Breaking UFO News! - Stephenville, Texas Radar Report

page: 14
223
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwatcher
Hmm looks like a big blimp to me, nothing at all like the witnesses described.

Let's be completely fair here: the witnesses did describe something big.

However, and has Zeptepi points out several points where this blimp theory fails, one other point I would like to add: the altitude.

The blimp is supposed to work at incredibly high altitudes, and every witness described the UFO has being pretty low. This is in the MUFON Report.




posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I've been away from the internet for awhile, now back after hearing that Stephenville is back in the news. Thanks for the story OP. I hear there will be another episode of the Larry King show about Stephenville on Friday. Very exciting stuff with the Mufon radar information now out.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by danx
 


Danx, you might want to take a look at my post back on page 11 of this thread.


Lighter-than-Air-Vehicles (LAV's) don't necessarily have to be "blimp"-shaped.

Ours looks more like a "Flying Wing".


And LAV's aren't limited to operations at high (or low) altitudes, either.

Depending on its design, an LAV can fly at any altitude an airplane can; and then some (140,000+ Ft currently).


Work is being done now to develop LAV's that can even fly from 100KFT to Earth orbit, and back.


And, as I pointed out in my prior post, if you could develop a light enough, rigid enough "skinning" material, the reduced mass of an aerodynamic LAV would make supersonic operations not only possible, but economical as well.

And yes, work is also currently being done on an "Airship" capable of Hypersonic flight in the extreme upper atmosphere.


And let us not forget that, just because one development program (Lockheed/Martin's HAA) has been cancelled by one branch of the armed services, it means that the Concept itself has been completely shelved by ALL branches of the entire government.


The project we worked on for the USAF is still being worked, even after the termination of the contract.

At least, that's the scuttlebutt we've heard.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Terrylynn
 


this is the biggest story seems like most people are laying down 200 people want to comment about a balloon but we cant get 10 people to say 2100mph to 49mph on radar means anything craft was 500ft to 1000ft news says it was probably a herrier ive lived here in dfw area for nearly 20 years and never seen one of those and when i watch those lymie shows i dont remember them saying it could mach3+ but i did see a picture of it i dont remember it being 500ft to 1000ft long it was well shy of 50ft



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by robatmj12
 


ok theres 280 million people out there tonight cant believe there all asleep at the same time carswell says they scrambled 10 f16s and its on radar at 6pm jan 8th ive lived here for 20 years and never seen 10 planes scrambled from carswell afb im sure it was just a training mission not



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by robatmj12
reply to post by Terrylynn
 


this is the biggest story seems like most people are laying down 200 people want to comment about a balloon but we cant get 10 people to say 2100mph to 49mph on radar means anything craft was 500ft to 1000ft news says it was probably a herrier ive lived here in dfw area for nearly 20 years and never seen one of those and when i watch those lymie shows i dont remember them saying it could mach3+ but i did see a picture of it i dont remember it being 500ft to 1000ft long it was well shy of 50ft


Actually, the F35 Lightening is being built and tested in Ft. Worth and some do have Harrier like STOL capabilities, i.e. it can hover. I'm sure it can make 2100 MPH or more, but it certainly isn't 1,000 feet long or even close to it, it's a fighter jet. I'm quite certain that the Stephenville object cannot be one of these.











[edit on 7/16/2008 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


I just watched the larry king segment on you tube. It makes me laugh that he askes why has no one ever come forward saying they have had contact. Im sorry larry, but if you did some digging you will find there are hundreds of people that have come forward. It is just thought to be socially unacceptable to have been contacted by aliens.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I'd like to inject a few other examples.

Back in Sept of 1997 my daughter, a friend and I all witnessed the military
set up a test site across the air strip from Ft. Richardson/Elmendorf AFB.

On this evening the military had multiple generators running with lights
when sending out a repeat transmission on a very low band. They had used
a public abandon dirt runway on County owned property.

What I witness was astonishing ... it seems our military was testing some new type of cloaking device that looked like a glowing orb. It was the duty of our
Air Force and Army to see if they could find it.

I have more example of this bizarre X-perimental cat and mouse testing.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
The first time I saw a F-117 or stealth figher was on Oct. 10, 1993. He was flying so low I waved as him inside the cockpit as he flew over my house in Alaska. He couldn't have been flying above 300 feet ... almost floating.

