A massive UFO was spotted last week over the southern US state of Texas over a small town called Stephenville. The press, while reserved, is quietly buzzing with excitement.
Read the NPR report
Read the MSNBC report
The sighting is unusual for two reasons: firstly, the number of witnesses (over 40 and rising) which include a pilot and a police officer, and secondly, the enormous size of the object witnessed. This wasn't a tiny light hovering in the sky -- it was a massive object, estimated by some to be a half mile long (roughly a kilometer). Some serious researches of UFO phenomenon believe that this incident is yet another sighting of a stealth blimp, a military craft purportedly used by the US to transport heavy cargo across great ranges at high altitude. While the military denies the existence of the stealth blimp, a form similar to the 1982 blueprint for such a craft proposed by the Lockheed Martin defense group remains one of the most common low-altitude UFO sightings in North America; the "big black delta" shape.
A report on the NIDS investigation into the plausibility of the stealth blimp, along with the 1982 Lockheed Martin concept image, can be found here.
EDIT: The actual NIDS report (which makes a complete and interesting argument for the stealth blimp hypothesis) can be found HERE.
EDIT of edit: The NIDS report has been scrubbed from the internet, it would seem. A challenge to anyone with good digging skills: can you find it? Original title was "Hypothesis: The Illinois Flying Triangle is A Department of Defense, Not An ET Craft," labeled "illinois_trianglehypothesis.pdf" in its first incarnation. Good luck.
Last edited by quex on Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:36 am; edited 2 times in total Whether or not it is the stealth blimp, I think that the existence of UFOs can never be proven by video due to the publics knowledge of special effects and the probability of it being a man made aircraft. You could show a video of an actual extraterrestrial UFO and people would debunk either claiming it to be something else or tweaked by a professional. Off topic but the same could go for ghosts and I only say that after watching Ghost Hunters on sci-fi. The world wont believe until you have one by the neck for every major news channel to investigate.
UFO means Unidentified Flying Object. You seem to be thinking about something else entirely. You want to prove existence of UFOs, show an airplane to a jungle tribe. That's a UFO. It flies, and it's unidentified to the population witnessing it.
UFO does not equal extraterrestrials. PLEASE remember this.
| quex wrote: |
UFO means Unidentified Flying Object. You seem to be thinking about something else entirely. You want to prove existence of UFOs, show an airplane to a jungle tribe. That's a UFO. It flies, and it's unidentified to the population witnessing it.
UFO does not equal extraterrestrials. PLEASE remember this. |
I did include extraterrestrial before UFO in my post just not to every mention of it. For the sake of what is known when most refer to UFO they do mean extraterrestrial UFO. But you do have a valid point.I certainly don't think "most" consider UFO's to only be extraterrestrial crafts. Of course it is very likely to be a secret military craft. There are hundreds of military crafts that are tested all the time, and very very few of them are released to the public.
If 40 people saw it... why are there no cellphone pictures and video?! Every other or third person today seems to have a cellphone capable of taking pictures...
| Agent ME wrote: |
| If 40 people saw it... why are there no cellphone pictures and video?! Every other or third person today seems to have a cellphone capable of taking pictures... |
I'm pretty sure there was video, check comcast videos. | Agent ME wrote: |
| If 40 people saw it... why are there no cellphone pictures and video?! Every other or third person today seems to have a cellphone capable of taking pictures... |
This bugs me, too, but have you ever tried to take video at night? Especially at a distance, into the sky? And with a cellphone? Even military-grade night vision cameras have a hell of time getting any sort of discernible picture, be they infra-red or heat detection. You might at least be able to get a camera shot, but you'd need some city lights below to counter-illuminate the craft itself against the lights it's putting down. The only way to get a nighttime shot is with a tripod, a slow shutter speed, and fingers crossed that the UFO doesn't move at all for the length of the exposure time.
Speaking of which, why do these kinds of massive-ship sightings always occur at night? Please think about this very carefully... It makes a good argument for terrestrial technology:
Would extraterrestrial beings, coming down to the surface of our planet from the openness of space, have reason to pick the dark side of the planet to begin their investigation? With all the possible permutations of physiology that they may have (compared to humans, with two eyes and not-that-powerful night vision), would it be immediately obvious to them that they would be less visible to us by night? Would they even TRY to hide? When you consider that the big black delta ships (massive ships, 1/2 mile long, like the Texas sighting) always seem to be spotted at nighttime, one wonders if they aren't homegrown technology, piloted by someone more aware of the flaws of human vision. Like military tech that isn't supposed to exist, hidden under cover of darkness by the government that uses it.
