Subj: 12/18/98: Anomalous weather radar rings: alternate explanations Date: 98-12-21 15:35:03 EST From: KKASTEN@pathology.medsch.ucla.edu (Kasten, Kathy) To: EWAR-L@mail.sonic.net (EWAR-L@mail.sonic.net) CC: Phikent@aol.com (Phikent@aol.com), UFOLAWYER1@aol.com (UFOLAWYER1@aol.com) Kent: With regard to citing radar anomalies and where to look, i.e., "ELF monitoring, solar activity, and various ionospheric heating projects: HAARP, EISCAT, HISCAT, Arecibo; plus GWEN, accelerators and quake activities near China Lake." The following citation might address the radar anomalies; let's remember we are working from the outside looking in (but, so might the researchers directly observing the phenomena); back engineering, so to speak. And, as I have stated before, I am looking at this through the eyes of a limited physics background (therefore, to challenge my background is not productive; also, stating to me in private e-mails that you read the IPELS papers without providing comment on what was read, doesn't count either). Perhaps, John McPherson (who does seem to have a more extensive background in physics) will help round things out. "Observations of Enhanced Plasma Lines in HF Ionospheric Modification Experiments and their Interpretation" T. Hagfors (Max-Planck-Institut fur Aeronomie, Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany) B. Isham (Arecibo observatory, Arecibo, Puerto Rico) E. Mishin (Max-Planck-Institut fur Aeronomie, Katlenburg-Lindau, German) This paper discusses experiments done at EISCAT and Arecibo. The Arecibo experiments were started in April, 1988; involved an HF heater frequency of 7.3MHz "with transmissions on a 30 s on/30 s off mode." From what I can tell from reading the material (and remember this is strictly deductive thinking without detailed knowledge), a condition was discovered (or created) which involved outshifting a plasma line (HFOL). Where I am having trouble following the discussion, is with the term "chirped" and "unchirped" plasma line spectra. Additionally, I believe what is described as occuring at EISCAT UHF and VHF radars is waves split into four different layers in height. I am wondering if by outshifting the waves this allows a faster scan/ movement through the RF spectra? The other phenomena discussed is "reflection levels" where HFOL occurs above of HFPL (high frequency plasma lines). The heater frequency is at 6.77 MHz. The experiments at EISCAT are dated as 1992. Would this create almost instantaneous shifting that is seen in the radar imaging within the ORBIT website? Just looking at the "ray paths for the Heating Waves in EISCAT and Arecibo" to my unschooled eyes, the Spitze angles (looks like a spritz from an atomizer) from/"fall out" of the EISCAT is tighter and more contained than the Arecibo equipment. Also, I need to know what a Langmuir wave; is this some type of magnetic wave?. It is used with ion-acoustic waves (stated to be in the ionosphere). If I had an exact definition, I would more clearly understand the statement "there is experimental evidence, and theoretical reasons for a close coupling of the ordinary electromagnetic mode to the Z-mode and for the excitation of plasma turbulence in regions of densities which would not allow a direct decay of the electromagnetic wave into ion-acoustic and Langmuir waves." (Are these two waves "normal" background waves? Do they usually interfere with RF waves?) The paper goes on, "the observation of plasma turbulence in such dense regions requires a different process than what is usually assumed. It is postulated that this process, leading particularly to the outshifted plasma line, the HFOL, involves the decay of the Z-mode into Bernstein-lower hybrid waves, with the subsequent collapse and associated acceleration of electrons which can excite the short wavelength Langmuir oscillations observed." "If this conjecture is correct, the HFOL, when originating from above the critical level should only be observed near the magnetic meridian in association with the "Spitze" (KK's: don't you just love that term) angles, and only when the pump frequency is close to a multiple of the electron gyro-frequency. (KK's: this must be from the days when the experiment was contained somewhere; not out in the atmosphere, which is what we might be observing at this time.) Note that the "Spitze" phenomenon is likely to occur inside the heater beam in EISCAT, but outside in Arecibo. "In future heating experiments planned in EISCAT a systematic investigation of the dependence of Langmuir wave enhancement on the heater wave input angle, and the heater frequency proximity to a gyro-frequency multiple will be undertaken to test this conjecture. (KK's: Well, we must be observing the tests.) What we are looking at while reading the some of the 1997 IPELS papers is data that is 10 years old. The next paper I will be reading involves experiments involving satellite and ground based plasma beam. I will put that summation in EWAR-L tomorrow, or later today. This particular papers seems to cover a lot of ground - "exploring specific details of certain space plasma-electrodynamic processes and the orbital mechanics of a gravity-gradient stabilized system of satellites linked by a long conducting tether." This was called TSS-1R, and was launched