The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Monday, January 10, 2011

The 1963 Colorado UFO

In a comment for the Darwinian Ufology posting, I mentioned a clip that we inserted at this blog (and others), early on, that represents, for us, a view of the ultimate evolutionary UFO, which also examples Tony Bragalia’s morphing metal, as found in the Roswell crashed saucer(s) and examined, he has discovered, by Battelle (and other research entities that work for the United States government and/or military).

Here are three clips (from YouTube) of the UFO filmed in 1963 in Colorado – note the changing shape of the UFO:





46 Comments:

  • As opposed to this early, relatively short film illuminating a "morphing" or shape-shifting UFO, how do you know that what is shown is not an artifact of the frame rate of the exposure of the film itself of something like a meteor or bolide, which may appear to change shape due to the high speed of the object appearing as a streak in some frames and as a point source of light in other intermediate frames?

    Also, the film appears to have been taken from a moving vehicle, which also may have introduced visual artifacts on film of a kind which created the "dots and dashes" of the object.

    Personally, the dark, fuzzy quality of the film, copied from a TV show, its quite short duration, and the appearance of the object moving very fast through the upper atmosphere vs. the slower frame rate of the film (appears to be 8 mm film, or multi-gen copy), suggests to me that this is a prosaic object such as a bolide, and the change in apparent shape (and "jumpiness") of the object is due to the frame capture rate and low resolution quality of filming such a fast-moving object.

    A very similar object and higher quality, daytime film was taken on August 10th, 1972, which more clearly shows a white, self-illuminated object streaking across the sky, and which is generally acknowledged as a bolide, also.

    See:

    http://tinyurl.com/2gx8s27 for a wiki article on the 1972 event and

    http://tinyurl.com/2uoac4 for a youtube video of the 1972 bolide

    See:

    http://tinyurl.com/22tglpx for a slowed close-up of the 1963 Colorado object

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • Mr. Sawyer,

    To see the object as a bolide (or meteor of any kind) seems to be a skeptical stretch.

    Bolides descend. This UFO isn't descending.

    What is fascinating is the speed (faster than a bolide or meteor) and the morphing, both of which duplicate a "thing" captured on video flying over Washington D.C. during President Obama's inauguration.

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • How do you figure that meteors do not ascend in the sky? Meteors do move "upward" in the sky and to say they don't is just wrong (their upward movement does not mean their ACTUAL trajectory is upward but it appears that way from the perspective of the observer). I don't think this is a meteor but to say that it can't be a meteor because of this demonstrates a certain lack of knowledge. Please get your FACTS right before you make blanket statements such as these.

    By Blogger Tim Printy, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • Tim:

    We were actually referring to Mr. Sawyer's observation about bolides.

    As for meteors moving upward. They don't.

    The UFO pictured is neither moving upward or downward.

    Also, we try to be civil here, and we don't consider a mis-statement of "facts" as a mortal sin, so take it easy, won't you?

    Thanks,

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • How do you figure that meteors do not move upward. Please explain. Are you stating that all meteors move at a downward angle (i.e. toward the horizon)? If so, you are wrong, which is my problem with your blanket statement. I can show you dozens of meteor photographs showing them moving away from the horizon.

    By Blogger Tim Printy, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • Tim:

    Nowhere, in bona fide meteorological circles, do we find any suggestion that meteors move upward.

    (One of our fellows here is actually a TV meteorologist, and I'll ask him later today.)

    The argument that meteors do move upward is a "red herring" in context of what our post and the Darwinian Ufology post is getting at.

    We can be led astray by an aside to our postings and comments, but would hope not to be, unless our statements are egregiously in error.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • I am not sure why a meteorologist is an expert on meteors (unless they have actual astronomical experience, which is not always the case - I have met my share of less than knowledgable meteorologists when it comes to astronomy). They are experts on weather. You need to talk to astronomers when you are discussing meteors.
    Since you seem to insist it is impossible for meteors to move "upward", here are some examples of meteors moving upward in relation to the horizon.

    http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/8/12/1250115260050/Meteors-from-the-Perseid--002.jpg

    http://joeorman.shutterace.com/Meteors/meteors_970812_5_plain.jpg (no horizon here but the relationship of the meteor to the constellation Perseus and the time of year indicates it is "upward")

    http://www.eso-garden.com/images/uploads_bilder/perseids_2007_3.jpg

    http://www.sofiaecho.com/shimg/zx500y290_769398.jpg

    That should be enough. If you are also implying that meteor's actual altitude can not go upward, you are wrong there as well. A meteor that "skips" off the earth's atmosphere will first descend and then, after reaching it's low point, will increase in altitude.

    In this film, the object is impossible to determine what it is but to say it is not a meteor simply because it appears to ascend in relation to the horizon is a false statement. We don't know its true altitude and all that can be determined is that it is moving at an upward angle. This in itself is not a good reason to eliminate it as a potential meteor.

    The "morphing"/shape changing can easily have something to do with the film record and the speeding up/slowing of the film/video transfer. Only when the actual individual film frames are examined can one make the claim that it is changing shape. Then one has to take into account the film resolution, movement of the camera during that exposure, effects of the car window/lens system (assuming the window is closed), etc.