I just keep hoping that one of these days, somebody's gonna pilot a black project like the stealth blimp directly over a car sale or movie premier where there are kleig lights pointing up; then we'll see some good pictures. | Bryan_Bezzle wrote: |
| quex wrote: | UFO means Unidentified Flying Object. You seem to be thinking about something else entirely. You want to prove existence of UFOs, show an airplane to a jungle tribe. That's a UFO. It flies, and it's unidentified to the population witnessing it.
UFO does not equal extraterrestrials. PLEASE remember this. |
I did include extraterrestrial before UFO in my post just not to every mention of it. For the sake of what is known when most refer to UFO they do mean extraterrestrial UFO. But you do have a valid point. |
I hear what you're saying. Unfortunately, that:
| Quote: |
| when most refer to UFO they do mean extraterrestrial UFO. |
...is a misconception. The most vocal group of UFO "fans" do indeed mean extraterrestrial UFO automatically whenever they invoke the acronym, but the vast majority of UFO researchers who are serious about the subject, as well as English-speaking pilots the world over, are careful to use "UFO" strictly to refer to an "Unidentified Flying Object" with no connotations of extraterrestrial life attached.
For example, let's say a private pilot in the US spots an orange balloon flying about at his altitude, but cannot discern (due to distance or inclement weather) if it is a research balloon, hot air balloon, or perhaps a novelty balloon on a string. He is required by the FAA to report it as a hazard to other pilots in the area as "UFO, orange" and give the approximate altitude and location. Because he is not confidently able to identify the balloon (and thereby provide a measure of its type and size to other pilots), he must say "unidentified" to make it apparent to other pilots who may encounter the same obstacle that they should take extra caution. (He may thereafter say "I'm guessing it's a weather balloon" or whatsoever he feels might be useful to other pilots.)
I'm sorry to make such a point out of this, but I feel it's important for the definition of "UFO" to be kept clean-cut for the sake of those who use it daily and seriously. Thanks for understanding. ^_^Monday 9th June at 2020 local Time in China (1220GMT). Flying my Airbus A-330 at 41000 ft going North from Hong Kong to Beijing. Saw what appeared to be a comet in the West and then realised it was moving and heading towards us. The gaseous/comet effect eventually disppeared and what we saw moving West to East directly above us at a steady speed appeared to be a big black triangle. We could clearly see one of the leading edges. It had a white light at the nose and another at the tail or centre of the trailing edge. It looked big, but it was difficult to guage size at night with no reference visually.
Eventually after asking 3 times for an explanation the ATC guy said it was "a rocket."I don't think so. It was a coincidence however that a few hundred miles to the West 15 minutes earlier, the Chinese had just launched a LongMarch 3B rocket with Satellite. Something odd was going on here.
BillDixon, please keep talking. This is interesting.
Also, about that satellite... they launch them pretty often over China, don't they? Was it military or private? Is the LongMarch B3 a military design? I've got little to no knowledge of Chinese air tech. ;_;
Monday 9th June at 2020 local Time in China (1220GMT). Flying my Airbus A-330 at 41000 ft going North from Hong Kong to Beijing. Saw what appeared to be a comet in the West and then realised it was moving and heading towards us. The gaseous/comet effect eventually disppeared and what we saw moving West to East directly above us at a steady speed appeared to be a big black triangle. We could clearly see one of the leading edges. It had a white light at the nose and another at the tail or centre of the trailing edge. It looked big, but it was difficult to guage size at night with no reference visually.
Eventually after asking 3 times for an explanation the ATC guy said it was "a rocket."I don't think so. It was a coincidence however that a few hundred miles to the West 15 minutes earlier, the Chinese had just launched a LongMarch 3B rocket with Satellite. Something odd was going on here.
| quex wrote: |
| the stealth blimp |
Anything that size and of a shape that could hold gas without weighing too much to fly would be extremely easy to detect with any radar. It would even show up on weather radars, so see if you can look up the weather radar picture for that area for that time.
What would the government need such a large, expensive craft for carrying anyway?
