tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post5744495654191005816..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: The 1949 Roswell UFO CrashKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-38366438280653773192015-12-06T11:21:22.259-08:002015-12-06T11:21:22.259-08:002 of 2
It seems obvious he believed the USAF may ...2 of 2<br /><br /><i>It seems obvious he believed the USAF may have continued the Zwicky "artificial meteor" project and that the fireballs were evidence for it.</i><br /><br />For those who don't know, Franz Zwicky was a brilliant Cal Tech astrophysicist (among other things proved the existence of supernova in the 1930s). In 1946 he proposed using high explosives atop rockets (and later balloons and planes) and at high altitude to propel copper or iron particles to orbital or escape velocities, also to study meteor dynamics by producing artificial meteors. The copper particles burning in the atmosphere would produce a brilliant lime-green trail.<br /><br />They actually did this in December 1946 using a V-2 at White Sands that went to 116 miles. But the experiment failed when the charges didn't go off. Zwicky talked about his ideas freely in the newspapers, but he got blackballed before he could try again. (whereupon the newspaper stories vanished) So unless the experiments got continued in great secrecy (for which there is no evidence), Zwicky's artificial green meteors could not have had anything to do with the green fireballs that started up 2 years later. (Other problems would be them testing over Los Alamos, the horizontal flat trajectories, the absence of sound, the speeds often being too high, and so on.)<br /><br />I am not aware of LaPaz ever commenting on the possibility of a connection between Zwicky and the green fireballs, though he was almost certainly aware of Zwicky and his ideas. However, this is about the closest anyone has ever come to a semi-plausible explanation for the green fireballs, but it still falls far short of explaining all their characteristics (such as seeming to have their own propulsion system to produce flat trajectories and sometimes observed changes of direction).David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-41832004907760958822015-12-06T11:20:03.054-08:002015-12-06T11:20:03.054-08:00Don wrote: (1 of 2)
At the beginning LaPaz though...Don wrote: (1 of 2)<br /><br /><i>At the beginning LaPaz thought it was a new type of meteorite and he wanted samples, but at some point he believed they could not be meteorites.</i><br /><br />LaPaz was first consulted Dec. 9, 1948 and thought they might be Geminid meteors (the Geminids being the only meteor shower going at the time), but he had observed over 400 Geminid fireballs since 1915 and not one had been green. His thinking along these lines lasted only 3 days, because he had his own green fireball sighting Dec. 12, the one which was on a flat, horizontal trajectory near the horizon. Neither he or those with him heard an expected sonic boom. He later determined by triangulation from observers at Los Alamos that it had passed almost directly over Los Alamos, only about 10 miles up and doing about 35,000 mph. (His wife was with him and later painted a picture that was used in the famous LIFE magazine UFO article of April 1952. See http://roswellproof.homestead.com/life_1952.html LaPaz's "disc" sighting near Roswell on July 10, 1947, is also provided in this article, though LaPaz chose to remain anonymous for this in contrast to his green fireball comments and observations in the same article.)<br /><br />LaPaz had also observed the usual Geminid fireballs. They were all on vertical paths and, as usual, none of them were green. After his own green fireball sighting, LaPaz never seem to consider them being natural meteors.<br /><br /><i>I don't think he ever really considered them to be Soviet (perhaps he added it for reasons of completeness -- or more likely, because it would get the attention of the USAF, he hoped).</i><br /><br />The LIFE article mentioned a 1951 green fireball observed in Arizona (Incident 10) and followed with LaPaz's comments why they were NOT normal meteors (long list). LIFE then commented (perhaps using LaPaz as a source) why it seemed unlikely they could be Soviet missile probes: "Could they be self-destroying Russian reconnaissance devices? Not likely. While the U.S. believes the Russians have an intercontinental guided missile, there is no intelligence that indicates they have developed silent power plants or objects capable of moving nearly as fast as meteors (12 miles a second)..."<br /><br />At the same time, and with later observed green fireballs, LaPaz WAS quoted saying they might be Russian devices and he was concerned. Now whether he said this because he actually believed it, for completeness, or to keep research money from the AF flowing I don't know. He had his classes to teach, his other research, and other responsibilities. He only dealt with the green fireballs a small percentage of his time and when he could get away from his regular academic life.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-38563593565484870792015-12-06T07:21:54.548-08:002015-12-06T07:21:54.548-08:00David: "(Yes, I know, if he had worked on fi...David: "(Yes, I know, if he had worked on figuring out the Roswell craft trajectory in 1947 and remarked to several people about it being ET, why was he so insistent that something like the green fireballs or the Socorro craft was man-made? Fair question, for which I have no clear answer. He also seems to have changed his mind about them being Russian in origin. Regardless of La Paz's shifting opinions about origin, he clearly thought these things physically real and artificial.)"