Major Ufo Sighting Causing Big News!

[Aethelwulf]

I asked Nick Pope why he thought the kite explanation was bunk (as reported in various articles, he replied):

 

''It's difficult to put into words, but after having done this for the government, one develops a sort of 'gut instinct' for these sorts of things, based on taking a holistic view of the case: the witnesses, the description, the parameters of the objects/phenomena being suggested as conventional explanations, any supporting evidence (e.g. radar), etc.''

[Turtle]

Anyway, I've had quite enough talking about this. I don't agree with you that kites are the explanation. Nor do I believe the HQ's hired professionals to use not only kites, but those attributed to Synchronized flying.

 

 

To be honest... it is a piss poor explanation of the event because you never managed to explain to me why radar systems couldn't even detect the objects altitude descend. They simply suddenly disappeared off radar. That doesn't sit well with me, among other things.

 

 

Alas & to be honest, I'm not done. :P Besides a target dipping below a radar's horizon, the UFO's may have been in front of or behind the aircraft and fallen into its radar return shadow.

 

 

Aethelwulf, I recommend you read UK Airprox board report, (number 2012175, on page 32 of 84 of this document, which blamski first cited in post #11) for the incident in question, as you’re not accurately quoting what the pilots and air traffic controllers reported in it. The Sun article you cited in post #1 is likewise inaccurate, though the Sun is an acknowledged tabloid, intended primarily for humorous amusement, so is understood not to have the same standards as a science discussion forum like hypography.

 

This thread has focused on the idea that the airprox objects (objects that approach an aircraft close enough to be reported as possibly dangerous) were thought to be kites, but kites are only mentioned in the report summary, which notes that regulations about camera platforms include balloons and kites. Because several of us (eg: me and Turtle) like to fly kites, and know from experience that the ordinary kind bought and used by hobbyists can fly high and steady, this has led to some exasperation over your insistence that they can’t.

 

Exasperation...good word. :wacko: Experience...maybe not so much. :doh: :lol:

 

The pilots described the 2 objects only as white or silver disks, slow moving or stationary. Investigators appear to have assumed they were radio controlled aircraft, and checked for model flying clubs in the area (finding none). Radar replays revealed only 2 returns, 46 seconds apart, with “primary position indicators” near the first of 3 aircraft (the B777) that reporting seeing the 2 disks as they passed an estimated 100-200 feet directly above and between them when they were at a distance of about 5-6 nautical miles (9 to 11 km) from the airport, at a height above ground of about 1300 ft.

 

What I read is that the 2 disks appeared in front of B777 and below them, not above them.

... P2 spotted, and then drew his attention to, 2 flat silver discs ahead, 1 either side of the C/L and below their flightpath; these objects appeared to be very slow moving or stationary. All 3 pilots on the flightdeck saw the objects, which passed 100-200ft below; ...

 

The C/L I take to mean the Centerline of the flightpath.

 

This does not suggest, however, that the objects disappeared then, as about 4 and 6 minutes later, the pilots of 2 more aircraft, a B767 and an A310, also reported (after landing, apparently on ground control radio, which is not recorded) them visually in about the same position.

 

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.

 

Can you do some calculations from the NASA page I gave Craig, and get some ball-park figures for the string length of a kite at 1300 feet? Unlike my large box kite, other designs fly easily in light winds such as Delta Coyne's. I don't think string weight is a problem; recall the record kite sited here that was flown on piano wire. Kevlar vs steel and you get the picture.

 

Whether tethered balloons or kites, or some tethered hybrid kite/balloon/dirigible/blimp/radio-controll thingys, a tether is as a tether does and we can narrow our ground search for evidence. While we're there maybe the other show will drop and we'll find some crop circles.

[Aethelwulf]

Turtle, could you be a bit less condescending?

 

I attack the evidence, not the person. And your evidence holds no water. Kite's do not explain the situation, they are the most less likely of any conventional explanation. I know this, I knew this instinctively when I read the report... other people who have held serious positions in the MoD also agree that kites are not the reasonable explanation, if there is any.

 

So stop attacking the UFO culture and evaluate the evidence instead. If not, I am going to point blank ignore you.

[Aethelwulf]

If I was to chose a conventional explanation I would say it was remote controlled craft, however, with all that it is still an extremely elaborate hoax if it is a hoax, one which only three people bore witness. You would think if someone was attempting to do such a thing, they would first chose a location where more than three people could witness it for sure.

[Aethelwulf]

So many things about this doesn't make sense.

[Turtle]

Turtle, could you be a bit less condescending?

 

On a con descending scale of 10 to 1, where was I & where do you want me?

 

I attack the evidence, not the person.

But didn't you just charge me personally with condescension? That's rhetorical; of course you did. Kot calling the pettle black me thinks.

 

 

And your evidence holds no water. Kite's do not explain the situation, they are the most less likely of any conventional explanation.

 

Another contradiction of terms in your exposition. First "not", followed in the same sentence by "less most [sic] likely". Do you not see this contradiction now that I have pointed it out? Not to mention that in the very same sentence you accord me with having presented evidence, wheras you have said numerous times I have given none. Contradiction, contradiction, after contradiction.

 

I can tell you didn't even look at my second Google Earth map plots attachment, because no one has looked at it. [Mouse over any attachments and a window pops up showing downloads/view] So again you say you are considering evidence, I give some, & you don't even look at it. There you go again!! :lol:

 

I know this, I knew this instinctively when I read the report... other people who have held serious positions in the MoD also agree that kites are not the reasonable explanation, if there is any.

 

So stop attacking the UFO culture and evaluate the evidence instead. If not, I am going to point blank ignore you.

 

Yes well, other people in the UFO community can jolly well join Hypography and we'll just have a serious go with them. Point blank ignore? Why not ignore me from a distance?

 

 

 

I'd also like to know why the objects where reported toylike. Outside of the use of the word, we don't actually know what motivated at least one of these pilots to make this strange claim.

 

 

Maybe because the pilot has seen toys and seen real aircraft before? Good grief that is strange!!!!

 

 

I asked Nick Pope why he thought the kite explanation was bunk (as reported in various articles, he replied):

 

''It's difficult to put into words, but after having done this for the government, one develops a sort of 'gut instinct' for these sorts of things, based on taking a holistic view of the case: the witnesses, the description, the parameters of the objects/phenomena being suggested as conventional explanations, any supporting evidence (e.g. radar), etc.''

 

Yes well I've listened to Nicky on the radio a few times & he can jolly well join and not put into words his expert opinion on kites & kiting here at Hypography. Amateur.

 

 

If I was to chose a conventional explanation I would say it was remote controlled craft, however, with all that it is still an extremely elaborate hoax if it is a hoax, one which only three people bore witness. You would think if someone was attempting to do such a thing, they would first chose a location where more than three people could witness it for sure.

 

 

Well you see, even the most "primitive" kite is a remote control craft. Your ignorance of the types & capabilities of kites has no bearing on the facts of matters.

 

Consider that the idea is to have pilots be the witnesses. You well know pilots get top billing from the UFO community. I'd say the hoaxers pulled it off as planned. :omg:

Edited June 19, 2013 by Turtle

[Turtle]

snip ...

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. ...

 

So revisiting this I found a wind reference in the report, which I suspect is where you got 8 knots.

The surface wind (230/08KT) was passed to the B777 flight and it was cleared to land at 0856:16.

 

First, I take it the 230 is a compass heading of 230º and it's the direction the wind is blowing from. Having listened to ATC to aircraft radio traffic a fair amount, I came to understand the tower knows nothing about upper wind speed or direction except what pilots report. There is no real-time upper wind speed instrumentation.

 

Second, and perhaps most importantly is putting right misderstandings about winds at different altitudes. Succinctly, wind speed, direction, and condition is often layered with altitude.

 

By condition, I mean the description of wind as either gusty or steady where a gusty wind is one with rapid and/or frequent changes in speed, and a steady wind is one with little to no change in speed.

 

It is not uncommon when flying kites to hundreds of feet to discover these layers. You launch with a 8 knot gusty East wind, and at 200 feet your kite catches a 15 knot steady SE wind that is still good at 350 feet.

 

I like big kites and I can not lie,

I fly big kites and I fly 'em high.

 

:note: :note:

/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Aethelwulf]

You have a wonderful luxury of ignorance, I do not have this turtle. You question the existence of UFO's... you don't believe that what the pilots saw could have been something of a more sinister origin. I get that. But you need to understand, I have seen them and every time you make joke comments about aliens I find it distasteful and ignorant. I find it condescending.

