If you want the proof well here it is.

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/

That's just another crank website, not _proof_.

Roswell was project Mogul. End of story.

That's just another crank website, not _proof_.

Roswell was project Mogul. End of story.

That's Great!!!!

You believe the only Atomic AFB in the country did not know the difference between a crashed disk and a balloon?

You believe the cover up story?

I suppose you believe that story about the dummy to.

It takes one to know one. :D

I have long thought that Roswell was a government "put up" job to mis-lead the soviets.

If you want the proof well here it is.

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/

Interesting link Starman.

I have mixed feelings about the "crash" but the story of the dummies is a little peculiar, considering that particular project occured, I don't know, about 4 years later, in the early 50s, while Roswell is 1947? Was the Air Force getting ahead of itself just a little?

Russia had its own Roswell, if we are to believe the rumors!

Russia had its own Roswell, if we are to believe the rumors!
Could you provide more information? Surely not tunguska?

Could you provide more information? Surely not tunguska?

No, my friend, not even Tunguska.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc451.htm

There are purportedly several.
There was some footage on a recently released documentary (narrated by none other than Roger Moore of J. Bond fame) which was supposed to be actual footage of a crash. And apparently an autopsy. I believe it was called Secret UFO Files of the KGB. Some of it, especially the autopsy, seems staged. However there were some interesting military encounters, if I remember correctly.

I also saw another show a few months ago about something similar that occured near an army base. Maybe it's included in the link above? I haven't had time to go through it.

Hill 611 I am familiar with from years ago. Happened near Vladivostock, I believe. Fiery wreckage, and some rather strange metal was recovered from the site. I remember seeing a photo (electron microscope) and the analysis of it was quite unusual, at least to the scientists who examined it.

Interesting link Starman.

I have mixed feelings about the "crash" but the story of the dummies is a little peculiar, considering that particular project occured, I don't know, about 4 years later, in the early 50s, while Roswell is 1947? Was the Air Force getting ahead of itself just a little?

You know how it is when you lie, you are going to make mistakes.

When you take in account all the witnesses testimonies and the story they construct, it has continuity.

The cover up story from the Air Force was short of hysterical. :D

ok, first of all, its a homestead site. which means this "proof" comes from a source that does not know how to write simple html.

this is another case where I wish we could ban people for being stupid.

That's just another crank website, not _proof_.

Roswell was project Mogul. End of story.

So sure? I think it's because you want it to be the end of the story.

An Engineer Looks at the Project Mogul Hypothesis. (http://www.cufos.org/ros4.html)

Scientist Challenges Air Force
Regarding UFOs

Nov. 13, 1997

"Frankly I am sick and tired of the US Air Force lying to the public, the press, and members of Congress about UFOs," said nuclear physicist Stanton T. Friedman at a public lecture "Flying Saucers ARE Real" in Albuquerque. "I have had a serious interest in UFOs for 39 years, lectured in a dozen countries, and visited seventeen document archives," he continued. "For 50 years there has been massive misrepresentation about UFOs in general, and in recent years the Roswell Incident in particular. The Air Force has come up with four different answers for Roswell:


A flying saucer

A radar reflector and weather balloon

A Mogul balloon train over 500 feet long with 23 balloons, sonobuoys, etc.
And most recently, a Mogul balloon train plus crash test dummies dropped at least six years AFTER the 1947 crashes Southeast of Corona and West of Magdalena."

Friedman, who spent fourteen years as an industrial nuclear physicist working on a wide variety of classified, highly advanced nuclear systems for major corporations, was the first civilian investigator of the Roswell Incident.

"I hereby challenge Colonel Richard Weaver, author of the outrageously misleading huge volume 'The Roswell Report: Fact Vs Fiction in the New Mexico Desert', and USAF Captain James McAndrew, author of the 1997 'The Roswell Report: Case Closed', toa formal debate.

"These two officers have made a mockery out of serious investigation. They have used all the tools of the propagandist with selective choice of data, false reasoning, false claims, positive and negative name calling. These reports should be listed under fiction in the library.

"The Mogul explanation doesn't fit. There are gross differences among the testimony of their witnesses, and they ignore the testimony they don't want to consider while claiming falsely that they have talked to all the original witnesses still alive who handled material totally different from the Mogul explanation.

"They left out vital aspects of quotes from the FBI. They falsely tried to claim the Roswell story came to light because of a story in a tabloid in 1978. That story didn't appear until 1980 after a colleague and I had talked to 60 people connected with the case. I was falsely portrayed as somebody who gets his UFO stories from tabloids.

"The fact is in 1978 I was the first to talk to a key witness, Major Jesse Marcel the intelligence officer for the only atomic bombing group in the world in 1947. I was referred to him by an old ham radio buddy of his who had seen the press stories in 1947. Jesse never sought publicity. I discussed many of these false charges in my book TOP SECRET MAJIC.

"One of the silliest official USAF stories is the crash test dummy nonsense. I spoke in person with Colonel Madson, whose picture is in the Case Closed volume and was heavily involved in the research program. He is adamant that the explanation doesn't fit. Remember that the dummies had to be the same height and weight as air force pilots. None were dropped anywhere near the two crash sites and none were dropped earlier than 6 years AFTER the 1947 events.

"They used a crazy explanation for the red-headed officer observed independently at the Roswell Base Hospital, and in the Plains of San Augustin. World class pilot, Joseph Kittinger, was a redhead and was at the Roswell base hospital after a ballooning accident. But it was twelve years later! If the explanation doesn't fit, one must acquit. As it happens, I was the first to hear the two independent stories about the nasty red haired officer and the black sergeant, an unusual combination for 1947. The Air Force says nothing about the black sergeant, or the two independent stories.

"There are many other examples of massive misrepresentation by the Air Force about UFOs. The USAF Office of Special Investigations even told its own units to ignore their own regulations if they received an FOIA request from me about UFOs. The USAF apparently even lied to the CIA recently, falsely claiming that half the UFO sightings after 1955 were the results of observations of super secret reconnaissance aircraft, the U-2 and later the SR-71. But there was no increase in the number of sightings after 1955. Why would anybody report a very high flying aircraft moving in a straight line and never making right angle turns, as stopping on a dime, instantly reversing direction, or silently landing and taking off in the middle of nowhere, like UFOs so often are observed to do???

"The Pentagon based Air Force Liaison officer has written numerous one page letters in response to constituent requests for information about Roswell to congressman. It took me five pages to correct all the false claims he made.

"Colonel Weaver wrote a researcher that the Operation Majestic 12 Documents, which are the subject of TOP SECRET/MAJIC are known by everybody to be BOGUS. In response to my Freedom of Information Act request for any memos, letters, documents, etc. supporting this ridiculous and baseless claim, I was told, "There are no records available." This is a clear case of research by proclamation.

"Doesn't the Air Force have a responsibility to those who pay the bills to be honest? Or are they above the law? I repeat my challenge:

"USAF officers McAndrew and Weaver, do you have the courage of your convictions? Name the date and place. Perhaps Larry King or Walter Cronkite or Ted Koppel would be willing to act as moderator."


- Stanton Friedman

ok, first of all, its a homestead site. which means this "proof" comes from a source that does not know how to write simple html.

this is another case where I wish we could ban people for being stupid.

Speaking of stupid. I wish I could ban someone for not knowing how and when to capitalize.

