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.

 

1944—Bomber Encounters Giant Disk

page: 2
33
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by PrinceDreamer
 



I often feel WW2 was the set of sequences that encourage our interstellar neighbours to start taking serious notice of us. Rocket technology being developed in Germany, and nuclear technology being developed in the USA, considering the murderous nature of humans it probably sent serious concerns across the galaxy


I have often thought the same thing, or similarly.

I suspect that struggle, the fight for survival is universal among all life forms. Our engaging in mass destruction, with our advancing technologies, enabling such mass destruction, is most likely a phase all advanced civilizations go through.

My suspicion is more likely that this has attracted scientists from advanced civilizations to study us more thoroughly. Might even explain some of the probing.




posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


On a similar subject, many UFOs are reported during wartime. Here is an excellent book about UFOs sighted during the Korean War.

UFOs during the Korean War



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Even though it sounds like a nice report, the painting makes it look to me like a superior mirage of a distant island, which could also produce the illusion of portholes and many lights on a giant craft of that shape, as well as the sudden departure and the sudden change in his fishpond screen. As the aircraft exits the part of the sky in which a temperature inversion makes the mirage possible, the false image can appear to quickly fly away rather than suddenly disappear. I think the possibility of superior mirage should be at least considered whenever a sighing from an aircraft is of something so large with such high ratio of length to height.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by nineix
Inconsistency: Report details seeing lights and 'object' on starboard side of Lancaster aircraft.

The painting, unless it's been reversed shows Lancaster aircraft pointing to right of canvas, where the large lenticular cloud looking thing, if meant to be in the background further away, would then be on the Port side of the Lancaster.

Story says starboard (right hand) side. Painting says port (left hand) side.

Additionally, since that's not a photograph of a photograph, but a photograph of a painting, I can't say the thing that looks like a lenticular cloud is a lenticular cloud, but, I can say that it does indeed look like one.

Edit:
Lancaster Bomber airplane -


Lenticular Cloud -



edit on 31-3-2012 by nineix because: added photo references


Inconsistency: Clouds don't move at supersonic speeds, and don't have strings of lights on the outside of them.

edit on 4/2/2012 by bl4ke360 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Good find!

Perhaps we can agree that their craft cause electromagnetic interference.

Any mention of his aircraft's engines spluttering? Perhaps the craft was too far away to affect them if not.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpoq47
Even though it sounds like a nice report, the painting makes it look to me like a superior mirage of a distant island, which could also produce the illusion of portholes and many lights on a giant craft of that shape, as well as the sudden departure and the sudden change in his fishpond screen. As the aircraft exits the part of the sky in which a temperature inversion makes the mirage possible, the false image can appear to quickly fly away rather than suddenly disappear. I think the possibility of superior mirage should be at least considered whenever a sighing from an aircraft is of something so large with such high ratio of length to height.

en.wikipedia.org...


Could a mirage produce something of the described size? The object appears to have occupied a substantial portion of the crew's field of view, and its vertical size would seem to be significantly greater than one-half of a degree. (That's about the sun or full moon's angular size.) The crew also say they saw this object for 3 minutes. How far do you think the aircraft traveled in that time, and wouldn't that affect the mirage? What about elevation angle to the island you hypothesize? Doesn't that effect the plausibility of island as an explanation?

I do agree with you that the possibility of a mirage should always be considered. However, what I've read about mirages and the following description (along with the painting) allow me to dismiss that possibility here: "There was a string of lights which streched ahead and behind us for what seemed miles....As my night vision improved I saw a grey saucer-like object emarge as part of the lights. It is still difficult to describe its size... Our Lancaster was a large aeroplane but the only comparison I can make is that we were but a dot on a sheet of foolscap paper. We all watched this object for about three minutes."

Mirage just seems very, very doubtful to me.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


I was referring to superior mirage, which is quite different from highway mirage, for example. A typical superior mirage would be of an island beyond the horizon. The temperature inversion makes it look like it's floating in the sky. In polar regions, a superior mirage is quite stable, even though light rays are being bent around the curvature of the Earth. Such an event is rare over England, never seen by most pilots. It's better known in Iceland and Greenland. And yes, images produced are huge, unlike those of the more familiar inferior mirage. One type of superior mirage is callled Fata Morgana, in which the image looks real but is distorted to look nothing like the original but still gives the impression of great size.

Here are some examples plus diagrams explaining how this type of mirage works.

images.search.yahoo.com...



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by xpoq47
 
If we focus on the limited information contained within the account, it becomes less likely to have been a superior mirage.

The Lancasters had a service ceiling of 24 500 feet...this was their maximum typical altitude. On bombing missions, they would fly at high altitudes to avoid enemy fire, barrage balloons and spotlights. On their return, the same threats were present and high altitude was required. On clear nights, as described by Claridge, a high service ceiling would be maintained. This didn't necessarily have to be at maximum and I've read of 17000ft.