What do they need to transport that is more than 185 tons (Capacity of a C-5) and cannot be split up into multiple loads? | quex wrote: |
UFO means Unidentified Flying Object. You seem to be thinking about something else entirely. You want to prove existence of UFOs, show an airplane to a jungle tribe. That's a UFO. It flies, and it's unidentified to the population witnessing it.
UFO does not equal extraterrestrials. PLEASE remember this. |
Well that's obviously a given. But it's pretty clear he's talking about an extraterrestrial UFO in the OP. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Well that's obviously a given. |
Maybe for you, but not for the majority. The term "UFO" is consistently misused, especially in the North American lexicon. It's gotten to the point that conspiracy theorists who pick up military UFO call-ins are quoting them on television and radio shows as proof that the military/government are aware of extraterrestrial life visiting our planet. A UFO call-in is simply a check with ground radar to help identify anything in the visible airspace around the craft that the pilot is not immediately able to identify. This is infinitely irritating for those who legitimately research aerial phenomena, as it advances the angle of "little green men" beyond the scientific search for the cause of the sightings.
| Quote: |
| But it's pretty clear he's talking about an extraterrestrial UFO in the OP. |
...which is exactly why he should use specific terminology to refer to it as such. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Anything that size and of a shape that could hold gas without weighing too much to fly would be extremely easy to detect with any radar. It would even show up on weather radars, so see if you can look up the weather radar picture for that area for that time. |
There are a hell of a lot of ways to botch the radar image.
And an aside, do you know of any online source that catalogs weather radar images? I would love to have a link to that, in all seriousness.
| Quote: |
What would the government need such a large, expensive craft for carrying anyway?
What do they need to transport that is more than 185 tons (Capacity of a C-5) and cannot be split up into multiple loads? |
Now that is a good question.
Nearly all of which would be negated by the thing's huge size. A normal stealth bomber will still show up on radar, just it will give such a small return that it would be dismissed as a large bird. Something that big would still give a return bigger than most if not all aircraft, though.
Any active jamming would disguise the exact nature and location of it, but would make its presence especially obvious.
The best way to keep it off of radar pictures would be a conspiracy, though. Military radars could be ordered to turn off (or fooled by a transponder claiming to be a 747 or whatever), air traffic control radars could be avoided, and weather radars could have their data remotely edited from the headquarters of that system. | ocalhoun wrote: |
Nearly all of which would be negated by the thing's huge size. A normal stealth bomber will still show up on radar, just it will give such a small return that it would be dismissed as a large bird. Something that big would still give a return bigger than most if not all aircraft, though. |
"Nearly all of which would be unnecessary because of the thing's huge size." You know what they call an object a mile+ long that shows up on radar? They call it a cloud. (Or they call the radar technician.)
To be fair, I understand there would be an obvious difference between the echo that would appear from a cloud versus a solid object, but remember that radar tends to provide a lot of anomalous readings on a regular basis. If you were an experienced reader sitting at the screen when an enormous blip ate your view, would you think "holy crap, giant craft" or "goddamnit, this thing's busted again"?
| Quote: |
| The best way to keep it off of radar pictures would be a conspiracy, though. Military radars could be ordered to turn off (or fooled by a transponder claiming to be a 747 or whatever), air traffic control radars could be avoided, and weather radars could have their data remotely edited from the headquarters of that system. |
S'truth. But I would rather count on an internal policy of ridiculing anyone who raised questions about the giant blips than trust the large cadre of individuals it would take to implement a massive conspiracy of radar avoidance, remote rewriting, etc.
In other news, I like you. ^_^ | quex wrote: |
To be fair, I understand there would be an obvious difference between the echo that would appear from a cloud versus a solid object, but remember that radar tends to provide a lot of anomalous readings on a regular basis. If you were an experienced reader sitting at the screen when an enormous blip ate your view, would you think "holy crap, giant craft" or "goddamnit, this thing's busted again"?
|
I would push the circular polarization mode button! In circular polarization mode the polarization of the radar beam is constantly changed. Rain drops (or water particles in a cloud) will give the same return no matter what the polarization because they are spherical. Planes and stealth blimps give different returns with different polarization because they are not spherical. The radar's software then filters out all the returns that stay constant with circular polarization enabled. What's left is all airborne objects that are not spherical.
This is used with any radar meant for detecting planes whenever there is rain or cloud cover around, so it would naturally be turned on as soon as the operator saw a 'cloud' on his scope. (Then the technician would probably be called because 'the circular polarization mode is broke!")