    By Blogger Tim Printy, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • Tim:

    You write -- "meteors moving upward in relation to the horizon."

    I'm talking about meteors not relative to anything, just that they never move upward. They always are coming down.

    Meteorologists are supposed to deal with meteors. That they got sidetracked only doing weather is problematical, of course, and astronomers have stepped in to take on meteor analysis, and we point you to the literature.

    That said, let me, again, make the point that the Colorado UFO and others of its ilk fulfill the evolution argument we were trying to make -- whether they move up or down.

    For us, the Colorado UFO video is atypical of most UFO films or videos and is "sui generis" for our evolutionary posting; that's all.

    It's a video/film to be taken into account.

    It doesn't resolve, by a long shot, the UFO mystery.

    But it does present or allow offbeat cogitation about the topic, which is what we try to do, and you have been helpful, like Steve Sawyer, in opening the "conversation" accordingly.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • I seem to recall when viewing better copies of this UFO footage, it was easier to see that it might be reflections from the other side of the vehicle, which, depending on what it was that was being reflected, could look like it was moving much faster than it really is (if it was something moving in the opposite direction.)

    But I admit, this and other shots, if they are really Unidentifiable, do indeed display a type of distortion in shape.

    I think UFOs: Past, Present, Future...renamed UFOs: It Has Begun...is where this vid was lifted from.

    Thanks.

    By Blogger Bob Koford, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • You wrote:

    "I'm talking about meteors not relative to anything, just that they never move upward. They always are coming down."

    That is not what you originally wrote. You originally stated:

    "Bolides descend. This UFO isn't descending."

    How do you know that this UFO is descending other than its relation to the horizon? What is your definition of upward? Again, I ask you to explain what you mean in this original statement.

    This is where your problems began but you keep compounding your error by not admitting that meteors do move upward in relation to the horizon (like in all the examples I gave you) and that it is possible (as in the case of a meteor skipping off the earth's atmospher) that meteors can actually ascend in relation to the earth's surface. I am not sure what sources you are using but you need to check them. This is all about getting the information correct. If you can not get the facts right it does not say much for the rest of the argument.

    Then we have this:

    "Meteorologists are supposed to deal with meteors. That they got sidetracked only doing weather is problematical, of course, and astronomers have stepped in to take on meteor analysis, and we point you to the literature."

    Really???? Where does a meteorologist today receive training in meteors? Whenever a bright fireball occurs, it is not the meteorologist who goes looking for the fragments, computing the orbits from the imagery, and discussing the meteor with the witnesses. It is the astronomers who do this. As I stated, my actual interaction with meteorologists demonstrates a those I dealt with are usually ignorant of astronomy (including meteors). I have only interacted with one meteorologist who was very knowledgable about astronomy and this was because he was also an amateur astronomer! One of the definitions I found states meteorology is:

    "The scientific study of the atmosphere and of atmospheric conditions, especially as they relate to weather and weather forecasting."

    I don't see where it states it is the study of meteors. If you want me to point me towards the literature which backs up your statement, feel free to do so because right now I am beginning to question your sourcesof information.

    As another note on this, I will quote from Allan Hendry's UFO Handbook, which should be REQUIRED reading for anybody interested in examining UFO cases. When discussing problems with UFOs reporting the characteristics of meteors he notes:

    "A common misconception about meteors appears to be that they have to travel downward to the earth and in an arc.... One of the most repeated comments offerred me was that "the IFO couldn't be a meteor because it was traveling horizontally," parallel to the earth's horizon, "instead of dropping." Actually, since we are only viewing an apparent trajectory along our line of vision, any meteor can appear to adopt ANY direction and angle including upward, and it need not move in a curving path." (pages 42-3)

    By Blogger Tim Printy, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • Thanks, Bob:

    Our copy came from a UFO CD, and we tried to find a better copy at YouTube, thinking, surely, one must exist there.

    But I picked the three best ones that were uploaded there.

    It would be interesting to get the provenance of the film -- who took it, what camera did they use, why were they filming in the area, et cetera.

    We just used the image here to make a point, but now we're into the thing in a way that takes it further, apparently...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • Tim:

    You seem to want a harried debate.

    Meteors, by their nature and definition have to come down, they have to descend, or else they won't be meteors.

    You want to redefine meteors.

    My point is that the Colorado UFO is exactly that -- a UFO, not a meteor.

    Now we can argue all we want about whether it is or isn't a UFO or a meteor, but we won't get anywhere, as no one knows, except maybe the person who took the film in the first place, and he or she isn't available, evidently -- and maybe not qualified to answer the question.

    Meteorology was the profession that studied meteors, originally, and some meteorologists still pursue meteors although the bulk now only do weathercasting.

    I'm not going to argue the point.

    For me, the Colorado UFO, like that caught over Washington D.C. duringthe Obama inaugural represent an advanced form of UFOs, whatever their essence.

    And for me, meteors descent; they do not rise -- they have to come down eventually or else they won't be meteors.

    (Perhaps you want to change the definition of meteor; feel free to so so.)

