UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2010 > Oct > Oct 19

Re: Manhattan UFOs

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj.nul>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
Archived: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 07:24:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Manhattan UFOs


>From: Steve Sawyer <stevesaw.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:18:31 -0700
>Subject: Re: Manhattan UFOs

>>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 10:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
>>Subject: Re: Manhattan UFOs

<snip>

>>Hopefully there are some NYC ufologists, perhaps newly generated
>>ones, who are looking into these matters and who will report
>>their findings. Or is the fear of balloon ridicule just too
>>strong? If ufologists cannot deal with a major UFO event
>>involving multiple witnesses and multiple pieces of video
>>footage, what can they deal with?


>Hi, Jim & List,

>Jim is absolutely correct in his preliminary evaluation of the
>factors and other variables he notes, that this case begs for a
>greater degree of investigation and analysis than it is most
>probably going to get. His list of points and questions is a
>kind of exemplar of what all serious UFO researchers should bear
>in mind-don't take at face value or from initial press reports
>that just because a woman lost a cluster of balloons a little
>after 1 pm, that that accounts for all aspects of this apparent
>series of sightings, assuming Jim's reporting is correct that
>other incidents at differing times occurred on the same day.

>Of course, the mainstream media will quickly move on to new
>sensations and exploit other stories as required by the 24-hour
>news cycle, superficial reporting, and generic dismissal of
>these kinds of incidents as always being of prosaic, explainable
>nature, but as Jim cogently points out, the timeframes, nature
>of the objects observed (and where, when, and of what varying
>kinds of object groupings) would suggest at the very least that
>more than one thing occurred here, and it would be useful and
>productive if some MUFON or other UFO researcher of some depth
>of experience and investigatory acumen were to look at the whole
>picture that Jim's post presents, and the discrepencies among
>the elements of the incidents coincidentally involved.

>It would also be much appreciated if Jim might notate or cite
>the sources of his 8-point summary of questions and generally
>not known about or reported early sightings, such as the 9:30 am
>or later (and prior to 1 or 1:30 pm) sighting(s), and the reports
>he apparently found of some witnesses reporting far more than a
>dozen objects in the sky...

Steve and List,

The sighting of "hundreds" around 9:30 a.m. by the vender was
mentioned by the blond reporter in the MyFox video:

http://tinyurl.com/37qsyrd

between 10 & 22 sec into the video. The vender was at or near
23rd St. & 8th Ave. This video report apparently occurred before
the balloon story got going. The interview of the man who
sighted some 50 of the dots occurs at 1 min - 13-22 sec into the
video, but the time of his lengthy sighting unfortunately isn't
given - perhaps it was after dark.

>and the strange length of reported
>hover time without obvious, wind-borne dispersal, as one would
>expect in even a very light breeze over a relatively shorter
>period of time. If anyone were to try and pursue these
>discrepencies, it's necessary for citations or links to these
>other reports being provided, however.

The following CBS video is by far the best one I've been
informed of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRKnGnjjLY4&feature=related

from CBSNEWS.com. It has over 6 minutes of continuous filming of
the orbs, apparently taken at street level, seemingly with the
camera well braced. It shows mosty three orbs that don't
disperse. It would need to be postulated that, if balloons, the
three were tied together with equal length strings, so as to
form a tight equilateral triangle at times. However, they fade
from sight in just 2 or 3 seconds, around a time of 2min 18sec
(2:18). Then at 2:48 they reappear over a period of just a few
seconds. This obviously rules out balloons, and requires UFO
nomenclature. By a time of 3:30 to 3:50 the orbs have stretched
apart more, sometimes into a linear formation. If balloons, this
would require one of the three connecting strings to have come
untied.

As an afterthought, each of the orbs subtends a sufficiently
large angular diameter that I would expect it to be barely
discernable that they would appear brighter on an upper side and
darker below, such as normal objects, including balloons,
exhibit in the sunlight. So a balloon would not show up as
emitting or reflecting light of uniform intensity within a
perfect circle on a sunny day. Perhaps Bruce can comment on
this. Supporters of the balloon hypothesis could even do
experiments to check this out.

.....

> The only point I would dispute is
>No.8 , where Jim confusingly (at least to me) says [see above]...

>The prediction of UFOs over all major cities on Oct. 13th by the
>long-retired USAF officer referred to, Stanley Fulham, and his
>recent re-issue (3rd edition) of his book, "Challenges of
>Change," which is based on info that was "channeled" through an
>allegedly psychic third-party, is absurd and ridiculous.

>I talked to the Fulham's publisher, Randy Kitchur, a few weeks
>ago, when this issue first surfaced on UpDates, and pointed out
>to Kitchur the very elementary mistake Fulham made in claiming
>our atmosphere was currently composed of 9% carbon dioxide, and
>that global warming would raise it to 22% within our lifetimes
>(in actual fact, the trace gas CO2 amounts to only 0.0387% of
>our atmosphere, ......
>Steve

Granted, Fulham's book is full of stuff as bad as "chem trails".
Yet its partially fulfilled prediction, involving Oct. 13th, has
a UFO-intelligence alternative to the "rare coincidence"
hypothesis, involving UFO deception. I find the aliens involved
to be quite creative in providing instances of plausible
deniability that can give skeptics a cause for ridicule. Here I
prefer this alternative to the "rare coincidence" hypothesis.


Jim Deardorff



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