Seeing is "not" believing.

reply to post by Scramjet76


Damn lol! I just check out the 1976 Iran incident that you posted. That is pretty crazy! I thought your post on the matter was well done, I'm surprised there has not been more discussion on it in your thread.

Originally posted by BLKMJK
reply to post by Scramjet76

 

Damn lol! I just check out the 1976 Iran incident that you posted. That is pretty crazy! I thought your post on the matter was well done, I'm surprised there has not been more discussion on it in your thread.

It's absolutely one of the most puzzling cases there is, for me. I have no explanation. I do have some wild speculation which probably isn't worth much more than anyone else's wild speculation, so I tend to keep that to myself.

Probably the reason the thread didn't get more attention is that it's a duplicate thread, the original in the UFO thread directory is here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is the link to the directory: www.abovetopsecret.com... There are usually other threads around on the same subject but they tried to select the best threads for that list.

One saying you sometimes hear in this field is "pictures or it didn't happen" which you can't take too literally, since I don't think anyone in this thread doubts that you described exactly what you saw happen, so I think it refers to the fact that the camera sometimes reveals things the human eye doesn't.

And unfortunately the Iran case is simultaneously one of the best cases, but also one of the worst cases in that there's no photographic evidence that I'm aware of. Just to give you an example of why that's important, if we didn't have videotape of the Phoenix Lights (the 10pm event), that would have become as big a mystery as the Iran case. Because someone got a good video of the 10pm lights, we were able to determine exactly what they were (a few people still have doubts but most people now admit the lights have been conclusively identified). So, I often wonder, if we had video of the Iran 1976 event like we do of the Phoenix lights 10pm event, if the video might have helped identify what they saw in Iran like the video helped us identify what they saw in Phoenix. I guess we'll never know.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by BLKMJK
reply to post by Scramjet76

 

Damn lol! I just check out the 1976 Iran incident that you posted. That is pretty crazy! I thought your post on the matter was well done, I'm surprised there has not been more discussion on it in your thread.

It's absolutely one of the most puzzling cases there is, for me. I have no explanation. I do have some wild speculation which probably isn't worth much more than anyone else's wild speculation, so I tend to keep that to myself.

Probably the reason the thread didn't get more attention is that it's a duplicate thread, the original in the UFO thread directory is here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is the link to the directory: www.abovetopsecret.com... There are usually other threads around on the same subject but they tried to select the best threads for that list.

One saying you sometimes hear in this field is "pictures or it didn't happen" which you can't take too literally, since I don't think anyone in this thread doubts that you described exactly what you saw happen, so I think it refers to the fact that the camera sometimes reveals things the human eye doesn't.

And unfortunately the Iran case is simultaneously one of the best cases, but also one of the worst cases in that there's no photographic evidence that I'm aware of. Just to give you an example of why that's important, if we didn't have videotape of the Phoenix Lights (the 10pm event), that would have become as big a mystery as the Iran case. Because someone got a good video of the 10pm lights, we were able to determine exactly what they were (a few people still have doubts but most people now admit the lights have been conclusively identified). So, I often wonder, if we had video of the Iran 1976 event like we do of the Phoenix lights 10pm event, if the video might have helped identify what they saw in Iran like the video helped us identify what they saw in Phoenix. I guess we'll never know.

Brother your clarity of thought is much respected. I was not impressed with the Phoenix lights. Without digging into it too much it looks like flares. I am stumped with the case in 1976 with the ball chasing the pilot but who knows. It is exiting but as you say "without the pics?" What is the most intriguing case you have studied that puzzles you?

Originally posted by Erno86
All of a sudden, the whole eastern sky lit up when a cicular shaped, reddish orange colored fireball descended from low lying cloud cover. The driver instantly pointed his right hand toward the object, as I did the same. My party chief had hiis head turned towards me when the fiery ball with no tail or smoke first appeared but he turned his head to the front enough to catch the rest.

It one of the most beautiful things I ever saw in my life. Descending, perpendicular to Earth, straight down [approx: 25 to 40 mph]. About a mile away [ approx. 500 to 1,000 feet in diameter.[approx. diameter of your fist all the way extended.

It seemed to have landed just beyond the mountain range in front of us, as we saw the foofighter disappear over the top of the ridge at the mountain in front of us.

My party chief said the fiery object was a meteorite. If that was a meteroite, it would have left a crater a thousand feet deep, and the impact would have shaken the Spinx.