    And since when do "meteors" pulse or change shape?

    Keep trying to make me smarter.

    Your work is cut out for you it seems.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • "Meteors, by their nature and definition have to come down, they have to descend, or else they won't be meteors.

    You want to redefine meteors."

    Exactly where does it state this? I gave you examples of meteors that appear to go upward, which is what you stated when this clip could not be a meteor because it was ascending. You have yet to demonstrate why you stated this, which is where the burden of proof lies here. If you want to admit this was an incorrect statement, then do so. Otherwise, I ask you AGAIN to explain your orginal statement:

    "Bolides descend. This UFO isn't descending."

    How do you know the UFO was "descending" in this case? It is because you used the same frame of reference you want to use for visual meteors. That being the optical horizon.

    I don't need to redefine meteors by the way. I have a very good knowledge on the subject. It is your present argument that is flawed and you keep failing to admit that meteors can appear to go upward to the observer and that it is possible for meteors to actually ascend. In fact, the definition of a meteor has nothing to do with ascending or descending. A meteor is defined as:

    "a streak of light in the sky at night that results when a meteoroid hits the earth's atmosphere and air friction causes the meteoroid to melt or vaporize or explode"

    As you can see there is nothing about falling and the August 10, 1972 fireball data showed that meteors can actually ascend in the atmosphere. It actually reached a low point of 58km and then exited the atmosphere. Feel free to go to the following link to inform yourself:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20050120051405/www.maa.agleia.de/Comet/Other/1972.html

    Meanwhile, you still keep writing:

    "Meteorology was the profession that studied meteors, originally, and some meteorologists still pursue meteors although the bulk now only do weathercasting."

    Again, feel free to present a source for this information and tell me how many meteorologists actually pursue meteors these days? The origin of the term would include meteors but we are talking about the ancient greeks and nothing in recent history. It was your original contention that "Nowhere, in bona fide meteorological circles, do we find any suggestion that meteors move upward". It was this implication that at the present time, meteorologists are studying meteors when it really are the astronomers who study them. Can you present meteorologist who studies meteors that is not also an amateur or professional astronomer? Otherwise, this claim is also a false one.

    I am trying to provide you with information that is important in understanding meteors and how they relate to the misperception of UFOs. I am also trying to show you where you should get your information because your present source seems to be highly flawed. However, you seem to be resistant to this knowledge. If you aren't going to acknowledge that:
    A) Meteors can appear to move upward in the sky to the ground observer
    B) Meteors can actually exit the atmosphere and, therefore, actually ascend.
    I can only assume that you are not interested in acknowledging these facts. That is a recipe for wasting my time and bring into question the credibility of what you write. Get the facts right first before you start speculating.

    By Blogger Tim Printy, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • When a meteoroid enters Earth's atmosphere, it is traveling at very high velocity—more than 11 km per second (25,000 miles per hour) at minimum, which is many times faster than a bullet leaving a gun barrel. Frictional heating, produced by the meteoroid's energetic collision with atmospheric atoms and molecules, causes its surface to melt and vaporize and also heats the air around it. The result is the luminous phenomenon recognized as a meteor. Popular synonyms for meteors include shooting stars and falling stars. The vast majority of meteoroids that collide with Earth burn up in the upper atmosphere. If a meteoroid survives its fiery plunge through the atmosphere and lands on Earth's surface, the object is known as a meteorite.

    Somewhat larger meteoroids—those as large as some tens of metres across—that reach the ground as meteorites melt at their surfaces while their interiors remain unheated. Even objects this large are effectively stopped by the atmosphere at altitudes of 5–25 km, although they generally separate into fragments. Following this atmospheric braking, they begin to cool, their luminosity fades, and they fall to Earth at low velocities—100–200 metres per second (225–450 miles per hour). This “dark flight” may last several minutes, in contrast to the few seconds of visible flight as a meteor. By the time a meteoroid hits the ground, it has lost so much heat that the meteorite can be touched immediately with the bare hand. Often the only obvious sign on a meteorite of its fiery passage through the atmosphere is a dark, glassy crust, called a fusion crust, which is produced by melting of its surface. Sometimes meteorites also end up with aerodynamic shapes and flow structures on their surfaces. These features indicate that the meteoroid remained in the same orientation during atmospheric entry, much like manned spacecraft, rather than having tumbled as most meteoroids seem to do.

    When meteoroids are sufficiently large—i.e.,100 metres to several kilometres in diameter—they pass through the atmosphere without slowing down appreciably. As a result, they strike Earth's surface at velocities of many kilometres per second. The huge amount of kinetic energy released in such a violent collision is sufficient to produce an impact crater. In many ways, impact craters resemble those produced by nuclear explosions. They are often called meteorite craters, even though almost all of the impacting meteoroids themselves are vaporized during the explosion. Arizona's Meteor Crater, one of the best-preserved terrestrial impact craters, is about 1.2 km across and 200 metres deep. It was formed about 50,000 years ago by an iron meteoroid that is estimated to have been roughly 50–100 metres across, equivalent to a mass of about four million tons. Myriad nickel-iron fragments and sand-grain-sized nickel-iron droplets have been found in and around the crater.

