Major Ufo Sighting Causing Big News!

[Aethelwulf]

Kites exhibit "arduous" flight? Really?? Just what amount of time exactly do you have in mind? The movements of each performance are uniquely choreographed. If they want the kites to move together, that's what the pilots do.

 

 

I look at some synchronized flight patterns and one thing in common all stick out. They are not kites which fly hundreds of feet into the air. It seems like they can do this because the string is tight enough to doctor the flight patterns of their kites...

 

Even if you were right and they could synchronize kites hundreds of feet into the air, this is already a very elaborate theory to explain an otherwise... odd event. Without guarantee that anyone would have ever seen the objects, it still doesn't make sense why anyone would risk flying kites around planes, hire people who could actually synchronize these kites in flight patterns. Then be able to reel in these kites without radar detecting a descend in their altitude (which I am currently awaiting an answer for the average drop off of radar bouncing).

[JMJones0424]

...I am quite sure radar systems can pick up on an object at least 500 feet into the air. Maybe even less. Of course, depends on the terrain again so there is no set figure in every circumstance.

 

With the exception of long range radar systems that use HF frequencies bounced off of the ionosphere, the lower limit of a radar's effectiveness, called the horizon, depends on the distance from the antenna and the height of the antenna. Radars use line of sight radio frequencies. Because the surface of the Earth curves away from the antenna, the farther you are from the antenna, the higher you can be before the radar sees you. For the same reason, ships disappear under the horizon as they sail away if you are watching them from port. Wikipedia's article on radar horizon should give you all the formulas you need to approximate the horizon given the antenna height and distance to target.

[Turtle]

I look at some synchronized flight patterns and one thing in common all stick out. They are not kites which fly hundreds of feet into the air. It seems like they can do this because the string is tight enough to doctor the flight patterns of their kites...

 

Even if you were right and they could synchronize kites hundreds of feet into the air, this is already a very elaborate theory to explain an otherwise... odd event. Without guarantee that anyone would have ever seen the objects, it still doesn't make sense why anyone would risk flying kites around planes, hire people who could actually synchronize these kites in flight patterns. Then be able to reel in these kites without radar detecting a descend in their altitude (which I am currently awaiting an answer for the average drop off of radar bouncing).

 

 

Even if I were right? :doh: Dude, you have on some serious blinders. B)

 

 

Scientologists have as part of their doctrine the belief in aliens and having some show up at a Scientology center props up the belief.

 

Again, if a kite were flying just above a radar horizon and giving a return, it would only have to descend a few dozens of feet to stop giving that return. A controllable kite -which is more than "standard" these days"- would have no trouble achieving such a drop in a matter of minutes, if not seconds. Any hoaxer worth their salt would know what the radar horizon is for the site they plan to perform at.

 

 

You have to ask yourself, what would Tom Cruise do?

Edited June 18, 2013 by Turtle

[Turtle]

Mmmmmm....in review of the thread I see that Moontanman is conspicuous by his absence here. Come out come out wherever you are to dance by the silvery light .... :moon:

[Turtle]

Tutorial on hovering a quad-line kite.

 

 

Mmmmm...not sure why it's not displaying as a preview for me. :shrug: No matter. Click & watch.

 

Inspite of Aether's misunderstandings about the nature of winds hundreds of feet off the ground and how kites fly in such winds, there is no reason the same kite in the video could not be flown at hundreds of feet. The reason these kite pilots don't fly high is not that they can't, but that their performances are meant to be seen by folks on the ground. Moreover, it is not uncommon to find kevlar lines on these stunters -presenting real dangers to life and limb when flying fast & low to the ground- and long kevlar lines are strong kevlar lines.

 

If I had unlimited funds, I would replace the human controller with feed-back-enabled servos -say robot- and preprogram my routine. Hoax a UFO sighting? No problem. Scale kites to suit, shape to suit, & sails of silverized Dacron to reflect the brilliance of superior intelligence. Wait for the right wind and dance 2 3 4...