;)

speaking of more stupidity...i wish i could ban someone for not knowing how and when to choose the appropiate size for their fonts.

;)

Stanton Friedman :rolleyes: He's a wackado not an engineer
There is a writer from the former soviet union (georgia IIRC) named paul stonehill who recently wrote a book about UFOs in Russia. He and I have exchanged posts on another board. Jim Oberg didn't think too much of paul's researching abilities and to be truthful, after hearing stonehill's interview on Art Bell's show, neither do I.
If you don't know who Mr. Oberg is,,,
http://www.jamesoberg.com/index.html

I've heard all about the Roswell story. However, there was only one concrete proof that really proved that they did capture a UFO.

http://www.ufowijzer.nl/fotos/generaal%20Ramey.jpg
It was the memo image they reconstructed from a picture of Ramey telling the media that it was just a weather balloon. It's the only concrete evidence that's not testomonial or other BS.



See http://roswellproof.homestead.com/reconstruct.html or http://ufocasebook.com/rameymemo.html

speaking of more stupidity...i wish i could ban someone for not knowing how and when to choose the appropiate size for their fonts.

;)

:p ;)

Stanton Friedman :rolleyes: He's a wackado not an engineer
There is a writer from the former soviet union (georgia IIRC) named paul stonehill who recently wrote a book about UFOs in Russia. He and I have exchanged posts on another board. Jim Oberg didn't think too much of paul's researching abilities and to be truthful, after hearing stonehill's interview on Art Bell's show, neither do I.
If you don't know who Mr. Oberg is,,,
http://www.jamesoberg.com/index.html

I never said he was an Engineer and he's not a "Wackado". Oberg is the fanatical skeptic. I notice how you ignored everything in his response and (Destruction) to the hypothesis (That's all it is) that the Roswell case had something to do with Project Mogul.

Typical of internet skeptics. Dismiss what you need too, believe what you need to and discard the rest.

On this site is 1000 of UFO's pictures. This picture shows where Jesus come from.
Click
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo197.htm

I've heard all about the Roswell story. However, there was only one concrete proof that really proved that they did capture a UFO.

http://www.ufowijzer.nl/fotos/generaal%20Ramey.jpg
It was the memo image they reconstructed from a picture of Ramey telling the media that it was just a weather balloon. It's the only concrete evidence that's not testomonial or other BS.



See http://roswellproof.homestead.com/reconstruct.html or http://ufocasebook.com/rameymemo.html

When I first saw the reconstruction on SciFi a year or two ago, I was really intrigued. Probably more intrigued that the letters were somewhat visible than what they supposedly said.

I think the letter and its interpretation are open to debate, but there are some letters and words that seem pretty obvious.
I'll just say that given the few letters and words that can be identified reliably, there aren't a whole lot of things the message can say. It has to be coherent and there has to be a degree of continuity from one word to the next. So that eliminates alot of the alternate word choices that would make the sentences nonsense.

But like I said, there is some debate over the content and interpretation.
I don't know if it's actually CONCRETE PROOF at this point.

But what else could the Ramey Memo be about?

Is it a grocery list? A love letter? The schematics to the new improved Death Star?

On this site is 1000 of UFO's pictures. This picture shows where Jesus come from.
Click
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo197.htm

Looks like the flying bullhead is going to its OWN "Entity Reunion in the Sky"!

The Battle of Los Angeles

What was it?

A large bulletproof weather balloon, say imaginary skeptics.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/timages/page/Battle0414aZ.jpg

On February 25, 1942, the lights of Los Angeles were blacked out, air raid sirens wailed, and anti-aircraft guns began firing, as searchlights locked onto a giant unknown object. Many people also claim that interceptors were scrambled.

"Searchlights scanned the skies and anti-aircraft guns protecting the vital aircraft and ship-building factories went into action. In the next few hours they would fire over 1,400 shells at an unidentified, slow- moving object in the sky over Los Angeles that looked like a blimp, or a balloon."

An eyewitness exclaims: "It was like the Fourth of July but much louder. They were firing like crazy but they couldn't touch it."

"An experienced Navy observer with powerful Carl Zeiss binoculars said he counted nine planes in the cone of the searchlight. He said they were silver in color."

Some people SWEAR it was multiple objects, and others conclude there was only one.

People assumed it was a Japanese blimp. Some blimp!
It managed to sustain what many eyewitnesses describe as direct hits from AA shells as it drifted slowly through the night. Nearly 2,000 shells were estimated to have been fired during the roughly half-hour that the "battle" lasted, and flak littered the ground over the surrounding areas.

Curiously, homes and other property were damaged, and humans and animals were injured or killed by the flak from the shells, but the magical "blimp" remained UNHARMED. The bulletproof balloon casually left the scene of its own volition at the conclusion of what must have been one hell of a joyride for the passengers!

This isn't a well known event. Why it has not been given the attention it deserves is unknown, but there has never been a satisfactory explanation for what the object was.

Of course, this is more proof that UFO believers are "nutters" who haven't a clue to the flak-impervious balloon technology of the sophisticated Japanese that just coincidentally has never been revealed in the 60+ years since WW2, and probably never will be. Hirohito apparently took that secret to his grave!

Larger image here (http://www.informantnews.com/pics2/battleofla.jpg)

Link to Bruce Maccabee's photo analysis:
http://brumac.8k.com/BATTLEOFLA/BOLA1.html

Another photo analysis (http://www.rense.com/general67/batofla.htm)

More info here (http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case509.htm)

And here (http://ufocasebook.com/battleoflosangeles.html)

Some of those sights have the same info or quoted sources, but some of them have unique items as well. The last link I gave has pics of the actual LA Times front page.

p.s. I hope Coast-to-Coast AM doesn't mind me linking to that small pic!

I have heard about something similar happening over Canada during WW1.

I never said he was an Engineer and he's not a "Wackado". Oberg is the fanatical skeptic. I notice how you ignored everything in his response and (Destruction) to the hypothesis (That's all it is) that the Roswell case had something to do with Project Mogul.

Typical of internet skeptics. Dismiss what you need too, believe what you need to and discard the rest.
I only dismiss what cannot be verified.
I have read Oberg's articles for many years and have never noticed any signs of a "fanatical skeptic".
I have heard Friedman being interview along with richard C Hoaxland. They are both wackados IMO

The Battle of Los Angeles

What was it?

A large bulletproof weather balloon, say imaginary skeptics.



If it WASN'T a large bulletproof weather balloon, then it must have been a large bulletproof electric goose. Or geese. Imagine a whole fleet of THOSE puppies! :eek:

Okay, that's a little outlandish.

Perhaps it was the largest, slowest moving orange-colored ball lightning on record. Now THAT would be something.
:)

Or else, maybe the fleet of "airplanes" or the "blimp" WASN'T bulletproof, but instead it was being protected by a bunch of Japanese guardian angels!

Or else the flak from the 1400+ shells just COINCIDENTALLY missed the object(s) everytime? What are the odds of that?
James "The Amusing" Randi, skeptic extraordinaire, once told me about the "Law of Truly Large Numbers" which states that anything that is nearly statistically improbable, is probable at least once. Or if you're a skeptic, as many times as you need it to. ;)

Simplified, I think this means that if a pig starts flying, and there aren't any high winds or flying vehicles to carry it off, it's still possible, somehow.