    In spite of this meagre recovery record, the study of the recovered meteorites not only confirmed that they came from the asteroid belt but also led to an improved understanding of what happens to meteoroids when they enter and travel through the atmosphere. This enabled better estimates of the physical properties of meteoroids, allowing researchers to distinguish between meteors resulting from dense, meteorite-like objects and meteors resulting from less substantial objects that, for instance, might come from comets. Prior to this effort, studies of meteors by astronomers and of meteorites by geochemists tended to be pursued as independent scientific fields that had little to contribute to each other.

    Cited from The Encylopedia Britannica

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • When a meteoroid enters Earth's atmosphere, it is traveling at very high velocity—more than 11 km per second (25,000 miles per hour) at minimum, which is many times faster than a bullet leaving a gun barrel. Frictional heating, produced by the meteoroid's energetic collision with atmospheric atoms and molecules, causes its surface to melt and vaporize and also heats the air around it. The result is the luminous phenomenon recognized as a meteor. Popular synonyms for meteors include shooting stars and falling stars. The vast majority of meteoroids that collide with Earth burn up in the upper atmosphere. If a meteoroid survives its fiery plunge through the atmosphere and lands on Earth's surface, the object is known as a meteorite.

    Somewhat larger meteoroids—those as large as some tens of metres across—that reach the ground as meteorites melt at their surfaces while their interiors remain unheated. Even objects this large are effectively stopped by the atmosphere at altitudes of 5–25 km, although they generally separate into fragments. Following this atmospheric braking, they begin to cool, their luminosity fades, and they fall to Earth at low velocities—100–200 metres per second (225–450 miles per hour). This “dark flight” may last several minutes, in contrast to the few seconds of visible flight as a meteor. By the time a meteoroid hits the ground, it has lost so much heat that the meteorite can be touched immediately with the bare hand. Often the only obvious sign on a meteorite of its fiery passage through the atmosphere is a dark, glassy crust, called a fusion crust, which is produced by melting of its surface. Sometimes meteorites also end up with aerodynamic shapes and flow structures on their surfaces. These features indicate that the meteoroid remained in the same orientation during atmospheric entry, much like manned spacecraft, rather than having tumbled as most meteoroids seem to do.

    When meteoroids are sufficiently large—i.e.,100 metres to several kilometres in diameter—they pass through the atmosphere without slowing down appreciably. As a result, they strike Earth's surface at velocities of many kilometres per second. The huge amount of kinetic energy released in such a violent collision is sufficient to produce an impact crater. In many ways, impact craters resemble those produced by nuclear explosions. They are often called meteorite craters, even though almost all of the impacting meteoroids themselves are vaporized during the explosion. Arizona's Meteor Crater, one of the best-preserved terrestrial impact craters, is about 1.2 km across and 200 metres deep. It was formed about 50,000 years ago by an iron meteoroid that is estimated to have been roughly 50–100 metres across, equivalent to a mass of about four million tons. Myriad nickel-iron fragments and sand-grain-sized nickel-iron droplets have been found in and around the crater.

    In spite of this meagre recovery record, the study of the recovered meteorites not only confirmed that they came from the asteroid belt but also led to an improved understanding of what happens to meteoroids when they enter and travel through the atmosphere. This enabled better estimates of the physical properties of meteoroids, allowing researchers to distinguish between meteors resulting from dense, meteorite-like objects and meteors resulting from less substantial objects that, for instance, might come from comets. Prior to this effort, studies of meteors by astronomers and of meteorites by geochemists tended to be pursued as independent scientific fields that had little to contribute to each other.

    Cited from The Encylopedia Britannica

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • When a meteoroid enters Earth's atmosphere, it is traveling at very high velocity—more than 11 km per second (25,000 miles per hour) at minimum, which is many times faster than a bullet leaving a gun barrel. Frictional heating, produced by the meteoroid's energetic collision with atmospheric atoms and molecules, causes its surface to melt and vaporize and also heats the air around it. The result is the luminous phenomenon recognized as a meteor. Popular synonyms for meteors include shooting stars and falling stars. The vast majority of meteoroids that collide with Earth burn up in the upper atmosphere. If a meteoroid survives its fiery plunge through the atmosphere and lands on Earth's surface, the object is known as a meteorite.

    Somewhat larger meteoroids—those as large as some tens of metres across—that reach the ground as meteorites melt at their surfaces while their interiors remain unheated. Even objects this large are effectively stopped by the atmosphere at altitudes of 5–25 km, although they generally separate into fragments. Following this atmospheric braking, they begin to cool, their luminosity fades, and they fall to Earth at low velocities—100–200 metres per second (225–450 miles per hour). This “dark flight” may last several minutes, in contrast to the few seconds of visible flight as a meteor. By the time a meteoroid hits the ground, it has lost so much heat that the meteorite can be touched immediately with the bare hand. Often the only obvious sign on a meteorite of its fiery passage through the atmosphere is a dark, glassy crust, called a fusion crust, which is produced by melting of its surface. Sometimes meteorites also end up with aerodynamic shapes and flow structures on their surfaces. These features indicate that the meteoroid remained in the same orientation during atmospheric entry, much like manned spacecraft, rather than having tumbled as most meteoroids seem to do.

