Arizona UFO
jo...@nospam.net
I have been disappointed by the lack of internet discussion regarding the
UFO seen and videotaped over Arizona in March. The odds that the
lights seen over Phoenix were from an alien craft are extremely low IMO,
but that does not change the fact that there was *something* very large
over Arizona which did not register on radar screens.
I saw the video of the UFO on NBC- the lights appeared to all be on the
same horizontal plane moving at a slow speed. The numerous witnesses
reported no sound emanating from the UFO. The only terrestrial
aircraft that would fit this discription would be a blimp- it is likely not
from a group of helicopter (too silent) or airplane (too slow).
As I see it, the three main possibilities in order of likelihood are that it
was a:
1. Military operation of some sort. The main problem with this is that the
military has denied any responsibility for the lights, which would mean
that it would have had to have been a top secret operation. If that's
the case, however, why on earth would they fly the craft over a
metropolitan area ? Also, is it within plausible technological limits to make
a blimp-type craft object of that size that is so stealthy ? Could it be
a flight of secret stealth helicopters ?
2. Hoax. The hoax theory would explain the craft being spotted over
Phoenix- a hoaxter, unlike the military, would want maximum visibility
and publicity. The problem here is resources- what hoaxter has the
capability to make such an (apparently) enormous craft and what
does he hope to gain ? Even more damaging to this theory is the
stealthiness- I can't believe that a hoaxter could have made such a
large object invisible to radar.
3. Some innocent explanation of another terrestrial sort- weather experiment,
etc. The big problem here are the ones mentioned earlier, but also the
fact that such a person responsible for the lights would presumably
have no reason not to come forward.
4. Alien craft. The main problem here is the problem with all extra-terrestrial
explanations for UFO's- the closest solar system is several light years away.
I gather that the relativity theory indicates that the amount of energy
that would be needed to even approach light speed would be staggering.
Is it plausible to think that even an advanced society would be able or
willing to send a craft to explore a solar system so far away ? I suppose it's
more likely that the earth would have visitors now, since the radio waves
we've been sending out for decades may have tipped other off to
the presence of life here. Distance makes any idea of interstellar travel
seem very hard to accept- do the astronomy buffs have any tips here
on whether interstellar travel would be possible ?
UFO's have so many wacky connotations that some don't want to discuss
the topic intelligently. It seems to me that we have a genuine and
intriguing mystery, however- I wish more serious people in aviation,
astronomy, and the like were giving the matter some attention.
John.
ZOOL
Questions: With all the video cams in pocession of the fine people
of that town, how come only on guy turned in video of this object?
How come Air Force or National Guard not scramble planes up for a
closer look?(Course, if the thing is one of their's why would they
bother?) How come the local EYE-WITNESS News team not send their
helicopters up for a peek? The thing was certainly in the air
long enough.
Very, Very odd.
ZOOL
up for a look?
Mark
Just my 2 cents worth:
About this Phoenix UFO....seems I recall how a group of
hoaxsters once gathered up about 5-7 ultra lights and
threw some lights on them and flew in a large spread out
formation. The Phoenix sighting has the earmarkings of this
type of hoax:
A) large slow moving
B) relatively quiet
C) ultralight(s) would not show up on RADAR
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
Mark
Tom Miller
My wife saw this "thing". She was in the front yard, and I was in the
back yard assembling my telescope. There can be no doubt that the
people saw something. By the she got me to the front yard (saying
"yeah, sure" all the way) it was gone. It had moved very slowly for a
little while, and then suddenly zoomed away and was seen in Tucson only
minutes later (we live in north Phoenix). I told her she was seeing
things, but then on the radio the next morning I heard about all the
other people who had seen the same thing.
In response to your other thoughts, the air force and national guard no
longer scramble planes. Nor was there any reason to. Radar indicated
nothing was there, although it was visible to the traffic controllers at
Sky Harbor and several pilots who inquired about the lights.
Why didn't the TV stations take a look ? I work for one of them and can
assure you that the choppers are not ready to fly on short notice at
that time of night. They are generally put to bed after the 6:00 news
and the pilot goes home. If a disaster strikes, they can get back up in
1/2 hour to 3/4 hour, the time it takes the crew to get to it. The
object was not here for more than 10 - 15 minutes.
It seems to have now attacted national interest. I saw an ABC news
report on it the same day that USA Today ran a page and 1/2 on it. The
anniversary of Roswell seems to have generated some interest in UFO's
again.
Tom Miller
Phoenix
Juanita R. Alvarez
What makes this so interesting is the actions of Gov. Fife "White Guy"
Slime-ington, as we fondly refer to him here in AZ. If it was a hoax, UFO,
secret airplane there were many other ways that Fife could have handled fix
his first bungle then in the matter that he did. His so-called joke just
drew unnecessary attention to something that could have quietly been
slipped "under the rug" so to speak. Sometimes, I think, we should just
vote a dead person into office, than least we would have a governor with
some common sense, intelligence and dignity.
We are always getting errant missiles destroyed over our skies by
various military known/unknown bases here. It wouldn't surprise me if this
was a new type of military plane being tested out. Hughes, I believe, was
one of the first people to come up with a chevron designed aircraft. His
problem with it was stability, however with today's technology, I'm sure
that is not longer a concern. Look at the planes they used in Desert
Storm. I think that is more probable that the UFO stuff. Just my two
cents.
R Weems Jr
Mark (m...@whidbey.net) wrote:
: Just my 2 cents worth:
I agree that this is the most likely scenario- someone even posted
earlier that they knew an ultralight pilot who had participated in
this stunt over Phoenix. However, are you sure ultralights would not even
show up on sensitive radar like they have at the Phoenix airport
and the nearby Air Force base ? I had thought they, especially a
formation of them, would show up on radar. Maybe not, though-
this scenario does make a lot of sense.
Also, what of the report from the earlier poster that the lights
"sped off" and were soon spotted in Tuscon ? Can an ultralight
manage fast speeds ?
Robert
Brian Moran
I agree,more talk.Write back if you're there. sat 8:o5 pm
mi
Brian Moran
When, befor now have you ever grasped the ramafacations of faster then
light speed,if ever before?I think we have a formula which pertains to
relativity(E=Mc2)the theory.Sertinly no body is saying we have achieved
the ability,maybe we have,and maybe we hav'nt.Who wants to say that it's
not concievable,when you have'nt disclosed the capability to reach light
speed,or not?If you think back just four or five decades ago,alot of
people though the speed of sound was sience fiction.I know what you'r
thinking,then you would be time traveling.Right?You're correct sir,going
a little faster than light you would be able to see what has happened
in(your)past,but you have to go twice the speed of light or faster to
set foot in a other place,say so many light years away,depending on your
leaving point's and to the point of destination's relativity.I think
more reserch has taken place then some people want to evan bother
thinking about,It's much harder to believe it,s do able,should it be
thought impossable.
Post that if you want,maybe we can get some response.May it be negative
or possitive.
I would like to here what you think,please write back.
Peace out.
Brian Moran
What's the problem with aultra lights ziping off like that?Oh no
problem.You just add big heavy,loud jet engins and there you go
Chris Marriott
In article <33AC2E...@whidbey.net>, Mark <m...@whidbey.net> writes
>About this Phoenix UFO....seems I recall how a group of
>hoaxsters once gathered up about 5-7 ultra lights and
>threw some lights on them and flew in a large spread out
>formation. The Phoenix sighting has the earmarkings of this
>type of hoax:
>
>A) large slow moving
>
>B) relatively quiet
>
>C) ultralight(s) would not show up on RADAR
>
>If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
As an "ultralight" pilot myself, may I throw a few doubts on your
theory:
1. Ultralights are "VFR-only" aircraft. It is illegal to fly them at
night, or on instruments. Do you really think that anyone would risk
prosecution, a hefty fine, and having their license taken away for LIFE
for the sake of a stupid practical joke? Much less a whole GROUP of
them?
2. Ultralights are NOT quiet aircraft. The two-stroke engines they use
are VERY noisy - just as noisy as any other small aircraft. They have a
very districtive sound - anyone hearing it would instantly recognise it
as an engine.
3. Ultralights most definitely DO show up on radar - they show up just
fine. The engine is an excellent radar reflector.
Regards,
Chris
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marriott, Microsoft Certified Solution Developer.
SkyMap Software, U.K. e-mail: ch...@skymap.com
Visit our web site at http://www.skymap.com
Bob Martino
> 3. Some innocent explanation of another terrestrial sort- weather experiment,
> etc. The big problem here are the ones mentioned earlier, but also the
> fact that such a person responsible for the lights would presumably
> have no reason not to come forward.
Flock of geese.
They have white bellies, to reflect light from the city below. They fly in
a "V" shaped formation. If they are not honking and are just gliding
along, they are silent. They are too small individually to show up on
radar, they fly slowly, etc. Not very long ago, in this very newsgroup, an
person related his similar experience with this type of "UFO," only he was
able to identify it as geese at the time.
I can't believe this actually made the evening news. What's next, some
video of the planet Venus in the early morning?
--
Bob Martino (bmar...@osu.edu) I look up to the heavens
but night has clouded over
Perkins Observatory Web site: no hint of constellation
http://www-astronomy.mps. no Vela no Orion
ohio-state.edu/~perkins/ -Enya
Harbin Osteen
I have been wondering if you could use a spectrometer on a small
(8 or 10 inch S.C.T.) telescope to take a picture of the lights,
and see the emission lines, which would probbably tell you if
it is a tarrestrial sorce (sodium lights), or somthing strange?
Does anybody know if it is hard to make a spectrometer
that would be capable of doing this?
SeeYaa: Harbin
steve
Chris Marriott wrote:
>
> In article <33AC2E...@whidbey.net>, Mark <m...@whidbey.net> writes
> >About this Phoenix UFO....seems I recall how a group of
> >hoaxsters once gathered up about 5-7 ultra lights and
> >threw some lights on them and flew in a large spread out
> >formation. The Phoenix sighting has the earmarkings of this
> >type of hoax:
> >
> >A) large slow moving
> >
> >B) relatively quiet
> >
> >C) ultralight(s) would not show up on RADAR
> >
> >If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
>
> As an "ultralight" pilot myself, may I throw a few doubts on your
> theory:
>
> 1. Ultralights are "VFR-only" aircraft. It is illegal to fly them at
> night, or on instruments. Do you really think that anyone would risk
> prosecution, a hefty fine, and having their license taken away for LIFE
> for the sake of a stupid practical joke?
In the US you are not required to have a license to pilot an ultralight.
I'd suspect other regulations varied some too.
Much less a whole GROUP of
> them?
There would be ways around this. The lights could be tethered behind the
plane or something. At any rate it is definately something a single
person could pull off.
>
> 2. Ultralights are NOT quiet aircraft. The two-stroke engines they use
> are VERY noisy - just as noisy as any other small aircraft. They have a
> very districtive sound - anyone hearing it would instantly recognise it
> as an engine.
>
It wouldn't necessarily have to be an ultralight. It wouldn't even have
to be a plane. It could be a small unmanned blimp type craft.
> 3. Ultralights most definitely DO show up on radar - they show up just
> fine. The engine is an excellent radar reflector.
>
About how high was the thing flying?
The engine could be masked with some radar obsorbing material. Also see
above.
--
decoy address: dbco...@faa.gov
the real McCoy: mcgover (at) erols (dot) com
MIKE FORTSON
The height of the black triangle I reported at 8:30 pm mst on March 13th
was between 1500' and 3000'. My wife and I had an excellent side view of
this craft as it passed from north to south. My reports on the 15th to
MUFON described as solid, black, and trianular shaped. It's length was
close to one mile. It passed west of us heading south. At app. 30 mph. We
saw a 737 pass by right above it. And not altering it's course whatsoever.
We saw it as it passed thru the light of the bright quarter moon in the
western horizon. This was at 8:30 pm. The video you are talking about is a
completely different sighting. There are at least four and maybe five
different types of craft in the sky that night.And at different times. The
video you are talking about was shot around 10:45 that night looking SW of
downtown Phoenix towards the Estella mountains. It was not, I believe
flares, fire-ballons or any aircraft as we now know.