Felix Mendelssohn is pretty cool. But he wasn't there, now was he??? Sly devil!

Just having a little fun all by myself.

I'm alone. And in the buff. Why don't you come on over?

Or else the flak from the 1400+ shells just COINCIDENTALLY missed the object(s) everytime? What are the odds of that?
.

Considering that nearly 3000 rds of AA were fired to score a single hit ( not down a plane) during WWII I think the odds are very good. And no I don't want to come over :eek:

First off, who knows what it was! Its rather drastic to jump to extra terrestials. On earth, when it could be.... god knows what to say, HMMM i think its something from an intirely DIFFERENT plannet! I find it difficult to jump to that conclusion especialy considering there isnt much information for either side of the debate. Also america was in a time of shock and fear (paranoia) after pearl harbor. Just like after 9/11 when thousands of people started calling it about snipers on roofs and planes circling cities.

Another point, they might not have been firing at the right altitude. You have to bracket an aircraft to hit it. They might have been hundreds if not a thousand feet short or to the side. I dont know what it is, and neither does anybody i see posting on here. There are however wild accusations as to what it could be without any real evidence to support it. Just because something doesnt "look" like something you havent seen befor doesnt mean its from mars or Alpa Centuri. There are a lot of things on this plannet that the public does not know about, and that could suprise us in even the most ideal conditions (light out, and close up). Then you take into acount it was dark out and people were paranoid.

Its possible, it could be anything really. But its such a large leap. When i see a light in the sky the first thing that cross's my mind is that its a light, not some super powerful spaceship from a distant solar system.

Considering that nearly 3000 rds of AA were fired to score a single hit ( not down a plane) during WWII I think the odds are very good. And no I don't want to come over :eek:

Sure you do! ;)

First off, who knows what it was! Its rather drastic to jump to extra terrestials. On earth, when it could be.... god knows what to say, HMMM i think its something from an intirely DIFFERENT plannet! I find it difficult to jump to that conclusion especialy considering there isnt much information for either side of the debate. Also america was in a time of shock and fear (paranoia) after pearl harbor. Just like after 9/11 when thousands of people started calling it about snipers on roofs and planes circling cities.

Another point, they might not have been firing at the right altitude. You have to bracket an aircraft to hit it. They might have been hundreds if not a thousand feet short or to the side. I dont know what it is, and neither does anybody i see posting on here. There are however wild accusations as to what it could be without any real evidence to support it. Just because something doesnt "look" like something you havent seen befor doesnt mean its from mars or Alpa Centuri. There are a lot of things on this plannet that the public does not know about, and that could suprise us in even the most ideal conditions (light out, and close up). Then you take into acount it was dark out and people were paranoid.

Its possible, it could be anything really. But its such a large leap. When i see a light in the sky the first thing that cross's my mind is that its a light, not some super powerful spaceship from a distant solar system.

Your skepticism is fairly reasonable.

However, I don't quite agree that it could be "anything". Judging from the photograph and some of the descriptions, it wasn't just anything.
I never said it was a spaceship from Mars, or Alpha Centauri, or even Zeta Reticuli! There IS a possibility of that, though.

It is 99.999% certain, from all the reliable reports, that there WAS INDEED an object, or possibly objects.
And I am well aware that whenever UFOs are involved, every witness suddenly becomes unreliable. I don't know if this is a bonified law, or a convenience constructed by skeptics who deny that anything non-human could be flying around. And no, I'm not talking about clouds or birds or meteors when I say non-human!

A quote from a short article about the "battle" from NICAP ( National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena)

Blaming the Los Angeles Air Raid incident over “war nerves,” Secretary of the Navy, Frank Knox, came under attack from the press. The explanation was too flimsy. The Long Beach Independent wrote, “There is a mysterious reticence about the whole affair and it appears some form of censorship is trying to halt discussion of the matter.”

Any speculation about "jittery nerves" being solely responsible could probably be considered wild.
How many other instances of this kind of aerial attack are there on American soil during WW2? That fact alone makes me wonder why this event isn't known outside of what are probably war buffs or UFO "nutters".
After all, a handful of people were killed by Japanese balloon bombs, and many people know about that. Here we have AAA batteries firing at something for more than a half-hour, and we barely hear a thing about it. From all accounts, nearly the same number of people died or were injured as a result of the supposed air-raid as were killed by balloon bombs.

Was it REALLY not that important that it's been buried?

I'll have to say a little more later.

Thanks for being one of two people to respond to my post, though! :m:

Considering that nearly 3000 rds of AA were fired to score a single hit ( not down a plane) during WWII I think the odds are very good. And no I don't want to come over :eek:

Yes, I am aware that AA fire is not the most accurate.

I guess the chances of not scoring a hit depends on WHAT exactly the object(s) was.

The most likely reality for what it was Giambattista was a Japanese Balloon bomb.

During the Second World War a number were released and a Few mainland Fatalities were caused by them. You'll also find that after the Second World War the FBI continued to investigate Balloons being used to launch a number of different weapons, most of them you'd find in a sawmill (circular saws).

Yes, I am aware that AA fire is not the most accurate.

I guess the chances of not scoring a hit depends on WHAT exactly the object(s) was.
Further, even if a hit was scored, it does not mean that a low pressure helium ballon would burst into flames or pop like a childs ballon struck with a pin.

Further, even if a hit was scored, it does not mean that a low pressure helium ballon would burst into flames or pop like a childs ballon struck with a pin.

How do you know it was a low-pressure helium balloon?

As far as I know, all the balloons that the Japanese sent over arrived towards the end of the war, not as early as the incident in question.

Japanese bomb-carrying balloons were 32 feet in diameter and when fully inflated, held about 19,000 cubic feet of hydrogen.

The first operational launches took place on Nov. 3, 1944 and two days later a U.S. Navy patrol boat spotted a balloon floating on the water 66 miles southwest of San Pedro, California.

I can be a skeptic, too! Look how skeptical I am of your advances. What a fun game we're playing! :p

Alright, Mr. Anon. Here she is. In her faded glory:


Now, I don't quite remember what I was writing, but I'll try to reproduce it to the same effect.

I know that what we witnessed was not rotating. Now, maybe it was internally, but on the outside, I cannot say that it was. Especially since my brother and moreover, his friend, saw it closer than I did. There were two appendages on the sides that appeared to be engines, or arms. Something like that. If the entire outside of the craft were rotating, it would have been noticeable.

As to your description of a wavering or wobbling at slow speed, I don't know the extent of this effect, but these things were traveling about 30-40 mph tops, and doing it extremely smoothly. My brother and myself both agreed that it looked like they were kites. Or balloons. Because they were just floating along very serenely as if they were lighter-than-air. In a very straight line. Completely silently. Like I said, I can see NO WAY that those things would have stayed aloft if they WEREN'T lighter than air, because they were moving so slowly. Just crawling.

There WERE two of them, but the one didn't seem inclined to take part in the antics the other one was involved in. And that in itself is puzzling. Me and my brother both remarked how the one was doing all these crazy acrobatics, and the other was just hovering there. We didn't actually see what happened to the other, because it eventually faded from our sight. Especially since our attention was focused on that ONE.

