking about black triangles and they turn out to have been gigantic military blimps we will have been well-served to have discussed it here. His theory regarding the jetstream, terrain, etc, is not half bad.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Exceptionally well thought out and very interesting. I will be curious as to how well this pans out over the next few days. This theory could also be applied to seasonal variations in UFO sightings as well, with changes in the jet stream and prevailing wind direction during the course of the year.

Good work



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Thanks for the map rand! I be out with my trusty disposable 35mm and 16 x 50 binocs, scanning the heavens. I'm thankful that I'm looking at the skys from a NM vantage point and not Lubbock, Texas. Talk about alien!!!

What! I know where of I speak; born and raised in Lubbock.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   
Here's hoping others will start taking a look at weather patterns vs. UFO sightings. The data is readily available, but there seems to be little notice of it in the standard literature. I've noticed what appears to be a trend for sightings to occur just south of passing pressure waves, but my meager research may not be up to the task.


Originally posted by whaaa
I know where of I speak; born and raised in Lubbock.


Ah! A native! Everyone I know there is an implant...uh, I mean "transplant"...from somewhere else.

Maybe you can tell us why the local newspaper is called the Avalanche Journal; as far as I can tell, they'd have to import dirt just to get a hill tall enough to stage an avalanche


I hope to be down south of there this weekend (wouldn't you know it, Granny chooses this weekend to have a heart attack -- that's a joke, too; they think it may just be pneumonia).



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Your theory only applies to objects sighted below 6000FT; might I suggest that, owing to advances in both materials and technology, a so-called "Stealth Blimp" might be capable of operations at Much Higher altitudes?

At least a decade ago, coincident with the development of a "rockoon-based" launch system, the organization I was associated with sent a weather balloon-based reasearch platform aloft. The launch occurred at about this same time of year, early autum. The launch point was Davis, California.

Over the next 12-18 hours we tracked the progress of the platform as it flew in a generally East Northeast direction, towards the Sierra Nevada moutians and the Nevada state border.

Then a strange (or so we thought) thing happened as the platform climbed above 80KFT: the flight path doubled back on itself and the platform began heading virtually due WEST! Our last contact with the platform was it flew out of tracking range some where off the California coast over the Pacific Ocean.

At the time, this behavior was counter to everthing we had learned to expect, and we were at a lose to explain it. A chance encounter between our group's leader and a former SR-71 pilot brought everthing into right: At extremely high altitudes, above the jet-stream, there is sometimes a counter flow to the west.

Thus , if an advanced airship, ie. a stealth blimp, were capable of flying at extremely high altitude (advanategous for a large, slow-moving and somewhat fragile vehicle designed to loiter over possibly hostile areas), it might very well make use of this west-ward flow, and remain "Unseen"?

The USAF's goal for the JPA Ascender NSMV was extended loiter above 80,000FT. Hard to see anything at that altitude from the ground; at least without very special equipment.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 03:19 AM
link   
"However, in the highlighted area, the winds below 6000 feet will be essentially zero.
We've got an airship highway across the USA. " == rand

I appreciate the prediction effort. I think this is new for ufology. Did you take
ground altitude into account ? I believe a significant portion of your predicted
arc will have average ground altitudes of around 5000 ft above sea level. Or
is your wind altitude intended to be AGL ?

"Maybe you can tell us why the local newspaper is called the Avalanche Journal " == rand

"The Lubbock Avalanche was founded by attorney John James Dillard with his business partner Thad Tubbs,
who provided the money for the equipment to publish a newspaper in 1900. According to Dillard, the origin
of the newspaper's Avalanche name comes from wanting to surprise the citizens of Lubbock with the newspaper."

source
www.lubbockonline.com...



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing
I believe a significant portion of your predicted arc will have average ground altitudes of around 5000 ft above sea level. Or is your wind altitude intended to be AGL ?

It varies, station to station, but this naturally focuses on flight levels visible from the ground in VFR* conditions.

It's mostly NOAA/NWS data directed to pilots, and shows "standard FD** levels".
aviationweather.gov...
(although I'm not above using the resources of Weather Underground and similar).

aviationweather.gov...
All levels through 12,000 feet are true altitude (MSL)***. The levels 18,000 feet and above are pressure altitude. Wind direction is from true north. No winds are forecast within 1,500 feet of station elevation.