From the sound of your description, I would say that your party chief was almost spot on, apart from calling it a "meteorite", since it's only a meteorite if it reaches the ground. It's actually quite hard to judge direction, speed, distance, and the true size of an object in the sky like a meteor.

Here's a photo of a fireball that dropped meteorites in the Czech Republic.

Source: APOD

Look how the apparent size increases as the meteor becomes brighter. Is the physical size of the meteoroid increasing during it's decent in our atmosphere? Or does it simply look bigger because it glows brighter as it penetrates into the most dense parts of our atmosphere?

The point is that you can't estimate the size of a light of unknown brightness/distance in the sky, and you can't estimate the distance unless you have some point of reference (like it passes in front of a cloud, which would give you a rough idea at least) or a visual cue. These cues are common on the ground in most situations we humans find ourselves in, but in the sky they are scarce. A light in the sky could be 10, 000 meters away, or it could be 10 light years away, and if each was just at the right brightness, there would be no way of knowing the difference.

It's exactly cases like this, where the brain will subconsciously make assumptions, since there is a lack of visual cues (reference points), it draws from past experience of what works, and "fills in the blanks". The trouble is, that past experience involves relatively close objects on the ground, and in daylight, where we have lots of visual cues (shadow, passing behind/in front of objects, the ground itself to name a few off the top of my head), so the brain applies these wrong assumptions to an unfamiliar situation, and the result is that it tells us we are seeing something that we are not! That is the basis for many optical illusions.

The example I gave above is a classic example - the brain aromatically assumes that bright objects must be closer than dim objects in unfamiliar situations, because that is what we would expect most of the time. However, big meteors can be extremely bright, which is why people who see bright meteors often say they thought it looked very close, when we know this is not the case.

As well as the brightness of meteors confusing people, people also don't take into account that a meteor that seems "low in the sky" can actually be at many tens of km altitude in height, since we live on a curved earth and we have a curved atmosphere.

Consider this diagram It's exaggerated, but demonstrates what is going on.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/95efe8242439.jpg[/atsimg]

If you are the observer (B), it will look to you like the meteor has fallen (downwards) just behind the mountain, but the observer (A) who is observing the same meteor from a few hundred miles from your location, and over the horizon will see something completely different. He/she would see the meteor apparently going up, and away from the horizon!

An observer in another location might see the meteor flying apparently horizontally.

I have seen meteors go up, down, sideways, and even stand still!

That is also why it's almost impossible to judge the true speed of most meteors - if even heading slightly towards, or away from you, your estimate will be inaccurate.

Also notice how the lowest part of the meteor (on the diagram above) would appear to be only just above the horizon to observer B, even though it is actually at very high altitude.

All these things can make a meteor seem strange and unnatural... but what do you expect from an extra terrestrial object smashing into our atmosphere at speeds most of us are unfamiliar with? Even the slower meteoroids hit our atmosphere traveling at a brisk 11 km/s. Think about how fast that is.

To make things even more complex, meteors are extremely variable in their characteristics, so most people that have only seen a few "shooting stars" tend to have a fairly fixed/inflexible mental image of what a meteor looks like, but if you spend enough time observing them you will see there are many types of meteors, each with their own characteristics, and not only that, but individual meteors from the same source will often have striking differences to each other.

It's very easy to rule out things (like meteor) mistakenly if you don't have a good knowledge of a certain subject, and to rule out what you saw as a meteor, just because it did not leave a big crater is wrong for the reasons I pointed out above.

reply to post by C.H.U.D.


A million thanks my brother! Your post is well presented and makes allot of sense. I don't think I have ever learned so much in 2 days lol! I have a question if you do not mind. Can ball lighting appear in a room?

reply to post by BLKMJK


I personally like the Kirtland Air Force Base case described by Dr. James McDonald in his lecture "Science in Default: Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations", delivered before a symposium of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

You have two witnesses, both CAA tower observers, viewing a vertically-oriented, egg-shaped object descend toward the airfield and fly across several runways to a point where it stops and hovers motionless for a full minute less than 100 feet off the ground - witnesses viewing it through binoculars the whole time - before it suddenly takes off in a steep climb at a rate of speed described as "many time faster than any known jets."

Both witnesses, re-interviewed by McDonald several years after the incident, were adamant that the object in no way resembled an aircraft of any kind.

You can read Dr. McDonald's remarks on this case, and on the UFO phenomenon in general, here

I also like the Coast Guard sighting over Lake Erie as described in this official document

Originally posted by BLKMJK
Brother your clarity of thought is much respected. I was not impressed with the Phoenix lights. Without digging into it too much it looks like flares. I am stumped with the case in 1976 with the ball chasing the pilot but who knows. It is exiting but as you say "without the pics?" What is the most intriguing case you have studied that puzzles you?

The Phoenix lights consisted of two events, one at 8:30 and one at 10pm. The later one is solved, but without video of the 8:30pm event it's not solved, though the one video I saw that claims to be of the 8:30pm event just looks like planes to me, but it's of such poor quality it's inconclusive.

The Japan airlines case was one of the most puzzling for me before I researched it, and it still puzzles a lot of people but I'm pretty sure I have a good idea what happened there, I spent a lot of time analyzing that case. What really helped me figure out what it was, is when I finally found a picture of the UFO, in the place nobody else was looking, in a satellite photo. I discussed my findings in this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm 99.999% sure the radar signature was coming from the object in that picture, all the radar evidence confirms that. The visual evidence points in another direction and I'm not quite as sure about that but the evidence is pretty persuasive because all the visual sightings come from the direction of an airport and the sketches drawn by the captain look like sketches of airport lights. There's one piece of evidence that doesn't line up with the airport, but it may have a psychological explanation, the captain said he felt heat on his face. If that was due to getting flush with excitement he could have felt heat on his face without it coming from the object. I admit that's the achilles heel of my explanation but I still find it quite plausible, the pilot was a UFO enthusiast, and he was seeing a UFO, so why WOULDN'T he get excited? He even looks excited here and all he's doing is re-telling the story:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bc5fd7032359.jpg[/atsimg]

The 1976 Iran case is probably the most puzzling to me without photographic evidence, followed closely by the Coyne Incident

One of my favorite cases with photographic evidence (even though it's very poor in quality) is the 2000 incident witnessed by at least 5 reliable witnesses, 4 of them police officers, and one of them took a photo:

www.youtube.com...



Those are 3 different animations of the object as described by 3 different witnesses. They are different enough to demonstrate that no two witnesses see the exact same thing when they witness an event (a fact well known by judges and lawyers) but similar enough to be convincing that they all saw the same thing, and just perceived it a little differently.

Why is this case so great?
1. Unlike the Japan airlines case for example, where all evidence suggests there was no solid object in the sky, there's no doubt in my mind that there was an actual solid object in the sky in the 2000 Illinois case.
2. From these descriptions I have little doubt that any conventional aircraft can explain the sighting, at least nothing that's been de-classified.
3. While the photograph is poor, it's sufficient to rule out any celestial explanation like Venus, etc (which causes a surprising amount of UFO sightings).
4. Satellites or other non-aircraft explanations can be ruled out.

I think it's the clearest case ever of an unknown aircraft. Now whether it's military or alien, I'd have to lean toward military. That's also mentioned by some people in the video. However people make a valid point by asking why the military would fly a secret craft over a populated area? I admit it's a good question. I don't have an answer. But I can also ask, why would aliens do it? I don't have an answer to that either.

But it's the best proof I've personally seen that there are things flying in the sky, that we don't know what they are. Of course now that we've seen things like the F-117 and other previously secret aircraft declassified, we know this has been going on for decades and Lockheed Skunkworks is still alive and well and probably flying things we won't learn about for another 40 years.

So what was it? Well it's the best evidence ever or a UFO in my opinion, but probably not alien, though who knows. One possibility is a "stealth blimp" or what's called "neutral buoyancy" or "rigid hull airship" by this aviation writer Bill Scott:

reply to post by Arbitrageur


There are many other good cases. In fact the "cat would be out of the bag" at this point if we were still having sightings like back in the old days. Considering the media power we have now in present day and our ability to spread information quickly....

I'm reading a book at the moment called Flying Saucers and the Straight - Line Mystery. Copyright 1958. French really did a nice job analyzing UFO reports. They concluded that the saucer reports indicated straight line movement (from town to town) corroborated over and over by many witnesses. Preface by General Air Defense Coordinator, Allied Forces Central Europe (NATO).

As for the Phoenix Lights, I know the superimposed video was great evidence for the flares theory. But it just seems too peculiar for the military to drop flares and 10k people to call in and things get so crazy that the mayor goes on live tv with someone dressed as an alien. I think there was much more to the Phoenix Lights than flares being dropped... Unless the Phoenixites have "war jitters" like in the Battle of LA...