    When meteoroids are sufficiently large—i.e.,100 metres to several kilometres in diameter—they pass through the atmosphere without slowing down appreciably. As a result, they strike Earth's surface at velocities of many kilometres per second. The huge amount of kinetic energy released in such a violent collision is sufficient to produce an impact crater. In many ways, impact craters resemble those produced by nuclear explosions. They are often called meteorite craters, even though almost all of the impacting meteoroids themselves are vaporized during the explosion. Arizona's Meteor Crater, one of the best-preserved terrestrial impact craters, is about 1.2 km across and 200 metres deep. It was formed about 50,000 years ago by an iron meteoroid that is estimated to have been roughly 50–100 metres across, equivalent to a mass of about four million tons. Myriad nickel-iron fragments and sand-grain-sized nickel-iron droplets have been found in and around the crater.

    In spite of this meagre recovery record, the study of the recovered meteorites not only confirmed that they came from the asteroid belt but also led to an improved understanding of what happens to meteoroids when they enter and travel through the atmosphere. This enabled better estimates of the physical properties of meteoroids, allowing researchers to distinguish between meteors resulting from dense, meteorite-like objects and meteors resulting from less substantial objects that, for instance, might come from comets. Prior to this effort, studies of meteors by astronomers and of meteorites by geochemists tended to be pursued as independent scientific fields that had little to contribute to each other.

    Cited from The Encylopedia Britannica

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • Tim:

    Nowhere in the Encyclopedia Britannica, from which I got the excerpts above, is there anything related to meteors having a trajectory other than one that is ground-directed.

    Tim...you are engaged in a semantic struggle and are wrong.

    Meteors, for all sensate persons, come down -- they do not go up.

    Moreover, what they do relative to the horizon has nothing to do with the ultimate outcome of their transitory flight.

    The Colorado UFO is not going up or down -- it is traversing the sky as would any aircraft or flying animal would -- horizontally....traveling from one spot to another.

    You can try all you want to rework the definition of "meteor" to fit your argument, but it won't work with me or any sensible person who is familiar with the science involved.

    Meteorology, likewise. I have a list of meteorologists who have worked for government agencies and left a mark.

    Most have nothing to do with weather but, rather, their life's work is with the science of what goes on in the sky.

    But we are adrift from the point of the posting here. UFO mavens are prone to get sidetracked by minutiae and nitpicking, failing to see the forest for the trees.

    If you want to think the Colorado UFO is a meteor, that's fine with me.

    You'd be off the mark however, and I'd not take your views about the filmed "thing" seriously.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • The 3rd video is the best quality. It's interesting. The morphing could be motion blur. Looks a little like the "rods" videos, which are just insects flying across camera view. Would need to know more from the shooter. I get the sense he didn't even notice it while filming. The camera stay pretty steady, no pan to follow the UFO. Tripod?

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • Yes, Frank...

    Getting more information about the shooter, the camera, the reason for being there, "shooting," would all be interesting.

    And, you're right, there is a (superficial) resemblance to the insect/rods that have been noted in places not dis-similar to the Colorado location.

    But try to find the clip from the Obama inaugural. The similarity of the Colorado UFO with that UFO, in all characteristics, is intriguing.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • Hey Rich-

    A couple more things . .

    Looking closer, it seems the film is being shot from a moving vehicle.

    It's a pity the UFO isn't a little lower in the sky . . . then we'd knew if it was in front of or behind the mesa.

    Trying to think of a practical use for morphing metal in aircraft . . . I'm thinking it would be useful in quick stops and starts (0 to 2000 mph in seconds or vice versa), or right angle turns at high speed. This UFO seems pretty straight line in its' path and already moving at top speed.

    Here's a favorite film of mine:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bFilRpYy8M

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • Frank:

    I also like the Catalina film, however, an analysis of that clip showed it to be a Piper Cub or Cessna airplane.

    Yep...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • Good job Richie!

    http://www.creativespirits.net/paranormal_media/ufo_media/lee-hansen-%E2%80%93-catalina-ufo-scientific-analysis/

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • Frank:

    I'll try to embed that video for others to take a look at.

    It's an eye-opener.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • You wrote:

    "Nowhere in the Encyclopedia Britannica, from which I got the excerpts above, is there anything related to meteors having a trajectory other than one that is ground-directed."

    And you have ignored the actual scientific data associated with the August 10, 1972 fireball. This is not the only meteor that has skipped off the earth's atmosphere but it is a good example.

    "Meteors, for all sensate persons, come down -- they do not go up."

    So you ignored the data associated with August 10, 1972 fireball. Again,this is not the only fireball/meteor that has done this in the past.

    "Moreover, what they do relative to the horizon has nothing to do with the ultimate outcome of their transitory flight."

    Then explain your original comment (which you refuse to do):

    "Bolides descend. This UFO isn't descending."

    How did you determine the UFO was descending? Exactly, why did you make this statement?

