From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:01:30 -0300 Archived: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 11:20:05 -0400 Subject: Re: Balloons? I Think Not >From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:40:57 +0000 >Subject: Re: Balloons? I Think Not >>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:16:27 -0300 >>Subject: Re: Balloons? I Think Not ><snip> >>>I would guess that most people do not sit out at night staring >>>at the skies, therefore, everything seems new and strange when >>>something finally catches their eye. >>>It was space junk burning up because iridium flares are very >>>distinctive. That the trajectory was from height to the ground, >>>in the same area of the sky, both nights, I am going to stick >>>with manmade object burning up. >>>I thought the triangular space craft object was solved years >>>ago. I read the explanation in Popular Mechanics. It is in fact >>>a space craft owned by the US Air Force. Please don't ask for >>>the exact citation. I still have the article but it is buried in >>>a storage box deep in the closest. >>Are you referring to the three NOAA satillites in a near polar >>orbit? These form a triangular shape when seen from the Earth's >>surface and they move quite fast across the sky but in fact are >>approx. 21 kilometers (13 miles) apart and slightly different >>altitudes in their separate orbits. And Popular Mechanics never >>solves anything. >No, Don, because the objects were burning up in the lower >atmosphere. Amateur and professional astronomers alike >understand the meaning of the different types of reflected light >off an orbiting object. Hopefully, whatever satellites crashed >and burned were not NOAAs. >The article in Popular Mechanics was providing the facts of the >triangular aircraft. Not trying to solve anything. As to the >veracity of the information in their articles, PM was one of the >few publications that openly discussed Area 51 and its environs. You stated above; "I thought the triangular space craft object was solved years ago. I read the explanation in Popular Mechanics." Satellite imagery in the 70s had outed Groom Lake's existance. Popuar Mechanics always manages to come out with some fresh 'new' data which is usually years old for the uninitiated usually written by someone who had little or no credibility but since those who read the magazine don't know anything about the subject to begin with it is easy to make the information appear fresh. Don Ledger Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp