Did a ufo hit wind turbine in Conisholme UK? See picture and news article..

Originally posted by Zemouk
They said there was a firework display near by, quite easily have been seen by witnesses...

Except the fireworks were in the evening for a birthday party, NOT 4am which is the time the witnesses saw and heard the phenomena over the turbines!

Secondly people still keep going back to lightning theory. There was no electrical storm activity ANYWHERE in the UK on that night. Met offices monitor and record lightning activity, any single lightning discharge that night would have been recorded and this data can be checked. It is easy to record lightning discharges and activity

all met offices in the world do it. That data is available for anyone to check and verify and I think you will certainly find there were no records of a lightning discharge over England that night.

My thoughts on the case are thus:

I am pretty convinced from witness accounts that some sort of electrical discharge occurred over the site that night. This seemed to coincide with a loud bang which suggests that may have been the point the turbine was damaged. We do have evidence of what happened from the blade which fell of and will just have to wait and see what they find. If it was caused by any high temperature electrical "strike" then there will be melting evident rather than shearing. To be honest I am surprised the blade has been whipped away so quickly without any mention of what an initial examination found. The company described it as a "unique" event, which perhaps suggests they noticed something they had never seen before but that's just speculation.


[edit on 11-1-2009 by highlander2008]

right people i am a simple man with a simple mind, there are 2 possible explinantions 1. a ufo did strike this an the balde stuck in it, 2. a top secret goverment plane or object hit it and theyve had a clean up but it didnt leave long it happening at 4am, and for those ppl on about wind conditions it wasnt windy on the night in question in lincoln.

There is a new report from the Sun today claiming that the wind turbine farm has become a no-go restricted area.www.thesun.co.uk...

SECURITY guards have sealed off the area where a UFO wrecked a giant wind turbine.

Dog patrols have turned the site into a no-go zone amid fears alien hunters will try to plunder any debris.

Yesterday German scientists did forensic tests to pinpoint what tore one blade off the 290ft turbine and left another useless.

UFO spotters believe an alien spaceship is the most likely cause of the incident in Conisholme, Lincs.


Similar security surrounded the base in Nevada known as Area 51, where the Roswell alien was supposedly taken in 1947.

UFO expert Nick Pope said of the UK site: “There may be something they don’t want people to see.”

The Sun told how MoD sources believed a robot stealth bomber undergoing test flights nearby may be behind the mystery.

Nick added: “If a stealth aircraft struck the turbine, it may be made of some material which is itself classified above top secret.”

Originally posted by highlander2008

Originally posted by Zemouk
They said there was a firework display near by, quite easily have been seen by witnesses...

Except the fireworks were in the evening for a birthday party, NOT 4am which is the time the witnesses saw and heard the phenomena over the turbines!

I've only seen one report of a loud noise at 4am. I have not seen times for any of the sightings. Have you seen a report of visual reports with a time specified?

"It was huge," John Harrison, a farmer from Saltfleetby, said yesterday of the light display he saw in the Lincolnshire sky on Saturday night. "At first I thought it must have been a hole where the moon was shining through, but then I saw the tentacles. It looked just like an octopus." To Dorothy Willows, watching from her home in Louth, the "strange lights" hinted at a "low flying object ... skimming across the sky towards the turbines".

Hours later, after an "almighty smash", one of the enormous wind turbines at the Ecotricity plant in Conisholme, 15 miles south of Grimsby, was found to have shattered, leaving its 130ft rotor a mangled ruin.

www.guardian.co.uk...

[edit on 1/12/2009 by Phage]

[edit on 1/12/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Anonymous ATS

I am very interested to here a little more about what you saw in connection with the wind turbine if you have the time. Regards Paul www.ILF-UFO.co.uk

Originally posted by IronMan
May I ask who you are directing your views at?

It's hinted at in the last paragraph. Look at the posts near the top of the previous page. (21)

Originally posted by tarifa37

Similar security surrounded the base in Nevada known as Area 51, where the Roswell alien was supposedly taken in 1947.

Similar security? They mean security guards with dogs. Some of the stuff they write is so pathetic.

Originally posted by ScottXThe engineers were on site early Sunday morning the 4th, just after dawn. The Louth Leader quoted Mr & Mrs Willows as visiting the site that morning too. They took photos, but there was no 'propeller' on the ground.

Then you will need to track down Mr/s Willows and ask them to send you their photos which allegedly contradict the scene shown in the many photographs on that wind page you mention, btw you can find the pictures here.

www.wind-watch.org...

I think you will find that the whole thing is a load of chinese whispers which got out of hand, and you will find that the Willows did see the blade on the ground, if indeed they did go there on the morning after.

It would IMO be impossible to fake all the pictures of the tower with the bent blade seen from different angles with the blade on the ground.

[edit on 12/1/2009 by Wig]

Very interesting update today in the Telegraph "'UFO' wind turbine crash site sealed off ". www.telegraph.co.uk...

Nick Pope, a UFO expert, told The Sun: "There may be something they don't want people to see."

However, foreign debris was found at the site during an initial search.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by tarifa37]

Originally posted by psycho81

The mysterious severance of a wind turbine blade may have been caused by a mechanical failure, an expert said.

The 213ft turbine at Conisholme in Lincolnshire was left wrecked by the incident, which saw one blade completely severed and another one damaged

"It does happen that a blade will sometimes just come off a machine for one reason or another," he said. "The main reason is the blade may shear.

"We don't normally see things like aircraft - or UFOs - hitting them. It's usually a mechanical failure that causes the blade to separate from the main hub."

The freezing weather was another possible cause of the breakage, he said, adding that it could cost up to £250,000 to repair Source

This is news from the 8th and was kept out of the bigger media groups.

So basically exactly what I said in my post which got flamed to death by someone called LincolnUK who joined just as debate started on this subject.

reply to post by ScottX


Look fair is fair. You got well and truly carried away with your first post on this topic. You made nearly a dozen 'statements of fact' which at best were open to considerable debate and at worst were just plain false.

You've not made any new points that are worth addressing and everything still stands as it did previously.

I really have no interest in any truths that you've uncovered as that isn't anything do with this topic. Please refer to the Terms and Conditions of the site for more information.

With regards to a supposed conspiracy regarding having 'UK' in my name, well that strangely is to identify myself as coming from the United Kingdom as in my experience that is helpful to other members in the context of my posts.

I joined up purely to discuss this issue as I am local to the event location. I am able to give reasoned information regarding the weather, background history of the location and as I have previously said, I have worked as a renewable energy consultant (domestic not commercial applications) so I do have some experience with wind turbines.

Reading your last post again, you are still quoting inaccuracies that you are basing your points on. For someone who is supposedly an expert in finding truths, you're not doing very well in substantiating any of your sources!

1) No-one from Ecotricity has said they think it is was hit by a flying object. The only statement they gave said that they were not ruling anything out.

2) The blade was not found in a different location and then moved (by what means you think that's possible I'd love to know) to below the mast.

3) The blade was never sent to Germany. Samples of the blade were sent to Germany.

4) You don't need to sound all secretive about revealing your sources on how Ecotricity would know about the failure of a turbine. A lot of turbines (especially off shore) are monitored, usually through an inbuilt GSM modem that reports any technical faults. However if there was insufficient wind the turbine would not attempt to rotate and no faults would be logged.

5) The comment about requiring 100 tonnes, that would've been taken based on the force required to snap the fibreglass, if however the blade became separated at its base then the structural integrity of the fibreglass is not in question.

6) Ecotricity hasn't misquoted anyone at all. The MD of an insurance company has suggested that their are 5 or 6 similar failures per year of the 25,000 turbines he insures. That doesn't mean Ecotricity can't be correct by saying in their experience it was a 'unique event'. Perhaps that's their first failure.

If you don't want me to keep flaming you every time you post, then may I suggest you find one single shred of evidence (even circumstantial) that alludes to the blade not being at the base of the mast?