Lee Atwood
:threw some lights on them and flew in a large spread out
:formation. The Phoenix sighting has the earmarkings of this
:type of hoax:
:
:A) large slow moving
[etc. ...=> "ultralight aircraft"]
Slow, for a time, yes. But according to another post, the thing suddenly
sped up and went from Phoenix to Tucson very rapidly - where it was again
observed.
How do you explain that?
--
//////////////////////////
atw...@utk.edu
////////////////////////
MDM420
1. Hologram experiment. Holograms used by military to confuse an enemy?
2. Time travel?
3. Inter dimensional travel.
One plausible explanation. Two far fetched. What do ya think?
Jeff Karnowski
I am also disappointed in the lack of discussion on this occurance. If
anyone can give info on other sources iwould be grateful. As far as
interstellar travel goes it could be possible with antimatter. Any reports
from NV eme hil...@worldnet.att.net
jo...@nospam.net wrote in article <5ofjph$g...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
> 3. Some innocent explanation of another terrestrial sort- weather
experiment,
> etc. The big problem here are the ones mentioned earlier, but also the
> fact that such a person responsible for the lights would presumably
> have no reason not to come forward.
>
73270...@compuserve.com
In article <33AC2E...@whidbey.net>,
Mark <m...@whidbey.net> wrote:
>
> Just my 2 cents worth:
>
> About this Phoenix UFO....seems I recall how a group of
> hoaxsters once gathered up about 5-7 ultra lights and
> threw some lights on them and flew in a large spread out
> formation. The Phoenix sighting has the earmarkings of this
> type of hoax:
>
> A) large slow moving
>
>
> C) ultralight(s) would not show up on RADAR
>
> If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
>
Just a few comments from an active pilot:
(1) Ultralights *do* show up on radar. The rotating prop makes a fairly
good radar target. However, radar can be avoided by staying at a very low
altitude.
(2) Most ultralights make a terrible racket because their gasoline
engines are not well muffled. There have been experiments with
electrically powered machines but they are rare. I don't know anybody who
has 5 to seven of them.
(3) It is both illegal and dangerous to fly ultralights at night (because
they have no running lights that can be seen by other aircraft). Thus,
you need 5-7 rather foolhardy pilots. There are, however, many such
individuals.
(4) To get the effect seen on NBC TV, you need a reflector of some sort -
GE commercials notwithstanding, an ordinary halogen light bulb at an
altitude of 500 feet will look more like a star than a large light.
Ultralights are, however, limited in their load carrying ability and a
reflector would add a lot of drag.
(5) at night, operating with no running lights to indicate direction, it
would be very difficult to maintain the formations shown on TV.
(6) You also need a staging area for the take-offs and landings. You
can't use an airport because the pilots would recognize that illegal
operations are taking place, so you need to use a field in the desert.
To insure that the ultralights get back to the field and land, you need
to equip the pilots with some sort of navaid (maybe, a hand-held GPS),
and you need lights on the field.
All in all, this would be a very difficult and dangerous stunt.
- Larry
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
jd
Not that the idea isn't ingenious, but have you ever actually watched geese
in flight? 1) The individual members of a flock constantly change station. A
more oor less "v" is maintained, but it is never steady. 2) While they do
sometimes reflect city lights as they pass over, only those who live around
leaky nuclear power stations are self-luminous, and whatever was video taped
is most certainly self-luminous. 3) Especially when flying at night geese
honk. They are rarely silent.
You can down load a quick time movie of the thing or things from the U.S.
News page. Burning geese now . . . nah!
On Sat, 21 Jun 1997 14:06:18 +0100, Bob Martino wrote:
:>Flock of geese.
Doug O'Neal
> Slow, for a time, yes. But according to another post, the thing suddenly
> sped up and went from Phoenix to Tucson very rapidly - where it was again
> observed.
> How do you explain that?
"According to another post" is not exactly your most trustworthy source of
information.
But even given that, if the thing were over Tucson, it would have been seen
by at least some of the astronomers on Kitt Peak, which overlooks the
city, or the other observatories in the region.
Why have no such people given reports? I think I know. This illustrates
EXACTLY the principal reason I'm skeptical of all ufo reports: because the
people who know the skies best, amateur and some professional astronomers,
never see them.
Doug
C. Michael Gafford
The lack of interest comes partly from the fact that this subject is in the
wrong group. Please read the FAQ's.
Do not cross-post from alt.ufo.* to sci.*
<http://www.salamander.com/~wmcclain/saa_faq_list.txt>.
We are all burned out on UFO BS.
--
C. Michael Gafford
Alpine TX 79831-1401
30d21mNx103d42mW
Jeff Karnowski <hil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<01bc7fc1$c1e29940$b6ea93cf@default>...
Jeff Barringer
ZOOL wrote:
> of that town, how come only on guy turned in video of this object?
> How come Air Force or National Guard not scramble planes up for a
> closer look?(Course, if the thing is one of their's why would they
> bother?) How come the local EYE-WITNESS News team not send their
> helicopters up for a peek? The thing was certainly in the air
> long enough.
> Very, Very odd.
>
> ZOOL
> up for a look?
There are a variety of tapes of the object from various perspectives,
and I as I recalll this isn't the first time this has appeared....
didn't it appear for several nights in a row????... almost year ago...
The films I have seen look remarkably like a delta shaped dirigible...
The only problem.... it also appears to be a mile long....
--
Jeff Barringer
Brian Moran
I think you spend to much time studying sience,and should watch more
Mtv.
Kevin Latendresse
Doug O'Neal wrote:
> Why have no such people given reports? I think I know. This
> illustrates
> EXACTLY the principal reason I'm skeptical of all ufo reports:
> because the
> people who know the skies best, amateur and some professional
> astronomers,
> never see them.
>
> Doug
State police know the roads best, so by this logic they should
see auto accidents happen the most. Most likely though, they rarely
see one in progress. In fact, I have never seen a car accident
actually happening, but enough people have seen them happen
that I believe they actually happen.
--
Kevin
Geoff Price
In article <ONEAL.97J...@aloha.astro.psu.edu>, on...@astro.psu.edu
(Doug O'Neal) wrote:
> In article <5oktj6$71e$1...@gaia.ns.utk.edu> atw...@utkux4.cas.utk.edu
(Lee Atwood) writes:
>
> > Slow, for a time, yes. But according to another post, the thing suddenly
> > sped up and went from Phoenix to Tucson very rapidly - where it was again
> > observed.
>
> > How do you explain that?
>
> "According to another post" is not exactly your most trustworthy source of
> information.
>
> But even given that, if the thing were over Tucson, it would have been seen
> by at least some of the astronomers on Kitt Peak, which overlooks the
> city, or the other observatories in the region.
>
> Why have no such people given reports? I think I know. This illustrates
> EXACTLY the principal reason I'm skeptical of all ufo reports: because the
> people who know the skies best, amateur and some professional astronomers,
> never see them.
Actually, you might be surprised. Here's some examples of astronomer
sightings (compiled by Dave Rudiak):
7/10/47 - Fort Sumner, New Mexico (80 miles N of Roswell). Astronomer/
mathematician/meteor expert Dr. Lincoln LaPaz, his wife, and 2 daughters
witnessed a UFO that was bright, white, self-luminous, elliptical, well-
defined and wobbling in flight. Using crude triangulation and other means of
distance calculation such as clouds, LaPaz calculated the object at 20-30 miles
away, 160-240 ft long, 65-100 ft thick, horiz. speed 120-180 mph, vert. speed
600-900 mph. [LIFE Magazine, 4/7/52]
8/20/49 - Las Cruces, N.M. Astronomer Clyde Tombaugh, discoverer of the
planet Pluto, along with his wife and mother-in-law, observed a luminous
blue-green, cigar-shaped object in the night sky with a row of 6 to 8
illuminated yellow-green square "windows" in front and down the middle.
It was flying at high speed from S to N, too fast for a plane and too
slow for a meteor. In 1957 he said "I was so unprepared for such a
strange sight that I was really petrified with astonishment." Debunker
Donald Menzel tried to explain it as reflections of city lights off a
heat inversion, which Tombaugh disputed. Tombaugh also witnessed two
other UFOs, which he didn't report at the time for fear of ridicule. In
one, (reported to Dr. Alan Hynek in June, 1952 during his Blue Book
astronomer survey) a bright, noiseless object went from zenith to
horizon in 3 seconds, maneuvering like the elliptical UFO in the first
report.
5/20/50 - Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, Ariz. Astronomer Dr. Seymour
Hess, head of the Florida State U. meteorological dept. saw a small,
bright, metallic object moving at a right angle to the clouds and wind
at about 100-200 mph. [In Flagstaff paper, 5/27; in Hynek's astronomer
UFO survey, June, 1952; NICAP/Richard Hall, "The UFO Evidence."]
8/5/52 - Baltimore, Maryland. Astronomer James C. Bartlett, Jr., while
doing daylight observations of Venus, saw two disc-shaped objects pass
south of Baltimore, then turn east. Soon afterwards, two more discs
appeared overhead, with domelike raised centers. Bartlett, previously a
skeptic, also saw UFOs Sept. 1953, 9/6/54, and 7/12/57. Bartlett
stated, "UFOs do exist. They are some type of mechanism, controlled
craft, origin unknown." [Keyhoe, "Flying Saucers: Top Secret", p. 205]
5/5/53 - Yuma, Arizona. Astronomer W. A. Webb observed silvery disc
which turned sharply; concentric rings visible through Polaroid glasses.
[NICAP]
Sept, 1953 - Baltimore, Maryland. Dramatic nighttime UFO observation by
astronomer James Bartlett, who first spotted four large lights by eye.
Through binoculars he observed the lights came from the noses of two
enormous cylindrical or cigar-shaped craft. He observed a cabin in the
nose and ports on the sides of the hulls in each craft. [Keyhoe]
6/11/54 - Charleston West Virginia/Atlanta Georgia - 10:45 AM. While
flying, English astronomer H. Percy Wilkins [head of the British
Selenological Society] saw 2 radiant, polished metal disks, like "dinner
plates", moving against the wind. They were soon joined by a third grayish
oval, which arced across the sky. [Paris Flammonde, "UFOs Exist;" NICAP]
9/6/54 - Baltimore, Maryland. Another UFO report by James Bartlett. He saw
four glowing objects in line formation. When an airliner approached, they
changed formation and climbed, then reformed in line. "It was a precise and
highly controlled performance."
11/1/55 - Mojave Desert, California, near Las Vegas. On a train, astronomer
Frank Halstead and his wife observed for 8 minutes a cigar-shaped UFO about
800 feet long pacing the train above a ridge. Then joined by a smaller
disc, perhaps 100 feet in diameter, with a small dome on top. Both
objects were very shiny. After 2 or 3 minutes, both rose straight up in
the air and disappeared in 15-20 seconds. [NICAP; Frank Edwards, "Flying
Saucers, Serious Business," p. 21; "Fate," March, 1959] In June, 1957, Halstead
stated, "...Many professional astronomers are convinced that saucers are
interplanetary machines... I think they come from another solar system, but
they may be using Mars as a base." [Paris Flammonde, "UFOs Exist," 1976]
5/22/60 - Majorca Isle, W. Mediterranean Sea. Palma Observatory
reported morning observation of a white triangular UFO, about one-fourth
the size of the moon, spinning on its axis. Arced across the sky,
covering 110 degrees in 2 minutes before disappearing. [NICAP]
7/26/65 - Ogre Observatory, Latvia. Astronomers Robert and Esmeralda
Vitolniek and Yan Melderis first observed a starlike, triangular green
UFO. Through the observatory's telescope it resolved into a three green
balls surrounding a larger, central green light, est. 300 feet in
diameter. Estimated height of the UFO was 60 miles. [Brooksmith, "UFO,
the Complete Sightings," p. 84]
8/9/65 - Long Island, N.Y. 6 PM. Unnamed astronomer, his wife, two
children, and a friend. Saw a silvery, disc-shaped object heading
slowly south, initially subtending an angle of 2-3 degrees, with a ring
of bluish-white lights on the bottom and topped with a a white light.