This is typical data for 24 hours from now (edited to fit on the page nicely):

FT 3000 6000 9000 12000 18000 24000 30000 34000 39000
DAL 0111 3618 3520 3319 3024 2862 2879 2887 2796
ELP 1517 9900 2705 2830 2738 2663 2670 2680

It's basically DDKK, where DD is degrees/10 and KK is speed in knots. It can get more complicated, but that's the gist of it.

At Dallas, at 3000', the winds will be from the NNW (10 degrees) at 11 knots. At 6k', the winds will be from the north at 18kt, etc.

El Paso is over 1500 ft elevation, so there's no 3000' entry, but at 6000' they'll see 17kts from SSE. The 9900 entry at 9000' means winds under 5 knots with no particular direction: "Light and Variable", and the winds are just 5kt at 12000', so between 9k' and 12k' (7.5k'-10.5k' AGL) is good air for aerobatics -- and aircraft flying west.

I figure an aircraft at any altitude up to the third filght level for any particular station should be easily visible from the ground. Call it roughly 8000' above ground level, pretty close to both Dallas and El Paso, above. That's based on personal experience living around airfields and photographing aircraft, as well as observing large ships at sea (we're talking about UFOs up to the size of the Queen Mary, after all).

So, I guess the answer to your question would be: I'm interested in ground-to-8000', and the data allows me to fairly easily assess wind speeds roughly between 1500' and 9000' AGL (sorry to be so long-winded!). Where I said, for instance, "6000 feet" I may have been citing above-the-station OR above-sea-level, but in either case it would be in that 0-8000' range. Sorry if I was imprecise; I'll watch that in the future.

I'm hoping at some point to script this, using perl or such to harvest the info and tools like those from maptools.org to digest it into an up-to-date UFO forcast map. I'd also like to go back to whatever historic data is still out there and compare it to good chronological UFO data where possible. Anyone have any ideas or suggestions?


*VFR -- Visual Flight Rules: pilots navigate by following landmarks, roads, etc., and are usually not allowed to fly into clouds, which means fairly clear skies (although I recall 'surfing' a thunderstorm into Meridian, Mississippi...). If they can see the ground, we can see them, right?
**FD -- Forecast Data
***MSL -- mean sea level.



posted on Sep, 24 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
Your theory only applies to objects sighted below 6000FT; might I suggest that, owing to advances in both materials and technology, a so-called "Stealth Blimp" might be capable of operations at Much Higher altitudes?

Thus , if an advanced airship, ie. a stealth blimp, were capable of flying at extremely high altitude (advanategous for a large, slow-moving and somewhat fragile vehicle designed to loiter over possibly hostile areas), it might very well make use of this west-ward flow, and remain "Unseen"?


I'm quite aware of these points. However, if the craft are capable of operating at all times at such extreme altitudes, why would anyone ever see one at tree-top level, especially near a populated area?

Maybe there's not a handy counterflow jet; maybe it too freakin' cold at 80,000' sometimes; maybe the 'other guys' spy satellite is in the wrong place; maybe they're too cheap to spring for GPS and still fly VFR; maybe they're looking for something on the ground and prefer calm winds; maybe they're spooked, so to speak (the Roswell crash supposedly took place behind a thunderstorm); maybe for the comfort and convenience of their passengers they choose light air for anal probes these days; maybe it's just a nice day and the pilot decides to buzz a buddy's new vacation home by the lake (been there
). I don't really know for sure.

Large ships also usually sail over 80,000 feet (15 miles) from shore, and are therefore generally "unseen" by the public. But sometimes you can see one close to shore, in places ships are not regularly seen. It's reasonable to question whether the sighting is weather-related.

I'm not trying to understand why UFOs are unseen, but why they are seen. There's a reason large triangular and/or other-shaped objects cruise around under 8000'. If they're restrained by the same physics that govern other large floating objects (like blimps and airships) then perhaps we can find connections between physical conditions and their behavior.



posted on Sep, 25 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
No edit button
, so:
...would need 24,000 thousand hoursepower just to stand still in a 50-knot headwind...
should read
...would need 24,000 thousand hoursepower just to stand still in a 100-knot headwind...

I seem to have the hardest time with EDIT on this site; is it just me or does PREVIEW toss out everybody's changes?