    "You can try all you want to rework the definition of "meteor" to fit your argument, but it won't work with me or any sensible person who is familiar with the science involved."

    As you have ignored the data I have presented where meteors can ascend! You are not familiar with the science involved when you ignore an actual case that was scientifically examined.

    "Meteorology, likewise. I have a list of meteorologists who have worked for government agencies and left a mark."

    How many work with meteors? Your original claim was the meteorologists are the ones studying them.

    "But we are adrift from the point of the posting here. UFO mavens are prone to get sidetracked by minutiae and nitpicking, failing to see the forest for the trees."

    What I see is that you have tried to back out of your original claims that:

    1) You can eliminate this being a meteor (something I never claimed) because it was supposedly moving upward. You can't determine if the object is moving up or down. There is not enough data.

    2) That meteorologists have studied meteors in recent times and that it is their "circles" that inform you that meteors can't go upward (which they can - look at the data from the actual August 10, 1972 fireball).


    I am not going to waste any more time on this as I have more important things to do with my time. If you want to ignore actual scientific information and rely solely on the encyclopedia as your only source, then you are really missing out on the science involved with the study of meteors. Why do you choose to ignore the data I presented?


    As for this film, it is just a dot moving across the frames. We do not have scans of the original frames and there isn't enough data surrounding the filming (i.e. specifics).

    By Blogger Tim Printy, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • Tim:

    You keep writing:

    "Bolides descend. This UFO isn't descending."

    How did you determine the UFO was descending? Exactly, why did you make this statement

    My statement is that the UFO is NOT descending but you keep insisting that I'm saying the UFO is descending.

    I'm confused (or you're confused).

    As for your data -- one 1972 incident, that purports to overturn all the bona fide accounts of meteors -- popularly known as falling stars, not rising stars?

    You do have better things to do, I hope, than continue to fiddle with my trifle here.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • "I'm confused (or you're confused)."

    My mistake. How did you determine the UFO is NOT descending (i.e. ascending)? It is your basis for rejecting this as a meteor.


    "As for your data -- one 1972 incident, that purports to overturn all the bona fide accounts of meteors -- popularly known as falling stars, not rising stars?"

    You keep using the word "bona fide" as if you have demonstrated that all meteors simply descend and burn up. So far all you have presented is a general description from the encyclopedia. Sure, meteors do tend to descend when they enter the atmosphere at a steep angle. However, when meteors enter at shallow angles they can skip. The August 1972 event is not an isolated incident contrary to what you are implying. It is just a good example of one. Look up earth grazing meteor.

    By Blogger Tim Printy, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • Rich, in the third of the three videos you linked to in your original post, there is another 'object', about an inch below and trailing the 'object' discussed, after it emerges from the cloud. You can see it at 00:00:02:903, for example.

    A common sight in the desert are small clouds that form quickly and then vanish as quickly. This second 'object' seems to happen too quickly to be a cloud, unless there are frames missing or the film was run faster than normal...probably not even then. There is also a spot of brightness that appears in the cloud mass below all that at the time and may sync to the apparent bright moments of the 'object'. These don't appear to be flaws in the film.

    The 'object' appears to be made of 'cloud', or condensation of some sort surrounds it. This is more apparent in the third video.

    I can imagine how someone seeing something that moves like it as flashing, flipping, swooping, or rotating.

    Interesting.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • Tim:

    I am not averse to your meteor hypothesis, for the 1963 Colorado UFO.

    I just prefer to see the UFO in another context, amenable to our postulations here about Darwinian Ufology.

    The meteor scenario is not anathema to me.

    As with all things UFO, the explanations can be many, and preposterous, just like UFOs themselves.

    My point in providing the UFO clip was to supplement my reference to it in a comment (for CDA) in the Darwinian posting.

    Meteors, with which I am somewhat familiar, do not traverse the sky in the way that the 1963 UFO does, in my estimation.

    You can have the film as meteoric in nature.

    I prefer to see the UFO in a different way, that's all.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • Don:

    You have an eye like an eagle.

    I would hope that we can track down more information about the film, as it is a worthy contender for evaluation.

    We'll scour sources to see if there is some substantial information about the film, the shooter, and anything else that might add to the fascinating (to me) clip.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 10, 2011  

  • Rich--

    A few points. According to the narration on the video, the 1963 object was filmed by James Waters. There are virtually no online references to this film as being of a UFO.

    In the debate above you had with Tim Printy, you seemed absolutely convinced that meteors always descend. You note that belief in several comments and ways.

    Unfortunately, you are incorrect.

    While the vast majority of meteors or meteoroids (or what are more commonly referred to as shooting or falling stars, and are called such due to the streak of light they create when burning up in the atmosphere), descend into the atmosphere, some do not.

    They are relatively rare, but do in fact occur. The August 10th, 1972 fireball incident, involving a meteor of between approximately car to house size, did in fact come into the Earth's atmosphere at an oblique, flat horizontal angle, and after visibly traveling through the upper atmosphere 1500 kilometers, seen between Utah and Alberta, Canada, then encountered the lower and thicker atmosphere, and due to speed and possibly shape, then ascended, like a skipping stone, back out of our atmosphere and into space.