Then rapidly accelerated into the distance, bobbed up and down 5-10
degrees for 5 minutes, then accelerated and disappeared over the
Atlantic. Report is in "Physics Today" (unspecified date) [Hynek, "The
UFO Experience," case DD-14, p. 66-67]
Unspecified date and place - Astronomer, Air Force Blue Book consultant,
Dr. J. Alan Hynek. Saw and takes 2 photos of nearby disc-shaped object
with a "dome" outside his airplane window at 30,000'. Photos in "The
UFO experience," 1972, and "The Edge of Reality," 1975. Hynek pointed
out he had to reach under his seat and find his camera before taking the
pictures. With the jet moving at 600 mph, the object would have
followed the plane for several miles between being first sighted and
when the photos were taken, eliminating most conventional explanations.
6/22/76 - Canary Islands. Huge orb of yellow light with a blue tinge
seen by astronomers at the Monte Izane Astrophysics Observatory. Also
seen by numerous other witnesses, including the crew of a Spanish naval
corvette. It was seen to rise and then drop a curtain of light towards
the ground, illuminating the sea and shore. The light appeared to
corkscrew upwards from this halo and move across the island. The mass
of light left by the object remained in the sky for 40 minutes. A color
photo was taken by another witness and eventually released by the
Spanish Air Force. The Canary Islands A.F. commander, Gen. Carlos
Cavero stated "I have for some time held the view that the UFOs are
extraterrestrial craft [but] it is as difficult for official quarters to
admit that something exists as it is for the church to affirm that this
or that is a miracle." [Jenny Randles, "UFOs and How to See Them;" includes
photo]
--
Geoff Price
Ge...@CalibanMW.com
Jude Giampaolo
> Why have no such people given reports? I think I know. This illustrates
> EXACTLY the principal reason I'm skeptical of all ufo reports: because the
> people who know the skies best, amateur and some professional astronomers,
> never see them.
But that's just because you too are part of the great conspiracy:
> Organization: Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Penn State University
:)
For some reason the follow-ups don't seem to haver taken..... So I've set
them again.....
--
Jude Giampaolo -- Penn State University -- Electrical Engineering
jcg...@psu.edu - ju...@smellycat.com - http://prozac.cwru.edu/jude/
vale...@convex.com
Flock of birds. They maintain a pattern in flight,
hence the illusion of a single solid object. The
videotape that received the publicitly was the only
one of sufficiently low resolution not to reveal the
mundane nature of the "object".
--
To reply, replace "valencia" with "schumach".
Unsolicited commercial email is subject to a US$200 archive fee.
Brian Fry
Mark <m...@whidbey.net> wrote in article <33AC2E...@whidbey.net>...
> Just my 2 cents worth:
>
> About this Phoenix UFO....seems I recall how a group of
> hoaxsters once gathered up about 5-7 ultra lights and
> threw some lights on them and flew in a large spread out
> formation. The Phoenix sighting has the earmarkings of this
> type of hoax:
>
> A) large slow moving
>
> B) relatively quiet
>
> C) ultralight(s) would not show up on RADAR
>
> If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
>
> Mark
>
The problem with this idea:
1. Phoenix is class B airspace, major violation.
2. Ultra lights do show up on airport survailance radar.
3. Rotax engines are very noisy.
Brian
G Moore
On Mon, 23 Jun 97 03:25:28, "jd" <j...@sna.com> wrote:
>Not that the idea isn't ingenious, but have you ever actually watched geese
>in flight? 1) The individual members of a flock constantly change station. A
>more oor less "v" is maintained, but it is never steady. 2) While they do
>sometimes reflect city lights as they pass over, only those who live around
>leaky nuclear power stations are self-luminous, and whatever was video taped
>is most certainly self-luminous. 3) Especially when flying at night geese
>honk. They are rarely silent.
and how much static is heard in the video? how long is the video? if
it's only a few minutes it REEKS of a special effects artist looking
to get published.
how blurry? how much photography has the videotaper done in their
life? Are they a professional photographer, ON THE SIDE?
G Moore
On 23 Jun 1997 04:20:54 GMT, atw...@utkux4.cas.utk.edu (Lee Atwood)
wrote:
>In article <33AC2E...@whidbey.net>, Mark <m...@whidbey.net> wrote:
>:A) large slow moving
>
>[etc. ...=> "ultralight aircraft"]
>
>
>Slow, for a time, yes. But according to another post, the thing suddenly
>sped up and went from Phoenix to Tucson very rapidly - where it was again
>observed.
>
>How do you explain that?
how about the following. two people at from phoenix and tucson plan a
UFO. they set it in the air at one place, and then call the other at a
certain time. they set it out 1 hour later. both are recorded, and the
connection is *theorized* that they suddenly sped up. Notice, that it
never sped up, it is just obvious to those looking for it that it was
the same thing. A ufo seeker, who has nothing better to do with their
time, states they saw it speed up and gets publicity, OR a journalist
just writes up the news, as UFO news stories are not a respectable
source. UFOlogists take it as true, but never 'check the evidence',
because of government conspiracy and fear(more like they want to
believe that something special happened because life is so boring).
steve
jo...@nospam.net wrote:
>
> I have been disappointed by the lack of internet discussion regarding the
> UFO seen and videotaped over Arizona in March. The odds that the
> lights seen over Phoenix were from an alien craft are extremely low IMO,
> but that does not change the fact that there was *something* very large
> over Arizona which did not register on radar screens.
>
> I saw the video of the UFO on NBC- the lights appeared to all be on the
> same horizontal plane moving at a slow speed. The numerous witnesses
> reported no sound emanating from the UFO. The only terrestrial
> aircraft that would fit this discription would be a blimp- it is likely not
> from a group of helicopter (too silent) or airplane (too slow).
>
> As I see it, the three main possibilities in order of likelihood are that it
> was a:
>
> 1. Military operation of some sort. The main problem with this is that the
> military has denied any responsibility for the lights, which would mean
> that it would have had to have been a top secret operation. If that's
> the case, however, why on earth would they fly the craft over a
> metropolitan area ? Also, is it within plausible technological limits to make
> a blimp-type craft object of that size that is so stealthy ? Could it be
> a flight of secret stealth helicopters ?
most likely scenario.
It was a blimp type aircraft built by the military. It was deliberately
flown over a metropolitan area. They wanted lots of people to see it.
They wanted it to be the talk of the town and they hoped it would be
video taped by civilians. But...
The military was up to somethimg more mischiefious (sp?). Before anyone
started pointing to the sky, before anyone got out a video camera,
something else happened.
A spy satellite was launched. The UFO was flown to cover it up. If there
are 3 people who report seeing a rocket streak off twords space no one
is going to pay any attention if 100s claimed to have seen and video
taped a
UFO just minutes later.
Michael Martin-Smith
In article <33AC22...@goodnet.com>, Tom Miller <tv...@goodnet.com>
writes
>ZOOL wrote:
>>
>> jo...@nospam.net wrote:
>> >
>> > I have been disappointed by the lack of internet discussion regarding the
>> > UFO seen and videotaped over Arizona in March. The odds that the
>> > lights seen over Phoenix were from an alien craft are extremely low IMO,
>> > but that does not change the fact that there was *something* very large
>> > over Arizona which did not register on radar screens.
>> >
>> > I saw the video of the UFO on NBC- the lights appeared to all be on the
>> > same horizontal plane moving at a slow speed. The numerous witnesses
>> > reported no sound emanating from the UFO. The only terrestrial
>> > aircraft that would fit this discription would be a blimp- it is likely not
>> > from a group of helicopter (too silent) or airplane (too slow).
>> >
>> > As I see it, the three main possibilities in order of likelihood are that it
>> > was a:
>> >
>> > 1. Military operation of some sort. The main problem with this is that the
>> > military has denied any responsibility for the lights, which would mean
>> > that it would have had to have been a top secret operation. If that's
>> > the case, however, why on earth would they fly the craft over a
>> > metropolitan area ? Also, is it within plausible technological limits to
>make
>> > a blimp-type craft object of that size that is so stealthy ? Could it be
>> > a flight of secret stealth helicopters ?
>> >
>back yard assembling my telescope. There can be no doubt that the
>people saw something. By the she got me to the front yard (saying
>"yeah, sure" all the way) it was gone. It had moved very slowly for a
>little while, and then suddenly zoomed away and was seen in Tucson only
>minutes later (we live in north Phoenix). I told her she was seeing
>things, but then on the radio the next morning I heard about all the
>other people who had seen the same thing.
>
>In response to your other thoughts, the air force and national guard no
>longer scramble planes. Nor was there any reason to. Radar indicated
>nothing was there, although it was visible to the traffic controllers at
>Sky Harbor and several pilots who inquired about the lights.
>
>Why didn't the TV stations take a look ? I work for one of them and can
>assure you that the choppers are not ready to fly on short notice at
>that time of night. They are generally put to bed after the 6:00 news
>and the pilot goes home. If a disaster strikes, they can get back up in
>1/2 hour to 3/4 hour, the time it takes the crew to get to it. The
>object was not here for more than 10 - 15 minutes.
>
>It seems to have now attacted national interest. I saw an ABC news
>report on it the same day that USA Today ran a page and 1/2 on it. The
>anniversary of Roswell seems to have generated some interest in UFO's
>again.
>
>Tom Miller
>Phoenix
I see your point about the issue of Interstellar travel. There
is however a growing feeling among members of the Space community that,
although exceedingly difficult and costly, it is not actually
inconceivable, given a space based colonial civilization of the O'Neill
type, backed up by thermonuclear or anti-matter industry using ET
resources. Focussed solar generated laser power directed to sail
propelled vehicles is also imaginable (Robert Forward). I agree, not
now, but in 100 years IF we are resolved to do it, who can say never?
The hard part is probably getting civilization off the Earth into our
own system , given the lack of will now displayed here. An asteroid
impact or threat thereof might be a catalyst, or a major space race with
an Asiatic power, who knows?
The other scenario is the O'Neill type generation ship using less
exotic technology, but the socio-economic issues remain. We still prefer
to waste 400 billions per year on illegal narcotics, 280 billions in
litigeous compensation to nicotine users and sundry other follies, in
the sure and certain knowledge that no lasting good to the Species can
result from such expense - but aliens may be different; if not, perhaps
they are not there; they surely would not deserve to be!
Logistically speaking, in the latter case, we might do well to
look for the Mother Ship/Colony ( and I believe there has to be one, if
UFOs really did exist) out in the asteroid belt, where they could
sustain themselves for historical periods without much risk of
detection, and reconnoitre us with small craft
On interstellar travel as with much else, I firmly believe that with a
will, a way will be found, with intelligent application and patient hard
work. Probably in several evolutionary steps, as with aviation and IT
Michael Martin-Smith
--
Michael Martin-Smith
C. Michael Gafford
Please!
This subject belongs on sci.sceptic or alt.ufo.reports.
Stop the cross-posting to sci.astro or sci.astro.amatuer
Refer to the FAQ's, which offten apper here.
<http://www.salamander.com/~wmcclain/saa_faq_list.txt>.
SPCantwell
question? i have heard that ANY object that travels slow is automaticaly
squelched off radar sets, meaning that it could be a slow moving blimp
without a transponer that was just deamed to be nothing more than a
"goast" return and therefore automaticaly squelched.
OR it could be E.T. coming back for a visit
BTW- why is this sent to ALT.UFO.REPORTS if i am reading it in
rec.aviation.military is this just crossposting or is it a computer
mistake?
our's is not to reason why...our's is but to do or DIE!!!
Ronald Kunne
In article <+76XzEAN...@miff.demon.co.uk>
Michael Martin-Smith <mar...@miff.demon.co.uk> writes:
>The hard part is probably getting civilization off the Earth into our
>own system , given the lack of will now displayed here. An asteroid
>impact or threat thereof might be a catalyst, or a major space race with
>an Asiatic power, who knows?
6x10^9 people down here. Any space colonization attempt will involve
100000 persons maximum. So why would the other 6000 million people
be interested? Or willing to spend money on something that will not
bring them any immediate returns?
> The other scenario is the O'Neill type generation ship using less
>exotic technology, but the socio-economic issues remain. We still prefer
>to waste 400 billions per year on illegal narcotics, 280 billions in
>litigeous compensation to nicotine users and sundry other follies, in
>the sure and certain knowledge that no lasting good to the Species can
>result from such expense - but aliens may be different; if not, perhaps
>they are not there; they surely would not deserve to be!
something that would improve living conditions for every body down
here in this gravity well.
> On interstellar travel as with much else, I firmly believe that with a
>will, a way will be found, with intelligent application and patient hard
>work. Probably in several evolutionary steps, as with aviation and IT
will be willing to try it: Spain didn't sent Columbus on his way just
for the adventure, but because it wanted to make a healthy profit. a healthy
Greetings,
Ronald Kunne
T...@astro.net
In article <33AFEF...@aol.com>, steve <ava...@aol.com> wrote:
>jo...@nospam.net wrote:
>>
>> I have been disappointed by the lack of internet discussion regarding the
>> UFO seen and videotaped over Arizona in March. The odds that the
>> lights seen over Phoenix were from an alien craft are extremely low IMO,
>> but that does not change the fact that there was *something* very large
>> over Arizona which did not register on radar screens.
>>
>> I saw the video of the UFO on NBC- the lights appeared to all be on the
>> same horizontal plane moving at a slow speed. The numerous witnesses
>> reported no sound emanating from the UFO. The only terrestrial
>> aircraft that would fit this discription would be a blimp- it is likely not
>> from a group of helicopter (too silent) or airplane (too slow).
>>
>> As I see it, the three main possibilities in order of likelihood are that it
>> was a:
>>
>> 1. Military operation of some sort. The main problem with this is that the
>> military has denied any responsibility for the lights, which would mean
>> that it would have had to have been a top secret operation. If that's
>> the case, however, why on earth would they fly the craft over a
>> metropolitan area ? Also, is it within plausible technological limits to make
>> a blimp-type craft object of that size that is so stealthy ? Could it be
>> a flight of secret stealth helicopters ?
>
>most likely scenario.
>
>It was a blimp type aircraft built by the military. It was deliberately
>flown over a metropolitan area. They wanted lots of people to see it.
>They wanted it to be the talk of the town and they hoped it would be
>video taped by civilians. But...
>
>The military was up to somethimg more mischiefious (sp?). Before anyone
>started pointing to the sky, before anyone got out a video camera,
>something else happened.
>
>A spy satellite was launched. The UFO was flown to cover it up. If there
>are 3 people who report seeing a rocket streak off twords space no one
>is going to pay any attention if 100s claimed to have seen and video
>taped a
>UFO just minutes later.
>--
>decoy address: dbco...@faa.gov
>the real McCoy: mcgover (at) erols (dot) com
Now if you guys would just stop crossposting this shit to sci.astro and
sci.astro.amateur we'd all be happy....
Mark
Brian Fry wrote:
> The problem with this idea:
>
> 1. Phoenix is class B airspace, major violation.
> 2. Ultra lights do show up on airport survailance radar.
> 3. Rotax engines are very noisy.
>
> Brian
Brian,
The fact that flying in Phoenix Air Space is a violation
doesn't mean a thing. To show up on RADAR depends on a lot of
variables ie., altitude, aspect, etc. Additionally, a hoaxer could
wrap the engine in RADAR absorbing material. Remember the guy who
piloted an ultra light and landed it on the Kremlin????? Tell those
RADAR ops that it showed up on RADAR!
The engines are noisy BUT I said "relatively" quiet, as
compared to a helo or a jet they are rather quiet.
Also, the fact that the sightings occurred over a large area
could suggest that a group of people are involved, launching from
multiple areas. The truth is that I don't know what it was over
Phoenix, but the odds are that it was man-made. The fact still
exists that ultra-lights with lights on them have succesfully
fooled the best of observers in the past. I don't think it takes
a great stretch of the imagination to suspect ultra-lights at work
here.
Mark
Mark
SPCantwell wrote:
>
> question? i have heard that ANY object that travels slow is automaticaly
> squelched off radar sets,
A "zero doppler" effect, yep very real and very true. You were
told right.....
Mark
bill phillips
In article <5okrds$nli$1...@news.goodnet.com>,
A photo of this triangle (or rather, a big V), which had a number of lights on
it, was published in a local Sunday paper. The photo showed trailed stars, so
the big black V was obviously stationary for some time....and the camera would
have to be tripod mounted...with a time exposure...something doesn't make
sense...
someone sees a big black V in the sky, says I must get a photo, mounts their
camera on a tripod and takes a time exposure...right?
and finally, how do you know the UFO was between 1500' and 3000', and
travelling at 30mph?
tell me the secrets of estimating distance and speed at night over long
distances
Wild Willy
k00ky
BlackJack wrote:
>
> steve wrote:
> >
> >
> > The military was up to somethimg more mischiefious (sp?). Before anyone
> > started pointing to the sky, before anyone got out a video camera,
> > something else happened.
> >
> > A spy satellite was launched. The UFO was flown to cover it up. If there
> > are 3 people who report seeing a rocket streak off twords space no one
> > is going to pay any attention if 100s claimed to have seen and video
> > taped a
> > UFO just minutes later.
> > --
>
> What's the purpose of hiding a spy satellite launch (or any other
> launch) from Americans? This makes no sense.
>
> BJ
>
> --
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> E-Mail every member of Congress - Lobby for a better America
> Use Petition USA
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8522/PetUSA.htm
Yes. Sattelites are lunched regularly. There would be no reason to hide
it. Rockets are launched into space all the time.
--
-k00ky-
CretiN Crew.
http://www.cretin.com/kooky
ko...@cretin.com
Perry Donham
>>>>> "Mark" == Mark <m...@whidbey.net> writes:
Mark> Brian Fry wrote:
>> The problem with this idea:
>>
>> 1. Phoenix is class B airspace, major violation. 2. Ultra
>> lights do show up on airport survailance radar. 3. Rotax
>> engines are very noisy.
>>
>> Brian
Mark> Brian,
Mark> The fact that flying in Phoenix Air Space is a
Mark> violation doesn't mean a thing. To show up on RADAR depends
Mark> on a lot of variables ie., altitude, aspect, etc.
Mark> Additionally, a hoaxer could wrap the engine in RADAR
Mark> absorbing material. Remember the guy who piloted an ultra
Mark> light and landed it on the Kremlin????? Tell those RADAR ops
Mark> that it showed up on RADAR! The engines are noisy BUT I
[snip]
The aircraft you mention was a Cessna 172 (piloted by Matthias Rust?
can't recall), which at a few thousand pounds wet weight is hardly an
ultralight, and will most definitely show up on radar. It was landed
on Red Square. Other than that, you were right on the money... :^)
Perry
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finger don...@kidpub.org for PGP public key
PGP encrypted mail welcome
Visit KidPub! http://www.kidpub.org/kidpub
SPCantwell
why would ufo's whant to come to earth anyway? ther has to be much more
interesting places out there.
David Lentz
Ronald Kunne wrote:
>
> In article <+76XzEAN...@miff.demon.co.uk>
> Michael Martin-Smith <mar...@miff.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >own system , given the lack of will now displayed here. An asteroid
> >impact or threat thereof might be a catalyst, or a major space race with
> >an Asiatic power, who knows?
>
> 6x10^9 people down here. Any space colonization attempt will involve
> 100000 persons maximum. So why would the other 6000 million people
> be interested? Or willing to spend money on something that will not
> bring them any immediate returns?
>
> >exotic technology, but the socio-economic issues remain. We still prefer
> >to waste 400 billions per year on illegal narcotics, 280 billions in
> >litigeous compensation to nicotine users and sundry other follies, in
> >the sure and certain knowledge that no lasting good to the Species can
> >result from such expense - but aliens may be different; if not, perhaps
> >they are not there; they surely would not deserve to be!
>
> something that would improve living conditions for every body down
> here in this gravity well.
>
> >will, a way will be found, with intelligent application and patient hard
> >work. Probably in several evolutionary steps, as with aviation and IT
>
> will be willing to try it: Spain didn't sent Columbus on his way just
> for the adventure, but because it wanted to make a healthy profit. a healthy
The is one possible model for settling, but not colonizing, is space.
That is the Polynesian model. The Polynesian's settle the vsat Pacific
region. They started out in Asia an emmigrated as far as Hawaii. The
model works.
Anyhow this is how I figured the Polynesian did it. When an occupied
island got too over crowded, a mixed population of Polynesians, men,
women, children, the young the old. Got into a ocean going canoe, with
a amount of provisions. Then they set ssil, apparently west, If the
group survived and found an unoccupied island, they had the necessary
population, men and women with the necessary skills, to start a new
settlement. As the Polynesian reached Hawaii, the system evidently did
work.
However I much emphasis that all voyages were one way. There no return,
no turning back, and no support from the homeland. I would imagine that
most of the groups that ventured out died before making a new
settlement.
The neo-Polynesian model would require a space ship capable of
interstellar travel htat was big enough to hold a self-suffient
population. We are still a long way off from having the technology and
a long way off from having the volunteers to go on such a mission. If
given my choice between the two crafts, I would take the canoe. My
chances were be far better.
David
Darrell Schmidt
Mark wrote:
>
The fact still
> exists that ultra-lights with lights on them have succesfully
> fooled the best of observers in the past.
What a concept! Ultra-lights with lights! Would they then be
Ultra-Ultra-Lights?
"Deja Mooo...knowing you've heard this bull before..."
--
My automatic return address has a ? in it to stop SPAM.
-To respond, delete the ? so it reads: sch...@pacbell.net
-Or... simply click on line following: mailto:sch...@pacbell.net
JPRJENK
> Brian,
>
> The fact that flying in Phoenix Air Space is a violation
> doesn't mean a thing. To show up on RADAR depends on a lot of
> variables ie., altitude, aspect, etc. Additionally, a hoaxer could
> wrap the engine in RADAR absorbing material. Remember the guy who
> piloted an ultra light and landed it on the Kremlin????? Tell those
> RADAR ops that it showed up on RADAR!
> The engines are noisy BUT I said "relatively" quiet, as
> compared to a helo or a jet they are rather quiet.
>
> Also, the fact that the sightings occurred over a large area
> could suggest that a group of people are involved, launching from
> multiple areas. The truth is that I don't know what it was over
> exists that ultra-lights with lights on them have succesfully
> a great stretch of the imagination to suspect ultra-lights at work
> here.
>
> Mark
Mark,
Give it up, I don't know what Pheonix UFO was, But, It wasn't
Ultralights, comeon no one even mentioned radar absorbing material on
the engines, Rotax engines are much more "noisey" especially in the high
frequencies, than say a Continental, Lycoming or Porsche engine on most
larger small planes, and even though Ultra lights may not appear on
radar in certain locations, I am positive, they show up on radar at Sky
Harbour, you need that kind of radar in that kind of airspace, if you
simply must have an explanation that involve hoax or misinformation
choose a V shaped blimp.
Reality, however umpleasant it is for you, does fly in the face of
even that explanation, but, it does make your hoax theory easier to
swallow. A huge V shaped balloon, would have quite a few people aware of
its' construction.
Would I be surprized if at some point, a bunch of folks are introduced
to the public, that have constructed such a balloon, and will show it
off, and say it was them in AZ that night, no, will I believe them, no.
I want to know what it was over Las Vegas last night, and over TX, from
Dallas to San Antonio, two weeks after the major AZ sightings. All of
the previous mentioned sightings are strange V shaped and triangle
shaped objects.
It is interesting that the same objects have been seen lately over
London and other parts of Europe, According to Debs UFO pages, the
British gov't has asked the press to stop reporting these objects, The
British gov. says that these are secret military tests.
Jeff Barringer
I think I saw the same photo at CNNs WWW sight and in USA today....
That particular photo WAS generated, but it says that it was in the
caption....
I saw several different films of the arizona incedent from different
angles.... I am stumped.... looks like nothing I've seen before
(except for a formation of helicopters, and there is NO WAY they
wouldn't have heard that)
--
Jeff Barringer
Compaq Computers
Network Products Division
JBarr...@bangate.compaq.com
Snoopy
Brian,
Could you try to spell your words correctly? It's very difficult to
read a message if 90% of the words are misspelled. It's also hard to
understand the message's context. Please spell your words right.
sirius
Mark <m...@whidbey.net> wrote in article <33B08F...@whidbey.net>...
> Brian Fry wrote:
> > The problem with this idea:
> >
> > 1. Phoenix is class B airspace, major violation.
> > 2. Ultra lights do show up on airport survailance radar.
> > 3. Rotax engines are very noisy.
> >
> > Brian
>
> Brian,
>
> The fact that flying in Phoenix Air Space is a violation
> doesn't mean a thing. To show up on RADAR depends on a lot of
> variables ie., altitude, aspect, etc. Additionally, a hoaxer could
> wrap the engine in RADAR absorbing material. Remember the guy who
> piloted an ultra light and landed it on the Kremlin????? Tell those
> RADAR ops that it showed up on RADAR!
It wasn't an ultralight, it was a Cesnna 172 and it was tracked all the
way, by both ground-based radar and fighters. They didn't shoot it down,
but that doesn't mean they didn't know about it.
Jim Meritt
In article <01bc7fc1$c1e29940$b6ea93cf@default>, hil...@worldnet.att.net
says...
>I am also disappointed in the lack of discussion on this occurance. If
>anyone can give info on other sources iwould be grateful. As far as
>interstellar travel goes it could be possible with antimatter.
What an absurd leap:
From: "reported lights in sky that don't know what are"
To: "interstellar spacecraft and propulsion system"
Good thinking, dude! I'm disappointed, but not suprised.
--
James W. Meritt
The opinions expressed above are my own. The fact simply
are and belong to none.
Jedidiah Whitten
Perry Donham (don...@escrime.kidpub.org) wrote:
:
: The aircraft you mention was a Cessna 172 (piloted by Matthias Rust?
: can't recall), which at a few thousand pounds wet weight is hardly an
: ultralight, and will most definitely show up on radar. It was landed
: on Red Square. Other than that, you were right on the money... :^)
I may have this wrong, but wasn't he able to get through because it was
some kind of holiday and everyone was drunk? It was the incompetence of
the Soviets, and not the limitations of radar, that allowed Rust to land
on Red Square.
--
_________________________________
Jed Whitten
Information Technology
it...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu
________________________________
Richard Caldwell
In Article Re: Arizona UFO , Darrell Schmidt <schmidt?@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> >
> The fact still
> > exists that ultra-lights with lights on them have succesfully
> > fooled the best of observers in the past.
>
> What a concept! Ultra-lights with lights! Would they then be
> Ultra-Ultra-Lights?
No, man, Ultra-Light-Lights! 2 "lights", but only one "ultra". 8-]
> "Deja Mooo...knowing you've heard this bull before..."
Deja whoooo?
Richard
Krueger
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that there is any
monitoring of airspace in the CONUS by radar. Sure, the FAA has
a buttload of IFF interrogation units at every airport, but is
anyone doing old-fashioned surveillance radar? I suspect there's
some kind of drug-interdiction surveillance going on near the
border, but I think that's about it. And *virtually* all
surveillance radar is of the MTI variety that won't show a blip
on anything flying slower than 50 kts or so. So if you're flying
slow and don't have your IFF transponder turned on, who's gonna
see 'ya? Who needs RAM or other countermeasures?
>
> It wasn't an ultralight, it was a Cesnna 172 and it was tracked all the
> way, by both ground-based radar and fighters. They didn't shoot it down,
> but that doesn't mean they didn't know about it.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
If you're looking for rubber stamps and supplies in Tucson,
take a look at Libby's Highway Rubbery
http://www.earthlink.net/~krueger/index.html
John Mcgowan
-=> While talking of Arizona UFO, "Jon"
-=> said to All on 25 Jun 97 08:54:20: From: "Jon" <Mena...@erols.com>
"J> Subject: Re: Arizona UFO Organization: Erol's Internet Services
> why would ufo's whant to come to earth anyway? ther has to be much more
> interesting places out there.
"J> They are coming for our women! Earth has the hotest looking babes in
"J> this part of the galaxy don't you know. I know I personally was upset
"J> when our Astronauts came back from the Moon and didn't have a single
"J> Moon Babe with them.
Mars needs wimmen???? It''s been done before. :)
{ John.M...@Ghostrdr.Wierius.Com }
--
|Fidonet: John Mcgowan 1:114/314
|Internet: John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
John
I read in a Radio magazine recently of a project called Sky Station.
This is a large balloon launched into the
stratosphere and held in place by a new design of ION propulsion
engine containing no moving parts.
The balloon carries a large communication platform and is intended to
replace communication
satellites for many purposes.
Could this be the object sighted over Arizona, a night time test launch.?
Cheers John.
Allen Thomson
In article <33ACF5...@truelink.net> muscl...@truelink.net writes:
>I have been wondering if you could use a spectrometer on a small
>(8 or 10 inch S.C.T.) telescope to take a picture of the lights,
>and see the emission lines, which would probbably tell you if
>it is a tarrestrial sorce (sodium lights), or somthing strange?
> Does anybody know if it is hard to make a spectrometer
>that would be capable of doing this?
Given enough time to procure and set up the equipment (a day to a month,
depending on circumstances), this would be easy to do, and would yield
valuable information. As would other obvious means, such as GPS
registered video from sites a few kilometers apart, which would tell where
the objects were in the sky and how fast they were moving.
G Moore
On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 15:46:01 -0500, "Jimmy L." <can...@wwisp.com>
wrote:
>SPCantwell wrote:
>>
>> why would ufo's whant to come to earth anyway? ther has to be much
>> more
>> interesting places out there.
>>
>> our's is not to reason why...our's is but to do or DIE!!!
>
>One possible scenario for the aliens coming to earth, instead of
>somewhere else, could be that we are in the closest solar system to
>them. Personally I don't think they get in their little ships and fly
>here mile be mile. It's very possible , in my opinion, that they can
>somehow manipulate the space time continuum. Fold space maybe. Inter
>dimensional travel, maybe .( I'm not a scientist ) We probably couldn't
>begin to comprehend what kind of technological advances they have over
>us. That's one thing that floors me, is when someone says something to
>the effect that they wont come here, because they would have to travel
>the speed of light or better . They might even be able to manipulate
>matter in ways that we can't even fathom !
here's the problem:
if they use other dimensions, there would be no reason whatsoever that
they have to interact with this universe at all or to make high speed
maneuvers, because *from our point of view* it would happen all
simultaneously. there would be no hi speed maneuvers, and people would
be abducted at the same time they were dropped off. no blinking no, 2
hour disappearance, and absolutely NO radar effects period. in fact,
there would be no evidence period. furthermore, the hig velocity turns
would be childs play to someone who could jump in and out of
dimensions. they could just appear and disappear. the ufo phenomenon
seems to be HIGHLY a psychological factor, a mix of laboratory
assistant type scientists knowledge with science fiction. most of the
lab assistants tell enough truth to not be able to be caught by normal
people, but at upper level science (and this is why the ufologists
call it a conspiracy) it is easily debunked. furthermore, the science
fiction factor comes mainly from the science-fiction stories from
comic books and old 50's movies plots.
a real account of a ufo would be something along the lines of those in
the movie narina, where it's so fake it has to be real. Ie, a change
in dimensions which take up no time at all to the outside observer,
ect. also, an intradimensional change would not be remembered even in
dreams, because there would be no time to store memories in this
dimension.
The other reason that it seems highly suspect of psychological
phenomena, perhaps of orders of magnitudes as compared to an actual
UFO, is simply along the lines that most of the memories recovered are
also along the lines of soft science, hypnotherapy, hypnosis,
astrology, biblical interperetation and such.
Scott Gibson
On 26 Jun 1997 16:03:46 GMT, it...@dilbert.ucdavis.edu (Jedidiah
Whitten) wrote:
>
>I may have this wrong, but wasn't he able to get through because it was
>some kind of holiday and everyone was drunk? It was the incompetence of
>the Soviets, and not the limitations of radar, that allowed Rust to land
>on Red Square.
>
I thought I heard he flew very low to minimize radar contact. I think
they knew he was coming anyway. Maybe they were still a little "gun
shy" about the KAL flight 007 incident? (pun intended).
Scott Gibson
Paul Titze VK2THN [HACK.AU.]
How come these so called strange phenomena always happen in the USA?
I saw those lights on the news here, how convenient these so called UFOs
didn't appear during the day. How convenient they also use bright lights
so everyone can see them at night. Your typical UFO stunt or a military
excercise that needs it's secrecy procedures reexamined.
Paul.
======================================================================
Email : pti...@astron.physics.usyd.edu.au
Website : http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~ptitze
Cyberspace: http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~ptitze/vrml/vk2thn.wrl
======================================================================
Cypher
>Questions: With all the video cams in pocession of the fine people
>of that town, how come only on guy turned in video of this object?
>How come Air Force or National Guard not scramble planes up for a
>closer look?(Course, if the thing is one of their's why would they
>bother?) How come the local EYE-WITNESS News team not send their
>helicopters up for a peek? The thing was certainly in the air
>long enough.
>Very, Very odd.
>
> ZOOL
>up for a look?
DOZENS of people recorded with cameras all over Arizona. The media has
simply focused on the one clip over phoenix. Thousands of people saw
the object, whatever it was.
There are reports the airforce DID scramble jets. They, of course, deny
it.
David Lentz
Krueger wrote:
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that there is any
> monitoring of airspace in the CONUS by radar. Sure, the FAA has
> a buttload of IFF interrogation units at every airport, but is
> anyone doing old-fashioned surveillance radar? I suspect there's
> some kind of drug-interdiction surveillance going on near the
> border, but I think that's about it. And *virtually* all
> surveillance radar is of the MTI variety that won't show a blip
> on anything flying slower than 50 kts or so. So if you're flying
> slow and don't have your IFF transponder turned on, who's gonna
> see 'ya? Who needs RAM or other countermeasures?
>
> >
> > It wasn't an ultralight, it was a Cesnna 172 and it was tracked all the
> > way, by both ground-based radar and fighters. They didn't shoot it down,
> > but that doesn't mean they didn't know about it.
If, and if, ground search radar is out, what is the possibility of an
ultralight being detected by weather radar? I don't know. Just a
question.
David
Lawrence Foard
Cypher wrote:
> DOZENS of people recorded with cameras all over Arizona. The media has
> simply focused on the one clip over phoenix. Thousands of people saw
> the object, whatever it was.
>
> There are reports the airforce DID scramble jets. They, of course, deny
> it.
What are the odds of getting all of these pictures on the net? Looked
at from many different angles it should be possible to get some idea
of what it was. If it the pictures really do show a disk 1 mile across
then we would have to assume something very weird is going on :-)
Jedidiah Whitten
Paul Titze VK2THN [HACK.AU.] (pti...@astron.physics.usyd.edu.au) wrote:
:
: How come these so called strange phenomena always happen in the USA?
: I saw those lights on the news here, how convenient these so called UFOs
: didn't appear during the day. How convenient they also use bright lights
: so everyone can see them at night. Your typical UFO stunt or a military
: excercise that needs it's secrecy procedures reexamined.
Didn't the same type of thing happen in Belgium a while back? Same type
of craft, huge triangle-shape with lights moving slowly, and when their
interceptors got a missile lock they instantly accelerated to a very high
speed and moved out of missile range. They were supposedly seen by many
people both on the ground and from the air, but made no sound and did not
show up on radar. This was about 8 years ago I think.
Jedidiah Whitten
Krueger (kru...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that there is any
: monitoring of airspace in the CONUS by radar. Sure, the FAA has
: a buttload of IFF interrogation units at every airport, but is
: anyone doing old-fashioned surveillance radar? I suspect there's
I believe most airposts, especially large airports, use radar still.