As for the degrees it traveled along it's little frantic route: I ESTIMATE they were at LEAST two miles. That's the absolute minimum. I don't know the actual size of them, because I didn't see them up close. Based on the other two witnesses, and what I myself thought, they were probably anywhere from 3 to 5 miles away. I know that they were sometimes difficult to see, even with the binoculars.

I would say it covered about 45 degrees at the most between east and west, but even that's hard to say, given that it was VERY HARD to follow that thing with eyes or binoculars. It was zipping around in a mad manner! When I said that it was flying around like a housefly (very erratically) that's pretty accurate from what I remember.

I confer with my bro on this, because we were watching it intently. We both remember it distinctly moving UP and DOWN, multiple times. You seem to be saying that it would have been moving in more of a circular motion, if it was gaining inertia in order to move west. But we both concurred that this thing had bobbed up and down very rapidly, which to me doesn't seem to gaining itself any kind of directional momentum.

I can see where MAYBE that would have been an optical illusion, but from what I saw, this thing was doing whatever it wanted to, with no reason for it.

As I say, I've frankly no idea per say regarding what it was you and your brother saw and in seeing anything at all, I'm certain theirs an undoubtedly straightforward explanation just waiting to unfold - what I've been endeavouring to describe over the course of the last few posts doesn't dictate the presence of extraterrestrials in order to make it work - all of this is just perfectly straightforward applied physics, not the after effects of a single warp drive in sight.

I've no idea either, believe me. I've seen many manner of aircraft in my day, and NOTHING can fly THAT fast, WITHOUT making a sound, unless it has something very different as its driving force.

I'm not necessarily implying anti-gravity, but it was NOT jet propulsion. Not anything normal, that is!

They went from floating along like balloons (the one did) to flying at what must have been extremely close to the speed of sound, judging by its size and the distance it traveled in the time allotted.

I'll give you credit for your electromagnetic propulsion, but I will also say that it could be something else. Unless there is an ULTRA quiet turbofan-whatnot that can push a craft that fast without making any noticeable noise (they were rather far away) then it has to be something else. And their rather "weightless" characteristics (floating at a very low speed for ANY aircraft, even a helicopter in flight) makes me think that a fan alone wouldn't do it.

Do you really think that they're all (provided that they're real) powered by magnetic force (and mysterious "thrusters")? Or is this just a "possible" theory that you've taken a liking to?

Well, that's all I have to say for now.

Toodles? What?!?!


Oh! That's poof-speak for later! I get it! ;) :p

The CIA was formed the same year they schemed up the roswell hoax. Also the same year the inventor of the electromotive flying machine died. (Nikola Tesla) Roswell was a coverup for secret technology which involves no extreterrestrials.

Many of the photos of flying saucers ("ufos") are real photos of actual manmade flying machines which are capable of "defying science of the day." (via their ability to fly right angles at extremely high speeds, where unclassified arcraft attempting such things would be obliterated by the G-force)

The reason the electropropulsive flying machine doesn't get destroyed by high speed right angle maneuvers is because it synthesizes inertia and momentum with high frequency high voltage electricity. (since all matter is made of electric charges, gravity , momentum and intertia are all electromagnetic in nature)

for more information go to:
http://www.pritchardschool.com/Teslas_Flying_Machine.pdf

or

http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Tesla's_Dynamic_Theory_of_Gravity

How do you know it was a low-pressure helium balloon?

As far as I know, all the balloons that the Japanese sent over arrived towards the end of the war, not as early as the incident in question.





I can be a skeptic, too! Look how skeptical I am of your advances. What a fun game we're playing! :p
I have to say that I'm not too impressed with the 'facts" of your cut and pastes. IIRC Japanese ballons were found in the western U.S. and Alaska in 1942. After the Hindenburg blew up most nations went to helium.

I have to say that I'm not too impressed with the 'facts" of your cut and pastes.

What makes you so sure I was trying to impress?

What a fun game we're playing!


IIRC Japanese ballons were found in the western U.S. and Alaska in 1942. After the Hindenburg blew up most nations went to helium.

Yes, I am aware of the advantages of helium over hydrogen from a safety standpoint.
Why, though, do you insist that these bombs had helium?

The balloons were crafted from mulberry paper, glued together with potato flour and filled with expansive hydrogen.

The balloon had to carry about 900 kilograms (1,000 pounds) of gear, which meant a hydrogen balloon with a diameter of about 10 meters (33 feet). At first, the balloons were made of conventional rubberized silk, but there was a better way to make an envelope that leaked even less. An order went out for ten thousand balloons made of "washi", a paper derived from mulberry bushes that was impermeable and very tough. It was only available in squares about the size of a road map, so it was glued together in three or four laminations using paste derived from a tuber with the Japanese name of "devil's-tongue".

And what is this about a balloon offensive BEFORE 1944?

Japan released the first of these bomb-bearing balloons on November 3, 1944.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_bomb

The air balloon mission began sometime in 1944; the first balloon bomb was discovered November 4th, 1944, 66 miles south of San Pedro,California.
http://collections.ic.gc.ca/balloons/mission.htm

I don't see any notion of any of these being filled with helium, nor do I see any talk about balloons having been launched prior to 1944. I'm not saying that there COULDN'T have been one or two instances, but obviously it's not a fact that is easily found. I assume this is NOT the same type of balloon?

There was speculation, that the unidentified object, might have been a blimp-although veteran lighter-then-air-experts in Akron, O., the nations center of such construction, said Japan was believed to have lost interest in such craft following experiments in World War I. These sources said inability to obtain fire proof helium caused discarding of such plans.

From a newspaper article following the "battle". This doesn't support the theory that helium was the fuel of choice for balloons in Japan.
Of course, people WERE dumber back in those days! :p

I have to say that I'm not too impressed with the 'facts" of your cut and pastes.

What about it was cut and paste? I just posted several quotes from several articles (as well as with links), and they all said basically the same thing.

Are you saying that all these sites are just spewing "facts" and not actually FACTS???

What does impress, you then? What ARE the facts? What are you even talking about here?

Puzzling.

Do you really think that they're all (provided that they're real) powered by magnetic force (and mysterious "thrusters")? Or is this just a "possible" theory that you've taken a liking to?

... I don't know whether the actual term like or liking comes into any of this. Before you get to the subject of aliens, alien abductions and all the rest of the stuff associated with extraterrestrials y'have to establish clearly and unequivocally that there's a something in the first place to get all worked up and hot under the collar about the rest - that means establishing whether or not a thing that conforms to UFO characteristics, as a form of vehicular means, is physically possible.

Without that, you've got jack.

There are all manner of theoretical possibilities when it comes to the sorts of physics usually associated with UFO's, some tenable, some not at all. The net is full of the stuff - The problem with them all is you can't know whether or not the solution you come up with is actually the case - unless you can actually apply the sorts of physics one comes up with you don't know whether the idea actually works. Or not.

Looking at the problem in terms of applied physics circumvents that drawback.

Providing one doesn't attribute either properties or behaviours not credibly acknowledged as being part and parcel of the sorts of physical principals you're using you're dealing with quantities that are both known in terms of how they work; calculable, in terms of what is required of them and to what effect; predictable in terms of how these physical principals can be expressed and demonstrable in actual practice.

Now, were the sorts of physical principals I've been outlining specifically to you regarding this a-propulsive idea of a UFO merely one of simple convince alone - ie, neat idea, seems to fit, it'll do - I wouldn't be pushing it. Unless the idea is actually relevant to purportedly "real" UFO behaviour it doesn't have any direct baring consequently it's just an idea.