 

I don't have the luxury of being ignorant about UFO's because I have had first hand experience - a few people have called me lucky for it in my life time, but in many ways it is a burden because it had plagued me no ends for many years. I want the truth as much as any person, but I am not going to jump on a conventional explanation for cases involving UFO's because there appears to be a census which says only conventional explanations can answer this because an alien explanation is vanishingly small. Well I don't think it is, because again, I have had first hand experience; I've seen these objects in the sky, glowing like no light I have seen in the sky, moving in geometrical shapes and then flying off at high speeds. I can't forget that. And I won't forget it.

[Turtle]

You have a wonderful luxury of ignorance, I do not have this turtle. You question the existence of UFO's... you don't believe that what the pilots saw could have been something of a more sinister origin. I get that. But you need to understand, I have seen them and every time you make joke comments about aliens I find it distasteful and ignorant. I find it condescending.

 

I don't have the luxury of being ignorant about UFO's because I have had first hand experience - a few people have called me lucky for it in my life time, but in many ways it is a burden because it had plagued me no ends for many years. I want the truth as much as any person, but I am not going to jump on a conventional explanation for cases involving UFO's because there appears to be a census which says only conventional explanations can answer this because an alien explanation is vanishingly small. Well I don't think it is, because again, I have had first hand experience; I've seen these objects in the sky, glowing like no light I have seen in the sky, moving in geometrical shapes and then flying off at high speeds. I can't forget that. And I won't forget it.

 

 

Yeah yeah. Cry me a river. :cry: I'm questioning the specifics of this case in this thread. Since the objects are unidentified they are by definition UFO's. Sure they could be aliens bent on probing your exit port, but not only is there no evidence of it, conventional explanations suffice.

[Aethelwulf]

Yeah yeah. Cry me a river. :cry: I'm questioning the specifics of this case in this thread. Since the objects are unidentified they are by definition UFO's. Sure they could be aliens bent on probing your exit port, but not only is there no evidence of it, conventional explanations suffice.

 

 

The only conventional explanation in this case that would make sense, is a remote controlled flying saucer. But this actually raises more questions than solving. Nor is there any direct evidence to date this has happened. I think the least probable conventional explanation is kites. I think most of us have a gut instinct that the explanation is ridiculous for many reasons. It doesn't sit well.

[Aethelwulf]

And yes, this case could be explained using a conventional explanation, but you really need to cut down on the jokes. This thread isn't giving you an excuse to make a mockery of the UFO phenomenon and towards those who have actually seen these things first hand.

[Aethelwulf]

I am still open to the idea that these UFO's seen however, could have a more sinister explanation. Everything about it fits the bill of what I have learned and read about them.

[Turtle]

The only conventional explanation in this case that would make sense, is a remote controlled flying saucer. But this actually raises more questions than solving. Nor is there any direct evidence to date this has happened. I think the least probable conventional explanation is kites. I think most of us have a gut instinct that the explanation is ridiculous for many reasons. It doesn't sit well.

 

And yes, this case could be explained using a conventional explanation, but you really need to cut down on the jokes. This thread isn't giving you an excuse to make a mockery of the UFO phenomenon and towards those who have actually seen these things first hand.

 

 

I could fly 2 saucer looking kites to 1500' and control them with a few hundred bucks and a wind. Whether you think so or not is immaterial.

 

I don't need excuse or permission to make mockery any more than Mock Twain did.

 

 

Edited June 19, 2013 by Turtle

[Turtle]

I could fly 2 saucer looking kites to 1500' and control them with a few hundred bucks and a wind. Whether you think so or not is immaterial.

 

 

I earlier mentioned the Delta Conyne kite to Craig in response to his comment that an 8mph wind is too light to lift a string very high. Following that line [:lol: ] I will both describe the rig I'd build to meet my above claim, and in so doing show that, Yes Virginia, kites could be responsible for the December 30 UFO sighting at Chadwick West of East Grinstead.

 

 

So, I'll be wanting 2 Delta Conynes. Here's a link to some of commercial manufacture and a flier's comment on one to plump up everybody's little grey cells.

 

Delta Conyne's for sale @ KAPER Kite Aerial Photography Resources

 

 

- (March 17, 2002)

[Walter supplied the pull data for the 13.5 DC and had these comments]

I flew this kite [13.5 DC] the next day and was able to lift a 22oz rig with only 4-5mph winds! [2 Bft] Unfortunately the fish scale did not survive the 19mph gust from the day before.