The 'A' marker is La Rochelle and La Pallice, where the bombing raids took place, and at the top right is Northampton (RAF Oakington). A direct flight would be NNW.



At their altitude, it was improbable the plane was within a temperature inversion and the line of sight required for them to be seeing a superior mirage of an island would be even less likely given his (brief) detail of being over mainland France. His description seems to place the object alongside, or at a similar altitude, rather than at a sharp angle beneath them.

It's a pity his description is all we have because more details could only be helpful. Time and more accurate location etc.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpoq47

I was referring to superior mirage, which is quite different from highway mirage, for example. A typical superior mirage would be of an island beyond the horizon. The temperature inversion makes it look like it's floating in the sky. In polar regions, a superior mirage is quite stable, even though light rays are being bent around the curvature of the Earth. Such an event is rare over England, never seen by most pilots. It's better known in Iceland and Greenland. And yes, images produced are huge, unlike those of the more familiar inferior mirage. One type of superior mirage is callled Fata Morgana, in which the image looks real but is distorted to look nothing like the original but still gives the impression of great size.

Here are some examples plus diagrams explaining how this type of mirage works.

images.search.yahoo.com...


Well let's get specific and scientific here then.

This possible mirage has to have the following qualities:

1) it should occupy a substantial portion of the bomber crew's field of view. (The description makes it sound like at least 90 degrees in azimuth, possibly 120 or more. This seems to be confirmed by the 3rd-person and rather impressionistic painting.)

2) based on the proportions described and painted, the mirage appears to have occupied at least a few degrees of their vertical field of view, certainly 3 or more.

3) the mirage appears to be at least partially above the aircraft. And, at that plane's flight level, the actual horizon is about 3 degrees down from the horizontal / level-flight / ideal horizon. (See any video of an aircraft with a conformal HUD, for confirmation.)

4) Numbers 2 and 3, together, mean that the crew must've encountered atmospheric conditions which stretched and shifted the image of the island by a combined 6 degrees (which is apparently a minimum).

What I've read, and even what you yourself have provided, seems to suggest that the above would be pretty much impossible, especially at this aircraft's latitude / longitude / altitude / speed.

So, getting a little more scientific here, is there any combination of atmospheric conditions that could produce such a fantastic mirage, at that altitude, and in mid-latitudes, and that would also be stable for 3 minutes and over a distance traveled of about 10 miles? What would those atmospheric conditions be? What island might the crew have been seeing?

Answering the above questions, it seems to me, leads to the conclusion that there is no single type of mirage that could account for all of the factors we see here. It would need to be a mirage of Type X to explain factors A and B, but of Type Z to explain factors C and D, and so on.

However, speaking honestly -- and I do mean this -- I am always happy to learn new things. Maybe a mirage is possible? I wouldn't mind learning more about the outer limits of atmospheric distortion. I'm just saying that, even with the info you've cited, I've seen nothing to suggest that a mirage is possible here, and much to suggest that it isn't.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
there are so many reports of military men sighting UFO's during WW2, Korean war, Vietnam war, that i spent an hour reading, and still couldn't come close to reading all of them, it should be noted that these military personnal are trained to spot and recognize what they witness. for anybody that has served in the military, they love their "reports" and insist on accuracy.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


Superior mirage is the first thing that came to mind looking at the painting. This type and Fata Morgana both create large images that look real to witnesses on the scene. It doesn't have to be an island. It can be a patch of the English countryside bathed in sunlight. So-called flying saucers are not so wide in proportion to height, but superior mirages almost always are. And the size is unusual for a disc-shaped UFO. While impossible to prove in this case, mirage should at least be on the list of things to consider for a long, thin, huge object that doesn't zip around and/or deploy shuttlecraft.

Here's the video of the first example in Yahoo! images, in which you see a mirage of a ship right above the actual ship but upside down, kind of proof that sometimes seeing is deceiving: :
www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Check this video out! UFO's floating around the buildings of Miami beach. Footage from a helicopter tour.

UFO's Flying Over Miami



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I believe there were quite a few sightings of "Foo Fighters" in the second world war on all sides (British, American, French, German, Japanese) and quite a few reports like this.

This is still a nice find though.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by nineix
Additionally, since that's not a photograph of a photograph, but a photograph of a painting, I can't say the thing that looks like a lenticular cloud is a lenticular cloud, but, I can say that it does indeed look like one.

I'm also thinking that what they might have seen was a natural atmospheric phenomenon, rather than a huge manufactured flying disc. Some kind of odd variation of an aurora borealis/plasma cloud, perhaps. It would also possibly explain why it was able to vanish so quickly.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by aardudley
Check this video out! UFO's floating around the buildings of Miami beach. Footage from a helicopter tour.
UFO's Flying Over Miami

Get out of here with your horribly amateur CGI bullcrap!