But the more you go through alleged UFO sightings the more you come to realise that what's being described isn't the consequence of the thing simply being a UFO - ie, something all spooky and mysterious and just doing things in order to facilitate a late night scare story - but rather as the consequence of it being an actual object constrained to behave in accordance with whatever physical principals actually underly it.

An actual real world physical object conforming to real world physics.

Specifically the ones I've been outlining - that's why I believe it to be possibly relevant.

I personally may not particularly like that, in fact given my often negligible tolerance for all manner of topics UFO, I frankly find it damn inconvenient and a monumental potential pain in the arse to boot, but whilst people continue to be banging it back and forth endlessly hither and yon, all the time people are arguing about this and flapping away about the other the simple fact remains that yes, actually, a thing that you could only describe as being a UFO is actually physically possible - here's how (http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/how-by-frank-marshal/Index.html).

Since it's all the sort of stuff taught in high school level general science classes it makes it kind of hard to argue with...

UFO believers of course, hate the notion. Not really my problem. I don't actually believe in UFO's - they either exist or they don't, without them y'don't get any of the rest. The physics book says they can, until I know better I'm somewhat stuck with it.

As to your sighting:

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/438/drone04cypher0do.jpg http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/3347/drone019ml.jpg http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/846/predatory027wp.jpg

I did a bit of rummaging and located a couple of snaps of drones conforming roughly to your description of what you saw - as soon as you first relayed your story I immediately pictured a Cypher - that's the first one, US Marine Corps remote surveillance drone. The second one, The Sentinel, was a prototype only civilian development built for tender for the Canadian Government - the description you gave of it being top heavy stuck in my mind.

Neither conform exactly to what you saw, equally neither are capable of the sorts of speeds you relay - the Cypher is developed to be relatively quiet, but both their both designed for strategic Ob's not combat deployment.

The faster remote drones fall along the lines of the Predator, third along - there's also stealthed up version of the Predator, looks like a UFO noisy as hell.

If you're thinking still along the lines of some form of lighter than air craft - your fundamental problem becomes that of explaining how you're LTA Craft began accelerating at speed back and forth in the manner you describe - if it's lighter than air and propulsed - the engine also has to be lighter than air otherwise the craft simply isn't. Couple that with the fact that this LTA structure equally has to be as physically robust as any other form of conventional jet powered aircraft - and indeed, you have one irreconcilable mystery on your hands.

Your thingies, whatever they were, couldn't have been both LTA and physically propulsed at the same time - not really to the sorts of speeds you describe.

I'm not being biased, it's just the fact that what you would be describing when viewed in such exact terms would require extraordinary physics to explain - but only if in fact what appears to be a LTA object physically actually is.

In my previous response you are left with a description of something which, especially at low speeds, would hold a course not at all unlike that one could expect more conventionally from a balloon. I realise in my description, from what you relay, you get the impression (with regards to the thing batting back and forth at higher speeds) that what I'm describing would be some sort of circular course - but actually, in the diagram, I do indicate quite clearly that its actual path would be pretty tight (actually a very tight figure of 8) and as you initially relayed, over the course of it behaving in this side to side fashion before shooting off you do relay the observation as being increasing hard to make out clearly - a fact no doubt compounded by its speed, but from the angle you were observing from, might not also some degree of increase in distance between yourself and its actual position have been the case?

An observation suggesting strongly that, though not travelling away in a southerly direction terribly far, as it was shooting backward and forth east to west it was also moving away from you.

Man, I love those UAVs! When I'm rich I think I will buy one.

:) ... I know what y'mean, they are rather Bond, James Bond.... The prototypes however, they were all originally knocked up out of salvaged parts, other than the airframe. A thing like a Cypher's very doable y'know... ;)

You're right about the lighter-than-air. I know it's pretty impossible for them to be such, being such small creatures. I had been thinking about someone's explanation for a certain flying triangle phenomenon, and the person had said they were powered by an extremely high-powered, but silent turbofan (?). The actual craft is actual either helium or hydrogen-filled. More like a sleek triangular blimp. However, those craft obviously have the volume to hold the amount of gas it would take.

I just made that observation because of the very weightless "attitude" these things had!

The two objects, based on what I perceived, and the description of my brother's friend, were at least the size of a regular American automobile.
As I said, I've looked at quite a few drone aircraft, and knowing roughly their flight characteristics, etc, I know that if these things were a surveillance craft of the military, they aren't being discussed in any articles I'VE personally browsed.

I had been thinking about someone's explanation for a certain flying triangle phenomenon, and the person had said they were powered by an extremely high-powered, but silent turbofan (?). The actual craft is actual either helium or hydrogen-filled. More like a sleek triangular blimp.

:) ... Mmmm, I believe I'm familiar with the beasty you mean.

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/2716/hstealthblimp035mo.jpg

The Lockheed Martin Stealth Blimp, envisioned as a mass cargo, troop and tactical ordinance carrier - whether or not she ever made it off the drawing board, this initial conceptual dates back from around 1982, remains not entirely founded. There's a whole slew of so called Black Budget Bogie's supposedly out there, things like the spooky UFO physics driven TR-3B ( Astra) or the more down to earth and possibly now decommissioned Penetrator (Aurora).

Once the B2 Spirit, you're now classic Stealth Bomber, went into production Lockheed Martin and McDonald Douglas went into overdrive with conceptual stealth designs, including many radical engine proposals for the X-Plane series, right the way through the 80's. Chief amongst them proved to be the development of a functioning Ram-Jet Engine, commonly acknowledged as being the likeliest reason detra behind Aurora.

As for the actual Stealth Blimp itself, certainly it's conceptually sound enough on paper but she was envisioned as a relatively low speed, high level bulk cruiser. Though people indeed bang on about these babies on the internet with every ounce of hushed speculation every bit as fitting as that applied to your average purported UFO incident over Groom Lake, there's never been any evidence of it being actually deployed, let alone comissioned.

Put it this way, if this thing were in service, the troops would have been down on the ground in Iraq a hell of a lot more quickly than they were... ;)

:) ... I know what y'mean, they are rather Bond, James Bond.... The prototypes however, they were all originally knocked up out of salvaged parts, other than the airframe. A thing like a Cypher's very doable y'know... ;)

You can make a cypher like RC model yourself, from a kit! Check this out;

http://www.rcgroups.com/links/index.php?id=4840&cat=198&t=articleprint

And check out the vids. Now, imagine one of those babies all lit up with some nice colour phasing LEDs.

Exactly what everyone must have been seeing all these years!

Put it this way, if this thing were in service, the troops would have been down on the ground in Iraq a hell of a lot more quickly than they were... ;)

Probably right. Last time I heard, yes, it was indeed only a concept, and not an actual implemented design.

Though, I do know someone who witnessed one of the more standard flying black triangles. I should find out more about that sighting.

And check out the vids. Now, imagine one of those babies all lit up with some nice colour phasing LEDs.

:) .... Actually, I kind of did. Nothing quite to that sort of scale, but managed to cobble together a little desk top working model out of a cannibalised light weight electric motor, the rotor from a plastic helicopter model kit and the container from a Chinese takeaway - cable powered sort of an affair, ran off an old model train transformer, only hovered about 8 inches or so. Was an amazingly good little motor until I burned it out...