Originally posted by Scramjet76
As for the Phoenix Lights, I know the superimposed video was great evidence for the flares theory. But it just seems too peculiar for the military to drop flares and 10k people to call in and things get so crazy that the mayor goes on live tv with someone dressed as an alien. I think there was much more to the Phoenix Lights than flares being dropped... Unless the Phoenixites have "war jitters" like in the Battle of LA...

One theory is the flares were dropped at 10pm as a diversion for the earlier 8:30 pm event and I suppose we can't rule that out since the 8:30 pm event has never been solved.

But the 10pm event is still clear evidence that sometimes witnesses have no idea what they are looking at. It took a lot of time to convince people those were flares.

reply to post by BLKMJK


Yes i agree i have no idea how much of this is true but i saw an interview with a guy who worked at are 51 on projects that were classified but are no longer classified.Point is he said even he was kept in the dark on many things so it may have just been a test?

reply to post by BLKMJK


My thread? I have no thread on subject, just posting in this one.

And yeah the 1976 Tehran Incident can't be debunked because it's the real deal. I guess it comes down to faith man. I can't really blame any national military for not releasing gun camera footage if they have it.

Trust me. Quantum neural network is the key. This is how the "soul" (for lack of better word) lives forever. Einstein already showed us. Your container will die. Time will kill you. But time stands still at the speed of light. Matter and energy are opposite sides of the same coin. If you are hooked into a quantum neural network, thought is instant- faster than light. That is why the quantum neural network (God) does not die. It moves too fast to die for lack of better words... ugh. Container dies everytime. Content never dies. This is the biggest stepping stone for the aliens. They realize that once we "accept the truth about nature," we will happily accept them as space brothers. I think they're a bit puzzled and concerned that we haven't "figured it out," yet we are using "spirit or science" for our own individual needs.

Humanity tends to keep science and religion on opposite ends of the room. They should be dancing together in the center of the room... The reason they don't come down in their mothership and start blasting over a galactic megaphone is because it would scare the crap out of people. They let the cat out of the bag very slowly. So slowly, that it appears humans are doing some of the work for them. Just by talking about it. Judging by how much ATS has grown since it's creation, I'd say 'cause and effect' is doing it's job. The truth comes from inside each and every one of us. It's not something "the aliens" can "make" you believe. Or something an "Obama press conference" can "make" you believe. You can't make someone do anything if they really don't want to.

We should look at things from "the aliens perspective." How do they "spill the beans" without causing extreme disruptions to their spacetime travelling brothers and sisters? They have to be very careful. Most people care more about pizza and beer than the meaning of life.

In theory... if geophysical calamities hit the Earth to the point where there was a "global crisis," that would snap our collective back to attention. Remind us that we live in a physical universe and life can suck. Once we are temporarily snapped out of our egotistical daze, that would be a perfect time for a "flyover" or some "UFO event" that lots of people can witness. Also, if our economy collapses, and people lose "economic faith" in TPTB, they'll find themselves more open to new trains of thought.

From a psychological and "cause and effect" standpoint, that would be the perfect time for them to "up the ante" and show a bit more of themselves. I'm not into predictions though.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

But the 10pm event is still clear evidence that sometimes witnesses have no idea what they are looking at. It took a lot of time to convince people those were flares.

It's true. Some people have horrible eyesight and reasoning skills. Maybe we can give them some alien DNA to get thier lineage back up to speed hehe.

I have actually read a book (I'm trying to think of which book so I can source it) where the military actually conducted a flying manuever of planes dropping flares and other planes doing manuevers around the the flares (at night). Many people called in and supposedly most of them were more or less on target with their descriptions and "what they thought they were looking at."

My coworker is an AZ transplant here in Seattle. He was witness to the Phoenix lights. He said what he saw wasn't flares, but he doesn't believe in aliens. He says maybe some giant gov't stealth blimp with huge spotlights on it? I don't think he really knows and it bugs him a little.

Eeeeek!!! Im tripping on this info. I have to go over it all and soak it in. I will rely tomorrow.

Originally posted by Scramjet76
reply to post by BLKMJK

 

My thread? I have no thread on subject, just posting in this one.

I suspect he was referring to the link in your signature- "Was the 1976 Tehran UFO related to alien abduction?" as I was.

Originally posted by BLKMJK
reply to post by C.H.U.D.

