Possible ScramJet IFO seen in Western Canada

OOOOHH. This is intriguing information. I can think of many applications from the research I just did on this plasma technology. I'll have to do some more research on this before I attempt utilizing this technology in experiments otherwise I may blow myself up or vaporize something. It gives me a grasp on what is happening in a plasma cutter. I may be able to use this to create electricity using seemingly inflammable sources as fuel.

Lets see, I have a plasma cutter, an oil burner from a furnace, tubes, cones, metal dome shaped objects,magnets, coils, and a bunch of transformers. I suppose I'll also have to use the blower from my insulation blower to precharge the system.

Definitely going to blow myself up

Was obviously a trans Atlantic jet liner on the way to Heathrow, London. Often at cruising alts ice crystals will build up in the air behind the jet's stream causing this effect as described.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by StargateSG7

 

Sorry but as you don't know the size of the object there is no way you can work out a height it really is that simple you don't have enough info to do that.

So that also means any guess at speed is that just a guess 15.5 k mph is 4.25 miles per second in your 10 second time frame it would cover 224400 feet that's nearly 3 times your estimated height.

Actually that is quite incorrect! If you know the LUMINOSITY of an object and/or know
the lighting flash cycle time then you know at least thing (C - aka the speed of light).
From the speed of light you could estimate distance. I didn't have a picosecond timer
with me so that wasn't possible.

The flash cycle time of COMMON AIRCRAFT LIGHTING TYPES is more important
because I can use that to CONFIRM my speed estimate (i.e. X number of flash cycles
during Y number of seconds during N degrees of arc-distance moved) would allow me
to at least calculate and CONFIRM my estimated airspeed.

To get a more accurate estimation of BOTH speed and altitude, PLOT that flash cycle time
and arc distance (in degrees) covered at various altitudes ranging from 5000 feet to 300,000 feet
and then based upon the KNOWN LUMINOSITY of common aircraft lighting types....then you
ask the question...What luminance levels would be observed at specific heights during an
entire flash cycle of a given aircraft lighting type and lighting size......and then you can
make a VERY ROUGH estimate as to true altitude. (plus/minus 10,000 feet)

BUT since this craft was a fireball-like object, I must MAKE AN ESTIMATE
based upon the KNOWN luminance configuration of fuel burn cycles for
peroxide, methane or hydrogen in terms of colour temperature (i.e. degrees
Kelvin) per cubic volume of space, I can plot at VARIOUS AIRCRAFT SIZES,
WHAT LUMINOSITY WOULD I HAVE SEEN FOR EACH FUEL TYPE
BURN at various altitudes.

So doing some very rough spreadsheet work, gives me an altitude of 90,000 feet
at Mach 24 for an aircraft between 120 to 150 feet long IF the fuel was Hydrogen.
This of course requires that my observation be correct...but since I am probably
one of the FEW people who can tell the luminosity difference between a 5k, 10k
and 20k Movie light...I'm gonna take that my ROUGH GUESS is more correct
than MANY would be for that LUMINOSITY of that flying object.

I am NOT SAYING that my speed estimate and altitude estimate is Gospel,
I am merely saying that based upon a balance of probabilities and based upon
LIKELY (i.e. common and manufacturable) fuel-burn types for object of a given
and Common/LIKELY size, my estimates will probably be better than most.

Originally posted by ATSZOMBIE
Was obviously a trans Atlantic jet liner on the way to Heathrow, London. Often at cruising alts ice crystals will build up in the air behind the jet's stream causing this effect as described.

---

Not in Vancouver they won't!

We have Vancouver to London direct flights but initial take off altitudes in our
airspace are between 8000 ft to 12,000 feet and the ONLY other aircraft going
to London fly a route that is FAR, FAR NORTH of here (i.e. NOT VISIBLE in
our metro area) and that flight is STILL at 35,000 to 40,000ft depending on aircraft type.
Plus they don't cover 70 km in 10 seconds (mach 24)

Plus ice crystals DON'T BURN, they REFLECT light in the usual diamond-like
sparkle configuration.

This object BURNED a highly volatile fuel of some sort that
gave off an enormous amount of light that was EMISSIVE
and NOT REFLECTIVE in nature.

Originally posted by ClockworkElf
reply to post by StargateSG7

 

Hiya. I'm a first-time poster and long-time reader. Your thread convinced me to start an account. I live in Vancouver, not far from your sighting and I believe my girlfriend and I saw the same object while sitting in our backyard on that same evening. While I can't say for sure what it was, it was definitely moving too fast to be either a satellite or conventional aircraft. It was the most unusual sighting I've had in recent memory.