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
wow thats huge. i never thought aliens ships are so big



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by thesearchfortruth
 
I mentioned Dr David Clarke’s book The UFO Files covering some of the Claridge encounter report. On pages 30 and 31 he covers the account via personal correspondence with Claridge in 2002. Below are the basics of the matter…


‘the lights were circular, rather like the portholes in a ship. The colour was a very bright yellow changing to intense white. My estimate was that they were about a thousand yards from our aeroplane. The ones nearest our Lancaster were the largest and brightest; they stretched fore and aft to what seemed infinity. After thirty seconds I could see they were part of an enormous disc.’


Claridge timed the incident for his radar log at 3 minutes. He further describes how they were ‘…travelling at 240 miles an hour but there was no turbulence. There was no noise of engines or vapour of any kind.’

He goes on to repeat the gist of what was said in Good’s book, ‘we had all sensed we were being watched by another force outside our knowledge.’

Clarke doesn’t offer explanations and leaves it open.

The remark about the silence is reminiscent of Jenny Randle's concept of the 'Oz Factor.'



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Good Find. So he was observing a disc, but he only saw it from side on?
How did he know it was a Disc? or did he assume?.
He saw it in the dark, where his perceptions may have been off a little, considering he was in a flying plane.

I wonder if looking side on, at the portholes etc, he wasnt seeing a cylindrical eg "Cigar" shaped object?
There are Many reports of the Cylindrical/Cigars having portholes. Moving slowly then dissappearing quickly.
Remember, I would think "Quickly" in the 1940s, is different to what we, or anyone since the 1960s, consider as Quickly, he was in a 200 mph flying barrel, after all.
Apparently our sub-terran friends main mode of sky transport is the huge (various sizes) Cylindrical/Cigar shaped objects.........with portholes.
Just saying.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpoq47
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


Superior mirage is the first thing that came to mind looking at the painting. This type and Fata Morgana both create large images that look real to witnesses on the scene. It doesn't have to be an island. It can be a patch of the English countryside bathed in sunlight. So-called flying saucers are not so wide in proportion to height, but superior mirages almost always are. And the size is unusual for a disc-shaped UFO. While impossible to prove in this case, mirage should at least be on the list of things to consider for a long, thin, huge object that doesn't zip around and/or deploy shuttlecraft.

Here's the video of the first example in Yahoo! images, in which you see a mirage of a ship right above the actual ship but upside down, kind of proof that sometimes seeing is deceiving: :
www.youtube.com...



You've actually not addressed anything from my previous post. I wanted you to talk about.sizes and ANGLES, and which type of mirage could produce something of the size described here. (Let's conservatively call it 90 degrees, by 5 degrees.) Your video does not address this even slightly. (I have no idea what the camera's field of view may have been, but it's safe to say that the mirage there -- which is attached to its mirror image, mind you -- is not as large, angularly, as what is described by the bomber crew.

So, what are the largest possible mirages? How far can they be shifted up from the horizon (i.e., when not attached to their mirror)? How stretched can they be? What are the restrictions in azimuth, elevation, etc.?

Are you saying a Fata Morgana could produce the circumstances described here? Because your own links seem to argue against that. (First sentence: "A Fata Morgana is an unusual and complex form of mirage, a form of superior mirage, which is seen in a narrow band right above the horizon.")

Do you see the problem with that explanation?



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Actually, what best seems to fit the painting is a refraction effect called looming, which technically isn’t even classified as a mirage, and Fata Morgana stretches the image vertically, which doesn't appear to be the case with the painting. As to size, an entire city might seem to be floating in the sky under the right, albeit rare, weather conditions. So the image in the painting could be of sunlit countryside appearing to float in the sky because of a temperature inversion and would appear huge. If you just say “looming,” expect blank stares. But mirage is at least somewhat familiar, and that’s what this looming effect is often called.

Maybe they did see a starship. I don’t know. I wasn’t there and might be confused seeing it with my own eyes. But this possibility is also one that might be raised for the much more current Channel Islands case. In both cases, though, it’s the extreme ratio of width to height that particularly seems to weigh in favor of a refraction effect.

How extreme can the effect be? It depends on the difference in temperature between the cold and warm layers. But generally it shouldn’t be magnified, just raised (seem to float in the sky), and shouldn't be able to appear very close to the viewer.

And by the way, although temperature inversion was the official explanation for the 1952 Washington, D.C. case, the U.S. Weather Bureau confirmed that the temperature difference was far too small for that to be true.



edit on 7-4-2012 by xpoq47 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
33
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join