Major Ufo Sighting Causing Big News!

[Aethelwulf]

I'll leave you with a few words... on top of the previous poster... and friend.

 

UFO's have become a serious subject for me and for many. What makes the subject a little bit more serious on my behalf, is that I have seen them. They have left me in disbelief... cheated and yet... liberated. Feeling insecure and yet secure in my own experience. Bewildered and knowing. They are the strangest thing if you ever saw a true UFO... If you had, you would never doubt their existence... because you simply couldn't. There would be, no logical bone in your body which could support a doubt of skepticism concerning the subject. And yet even if you had, I doubt you could even believe your own eyes at the time of the incident because, you can believe me, you surely don't believe what you are seeing at first.

 

You often call yourself strange almost... alien yourself. For there is no way on Earth something like this could be happening with only yourself knowing about it; which is why, over the years reading the official reports no less, created by your own government, high ranking officials writing on the validity of them or even experienced graduates and astronauts all testifying to their reality you begin to feel a sense of wholeness... completeness concerning the experience you have had. This is why when people like turtle make a mockery of the subject, I don't feel personally persecuted but often feel like I am on a different world with these people. So easy to be ignorant in the face of being enlightened on a subject. I contend to the reality of the objects first hand, then I offer evidence outside my experiences. And yet I am still worried people like turtle, could influence the world as to be blind as it apparently has concerning the subject for many many years. Any time the evidence is persued, it is either destroyed or hidden so no one can ever see it again.

[Turtle]

Listen up & listen good!

I have at no time in this thread made any statements concerning any other UFO investigation or investigators other than the single event presented in the Opening Post, nor do I intend to make any such statements.

[ Note Moomantan: Conyne is a dead inventor of a a type of kite that bears his name; not a UFO incidnet.]

 

If some folk don't understand kiting or descriptions thereof, it's no skin off my ***.

[Moontanman]

Listen up & listen good!

I have at no time in this thread made any statements concerning any other UFO investigation or investigators other than the single event presented in the Opening Post, nor do I intend to make any such statements.

[ Note Moomantan: Conyne is a dead inventor of a a type of kite that bears his name; not a UFO incidnet.]

 

If some folk don't understand kiting or descriptions thereof, it's no skin off my ***.

 

 

I apologize Turtle you cranky old Cooter...

[Turtle]

Listen up & listen good!

I have at no time in this thread made any statements concerning any other UFO investigation or investigators other than the single event presented in the Opening Post, nor do I intend to make any such statements.

[ Note Moomantan: Conyne is a dead inventor of a a type of kite that bears his name; not a UFO incidnet.]

 

If some folk don't understand kiting or descriptions thereof, it's no skin off my ***.

 

I apologize Turtle you cranky old Cooter...

 

No worries. One does not get to cranky old Cooter from Whelp without a passle o' mistakes. As you earlier ranked my knowledge & ability with kiting at a 13, I find you in full accord with what I have said about kites, winds, kiters, Chadwick airport, and other such matters as pertain.

 

A stick in our get-along has been Aethe's fallacious ideas & claims about upper winds. I have made the point several times that these winds are not of necessity in a condition that would make a kite fly other than steady. As luck would have it, my SUCTON unit disposes the fallciousness & illustrates some of the steady-kite-flight habit of above surface winds that I have described. Note that my SUCTON unit is positioned upright on the ground. :wub:

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=zoYB-hX3FCw

Edited June 27, 2013 by Turtle

[Aethelwulf]

Nothing fallacious about my claims about upper wind speeds in the atmosphere. It is well known (not obviously to you) that wind speeds are much stronger where there is less friction near the ground. It is a true statement. I even provided you a wiki question link concerning this phenomenon.

 

 

Stop twisting these things out of context.

[Turtle]

Nothing fallacious about my claims about upper wind speeds in the atmosphere. It is well known (not obviously to you) that wind speeds are much stronger where there is less friction near the ground. It is a true statement. I even provided you a wiki question link concerning this phenomenon.

 

 

Stop twisting these things out of context.

 

Your ignorance is no excuse for continuing to accuse me of mistatements. Better you remain silent & have folks think you a fool than to keep writing and remove any doubt.

[Moontanman]

No worries. One does not get to cranky old Cooter from Whelp without a passle o' mistakes. As you earlier ranked my knowledge & ability with kiting at a 13, I find you in full accord with what I have said about kites, winds, kiters, Chadwick airport, and other such matters as pertain.