"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." -Voltaire

Good to see you weren't the only one!

My girlfriend ALSO saw it once I pointed it out to her.
NOPE! It definitely WAS NOT a satellite and was UNLIKELY to be be a meteor.
The bank was far too controlled to be an errant space junk object and the UFO
hypothesis seems far too contrite to me. SERIOUSLY!? What highly advanced
alien species able to come here from tens of thousands of light years away,
would use a spacecraft that glows like a light bulb and NEEDS to do a
loooooooong bank just to turn a few degrees Northwest?

NAAAH! An alien spacecraft this IS NOT!

reply to post by StargateSG7


Seriously do you have a bionic eye or something, in the space of your claimed 10 secs
(we dont even know if thats correct) you have manage to do the following.

Estimate the height, speed, approx size, fuel being burnt, the illuminocity , the kelvin
temperature of the object.

Now with this in mind is say BS , having done photography for a very long time I am well
aware of colour temperature of light sources, as for your comment regarding illuminocity
of a light source and distance the only reference I have seen to that is in Astronomy
using Cepheid variable stars and supernova to estimate distance.

If your object was your claimed 120-150 long and doing your claimed Mach 24 it would
be doing just under 27,000 feet per second which would mean it would cover between
180-225 times it's own length in a second as a light source that would be a blur.

You might convince yourself or some of the gullible on here by some of your statements
but not me.

Well, the OP seems to have a tendency for the theatric, CAPITAL LETTERS and padding, take a look at his other threads, such as:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Possibly just his age and enthusiasm, but it reads differently - like that of a stubborn child.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by StargateSG7

 

Seriously do you have a bionic eye or something, in the space of your claimed 10 secs
(we dont even know if thats correct) you have manage to do the following.

Estimate the height, speed, approx size, fuel being burnt, the illuminocity , the kelvin
temperature of the object.

Now with this in mind is say BS , having done photography for a very long time I am well
aware of colour temperature of light sources, as for your comment regarding illuminocity
of a light source and distance the only reference I have seen to that is in Astronomy
using Cepheid variable stars and supernova to estimate distance.

If your object was your claimed 120-150 long and doing your claimed Mach 24 it would
be doing just under 27,000 feet per second which would mean it would cover between
180-225 times it's own length in a second as a light source that would be a blur.

You might convince yourself or some of the gullible on here by some of your statements
but not me.

edit on 4-7-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

-------
-------

The human eye can EASILY resolve at up to 72 frames per second
in terms of MOTION/TEMPORAL RESOLUTION (Source: Douglus Trumbull,
ShowScan Technologies) and the Human Eye can resolve pixel-wise
THOUSANDS OF PIXELS PER INCH in Total Spatial resolution
vertically and horizontally (Source: Webvision).

With retinal receptor cells numbering 5-6 million cones for colour vision
and 120-140 million rods for monochromatic vision (i.e. brightness-level
sensors for night vision), ME and YOU are carrying around a 140+ megapixel
camera in our heads. Add to the fact that the PEAK DENSITY of the
rods (luminance) is 400,000 per mm2 and it takes ONLY ONE PHOTON to
excite a Rod and only 100 PHOTONS to excite a Cone (colour vision)
were are talking about SERIOUS colour camera resolving power!

While there are issues which the way the human eye stitches
together MULTIPLE "frames" as the Fovea Centralis (the Human
Eye's SHARP image resolution system) is moved about on an
angular basis side to side and up and down, the relatively
limited Angular Resolution is made up by the HUGE SPATIAL
RESOLUTION of the human eye which can approach 4000 pixels
per inch depending upon the age, genetics and lens condition of
the human test subject. So one must conclude that the
human eye and the human visual cortex is MORE THAN
CAPABLE of doing what you just said, especially since
both ME and YOU are carrying around a soft-gel-pack
supercomputer that can do up to 100 QUADRILLION
FLOATING POINT OPERATIONS PER SECOND and ALMOST
30% OF THAT is geared towards audio/visual processing
so YUP! the human brain and it's visual processing system
is MORE THAN CAPABLE of doing what you said in TEN Seconds and less.
In fact it could do it while fully asleep!

CONTINUED BELOW --->

reply to post by StargateSG7



HOWEVER, while the sheer processing power of the human
vision system CAN EASILY DO WHAT YOU HAVE PROPOSED,
the more prosaic explanation is that first, I calculated
it aproximate speed by the Arc Distance Covered
across the sky in degrees in relation to where I was standing.

