UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, September 02, 2014

If UFOs are ephemeral or neurological, how does one explain this?

Stephen Michalak Falcon Lake, Manitoba 1967
Sonny Desvergers West Palm Beach, Florida 1952

Or this from http://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/ufo-burn.htm

During the great sighting outbreak of early November 1957, a number of close encounters had a disturbing consequence: burns and related injuries to witnesses. One of the most dramatic occurrences took place at an army base at Itaipu along Brazil's Atlantic coast. At 2 A.M. on November 4 two guards saw a luminous orange disc coming in over the ocean at a low altitude and an alarming rate of speed. As it passed above the soldiers, the disc came to an instant stop.

The two witnesses suddenly felt a wave of heat and a horrifying sensation as if they had burst into flame. Their screams brought other soldiers stumbling out of their barracks just in time to see the UFO streak away. At that moment the fort's entire electrical system failed. Amid great secrecy the two men were rushed to a military hospital and treated during the next few weeks for first-and second-degree burns to ten percent of their bodies.

But there were other burn cases as well. In the afternoon of the same day as the Itaipu incident, the engines of several cars along a rural highway near Orogrande, New Mexico, ceased to function as an egg-shaped object maneuvered close by. A witness who stood particularly close to it contracted a "sunburn." In the early morning hours of November 6, outside Merom, Indiana, a hovering UFO, which bathed his farm in light, also seriously burned René Gilham's face. He ended up spending two days in the hospital.

At around 1:30 A.M. on November 10 a Madison, Ohio, woman saw an acorn-shaped UFO hovering just behind her garage. She watched it for half an hour. In the days afterward she developed a body rash and vision problems that her doctor believed suggested radiation poisoning.

RR

Pseudo-Science: Ufology, of course


Mac Brazel's Roswell Find: Balloon Debris but not Mogul Debris!

Some Roswellian advocates insist upon the idea that Mac Brazel found debris from a crashed flying disk, from which the errant Haut press release derived.

They argue that Project Mogul did not cover what Brazel discovered, and they are right.

But what he did find was still debris, but from Project Helios and here's what Brazel found:

The New York University Balloon Group was organized in November, 1946 to develop and fly constant level balloons that would carry Army Air Forces' instruments aloft for the long range detection of nuclear explosions. In 1947, while awaiting the delivery of the polyethylene balloons to be used in these flights, tests were made using clusters of neoprene, meteorological sounding balloons. In June, flight operations started in Alamogordo AAF, NM where three full-scale flights were launched. One of these, NYU Flight #4, was last reported over Arabela, NM. From a recent examination of the Weather Bureau winds aloft reports and of the ground tracks of the two subsequent NYU flights, it appears that Flight #4 is a likely candidate to explain the debris later recovered north-northwest of Arabela.

And here is a web-ste dealing with the Mogul matter, with inane comments by Roswell/ET advocates:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=93349

David Rudiak will say this is the Mogul array, but it has nothing to do with Project Helios.

Here is what it really is -- Mogul was a seprate project from Helios:

This trip was made in support of Project Helios. The primary purpose was to visit present or potential suppliers of materials need for the project. A major point of interest is the view on plastic films under consideration for the balloons. Pliofilm still seems to have most potential; nylon and polythene (polyethylene) are nowhere near mature enough to be seriously considered. 

This report describes the first outdoor inflation and flight attempt of a full-size pliofilm balloon on April 24, 1947. Purpose of the test was to obtain data on (1) proposed method of inflation; (2) use of plastic ground cover; (3) behavior of the aerostat at low wind velocity; (4) weighing off the aerostat; (5) rate of ascent; (6) operation of appendix; (7) excess lift for safe take-off without dragging; (5) balloon suspension system; (9) behavior of suspended parachute. Several preconceived opinions on these points were found wanting. A suspension harness failure precluded an actual flight. Nevertheless, the experiment was very revealing, producing information vital to any future attempt. Prior to the first outdoor inflation, a trial inflation had also been successfully made at the balloon loft. 

RR