<br /><br />At the beginning LaPaz thought it was a new type of meteorite and he wanted samples, but at some point he believed they could not be meteorites. I don't think he ever really considered them to be Soviet (perhaps he added it for reasons of completness -- or more likely, because it would get the attention of the USAF, he hoped). It seems obvious he believed the USAF may have continued the Zwicky "artificial meteor" project and that the fireballs were evidence for it.<br /><br />Afaik, he referred to the fireballs' origin as "earthly" in the press. It appears the 'saucers' caused him some...anguish?...probably for both personal and 'political' reasons. With a lead-in from April 1949, the saucers had become ETized by 1950. Keyhoe, then a bit later, Menzel. LaPaz did not want the fireballs to become part of that dispute.<br /><br />That the saucers were of interest and concern to him is evident in his dispute with Kirtland in early 1952.<br /><br />LaPaz: "Long ago, the Air Force set up a separate agency, Project Saucer and has spent large sums of money and even suffered casualties in saucer investigations".<br /><br />The AP picked up on "casualties" and talked to a "spokesman" at Kirtland...<br /><br />"The Air Force representative declared he "never heard about them" and "never heard of Project Saucer" and said further information would have to come from LaPaz".<br /><br />Or, basically, "shut up".<br /><br /><br />I've read the PBB material. What LaPaz really thought about it all, looking back over the decades? That I don't know.<br /><br />I want to compile a small dataset of the green fireballs that LaPaz investigated -- got out into the field and met the informants etc, as the most representative of LaPaz' opinion, and get as much info on them as is available.<br /><br />Best Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-63088545373272505982015-12-05T18:46:14.615-08:002015-12-05T18:46:14.615-08:00La Paz was on public record (also in later declass...La Paz was on public record (also in later declassified documents) stating that he thought the green fireballs artificial, specifically man-made, because there were numerous characteristics that made them distinctly different from normal meteors and more akin to probes. He worried about them being Russian. The last known statement I know to that effect was mentioned by Alan Hynek when he visited La Paz in 1964 or 1965 while investigating the Socorro/Lonnie Zamora UFO landing. According to Hynek, La Paz believed that both the green fireballs and the Socorro craft were part of a highly classified government project, and that Hynek was helping to cover it up. <br /><br />(Yes, I know, if he had worked on figuring out the Roswell craft trajectory in 1947 and remarked to several people about it being ET, why was he so insistent that something like the green fireballs or the Socorro craft was man-made? Fair question, for which I have no clear answer. He also seems to have changed his mind about them being Russian in origin. Regardless of La Paz's shifting opinions about origin, he clearly thought these things physically real and artificial.)<br /><br />Another scientist who worked with La Paz on investigating the green fireballs and flying saucers was Dr. Anthony Mirarchi, who initially headed up Project Twinkle. When a story ran in Feb. 1951 that all flying saucer reports were caused by Skyhook balloons, Mirarchi publicly begged to differ. As Bruce Maccabee describes it:<br /><br />http://www.nicap.org/ncp/ncp-brumac.htm<br /><br />"According to a United Press story filed on February 26, 1951 Mirarchi said he believed, after investigating 300 reports of flying saucers, that the saucers were missiles from Russia which had photographed our atomic bomb test sites. According to the United Press article the 40 year old scientist who “for more than a year conducted a top secret investigation into the weird phenomena said that he had worked with balloons and balloons did not leave an exhaust trail.” Another reason given against the balloon explanation was that balloons could not be seen at night. Mirachi explained how “scientists had picked up dust particles containing copper which could have come from no other source than the saucer motive plants (the engines)." Further, "...flying saucers or ‘fireballs’ as he terms them, were regularly observed near Los Alamos until he set up a system of phototheodolites to measure their speed, size and distance away.... but the fireballs mysteriously ceased appearing before the theodolites could go to work. Dr. Mirarchi concludes that spies must have tipped off the saucers’ home base.”<br /><br />Unfortunately for him, this information was still classified, and almost got Mirarchi prosecuted 2 years later. Although declassification of the final Project Twinkle report was considered in late 1951, the A.F. Scientific Advisory Board recommended against it Feb. 1952:<br /><br />“The Scientific Advisory Board Secretariat has suggested that this project not be declassified for a variety of reasons, chief among which is that <b>no scientific explanation for any of the ‘fireballs’ and other phenomena was revealed by the (Project Twinkle) report and that some reputable scientists still believe that the observed phenomena are man-made.”