Jim Meritt
In article <33B31F...@earthlink.net>, kru...@earthlink.net says...
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that there is any
>monitoring of airspace in the CONUS by radar.
OK, I will. It is.
Check "Relocatable Over The Horizon Radar"...
Jim Meritt
In article <33B426...@nospam.worldnet.att.net>,
EIE...@nospam.worldnet.att.net says...
><activate tongue-in-cheek paranoid conspiracy mode>
>
>> U.S. naval vessels
>> exercising off the coast have radars hot at various times.
>
>"Radars hot"? Doesn't that mean guiding live weapons? At last, the
>TRUTH!!!
Heck, I was a US Navy officer (Operations Officer on an FF, for the posaition
most relevant to this) and I have no idea what he means. Care to enlighten
me?
j.r. pierce
it...@boris.ucdavis.edu (Jedidiah Whitten) wrote:
>Krueger (kru...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that there is any
>: monitoring of airspace in the CONUS by radar. Sure, the FAA has
>: a buttload of IFF interrogation units at every airport, but is
>: anyone doing old-fashioned surveillance radar? I suspect there's
>
>I believe most airposts, especially large airports, use radar still.
They do, but the air traffic control radar displays primarily show
transponder ID's and vectors... Transponder-less craft will just show up
as a tiny unadorned spec, and probably be considered noise.
re: IFF ??? Thats strictly military. Far as I know, the FAA has nothing
to do with Identify Friend or Foe. Commercial and General aviation
carries 'transponders' that 'bleep' a preset code assigned by the local
ATC operators (or a fixed number (I think its 1200) if you are flying
unassisted VFR). All commercial, and well equipped general aviation,
carry transponders that also report altimeter readings.
-jrp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This posting has a invalid email address to discourage bulk emailers
Due to the ever increasing volumes of spam, I do not mix mail and news
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arie Kazachin
In message <m267v27...@escrime.kidpub.org> - don...@escrime.kidpub.org
(Perry Donham) writes:
>
>>>>>> "Mark" == Mark <m...@whidbey.net> writes:
[snip]
> Mark> absorbing material. Remember the guy who piloted an ultra
> Mark> light and landed it on the Kremlin????? Tell those RADAR ops
> Mark> that it showed up on RADAR! The engines are noisy BUT I
>
>[snip]
>
>The aircraft you mention was a Cessna 172 (piloted by Matthias Rust?
>can't recall), which at a few thousand pounds wet weight is hardly an
>ultralight, and will most definitely show up on radar. It was landed
>on Red Square. Other than that, you were right on the money... :^)
>
>Perry
The only thing we can be sure about is that no one took a shot
(at least not a successfull) at Matthias Rust in his Cessna 172.
We can't conclude from his remaining alive that no RADAR showed
his Cessna. How can it be that the plane is shown on RADAR
and stays in the air? I don't know for sure but I can build a theory:
I forgot in what month this happened, but I remember that the date
was 29 and I think the month was around Mar/Apr/May and in particular,
that date was (translating the russian term "DEN POGRANICHNIKA")
"The day of the border guard troops". I don't think it would be
too far fetched to assume that some celebrations took place
and as one who spent his first 12 years in USSR I know that
a celebration there means: alcohol. So, I don't think it's entirely
impossible that some RADAR "blipped" but there was no one sober
enough to notice that. I wonder if Rust selected that date
in purpose... especially if he knew what happened in Sherburg
port during the night of Dec 31 1969. :-)
******************************************************************************
* Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail: ariek3.141592...@ibm.net *
******************************************************************************
NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my userID. Sorry, SPAM trap.
Alex Vrenios
In article <33B321...@astron.physics.usyd.edu.au>,
Paul Titze VK2THN [HACK.AU.] <pti...@astron.physics.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>Richard Caldwell wrote:
>>
>> In Article Re: Arizona UFO , Darrell Schmidt <schmidt?@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Mark wrote:
>> > >
>> > The fact still
>> > > exists that ultra-lights with lights on them have succesfully
>> > > fooled the best of observers in the past.
>> >
>> > What a concept! Ultra-lights with lights! Would they then be
>> > Ultra-Ultra-Lights?
>>
>> No, man, Ultra-Light-Lights! 2 "lights", but only one "ultra". 8-]
>>
>> > "Deja Mooo...knowing you've heard this bull before..."
>>
>> Deja whoooo?
>
>I saw those lights on the news here, how convenient these so called UFOs
>didn't appear during the day. How convenient they also use bright lights
>so everyone can see them at night. Your typical UFO stunt or a military
>excercise that needs it's secrecy procedures reexamined.
>
with his 10" Newt when he and his mother spotted those lights. A quick swing
over to take a look proved it to be an airplane. He paid it no mind until it
became such a big issue that the Governor decided to request an investigation.
The young man called the Gov's office but they have not yet returned his call.
I guess it's more fun that way.
T...@astro.net
In article <5ove3g$rql$1...@mandolin.qnet.com>, cyp...@hishouse.com (Cypher) wrote:
>
>>Questions: With all the video cams in pocession of the fine people
>>of that town, how come only on guy turned in video of this object?
>>How come Air Force or National Guard not scramble planes up for a
>>closer look?(Course, if the thing is one of their's why would they
>>bother?) How come the local EYE-WITNESS News team not send their
>>helicopters up for a peek? The thing was certainly in the air
>>long enough.
>>Very, Very odd.
>>
>> ZOOL
>>up for a look?
>
>simply focused on the one clip over phoenix. Thousands of people saw
>the object, whatever it was.
So where are all they're videos/photos? Or are they too crappy (would
figure!) to view? How come there isn't any DAYTIME footage, or is there?
Smells like s**t to me.....Maybe a Roswell PR stunt?
Tom
David Lentz
Eric Gross wrote:
>
> >I believe most airposts, especially large airports, use radar still.
>
>
> In fact, I would be willing to say that there is more monitoring of airspace
> by radar in the U.S. than anywhere else on the globe. You have an elaborate
> network of radars supporting air traffic control. Many airports have their
> own separate approach control radars. Naval, naval air and air force bases
> have radars operating both in association with military air traffic and
> airspace surveillance. At different times different radars are operating near
> or off the coasts in support of drug interdiction efforts. U.S. naval vessels
> exercising off the coast have radars hot at various times. In addition, there
> are dozens to scores of public and private radars for research, monitoring
> weather, astronomical purposes, etc.
Not so fast. Ground control approach radar do not have full three
hundred sixty degree coverage. They cover the runway's approach. The
rest of the airport's radar is most likey IFF, and not skin. As for the
Navy, the last time I check they did not operate in the Salt River.
David
Geoff Price
In article <33B321...@astron.physics.usyd.edu.au>, "Paul Titze VK2THN
[HACK.AU.]" <pti...@astron.physics.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> How come these so called strange phenomena always happen in the USA?
I think I fielded this one earlier. Puzzling UFO events are definitely
worldwide, and not an American cultural phenomenon. Since you're in
Australia try:
http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~johno/frames.htm
for an example.
[...]
--
Geoff Price
Ge...@CalibanMW.com
Geoff Price
In article <33B4A9D5...@vwis.com>, Lawrence Foard <ent...@vwis.com>
wrote:
> Cypher wrote:
> > DOZENS of people recorded with cameras all over Arizona. The media has
> > simply focused on the one clip over phoenix. Thousands of people saw
> > the object, whatever it was.
> >
> > There are reports the airforce DID scramble jets. They, of course, deny
> > it.
>
> What are the odds of getting all of these pictures on the net? Looked
> at from many different angles it should be possible to get some idea
> of what it was. If it the pictures really do show a disk 1 mile across
> then we would have to assume something very weird is going on :-)
This is what the analysts at Village Labs in Phoenix used to reconstruct
their idea of what happened, looking at the various footage from various
vantages. The lights weren't arranged in a disc, but in a delta
formation. It sounds very strange from the witness testimony, although I
don't know if there's good grounds for considering it a single object at
this point (as the Village Labs reconstruction seems to indicate.)
--
Geoff Price
Ge...@CalibanMW.com
Frank Tymon
One doesn't investigate that which destroys preconceived notions. If you
prove UFO's are UFO's, then you are a kook. If you don't, it isn't news.
We've had numerous unexplained phenomena for a long time (try Charles
Fort's books). Science doesn't like to get involved where current
theories seem inadequate.
--
Peace.
Frank Tymon, fr...@qnet.com; URL http://www.av.qnet.com/~frank/
The Angry Editor of Tymon's Tirades & The Quartz Hill ConnXtion,
Publisher, Tymon Publications; Proprietor, TYMON'S TRY-B4-BUY BOOKCLUB
Eric Gross
David I. Nakamoto
> Subject: Arizona UFO
> Date: 21 Jun 1997 04:02:57 GMT
>
> I have been disappointed by the lack of internet discussion regarding the
> UFO seen and videotaped over Arizona in March. The odds that the
> lights seen over Phoenix were from an alien craft are extremely low IMO,
> but that does not change the fact that there was *something* very large
> over Arizona which did not register on radar screens.
>
..
> As I see it, the three main possibilities in order of likelihood are that it
> was a:
>
> 1. Military operation of some sort. The main problem with this is that the
> military has denied any responsibility for the lights, which would mean
> that it would have had to have been a top secret operation. If that's
> the case, however, why on earth would they fly the craft over a
> metropolitan area ? Also, is it within plausible technological limits to
make
> a blimp-type craft object of that size that is so stealthy ? Could it be
> a flight of secret stealth helicopters ?
In my opinion this is the best explanation. Why fly over a city like that?
Well, there is nothing else the Air Force can use as a city; if they wanted to
test a new sensor array to see what downtown Bagdad would look like, they
don't have much else to use as a target other than a city.
Is there an aircraft that would be (1) silent and (2) does not appear on
radar? Yes, there is a report of a tactical reconnnaissance aircraft called
the TR-3, which according to one Aviation Week article was flown in the Gulf
War, is shaped like a triangle with no vertical surface either dorsal or
ventral, and is VERY quiet.
Why did they turn on lights on the plane if they wanted to keep it a secret?
My guess is that they didn't want anyone to accidentally run into it who was
flying around up there.
As I said, it makes sense to me that it was a stealthy secret aircraft flying
around Phoenix. My only regret is that I was in Tucson at the time this was
flying around up there.
Perhaps someone in the Air Force wanted to celebrate the Roswell incident's
anniversary with a little display of their own?
G Moore
On 27 Jun 1997 04:04:00 GMT, cyp...@hishouse.com (Cypher) wrote:
>DOZENS of people recorded with cameras all over Arizona. The media has
the official number of videotapes taken are 6. unless you want to
rephrase the term record to *photograph*...
T. Joseph W. Lazio
>>>>> "EG" == Eric Gross <egr...@mailer.fsu.edu> writes:
>> I believe most airposts, especially large airports, use radar
>> still.
EG> Exactly.
But as others have posted, that doesn't mean small craft will be
considered more than noise.
EG> In fact, I would be willing to say that there is more monitoring
EG> of airspace by radar in the U.S. than anywhere else on the
EG> globe. [...] In addition, there are dozens to scores of public
EG> and private radars for research, monitoring weather, astronomical
EG> purposes, etc.
At least for astronomical purposes, radars are aimed pretty much
straight up. They tend to be quite far from civilization and, if
something is in the path of the radar, it quite possibly can be
cooked. The receiving radars are not designed to detect craft. They
are designed to detect weak signals returning from planets and
asteroids in the solar system.
