UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[carlitos]

There are privacy and copyright issues. What I can give you are approximate coodinates for Google Earth. Open Google Earth and plug them into the search and they'll get you close enough.

Object came up from behind Four Points Mountain: 50°28'21.05" N 115°53'25.74"W ( almost exactly )

Landing Zone Aprox: 50°26'32.96" N 115°56'34.17" W ( within a few hundered meters & definitely east of the highway )

My viewing location was on the west side of the lake about 3 Km from the LZ. at about 3000 ft. ( exact location witheld for privacy reasons ).

The altitude of the object when it departed appeared to be at around 4608ft. as drawn along the mountains behind it, but was probably lower due to the viewing angle and the object's distance away from the mountains in the background. I haven't figured out what that altitude would be yet, but it can be extrapolated.

4608ft. Woot. What's your error bar on that. Really, I mean , it could be... 4607 foot ? or maybe 4609 ? Ever heard of the expression "significant digit" ? But from what you are describing, it could very very well be an insect viewed from much nearer in the air, but due to the lack of *near* reference point, gave you the illusion it was much much farther away. just saying. The "luciole hypotheses" become more likely.

Yes most likely, but asking for confirmation may reveal stuff.


ufology: The reason I asked was in relation to this which you wrote on 24th July:

"The object rose up about two thirds the height of the mountains, stopped, got really bright, and instantly accelerated up the valley north between the mountains, as far as you could see, which is much farther than the above picture has for a field of view ... leaving a glowing trail of light in its wake."
ETA: Source

Now looking at the relevant details in Google Earth (it's really the first chance I've had to look at this in any sort of detail).
I plotted the positions you've given and that we've estimated (because you bothered for some reason about giving the exact location away) your position at the time of the sighting, which can't really be too far out.
Here is the overhead view:
[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/UFO-Canada.jpg[/qimg]

The blue helicopter is actually set to show a 4608ft above ground level, so when we put Google Earth into "Ground Level" view, we see it in relation to the mountains behind.

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/UFO-Canada-2.jpg[/qimg]

That's not "two thirds the height" of the mountains.

So a lot needs clarifying here. Were you talking relative heights in relation to your viewing position when you mentioned two thirds up the mountain (that would put the object much lower than the later claimed 4608ft) or are you saying you could work out the height of the mountains and mentally triangulate the objects height taking into account it's closer position?

Disclaimer: I realise that Google Earth is not pin point accurate, but it's also not wildly inaccurate so as a rough measure (given the rough information we have work from), it's close enough at this point.

reusing the same diagram as straycat and placing ufology at 3000 foot, make the viewing line angle much lower (red line). Still to be visually at "2/3" of the mountain that would place it roughly at the blue line, or about 4000 foot vertically from the position Ufology seems to think it landed.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=526&pictureid=5007[/qimg]

You're working on how you reached the numbers you've already given?
Wouldn't you usually do the working out bit first like most of us?

 

[Marduk]

something else I noticed, Ufology claims he went out at 6am because in daylight he would better be able to see the landing site
thing is, those mountains which were east of his position at 6am are between him and the easterly rising sun, so the landing sight would be in darkness still until the sun crested the mountains. that doesn't happen until much later in the day
of course, if he'd actually been there he would know that

 

[23_Tauri]

I think that which ever 'category' the several bits of it seem to fit in to, the prefix 'pseudo' seem apt.
As the subject of UFOlogy is always some pale imitation of religion, science, investigation or entertainment etc.

Au contraire, Mr Cat, I've found this thread to be highly entertaining in places.

 

[ufology]

something else I noticed, Ufology claims he went out at 6am because in daylight he would better be able to see the landing site
thing is, those mountains which were east of his position at 6am are between him and the easterly rising sun, so the landing sight would be in darkness still until the sun crested the mountains. that doesn't happen until gone 8am
of course, if he'd actually been there he would know that

Marduk,

In case you've never noticed before, it starts to get
light out well before the sun itself appears in the sky.
Also, since every other illustration but mine has just
been reposted. Here is mine again too.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...
Why do you think people bother to correct your misunderstandings if they are not glad to help? Do you think they waste hours here GRUDGINGLY?