 

A stick in our get-along has been Aethe's fallacious ideas & claims about upper winds. I have made the point several times that these winds are not of necessity in a condition that would make a kite fly other than steady. As luck would have it, my SUCTON unit disposes the fallciousness & illustrates some of the steady-kite-flight habit of above surface winds that I have described. Note that my SUCTON unit is positioned upright on the ground. :wub:

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=zoYB-hX3FCw

 

 

The highest I have ever flown a kite was about 300 meters, the wind (we were at the beach) was quite strong at that altitude and we lost several kites to the winds at altitude.

we were using 40# test fishing line off a daiwa 450h and a 13' pole, lots of fun for sure.

[Turtle]

The highest I have ever flown a kite was about 300 meters, the wind (we were at the beach) was quite strong at that altitude and we lost several kites to the winds at altitude.

we were using 40# test fishing line off a daiwa 450h and a 13' pole, lots of fun for sure.

 

Excellent!! Woo hoo fo' lots o' fun fo' shizzle!!

 

 

Now let's build on your anecdote. First, I have at no time said or implied that winds above a few hundred feet cannot be fast or turbulent (say gusty) and neither have I questioned that turbulent winds can make a kite unstable. What I have said -and will say again and again and again as necessary- is that high speed and turbulence are not necessary attributes of 'high' altitude winds. The fact is that 'high' altitude winds may be calm or low speed and steady. In the cases of such low-speed steady high-altitude winds, kites fly steady, as in they don't move around and they appear stationary.

 

 

These facts in conjunction with the facts I gathered concerning terrain around Chadwick airport and the facts of kite design I presented mean that the objects spotted by the pilots could have been kites. Period. Ignorance of these facts by Aethewoof or Nick Pope do not change these facts. Period. Of course they are welcome to mouth off about their disbelief and ignorance of the facts, but of course I'll mock them for it.

 

Now some other facts are that the fastest and most turbulent winds are surface winds and specifically tornadic winds which reach approximately 300 mph. These speeds are calculated based on the damage they cause, as putting an anemometer in a tornado just aint happening. According to Wiki the record wind speed measured in a jet stream is 247 mph., and the record upper wind measured by an anemometer world-wide was 231mph at an altitude of 6,288 ft.

 

Record wind speed @ Wiki

 

Jet stream @ Wiki

 

 

I should also point out that even high-speed winds -if steady- won't necessarily cause a kite to wobble or dart or break up. Many kites, such as the box kite or Conynes can be flown with a single bridle line, the attachment point being determined by experiment. With this rig, in a lower speed wind the weight of the back of the kite holds the kite at a steeper angle of attack, while in higher winds the wind lifts the back up which lowers the angle of attack and spills off wind and the pull on the line and strain on the kite is reduced. (Controllable kites with 2 or more lines can be adjusted to the wind speed from the ground.)

 

[Turtle]

... snip

I should also point out that even high-speed winds -if steady- won't necessarily cause a kite to wobble or dart or break up. Many kites, such as the box kite or Conynes can be flown with a single bridle line, the attachment point being determined by experiment. With this rig, in a lower speed wind the weight of the back of the kite holds the kite at a steeper angle of attack, while in higher winds the wind lifts the back up which lowers the angle of attack and spills off wind and the pull on the line and strain on the kite is reduced. (Controllable kites with 2 or more lines can be adjusted to the wind speed from the ground.)

 

 

I have taken yet more liberties :P and prepared without asking an illustration of the above description of the single-line-bridle as I would rig it on my golden rhomboid box kite. [it's a golden rhomboid because I used the Golden Ratio to set the diagonal length & width. :angel: ]

 

Any suitable kite so bridled is in effect self-adjusting to wind speed changes and remains stationary in a steady wind of any speed within its range of limits. You're welcome. :bow_flowers:

[Aethelwulf]

Your ignorance is no excuse for continuing to accuse me of mistatements. Better you remain silent & have folks think you a fool than to keep writing and remove any doubt.

 

My statement was completely correct and you simply didn't like it because it made the kite explanation less likely.

 

My statement is completely scientific.

[CraigD]

It seems to me this thread is spinning its wheels, repeating the same claims and refutations of those claims

 

These kites are hardly off the ground and yet I see them skate from left to right. At higher altitudes, winds would be stronger, I doubt a kite could actually appear stationary.