</b><br /><br />At about the same time the Directorate of Intel. to the Research Division of the Directorate of R&D stated the report shouldn't be declassified because there had been no solution and they feared as such would create public anxiety.<br /><br />Thus 3+ years after the green fireballs first made their appearance, it was still considered they were quite real (including their flying saucer cousins), no prosaic solution was apparent, and that they should remain classified out of concern for how the public might react. I don't see anybody here in-the-know thinking they were dealing with ordinary meteors.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-68015442544494043172015-12-05T09:06:46.497-08:002015-12-05T09:06:46.497-08:00Paul: "...these particular "meteors"...Paul: "...these particular "meteors" were baffling to people like La Paz and (before he decided to take the dollar from the US Government debunking programme) Menzel."<br /><br />LaPaz was as much a "debunker" as was Menzel. Since neither had a sample, all they had were their opinions. Since LaPaz devoted attention to the matter for decades, I have to assume he produced a 'text' -- a body of work containing the data, the details of the reports in question, upon which he based his opinion. Where is it?<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-39251256061898763332015-12-04T19:19:45.326-08:002015-12-04T19:19:45.326-08:00Considering meteors (be them green or gold or what...Considering meteors (be them green or gold or whatever colour takes your fancy) are something that have regularly been noticed by people since we swung around in trees...it does seem odd (don't ya think, zoamchomsky?) that these particular "meteors" were baffling to people like La Paz and (before he decided to take the dollar from the US Government debunking programme) Menzel. <br /><br />Seemingly, no other "meteor shower" has ever caused such a stir amongst professionals in the astronomy field as these "meteors" did.<br /><br />I wonder what it was about these green "meteors" (that flew through the skies of New Mexico, in generally the same direction, so low, so slowly and silently and on occasion changing direction,leaving no trail and seemingly not crashing to ground in order for a seasoned "meteor crash site finder" (like La Paz) to find)....that baffled these chaps so much?Paul Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267452625547760508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-72678791856178920042015-12-04T14:44:07.419-08:002015-12-04T14:44:07.419-08:00David, Zoom -
You both treat close to the line he...David, Zoom -<br /><br />You both treat close to the line here... The rhetoric is close to being unacceptable so I ask that you both rein in your comments. You can make your points without calling people names. Apropos of nothing at all, I will note that it is impossible to libel or slander they dead...KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-6418783600664461382015-12-04T11:50:53.389-08:002015-12-04T11:50:53.389-08:00You know it's desperation time when David stoo...You know it's desperation time when David stoops to calling a great astronomer a liar:<br /><br />"quite a contrast between what Menzel INITIALLY said right after his sighting, vs. what he said nearly 30 years later. In other words Menzel LIED in his debunking book about what he really thought he witnessed at the time."<br /><br />No, not at all. That's just you intentionally misrepresenting what Menzel said in general about the "Green Fireball" flap in a letter to the AFSAB, and then misrepresenting what he said about his specific observation of a green fireball meteor and confusing it with the letter.<br /><br />The letter addressed Kaplan's green meteor suggestion and merely questioned why the flap seemed confined to New Mexico, when Kaplan had suggested that "the extraordinarily fine visibility in that region and the fact that a greater number of people than ever before are looking at the skies in that area." A completely separate issue is the fact that Menzel and the other astronomers present agreed in 1948 that the green fireball they witnessed was a completely natural green meteor. <br /><br />In other words, Kaplan had it all figured out during the flap! They were simply meteors, and the observations were completely subjective, based on perceptions of events lasting only a few seconds. And they were made inside an excited social climate known as the "Cold War" in the high-altitude, transparent atmosphere of the land of enchantment which just happened to be where nuclear weapons were developed and tested, so where many more people than ever before were present to observe. Edward Teller and many others agreed.<br /><br />There were just as many green fireballs falling elsewhere in the US and the world over in 1948 and in every other year. Selective observation in time and place--the latent paranoia of the "Cold War" expressed as Soviet "Ghost Rockets" in the form of "Green Fireballs" in newly nuclear-bristling New Mexico in 1948--is the entire story, period.