...snip...

And now you know why they called it "Project Grudge"...

 

[Marduk]

Marduk,

In case you've never noticed before, it starts to get
light out well before the sun itself appears in the sky.
Also, since every other illustration but mine has just
been reposted. Here is mine again too.

[qimg]http://ufopages.com/AN-01.png[/qimg]

uhuh,Google earth has a setting for sunlight, you probably didn't know that

now you do

 

[AdMan]

uhuh,Google earth has a setting for sunlight, you probably didn't know that
[qimg]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/liar.jpg[/qimg]
now you do

To be fair, in order to estimate the amount of light you would need the correct time of year as well. Wasn't it around June?

 

[Marduk]

To be fair, in order to estimate the amount of light you would need the correct time of year as well. Wasn't it around June?

the picture is 15th june, 6:01am

so we have another problem, ufology never mentioned it was that dark and the valley isn't illuminated at all, because the mountains block direct sunlight at that time causing the valley to be in darkness

Around 6:00AM the light of dawn began to illuminate the valley well enough to make out where the orb had landed. So I went outside to get a better look, and just as I stepped out onto the landing, the orb came up again

surely he would know if he was actually there at that date and time
another thing, how visible would something be in daylight when it was that small at 25 km distance

if it was in the light of dawn as he claims, he wouldn't have been able to see it anyway,

 

[Stray Cat]

Also, since every other illustration but mine has just been reposted. Here is mine again too.

http://ufopages.com/AN-01.png

Which for your information shows the object at 557 feet.
So that's now 4 wildly different figures.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Engaging sarcasm:
But you can't go back and show when Ufology ACTUALLY TYPED WHAT WE CAN ALL READ. He just said I was confused, so he can't POSSIBLY have written that...

Disengaging Sarcasm.

Ufology, if you want explain how I was confused by your statement "The altitude of the object when it departed appeared to be at around 4608ft," please don't bother. I understand what the words "altitude" "appeared" and "to be" mean. I am not in the least confused. You said the object appeared to be at 4608 ft, then you later changed the figure.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Marduk,

In case you've never noticed before, it starts to get
light out well before the sun itself appears in the sky.
Also, since every other illustration but mine has just
been reposted. Here is mine again too.

[qimg]http://ufopages.com/AN-01.png[/qimg]

Which shows the object at considerably less than 4000ft. Still want to pretend I am "confused", or admit you keep changing the damned story when ever it is clearly shown to be impossible?

Any estimate, calculation or figure you give can not be trusted. As a source of "evidence" you are, in the strictest sense of the word, incredible. You are as far from credible as it is possible to be. If you insisted one of the MIBs was Elvis, and as soon as he left Queen Elizabeth offered you acts of decedance I can not describe here, then you story could get NO LESS credible.



Where is the actual evidence? Of any UFO being an alien vessel. ANY. Just one? Where is it UFOlogy? Got any credible research? Any at all?

 

[ufology]

No, he's right. You offered the figure of 4608 feet yourself, you must have done some calculations to get that figure. When I posted the graphic showing it couldn't have been correct, you then back tracked.

Stray:

Like I said before, the numbers have been taken out of context, elevations from sea level, visual estimates, calculations based on Google elevations all presented in a way that misrepresents my statements. The diagrams people have posted are equally misrepresentational because they are not even close to scale. Here is a more accurate cross section.

This is the first time I've done this illustration and it looks like the vertical rise based on my viewing angle was closer to 300 meters. So I'll have to adjust my visual esitmate based on the measurements. Numbers are in meters. Compare this to my earlier diagram and you see how everything I've said makes sense.

 

[Daylightstar]

...

if it was in the light of dawn as he claims, he wouldn't have been able to see it anyway,

For June, 1975:
It wasn't in the light of dawn as he claims, dawn ended at around 05:30. The sun had already come up and was more than two degrees above the horizon at around azimuth 55 degrees. Although right behind the mountains, there would have been plenty light at around 06:00 AM.

No such thing as 06:00AM the light of dawn beginning to illuminate the valley ...