 

A million thanks my brother! Your post is well presented and makes allot of sense. I don't think I have ever learned so much in 2 days lol! I have a question if you do not mind. Can ball lighting appear in a room?

You're welcome.

I don't mind at all. Feel free to ask me anything, and I will do my best to provide an answer. However, I try to only answer questions relating to fields that I have at least some experience in (meteors, photography, atmospheric optics, and how these relate to anomalous atmospheric observations are my main specializations), and I have not done any real research into ball lightning. I do remember hearing reports of ball lightning being observed inside buildings, and even passing through solid objects, but I can't say how reliable those reports are.

Perhaps someone else who has researched the subject can help you out with some more definitive answers. Arbitrageur perhaps?

similar to this?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

I suspect he was referring to the link in your signature- "Was the 1976 Tehran UFO related to alien abduction?" as I was.

Oh I see thanks. Yeah I suck at writing threads, but that one was ok. I haven't logged into ATS in awhile so I'm a bit slow on the uptake.

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.

Originally posted by BLKMJK
Can ball lighting appear in a room?

I have not done any real research into ball lightning. ...Arbitrageur perhaps?

I'm somewhat of an expert on electricity, but I don't think any expert on electricity claims to have an understanding of ball lightning, though there may be some exceptional cases we partially understand, like the following example, but whether "ball lightning" is the correct name for it is debatable.

The closest thing I've ever seen to "ball lightning" documented well in a video was a plasma "UFO" report I saw right here on ATS, and I do have a fair understanding of that particular UFO and that particular type wouldn't typically occur in a room (unless possibly the room had high voltage inside it and the high voltage leaked for some reason. The old CRT monitors and TVs had maybe 20,000 volts in them which might be enough for something odd to happen if you had some odd conditions and some leakage, though I've never seen a documented case, I'd say it's not impossible).

Here's the documented case I recall:
from: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Psynarchist

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6c7bcc92985c.jpg[/atsimg]

That's definitely a "plasma UFO", though it matches some descriptions of "ball lightning", but electrical engineers might say it could be related to Corona discharge

Corona discharge is the creation of ions in a fluid (such as air) by the presence of a strong electric field. Electrons are torn from neutral air, and either the positive ions or the electrons are attracted to the conductor, while the charged particles drift. This effect can cause considerable power loss, create audible and radio-frequency interference, generate toxic compounds such as oxides of nitrogen and ozone, and bring forth arcing.

Even without anything interfering with the transmission line, very small amounts of plasma called a corona discharge can form under certain conditions, but then if something disturbs the electric field around the transmission line, the plasma could concentrate at the disturbance which appears to be the cause of what is seen in those photos. We'll never know the cause of that particular disturbance but it could be anything, possibly a spider building a web, or a kite string, or possibly an accomplice of the guy making the video threw something against the power line though it can happen without monkey business like that.

Here's the wiki on Ball lightning

Given inconsistencies and the lack of reliable data, the true nature of ball lightning is still unknown.[3] Until recently, ball lightning was often regarded as a fantasy or a hoax, but some serious scientific discussions and theories have attempted to explain it.

That's accurate. If it exists, it's not understood. We're not really sure IF it exists naturally though

Laboratory experiments have produced effects that are visually similar to reports of ball lightning, but it is presently unknown whether these are actually related to any naturally occurring phenomenon.

Then they say

Its appearance has also been linked to power lines...

I just showed what may be an example of that, though other people may call it ball lightning, I wouldn't. I'd call it something like a plasma discharge, but it does have some of the characteristics associated with ball lightning.

as well as during thunderstorms and also calm weather. Ball lightning has been described as transparent, translucent, multicolored, evenly lit, radiating flames, filaments or sparks, with shapes that vary between spheres, ovals, tear-drops, rods, or disks.[33]

Ball lightning is often erroneously identified as St. Elmo's fire. They are separate and distinct phenomena.

You should read up on the Wikipedia St Elmo's Fire entry too if you're interested in this stuff, but it appears at the top of objects like

tall, sharply pointed structures such as lightning rods, masts, spires and chimneys, and on aircraft wings. St. Elmo's fire can also appear on leaves, grass, and even at the tips of cattle horns.[3] Often accompanying the glow is a distinct hissing or buzzing sound.

Now I'd like to see a documented case of this type of ball lightning, which is what was asked about, but I never have:

Some appear within buildings passing through closed doors and windows

The observations are so sporadic it's hard to document and without good documentation we can't really study it, analyze it, and figure out what it is. Even as regularly as Hessdalen lights appear we still haven't figured out what those are yet. Some people think those might be related to unique mineral composition in the soil which includes Scandium.