I was beamingly pleased. I remember the look of quiet, drawn out disbelief/helpless despair on my poor darling wifes face as she realised quite what it actually was I'd been up to for the previous couple of days instead of working.

Never quite understood quite at what particular point in a relationship that exact sort of expression first comes into the repertoire, but women really are awfully good at it...

Bless 'em.


Though, I do know someone who witnessed one of the more standard flying black triangles. I should find out more about that sighting.

:) ... Mmmm, never quite understood why, in the popular cognisance of things, if its generally either circular, cylindrical, spherical, etc popular consensus has the vehicle placed as being undoubtedly extraterrestrial in origin.

If its black and triangular, alway it's man made indicative only of Government implementation of retro-engineered UFO techknology...

Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. ;)

Did have one question though regarding your sighting. Roughly how fast, would you estimate, did it eventually disappear at - roughly, would y'say?

Over 400 or so mph, or slower?

One other question - I'm presuming your not a resident of Canada, though if you are that would have been my first guess regarding your sighting - neverthless, you mentioned being within range of an airforce base. More curiosity than anything but do any of these names ring a bell?



AAF A. P. Hill
AAF Arlington Heights Army Heliport
AAF Bismarck
AAF Blackstone (Allen C. Perkinson AP)
AAF Camp McCoy
AAF Felker
AAF Fort Harrison
AAF Gray
AAF Haley
AAF Helena
AAF Muir
AAF Phillips (Aberdeen Proving Ground)
AAF RAP Akron-Canton
AAF Ray S. Miller
AAF Tipton (AP)
AAF Vagabond
AAF Weide (Aberdeen Proving Ground)
AAF Wheeler-Sack
AFB Andrews
AFB Ellsworth
AFB Fairchild
AFB Francis E. Warren
AFB Grand Forks
AFB Griffiss
AFB K. I. Sawyer
AFB Langley
AFB Loring
AFB Malmstrom
AFB McChord
AFB McGuire
AFB Minot
AFB Mountain Home
AFB Scott
AFB Wright-Patterson
AFS Cavalier
AFS Newark
AHP Fort Lee
AHP Iowa
AHP Oakdale
ANGB Andrews (AFB)
ANGB AP Colonel Francis S. Gabreski
ANGB AP Mansfield Lahm
ANGB AP Martin State
ANGB AP Sioux Gateway
ANGB AP Yeager
ANGB Atlantic City (IAP)
ANGB Bangor (IAP)
ANGB Battle Creek
ANGB Boise
ANGB Burlington (IAP)
ANGB Capital
ANGB Cheyenne
ANGB Dane County
ANGB Des Moines
ANGB Duluth
ANGB Eastern West Virginia (RAP) (Shepherd Field)
ANGB Ft. Wayne
ANGB Great Falls
ANGB Greater Peoria
ANGB IAP Hancock
ANGB IAP Harrisburg-Olmstedt
ANGB IAP Hector
ANGB IAP O'Hare
ANGB IAP Richmond (Byrd Field)
ANGB IAP Terre Haute
ANGB Joe Foss Field
ANGB Kingsley Field
ANGB Mitchell Field
ANGB Pittsburgh (IAP)
ANGB Portland (IAP)
ANGB RAP Alpena County
ANGB Selfridge
ANGB Stewart (IAP)
ANGB Stratton (County AP Schenectady)
ANGB Volk Field
ARB Grissom
ARS General Billy Mitchell
ARS Minneapolis-St. Paul
ARS Niagara Falls
ARS Pittsburgh (IAP)
ARS Willow Grove
ARS Youngstown
CGAF Long Island
CGAF Muskegon
CGAF Newport North Bend Det.
CGAS Astoria
CGAS Atlantic City
CGAS Detroit
CGAS Port Angeles
CGAS Traverse City
NAF Washington (AFB Andrews)
NARC Minneapolis
NARC Selfridge
NAS Brunswick
NAS Glenview
NAS Lakehurst
NAS Norfolk
NAS Oceana
NAS Patuxent River
NAS Seattle
NAS Whidbey Island
NAS Willow Grove (JRB)
NB Kitsap
NS Bremerton
NS Norfolk (Chambers Field)
NS Everett
NS Great Lakes

[SIZE=3][FONT=Arial Narrow] :) .... Actually, I kind of did. Nothing quite to that sort of scale, but managed to cobble together a little desk top working model out of a cannibalised light weight electric motor, the rotor from a plastic helicopter model kit and the container from a Chinese takeaway - cable powered sort of an affair, ran off an old model train transformer, only hovered about 8 inches or so. Was an amazingly good little motor until I burned it out...

Excellent! I've done similar. As a kid (and airforce brat) I was fascinated by things that fly, so made all sorts of gliders, rubber band powered planes, bungee launched gliders, and dabbled with hovercraft (old polystyrene tiles, DC motor, and a prop from the hobby shop), and various 'experimental' things like you describe. Although I never had the cash for RC kit, and battery technology just wouldn't have permitted a self contained vehicle to fly under it's own power in my day.

I'd love to make such a VTOL type RC craft, or one of these;

http://www.mugi.co.uk/ (check out the vids, esp the night flying vid in the 'Multimedia' section)

... now I am a wage earning adult, but I fear that expression you mentioned, and know I'd be on the receiving end if I embarked on any such project before completing a few unfinished DIY projects around the house.

It's perhaps just as well, I know I'd get carried away, equip such a craft with LEDs and lasers, and probably scare people into a 'War of the Worlds' type frenzy.

:) ... Mmmm, never quite understood why, in the popular cognisance of things, if its generally either circular, cylindrical, spherical, etc popular consensus has the vehicle placed as being undoubtedly extraterrestrial in origin.

If its black and triangular, alway it's man made indicative only of Government implementation of retro-engineered UFO techknology...

Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. ;)

:confused: I don't get it.

In all honesty, because it's close to what a normal aircraft looks life, especially the stealth. And probably quite a few people have mistaken the stealth craft for the other.


Did have one question though regarding your sighting. Roughly how fast, would you estimate, did it eventually disappear at - roughly, would y'say?

Over 400 or so mph, or slower?

I regret that I myself did not see it when it left the scene; I was indoors at the time and had just gone out, and my brother informed me of its departure.
Given his description (maybe 2 or 3 seconds from due south to disappear to the west) and that I've seen many manners of aircraft, some at high-speed, I would say 400 mph would be the minimum. And for something that small and completely silent, that says something. Not sure what, but it's mumbling meaningfully. Or whispering?

Really hard to tell. If I had been up closer, I may have a bit more to say. Or if I had had a camera...

Speaking of that, go to this link:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/decade/post2000.htm

The first photo, from the description I got and what I saw, is very very similar to what we witnessed. This is one of those "I didn't see it until I looked at the pictures" objects. Skip to the third photo over on that page, same object. On the next page is pretty much the same thing, only it was photographed in England instead of the North America.


One other question - I'm presuming your not a resident of Canada, though if you are that would have been my first guess regarding your sighting - neverthless, you mentioned being within range of an airforce base. More curiosity than anything but do any of these names ring a bell?


Several of them are familiar, yes.

Several of them are familiar, yes.

Familiar as in relevant to the specific area in which the observation took place or just familiar in the general sense of "Oh, yes. I've heard of that one"?

