Hudson Valley, Indian Point, Boomerang UFOs & the Stormville Flyers

a reply to: JimOberg

Very interesting Jim.

Are you aware of any re-entries over the Hudson Valley (especially in 17th - 24th March 1983 period)?

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

But anecdotaly it SEEMS that most of the "good cases" were over by 1989 or so.. it almost seemed like a "hard stop".

Hello Kev. Nice to hear from you again.

Something else was over by 1989 as well. Namely the Cold War. The world changed. Although I think the 1990s, fuelled by a wave of X-Files style paranoia, Roswell's expansive mythology going global and the early potential of the basic world wide web, kept media focus on the UFO topic for a decade longer.

Now it's all gone rather flat in the field. However perhaps this means there is a chance to separate the wheat from the chaff and work through the old data.

However the way I see it is that there are a lot of 'believers' who are uncomfortable and unhappy about this and resist any attempts at refining the dataset.

a reply to: mirageman

I mostly concur.

But isn't the "war on terror" just the
Latest incarnation of the cold war?

So I give no credence to that
Particular point.

Kev

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: JimOberg



Very interesting Jim.



Are you aware of any re-entries over the Hudson Valley (especially in 17th - 24th March 1983 period)?

No.

Those events involved repeated similar perceptions, or still unknown origin.

The reentries provides a serendipitous 'control experiment' to accidentally test startled witness reaction to a bright swarm of lights of solidly-documented events [reentries]. As described in my report, there are several plausible prosaic causes to create the original raw stimulus of a 'fireball swarm'-- reentries as ONE cause was valuable merely because it was documentable.

Bright multiple aircraft lights is another such potential stimulus.

Be careful please not to overinterpret the degree I am claiming an 'explanation', I'm not -- merely demonstrating the possibility of such a prosaic but rare stimulus [separate lights] being honestly interpreted as one large vehicle with lights mounted on it.

The target of my study is the 'common sense' claim that 'there's no WAY multiple witnesses can mistake a swarm of bright lights as a large craft." I've shown multiple cases where exactly that misinterpretation HAS happened. That's all I intend to argue.

SWEAR to God If I see one I'm throwing something at it....JUST to see what happens.

originally posted by: mirageman
.....


I really don't know what the object over Indian Point was, never mind what it was doing. ....

I don't think you are justified in referring to the sighting as 'the object'. You're slipping a conclusion into the opening 'facts'.

www.jpaerospace.com...

www.jpaerospace.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.facebook.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

What are the odds of the military developing something like this back in the 80's?

I would if I were them.




But Wait, there's More.

Ronald Regan's Diary during the 80's
The entry for Tuesday, June 11, 1985 (page 334) reads:
Lunch with 5 top space scientist. It was fascinating. Space truly is the last frontier and some of the developments there in astronomy etc. are like science fiction, except they are real. I learned that our shuttle capacity is such that we could orbit 300 people.

Source: www.bibliotecapleyades.net...



Just Sayn'

a reply to: cavtrooper7

I have no idea if the one I saw had
Real, normal physical mass or
Not.

I'm leaning toward the direction
Of it having been exotic matter/
Energy or a 1 minute, 100% detailed
Hallucination.

I also wish I could have thrown
A rock at it...I'd love to
Know.

Kev

a reply to: JimOberg

I do like that you are arguing one
Very specific point....without vast,
Handwaving claims (insert
Miracle here) like most people
Do.

Kev

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: JimOberg

I do like that you are arguing one
Very specific point....without vast,
Handwaving claims (insert
Miracle here) like most people
Do.

Kev

Thank you. Most folks waving their hands are only arguing half-vast claims, IMHO.

I believe there are phenomena of genuine interest and importance creating 'UFO reports' that remain unextracted from the 'noise'. The worldwide data base of reports is an important resource and I'm grateful for those who record and catalog them.

Evidence for ET, I'm unconvinced, but I know of NO a priori reasons against it.

a reply to: JimOberg

I myself wear two hats on ATS :

I play things relatively straight in
Some forums..trying to remember
My past science and tech training.

In the speculative forums I lavish my
Extreme opinions with No reservations..
I like to push past normal concepts
To see what can be created that is
New and useful speculation.

I seem to be 80% skeptic and 20%
(creative crazy person).

It's not the easiest mixture and I
Have to write off respectability.

Anyway....that's my public service
Announcement. I windup wearing
Both hats at once in this forum.