Anyway, I hit the wrong button, but I'm not going to retype the whole thing AGAIN, so here's the map, without caveats or explanations. The CYAN is the best area.


[edit on 25-9-2006 by rand]
Shucks. I forgot the date: 2006-09-25, 8PM CDT
Enjoy.


[edit on 25-9-2006 by rand]



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I seem to have the hardest time with EDIT on this site; is it just me or does PREVIEW toss out everybody's changes? == rand

Its not you. When you preview your change, make sure it is still in the text box.
I think it is a bug in one of the latest upgrades to vBulletin, but I haven't seen
a hack for it.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Its an interesting hypothesis. Making a stab at a prediction is indeed the right thing to do. Commendations for that.

So lets assume that a black triangle is a stealth blimp.

What, in your opinion, is the kind of engine that it uses?

A jet engine is loud, but somekind of advanced turbofan could be quieter. What about super-quiet (large diameter) props? What kind of engine do you invision?

Some people report no sound other than a humming. So whatever it is is quiet. What about the rapid acceleration that some observers report?

What about the large light strips often seen on these things? If you were testing it cover capabilities around Wright Patterson, why turn on light strips?

I realize that these questions don't deter from testing the hypothesis in the way you have stated. Also, these are not intended as fascetious questions and they are not rhetorical, I am interested in hearing more how you invision this blimp functioning. Finally, I understand that asking 'what about the lights' may involve human behavior and could be irrelevant to your hypothesis/theory.


[edit on 16-10-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Just curious, but as a seasoned individual on aircraft types and mission roles, why the hell would anyone need a stealth blimp? It would serve absolutely no functional purpose over a battlefield or as a recon vehicle. In Southern California there are many blimps of assorted sizes including the Goodyear. You can see and hear them coming miles away and they can't escape from anything.

UAVs and UCAVs already fulfill any role you are conceiving better. Between satellites, SR-71 and TR-3 there's nothing you can't see.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   


Rand, your prediction was as lame as your thinking that all or most UFO sightings are military blimps. This is funny, how could you even think that such a prediction was possible?

I would not write for a few months if I were you, this has to be pretty embarrassing for you. I mean, you were probably so sure of your theory, that you decided to make this thread thinking that you had it all figured out.
Welcome to the exiting world of UFOs, no one knows for sure what they are, and for the ones who claim that they have figured it out, shame and laughter are sure to plague them.



PS. You should join forces with Porphet Yahweh.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Well, I did make it to the eastern side of the Texas Panhandle on Septemer 25, and if you'd been out on Highway 287 with me, you'd have seen an awsome sight. Unfortunately, it wasn't a UFO (to me, at least) but it was three very large and potentially triangular aircraft flying very low over the Texas prairie. It was right about here, at a 'picnic stop' on US 287, at 9:50-9:58 PM CDT:



I feel pretty certain I witnessed the last few minutes of a night refueling (possibly involving two B2's) by a KC-135 tanker out of Altus AFB, Oklahoma. On reflection, the conditions that would make for good airship travel would probably be ideal for night refueling training.

Here's new map, for midnight UT (GMT), Thursday, October 19. Sorry about the colors; I'm still learning. As before, it represents areas with little or no low-level winds along with strong upper-level winds.

Note that there's a nice low-level corridor running from Oklahoma all the way to Canada via the Great Lakes. This one is even better than the September event, in a way: it is lower than the one that occured last month, below 6000 feet.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by rand

Well, I did make it to the eastern side of the Texas Panhandle on Septemer 25, and if you'd been out on Highway 287 with me, you'd have seen an awsome sight.



Interesting Rand. Where exactly where you at?

I live in Vernon , Tx so you must have been just a few miles North and West of me at the time. I'm guessing from your image above , just West of Vernon between Vernon and Chillicothe.








[edit on 17-10-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
I'm guessing from your image above , just West of Vernon between Vernon and Chillicothe.

Absolutely. How's this for accuracy? I was actually standing right between those two picnic tables. Just gotta love Google...



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by rand

Absolutely. How's this for accuracy? I was actually standing right between those two picnic tables. Just gotta love Google...


O.k. Check this out...



That is where I would have been at the time. ( Red Dot )







[edit on 18-10-2006 by lost_shaman]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join