 

Showing an example of "unstable" flight does not disprove stable flight. What's more, you are still confusing wind speed with turbulence.

Turtle’s right on this point. Moreover, several of the small recreational kites being flow at a beach in the youtube video Aethelwulf provided are showing stable flight, though none at what looks to me more than 30 m altitude.

 

The kite at the center of the video’s attention, a pretty kind I believe is know as an “iris spinner” (I’ve never flown, or been around someone flying, one like this), is, I gather from descriptions like the one on this page, not designed to lift itself, but to be flow from a mast, or more typically, from the string of a large “lifter” kite. When flown on short line from the ground, these “bouncer” kings of kites are expected to strike the ground occasionally, and … well, “bounce”.

 

People familiar with kites, or with at least a rudimentary understanding of their aerodynamics, understand that they are essentially simply airfoils that gain thrust not from some sort of propeller or jet engine, but from the string anchoring them to the ground. Any airplane can in principle be flow this way, but because the wind speed must exceed the airplane’s stall speed, which is rare for most wind speeds and large airplanes (with the exception, of course, of large kites, which are in principle airplanes). In the 1970s, I had a free-flight model glider with about a 1.5 m wingspan that I commonly launched by kiting it as high as about 100 m, then releasing it by slackening its string (it had a simple hook-and-ring attachment) – then literally “riding like the wind” to follow it to where it eventually landed after a long, circling flight.

 

My anecdote point to another problem I see with this thread. Part of it is a discussion of kites – a pretty uncontroversial subject among those familiar with them, if not among UFOologists and conspiracy theorists – another about the 30 Dec 2012 Gatwick airport airprox (air proximity) reports, even though it was not suggested by pilots, controllers, or in the UKAB report on the event that the object spotted were kites!. I’m not sure where the suggestion that they were came from – perhaps the Sun tabloid article Aetherwulf cited in post #1. Officials simply concluded that the impression of some of the pilots who saw these objects that they were “man-made and toy-like” was reasonable, that the objects could have been man-made and/or toys, and that their cause and the risk to aircraft posed by them couldn’t be determined (risk category D). Since there were no further such events, I believe the UKAB reviewers concluded that no additional effort into determining their cause should be spent.

 

Having read more about modern remote control aircraft (I’m sadly out-of-date in personal experience, my newest RC vehicle the coaxial helicopter I described in this 26 Apr 2007 post), I’ve revised my thoughts on their state-of-the-art since I wrote this 11 days ago:

My best guess, given all this information, is that the 2 objects were either radio controlled aircraft, customized or custom-built, not commercial off-the-shelf, or disc-shaped Mylar balloons, again possibly custom-built, tethered to the ground, or, less likely, kites. I think kites are the least likely of these possibilities, because reports estimate their height at about 1100 ft above ground, which while possible for a kite, is unusual, especially given that surface winds were reported to be about 8 knots, a bit weak to loft the amount of string needed for such a height.

Serious hobbyist-grade RC helicopters have been flown this high. This 6 May 2013 gizmodo article is one of many about flying a Hobbyking X666 framed quadcopter to a height of 750 m – see the May 7, 2013 3:43 pm comment, not the article, for an accurate description. However, the most common kind capable of this performance don’t look disk-like, and are barely visible at 50 m. (The gear used to fly these beyond the sight of their operators, in this case including VR goggles similar to these, is enough to give all but the least enthusiastic gadget envy and gift wishes! :))

 

So if the 2 Gatwick objects were RC helicopters, I don’t think they were merely customized COTS costing less than US$1,000, but rather were built-from-scratch for many times that cost.

 

My new best guess is tethered balloons, with some pretty heavy-duty line winching gear – though what I’ve read about serious hobbyist and pro-grade large kites (such as these, from the business website of the kite company of David Gomberg, famous for holding the world record for kite size – 42 x 25.3 m – with this one makes me revise my guess about the infeasibility of kites. People are doing amazing things with kites these days! :thumbs_up

 

Finally, I’d like to refute a couple of common myths and misconceptions from some early posts in this thread:

Also, all of Hitler's and Russia's (when they were still the Soviet Union) anti-graviton based aircraft are saucer shaped, so I don't see why people jump to the conclusion that because it's shaped the way it should be for super-therma-fluid tubing that all of a sudden it must be from aliens.