:) ... Sorry to press you on this, about the last thing I want you to do is give away any personal information specific to where you actually live so just a simple yes or no answer is really the most useful, but I could do with knowing one way or another. Just a yay or nay.

Have to run. Proper responses to all soon. A ;)

I KNOW who you work for, Buster Bronco!

Yes, familiar as in, one is very close, and several more are within a few hundred miles.

Narrow it down slightly: no naval bases are involved.

I KNOW who you work for, Buster Bronco!

Well, kind of. In a manner of speaking. I suppose y'could say I'm more an "Outside Contractor" as it were. Of course, usually when someone such as myself is put on a job, it generally means someone has made a number of very powerful individuals very upset indeed. I suppose therefore in real life that must mean you're either Caspar Weinberger, the actor Will Wheton or else Céline Dion...

Yes, familiar as in, one is very close, and several more are within a few hundred miles.

Narrow it down slightly: no naval bases are involved.

Smashing - that really is most gratifying to hear, thank you. And yes, there was a reason for asking before y'ask - it has to so with your sighting. Sorry about the inordinately long list of Airforce Bases y'had to wade through however they're not at all as randomly picked as they may at first have appeared -

AAF A. P. Hill AAF Arlington Heights Army Heliport AAF Bismarck AAF Blackstone (Allen C. Perkinson AP) AAF Camp McCoy AAF Felker AAF Fort Harrison AAF Gray AAF Haley AAF Helena AAF Muir AAF Phillips (Aberdeen Proving Ground) AAF RAP Akron-Canton AAF Ray S. Miller AAF Tipton (AP) AAF Vagabond AAF Weide (Aberdeen Proving Ground) AAF Wheeler-Sack AFB Andrews AFB Ellsworth AFB Fairchild AFB Francis E. Warren AFB Grand Forks AFB Griffiss AFB K. I. Sawyer AFB Langley AFB Loring AFB Malmstrom AFB McChord AFB McGuire AFB Minot AFB Mountain Home AFB Scott AFB Wright-Patterson AFS Cavalier AFS Newark AHP Fort Lee AHP Iowa AHP Oakdale ANGB Andrews (AFB) ANGB AP Colonel Francis S. Gabreski ANGB AP Mansfield Lahm ANGB AP Martin State ANGB AP Sioux Gateway ANGB AP Yeager ANGB Atlantic City (IAP) ANGB Bangor (IAP) ANGB Battle Creek ANGB Boise ANGB Burlington (IAP) ANGB Capital ANGB Cheyenne ANGB Dane County ANGB Des Moines ANGB Duluth ANGB Eastern West Virginia (RAP) (Shepherd Field) ANGB Ft. Wayne ANGB Great Falls ANGB Greater Peoria ANGB IAP Hancock ANGB IAP Harrisburg-Olmstedt ANGB IAP Hector ANGB IAP O'Hare ANGB IAP Richmond (Byrd Field) ANGB IAP Terre Haute ANGB Joe Foss Field ANGB Kingsley Field ANGB Mitchell Field ANGB Pittsburgh (IAP) ANGB Portland (IAP) ANGB RAP Alpena County ANGB Selfridge ANGB Stewart (IAP) ANGB Stratton (County AP Schenectady) ANGB Volk Field ARB Grissom ARS General Billy Mitchell ARS Minneapolis-St. Paul ARS Niagara Falls ARS Pittsburgh (IAP) ARS Willow Grove ARS Youngstown CGAF Long Island CGAF Muskegon CGAF Newport North Bend Det. CGAS Astoria CGAS Atlantic City CGAS Detroit CGAS Port Angeles CGAS Traverse City NAF Washington (AFB Andrews) NARC Minneapolis NARC Selfridge NAS Brunswick NAS Glenview NAS Lakehurst NAS Norfolk NAS Oceana NAS Patuxent River NAS Seattle NAS Whidbey Island NAS Willow Grove (JRB) NB Kitsap NS Bremerton NS Norfolk (Chambers Field) NS Everett NS Great Lakes


Above is the original list I asked you to give the once over for anything recognisable regarding installations of the kind you mentioned in passing but didn't specify which in your initial relaying of the object you and your brother saw.

Plotted on a map displaying all publicly declared USAB's throughout the continental US of A (the states highlighted in blue) you'll note they're all located throughout the northern most States (bellow). Hence, the size of the list.

http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/4972/usab18ai.gif

Difficult to actually read properly at that scale I know, but if you follow the linky here (http://www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra/DOCUMENTS/BasesMilitaryMAP.htm) you'll find a full sized, unadulterated version with comprehensive list of everything Airforce Uncle Sam has to offer - you'll also be want to note that there are considerably more such installations located elsewhere which don't actually occur on the list I gave.

Would you like to know how I managed to refine the search criteria down to the specific portion of the continent that I did?

Believe it or not - your estimation of the speed the vehicle you relayed seeing attained before disappearing off into the big wide blue.

You were very clear in your story about the subject of the sorts of speeds y'saw this thing travelling at, and in relaying that you were already quite used to seeing all manner of fast moving non-commercial air traffic due to your proximity to an airbase I reasoned, in giving any kind of estimate regarding speed at all, your general familiarity with regular, frequent air traffic could be trusted as being reasonably within the ball park - so I thought I'd actually apply for once some of the gubbins I've been mouthing on about over the course of the last few forevers rather than just droning on about it ad nausium...

I swear, I even find I bore myself with it sometimes and I'm quite by far one of the most interesting chaps I've ever had the privilege to have met... ;)

The basic idea underlying this a-propulsive UFO Model is that the observation of it travelling at any degree of appreciable speed comes about not because its expending energy in propulsion, but because it's actually slowing down from a previously far, far higher speed from a degree of inertia already applied too it by something else - in the context of a relatively higher altitude observation that turn of speed comes about through loosing some portion of the orbital inertia already applied to it from simply being deployed from orbit.

At far lower altitudes both inertia and direction would be being acquired actually from forming some degree of attractance too some feature already on the Earths surface and allowing the rotation of the Earth to pull it in the direction it's turning.

Thus, if you were to be standing on the Equator and observed a vehicle operating under these principals hovering stationary over one particular place it's mass would actually have to be travelling at a speed of roughly 1038 mph in an Easterly direction the entire time in order to maintain that geostationary position - the instant it slowed down from that speed it would appear to move, West wards, it's speed in the main mostly the consequence of it decelerating from its previous velocity - that being, in this instance, 1038 mph, or there abouts.

Of course, that being these case, it would somewhat dictate that whatever speed you would observe such a vehicle operating in this way travelling at, it's overall speed at these lower level altitudes would be being dictated by where in the world the observation is taking place.

For every degree of latitude you travel from the equator, the rotational speed of the Earths surface diminishes the further North or South you travel all the way to the poles.

Thus, a vehicle operating in this way, when buggering off at appreciable speed in a generally Westerly heading at the equator is going to max out at a top observed speed somewhat faster than the same when observed at a higher or lower degree of latitude.

Knowing that speed of "departure", if the principal is at all correct, should tell you roughly where (in terms of latitude) the event is taking - of course it isn't going to tell you which particular hemisphere its taking place in, but it should indicate the latitude.