:alien_dance:

Edited June 18, 2013 by Turtle

[Turtle]

Clearly I'm tooting my own horn :xparty: , but it goes to evidence of my expertise -or lack thereof- in building and flying kites so I'll allow it. :hammer:

 

 

The images of the kite in the montage are as it was 30 minutes ago. I have not flown it in this rhomboid configuration, but I have flown it dozens of time in a square configuration, with & without a payload.

 

Though I took a dozen or so rolls of film from aloft during my interest in aerial photography, all but a few were lost in a structure fire. **** happens. :shrug:

:blahblahblah:

 

Oh...but I digress. :lol:

The B/W photo was taken by a camera lofted by the pictured kite. The kite sails are ripstop nylon, the longerons plywood, and the cross supports maple doweling.

 

The camera was a motor-driven Nikon 35mm SLR on a gimbaled moveable platform & using a radio controlled shutter release.

I would guess because of the location, that the tallest trees in the midground are cottonwoods & 80 feet or so tall. As the camera angle is set downward from horizontal I'd further guess the kite was at around 200 feet. Note the camera platform is not attached to the kite. The kite is let up first to a stable flight level & tied off and only then the camera platform is hauled up the flying line using a light string passed through a pulley which is pre-attached to the flight line just below the bridle attachment. I learned to keep the camera well below the kite as bringing too close an approach changed the kites angle of attack and it would spill air and start to drop.

 

 

To be sure, this kite is heavy and takes 12 to 15 mph wind to fly well. I flew it using 1/4" braided nylon rope that a fisherman gave me & in up to 25 mph wind. I made a reel that staked to the ground and loaded with 600 feet of said line. When she's up and tied off, the line more sings than hums. :singer: Why I remember one time when I ...:blahblahblah: Oh yeah; pictures. :artgallery:

Edited June 18, 2013 by Turtle

[Turtle]

he did say conventional kite, to be fair. but then why would the scientologists be interested in flying conventional kites?

 

i saw some really cool vaguely UFO shaped with LEDs for night flying. i'm to get one and generate a months worth of flying saucers with improbable movement stories.

 

 

Why indeed.

 

What are we going to do tonight Brain? Muahahahahah. :thumbs_up:

 

here's the summary of the Airprox report for those interested. there is mention of toys in there:

 

 

 

 

PART A: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION REPORTED TO UKAB

 

 

THE B777 PILOT reports inbound to Gatwick, IFR and in communication with Gatwick Tower, squawking an assigned code with Modes S and C. About 4-5nm from touchdown RW26L heading 260° at 140kt and descending through 1500ft QNH, P2 spotted, and then drew his attention to, 2 flat silver discs ahead, 1 either side of the C/L and below their flightpath; these objects appeared to be very slow moving or stationary. All 3 pilots on the flightdeck saw the objects, which passed 100-200ft below; the crews in 2 subsequent ac also saw the objects. They informed ATC of incident and he assessed the risk as low.

 

RAC MIL reports tracing action did not reveal the identity of the reported objects. Looking at possible sources, there are no registered radio-controlled model flying clubs listed in the area. Maps show many open fields under the RW26 approach where persons could operate remote control ac. There are saucer-shaped or blimp-shaped model ac, up to 4ft in diameter, on sale to the public.

 

THE GATWICK WATCH MANAGER reports the B777 crew reported seeing 2 man-made objects, possibly toys, passing under their ac approximately 5-6nm on final. Further details from the crew, and from the crew of a following B767, added the objects were 2 white or silver discs at approximately 1000-1500ft. Details of the incident were passed to the local Police Authority and to LTCC Group Supervisor.

 

ATSI reports that the Airprox was reported by the pilot of a B777 inbound to Gatwick when 2 objects were observed to pass beneath the ac. The report below contains only a factual history of all available information as the identity and origin of the observed objects could not be determined.