February 22, 1996, on STS-75 and "satellite deployment occurred at MET 3/00:27." The researchers involved were at the U. of Michigan; Utah State Univ.; and York University in Ontario, Canada. Please understand, I am not providing all the information that is being crammed into my mind as I read this papers at this time. There is a process of mulling over and then regurgitating after a couple of days, sometimes even weeks. KK ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subj: [EWAR] Re: [MC] Re: HAARP Date: 98-12-22 00:43:16 EST From: west@sonic.net (Wes Thomas) Sender: owner-ewar-l@afterburner.sonic.net Reply-to: west@sonic.net (Wes Thomas) To: mindcontrol-l@sonic.net, ewar-l@sonic.net CC: Pantex454@aol.com, darrellb@linex.com (Quantumechanic) Pantex454@aol.com said on the MC list: >They "feed" electricity into the schumann cavity >from various spots on Earth, (Tesla technology) electricity produced by >way of nuclear generation. This power can then be drawn out at any point on the >globe >I wrote [the above - WT] to cause "regular" folks who might have a way to >measure such things to try to measure it. Actually, there are such measurements made every 15 minutes by geophysicists at UC Berkeley/USGS, documented at ftp://quake.geo.berkeley.edu/pub/em/. The Schumann Resonance files (.sr suffix) include the amplitude in pT (picoTeslas). As you can see, there is no evidence of any "pumping" over the last several years (the small variations are a result of weather variations, which cause variations in global thunderstorms, the main source of the SR phenomenon--see http://quake.geo.berkeley.edu/ncedc/em.intro.html#analysis for background). Nor is there any change in mean SR frequency (aside from the approximately .5 Hz daily variation around this mean), as various pseudoscientists have alleged on talk shows. Either of those alleged changes would be very big news in geophysics.... > From an MC standpoint the "nervous" quality of everything is going up at >an exponential rate. Not clear to me what that means. What's your evidence? Watching too much TV or living in an urban area would seem to be more likely explanations. >This to me means they are pumping juice into the resonant >cavity at 7.8 or thereabouts. This is the frequency of certain parts of >"meditator's" brain. Actually, 7.8 is in the alpha rhythm range, so increased Schumann resonance amplitude might actually make us calmer (this is speculation; I don't have any scientific documentation for such an effect--but see Persinger's research for some leads). However, there are other frequencies that are said to elicit anxiety and other reactions (see Persinger). Perhaps Charlie Plyler and other ULF researchers can provide data on Earth signals in the brainwave region they may be currently measuring. With enough reports and cross-verification of data and measurement accuracy, perhaps we can start to correlate this with other measurements and events. --------------------------------------------------------- In a message dated 98-12-22 13:51:16 EST, you write: << Subj: Anomalous/Crop Circles in the Sky Phenomena&Possible Cause Date: 98-12-22 13:51:16 EST From: KKASTEN@pathology.medsch.ucla.edu (Kasten, Kathy) To: EWAR-L@mail.sonic.net (EWAR-L@mail.sonic.net) CC: Phikent@aol.com (Phikent@aol.com) Kent: The following is what I promised to deliver: First, let me preface the post by stating that I reviewed the radar images at your website: http://members.aol.com/phikent/orbit/orbitback13.html And, yes, one of the models shown in the 1997 IPELS paper ("Meso-Sonic Motion Through Magnetoplasma is Important") reminds me very much of the images appearing on radar. The material is from the University of Michigan. "Enhanced Current Collection Characteristics of the Tethered Satellite System Missions: Prospects for Laboratory Simulation" (KK's comments: However, it would appear that the research has moved from the laboratory to space.) by Brian Gilchrist, Nobie Stone, John Raitt, Don Thompson, Carlo Bonifzai, Marino Dobrowolny, Jim Laframboise, Alec Gallimore from the following institutions: Space Physics Research Laboratory, U. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2143 NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812 Center for Atmospheric and Space Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322 Agenzia Spaziale Italiana, Rome, Italy Physics and Astronomy Department, York University, North York Ontario, Canada There were space flight experiments called the Tethered Satellite System (TSS-1 and TSS-1R) in 1992 and 1996 which demonstrated that the mesosonic motion of the magnetoplasma relative to a sheath surrounding a collection surface "can play a significant role in enhancing current collection." Also, "various models differ in critical ways such as the extent and role plasma turbulence and sheath geometry along the magnetic field contribute to enhanced currents." An artist drawing of the tethered space craft is shown. The next drawing shows the craft up close. "The TSS-1R mission was designed to provide a unique opportunity to explore specific details of certain space plasma-electrodynamic processes and the orbital mechanics of a gravity-radient stabilized system of satellites linked by a long conducting tether. The TSS program is a bi-national collaboration between NASA and the Italian Space Agency, ASI, with NASA providing Shuttle-based deployer and ASI providing a specially designed satellite. Twelve science investigations were supported by NASA, ASI, or the Air Force Philips Laboratory. "TSS-1R, the second flight of the TSS hardware, was launched February 22, 1996, on STS-75 and satellite deployment (flyaway) occurred at MET 3/00:27. A unique data set was obtained over the next five hours as the tether was deployed to a length of 19,695 m. At MET 3/05:11, during a day pass, the tether suddenly broke near the top of the deployer boom--the result of a flaw in the tether insulation which allowed the ignition of a strong electrical discharge that melted the tether. The operations that begun at satellite fly-away, however, were sufficient to allow significant science activities to be accomplished. The next slide is entitled "Experiment 'Sweep' To Obtain Current-Voltage Data" "Many programmed sequences were developed to synchronize the operations of the individual TSS instruments. Among these, a sequence called IV24 was specifically designed to study the current-voltage response of the TSS in general, and the satellite in particular. (snips) "The commanded and measured tether current and tether-Orbiter potential for a typical I-V sweep are shown in the above figure. Note that the actual currents were less than commanded values at high current levels, resulting in significant satellite charging as the current-carrying capability of the ionosphere was tried. Then, the next slide provides the actual, typical current voltage compared with the theory. Followed by the most incredible - to our discussion - modelling under the title "What do we know?" That model looks like/explains the radar imaging posted from ELFRAD. The model shows Out-Flowing Deflected Ions; Magnetic Perturbation flowing outward. At the exact middle of the circle is an area labeled "Wake". The surface of the circular plane is called "Boom Tip Radius". And, within the Boom Tip Radius is the "Ionization Pair" and "Plasma/EM Waves." Pressing inward is "Suprathermal Electrons" and "Ionospheric Thermal Electrons". Everything is in "Orbital Motion". Take a look, blow your mind. The text with the slide reads: "The complex of effects observed at the satellite are shown schematically in the above Figure. The sharp transition of observed characteristics found to occur at a satellite positive potential of ~5 V seems to suggest an abrupt transition of physical processes (5 eV is the approximate energy for predominantly oxygen ion ram flux). Below +5 V, mostly accelerated ionospheric thermal electrons were observed. However, above +5 V a sudden on-set of suprathermal (~200 eV) electrons, deflected and reflected ions, plasma waves, magnetic perturbations, and turbulence in the satellite sheath were observed. It appears possible that the out-flowing ions may provide the free energy required to drive the energization of the suprathermal electrons." (KK's comments: please re-read that last sentence a couple of times. Are you following what is going on? Isn't this fun?) Next slide called "Theoretical Models" Looking at this one, I blurted out loud over my dinner, the thing doesn't create weather, but uses it because one of the conditions for the creation of space plasma is turbulence for heating. The text within the model showing a space craft at the center of turbulent heating states "possible enhancements to current collection are predicted from either or both: 1) turbulence induced heating; or 2) field-aligned enhanced flux (out to a distance, L). Below which is printed the formula utilized. The series ends with diagrams of the nuts and bolts equipment utilized in the space craft and the plasmadynamics and electric propulsion laboratory (PEPL); large chamber facility at the University of Michigan. Plus, a close up view of the Arcjet gun used to provide high speed plasma sources. Some of the problems that the researchers were looking to solve were to establish threshold conditions for turbulence scattering; plasma density/temp, drift velocity, bias, B-field strength. To evaluate collection geometry dependence (compared to theory), i.e., spherical, cylindrical, planar, complex structures. The way to solve the problems was to create high speed plasma sources; make sure that chamber wall effects were negligible; and, in the laboratory, make sure that the magnetoplasma is properly scaled (calibration, calibration, calibration - that is a must). I found this paper the most exciting and bearing directly on the questions being asked by the images posted to ORBIT by ELFRAD. What do you think? KK >> In a message dated 98-12-22 13:51:16 EST, you write: << I found this paper the most exciting and bearing directly on the questions being asked by the images posted to ORBIT by ELFRAD. What do you think? >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This sounds most important. Be glad to do a more jazzy presentation on ORBIT. What are these slides and drawings you are looking at? I'd need to see too to totally comprehend. I did find these: Mission Information http://www.reston.com/sts-75/sts-75.links.html#spartan http://www.reston.com/sts-75/tss1.summary.html I remember the tethered satellite and during