UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2010 > Dec > Dec 17

Re: NBA Star's UFO Not Sky Divers

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj.nul>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 21:03:16 -0800
Archived: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 01:18:24 -0500
Subject: Re: NBA Star's UFO Not Sky Divers


>From: Jim Deardorff<deardorj.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:55:22 -0800 (PST)
>Subject: NBA Star's UFO Not Sky Divers
>>News Links - 14-12-10

>>NBA Star's UFO Sighting... Explained
>>TMZ.com
>>http://tinyurl.com/2vlamu7

>>Video: Santa Monica Fireball Witness
>>Examiner.com
>>http://tinyurl.com/2e38rbq

>That TMZ.com video certainly fails miserably to explain the Dec.
>1st sighting and video of the two Santa Monica witnesses within
>the Examiner.com link, at:

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWToxNbYJNA&hd=1

>That's due at least to the following reasons.

>1. Though the Red Bull Air Force sky divers do at times dive
>with a smoke emitter attached to the ankle, the smoke trail
>starts out very narrow -- ankle wide --  while gradually
>widening and continually attenuating 20-40 ft to the rear, as is
>to be expected from any smoke plume.  In contrast, the UFOs'
>sunlit trails start out at full width without widening, and
>remains bright, compact and opaque for a downstream length of 3
>or 4 plume widths, then fade rather abruptly in just 2 or 3
>plume widths. It is even more unreasonable to liken the UFO's
>white plume, illuminated by the light of the sun below the
>horizon, to the light of a flare.

>As pointed out by the Santa Monica video taker, who is turning
>into a competent ufologist, the (so-called) science guy, Bill
>Nye, evidently wasn't aware of the other videos and witnesses
>which prove it was a real event, not a hoax.

>2. As noted also by the Santa Monica video-taker, there was no
>aircraft around at the time out of which anything, such as sky
>divers, could have been dropped.

>3. How high must the two objects have been, if above the coast
>at Santa Monica, for their trails to have been sunlit? Sunset at
>Santa Monica was at 4:45 pm. The video was taken at 5:09 pm.
>According to the NOAA solar position calculator, the sun was
>then 5.1 degrees below the horizon at Santa Monica. So according
>to my arithmetic, this means the objects and their trails were
>at a height of at least 31.8 miles to be in the sun. Hence they
>were not sky divers over Santa Monica. If the objects were
>farther west, they would not need to have been so high, but then
>they would not have been sky divers over Santa Monica. (But
>please check my arithmetic, using 3954 miles as the Earth's
>radius; and the city's latitude of 34.0 degrees, longitude 118.6
>degrees.)

Correction. Upon checking with a website such as:

http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/antwoorden/zonpositie.html#2

under Section 2 "seeing the sun at night", the correct answer
for the UFOs' minimum height is 15.7 miles (plus or minus a
couple in allowing for uncertainty in longitude and time). This
is still way too high for sky diving.

Conclusions:

(a) Red Bull Air Force skydivers are still ruled
out, and

(b) my arithmetic can't be trusted.


Jim



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

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ 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