 

So that's a 13 footer lifting about 1.5 lbs in a 4 to 5 mph wind. I know whereof I speak, having flown my camera a number of times on a borrowed 15 foot Delta Coyne when there wasn't enough wind for my box. But I digress... At the link is a range of sizes, their pull, recommended line strength, and other testimonials.

 

I'll get back with how I make a triangle kite look like a white circle from above, as well as just about anything or apparently nothing from below. Come to think of it, I think it would be easy to change its radar signature in flight. Well, off to do what I do when I don't do it here.

 

Knock knock.

Who's there?

UFO

UFO?

U FOgot to say who.:lol:

Edited June 19, 2013 by Turtle

[Turtle]

Alrighty thens. First, I can't seem to constrain my circle tool to no fill so my camo drawing is nicht. :doh: No matter, it is easily described. Laying a circle inscribed to the Delta Coyne's outline, all sail fabric outside the circle is transparent. Inside the circle on top, white, and inside the circle below, sky blue. This is no more sophisticated than camo found on warplanes.

 

Now if you bothered to read my previous link you saw that the Delta Coyne flies at around a 50º angle, which is steeper than many kites. Reading further you saw the comment "has a tendency to overfly", and wondered what that means. What it means is from such a steep angle changes in wind -or purposeful tugging/releasing of the single line- can make the kite go horizontal and make forward progress relative to the flyer up to & including coming directly overhead. Since the line slackens, the only way to purposefully get the kite back to a proper angle of attack is to reel like mad until tension on the line is sufficient to to pull the bridle into proper position.

 

So... when you look at this kite along its axis when it's horizontal, you [more or less see this. _____^_____ Not much of a radar target is it?

 

Anyway, here's a blast from the past of possible sinister nature. The US Navy using a Conyne kite for gunnery practice. Egat Brain!! Why the Delta Coyne? Why because it's such a STABLE flyer capable of attaining aircraft height Pinky.

 

 

 

source (3 other pictures of same subject, different circumstance here)

 

 

Nothin' funny about that!! :xmas_sheep:

 

Edited June 19, 2013 by Turtle

[blamski]

so the airprox mentions 'toy-like' and we've had a fascinating discussion about kites and breif mentions of RC planes.

 

you know what's all the rage nowadays? QUADROCOPTERS!!

 

 

 

 

 

they're really cool and can fly high, hover, dart about and descned like a stone. i have a friend who runs a fablab and builds his own quads. the biggest was about a meter across and covered in lights and shiney metallic bits with the footprint in the shape of a rounded off square.

[Turtle]

so the airprox mentions 'toy-like' and we've had a fascinating discussion about kites and breif mentions of RC planes.

 

you know what's all the rage nowadays? QUADROCOPTERS!!

 

snip ...

 

they're really cool and can fly high, hover, dart about and descned like a stone. i have a friend who runs a fablab and builds his own quads. the biggest was about a meter across and covered in lights and shiney metallic bits with the footprint in the shape of a rounded off square.

 

Hi Blam!! Nice to hear from you, thanks again for your incident report post & happy to hear you enjoyed the fruits of my labors.

 

Just last week a roomy showed me a vid of some 15 of those quadracopters in miniature and flying in formations under nothing but computer control. I don't mean just lining up, but zooming around a room like square dancers, forming ranks and going through a window, rising, dropping, squaring, dosey doing, flipping over, and in all aspects WOW'ing a viewer. Send in the clow...erhm...drones!! :Clown:

 

Anyway, this particular UFO sighting is easily explained by technology available in the 19^th century thanks to the likes of that mystery man scientific kitemaker Silas Conyne. You see, it was his kites that Lawrence used to take aerial shots of San Fran after the big quake in 1906.

 

From his 1908 patent application [granted in 1911]

1908

My invention has for its object to produce a kite which combines lightness with great lifting power. A further object of my invention is to provide means for effectively balancing a kite without materially increasing the weight of the kite above the weight of the part which exert the lifting power. ...

source: >> Conyne kite patent

 

 

I consider this issue settled regards the OP and can happily leave it at that barring some further bluster & sputter which most assuredly will prick my mockerators back to battle stations.