 

[ufology]

uhuh,Google earth has a setting for sunlight, you probably didn't know that
now you do

Sure, and when it's been pitch black all night and dawn comes, the human eye starts to detect surroundings much better than what you see on the little Google simulation. I'm sure you know what I mean. There is a quality to human vision that facilitates a wide dynamic range. On a full moon night you can make your way around just fine if your eyes are good. At dawn the whole sky starts to glow. It wasn't like full daylight by any means, but The landscape was plainly visible.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Stray:

Like I said before, the numbers have been taken out of context, elevations from sea level, visual estimates, calculations based on Google elevations all presented in a way that misrepresents my statements. The diagrams people have posted are equally misrepresentational because they are not even close to scale. Here is a more accurate cross section.

[qimg]http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/Graphics/SCS-01A.png[/qimg]

This is the first time I've done this illustration and it looks like the vertical rise based on my viewing angle was closer to 300 meters. So I'll have to adjust my visual esitmate based on the measurements. Numbers are in meters. Compare this to my earlier diagram and you see how everything I've said makes sense.

[qimg]http://ufopages.com/AN-01.png[/qimg]

Compare that to your original statement and you will see it has changed.
You said its altitude was over 4000ft, now you are changing it to fit your pretty picture.

 

[Daylightstar]

Sure, and when it's been pitch black all night and dawn comes, the human eye starts to detect surroundings much better than what you see on the little Google simulation. I'm sure you know what I mean. There is a quality to human vision that facilitates a wide dynamic range. On a full moon night you can make your way around just fine if your eyes are good. At dawn the whole sky starts to glow. It wasn't like full daylight by any means, but The landscape was plainly visible.

No need for any degree of dark adaptation at 06:00 at your claimed place, and month.

 

[ufology]

For June, 1975:
It wasn't in the light of dawn as he claims, dawn ended at around 05:30. The sun had already come up and was more than two degrees above the horizon at around azimuth 55 degrees. Although right behind the mountains, there would have been plenty light at around 06:00 AM.

No such thing as 06:00AM the light of dawn beginning to illuminate the valley ...

Dude ... I said plenty of light ... I've made that clear ... and just made it more clear in my response to Marduk. I've used other phrases like "morning light" ... so what if I said, "beginning to illuminate the valley"? It is also just fine when taken in context that I could see the landscape just fine. What do you expect, for me to give you a description in freaking lumens. Please be reasonable and stop exaggerating what I say to suit your biases. What is the matter with you people? And thanks for helping prove my point as well.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Sure, and when it's been pitch black all night and dawn comes, the human eye starts to detect surroundings much better than what you see on the little Google simulation. I'm sure you know what I mean. There is a quality to human vision that facilitates a wide dynamic range. On a full moon night you can make your way around just fine if your eyes are good. At dawn the whole sky starts to glow. It wasn't like full daylight by any means, but The landscape was plainly visible.

Oh look, it changed from seeing something in the light of the dawn, to seeing something in the gloom eyes can adjust to. How nice. And inconsistent.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Dude ... I said plenty of light ... I've made that clear ... and just made it more clear in my response to marduk. What do you expect, for me to give you a description in freaking lumens. Please be reasonable and stop exaggerating what I say to suit your biases.

Erm, I think you meant to say "repeating" not "exagerating".

Hows the evidence coming? Ever want to get back on topic and supply any?

 

[Aepervius]

Sure, and when it's been pitch black all night and dawn comes, the human eye starts to detect surroundings much better than what you see on the little Google simulation. I'm sure you know what I mean. There is a quality to human vision that facilitates a wide dynamic range. On a full moon night you can make your way around just fine if your eyes are good. At dawn the whole sky starts to glow. It wasn't like full daylight by any means, but The landscape was plainly visible.

I bike every day at around 6 am to work. Diffuse light from the sun illuminating the sky do diddly squat to help you see well distant object. Direct light is what's at. The picture is well representative. There are plenty of picture taken at dawn in google picture, and of valley too. As for moonlight and indirect light, you may well remark that for one you can't see color, and distance don't render so well : that is because we human rank very very poorly in night vision or even poor illumination.