 

The B777 was an IFR flight squawking Mode A 4456 and in receipt of an ACS from Gatwick Tower on 124•255MHz . The Gatwick Tower frequency was reviewed between 0850 and 0904 UTC. RT loading was reasonably constant during this period.

 

The B777 flight called Tower at 0850:35 passing 3200ft at 11•5nm from touchdown and was instructed to continue approach.

 

 

Figure 1 is taken from the Gatwick 10cm radar replay at 0852:16 when a primary position indication symbol appeared on the outskirts of East Grinstead in the B777’s 11 o’clock range 3·4nm. The return disappeared on the next update of the replay.

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Gatwick 10cm: 0852:16 UTC

 

At 0853:02 the Gatwick 10cm replay showed the B777 at 6·4nm from touchdown, passing 2200ft and at this time another primary position indication symbol appears 0·1nm behind the B772 (Figure 2). The unknown target disappeared on the next update of the replay.

 

 

 

Figure 2: Gatwick 10cm: 0853:03 UTC

 

 

 

The B777 passed 6nm from touchdown at 0853:12 as it descended through 2100ft. The B777 passed 5nm from touchdown at 0853:43 as it descended through 1800ft.

 

The next ac inbound to RW26L, a B767 flight (Mode A 3243) called Tower at 0854:32 passing 2900ft at 10·5nm from touchdown and was instructed to continue approach.

 

At 0855:11 a primary position indication symbol appeared at 5·3nm on the approach and offset to the north by 0·1nm. The B767 was at 9·1nm passing 2900ft. The target disappeared on the next update of the replay.

 

The surface wind (230/08KT) was passed to the B777 flight and it was cleared to land at 0856:16. After the read back the pilot stated that, at between 5–6nm from touchdown, a couple of man-made objects had passed underneath the ac. These were described as ‘some sort of toy’. The report was acknowledged by the controller. At this time the B767 was at 6·3nm from touchdown passing through 2300ft.

 

As the B767 approached 6nm from touchdown (passing 2200ft) the Gatwick 10cm replay showed a sequence of 6 primary position indication symbols moving E’bound approximately 1nm N of the FAT (Figure 3)

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3: Gatwick 10cm: 0856:37 UTC

 

At 0857:17 the next inbound ac, an A319 called Tower, with 11nm to run and passing through 3000ft.

 

The B767 and A319 landed. There was no further mention, by pilots or controller, on the Tower frequency of the previously reported objects.

 

The controller and pilot reports subsequently indicated that the unknown objects were ‘2 white or silver discs at 1000–1500ft, which appeared to be very slow moving or stationary’. ATSI did not record the ground frequencies in use, where any further discussion of the objects may have taken place between ATC and the pilots of the 3 landing ac.

 

The incident was reported to the Police and London Terminal Control; however the nature of the objects has not been resolved.

 

 

PART B: SUMMARY OF THE BOARD'S DISCUSSIONS;

 

Information available included reports from the B777 crew, transcripts of the relevant RT frequencies, radar video recordings, reports from the air traffic Supervisor and reports from the appropriate ATC authorities.

 

The CAA FOI Advisor informed Members that the CAA is regularly approached with enquiries regarding various devices, including balloons/kites, to be used as camera platforms. Regulations require operators of model ac/UAVs with a mass greater than 7kg to seek approval for flight in an ATZ or CAS or above 400ft (ANO Article 166) and other limitations apply to surveillance ac (ANO Article167). For platforms less than 7kg, the operator has to be satisfied that the flight is safe without endangering an ac, person or property (ANO Articles 137 and 138). Model flying clubs are well regulated but other flying can take place anywhere else.

 

 

There was no doubt that the B777 crew, and 2 subsequent flights, had seen a couple of objects, reported by the B777 crew as man-made and toy-like. However, with the dearth of other information available to the Board and with the objects sighted remaining untraced, the Board elected to classify this incident as a sighting report on final approach; the risk was deemed unassailable.