<br /><br />And David manufacturing a false dilemma as an excuse for ad hominem doesn't change that.zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-48031728473309721222015-12-04T00:11:56.645-08:002015-12-04T00:11:56.645-08:00How about underwater torpedoes that can go at leas...How about underwater torpedoes that can go at least 230 mph (200 knots)? Sounds almost impossible, but the Russians have developed one, operational for around 20 yuears. It uses exhaust gases from its rocket engine to create a gas bubble around the torpedo, drastically reducing friction by keeping the torpedo skin away from the water:<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval<br /><br />"The VA-111 is launched from 533 mm torpedo tubes at 50 knots (93 km/h) before its solid-fuel rocket ignites and propels it to speeds of 200 knots (370 km/h). Some reports indicate that speeds of 250+ knots may be achieved, and that work on a 300-knot (560 km/h) version was underway.[3] This high speed is due to supercavitation, whereby a gas bubble, which envelops the torpedo, is created by outward deflection of water by its specially-shaped nose cone and the expansion of gases from its engine. This minimizes water contact with the torpedo, significantly reducing drag."<br /><br />What does this have to do with the atmospheric control systems proposed by various engineers to enable hypersonic flight within the atmosphere (inspired by UFO observations of being able to do this)? Because the principle is the same. Instead of a gas bubble greatly reducing friction, you project some form of energy ahead of the craft (using lasers, microwaves, or exotic hypothetical antigravity beam), which pushes the air aside ahead of the craft, keeping the air from plowing into the lead edges of the craft, and diverting it around the craft.<br /><br />Since you say you are a geek/engineering type, pick up NACA/NASA aeronautical/aerodynamics engineer Paul Hill's book "Unconventional flying Objects" where he devotes a chapter explaining this in detail. <br /><br />Hill designed the aerodynamics on the P-47 fighter and hypersonic wind tunnels for NACA, so he knew what he was talking about when it came to streamlining. The energy "spike" in front of the craft is another form of streamlining, keeping the air in front of the craft away from the leading edges, changing the usual supersonic shock wave on the leading edges of the craft into nonturbulent laminar flow around the craft (just like the air bubble in front of the torpedo parts the water in front of the torpedo and away from the nose of the torpedo.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-53149820294952628372015-12-03T23:44:51.390-08:002015-12-03T23:44:51.390-08:00"ZoamChomsky" VERY deceptively quoted fr..."ZoamChomsky" VERY deceptively quoted from Wikipedia:<br />"Dr Donald Menzel, who sighted one in May 1949 near Alamogordo...stated he was never puzzled by his sighting, instantly identifying the object as an ordinary meteor fireball."<br /><br />Hilarious! (Disgusting!) ZoamBot is deliberately quoting from Wikipedia totally out of context. Here's the ENTIRE entry (note the DOT DOT DOT part Zoam left out):<br /><br />"Astronomer sightings of green fireballs<br /><b>Other astronomers besides LaPaz known to have sighted green fireballs in New Mexico during this period were Clyde Tombaugh, who in 1956 said he had seen three, and</b> Dr. Donald Menzel, who sighted one in May 1949 near Alamogordo. <b>In a letter to the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, Menzel admitted the phenomenon must be real and expressed puzzlement, wondering why the fireballs should be so confined to New Mexico if they were natural phenomena.[12] Menzel eventually became a famous UFO debunker, and in two of his books</b> stated he was never puzzled by his sighting, instantly identifying the object as an ordinary meteor fireball.[13]"<br /><br />Ref. (12) reads: "Menzel letter, May 16, 1949, cited at an Air Force Scientific Advisory Board meeting on the green fireballs in Washington, D.C., Nov. 3, 1949. The quoted section read, <b>'Circumstances force me to conclude that the phenomena described are actually real.</b> With regard to Dr. Kaplan's [meteor] explanation, which deserves very serious consideration, I merely raise the question as to why the phenomenon seems to be confined to the Alamogordo region.'"<br /><br />And Ref (13): "For example, in contrast to his 1949 private statement to the Air Force that he didn't find the meteor explanation totally adequate, Menzel later wrote in his UFO debunking book "The UFO Enigma" (1977) with Ernest Tavres that, 'He and several other astronomers present observed the bright green object as it slowly traversed the northern sector of the heavens, moving from east to west: they quickly and unequivocally identified it as a meteor, or bolide...'"<br /><br />Hmmm, quite a contrast between what Menzel INITIALLY said right after his sighting, vs. what he said nearly 30 years later. In other words Menzel LIED in his debunking book about what he really thought he witnessed at the time.<br /><br />And Zoam is also lying through his teeth in quite deliberately leaving the full context out. No surprises there.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-75065394228755715562015-12-03T19:20:19.488-08:002015-12-03T19:20:19.488-08:00David,