But I don't call having The Sun newspaper deliberately crop their main photo to not show the blade on the floor and then suggest it wasn't their, proof of anything other than how much they wanted to hype this event up.

reply to post by Zemouk


You must be joking, my theory all along has been the blade separating at its base due to mechanical failure and then hitting the other blade as it falls.

READ my posts again to save me quoting them all here.

Originally posted by LincolnUK
reply to post by Zemouk

 

You must be joking, my theory all along has been the blade separating at its base due to mechanical failure and then hitting the other blade as it falls.

READ my posts again to save me quoting them all here.

Yes read your posts, pretty funny that many people have picked it up and not just me. You were trolling saying it could not have been the cold weather stating that it was impossible. Now some expert says it could have been down to that... Find it funny also that you joined on the 8th.

reply to post by tarifa37


Just in case no one read my post above here it is again with important update I will put this below. www.telegraph.co.uk...

However, foreign debris was found at the site during an initial search.

This to me, says that something could well of hit it.What else could foreign debris mean?





[edit on 12-1-2009 by tarifa37]

In one report I heard the 3rd propeller "disappeared", in another I heard they "sent the bits off to be analyzed", so I don't think it disappeared, probably that news team didn't know where it went, they'll know after analysis what hit it if anything, they say ice could have caused it and I guess that's possible but rare, but it could have been an alien laughing at the caveman-like winmills we have on earth that are less than 30% efficient, when one could easily turn them sideways and make them over 75% efficient, I know that design already exists just why is it never used in masses. An old main claimed he saw the night before a light hovering over the turbines which is odd.

This is a UFO sighting from ufocasebook.com, supposedly taken 03-14-08

There's a lot of UFO's with an orange glow on that website, but this one caught my attention with this case as the middle image clearly shows several streaks seemingly attached to the object.

Are those possibly tentacles attached to the craft? Or just a light effect?

reply to post by Razimus


It was there along along - The blade said to be 'missing'.

There is a picture of it below the turbine, it has already been posted on this thread.

* No. I won't repost it or link to it for you.

Everyone knows there is no such thing as ufos or life 'out there' and it is just crazy to ever think such a thing. Crazy.

It says so in the Bible.

The "Hurtling" Blade Theory - Debunked

There has been some conjecture that the blade was "missing" from the turbine mast site, leading to conclusions that the blade was removed from the site completely (e.g. by some unknown entity or by "vapouristaion") or that it was flung some distance away, hurtled out to sea even. There are obviously some safety concerns in the latter case so I thought that I would provide some figures for reference.

I have assumed some basic facts to start with; With a 20m blade length and 90m mast height, we can determine a high point for the tips of the blades of about 110m. The circle described by the blade tips has a circumference of around 125m. Mass is unknown by I will cite a couple of examples to give an indication of the effect on results.

Importantly, and certainly for those interested in physics who may be more critical of my findings, I state the following caveats:

(i) Drag coefficient has essentially been ignored. This means that the effect of air friction in restraining the velocity of the "hurtling" blade has been removed from the equations, effectively meaning that the trajectory curve is based on performance in a vacuum. This means that the figures calculated are always at their "maximum" possible given Earths gravitational pull, rather than the smaller figures that we would expect.
(ii) The Blade is ejected via the action of centripetal force, a catastrophic failure of the connection to the hub ensuring that a clean break occurs and releases the blade in a tangential direction.
(iii) Centre of gravity for the blades has been assumed to be located at the tips - Why? Again, this is to ensure that a "maximum" figure for effect of centripetal force is obtained, also ensuring that an absolute maximum range can be calculated for the flight path by virtue of maximum velocity.

Centripetal forces

The tensile force applied to the connection between the blade and the hub can be shown so:

Radius 20.000
Circumference 125.664

Mass#1 kg Mass#2 kg
Velocity Velocity Velocity C.Acc. 500kg 1000kg
rpm rps V m/s V k/h (V mph) C.a m/s² C.Force N C.Force N
15 0.250 31.416 113.097 70.7 49.348 24674.011 49348.022
:
22 0.367 46.077 165.876 103.7 106.153 53076.539 106153.078
:
30 0.500 62.832 226.195 141.4 197.392 98696.044 197392.088

As can be seen, the tensile forces involved are massive (9.8N = 1kg).