I'll mention one other phenomenon that might have a scientific basis but is also not well understood, but we probably have a better understanding of how it can happen than ball lightning:

Earthquake light

An earthquake light is an unusual luminous aerial phenomenon that reportedly appears in the sky at or near areas of tectonic stress, seismic activity, or volcanic eruptions. Once commonly challenged, it was not until photographs were taken during the Matsushiro earthquake swarm in Nagano, Japan, from 1965 through 1967, that the seismology community acknowledged their occurrence.

Earthquake lights are caused by an unknown mechanism. There are numerous theories as to how and why they occur.

One explanation involves intense electric fields created piezoelectrically by tectonic movements of rocks containing quartz....

I'm familiar with the piezoelectric effect so that possible cause may have some merit, and it could happen even if there's no earthquake if there happens to be a lot of tectonic stress.

There is also debate in the scientific community regarding radon as a possible precursor to some earthquakes,[10] so another theory is that glowing clouds might be light emission produced by ionization or plasma-chemical reactions[11]

I had a home in Pennsylvania with high levels of Radon and had to install a radon mitigation system, but I'm not so sure about this possibility, it seems to me like it would take a hell of a lot of radon to make a glowing light and I'll be skeptical of this possibility until I see it documented. But a plasma-chemical reaction may be what's happening in Hessdalen for all I know, they do have unique minerals in the soil in that area and the lights do seem unique to that area so from that standpoint there's a possible connection to the local soil minerals. Scandium related minerals in particular are claimed to be unique to places like Scandanavia and Madagascar:

Scandium

scandium is distributed sparsely and occurs in trace amounts in many minerals.[5] Rare minerals from Scandinavia[6] and Madagascar[7] such as thortveitite, euxenite, and gadolinite are the only known concentrated sources of this element. Thortveitite can contain up to 45% of scandium in the form of scandium(III) oxide.

That's too interesting to rule out as a possible link to the Hessdalen lights.

Originally posted by Orkojoker
reply to post by BLKMJK

 

I personally like the Kirtland Air Force Base case described by Dr. James McDonald in his lecture "Science in Default: Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations", delivered before a symposium of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

You have two witnesses, both CAA tower observers, viewing a vertically-oriented, egg-shaped object descend toward the airfield and fly across several runways to a point where it stops and hovers motionless for a full minute less than 100 feet off the ground - witnesses viewing it through binoculars the whole time - before it suddenly takes off in a steep climb at a rate of speed described as "many time faster than any known jets."

Both witnesses, re-interviewed by McDonald several years after the incident, were adamant that the object in no way resembled an aircraft of any kind.

You can read Dr. McDonald's remarks on this case, and on the UFO phenomenon in general, here

I also like the Coast Guard sighting over Lake Erie as described in this official document

edit on 18-3-2011 by Orkojoker because: added link

Wow! Dr McDonald's report gave me chills! That is crazy! How can something move at super sonic speed without making a boom? Have you made a thread about this case? Thank you so much for that link. It has allot of technical stuff in it I don't understand but holy cow!

Also, you guys are really great for providing me this information. I'm sorry for my lagged responses it just takes me a while to read this stuff. You guys got me all fired up trying to understand this information. It is truly fascinating to engage with intelligent and kind people. It truly is a joy. Now...Back to my studies

Originally posted by BLKMJK
Wow! Dr McDonald's report gave me chills! That is crazy! How can something move at super sonic speed without making a boom? Have you made a thread about this case?]

What people relatively new to the phenomena don't realize, is that in the 50's & 60's these close up cases by credible people (police, air-force personnel, government figures, pilots, etc) were becoming almost commonplace with 100's of cases per month being reported. The Air-force and other government agencies tried hard (and pretty much succeeded) in squashing the whole subject through false identification and ridicule. I really had no idea how prevalent the issue was at the time until I started digging up all the older books and research material. James McDonald, along with people like John Fuller, Frank Edwards, Don Keyhoe and the Lorenzen's researched and documented ton's of close up sightings which were made by multiple witnesses, were caught on radar and were not just night sightings...

What makes alot of the cases even more substantial, IMHO, is the often ludicrous attempts by the AirForce to explain away and debunk theses cases...Karl12 has started numerous quality threads about these people, the qood sightings and the government cover-ups...