--
Cornell knows I exist?!? | e-mail: la...@spacenet.tn.cornell.edu
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/students/lazio/
STOP RAPE | ICBM: 42:29:56 N 76:28:53 W 305 m alt.
sci.astro FAQ at http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/students/lazio/sci.astro.html
T. Joseph W. Lazio
>>>>> "AK" == Arie Kazachin <ariek3.141592...@ibm.net> writes:
AK> In message <m267v27...@escrime.kidpub.org> -
AK> don...@escrime.kidpub.org (Perry Donham) writes:
>>
>>>>>>> "Mark" == Mark <m...@whidbey.net> writes:
AK> [snip]
Mark> absorbing material. Remember the guy who piloted an ultra light
Mark> and landed it on the Kremlin????? Tell those RADAR ops that it
Mark> showed up on RADAR! The engines are noisy BUT I
>> [snip]
>>
>> The aircraft you mention was a Cessna 172 (piloted by Matthias
>> Rust? can't recall), which at a few thousand pounds wet weight is
>> hardly an ultralight, and will most definitely show up on radar. It
>> was landed on Red Square. Other than that, you were right on the
>> money... :^)
AK> The only thing we can be sure about is that no one took a shot (at
AK> least not a successfull) at Matthias Rust in his Cessna 172. We
AK> can't conclude from his remaining alive that no RADAR showed his
AK> Cessna. How can it be that the plane is shown on RADAR and stays
AK> in the air? I don't know for sure but I can build a theory: [...]
Umm, at least two Soviet fighters were scrambled to intercept the
plane. I think it's very safe to assume that the craft was detected
on Soviet radar.
The reason that the plane was not shot down was that the fighters had
difficulty tracking it because of their much higher air speed.
Martin Tom Brown
In article <5p0s1s$llj$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>
it...@boris.ucdavis.edu "Jedidiah Whitten" writes:
> Paul Titze VK2THN [HACK.AU.] (pti...@astron.physics.usyd.edu.au) wrote:
> :
> : How come these so called strange phenomena always happen in the USA?
> : I saw those lights on the news here, how convenient these so called UFOs
> : didn't appear during the day. How convenient they also use bright lights
> : so everyone can see them at night. Your typical UFO stunt or a military
> : excercise that needs it's secrecy procedures reexamined.
>
> Didn't the same type of thing happen in Belgium a while back? Same type
> of craft, huge triangle-shape with lights moving slowly, and when their
> interceptors got a missile lock they instantly accelerated to a very high
> speed and moved out of missile range. They were supposedly seen by many
> people both on the ground and from the air, but made no sound and did not
> show up on radar. This was about 8 years ago I think.
A bit early for a B-2 then, but not unreasonable behaviour for a
stealth aircraft like an F-117 probing air defences. Remember that
fighters can get radar missile lock a long way away from target.
ECM would likely give all sorts of false radar impressions.
At least in the UK military jets on training excercises do fly with
high power navigation lights on to ensure visibility to other aircraft.
Regards,
--
Martin Brown <mar...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> __ CIS: 71651,470
Scientific Software Consultancy /^,,)__/
Martin Tom Brown
In article <5oq8r1$e8n$1...@cdn-news.telecom.com.au>
bphi...@qctyno1.telcom.com.au "bill phillips" writes:
> In article <5okrds$nli$1...@news.goodnet.com>,
> MIKE FORTSON <sat...@goodnet.com> wrote:
> >
> >The height of the black triangle I reported at 8:30 pm mst on March 13th
> >was between 1500' and 3000'. My wife and I had an excellent side view of
> >this craft as it passed from north to south. My reports on the 15th to
> >MUFON described as solid, black, and trianular shaped. It's length was
> >close to one mile. It passed west of us heading south. At app. 30 mph. We
> >saw a 737 pass by right above it. And not altering it's course whatsoever.
I would be much happier if observations were couched in terms of angles
and altaz coordinates which are directly measureable. Conversion into
size/speed requires you to make assumptions about distance which may
be notoriously unreliable at night - even for experienced observers.
> A photo of this triangle (or rather, a big V), which had a number of lights on
> it, was published in a local Sunday paper. The photo showed trailed stars, so
> the big black V was obviously stationary for some time....and the camera would
> have to be tripod mounted...with a time exposure...something doesn't make
> sense...
Given the speed - the nearest thing I have seen that matches would be a
flock of geese migrating which can produce just such a moving black V
against the night sky. British geese usually move northwards a bit earlier
in the year, and dont show navigation lights. US ones may be different ;-)
> tell me the secrets of estimating distance and speed at night over long
> distances
Indeed it is well known that this is very difficult.
T...@astro.net
> Umm, at least two Soviet fighters were scrambled to intercept the
>plane. I think it's very safe to assume that the craft was detected
>on Soviet radar.
>
> The reason that the plane was not shot down was that the fighters had
>difficulty tracking it because of their much higher air speed.
Alledgedly...
jon
Alex Vrenios wrote:
> In article <33B321...@astron.physics.usyd.edu.au>,
> Paul Titze VK2THN [HACK.AU.] <pti...@astron.physics.usyd.edu.au>
> wrote:
> >Richard Caldwell wrote:
> >>
> >> In Article Re: Arizona UFO , Darrell Schmidt <schmidt?@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Mark wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > The fact still
> >> > > exists that ultra-lights with lights on them have succesfully
> >> > > fooled the best of observers in the past.
> >> >
> >> > What a concept! Ultra-lights with lights! Would they then be
> >> > Ultra-Ultra-Lights?
> >>
> >> No, man, Ultra-Light-Lights! 2 "lights", but only one "ultra".
> 8-]
> >>
> >> > "Deja Mooo...knowing you've heard this bull before..."
> >>
> >> Deja whoooo?
> >
> >How come these so called strange phenomena always happen in the USA?
> >I saw those lights on the news here, how convenient these so called
> UFOs
> >didn't appear during the day. How convenient they also use bright
> lights
> >so everyone can see them at night. Your typical UFO stunt or a
> military
> >excercise that needs it's secrecy procedures reexamined.
> >
> FYI: on Channel 3 News yesterday a teenager claims he was looking
> around
> with his 10" Newt when he and his mother spotted those lights. A quick
> swing
> over to take a look proved it to be an airplane. He paid it no mind
> until it
> became such a big issue that the Governor decided to request an
> investigation.
> The young man called the Gov's office but they have not yet returned
> his call.
>
> I guess it's more fun that way.
That's not what the film looks like. Maybe 2 different objects. I mean
skeptics talk about (Quite rightly I might add) Planes being
missidentified. Well if you can missidentify a plane then surley the
reverse applies. Or is it more fun it NOT applying.....
Answers please................................
--
Regards Jon.
"I'm going to bite the hand that feeds me....."
I'm gonna turn the tide
Set my Demons free and watch them fly..."
War Machine, By Kiss
Ed Redondo
In article <33b7137a....@news.scruz.net>, anti...@here.not (j.r. pierce ) wrote:
>it...@boris.ucdavis.edu (Jedidiah Whitten) wrote:
>
>>Krueger (kru...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>>: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that there is any
>>: monitoring of airspace in the CONUS by radar. Sure, the FAA has
>>: a buttload of IFF interrogation units at every airport, but is
>>: anyone doing old-fashioned surveillance radar? I suspect there's
>>
>
>transponder ID's and vectors... Transponder-less craft will just show up
>as a tiny unadorned spec, and probably be considered noise.
Wrong. ATC radar have digitally enhanced display systems that use normal
radar system inputs. The only thing different is *how* data is displayed,
not how its gathered. Unidentified blips still show as in the past. As to
the size of the target ("spec" as you called it), that is not an issue with
digital displays. The size of any target can be fixed regardless of its
physical size or range.
>
>re: IFF ??? Thats strictly military. Far as I know, the FAA has nothing
>to do with Identify Friend or Foe. Commercial and General aviation
>carries 'transponders' that 'bleep' a preset code assigned by the local
>ATC operators (or a fixed number (I think its 1200) if you are flying
>unassisted VFR). All commercial, and well equipped general aviation,
>carry transponders that also report altimeter readings.
>
Not quite correct. In the civilian world aircraft carry Transponders that
report the aircraft's ID and altitude. That's how it gets attached to the
symbol on ATC radar. The military version just adds more options
including, more codes and encoding of the RF signal. By the way, the full
designation of the military version is "IFF Transponder."
How do I know? USN Retired "Airdale," Electronics
=== Ed Redondo ===========================================
Religious practice is an individual's right, *not* a right
of the majority to be imposed on other individuals.
Parenthood is hard. And long. And thankless. And comes
without an off switch, a pause button, a rewind or a volume
control.
Bill Duke
the black v photo was a computer composite (special effect) to show what
the object might have looked like. The USA Today even said "composite
photo " under the pic
> A photo of this triangle (or rather, a big V), which had a number of
lights on
> it, was published in a local Sunday paper. The photo showed trailed
stars, so
> the big black V was obviously stationary for some time....and the camera
would
> have to be tripod mounted...with a time exposure...something doesn't make
> sense...
>
> someone sees a big black V in the sky, says I must get a photo, mounts
their
> camera on a tripod and takes a time exposure...right?
>
> and finally, how do you know the UFO was between 1500' and 3000', and
> travelling at 30mph?
> tell me the secrets of estimating distance and speed at night over long
> distances
>
>
> Wild Willy
>
Cypher
>>DOZENS of people recorded with cameras all over Arizona. The media has
>>simply focused on the one clip over phoenix. Thousands of people saw
>>the object, whatever it was.
>
> So where are all they're videos/photos? Or are they too crappy (would
>figure!) to view? How come there isn't any DAYTIME footage, or is there?
Maybe becuase the incident ocured at night? Duh
>Smells like s**t to me.....Maybe a Roswell PR stunt?
>
>Tom
Sure, thousands of people all around Arizona are involved in a
massive ufo conspiracy. You sound paranoid:)
But really, those people saw SOMETHING. Wheather it was flares,
experimental aircraft, or aliens is a matter to be debated.
That something was seen in the skies over Phoenix cannot be
denied.
Jedidiah Whitten
Martin Tom Brown (Mar...@nezumi.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
: A bit early for a B-2 then, but not unreasonable behaviour for a
: fighters can get radar missile lock a long way away from target.
: ECM would likely give all sorts of false radar impressions.
But an F-117 accelerating from barely moving to hypersonic speeds (as
estimated by the F-16 pilots) instantly? Remember, though, that I did
not get this information first-hand and it may be incorrect. Supposedly
the Belgian government confirmed all of it so there should be records
somewhere.
Eric Gross
>Not so fast. Ground control approach radar do not have full three
>hundred sixty degree coverage. They cover the runway's approach. The
>rest of the airport's radar is most likey IFF, and not skin. As for the
>Navy, the last time I check they did not operate in the Salt River.
Please note that I was not making a specific assesment of the kind or nature
of coverage at any specific point at any specific time. I was merely stating
the idea that, in general, the airspace around and over the U.S. is probably
the most densely packed with active radars of all kinds and purposes on the
planet.
Note that this does *not* mean that it is impenetrable or that any small
object is going to be automatically sighted *and* classified by any of those
radars.
Tom Ray
Martin Tom Brown <Mar...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<867506...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>...
>
> Given the speed - the nearest thing I have seen that matches would be a
> flock of geese migrating which can produce just such a moving black V
> against the night sky. British geese usually move northwards a bit
earlier
> in the year, and dont show navigation lights. US ones may be different
;-)
>
> --
> Martin Brown <mar...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> __ CIS:
71651,470
> Scientific Software Consultancy /^,,)__/
>
Hey, geese CANT fly with enough synchronization to produce the illusion
of a solid ridgid object. ---Due to air current fluxuations, even human
PILOTS cannot fly with sufficient synchronization to produce the illusion
either--Slight side to side wobbles spoil the effect.
Also it is reasonable to expect that the residents of Phoenix have seen
geese before and know the difference.
TOM
David Lentz
If that is your final position. All I have to say is: I agree.
David
Jude Giampaolo
In article <01bc8573$7bd4ad00$86c9...@TomR.Geology.deq.state.ms.us>, "Tom
Ray" <Tome...@aol.com> wrote:
> Also it is reasonable to expect that the residents of Phoenix have seen
> geese before and know the difference.
From my own personal experience some residents of Cleveland can't. Why
should the residents of Phoenix be any different?
Please note followups....
--
Jude Giampaolo -- Penn State University -- Electrical Engineering
jcg...@psu.edu - ju...@smellycat.com - http://prozac.cwru.edu/jude/
Jude Giampaolo
In article <01bc85b8$26dc9c00$f52a...@jjones.starlink.com>, "Jack Jones"
<jjo...@starlink.com> wrote:
> I hate to bust your bubbles, but there is an observer here, an amateur
> astronomer,
> who had his 10" reflector out in his back yard and he saw exactly what the
> lights were.