 

 

AIRPROX; http://www.airproxbo...2%20Website.pdf

 

Good catch Blam! :thumbs_up Got to reading this more deeply and there is too much here not to have some mapping & mathing fun with. So the UFO's were at 1000 to 1500 feet by pilots reports. This is a bit tricky to use with no size estimate for the UFO's by the pilots, but it's what we have so we go with it. If they were unpowered controllable kites then there is a way to figure out how far away a flyer would have to be to have a kite that high. Alas my trig & calculus is not up to snuff, but here's a page describing the means & methods.

 

>> Control Line Equations @ NASA

 

 

 

Knowing where the flyers would have to be in relation to their kites at 1000 to1500 feet QNH and where the UFO's were sighted, we can draw some limits on a map. I have already plotted B777's 260º approach line out to 5 & 6nm. Google Earth® screenshot attached.

 

I haven't read the whole report in depth, but haven't seen a weather report for the time in question yet. Knowing wind speed & direction would further narrow our search of possible flyer locations.

 

Now where is the Scientology dance hall supposed to be?

 

Release the hounds; the game is afoot. :dogwalk:

Edited June 18, 2013 by Turtle

[LaurieAG]

Around 20 years ago I would go down the beach on moonless nights and fly delta wing stunt kites with a friend. We'd use the small (fishing lure) glow sticks and tape 2 of the green ones onto each side of the horizontal bar of one kite and tape the other 2 orange lights onto each side of the vertical bar on the other so we'd know exactly where our kites were at all times.

 

During daytime flying we discovered that we could twist the strings between the kites 8 times, by spinning around each other, before both kites lost control so we would spin around each other 8 times then fly around a bit (joined together) and then unspin. At that time the beach was about 20 feet below the dunes and the road was 40 feet back so 150 foot braided Dacron kite strings would give a good light show for anybody driving or walking along the road that night. Unfortunately if you viewed the lights from the 12th floor of a nearby highrise you would not get the impression of a war of the worlds going at light speed on the horizon. These days everybody would be oblivious due to light pollution.

 

I have also seen a flock of Pelicans riding a thermal on top of a mountain that was over 10 miles away. It was in the afternoon and a dark flash caught my eye. The flash was periodic and was actually caused by the shadow from the side of their wings away from the setting sun. I could make out at least 12 different birds and they must have been a mile high. The flash was caused when the shadows disappeared so I only noticed that they were there when I couldn't see them anymore. Eventually they circled again and I noticed the shadows and worked out what they were.

[Turtle]

Around 20 years ago I would go down the beach on moonless nights and fly delta wing stunt kites with a friend. We'd use the small (fishing lure) glow sticks and tape 2 of the green ones onto each side of the horizontal bar of one kite and tape the other 2 orange lights onto each side of the vertical bar on the other so we'd know exactly where our kites were at all times.

...

 

 

 

I met an old timer kiter who told me about he and his friends putting a kerosine lantern in their box kite and towing it down rural roads with their Model T. No power lines back then and no wind required. Had folks talkin' fo shizzle. :o

 

So did some reading and found exact location of Swackotology HQ. It's at least 12 miles from the reported sighting and 8 miles from the end of the runway, so the UFO's did not overfly the glory hole as the OP story headline claims. They may have overflown Holy Trinity Church or Okewood Church however at about the 6nm from end of runway, as would have B777.

 

I redid my B777 Red flight line on the map & added mileage marks. I marked HQ and drew a Pink line from it to the 6nm mark. I guestimated an X distance of 2200 feet for a Y kite height of 1500 and drew 2 yellow lines 2200 feet either side of the flight path and parallel to it.

 

Lots of open fields for launch, tree cover to hide, and crossing road access points within this confine. Quite a number of secluded rich cribs I might add. Let's get the property owner records and see how many belong to the cult.

 

I do agree with Aether that such a stunt as flying a vehicle at 1000+ feet in a flight path was indeed dangerous and could leave hoaxers liable for anything from creating an attractive nuisance to reckless endangerment. If they scared someone to death, add manslaughter. Presumably aliens are subject to the same laws. Legal opinion Lawcat?

