Search results

Mitch Stanley, an amateur astronomer, stated that he resolved the Phoenix lights (or rather the first event, at 20:00 hrs) into individual planes using a telescope. He says that each plane had at least two lights. https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/the-great-ufo-cover-up-6422930

Another article, this time by (the late) Joel Carpenter gives a lot more detail about the case. This is also from Tim Printy's Sunlite magazine. http://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/SUNlite6_4.pdf Here is a copy of a frame from a film taken at the time, probably (but not definitely) the same film...

One explanation for Jacob's 'UFO attacking an Atlas missile' account is that the launch included a decoy warhead with sub-units attached by nylon strings; it seems possible to me that the nylon strings may have produced some sort of glowing beam-like effect in the rarefied upper atmosphere, and...

That is because it is an 'animated simulation', based on Jacob's remembered impressions of the actual film (which he only saw a few times back in 1964). The large caption in that Larry King clip obscures the smaller caption on the simulation clip (shown below). Not a particularly competent...

One interesting aspect of the Zamora case is that he dropped his glasses during the event, so his sight was compromised to an unknown extent after that mishap. This would cover the portion of the sighting during which the balloon/flying testbed/ alien spacecraft was flying away.

The Altair system was operative in 1974, so should have been able to obtain a signature from an unknown object at that range. Since the 1974 'ghost ship' was associated with a ballistic launch, it seems possible that the 'ghost' was a fragment of the booster, as in the earlier 1962 Atlas...

I think this is probably correct. The camera follows the top object, which is smaller than the large booster which falls beneath it and breaks up on reentry. The top object retains its shape and integrity until it fades away in the distance. I suspect this is the reentry vehicle, and the other...

Infra-red light is longer than visible light, therefore it is more likely to be blurred. The sharpest images are those made by shorter wavelengths.

That one is counted as a successful suborbital launch. I suspect that the payload was the last object visible in the film, that fades away without burning up; or perhaps the payload is the dimmer, starlike object that shows no sign of re-entry heating.

Perhaps the aliens came and rescued the poor rhesus monkey, which would be jolly decent of them. On a more serious note, I can't see that any of the tests were labelled 'test 103', so I'm still in the dark about that aspect.

Note that the nose cone is supposed to separate from the booster, so in a successful launch we would see at least two objects after separation. In this screenshot we see three, which is slightly puzzling, but may be caused by segments coming off the booster. I suspect that the largest object -...

Here are a list of Atlas launches; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_launches_(1960%E2%80%931969) if this was an Atlas F, there are a few catastrophic failures in 1961-62 to choose from. One of these contained a 'biological payload' - a rhesus monkey - which was not recovered.

Interesting. The rocket seems to break up into several pieces which re-enter separately; one segment continues flying away from the camera and fades away, rather than disintegrating. At one point there are three large pieces. I suppose the identity of each of the pieces may not be known...

Well, here's a clip of Therion playing on February 6, 2024; the concert seems to be indoors, not in a stadium. Source: https://youtu.be/uMABDi9Zspk?feature=shared However the lights in the sky might have been outside the venue, to increase the experience for concert-goers as they arrived (or...

That looks very much like the same kind of lighting effect. I see that the Swedish 'symphonic metal band' Therion was playing in Sofia on February 6, 2024; were these lights part of their lighting display?

The photos Klarer produced are quite clear; not convincing in the least, but clear.

One problem is that the pilot said it went from 'coast to coast', while this is interpreted as travelling '180 degrees in a second'. I do not believe it is physically possible for anyone to accurately observe a phenomenon which travels '180 degrees in a second', especially from within the...

I'm not sure how that follows. A pilot has good observation skills, but is trained to be aware of threats and potential dangers; this can lead to them misinterpreting stimuli as dangerous when they are not (meteors, batman balloons, starlink satellites, and so on).

As a passenger I once saw a 'white tic tac plane' far below me as we flew over a local airfield. The plane I was in was travelling at about 37,000 feet; the outline of the local airport far below could be seen quite easily, and so could a small, detail-less aircraft approaching the airfield as...

Since the Chandelier image is out of focus, the 22.5 degree diffraction patterns may be present, but too blurred to be seen clearly, or at all.