I never said that they couldn't be airplanes! All I said was that I have
known people in Cleveland who couldn't tell the difference between birds
and UFOs at night. (I guess technically the birds were UFOs, since at the
time they were Unidentified Flying Objects, but......)
Martin Tom Brown
In article <01bc8573$7bd4ad00$86c9...@TomR.Geology.deq.state.ms.us>
Tome...@aol.com "Tom Ray" writes:
> Martin Tom Brown <Mar...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> <867506...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>...
> >
> > Given the speed - the nearest thing I have seen that matches would be a
> > flock of geese migrating which can produce just such a moving black V
> > against the night sky. British geese usually move northwards a bit
> earlier
> > in the year, and dont show navigation lights. US ones may be different
> ;-)
> Hey, geese CANT fly with enough synchronization to produce the illusion
> of a solid ridgid object. ---Due to air current fluxuations, even human
> PILOTS cannot fly with sufficient synchronization to produce the illusion
> either--Slight side to side wobbles spoil the effect.
It all depends on the light levels, angles and distances and at night
the effect can be quite wierd as a dark V shape moves against the sky.
In daylight it would be very obvious what they were.
> Also it is reasonable to expect that the residents of Phoenix have seen
> geese before and know the difference.
> TOM
No it isn't. At night it is very hard to judge size, distance or speed.
I don't trust any member of the general public to make accurate or
reliable observations of UFO's or any other unusual celestial events.
During an appulse of Jupiter to Venus in the mid 70's our observatory
was inundated with callers describing "football stadium sized" UFO's
docking just over their neighbours house and flashing many colours.
The same happens every year when Sirius rises mid evening etc etc.
They had seen something unusual, yes, but their imagination had run
away and produced the ultimate UFO experience. Now the X-Files is
on every other night things are even worse in this respect.
Regards,
John Mcgowan
-=> While talking of Arizona UFO, Eric Gross
-=> said to All on 30 Jun 97 03:48:04: From: egr...@mailer.fsu.edu
EG> (Eric Gross) Subject: Re: Arizona UFO Organization: Florida State
EG> University
EG> Note that this does *not* mean that it is impenetrable or that any
EG> small object is going to be automatically sighted *and* classified by
EG> any of those radars.
You can bet odds that if it is in the Air, the Military knows it. The US is
not impenetrable, but give me a break. :) This air craft that was spotted
over Phoenix came from the direction of the Utah Border. You have Salt Lake
City, Nellis, Peterson, Cheyenne Mt. and Norad, Holman and WHite Sands, Luke,
Davis-Monthan, just to name a few Air Bases. We have not even touched the
Army Radar Sites yet, nor the private ones. An object that big would have to
have a pretty good pilot to avoid all that coverage.
As far as them not sending out jets to intercept, that is ridiculous. After
recieving that many reports on it, they would have to. It is their job.
Unless, of course, they already knew what was up there.
In this day and age of Stealth Technology, they know that not everything is
easily picked up on Radar. That is also their job. So once the reports came
in, they would have to react.
And why would any infiltrator in a ship that size come from the Utah Border,
across the state of Arizona, then back towards Nellis? Especially since
nothing else happened. Where would they land that thing and keep it secret
from prying eyes while visiting Las Vegas, Nevada. :) Nellis does not rent
out hangers to those who infiltrate the US. :)
Eventually the Government will come out with some stupid reason, and people
will buy it. The Infamous Flare theory is taking hold as we speak. :) Even
though flares can not move that distance nor look like that. :)
The latest is some guy with a 10x Telescope saw it and it was several
aircraft. :) That may be, but It is extremely hard to move aircraft in
unison like that. I will check the paper for that article, but a 10x
telescope is not as powerful as my dad's field glasses. I don't know what he
could have seen.
{ John.M...@Ghostrdr.Wierius.Com }
--
|Fidonet: John Mcgowan 1:114/314
|Internet: John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Michael Roldan
In article <5p1fsi$82m$2...@news.mhv.net>, T...@astro.net says...
> So where are all they're videos/photos? Or are they too crappy (would
>figure!) to view? How come there isn't any DAYTIME footage, or is there?
>
>Tom
>
Not I believe that this is an extra-terrestrial spacecraft, but my
curiosity got the better of me, so I did a quick search at the CNN
web-site which led me to the following article covering the incident:
http://cnn.com/US/9706/19/ufo.lights/index.html
The article has some small pictures and a QuickTime movie.
-- mike
Jack Jones
I hate to bust your bubbles, but there is an observer here, an amateur
astronomer,
who had his 10" reflector out in his back yard and he saw exactly what the
lights were.
As he does several times per week, he was observing on March 13 from his
backyard in Scottsdale and noticed the slow moving lights. They were
airplanes.
Since airplanes are "boring", he went on to other things, and didn't think
anything of
it until the big foo-farah started. My attempts at the time to advise the
media about
what he saw were mostly ignored (until recently).
JJ
Jude Giampaolo <ju...@smellycat.com> wrote in article
<jude-30069...@jcg161.rh.psu.edu>...
> In article <01bc8573$7bd4ad00$86c9...@TomR.Geology.deq.state.ms.us>, "Tom
> Ray" <Tome...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Also it is reasonable to expect that the residents of Phoenix have seen
> > geese before and know the difference.
>
> From my own personal experience some residents of Cleveland can't. Why
> should the residents of Phoenix be any different?
>
> Please note followups....
>
Brian J. Ritzel
In article <33B41F...@qnet.com>, Frank Tymon <fr...@qnet.com> wrote:
>One doesn't investigate that which destroys preconceived notions. If you
>prove UFO's are UFO's, then you are a kook. If you don't, it isn't news.
>We've had numerous unexplained phenomena for a long time (try Charles
>Fort's books). Science doesn't like to get involved where current
>theories seem inadequate.
Absolute BS.
That is precisely what Science is all about (as well as being where all the
money/glory/prestige/fame/Nobel prizes/etc. are).
Where Science doesn't like to be involved is where there are no testable
theories or reproducable results. Science leaves that realm to religion,
science fiction writers, and pseudo-science kooks. I just can't figure out
why you-all are so lonely you keep wanting the rest of us to join you there.
-Bri
[Posted and Mailed]
--
Brian J. Ritzel, Springfield, IL USA | **Newsfeed unreliable.**
rit...@prairienet.org (preferred) | CC your follow-up if you want
rit...@fgi.net | to be sure I see it.
Copyright 1997. All Rights Reserved. |
Eric Gross
>> Also it is reasonable to expect that the residents of Phoenix have seen
>> geese before and know the difference.
>From my own personal experience some residents of Cleveland can't. Why
>should the residents of Phoenix be any different?
Just a note to those who have never seen the geese phenomena -- you would be
quite surprised at just how disconcerting this experience can be. I used to
ridicule the idea that an ordinary flight of geese could be mistaken for a
flight of UFO's -- that is, until it happened to me!
I had seen thousands of flights of geese in my life, but one evening at
twilight I stepped out the front door, looked up at the sky and my heart about
stopped. There was what appeared to be a V of about 12 lights,
smoothly sailing across the twilight sky without a sound. I was literally
stunned. After a couple of deep breaths, I called my wife, and tried to think
-- o.k., what can these be? We both watched, and finally we heard the faint
sound of the geese (only because we lived in a very quiet neighborhood.) As
the flight passed to the south the angle of the light shifted enough so that
we could make out the outline of their wings moving. However, for about 45
seconds they looked only like a flight of lights in perfect formation.
I now understand how a flight of high-flying geese or other birds can be
mistaken for a formation of lights.
As to the Arizone sightings, all I can say is that the video clip on CNN I saw
looked nothing like the geese.
Robert Dinse
In article <01bc85b8$26dc9c00$f52a...@jjones.starlink.com>, "Jack Jones" <jjo...@starlink.com> writes:
>
> I hate to bust your bubbles, but there is an observer here, an amateur
> astronomer,
> who had his 10" reflector out in his back yard and he saw exactly what the
> lights were.
> As he does several times per week, he was observing on March 13 from his
> backyard in Scottsdale and noticed the slow moving lights. They were
> airplanes.
> Since airplanes are "boring", he went on to other things, and didn't think
> anything of
> it until the big foo-farah started. My attempts at the time to advise the
> media about
> what he saw were mostly ignored (until recently).
>
> JJ
>
> Jude Giampaolo <ju...@smellycat.com> wrote in article
> <jude-30069...@jcg161.rh.psu.edu>...
> > In article <01bc8573$7bd4ad00$86c9...@TomR.Geology.deq.state.ms.us>, "Tom
> > Ray" <Tome...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > geese before and know the difference.
> >
> > From my own personal experience some residents of Cleveland can't. Why
> > should the residents of Phoenix be any different?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jude Giampaolo -- Penn State University -- Electrical Engineering
> > jcg...@psu.edu - ju...@smellycat.com - http://prozac.cwru.edu/jude/
Well then we should incorporate this new silent airplane technology
immediately. I mean here near Seattle, there is a big controversy over
building a third runway at Seatac. If we could make planes this quite it
wouldn't be a problem.
--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Eskimo North: More Unix, Usenet, Internet for Less $$ (206)For-Ever Eskimo.Com
Free two-week trial, login as "new". For more info email: nan...@eskimo.com
gatt
jon wrote:
>
> That's not what the film looks like. Maybe 2 different objects. I mean
> skeptics talk about (Quite rightly I might add) Planes being
> missidentified. Well if you can missidentify a plane then surley the
> reverse applies. Or is it more fun it NOT applying.....
> Answers please................................
A friend of mine who used to work at Edwards (every crackpot has a
friend who used to work at Edwards or Groom Lake) theorized that they
were just an array of illumination flares that folks in Vegas see over
the test site all the time.
Between the two of us, we tossed around the possibility that weather
conditions caused the flares to maintain altitude--thermals or
whatever--and wind drifted them near or over Phoenix. From where? Who
knows. White Sands, maybe? I'm not familiar with the area.
IF they drifted over the city, they would be silent, slow moving and
most likely all drifting uniformly, giving the appearance of rigid
formation. I dunno. It's just a hypothesis. I'm not reading all of
these newsgroups either, so maybe somebody else already said the same
thing.
I do NOT think ultralight aircraft are a possibility. Every ultralight
I've ever heard has been noisier than hell and sound like giant
chainsaws. Usually you hear 'em long before you see 'em and because
they're so slow, the sound tends to linger. One individual used to fly
his (or hers) over my college town late at night for an hour or more at
a time, and I swear if he could have been seen in the sky, SOMEBODY
would have shot him down.
Regards,
Chris
Paul Titze VK2THN [HACK.AU.]
Martin Tom Brown wrote:
> During an appulse of Jupiter to Venus in the mid 70's our observatory
> was inundated with callers describing "football stadium sized" UFO's
> docking just over their neighbours house and flashing many colours.
> The same happens every year when Sirius rises mid evening etc etc.
>
> They had seen something unusual, yes, but their imagination had run
> away and produced the ultimate UFO experience. Now the X-Files is
> on every other night things are even worse in this respect.
People see UFOs because they _want_ to see UFOs. Anything that is "unusual"
in the sky is seen by many people as aliens in UFOs abducting the next
door neighbour and X-files stories.
I've been a stargazer for a long time now, I've seen many "unusual" things
in the sky, so far I have yet to see something that I cannot fully explain.
Not ounce have I seen anything that would even remotely be an alien in a UFO.
It's strange that all these so called weird phenomena happen in the US, nothing
to do with the people their who believe in their alien UFOs of course :)
I wonder how much money is beeing made by the UFO saga? How much entertainement
is it for some people? How many people become famous with their UFO story?
Paul.
======================================================================
Email : pti...@astron.physics.usyd.edu.au
Website : http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~ptitze
Cyberspace: http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~ptitze/vrml/vk2thn.wrl
======================================================================