|
jmorgan
16,986 posts
153 months
|
I thought they said they were not qualified to comment? The sat phone and video is fishy in more ways than one.
|
|
|
Westy Pre-Lit
4,370 posts
72 months
|
Considering the way many of the threads were going and the silence up until now, I suspect they felt they had to post up something of what they already know or don't know due to the amount of the wild speculation, anger and down right disrespect aimed at them and to keep up the interest.
Some of the language and words used of what I read was disgraceful to say the least. It seems to have bought it back on track and kept a lot of people happy so far, until they get itchy feet again.
|
|
|
RegMolehusband
2,417 posts
126 months
|
|
|
rhinochopig
16,048 posts
67 months
|
RegMolehusband said: From wiki :- Yaddi Nazeri, estimated that the UFO was traveling somewhere between two and three thousand miles per hour. He said that the object "...was beyond my speed and power. The [later] F-4... also could not catch up to the object. That's when I thought, this is a UFO." Nazeri added that "...no country had this type of flying object, so I was thinking, this craft is from another planet." You see the Americans did have aircraft that were capable of 2000 mph, yet his first thought is aliens. He may be right that it was an ET vehicle, but pilots are no less susceptible to believing in ETs than the rest of the population.
|
|
|
RegMolehusband
2,417 posts
126 months
|
This was 1976 - that's 36 years ago. "The size of the object was difficult to determine due to its intense brilliance. The lights of the object were alternating blue, green, red, and orange, and were arranged in a square pattern. The lights flashed in sequence, but the flashing was so rapid that they all could be seen at once." If you watched the video he also said it moved from one sector of the sky to another, about 26.7 miles, "in a moment" - less than a second he said. Andy why would any nations manufacturer something so highly visible and unstealth-like? Anyway, it doesn't sound like 1976 technology to me 
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
rhinochopig
16,048 posts
67 months
|
RegMolehusband said: This was 1976 - that's 36 years ago. "The size of the object was difficult to determine due to its intense brilliance. The lights of the object were alternating blue, green, red, and orange, and were arranged in a square pattern. The lights flashed in sequence, but the flashing was so rapid that they all could be seen at once." If you watched the video he also said it moved from one sector of the sky to another, about 26.7 miles, "in a moment" - less than a second he said. It doesn't sound like 1976 technology to me SR71s were flying from the late 60s and a TS of well over Mach 3. I'm not claiming he didn't see an ET vehicle as the two descriptions are very different. My point was how willing he was to jump on the ETV story rather than a more credible earthly explanation. You see it wouldn't surprise me if the Americans fitted some SR71 with light shows to perpetuate the UFO story rather than be accused of spying over foreign soil - "Wasn't us mate, it must have been LGMs" I've done a lot of research on how people behave under extreme psychological pressure as part of my job and people, however well trained, do behave in some odd ways when facing their own mortality.
|
|
|
PW
1,742 posts
108 months
|
RegMolehusband said: 26.7 miles, less than a second Approx 96,000 mph Anyone know how much heat that would generate from the friction?
|
|
|
RichyBoy
2,066 posts
86 months
|
|
|
RegMolehusband
2,417 posts
126 months
|
PW said: Approx 96,000 mph
Anyone know how much heat that would generate from the friction? A great deal, if getting from point A to point B actually involved passing through the space in between  
|
|
|
nelly1
4,914 posts
100 months
|
RegMolehusband said: "The size of the object was difficult to determine due to its intense brilliance. The lights of the object were alternating blue, green, red, and orange, and were arranged in a square pattern. The lights flashed in sequence, but the flashing was so rapid that they all could be seen at once." I've always been curious as to why these perpetually evasive aliens would bedeck their craft with super bright multicoloured lights. If they were making an effort to make contact properly I could understand it. If they wanted to remain incognito why advertise in such a garish way? Unless the HHGTTG was right about 'teasers'
|
|
|
jmorgan
16,986 posts
153 months
|
Not really bothered with this but guessing celestial object, pilot error?
|
|
|
Hilts
2,492 posts
151 months
|
jmorgan said: Not really bothered with this but guessing celestial object, pilot error? On radar? Guess again.
|
|
|
RegMolehusband
2,417 posts
126 months
|
jmorgan said: Not really bothered with this but guessing celestial object, pilot error? Ah of course!! Silly F4 Phantom pilots, all that training and night flying experience wasted only to be fooled by a star. They both even imagined the star to appear on their radar and saw a bit of it detach and land on the ground and illuminate rocks around it. Morons, both of them
|
|
|
rhinochopig
16,048 posts
67 months
|
RichyBoy said: There's a lot of b  ks in that article. My guess is they are scaring up some extra funding from the gullible. [Stefan Hogeborn, Professional Diver]: “We looked at our dive computer, the deep sea diver computer, and it said minus one degree that’s pretty cold for a diver it should really be impossible to have that cold water it actually turns into ice at zero degrees but that could be explained by the movement of the water.” Sea water freezes at -2C
|
|
|
Westy Pre-Lit
4,370 posts
72 months
|
Hilts said: jmorgan said: Not really bothered with this but guessing celestial object, pilot error? On radar? Guess again. Don't start him off with radar again .....apparently it's useless don't you know
|
|
|
jmorgan
16,986 posts
153 months
|
Westy Pre-Lit said: Hilts said: jmorgan said: Not really bothered with this but guessing celestial object, pilot error? On radar? Guess again. Don't start him off with radar again .....apparently it's useless don't you know Yeah.... yahhhhh booooo
|
|
|
jmorgan
16,986 posts
153 months
|
Hilts said: On radar?
Guess again. I used to think it was the be all and end all then I started to look see how it works. Interesting stuff and mistooks have been made and the stuff is not infallible. Pilot error happening in reading the instrument and the instrument misleading the pilot does happen as does equipment failure. Happens for the ground stuff as well. I do not think it is useless, though And pilots have made errors with celestial objects, this will not be the first and I it will be the last if indeed it is the case here (OK it was 1974, think more have happened.) As an aside, there is an interesting thing called false returns, regarding RADAR. So the problem here is visual identification and getting nabbed on RADAR and somewhere in the middle a human getting it all mucked up. With a planet possibly. So, I have a fantastic claim that no one can substantiate (delved a tad deeper last night, not a lot, just a little), or a more mundane explanation. Tricky. Oh, it mentions the pilot goes on to participate in the National Press Club conference. This also get a mention in Keans book? Not good for credibility.
|
|
|
slartibartfast
2,725 posts
70 months
|
rhinochopig said: RichyBoy said: There's a lot of b ks in that article. My guess is they are scaring up some extra funding from the gullible. [Stefan Hogeborn, Professional Diver]: “We looked at our dive computer, the deep sea diver computer, and it said minus one degree that’s pretty cold for a diver it should really be impossible to have that cold water it actually turns into ice at zero degrees but that could be explained by the movement of the water.” Sea water freezes at -2C you forgot to mention "the cameras turned off when near the object" so what's all that about?
|
|
|
Westy Pre-Lit
4,370 posts
72 months
|
Who knows  Peter Lindberg He was a bit excited when he return to surface after the dive. It is not completly right what he says. On their second dive his video camera and lighting shut down and we could not talk in the sattelite telephone when we were laying above the circle. The sonar on our ROV broke down after a while on the circle but worked perfectly when we spend some 35 hours of ROV flying on a wreck some miles a way. These happenings are facts and is probably just coincidents.
|
|
|
rhinochopig
16,048 posts
67 months
|
slartibartfast said: you forgot to mention
"the cameras turned off when near the object"
so what's all that about? IF that really happened?
|
|
