UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > May > May 4

Re: UK Channel Island UFOs May Have Been Military?

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 15:00:45 -0300
Fwd Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 08:28:55 -0400
Subject: Re: UK Channel Island UFOs May Have Been Military?

>From: Brian Ally <ufoupdates.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 16:29:54 -0400
>Subject: Re: UK Channel Island UFOs May Have Been Military?

>>From: Geoff Richardson <geoff.nul>
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 17:24:44 +0100
>>Subject: Re: UK Channel Island UFOs May Have Been Military?


>>Don is right; secret military technology as a knee-jerk
>>skeptical explanation is horse manure. But the pilot's size
>>estimates obviously are guesses based on assuming various
>>distances and even then assuming a real size. There is no UFO-
>>like performance indicated, so a local explanation is a
>>reasonable suspect.

>>There have been similar sightings by pilots before:

>Geoff, no offense, but I doubt anyone on this List needs to be
>reminded of the hundreds of sightings that have been made by
>experienced military & civil aviation personnel.

>I realise, though, that my comment wasn't very clear. What I
>meant was that _in general_ it is reasonable to suggest that an
>unknown, unidentifiable object in the sky _might_ be an
>experimental craft. After all, there was time when every plane
>in existence was at an experimental stage. As much as I want to
>find hard evidence of extra-terestrial visitors I'm unwilling to
>entertain more mundane origins for any sightings.

>That being said, I doubt that whatever was seen over the Channel
>islands was military, given that it was reported to be glowing
>yellow and green (yes, Don, I know that it's possible, but the
>point i'm trying to make is that it seems rather an unlikely
>profile for a secret, experimental craft).

>In any case, I don't think it's right to label this guy's
>suggestion as "horse manure". He was simply stating his opinion,
>after all:

>"I am not trying to discredit anything that Ray said because I
>saw him 45 minutes after the incident and he was clearly shaken.
>He obviously saw something."

>That's hardly the statement of a disinformation specialist. So
>what? He thinks there might be a mundane explanation. Big deal.
>I think we can both agree to disagree with him and leave it at

Apparently a response I wrote about that article made it into
the Guernsey Press on the opinions page and was referred to by
the Editor in his Blog, though for the life of me I can't find
it to see how much of it was edited out. But three people in
that area have emailed me to say they read it. Two of them
thought I lived there.

This fellow made it a point to be heard and offered up his
opinion. He probably called it in to reporter Joel de Woolfson
which I find interesting. As ridiculous as his statements seem
they are pilot against pilot and without this pilot having been
there himself, offers up an amateurish interpretation of which
even he himself should have reservations. Kneejerk as it was
that will satisfy most of the public who know diddly squat about
aviation. In fact his comments play upon their profound
ignorance of it.

Brian, you can leave it at that but I can't because this is part
and parcel of the same tripe we get all of the time when a good
solid case comes in and the explanation, no matter how
rididculous, is offered up supposedly as sober second thought.
He should have asked himself at least these three questions:

1] Who's secret military aircraft was it that was somewhere
between a half mile and one mile long and hundreds of feet
thick. If French made then does that mean we can now bow to
France as the aviation leader instead of the United States.
France actually runs second [or did in 2006] in sale of aviation
technology and aircraft to the US's number one position by a
slim margin. Was it from the UK?. Same question applies.

2] If it wasn't French or British [German or Swedish even] and
was American in construction why would they risk detection
getting it all of the way from the deserts of Nevada to some
small islands off the coast of France just to test it over water
there and in a busy airway. What's wrong with the Pacific Ocean
only a few hundred miles to the west of the Nevada test sites?
3] Staying with the American built scenario, why are they
spending the money to invent this thing when they have already
spent nearly a billion dollars reinventing the blimp as recently
as last fall.

You know, some common sense has to apply. This pilot should have
known better. He has to know about lift and drag coefficients,
weight to structure ratios [the same as any pilot does] and
probably even a little about gas volumes verses envelope weights
and how that comes into play in balloons. At a certain point the
envelope that has to be strong enough [thick enough] to contain
the helium at pressure becomes so heavy that it becomes a
detriment and won't lift off the ground, never mind the payload
it is built to carry.

If aeronautical engineers can build a 1,000 foot long LTA craft
then they can build one 5,000 feet long, so why don't
they... because of the weight to volumn problem andf the problem
of keeping the shape of the thing so it can be pushed through
the air before the flat-plate drag effect comes into play and
the weight of engines powerful enough [plus the fuel to run
them] to overcome the huge structure's natural "sail" area to
the slightest wind.

Had he been there that pilot probably would not have made the
statement he did in the press. Instead he would have been asking
how the hell something that big could get off the ground with
present day technology?

Maybe he just wanted to get his name in the paper, get in solid
with his boss, perhaps.


Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com