Well, that's the theory. Back to the map.

http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/8486/usab20td.gif

Being as you didn't see it happening you weren't, as you'll recall, able to estimate the speed the object appeared to be travelling at when it was departing. But you were able to tell me it left in a roughly South Westerly heading at certainly no less than 400 mph, and that prior to leaving the area it first arrived travelling at a speed of around 40 mph or so and then suddenly, after bobbing up and down a bit, started buzzing West to East at around 400 mph.

About that at least you've been absolutely adamant about.

Now, if I bang on about how specifically, this post will never end. But, before being able to leave the vicinity, any vehicle operating in those sorts of terms would have to loose at least half of its Easterly applied inertia in order to do it - to actually leave the area it would have to acquire a little bit also in a Westerly heading, but in order to be able to leave relatively quickly as you relay it would have to loose half of the inertia it was initially travelling at.

Now, you say it originally entered the area travelling very slowly at approximately 40 mph heading roughly south and seemed to acquire a speed of roundabout 400 mph shortly there after.

Subtracting that initial speed of 40 mph you gave me from 400 mph gave me a figure of around 360 mph which, multiplied by 2 gives a speed of around the 720 mph mark.

Being as my math is frankly appalling and I couldn't calculate it anyway, that places the events you described as having occurred somewhere either on or around a line of latitude roughly 50° from the equator - I peg it as occurring between 45° and 55° because you don't know exactly how fast the thing really was travelling and 50° is a good enough base to calculate to thanks to the chaps up in Astronomy and Astrophysics. I figured you were an American so that refined the search for the particular airbase or bases relative to your location as being somewhere coast to coast amongst the top third portion of the United States.

Not exactly figuring out your zip code and credit card PIN number, and certainly not posited as any form of either serious or at all conclusive proof regarding the tedious guff I'm capable of droning on about for hours at a stretch - that you only get from wrapping ones head around a standard applied physics book and putting some of the stuff in there to work for you.

But, it's amusing nevertheless to consider and, who knows, perhaps possibly even actually informative - in a round about, impossibly hard to follow kind of a way...

Ta for the work out. I actually enjoyed that. You be careful of Buster Bronco now, y'hear...

Regards,

A


It's perhaps just as well, I know I'd get carried away, equip such a craft with LEDs and lasers, and probably scare people into a 'War of the Worlds' type frenzy.

Ah, the plight of the Happily Domesticated Male, like the plight of The Repo Man, is often intense...

I have absolutely no idea what that's supposed to actually mean, but there's a curious sense of comfort in knowing wage earning and DIY and looks to be avoided are universal - God, somehow, seems in Her heaven.

I loved the vids by the by, but indeed, frankly, other than wanting to deck one of these things out in the fashion described and putting a wiggins up the neighbours - actually purchasing one and putting it all together...

What else can one actually do with one of the things except put a fright up the neighbours with it etc, etc.

Y'know, reflective mylar really is terribly cheap. All y'need is a couple of thin strips of metal with a voltage running through it to get them to heat up and y'can can heat seal lengths together and cut to any form y'want - I mean, a toureal balloon, mount a light weight motor in the centre for lift and a couple of small outboaders for lateral guidence... Y'could build a really, really big barstard for about the same cost as one of these kit jobs.

Rig her with your lights, bounce a few lazer pointers off her when she's airborne. All y'need is a bottle of helium, and face it. Just having a bottle of helium alone is never less than funny... : )

Well, I'm not so sure what to say.

Bottle of helium? Yes, that is quite funny. And one can achieve a very similarly humorous effect with a good pitch-shifter!

That's what I know.

Well, I'm not so sure what to say.

:) ... I know, I know. I don't so much as talk, I drone....

I promise, I'm done. You're awfully diplomatic, bless you.

And as to the pitch-shifter thing - indeed, similar effect but I'm sorry. In the House of Anonymous the patented original Helium brand name still means something, gosh darn it! :p

Toodles,

A ;)

I loved the vids by the by, but indeed, frankly, other than wanting to deck one of these things out in the fashion described and putting a wiggins up the neighbours - actually purchasing one and putting it all together...

Yes indeed, the actual effort to pull off some scam being more than I am willing to put in. Too many resposibilities to invest the time, sadly.

Y'know, reflective mylar really is terribly cheap. All y'need is a couple of thin strips of metal with a voltage running through it to get them to heat up and y'can can heat seal lengths together and cut to any form y'want - I mean, a toureal balloon, mount a light weight motor in the centre for lift and a couple of small outboaders for lateral guidence... Y'could build a really, really big barstard for about the same cost as one of these kit jobs.

Rig her with your lights, bounce a few lazer pointers off her when she's airborne. All y'need is a bottle of helium, and face it. Just having a bottle of helium alone is never less than funny... : )

Indeed, and a TV program in the UK did exactly this! 'A Very British UFO Hoax' was aired by Channel 4. They made a 25ft wide mylar saucer, filled it with helium, and buzzed it around Avebury, which is famed in the UK for it's 'paranormal' activity thanks to it's standing stones, etc.

Although many of the locals didn't fall for it;

"Any UFO that travels at 3mph and buzzes like a hairdryer is not that impressive to me." (http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=2146411147)

But that didn't stop some from embellishing the size, and complexity of the model when later interviewed by the press.

Apparently, some people now claim that the documentary was a cover up, and it wasn't a hoax!

Can't win, even when you have evidence.

:) ... Mmmm, and I'll wager those positing the "it was a cover up" scenario didn't even see the blessed thing in the first place, only heard about what was merely supposed to have transpired after the fact.

Indeed, I remember the programme. Was actually interesting though how very few of the locals actually went for it - the variation in description in subsequent interview, that's just part of the landscape when taking witness statements regarding anything - people routinely fill in and embellish mostly without actually realising it although, if the media are involved, the likelihood for creative licence increases as people become very consciously aware that what is required from them is something interesting. Interesting enough at least to be part of the overall coverage of the story.

Size, distance, unique and specific details when given in such testimony never can be entirely trusted - especially when people have been discussing amongst themselves exactly what it is they've seen.

If one person in such a group relays a detail not actually noticed at all by the others but does so with conviction - the others both allow the information and incorporate into their own recollections as acceptable, rationalising that possibly the information being relayed comes from someone with a clearer fields of view or else simply paying more attention than themselves.

The actual unlikely nature of what is being observed itself compounds the process - if one is relaying the observation of something generally considered spurious and unbelievable in the first place the tendency on the part of the witness is to be, first and foremost, believed in their testimony. Consequently, where consensus exists, the tendency for the individual is to not act in any manner invalidating their own testimony.

If all the individual has to go on is what everyone else claims to have seen, even if they didn't actually see it, they'll act in corroboration with each other simply to remain credible and rationalise the reason why they didn't see what everyone else claims to have done by dint of some failure on their own part rather than just stick to what they actually saw.

Of course, this isn't a failing on the part of the witnesses per say - it's simply human nature.

It's the interviewer, the person playing the role of Investigator, that basically propagates the behaviour.

But indeed, it was generally interesting how very, very few of the locals actually fell for that one - mind, given the problems they had with control and the actually chronically slow speed they could only get the thing to move at, there wasn't really enough present in the actual "UFO" itself to really detract adequately enough from its fundamental shortcomings as as a supposedly "inexplicable" object.

Mere shape and form alone patently isn't enough to put a proper spook up folks. Not in Avensbury at anyrate... ;)