The military had strung extra lights underneath the craft to give it a UFO
look for disinformation.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
This is as close as I dare post on a public forum. Not 100%, but very close to the real situation out there.


www.nidsci.org...



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skydancer

I have more example of this bizarre X-perimental cat and mouse testing.


I reviewed the data and 99% sure it was ARDVARK on a training mission, they (F16) were flying a tangent from the target to see how it "painted" the intercept radars.

The actual radar data points have been "constructed" and are not true returns from the target, hence ARDVARK.

Pretty sure its an LAV, Electronic Area Denial Platform.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Electronic Area Denial Platform

You mean what Ricky Sorrells saw in broad day light was this?



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ufo reality
 


A more apt statement would be to say ...."an object that Ricky Sorrels CLAIMS to have seen....."

Ricky Sorrels and his "supposed observation"...has nothing to do with the data that mufon presented. Nothing.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by starcraft
reply to post by ufo reality
 


A more apt statement would be to say ...."an object that Ricky Sorrels CLAIMS to have seen....."

Ricky Sorrels and his "supposed observation"...has nothing to do with the data that mufon presented. Nothing.


I can only say that many of us who interviewed Mr. Sorrells eyeball to eyeball do believe his account. Three police officers in Stephenville also had a craft sighting, rather than just the typical lights in the sky. I would say that this LEO sighting supports Mr. Sorrells' story. I also got the impression the the very experienced Mufon investigators believed his sighting as well. Nevertheless, there is a whole lot more to this event than just the Ricky Sorrells sighting.

As far as the Mufon radar report goes, it does indeed confirm that whatever the citizens of Erath County, Texas have been seeing in their skies is a real object.








[edit on 7/16/2008 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by starcraft
 


Yeah...ya know why?

Because what Ricky saw was in mid-December.

The radar data is of Jan. 8

Gosh you're so smart and witty!



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


I thought the theory on using light to 'get rid of' excess power was interesting. Seem many sights do involve some very bright lighting. Also is seems as though the lights sometime are said to extinguish as the crafts leave or disappear.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


If you have any additional hints with regards to the material used for the "skin" of the craft, I'd appreciate it.

Due to monetary constraints (We refuse to work under a government contract ever again. Almost wrecked our firm), we're still working with nylon/polyethelene.

I've speculated on the possibility of an electrically reactive polymer, but I think some form of thin-film metal might be closer to the mark.


I just had a very strange thought, so I'll just add it here.


Ricky Sorrells described one of the features of the craft he saw as truncated "cone-shaped indentations (evenly) spaced, and covering the bottom of the craft"; if I remember correctly.


Now take a very "Up-Close" look at the surface of a golf ball.



Could those "indentations" be performing a similar function, on a much larger scale, for the craft Mr. Sorrells observed?

[edit on 16-7-2008 by Bhadhidar]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   
the lights are "dazzle" lights they are used to conceal the actual shape of the craft to the human eye. By running the lights in dazzle pattern mode, the human eye can not remain focused on the background shape of the actual craft if by chance it is observed under low light conditions, or if orientated in front of the moon. Most operations should be conducted on lower then low light conditions or moonless nights to avoid back lighting the craft.

they are currently testing a smaller scale squad based version of the system I believe in Iraq already, using low watt green lasers.

"the dimpled surface similar to a golf ball" is probably accurate these "pits" would be used to capture radar waves attempting to "paint" the craft, on-board sensors then would re-calculate the radar energies received from multiple pits and then "bounce back" the modified signal in a slightly altered return vector. The search radar then that painted the craft will receive the now altered return signal reporting false data, which could include size, velocity and doppler position.



[edit on 17-7-2008 by robertfenix]



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   
I will concede that yes, the witnesses on Jan 8th observed multiple lights. They then assumed that they were all part and parcel of one object. The assumption is that the craft/object was huge.

The radar data then "shows".....an object. If it were multiple objects instead of one large one...then there should have been multiple returns on radar. A logical conclusion is that it was one object....and huge.

I've changed my mind. Is that allowed here?


edit to thank TheAvenger for pointing out this blatant fact.

[edit on 17-7-2008 by starcraft]





new topics
top topics
 
223
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join