    That is why I cited this incident in my initial comment, and included a wiki link and a youtube video of the film taken of the actual incident, and further, note here a more detailed article on the August 10th, 1972 fireball incident:

    http://tinyurl.com/45pua2k

    In addition, this was not a unique event. It has happened dozens of times in recorded history. These Small Solar System Bodies (SSSB's) that pass through the Earth's upper atmosphere are meteors which can either pass horizontally or can be deflected temporarily downward but then ascend out of the atmosphere, and are most commonly referred to as earth-grazing fireballs, meteors, or bolides, or most often simply "earthgrazers." See the link below.

    Wiki article on "earthgrazers":

    http://tinyurl.com/4dsgyzg

    In addition, the term meteorology really has nothing to do with meteors at all. Meteorology is essentially the study of the dynamics of the atmosphere, or weather patterns and causes. The study of meteors is meteorics, and those scientists who specialize in the study of meteors are meteoricists, grammatically speaking, similar to physicists being those scientists who study aspects of physics.

    The words meteor and meteorology are cognate, linguistically meaning they share the same etymological root origin.

    Both words derive from the Greek μετέωρος, meteōros, which means "high in the air," but obviously are not the same, and meteorology does not involve the study of meteors, per se.

    Of course, on the other hand, this does not prevent meteorologists, or your local TV weatherperson, from being interested in or studying meteorics or other astronomical topics.

    So, Printy is essentially correct in his argumentative yet illuminating assertions in these regards, elucidated above for our mutual edification. Or something like that.

    Funny, I never thought I'd end up agreeing with him, or sharing his frustration in attempting to clarify such easily-researched matters. 8^}

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Tuesday, January 11, 2011  

  • Steve:

    I do not oppose or disagree with you or Printy, about meteors or meteorologists, in toto.

    My point, in posting the Colorado film, was as a kind of addendum to a reply I made in a previous post.

    That meteors skim the Earth or arrive horizontal to the plane -- the horizon be damned -- as your 1972 event shows points to the idea that there is an exception to every rule.

    But the Colorado UFO has none of the earmarks of a skimming meteor or "earth-grazer" as I see it.

    (And, as usual, I'm also taking into account the UFO caught flying over Washington D.C. during the Obama inaugural, which indicates, to me, anyway, that such UFOs are "sui generis" for my Darwinian argument.)

    The UFO in Colorado could be a meteor, but I don't see it that way, that's all.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 11, 2011  

  • As a closing argument about this whole thing, I want to go back to your original statement for rejecting this as a meteor:

    "Bolides descend. This UFO isn't descending."

    1) You can not prove the UFO is ascending, descending, or maintaining its altitude based on the information in this brief clip. There is not enough information. To make the claim that it "isn't descending" requires some sort of proof.

    2) Meteors can ascend in the sky from the perspective of one observer. I only state this because this appeared to be your original argument based on the information in the clip showing the UFO apparently moving in an upward direction. As noted in #1, you can not make this claim based on the information available.

    3) In some cases (where the entry angle is shallow enough), meteors can actually ascend in the atmosphere after descending to a certain height.

    My point of all of this has never been to show this UFO is a meteor. I have never made the claim. In fact, to me it probably isn't for various reasons (despite the darkness of the film, it appears to be in daylight/very bright moonlight). However,I can not rule out that possibility without more information. That is what examining these UFO videos/pictures/films/reports is all about. Only until you POSITIVELY eliminate all mundane sources, can you start examining other, more exotic ones. Making blanket statements such as the one you originally made above without examining the facts surrounding meteors implies that you are more interested in exotic explanations than mundane ones. That is a recipe for belief and not a recipe for critical thinking or scientific investigation.

    By Blogger Tim Printy, at Tuesday, January 11, 2011  

  • Tim:

    You must know by now that we like "exotic" conjectures here.

    Taking the safe, allegedly methodical approach hasn't done anything to explain the UFO phenomenon.

    We think it's time to "think outside the ufological box."

    You'll forgive us for doing so I hope.

    I appreciate your intelligent comeuppances about the Colorado UFO posting.

    But we often go off the beaten track here, just to create new mind-sets.

    You'd like us to conform.

    We can't. It's not in our nature.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 11, 2011  

  • Very nice comments Tim! I completely agree that a meteor cannot be ruled out in this footage, and it's inconclusive at best. To call this the ultimate Darwinian UFO seems like calling the so-called "rods" the ultimate proof of alien life visiting Earth (for those not aware about rods, rods are artifacts which show up in film, and have been proven to usually be moths or some other form of insect quickly moving past the camera).

    I feel the desire to believe in this clip by the author is a very strong one, so they're resistant to counter ideas about it, much like a Christian becomes very resistant when you question the logic of their religion. No offense to the author, however. I see where you're coming from, but I think at this point you're just trying to not admit that Tim has a point and that you were incorrect, rather than actually engaging in a logical debate here.