 

That about covers this report. :coffee_n_pc:

[Aethelwulf]

My expert got back to me concerning how low Military radar systems can track

 

''It's not an exact science, but capabilities of some military radar systems are classified, so I'd better not answer this, as I can't recall what I heard while I was at MoD, as opposed to things I've picked up privately, from open source material. And don't forget there are space-tracking radar systems too''

 

Now Turtle, you were basing 2,500 feet on the ability of an airport. I still think though that was inflated and it was more likely we can track objects much lower than this. Of course, I am not saying they are lying but it isn't an exact science like my friend informs.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Aethelwulf

[Aethelwulf]

Anyway, I've had quite enough talking about this. I don't agree with you that kites are the explanation. Nor do I believe the HQ's hired professionals to use not only kites, but those attributed to Synchronized flying.

 

 

To be honest... it is a piss poor explanation of the event because you never managed to explain to me why radar systems couldn't even detect the objects altitude descend. They simply suddenly disappeared off radar. That doesn't sit well with me, among other things.

[CraigD]

Aethelwulf, I recommend you read UK Airprox board report, (number 2012175, on page 32 of 84 of this document, which blamski first cited in post #11) for the incident in question, as you’re not accurately quoting what the pilots and air traffic controllers reported in it. The Sun article you cited in post #1 is likewise inaccurate, though the Sun is an acknowledged tabloid, intended primarily for humorous amusement, so is understood not to have the same standards as a science discussion forum like hypography.

 

This thread has focused on the idea that the airprox objects (objects that approach an aircraft close enough to be reported as possibly dangerous) were thought to be kites, but kites are only mentioned in the report summary, which notes that regulations about camera platforms include balloons and kites. Because several of us (eg: me and Turtle) like to fly kites, and know from experience that the ordinary kind bought and used by hobbyists can fly high and steady, this has led to some exasperation over your insistence that they can’t.

 

The pilots described the 2 objects only as white or silver disks, slow moving or stationary. Investigators appear to have assumed they were radio controlled aircraft, and checked for model flying clubs in the area (finding none). Radar replays revealed only 2 returns, 46 seconds apart, with “primary position indicators” near the first of 3 aircraft (the B777) that reporting seeing the 2 disks as they passed an estimated 100-200 feet directly above and between them when they were at a distance of about 5-6 nautical miles (9 to 11 km) from the airport, at a height above ground of about 1300 ft. This does not suggest, however, that the objects disappeared then, as about 4 and 6 minutes later, the pilots of 2 more aircraft, a B767 and an A310, also reported (after landing, apparently on ground control radio, which is not recorded) them visually in about the same position.

 

My best guess, given all this information, is that the 2 objects were either radio controlled aircraft, customized or custom-built, not commercial off-the-shelf, or disc-shaped Mylar balloons, again possibly custom-built, tethered to the ground, or, less likely, kites. I think kites are the least likely of these possibilities, because reports estimate their height at about 1100 ft above ground, which while possible for a kite, is unusual, especially given that surface winds were reported to be about 8 knots, a bit weak to loft the amount of string needed for such a height.

 

As all involved in flight safety appear convinced that the objects posed only a slight risk, and they haven’t since reappeared, I doubt much effort will be put into further investigation. Someone, I suspect, knows what the 2 objects actually were, but I doubt they will come forward, out of fear of getting into trouble for possibly endangering airliners.

[Aethelwulf]

Ok I will read the report, but I agree, the kite explanation is simply ridiculous. Very unlikely.

[CraigD]

... why radar systems couldn't even detect the objects altitude descend. They simply suddenly disappeared off radar. That doesn't sit well with me, among other things.

Coming from an aviation background (my parents were private pilots, I worked at a charter airline across the parking lot from a FAA control tower, etc.), I can explain an important characteristic of air traffic control radar pertaining to this question.