deployment, a strange fearful reaction by the astronauts aboard the shuttle. I'd have to dig to get the details. I'm also reminded by something told to me by an informant. We were discussing bizarre seismic activity around China Lake. He said:: http://www.eagle-net.org/phikent/quake/quake2.html "I'll call a friend and check it out...thanks for the update...p.s. there are some RF weapons being tested out there...pretty nasty and unpredictable." ". . .we air tested them but were restricted from testing below 25,000 ft. due to unknown consequences...the air tests cause topical damage in higher terrain." ". . .we did carry large power systems on the c130's...a mile long antenna stretched out the rear of the aircraft." " . . .a rhythmic wave which can cause havoc to anything it hits, problem was we don't have directional control from the air." ". . . you think that Mir is falling apart because its old...no way...it keeps gettin hit." From another source I was told: http://www.eagle-net.org/phikent/orbit/april/armageddon3.html "The red tailed C-130's are NSA aircraft. There is a photo of one at the NSA website, I forget the exact address, but they do have a C-130 image for the "freedom park" (Ironic name isn't it). Some of the experiments with the long wire were for ocean anti-submarine patrols, which were/are the P-3 Orions which look similar to C-130's, but have a "stinger" straight off of the back of the aircraft." Tethered Satellite/NSA mile-long antenna: is there any parallel here? What should we do next? Kent -------------------------------------------------------- Subj: RE: [EWAR] Re: Anomalous/Crop Circles in the Sky Phenomena&PossibleCause Date: 98-12-22 16:44:22 EST From: KKASTEN@pathology.medsch.ucla.edu (Kasten, Kathy) To: Phikent@aol.com (Phikent@aol.com) See below! ---------- From: Phikent@aol.com To: KKASTEN@pathology.medsch.ucla.edu Cc: EWAR-L@mail.sonic.net Subject: [EWAR] Re: Anomalous/Crop Circles in the Sky Phenomena&Possible Cause Date: Tuesday, December 22, 1998 12:58PM What should we do next? Kent - - - - - - - - Kent: Woheeee! This is better than sex. We are going on in, and zeroing on target. Yahah! Website: (you must enter the "front page" or you will get a message not allowing you entry) http://coke.physics.ucla.edu/ scroll down to the IPELS papers click on IPELS 1997 scroll down looking for Posters click on "Posters" search for Enhanced Current Collection Characteristics for the Tethered Satellite System Missions: Prospects for Laboratory Simulation. Click on it. Have fun! And, just remember, when SHE is hot she is hot. I will pat myself on the back for my Creator given skills of Super Hawk, i.e., the ability to dig around until I find what I want or a wonderful surprise. That is why I love archaeology. KK In a message dated 98-12-22 23:07:42 EST, you write: << Subj: [EWAR] The Outcome & Reward of Digging Through the REAL Data! Date: 98-12-22 23:07:42 EST From: KKASTEN@pathology.medsch.ucla.edu (Kasten, Kathy) Sender: owner-ewar-l@afterburner.sonic.net Reply-to: KKASTEN@pathology.medsch.ucla.edu (Kasten, Kathy) To: comet@pclink.com (John McPherson) CC: EWAR-L@mail.sonic.net (EWAR-L@mail.sonic.net) John: There was compelling textual material to support the contention. The overlay was merely to help explain. Have you read the relevant IPEL posters? The image Kent stole was from Brian Gilchrist slide presentation. It was just the model. I thought Kent should explain where the drawing came from and point people to the paper. Now, I will point you: http://coke/physics.ucla.edu/ scroll down to "IPELS 1997", click; scroll down and find "Posters", click; look for "Enhanced Current Collection Characteristics of the Tethered Satellite System Mission". Kent remembered what happened with the tethered space craft and e-mailed some of the dialog he had with a supposed insider who may turn out to be real. Additionally, search for the paper called "Observations of Enhanced Plasma Lines in HF Ionospheric Modification Experiments and their Interpretation" by Hagfors, Isham and Mishin, listed as a poster under "Ion Cyclotron and Shear Alfven Waves in the aurora" there is no way to find it directly. It discusses the experiments at Arecibo and EISCAT. We played it cool until we put the two papers together with the earlier material. Then, . . . well, it was time to run with it. KK ---------- -------------------------------------------------------- From: John McPherson To: Kasten, Kathy Subject: Re: [EWAR] The Outcome & Reward of Digging Through the REAL Data! Date: Tuesday, December 22, 1998 6:23PM While: http://www.cbjd.net/orbit/graphics/meso6.jpg Is without question compelling, there is indicated a direction of movement, to the south; assuming ordinal coordinates correspond to the image. But raises the question of scale? How big is that particular phenomena? Were was it exactly located? Was it directly over Amarillo? (I believe Amarillo does have a National weather service Doppler station there) (You must forgive me as I have been extremely distracted with things getting broken on my end and occupying my time. As a reult I am coming in at about chapter 12 after missing chapters 4-11) As compelling as that image is, there are times when a signal such as that one for Amarillo can be caused by natural atmospheric phenomena, and should not merely be accepted just because it "looks good" without further supporting evidence. Remember, I can plot 5 to 25 stars on a sheet of paper at random, and there is an excellent chance that when overlay'd on a stellar map of high enough enough resolution, you will certainly find one group of stars that "fit". Don't get me wrong, I am not ruling out the possibility of the explanation that you have given, and Kent has presented an image of it. I am only cautioning against jumping to a conclusion without additional supporting evidence. Look at this in the same manner that you might present a court case: 1) murder weapon determined. 2) picture of murder weapon. 3) murder victim. 4) motive 5) Suspect(s) 6)evidence. Is the evidence direct? Inferred? circumstantial? Hard evidence such as an unalterable film/video footage of the act-clearly portraying the murder and the murderer? Essentially what is so far presented is a picture and a description on par with- suspect described as thin black male. There needs to be more evidence. Don't get me wrong. In an area of technology that can see some strange natural phenomena, or odd phenomena with a very mundane explanation, there just has to be more supporting evidence. Consider me in the capacity of Devil's advocate, or as a critic that is challenging the material presented in a manner that is strict enough to dispell rumor from fact, and non-relevent info from the meat of the matter. Why? On the off chance that you might be right. But it does not matter if you are right if your theory presented has plausible deniability; military protocol if you will; look at Ollie North in Iran Contra. If a theory can be made "bullet proof", then how will the media ever be able to dismiss it? Or the the presenter(s). *********************************************************** EWAR-L Electronic Warfare Mailing List To unsubscribe or subscribe: send a message to majordomo@sonic.net with the following text: unsubscribe EWAR-L or subscribe EWAR-L. To post messages, send to: . Previous posts: . EWAR Web site: . -Wes Thomas , list owner >> No conclusions have been made at all. All we have at this point is an ongoing dialogue--and a diagram gleaned toward encouraging further research. Kent ---------------------------------------------------------- Subj: your q's Date: 98-12-23 10:56:20 EST From: SRussel257 To: Phikent Well I don't know too much about sky booms but when rapid city SD had there's (the one I heard) my scanner came alive with traffic like never before, the police, sheriff's,fire dept., were all dispatched too look for what blew up 911 dispatch called ellsworth AFB operations desk and they said they had no aircraft in the air at the time and I know they did not because after the boom you could hear a Pin drop and I did not hear any engine's running. And b1b's are very noisy but the next day they claimed it was a b1b sonic boom strange huh? If you look at some of the UFO reporting sites you will find sporadic reports of otherwise unexplained booms. Now for the other stuff, the long wire antenna you speak of are very common all the looking glass (remember the cold war) aircraft had them the antenna itself may not be that long but they trail way behind the aircraft to avoid interference to the tow plane now that program is no longer operational so there are plenty of surplus antenna and any department can request them without spending budget money, I cant tell you much about jamming with out divulging classified info (nothing sinister but stuff we don't want the bad guys to know about) there are several types of jamming, barrage is one where the radar screen completely fills with returns and is very easy to do as long as you know the FREQ of the transmitted pulse and thetas the rub see all the weather radar's seeing this anomaly, in order for them to see something other than Their own transmitted pulse it would have to be on the exact FREQ as the receiver has to be tuned to transmitted pulse exactly otherwise every other radar within 500 miles would show as a return. Its very basic. The most powerful aircraft in the world was unarmed !! the looking glass EC 135 it was a converted KC 135 refueling tanker with all kinds of electronic goodies on board. Well I got to get to getting If you want to know more I will try to help Steve ------------------------------------------------------------- Subj: RE: FW: Radar images.. Date: 98-12-27 13:59:33 EST From: jking@treko.net.au (jking) To: Phikent@aol.com ('Phikent@aol.com') Hi, Kent..I have just come home (2:30 am here) from a friend's house where we worked out how all of this is working, and how it will affect the planet. We also worked out that Tungaska (siberia) and Philly expt was forerunner to this. We designed tonight an antenna based on a laser (basically same technology) which would pick up any tv or radio signal anywhere in the world. This explains why the stingers can work being smaller, a beam from them must be used. We are in deep poo if they continue with this stuff - it's gonna affect the e/mag of the earth...........Love ya..........Julie ------------------------------------------------------------- Subj: Re: More Questions! Date: 98-12-24 10:43:08 EST From: bcornet@monmouth.com (Bruce Cornet) To: Phikent@aol.com (Kent Steadman), KKASTEN@pathology.medsch.ucla.edu (Kasten, Kathy) File: MoreQues.mim (586252 bytes) DL Time (TCP/IP): < 5 minutes This message is a multi-part MIME message and will be saved with the default filename MoreQues.mim -------------------- Dear Kathy, Comments below. Bruce ---------- > From: Kasten, Kathy > To: 'bcornet@monmouth.com' > Cc: Phikent@aol.com > Subject: More Questions! > Date: Wednesday, December 23, 1998 5:47 PM > > > Bruce: > You photographed the images from a helicopter. Did the phenomena appear > after your approach to the Special Ops "airport"? How long after you made > your approach? No. We had just flown over Walden, NY, which is located a distance to the southeast of the Special Ops landing strip. After we had circled the hotspot area, the pilot took us up to the Special Ops airstrip, and we circled over it. We obviously got the attention of those on the ground and in the cars doing maneuvers on the tarmac, which is why we were followed to the restaurant later that day. Thus, there is no connection between being buzzed by some type of vehicle and our overflight of the airstrip. This flyby of our helicopter happened three different times as we circled the hotspot. Each time I pressed the shutter button on my camera at the exact millisecond the object flew in front of us. Each time there was a flash of light before us and the helicopter was bounced. There was no sound associated with the flyby - no bang; no swoosh. Try taking a picture of a bullet leaving the muzzle of a rifle without knowing when the rifle is going to be fired. Do you think you can do it? I strongly doubt it. Should you get a picture of the bullet, it would be considered luck or coincidence. But now I pose an even more difficult challenge. Try taking a picture of three different bullets precisely as the bullet is entering the field of camera view so that the image of the bullet is on the margin of the frame each time. That is what happened with my photographs of the supersonic object - three times it happened! But a bullet leaves the barrel of a rifle at only Mach 1 or 2, not Mach 6 or 7. So, trying to photograph the supersonic object at much higher speeds requires even greater precision and timing. So, how was I able to get those three pictures? Coincidence, you say. Highly unlikely! The camera speed was 1/1000 of a second. The estimated width of the object is 15 feet (the smallest calculated width of unidentified craft observed in the area). If the width was less, the calculated speed would be less. If the width was more, the calculated speed would be more. Using the width estimate I measured the width of the lights on the photograph, and from that figure calculated the distance (length of) the lights travelled in 1/1000 second. That distance travelled was rounded off to 8 feet. Simple calculation gives the staggering figure of 8,000 feet in one second, or 480,000 feet per minute, or 5,454 mph (Mach 6)! If the object was only 10 feet in width, the velocity would be 3,636 mph (Mach 4) - at least two times the speed of a high powered rifle bullet! When I was taking the pictures in question, they were among numerous others taken during that flight. I remember distinctly on those three occasions that, as I framed the image through the camera viewfinder, I had the thought to wait until we got closer to the area I wanted to photograph. At the precise moment I took the picture, I remember having the thought, "Now!", as if I were being given a telepathic command. The unusual circumstances surrounding these three pictures requires an unusual answer, regardless of your belief system. > Once again, regarding the images: in the computer generated/altered images, > I am looking at degree of reflective surfaces or different type of light > sources? Etc.? Different colored light sources. The lights at the nose of the object are pure white, while the smaller lights at the rear of the object are yellow orange to golden in color. The actual object did not reflect enough light long enough to register on the film emulsion. The plasma lights, however, were intense enough to register on the film. > KK's comments, re Figure 20: I don't think I would jump to the conclusion > that what is seen is an ET pilot sitting in a through-view canopy. Plasma > can be jumping around, almost uncontrollably around a almost solid like > plasma core; the core might look different than the field generated around > it. Yes, plasma lights do arc and jump around. That is how I recognized the lights in Figure 20 as plasma lights, because one is arcing to another. As far as "jumping" to conclusion about an ET pilot, who says that the pilot was ET? Could be a small human or midget. If I understand your comment correctly, by referencing "an almost solid like plasma core" are you thinking that the center of the light pattern (where the pilot would be) is that core? I don't think so. From the numerous pictures I have taken, the lights are very much controlled or restricted to several separate devices or plasma sources around the craft. There is no central big plasma core surrounded by smaller plasma hotspots, which resemble lamps. And if my memory serves me correctly (I'm not infallible, like Clinton and Reagan :-), I posed a question about the image showing the pilot behind a through-view canopy. I did not conclude that this is what the image proves. Implications and suggestions can be more persuasive and powerful than statements, which can turn people off. > Over the long weekend, I will dig out some more IPELS papers I think > relevant to the discussion. However, I will send a couple of previous > e-mails to you, Bruce. > KK Thanks, KK. Bruce ------------------------------------------------------------- Subj: [EWAR] Speaking of Cavities! More IPELS papers & their relevance! Date: 98-12-29 18:17:25 EST From: KKASTEN@pathology.medsch.ucla.edu (Kasten, Kathy) Sender: owner-ewar-l@afterburner.sonic.net Reply-to: KKASTEN@pathology.medsch.ucla.edu (Kasten, Kathy) To: EWAR-L@mail.sonic.net (EWAR-L@mail.sonic.net) CC: bcornet@monmouth.com ('bcornet@monmouth.com'), Phikent@aol.com (Phikent@aol.com) Dear People: I am reading another poster presentation from the 1997 IPELS, and wishing I would have been there for the lecture. In particular, I wish I would have sat in on Paul Kintner's "Wave-Particle and Rocket-Laboratory Interactions." Maybe it is because he is from Cornell University and associated with guys who really like to what the sky; the following is from his introduction: "- Why are we here? Some personal comments. - Holy Grails and their status - Structure-Examples in space plasmas - Favorite, unsolved, space plasma experiments" To show you why I think this guy would have given a good presentation, check this out: "To understand something, try explaining it to someone else: - Implicit assumptions are exposed, buzz words dissected, and fresh viewpoints realized - How are currents completed? Vocabulary and acronym hurdles - Gendrin mode, Alfvenicity, Taylor-Hevaerts-Priest state, Bochum event, cups/BL, SKAW, SPSC, LAPD, LHSS, STEB, CDEIC/IEDD, PSBL, CTX, SIC, EMIC, Camac, ATM, DIG, UVI, PVIV, MCP, FAC, SMT, HITOP, TOF, OMS, SIMPLEX, EMITA, HAARP, SEE, FTE, TVD, SPSC(for the second time) (KK's comments: as you can see, HAARP is part of a much larger program.) HOLY GRAILS OF SPACE PLASMAS - Acceleration of ionospheric plasma * Auroral electrons, parallel electric fields * Transverse ion acceleration - Origin of Solar Corona/Solar Wind - Reconnection * Solar Flares, FTE's, Current sheet interruption (KK's comments: what is that, solar flares? You don't suppose somebody is mucking about with solar flares, do you?) * Unexplained-patchy intermittent, 3D MORE GRAILS - Turbulence-messy system somehow involving the flow of energy across wave vector and frequency - Structure-Boundaries, ionosphere cavities, solitary "waves", shear flows, gradients in density and temperature - Space-time ambiguity of space measurements YET MORE GRAILS - Field-aligned currents-largely measured through curl _B_ which obscures all structure * Structure and filamentation? * Carriers? * New space instrumentation-disposable magnetometers and miniature electron analyzers (KK's comments: we now have this equipment in space; on which vehicle?) * No current driven-instability has been confirmed in a space plasma (KK's comments: think about that one for a long moment)" A couple of slides later, is one dealing with transversely accelerated ions, VLF waves, HF waves. Try to remember that this is going on in the upper atmosphere. One of the panels shows Langmuir waves showing the existence of density cavities one-to-one associated with TAI (transversely accelerated ions). The next slide is titled "High resolution view of the leading wall of a density cavity." So, maybe, when some of the posters think they are talking about HAARP and moving energy from one cavity to another, what is meant is ionospheric cavities. Got it? Toward the end of the slide presentation is a slide called "Favorite, unexplained space plasma experiment" Listed are: - CAMEO-Nov. 6, 1978 (KK's comments: early ionosphere testing?) - Orbital release of Ba+ at 900 km in polar cap - Orbital velocity of 7.37 km/s and thermal velocity of about +-2 km/s - 4 releases along orbit with apparent synchronized acceleration and deceleration Next slide shows a caption from "Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 86, No. A5, Pages 3519-3542, May 1, 1981; The Cameo Barium Releases: E Fields Over the Polar Cap; by J.P. Heppner, M.L. Miller, M.B. Pongratz, G.M. Smith, L.L. Smith, S.B. Mende and N.R. Nath. (KK's comments: please read the above again if necessary. Barium Releases!) "CONCLUSIONS - Particle acceleration is not understood in space plasmas! (KK's comments: so what we are seeing, is still a testing program?) - Understanding how currents flow is critical to understanding how particles are accelerated - Structure and dynamics will be important keys to this understanding - Challenge - How can laboratory experiments help us understand current flow and instabilities associated with TAI and auroral electron acceleration." So, come on gang, let's try to relate what we are seeing around us to some of the real data being presented in the various physics papers. Then, put this together with the data from ELFRAD and wonder about the results from the atmosphere testing. And, we were worried about atomic bomb testing. KK ----------------------------------------------------- From: jking To: "'flash@toledolink.com'" Subject: Today.. Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 01:14:42 +0800 G'day, Brother!! Whoa!!!! What images today!!! Noticed on 12/29 red dots not moving near Tx border, and that the images had been cleaned up. 12/30 A ring with a centre? Had a post tonight from a friend in OK. He is retired and is trained in weather spotting and works with weather bureau from home. He was an engineer for Hughes and Raytheon. He says he has never seen a storm signature like these we are seeing, and says they are imploding rather than exploding. Storm signatures aren't that concentric, ever. He thinks it all rather strange, and is doing some detective work on it, and will get back to me on it. Everyone is doing such a good job on this. Love ya heaps, my brother.........God bless.......Julie --------------------------------------------------------------- Subj: [EWAR] Ask, and Ye Shall Receive! Date: 98-12-30 20:49:31 EST From: KKASTEN@pathology.medsch.ucla.edu (Kasten, Kathy) Sender: owner-ewar-l@afterburner.sonic.net Reply-to: KKASTEN@pathology.medsch.ucla.edu (Kasten, Kathy) To: EWAR-L@mail.sonic.net (EWAR-L@mail.sonic.net) Well, we were all wondering about near-Earth plasma and how it is effected. Weren't we? Just read the following very carefully, I think you will be able to follow what is happening. Personally, I am being to feel like the IPELS papers is like Santa's toy sack. To wit: "Electrostatic Microstructures in Space Plasmas" by Anders Eriksson, Rolf Bostrom, and Per Ola Dovner plus, Anssi Malkki, Hans Pecseli and David Knudsen. ABSTRACT Electrostatic microstructures, either in the form of truly solitary waves or as packets of electrostatic waves (KK's comments: ie., something acting upon the microstructures like, for example, solar flares or pulsed plasma from a ground base), have been detected by several spacecraft in the near-Earth plasma. This presentation concentrates on auroral (KK's comments: upper atmospheric level) solitary ion waves and on lower hybrid cavity structures, critically reviewing the results from satellite and rocket investigations (KK's comments: and you thought they just shot rockets into the air to put up the satellites; no, and thank god there are agencies who know how to utilize the shot) and discussing related theoretical and laboratory results. The plasma physics of the observed microstructures is still subject to investigation and debate (KK's comments: I guess we are all debating). For the solitary waves observed by the S3-3 and Viking satellites, an interpretation in terms of ion phase space holes has been favoured, but an alternative mechanism has been attributed to the apparently similar phenomena observed by Geotail (KK's comments: anybody know about this program?). The lower hybrid cavities were originally interpreted as collapsing cavitons (KK's comments: so, they have given a name to the material in the cavities), but recent satellite and rocket data indicates that wave trapping in pre-existing cavities (KK's comments: implying that they are able to create cavities) and quasi-equilibrium processes may be more relevant to the observed lower hybrid cavities." That is as far as I have gotten in my reading of the paper. More on Monday. Happy New Year, and let's all get smarter about how our tax dollars are being spent. Then, we call up Art Bell and argue with Hoagland about some his false scientific statements. Right? Right! KK --------------------------------------------------------------- Subj: [EWAR] Just One More, Then I Have To Go! Date: 98-12-30 21:45:42 EST From: KKASTEN@pathology.medsch.ucla.edu (Kasten, Kathy) Sender: owner-ewar-l@afterburner.sonic.net Reply-to: KKASTEN@pathology.medsch.ucla.edu (Kasten, Kathy) To: EWAR-L@mail.sonic.net (EWAR-L@mail.sonic.net) Another delilous paper to read: "A Suggested Experiment to Simulate Lightning and the Pertinence to the Solar Nebula" by Joseph E. Borovsky Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 "Lightning commonly occurs in the Earth's atmosphere and lightning is thought to have occurred in the solar nebula. Knowing the amount of energy deposited in a gas by a lightning flash is important for theories of chondrule formation in the solar nebula, among other things. Recently, a model of lightning energy flow that is based on solutions to Maxwell's equations has been constructed (Borovsky, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 2697, 1995); this model predicts that the energy deposited per unit length by a lightning flash is proportional to the charge density on the lightning channel, which in turn is limited by the breakdown properties of the ambient gas. That model of lightning is experimentally testable by examining dissipative discharge waves propagating along a charged single-conductor wire. The theory of these single-conductor wavemodes is traceable back to Sommerfeld (Ann. Phys. Chem., 67, 233, 1899); so far these waves have not been observed. The keys to producing the produce wavemodes for the lightning simulation are (1) using a wire with sufficient resistivity per unit length, (2) isolating the single-conductor wire from the ground and from conducting structures, and (3) using sufficiently fast risetimes. The suggested experiment, its motivation, and the application to the solar nebula are explained." More Monday. KK