Very interesting article. It put me in tou...David,<br /><br />Very interesting article. It put me in touch with my geek/engineering side. I notice that the date is Sept 1995. That is 20 years ago. It could be that this propulsion system is still under development. But it is very possible that it was as the article said, "... just a concept that looks good on paper...". It takes us back to the possible vs the probable. It is certainly possible that an ET intelligence could devise a propulsion system that could fly at those terrific speeds and not destroy itself in our atmosphere. But it's much more possible in my mind that it was natural phenomena and mistaken identity has occurred. I hope that something as described in the article is feasible some day for terrestrial use.Wind Swordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13360675127446078149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-63403629178283896612015-12-03T15:10:38.560-08:002015-12-03T15:10:38.560-08:00Don; See wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fireballs#Green_...Don; See wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fireballs#Green_fireballs_after_Project_Twinkle<br /><br />The "Green Fireball" flap of 1948-51 was a "flying saucer" adjacent hysteria or mania that was very similar to the European "Ghost Rocket" delusion of 1946.<br /><br />In both cases meteors were the most likely visual stimuli for reports, in both cases the most popular misinterpretation was Soviet missiles. And in both cases, no evidence of Soviet rockets or anything extraordinary was ever found.<br /><br />"Dr Donald Menzel, who sighted one in May 1949 near Alamogordo...stated he was never puzzled by his sighting, instantly identifying the object as an ordinary meteor fireball."zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-43179845027392897092015-12-03T12:21:35.417-08:002015-12-03T12:21:35.417-08:00So, then when did the green fireball "flap&qu...So, then when did the green fireball "flap"* end? Has it ended? NB, I am not referring to just plain green fireballs**, but the "flap" type green fireballs.<br /><br />The question (and answer) ought to interest all sides to this debate.<br /><br /><br />* 'flap' is used as a 'term of convenience',<br /><br />** or, 'non-flap green fireballs'.<br /><br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-61962750300579369132015-12-03T11:56:24.018-08:002015-12-03T11:56:24.018-08:00"human error in judging the height and speed...."human error in judging the height and speed."<br /><br />Exactly, everything deemed "anomalous" about the "Green Fireballs" was completely subjective, based on perceptions of events lasting only a few seconds. And they were made inside an excited social climate known as the "Cold War" in the high-altitude, transparent atmosphere of the land of enchantment where nuclear weapons were developed and tested, so where such people as La Paz were present to observe.<br /><br />There were just as many green fireballs falling elsewhere in 1948 or in any other year for eons.<br /><br />Like "Foo Fighter," "Ghost Rocket" and "Flying Saucer" reports, the "Green Fireball" flap was completely the product of war-jitters and latent paranoia.<br /><br />Almost unbelievably now but understandable given the situation, La Paz was convinced that the "Green Fireballs" were Soviet missiles! (Launched from a secret base in the Baja like Moore's "missile," I suppose.)<br /><br />And even if people weren't such poor witnesses to brief events, there are idiosyncratic variables involved in each meteor--composition; size; speed; angle of entry--so that any one of the thousands falling in Earth's atmosphere every day can exhibit just about any behavior reasonably imaginable: They can be slow moving, travel vertically, flicker on and off, drip or cross the sky, change direction, change brightness or color, make sound or not, or have a trail or not.<br /><br />Contrary to David's claims, the green fireballs of the New Mexico flap were completely mundane meteors in every respect. La Paz was entirely predisposed to his artificiality hypothesis from 1947 and guilty of selective observation thereafter, so he was hardly objective. <br /><br />Ultimately, the "Green Fireball" flap was <b>utterly without consequence</b>--that most important real-world aspect that some here studiously ignore about the entirety of the "UFO" myth.<br /><br />"In early 1948 [La Paz] was approached by Project SIGN to act as scientific consultant to the UFO program, but declined due to his teaching duties, suggesting instead his Proximity Fuze project colleague Dr J Allen Hynek of Ohio State University. LaPaz's notes make it clear that he came to believe early on that the strange luminous phenomena being reported in New Mexico from late 1948 were Soviet missile experiments of some type - or at the very least, highly classified domestic secret weapons tests. <b>But surprisingly, his papers reveal that as early as 1947 he was already intent on this theory, even racing to recover the famous Norton County, Kansas meteorite because he suspected that it might be a manmade object coming from the USSR."</b><br /><br />http://www.project1947.com/gfb/gfbchron.htmlzoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-53455748477971934632015-12-03T10:00:00.151-08:002015-12-03T10:00:00.151-08:00Wind Swords wrote:
So that leaves only two choices...Wind Swords wrote:<br /><i>So that leaves only two choices in my mind. It was not a physical object with mass (so it would not make a sound so fast and so close to the ground) or more likely, human error in judging the height and speed. I know LaPaz was a very distinguished scientist but that doesn't preclude him from making an error as we all do from time to time.</i><br /><br />You are leaving out the very real possibility of an artificial object with an atmospheric control system, as proposed by such engineers/scientists as Hermann Oberth (father of 20th century rocketry), James McCampbell (NASA and nuclear engineer), Leik Myrabo (professor of aeronautical engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute), and Paul Hill (NACA/NASA engineer), and others. <br /><br />Hill's book "Unconventional Flying Objects" devotes an entire chapter to how this would work. The basic idea is using a field (microwaves for McCampbell and Myrabo; hypothetical antigravity field for Oberth and Hill) to create the equivalent of a virtual streamline ahead of the craft, changing the shockwave to a laminar airflow around the craft, eliminating the shockwave of a supersonic craft and greatly reducing the heating and air friction. This is how a craft can theoretically be super- or hypersonic in the lower atmosphere without generating a sonic boom and without disintegrating from friction.<br /><br />(In the case of the green fireballs, if the design included self-destruction, it would simply be a matter of turning off the atmospheric control system. The object would VERY quickly heat up from friction and disintegrate and/or explode.)<br /><br />(Myrabo's work ongoing, although usually with laser-propelled craft. However his early work on microwave-propelled "saucer" with atmospheric control microwave spike can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/PM-Myrabo-1995-article)<br /><br />UFOs have also been clocked on radar going at least 9000 mph through our atmosphere. Major mistakes by La Paz in calculating speeds, altitudes, and trajectories are very unlikely when multiple eyewitnesses are involved. With the green fireballs, he usually interviewed witnesses within days. In the Feb. 1948 Kansas bolide, witnesses in often not fully interviewed for weeks (because it was winter and the distances involved). The observations from about 2 dozen witnesses interviewed were very self-consistent (all accurately pointing to the actual trajectory), La Paz calculated the likely impact point, and he and crew had little trouble locating the meteorite field and recovering large quantities of material.<br /><br />In the case of the Jan. 31, 1949 green fireball, with literally hundreds of eyewitnesses being interviewed, La Paz STILL found the fireball traveling at very low altitude, starting at 12 miles and descending to about 8-10 miles along a 140 mile path. Speed was up to 14 miles per second or 50,000 mph, not unusual for an ordinary meteor, but still MUCH too low to be a meteor.<br /><br />LaPaz plots the sightings and concludes that the fireball was visible on a path beginning at an altitude of 12 miles above a point southeast of Portales, NM, and ending at eight to ten miles above 32 deg 48/ 102 deg 22 after traversing a nearly horizontal path approximately 143 miles long at a velocity of up to 14 miles per second (about 50,000 mph). The path was STILL closer to the earth through its entire extent than any natural meteor he knew of, EXCEPT the green fireballs of December 12 and 20, 1948, I previously mentioned, starting at about 10 miles altitude.<br /><br />The chances of major error with hundreds of reports to go on is near zero (basic statistics--random error margin goes down the greater number of samples). The results were also self-consistent with previous green fireballs. The major error would be in the speed based on less accurate witness estimates of duration. The speeds La Paz usually gave a factor of 2 range, thus 13,000 to 27,000 mph for the Dec. 20, 1948 green fireball. The Jan. 31 fireball probably had a range of 25,000 to 50,000 mph estimated speed.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-43014380886736167242015-12-02T17:18:10.808-08:002015-12-02T17:18:10.808-08:00David,
13,000 to 27,000 mph is hypersonic speed (...David,<br /><br />13,000 to 27,000 mph is hypersonic speed (actually 27,000 mph is well above escape velocity). So unless the fireball was made of "unobtainium", it would have 1.) burned up (vaporized) at the estimated altitude only 12,000 ft (hell, it would vaporize at the beginning altitude of 10 miles) and 2.) would have made a hell of a bang. If it could have survived then at the upper estimated speed it would have left the earth for good. As Scotty says "you canna change the laws of physics". <br /><br />So that leaves only two choices in my mind. It was not a physical object with mass (so it would not make a sound so fast and so close to the ground) or more likely, human error in judging the height and speed. I know LaPaz was a very distinguished scientist but that doesn't preclude him from making an error as we all do from time to time.Wind Swordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13360675127446078149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-77053339164882867932015-12-02T11:09:01.742-08:002015-12-02T11:09:01.742-08:00The green fireballs were about more than the color...The green fireballs were about more than the color green. There was a long list of anomalous characteristics associated with them. Trust Noam to focus on only one and ignore all the others. (how typically "scientific" of him)<br /><br />La Paz did not guess the trajectories, speeds, or altitudes of the green fireballs. He CALCULATED them. He did not rely on one witness' guess. He (and or aides) would typically interview dozens of eyewitnesses, usually go to where they had their sighting, and had them recreate what they observed (point where they first saw it, where it disappeared, and how high it was--i.e., elevation angle(s), not absolute altitude).