From: Viktor Golubic <Diverge247.nul> Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 16:59:43 -0400 (EDT) Archived: Mon, 03 Sep 2012 19:27:44 -0400 Subject: Re: Socorro Again >From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:47:19 -0700 >Subject: Re: Socorro Again >>From: Viktor Golubic <Diverge247.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:29:39 -0400 (EDT) >>Subject: Re: Socorro Again >>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:09:19 +0100 >>>Subject: Re: Socorro Again >>>Viktor dismissed the motion of the object against the wind with >>>the remark that the direction of the wind aloft does not have to >>>be the same as the surface wind. There is some truth in this, >>>but not enough. >>Martin, I don't work in absolutes terms only with probable >>solutions. In which case, it is perfectly fine to work with >>multiple solution models running in parallel. If I discuss one >>at a time it doesn't mean I'm ruling out others, merely focusing >>a thought. >>I didn't dismiss the motion but merely pointed out additional >>information that's relevant to a full understanding of that >>motion: That information coming from firefighters. That Socorro >>is nestled near a series of mountain range immediately west of >>the city is pertinent given the information in the Chapter 6 I >>provided. The wind is coming off those mountains downward and >>parallel into the city and thus can be subjected to the local >>topological and thermo-mechanic manifold as described in that >>chapter. >Exactly. What one would expect about the contribution of the >mountains to air flow is cooler, denser air flowing DOWN from >the mountains rushing in to replace warmer, less dense air from >the lowlands. >But since the mountains were to the WEST, that mountain air >would be flowing in from the WEST and contributing a westerly >component to the wind, in addition to the westerly component >already present in the low pressure storm system pushing through >New Mexico at the time. >But this is the exact opposite of what you need for the winds to >blow a "balloon" towards the mountains, which was the direction >of departure reported by Zamora. So your own argument works >against you. >You can also look at other locations to see if the nearby >mountains had any obvious effect on the wind pattern. E.g., >Alamogordo has very close and prominent mountains to the EAST, >and the same for Albuquerque (to the east and north). We would >expect these to generate an easterly component as the cooler >mountain air flowed down into the lowlands to the west. But this >is NOT evident from the recorded wind directions. Again, what we >see is the local winds being totally dominated by the large- >scale circulation of the low pressure system. Again, my multi- >state wind map, April 24, 1964: >http://www.roswellproof.com/SocorroWinds_April_24_1964.html I missed your reply... Since no one had pointed out the effects of local topography, I felt is necessary to introduce this topic. What is interesting about Socorro is not only the proximity of the mountain but the valley directly west. >>That map of Rudiak's is too widespread to fill in the necessary >>details in the area of interest. Though its good to show the >>regional trend, it does not however have enough resolution in >>the area of interest. >This was a strong low pressure system (a late winter storm) that >was kicking up strong winds, so regardless of the mountain air >flow, this was going to dominate. This is what my "regional map" >(actually four state) map shows, including 10 weather stations >in New Mexico (throwing in El Paso which is just across the >border). EVERY weather station in the N.M./Socorro region >unambiguously shows winds varying from south to west, with NONE >having any sort of easterly component. >The local winds are clearly dominated by where in the counter- >clockwise part of the low pressure rotation pattern you are. >Thus down in the 6:00 o'clock region of the circulation pattern >(Phoenix, Tucson, El Paso, Alamogordo), there is a strong >western component, but further north and east in the 3:00 >o'clock region (Albuquerque, Las Vegas), there is a strong >southern component. Socorro is sort of in between around 4:30. >You'll also notice that I bracketed the sighting time (~5:50 >p.m.) at each station by using HOURLY surface winds recorded >between 5:00 and 7:00 and my map shows the range of recorded >surface winds. Thus with 10 N.M.-area stations, we are really >looking at 30 recorded wind values, not 10, yet NONE show any >sort of wind component out of the east. (In some cases--Roswell, >Cliff--there is only one wind direction shown because there was >no noticeable variation in wind direction over a two hour >period.) >(In addition we have Zamora's testimony that he observed winds >from the SSW or SW judging by the direction the dust kicked up >by his car blew. Hynek wrote about repeatedly quizzing not just >Zamora but others about wind direction. From the south, wrote >Hynek. Also wrote from SW elsewhere. So that untrustworthy >eyewitness reports about wind direction was totally corroborated >by the historical wind records.) >But I guess we are supposed to just ignore all this. Unspecified >local conditions in Socorro somehow violated this overwhelming, >unambiguous pattern of winds, just so we can accommodate a hoax >balloon hypothesis. No, we are suppose to ask questions not introduced before so that we can delve into all the possibilities. That is all I have done. >>There simply isn't enough wind stations to >>provide that level of detail. And why I felt it important to >>convey how wind near mountain ranges can and does actually >>behave. Also, these stations can report average values over a >>given interval of time. >What we would expect from wind generated by mountain air flow >near Socorro would be maybe to add a little more westerly wind, >not easterly. As for the averages, average wind speed and >direction is determined by 24 measurements over a two minute >period. Again, we have 30 average measures at 10 stations over 2 >hours that do NOT support the notion of any wind out of the >east. >This leaves the incredibly unlikely possibility that somehow the >wind practically reversed direction only in the Socorro area, >overcoming a large multi-state low pressure circulation pattern. >Please tell us where this incredible source of easterly winds >was supposed to come from Socorro if the mountains were actually >to the west? Downward circulating air from a mountain can spiral on a axis horizontal to the ground and backward. And this was why I paused to consider this as plausible. >>let's not forget that Lonnie was interviewed not too long after >>the incident (maybe 1 to 2 hrs) on the local radio and was under >>considerable public pressure to maintain what he was then >>compelled to possibly say under the influence of a strong radio >>personality. >More doubletalk and irrelevancy. No doubt the "strong radio >personality" totally intimidated Zamora, whom Hynek instead >described as a no-nonsense, gruff cop. Let's see, what part of >Zamora's story got changed under this "considerable public >pressure"? The only one that is relevant here is the direction >of departure of the object to the WSW, which was clearly against >a stiff wind, despite all of Viktor's blather about unknown >local conditions. Why would Zamora change that part of the story >under this supposed harsh interrogation by this intimidating >"radio personality"? This is what the locals who heard the interview told me and they also knew both Zamora and the Radio Announcer. Once again it's an important point to bring forward so that a full perspective can emerge. It can't be ignored that this is a critical detail not often recalled. And, you obviously like to put words into my mouth and twist them to your liking. Hum, seems like this is my point and look how easily it can happen. >>That is what some of the locals will tell you if >>you interview them. Hynek and others were not the first to >>interview him! >Well, actually he was first interviewed by fellow police >officers, the FBI agent, and the local A.F. officer from White >Sands. If he crumbled under all that supposed public pressure >while interviewed on the radio about where the object flew off >to, you would think the contradiction would have been noted >somewhere. No, I don't believe that to be the case. This radio interview was only within a hour of the sighting. Yes, it would be noted elsewhere if others had brought the point up. >>And, this does not mean I'm calling him a liar >>but pointing how stories can change when someone is suddenly >>forced into the spotlight of public attention. A prankster may >>also be less boastful given the rapidly unfolding drama. >>I'm not in any way saying everything fits but entertaining what >>I know is conceivably possible having done considerable ground >>investigation work. And, it just so happens some in that same >>area. >Well so far all I see is that nothing fits. Just a lot of >handwaving conjecture and nothing of any substance anywhere. No, my point was that a proper analysis of the wind's behavior was not fully taken under consideration which I have added to recently. Viktor 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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp