Hmmm...if I discount the purported SF eyewitness accounts and questioning the reported speed, I'd have to say something like this...
Posted on 07/14/2015 8:22:19 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Plus the F-117 could not travel “thousands of miles an hour”.
;^)
I doubt people would drive there just to see Hatch chilis.
Did you know that Jesse Marcel Jr was a Freeper before he passed away? He spoke of what happened when his dad stopped at the house to show him some of the material picked up at the crash site.
“First Official Flight”. . .
Just saying. . .didn’t the U-2 and SR-71 fly for years before officially announced?
Sure, if you say so.
My years working on the program have no bearing on whether my posts are factually correct, or mere speculation.
Have a nice day.
Not saying you weren't part of the program, just saying anyone can claim anything. . .
I have my theory as to the mishap. Yours?
Cheers.
Interesting theory, but the incident occurred over 2 consecutive nights. A mishap happens only once.
Second, the eyewitnesses in this case (base security personnel) are extremely reliable. And there is Colonel Halts tape recording he made while the incident was in progress.
This definitely wasn’t an F-117 mishap.
What do you think this was at Rendlesham. I have a theory...and it ain’t extraterrestrials.
Best evidence IMO. (See below link.)
http://brumac.8k.com/trent1.html
McMinneville sighting fotos from the early 50’s. (Note, descriptions from Dr. Bruce Maccabbe can be very technical!!)
(This paper was originally published in the proceedings of the 1976 ufo conference of the center for ufo studies. This version has been modified slightly in april 2000 for this Publication. This is the first of two technical and historical papers on The trent photo case that were presented to and published by The center for ufo studies (cufos), which is located in Chicago, Illinois. On the possibility that the McMinnville photos show a distant unidentified object (UO).
During the Air Force funded investigation of UFO reports at the University of Colorado in 1967-1968 (the “Condon Report”), photoanalyst William Hartmann studied in detail photographic and verbal evidence presented by two former residents of McMinnville, Oregon, Paul and Evelyn Trent. He concluded, mainly on the basis of a simplified photometric analysis, that “all factors investigated, geometrical, psychological and physical, appear to be consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic, disk shaped, tens of meters in diameter and evidently artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses.” An important part of his analysis included calculations of the expected brightness of the image of the bottom of the Unidentified Object (UO) that appears in the first photo. He pointed out that the elliptical image of the bottom was brighter than expected if the object were close and therefore a small model. The excessive image brightness led him to conclude that the object was at a great distance (over a kilometer), His conclusion was criticized by Philip J. Klass and Rober Sheaffer who argued that veiling glare (caused by surface dirt and imperfections in the lens which scatter light from bright areas of the image into all other areas of the image) could have increased the brightness of the image of the UO, making it appear distant.
This investigation revisited and improved upon Hartmann’s method with the following modifications:
•the bottom of the UO in the first photo has been assumed to be as intrinsically bright as possible without being a source of light (i.e., assumed to be white)
•laboratory measurements have been used to estimate the magnitudes of veiling glare added to the various images of interest
•a film exposure curve has been used to determine relative image illuminances, and
•a surface brightness ratio, determined by field measurements, has been included.
The results of the new photometric analysis suggest that the bottom of the UO is too bright for it to have been a non-self-luminous white (paper) surface of a nearby object. Hence it could have been distant.
Introduction
In June 1950, four weeks after they were taken, the photos illustrated below appeared in the local newspaper in McMinnville, Oregon. (See photos = http://brumac.8k.com/trent1.html ) < snip >
Thx Dave!
Just imagine what this thread would look like if Quix was still around!
Hmmm...if I discount the purported SF eyewitness accounts and questioning the reported speed, I'd have to say something like this...
Oh, a weather balloon.;-)
Really though, I don’t know what to make of most of this stuff...don’t really study it that much to be honest.
I started watching Close Encounters of the 3rd kind this weekend, then got busy with other stuff...
Are we alone? I don’t know, but “I want to believe.”
I shared my theory, your turn...
My son and his GF stopped in Roswell for a few hours last month and have the same conclusion.
What exactly, I am unsure.
At first, I thought these experiences might be due to hallucinations or even related to abnormal brain chemistry (google DMT). I have since sort of backed off that theory just because of the physical side of abductions.
But whatever these things are, I don't think they are extraterrestrials.
I think they might want abductees to think they are extraterrestrials, but I think they are something else.
Too many lies, too much abuse (too similar to ritual abuse) of abductees, too many connections to the occult.
There’s an online book that addresses these issue intelligently. I will find a link and post it to you.
Here's what Amazon reviewers have to say about it...AMAZON REVIEWS.
Thanks for the link, I’ll take a look. Sounds intriguing to say the least.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.