There simply never have been any antigravity-based aircraft, either in the 1930-40s by Germany, or later by the USSR. These myths appear to have originated in the 1970s, resurging around 2000 – documents purporting to be from the 1940s or earlier have all, to the best of my knowledge, been shown to be forgeries intended to promote the sale of “wonder weapons” books and other media. (for some history and references, see this wikipedia article)

 

German engineers did design some wonderfully odd-looking and promising aircraft in the 1940s – my favorite is the Focke-Wulf Triebflügel, which only reached the wind-tunnel testing stage before work on it was halted by the Allied defeat of Germany. Most engineers conclude now that the design wouldn’t have ultimately have been successful – that is, couldn’t have been made to actually fly – but it remains a testament to aeronautical engineering imagination and audacity! :thumbs_up

 

Let me give you a very brief example, in 1958 the avrocar, a saucer shaped vehicle was explored by the american government payed through Canadian taxes.

The Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar was certainly saucer-shaped, but despite several major redesigns by very good designers and engineers, never succeeded in flying higher than a few feet (within its own ground-effect air cushion) or faster than 30 knots. Being powered by a jet turbine, it had serious cooling problems – 1961 test showed “that the heat was so oppressive that all instruments were baked brown after only a few flights”.

 

It’s a disservice to knowledge to leave the story of the Avrocar at its failure and the cancelation of its program in 1961. While it couldn’t fly out of its own ground effect, data from it about ground effect may have been influential in the design of hovercraft. It was also an inspiration to a then-young Paul Moller, who would dedicate his career to attempting to make duct fan-lifted “flying cars”, including the distinctly saucer-shaped M200G Volantor. Like the Avrocar, none of Moller’s designs have been successful – they can’t actually fly. :(

[Turtle]

It seems to me this thread is spinning its wheels, repeating the same claims and refutations of those claims.

 

Can't wait to see how you winch out. :lol:

 

 

Showing an example of "unstable" flight does not disprove stable flight. What's more, you are still confusing wind speed with turbulence.

 

Turtle’s right on this point. ...

 

[where on a scale of 1 to 13, 1 being no-chance-in-hell and 13 being positively-without-doubt, rank your confidence in my claim that as I described, a pair of kites looking like white circles above could be flown to 1300 feet by means available for over a century. [improvement in materials employed notwithstanding.]

 

Ooops, I misread your scale under your conditions this sighting would be a 13.

 

 

I don't see anything wrong with Turtle's post, it's on topic and he :thumbs_do makes :umbrella: some really good :naughty: points. :rolleyes:

 

Gee fellas...I don't know what to say. Oh wait...yes I do. Told ya so.

 

Now consider this from the party in error here.

 

I'll leave you with a few words... on top of the previous poster... and friend.

 

UFO's have become a serious subject for me and for many. What makes the subject a little bit more serious on my behalf, is that I have seen them..

 

..snip

 

. And yet I am still worried people like turtle, could influence the world as to be blind as it apparently has concerning the subject for many many years. Any time the evidence is persued, it is either destroyed or hidden so no one can ever see it again.

 

What concerns me is twaddle and word salad foisted off as science and per se technical writing at this forum. Just not in my better nature to let it slide. :umno: :hammer:

 

 

In closing this post I note that I have never asserted the objects were kites, only that they could have been kites. Because of course Athe and Pope said -without evidence- that the objects couldn't be kites. No hiding the evidence in this thread that they are wrong & I am right.

 

In closing I just want to mention I am right and Athewoof and Nick Pope are wrong about the objects possibly being kites. It's important to mention that so we get the spinning wheels going which we do when Athewoof admits he and Nick are wrong and I [we?]am right.

 

Thank you and good night Mrs. Calabash whereever you are. :friday:

[Turtle]

...

 

My new best guess is tethered balloons, with some pretty heavy-duty line winching gear – though what I’ve read about serious hobbyist and pro-grade large kites (such as these, from the business website of the kite company of David Gomberg, famous for holding the world record for kite size – 42 x 25.3 m – with this one makes me revise my guess about the infeasibility of kites. People are doing amazing things with kites these days! :thumbs_up

...