Kev

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear...
Anyway....that's my public service
Announcement. I windup wearing
Both hats at once in this forum. Kev

I badly beclowned myself on one Russia trip when [because I thought
I spoke pretty good Russian] I tried to explain to a colleague there
how I had multiple duties in the ISS program. "I wear a lot of hats," I
explained, in literal Russian. I could see in his eyes, staring into the
empty space above my head, how he misinterpreted my statement.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I enjoyed this one




And while I dont think a military explanation can ever be completely eliminated, even if this explains what it was, it doesnt explain why. Im not a big fan of the psyop experiment explanation in Rendelsham, but at least it was a much more confined sighting. What possible reason could be offered for the military putting a nuclear reactor on high alert? What if one of the guards got spooked enough to let go of a few rounds?

a reply to: mirageman

The video i can debunk as NOT being airplanes
Because when enhanced in adobe aftereffects it
Is very clearly a single craft...but in my opinion
Looks very similar in appearance to a lighter
Than air vehicle and if i surmise correctly
I am guessing low revolution large diameter
Fans that direct air and sound horizontally
And slightly upwards which is why no noise.

I am guessing metal oxide fuel cells attached
To sound insulated electric motors with blades
That are V-shaped or S-curve shaped to ensure
Blade tips don't go anywhere near supersonic
To ensure very quiet operation.

Anyways!

Real Aliens generally have only two sizes of ships!
Small ones less than a hundred feet
in diameter ...or... 2 to 5 mile long tubular
Or 3 mile wide football stadium shaped
Monster sized mother ships. ;-) :-)

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: mirageman
.....


I really don't know what the object over Indian Point was, never mind what it was doing. ....

I don't think you are justified in referring to the sighting as 'the object'. You're slipping a conclusion into the opening 'facts'.

I object! I get the point, though I think the word is used appropriately here. The word "object" has many meanings and doesn't always mean something physical. Its definitely a word that should be defined for the purpose of the discussion as in..."the word 'object' will be used here to refer to..." mirageman is generally pretty objective but I don't know what the object of using "the object" in that sentence was due to ambiguity.

If someone hallucinates something, wouldn't that thing they hallucinated be considered an "object"? You could refer to it as a hallucinated object. In a case where we don't know if the person hallucinated or not, we still have to refer to "that thing" that may or may not have been hallucinated. It is something. So something could be a physical object, a virtual object or a perceived object...and we are talking about UF"O"s after all.

Personally, I really hate when people refer to these things as "crafts"....like there is a bunch of art flying around?

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I concede the point, well argued. Just be cautious to apply ANY
words that carry with them side-implications that then can attach
barnacle-like to the original nebulous referent.

That's what worried me about using 'object'.

Would 'stimulus' serve better? Or simply 'cause'?

originally posted by: JimOberg


a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I concede the point, well argued. Just be cautious to apply ANY
words that carry with them side-implications that then can attach
barnacle-like to the original nebulous referent.

That's what worried me about using 'object'.

Would 'stimulus' serve better? Or simply 'cause'?

That's why I like UAP "Unidentified Arial Phenomenon"
much better than UFO. There is not one hint of 'craft'

(as I personally find zero evidence there has ever been
even one craft)

Of course this doesn't perfectly handle the case of a pure
hallucination, but I think that most people would
concede that there was at least an originating
stimulus to the hallucination.

Of course this strategy of of replacing UFO with UAP
probably would irritate the black project theory
people.

Maybe UAP/UFO might do it. Or just Phenomenon.

Kev

a reply to: mirageman

S&F-this was a very detailed thread.

The first person I would consult would be Zaphod; he knows aviation and aircraft like the palm of his hand.

What puzzles me is the lack of a sonic boom after these 'craft' shoot of into the night. Any object moving at pace will generate a sound as it cuts through the atmosphere whether it be an insect or a fighter jet. That is the most intriguing aspect of UFO research IMO.

a reply to: mirageman



@ 3:50 in this vid it is CLEARLY a jet they are filming. NOT a UFO. Those are clearly aircraft navigation lights. PLUS you can clearly hear them remark about the obvious sound of a jet engine coming from it.

There is no frame of reference. How can anyone tell what he's really filming? It looks more like a plane to me. Light configurations are very typical of aircraft and what they would look like at night. Which is also why you can't see any of the wings or body of the aircraft.

Occam's razor people!

As a bit of hearsay offered... I have a close friend who told me that her uncle and a group of pilots would fly their private airplanes in a V formation up and down the Hudson valley at this time... and they got a chuckle from the exaggerated claims of alien craft.

Now, this does not explain all the sightings and if I remember correctly, the stunts were in response to some popularized initial sightings of a giant V formation of lights, so there was a "there" there before they muddied the waters.

But some of them were (alleged) Cessna sourced sightings.

eta: and oh, yes... wonderful presentation.