 

ATC/SSR radar differs from the sort of radar on, for example, warships, which can precisely determine the 3-D coordinates of radio-reflective targets. SSR, by itself, only accurately determine 2-D coordinates of targets. To determine the altitude of important targets – that is, aircraft – SSR systems combine radar returns with coded information from a device carried by the target called a transponder, which includes the altitude as measured by the aircraft’s altimeter, as well as a code that allows the aircraft’s identity to be displayed on the controller’s screen. A target without a turned-on transponder, such as small airplane, balloon, kite, remote-control aircraft, or presumably visitors from space, would not show its altitude to controllers.

 

Controllers can tell when a radar target not identified by a transponder descend below a roughly estimated height, because it disappears from their screens – gets “below their radar”. When this happens depends on many factors, however, such as the size and radio reflectivity of the target, and current weather conditions, so gives only a rough estimate.

 

Investigators reviewing a recording of a Gatwick controller’s screen saw a single target indication on their screens, near where aircraft reported visually seeing the 2 white or silver disks. On the next update of the screen, it wasn’t there. 46 seconds later, a target again appears in about that position. On the next update of the screen, it again disappears, this time forever.

 

This suggests that the target briefly reached a height and position where radar detected it, then descended and/or moved slightly, and could no longer be detected.

 

Ok I will read the report, but I agree, the kite explanation is simply ridiculous. Very unlikely.

I wouldn’t call a kite explanation ridiculous. Given the right setup and timing, I’m confident a few people could fly a pair of kites or balloons looking exactly like what the pilots saw. However, with current technology, especially using cellular signals, I believe it would be much easier to do with radio controlled aircraft.

 

Why someone would do this is more mystifying. Seeing yourself (and your Scientology manor house) from your own aerial seems plausible, but flying 2 nearly identical disk-shaped aircraft near each other only makes sense if, for example, you want to take pictures of one with the other, or intentionally mystify airliner pilots. As Turtle has noted, however, this may involve Scientologists, who have a penchant for secrecy and eccentricity, and lots of money for cool tech toys.

[Aethelwulf]

I think the fact these objects where seen over the scientology HQ was just a matter of coincidence. Do you know how many UFO's are seen in a year? Half that and you might be close to genuinely strange phenomenon. Now, I am not saying it is outside the purview of the scientology dep's to mislead the public for gaining money, but in this instance the idea that they had sent up kites into the air raises some strange and very important questions, one would be the point... no one could have guaranteed that the objects would have been seen and if the kites had been sent into the air during active plane air-travel, then it appears that this was obviously dangerous. Lawsuit waiting to happen. Since the scientology is really all about making money, such an action would be a step in the wrong direction and a very elaborate hoax as well. It is under my belief the scientology HQ's isn't really filled with the intelligent gene pool of our society.

 

I would actually like to find out whether the objects detected where just at a height where it briefly could be detected, we don't actually know if that is the case. If we assume the objects appeared as fast as they left may be an example for instance of an advanced technology. I would like to in the foreseeable future find out at what range their radar detection system works. My friend who worked in the MoD explained to me that the radar systems of any place varies with intricate detail. I know some radar systems for instance, can pick up on objects 500 feet into the air, which is a little more than half in the case mentioned in the Gatwick airport case.

[Aethelwulf]

I'd also like to know why the objects where reported toylike. Outside of the use of the word, we don't actually know what motivated at least one of these pilots to make this strange claim.

[Aethelwulf]

I say that the appearance of UFO's over the HQ's as being a matter of coincidence, this is based on the fact the airports and airliners are no stranger to UFO activity. I could cite cases periodically over decades of these UFO's being spotted and detected on radar. More recently a very strange UFO (saucer) had been seen sitting stationary over O'Hare airport. Ground control reported it and even joked about it (standard behavour of the public today even when the evidence is right in your face).

 

Just like how UFO's have shown interest in nuclear bases for many years. In fact my home town sits next to one of the largest nuclear bases in the world and I have even speculated the ufo's I saw (and my family and other houses around the area) may have been tied to either activity involving the base or where there showing an interest in the area because of the base located here.