<br /><br />By triangulation from MANY such reports (not one), La Paz could very accurately determine the trajectory, absolute altitude, and speed (within error limits). From that, he usually had great success in retrieving meteorite fragments near the calculated point of impact. E.g., here's an article of his demonstrating his triangulation technique in the case of the large Feb. 18, 1948 bolide over Kansas (which briefly attracted the interest of military intelligence who conducted a search for it before La Paz informed them it was an ordinary meteor fireball, not something artificial):<br /><br />http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1949PASP...61...63L<br /><br />In the case of the Jan. 30, 1949 green fireball, literally hundreds of eyewitnesses were interviewed with the assistance of the CIC, AFOSI, and FBI. This led to the trajectory about 100 miles from Roswell, where many eyewitnesses were. Maybe one of Brian Bell's Estes rockets fired by a Soviet spy was responsible.<br /><br />But the green fireballs in MANY characteristics did NOT match those of a regular meteor fireball. They were typically too slow, too low, left no trail, made no sound, and never seemed to leave physical evidence on the ground, despite using the exact same triangulation techniques that had proven so successful in other meteorite hunts.<br /><br />Wind Swords: Direct meteor sounds from LARGE fireballs can be heard if the meteors are below about 30 miles. Probably all the anomalous green fireballs were triangulated well below this altitude. E.g., La Paz's own sighting of Dec. 12, 1948 coupled with more observations from observers at Los Alamos indicated that the fireball was only at an altitude of about 10 miles (flying a flat horizontal trajectory) at about 10 miles/sec. Observers should have heard a very loud roar on the ground and an explosion at the end. But nothing was heard.<br /><br />Another green fireball Dec. 20 seen at Los Alamos was even more bizarre. Again the fireball was only about 10 miles up initially, descended at a 45 degree angle to only about 12,000 ft, leveled off, then flew horizontally for about 7.5 miles at a speed of about 3.75 - 7.5 miles per second (13,000 to 27,000 mph). So very anomalous slow speed, ridiculously low altitude, CHANGE OF DIRECTION, all with the complete absence of sound (and no physical fragments ever found). <br /><br />Brian Bell: Can we agree if one speculates that the speculation rises to some minimal level of PLAUSIBILITY? Do you seriously think that a toy rocket, like those made by Estes, could achieve such speeds, altitudes, and be seen by hundreds if not thousands of people for distances exceeding 100 miles. Let's get real here.<br /><br />Don: The only time physical evidence might have been found was the Jan. 24, 1949 green fireball seen near Socorro, N.M. La Paz contacted a colleague of his at the NM School of Mines in Socorro, Dr. William Crozier, who was using filtered air samplings to try to collect meteor dust drifting down from the upper atmosphere. Crozier on two successive days found large amounts of unusual microscopic copper spherules, though copper is one of the rarest elements in natural meteors. Burning copper would account for the bright, saturated lime-green color of these fireballs, but what was it doing in large numbers of "meteors" in such a short period of time? And it still didn't account for the other anomalous properties of the green fireballs.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-69184749716456675852015-11-30T15:48:31.542-08:002015-11-30T15:48:31.542-08:00Don,
I believe that meteorites can have many diff...Don,<br /><br />I believe that meteorites can have many different characteristics when it comes to sound, color, brightness, angle, etc. It was mentioned that "normal" meteorites are not green, but as we've seen that is not the case. Some, but not all of course, are. That was my point. Some also disintegrate in the atmosphere leaving no traces. I have watched meteor showers myself and there was no sound. I don't know how close a meteorite has to be to the ground before you can hear it, and I don't think that even a scientist just looking up at one in the night sky can tell exactly how high it is, and therefore can not say with certainty whether it should be heard or not. The bottom line is that there is nothing in the behavior of the objects that LaPaz saw that rules out a natural occurrence. <br /><br />To borrow a phrase attributed to Giorgio Tsoukalos:<br />I'm not saying it was meteorites... but it was meteorites.Wind Swordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13360675127446078149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-55004483342746749282015-11-29T20:18:25.258-08:002015-11-29T20:18:25.258-08:00Wind Swords, Zoam,
By green fireballs I meant sim...Wind Swords, Zoam,<br /><br />By green fireballs I meant similar to those reported to LaPaz, which characteristics David outlined above. The Thailand fireball is green, but I don't think any of the other characteristics were there. The Wikipedia article on it refers to sounds, for example.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-43686112503264404222015-11-29T18:12:32.365-08:002015-11-29T18:12:32.365-08:00Don asked:
"I don't know anything about ...Don asked:<br /><br />"I don't know anything about green fireballs after the mid-50s. Are there later reports?"<br /><br />If you search on Youtube for "green fireballs" you will see a half dozen videos taken of a meteor in Thailand and one in California plus a video of Dr Stephen Hughes, a senior lecturer at QUT's Science and Engineering Faculty on what causes the green coloration. The ones from Thailand were posted about 3 weeks ago.<br /><br /><br />Zoamchomsky said:<br /><br />"And green fireballs are still very much a common occurrence the world over."<br /><br />This would appear to be the case.Wind Swordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13360675127446078149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-72598634341082641602015-11-29T12:12:36.228-08:002015-11-29T12:12:36.228-08:00Brian: "Witness sightings at night are notori...Brian: "Witness sightings at night are notorious for observational distortions and if something was that high up it probably WAS a meteor incorrectly identified as a "flaming green UFO"."<br /><br />I don't know what witnesses you refer to. LaPaz and the various military and civilians were not taking "UFO" reports, but attempting to find traces, Simply put, the witnesses would stand at the spot and point and maybe trace an arc. Given enough witnesses from various locales, a location could be determined.<br /><br />LaPaz would have agreed with you the green fireballs (and the saucers, as well) were foreign or domestic. However, USAF disagreed with him, and went so far as to issue a press release against his opinion in 1952.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-86548655132595986722015-11-29T10:51:40.334-08:002015-11-29T10:51:40.334-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17654451772499476522015-11-29T10:51:39.777-08:002015-11-29T10:51:39.777-08:00Experts can be wrong. They can also be victims of ...Experts can be wrong. They can also be victims of social delusions like anyone else. They can misperceive or fail to identify otherwise mundane things in the sky and honestly create a "UFO" narrative about it. Prof La Paz was such a person.<br /><br />Many other experts at the time thought the "Green Fireballs" were completely natural. They were right. Green fireballs are caused by common iron-nickel meteors burning up in the atmosphere. It's the nickel that produces the green color.<br /><br />The "Green Fireball" "UFO" related flap was the product of post-war jitters just as much as the larger "flying saucer" mania. And it had all of the same elements of human psychology and followed a similar course. Like all "UFO" reports and flaps, some single report in the media initiated this “flying saucer” mania, “red scare” expression of latent paranoia flap, a sudden flurry of interest in some mundane thing—now perceived as a danger--that was present all along. But the threat is nonexistent, unreal, and the flap runs its course and resolves itself into inconsequentiality.<br /><br />Most important in understanding this flap is the fallacy of selective observation. There had always been green fireballs, there were green fireballs reported in many states west of the Mississippi even during the flap--it was never confined to New Mexico. And green fireballs are still very much a common occurrence the world over.zoamchomskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16519698426338891542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-82835744753830613742015-11-29T09:38:23.640-08:002015-11-29T09:38:23.640-08:00@ David
Perhaps as Don has suggested, you're ...@ David<br /><br />Perhaps as Don has suggested, you're making assumptions of your own regarding "giant rockets" that flew "25,000 mph" and "60 miles up".<br /><br />Witness sightings at night are notorious for observational distortions and if something was that high up it probably WAS a meteor incorrectly identified as a "flaming green UFO".<br /><br />Many of these reports stated the object came up, went horizontal and then disappeared or came down rather quickly. Giant rockeys requiring large launching pads are not needed to recreate this - go to your local hobby store and examine Estes Rockets - they don't require what you presume in your statement.<br /><br />Soviets were already playing with rocket launchers during WW2 and deploying them. Simple self destructive mortar rounds could do the same thing without elaborate hardware.Brian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04201018843054563257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-57843461605954256622015-11-29T08:39:19.216-08:002015-11-29T08:39:19.216-08:00David: "2. Made no sound (large meteor fireba...David: "2. Made no sound (large meteor fireballs roar like a freight train when they get low)"<br /><br />"4. Never left any physical trace..."<br /><br />How can that be -- some assumptions about mass, size, speed, distance have to be wrong. Leave no trace? Nothing disappears without a trace.<br /><br />I don't know anything about green fireballs after the mid-50s. Are there later reports?<br /><br />Best Regards,<br /><br />DonDonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01987893108986661582noreply@blogger.com