 

Just want to pick a bone with Craig here as relates to my being right about kites possibility at Chatwick and Aethewoof and Nick Pope wrong. Heavy-duty winching gear is not necessary for tethered balloons or kites, and in fact I have never seen it used to bring in large kites. All that is necessary is a tie-off point [stakes, vehicle, tree, etcetera] with a loop/ring/carabiner attached through which the flying line is passed. The spare line can be on a reel or coiled in baskets or whatever. To lauch, a couple hundred feet of line is walked out with-the-wind, the kite then attached, and the kite is tossed into the air where the wind takes it up and it stops rising when the line goes taught to the tie-off. Additional line is let out as needed and controlled by putting the flying line in a bite on the ring. To get these bad boys down, walkers using heavy gloves and/or jackets grab the line at the tie-off and with the line held either under an arm -potentially dangerous- or firmly in hand they walk toward the kite as they slide their hands/armpits along the line. We call this oddly enough, "walking down a kite". :lol:

 

If you bother to look at my Google Earth® screen markups in earlier posts, you see there is plenty of room for this manuever at the location of the UFO sighting. Oh, and... :xmas_sheep: Ooops! I mean :coffee_n_pc:.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Turtle

[Turtle]

Mis-posted to another thread:

 

Despite contrary belief with many skeptics involving the phenomenon, I am actually very interested in the facts of a case rather than the hearsay or simple testimony. Testimony is one thing, but it is all the little factoids which follow a case which adds the real McCoy of testimony. Like the little facts of the UFO case I started over the scientology headquarters which it seems, many have simply ignored.

 

The little things like the height of the object, being detected on radar. How radar didn't detect the object descending and yet I know fine well radar can pick up on an object 500 feet into the air assuming their are no obstacles ie. depends on the terrain. Surprised that I mention the objects are stationary and yet we are being made to believe that they where kites (in a sophisticated method of manipulation) found in sporting events. I noted that these guys are able to manipulate the kites from a relatively short distance, I have yet to see this on a much larger scale (if) that is even possible. The fact the objects simply disappeared off radar when there are no other witnesses testifying to seeing kite activity in the area.

 

These are the little details in events that I am interested in.

 

PS. Oh! And not to mention that flying kites in a restricted airspace is a criminal offense.

 

 

The details of your continued whining and discounting out-of-hand the facts put in evidence here is offensive & your opinion is not worth the virtual ink it is scribbled in. I am right, you are wrong, and I will remind you of it every time you refer to or post to this thread.

 

 

Edit: PS If you really are intimate with Nick Pope you can tell him I think it's cowardly that he doesn't join our forum and speak for himself.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Turtle

[Turtle]

Same misplace post as above:

 

...

The little things like the height of the object, being detected on radar. How radar didn't detect the object descending and yet I know fine well radar can pick up on an object 500 feet into the air assuming their are no obstacles ie. depends on the terrain. ...

These are the little details in events that I am interested in.

 

Have you contacted Gatwick to inquire on their radar horizon? No; you have not. So much for a believable interest in your interest in details.

 

 

As luck has it I'm not a piker and I have sent an enquiry for you.

 

Customer Enquiry @ Gatwick Airport

Can you tell me what the radar horizon is for the Gatwick airport? That is, at

 

what elevation is an aircraft there under the radar?

Thank you.

Sincerely, ███ █ ██████

[Turtle]

No word yet from Gatwick Airport, but it was the middle of the night there when I sent my enquiry.

 

Meantime, I got to thinking that if Aethelwulf isn't really intimate with Nick Pope, then Nick Pope might consider it libel for Aethelwulf to say Nick said something he didn't say. Not to worry because again I'm not a piker so I wrote Nick Pope myself, apprised him of the situation, and invited him to join our forum to set the record straight. Got mail?

Edited July 2, 2013 by Turtle

[Turtle]

No word yet from Gatwick Airport, but it was the middle of the night there when I sent my enquiry.

 

Meantime, I got to thinking that if Aethelwulf isn't really intimate with Nick Pope, then Nick Pope might consider it libel for Aethelwulf to say Nick said something he didn't say. Not to worry because again I'm not a piker so I wrote Nick Pope myself, apprised him of the situation, and invited him to join our forum to set the record straight. Got mail?

 

 

Still nothing from Gatwick Airport, but I got a prompt reply from Nick. Seems he recognizes some of his statements quoted here, but he declined my offer to defend them in our forum. Using e-mail I will try and get some straight rebuttals from him about my kite assertions and seek his permission to quote him.

Lacking any such specifics from Nick, his out-of-hand dismissal of my kite explanation is rather worthless.

 

If I don't get a reply soon from Gatwick officials I will contact some local private pilots at Gatwick, who most certainly know the radar horizon. As I explained to Nick, this is not classified info.

 

Pip pip & cheerio then!