    By Blogger Armakan, at Tuesday, January 11, 2011  

  • Armakan:

    As Jungians, logic has little to do with how we see things; intuition is the ruling mind/body set.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 11, 2011  

  • Ah, you can ignore my last comment. I had this page up from last night and then commented without refreshing, missing many more comments about the meteors before I posted. I think it's been argued to death. I will add just one thing: I think the main takeaway from the argument with Printy is that, whatever the object is in the film, a meteor cannot be ruled out, as the data is not there to do so, and I agree with this conclusion. I won't claim definitively that it IS one thing or another, but I feel like footage such as this doesn't really help (or hurt) the UFO cause/search for the truth in any real way...it's just far too ambiguous. Yes, if we want to suspend critical thinking and just assume its a real UFO, and then assume the film isn't distorting the object any, sure, it could be a great example of a "Darwinian UFO." But that's a whole lot of assumptions...

    By Blogger Armakan, at Tuesday, January 11, 2011  

  • RR,

    Love the Jungian comment about intuition! :) I too tend to interpret things thru that filter first, and then try logic afterwords to see if my thoughts can be considered accurate :) I think we mayhaps take the same approach to these things...even if we disagree at times.

    By Blogger Armakan, at Tuesday, January 11, 2011  

  • Armakan:

    I know some will hate this, but I have to write that UFOs have been an interest of mine for longer than some of the life-times of many of our readers, and while I find the topic fascinating, I don't think that UFOs are metaphysically relevant, in the great scheme of things.

    They might end up being a source of transcendental enlightenment, but so far, they haven't been.

    So, our often flippant stance irks a few people who've invested their lives in the phenomenon.

    But c'est la guerre...

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 11, 2011  

  • I've seen this footage multiples of times over the years, but know very little about it. I would like to ask:

    -Who was the shooter?
    -Where was he going?
    -What were the circumstances of his trip, or drive?

    To note the "morphing" aspect, this is really nothing but motion blur in every (X) amount of frames exposed.

    No visual data captured any number of ways, accurately reflects the actual event. What is seen with the eye is not what is seen through the lens. Mechanical interpretation of visual data vs direct view? There's no contest - so a myriad of issues have to be addressed of visual evidence, and parsed through the filters of camera, optics, film, CCDs, exposure, ocular distortions, etc.

    By Blogger JR, at Tuesday, January 11, 2011  

  • JR:

    You are right, and we've dealt mostly with what you write, as you can see in the other comments here.

    Of course, is there a problem with being overly-analytical?

    That is, can one try to accumulate so much data and detritus that the thing seen becomes botched by a surfeit of material?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 11, 2011  

  • RR-
    The more I look at this, the more I think it has a lot to do with the sign which goes by just as the "UFO" exits frame. In that same sense, the UO appears to be moving as fast as the ground level midpoint to the shooter. It should be noted at no point do we see this go behind stationary objects.

    By Blogger JR, at Tuesday, January 11, 2011  

  • JR:

    I'd love to get more information on this clip.

    Steve Sawyer gave a name, which might help us track down a better reproduction of the film and other pertinent details.

    (I'm also going to YouTube for the Obama inaugural UFO so readers here can see a similar thing, traversing the sky much like this Colorado "object.")

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, January 11, 2011  

  • The striking geological feature in the film looks recognizable: Chimney Rock, near Towaoc, CO.

    This vintage clip seems due for further research. Given how long its been around, and the fact its been featured in various documentaries (one citing the location wrong, as Utah) -- I wonder if there's not a local history of small town talk about it in the vicinity. Might hold some ungathered clues if so?

    Seems likely folks in the region would know of this film. Hard to imagine they wouldn't. I wonder what comments locals might have about it. Especially, if any are "in the know" -- what further light might be shed, or new leads turned up for investigation.

    (Can't disprove meteor. But I've never seen anything like the "galloping" effect, morphing its called here, in footage of any bolide I've ever seen. To my eye it resembles more closely some kind of optical or imaging effect -- like "fun house mirror" reflection, of light off an uneven surface. Mainly seems a head scratcher, in absence of more info)

    By Blogger Brian Akers, at Wednesday, January 12, 2011  

  • Brian:

    Yes, it's a head-scratcher of a kind.

    We're looking for more information on the shooter, the locale, the reason for the filming, et cetera.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, January 12, 2011  

  • Is this film shown at the beginning of the X-files TV show footage? (Seriously it seems familiar).

    Any how on the meteor debate, which BTW, I find fascinating. I think the 1972 footage is good for comparison, because IMHO, it shows how dissimilar to two objects are. In the meteor skip of 72' there is a clear contrail visible. Yes, the camera is pulled back for full panoramic effect. That being said, especially on the slowed down version of the 63 film, there is clearly NO contrail. Any difference in film resolution/degradation should make a contrail more visible, not less. In the clearer versions, slowed, a distinct, white object, apparently moving under some control, darts across.

    Honestly, it looks like a lower resolution version of the insect/rod videos to me, but the perspective/angel makes the object seem farther away in my eye, so I'm still intrigued. That and the history of desert aircraft testing.

    Context will help shed light here.
    Intriguing however. Very cool. Also not a meteor.

    By OpenID markrobin12, at Friday, January 14, 2011  

  • Right, Mark:

    Not a meteor!

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, January 14, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home