These figures are demonstrative of swinging a ball tied to a string around your head, except that the "ball" weighs 500kg, 1000kg or 1500kg - The string will break when the centripetal force measured in Newtons (C.Force N) is greater that the ability of the connection (i.e. the string) to sustain the tensile action. Again, this is a measure of a maximum force acting at a point at the tip, not the reality of the blade itself!

The forces shown here are absolute maximums since they represent the mass of the blade concentrated at a "point" at the tip rather than acting through the centre of gravity of the blade itself, somewhere close to the hub. Halving the distance to the hub halves the velocity and centripetal forces acting on the point.

It can be seen that doubling the revolutions per minute (i.e. velocity) quadruples the centripetal force acting on the point.

When the hub connector beaks, the flight path of the blade would be tangential to the circular motion described by the tip.

Ballistic flight

Velocity of measured at the tip of the blade. With true ballistic flight, the mass of the object is not relevant.

The (true) parabolic ballistic flight trajectory can be calculated, again, ignoring atmospheric affects to determine an absolute maximum range. Below are figures from a ejection at 45d approaching the vertical, this provides maximum range:

rpm rps V m/s V k/h (V mph) Range m Max Height m Time s F.Velocity m/s
15 0.250 31.416 113.097 70.7 162.515 125.152 7.316 54.304
:
22 0.367 46.077 165.876 103.7 290.835 154.105 8.926 63.915
:
30 0.500 62.832 226.195 141.4 485.348 200.608 10.924 76.875

As can be see, with the "blade" spinning at 30rpm, the abseolute maximum range is around 485m. This is calculated without the affect of drag.

Real flight

"Real" is a bit of misnomer since there are many different parameters that we would need to take into account, air density, flight characteristics of the blade etc. However, if we assume that the blade had a drag coefficient of 0.7 (i.e. that of a rectangular wing) and was "end on" during flight producing only a x-sectional area of 3sq.m, release at the maximum velocity of 62.832 would see the maximum height attained drop to a maximum of around 140m (down from 200m), the range would be reduced to less than 300m (down from 485m and discounting "bounce").

Therefore, we could reasonably assume an "ejected" blade to be within 300m of the mast if optimum conditions were applied - a very unlikely scenario given that the wind conditions were minimal and nowhere near enough to induce 30rpm.

The reality is that the blade almost certainly would not have made 20m from the mast

Please correct me if your own calculations do not agree.

Originally posted by Zemouk
Yes read your posts, pretty funny that many people have picked it up and not just me. You were trolling saying it could not have been the cold weather stating that it was impossible. Now some expert says it could have been down to that... Find it funny also that you joined on the 8th.

Many people have picked up what?

It is not an expert saying that it was cold weather at all. The 'expert' is Fraser McLachlan, chief executive of GCube who insures the turbines. He's not an expert on their design or likely cause of their failure. He runs an insurance company.

And by adding on, "the cold weather might have been a possibility" does not make that any more likely than him adding on "elvis coming and chopping it off with a hacksaw is a possibility".

There are dozens of 'possibilities'!

Oh and 'trolling' saying it wasn't the cold, no I don't think so. Trolling based on hard evidence of the weather conditions in that area compared to the far more extreme temperatures that the same turbines in north scotland were surviving perfectly adequately with.

If you can produce any evidence to the contrary then I would love to see it?

What's comical about the 8th of January?

Originally posted by tarifa37
reply to post by tarifa37

 

Just in case no one read my post above here it is again with important update I will put this below. www.telegraph.co.uk...

However, foreign debris was found at the site during an initial search.

This to me, says that something could well of hit it.What else could foreign debris mean?

At last! A decent finding by someone! Star for you!!

That's worth a bit more investigation for sure, 'foreign debris' can surely only mean debris not associated with the turbine?