Then the second thing I did was check the colour of the
flaming object (i.e. is it yellow, red, orange, blue/green,
bluish white, pure white, etc.) Then I checked if it went
behind some high wispy clouds (it did) and above some nearby
aircraft (it did!). Those few things were all I needed and are
easy enough to estimate if you've done some basic
astronomy (i have!) and some basic trigonometry (yup!)

Now the KEY FACT HERE is that AFTER I went HOME,
I did some internet-digging to find out cloud cover height (i.e. 15,000 feet),
aircraft corridor landing ceilings into Richmond/Vancouver YVR
which was 8000 to 12000 feet East to West for most craft coming
in from the usual Eastern Canada/Calgary to Vancouver runs at
the approximate 11:00 pm time we saw the object (which went
South to North and then banked to Northwest).

The rest of the info is pure spreadsheet work
and basic laws of physics and light. AND some
guesswork based upon KNOWN fuel configurations
of high-speed aircraft (i.e. Peroxide, Methane,
Hydrogen) to see if that configuration matched
what I saw. (it Did!)

Colour temperature is a Photo/Video/Film term which
can also be used to indicate the TYPE/SOURCE of light
being emitted. 3200k Tungsten (orange), 4200k (green)
for flourescent, 6000k for daylight (blue) and then
you get HID, and gas discharge lighting types which
get you into 10,000k and 20,000k colour temps.

In the world of SCIENCE, flame colour can also be
used to indicate the SOURCE of the components being
burned be it Oxygen, Hydrogen, Perodixe, Methane,
various metals, etc. Photographic Colour temperature
is many times CONFUSED with the COLOUR SPECTRUM emitted
by the combustion of specific elements or compounds.

I am meaning colour temperature as in WHAT WAVELENGTH
(COLOUR) of LIGHT is emitted when fuel components such
Hydrogen (etc) is burned at specific distances from me?
What would my eye see if i plotted distance from me versus
wavelength (colour) at a specified fuel source burn rate per
second of a given volume per second of KNOWN flight
propulsion configurations? As a flight systems fan,
I've got a lot of data to go on!

If the object was moving at a varying velocity, what
components of the burn cycle WOULD I SEE at a given
distance/altitude?

If I guess at a common ENGINE TYPE, what light emissions
would I likely see at various levels within the atmosphere?

If an object of a KNOWN size is a given distance/altitude from me
what configuration of burn cycle would I likely see with any given
engine configuration?

Plot the Min, Max, Median, Average and various in-betweens and see what you get!

Since these plots are NOT ABSOLUTES but rather PREDICTIONS based upon what I saw,
it is LIKELY that I would have seen an aircraft (if it actually WAS ONE!) that
LIKELY would have burned Hydrogen (if it actually DID!) and it WOULD HAVE BEEN
120 to 150 feet in length (if it WAS an aircraft of a long and
pointy configuration!) and it LIKELY flew at Mach 24 AT ABOUT 90,000 feet
within those 10 seconds that I saw it very clearly.

That is all easily plottable on a spreadsheet and me being
somewhat obsessive about the science just wanted to do those
inquiries more for fun rather that TRULY PROVING a point.

Who knows! It could have STILL been an Alien Spacecraft
crashing into our atmosphere! But on a balance of probabilities,
i'm gonna take the MOST LIKELY explanation of its flight performance
envelope IF it was truly an aircraft!

The rest of my surmises are mostly political conjecture
based upon actions that the USAF/NSA/NRO has done
many times before in terms of it's spy plane workings!

Originally posted by markymint
Well, the OP seems to have a tendency for the theatric, CAPITAL LETTERS and padding, take a look at his other threads, such as:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Possibly just his age and enthusiasm, but it reads differently - like that of a stubborn child.

edit on 4-7-2013 by markymint because: (no reason given)

====

Hey! Don't knock my theatre classes!

My instructor was very good in terms teaching us
to go for MAXIMUM MELODRAMATIC EFFECT!

Plus I happen to LIKE THE LOOK OF ALL-CAPS!

It's so dramatic. ;-) :-) even IF it's just ridiculous!

I'll not mention my age but I should indicate it's a LOT OLDER than you think!

And regarding my earlier posts, I only report what I see or report on what
I get in the mail and then add some dramatic language to enhance
the effect of my personal observations. I can almost never truly offer a
definitive explanatory proof of a given event or happening since I am
merely its observer and not the originator. So while much of my ATS
ramblings seem rather overdone, that is a matter of training/schooling
(Television Production/Computer Graphics) and an indicator of personality
type (melodramatic) rather than a direct observation of my technical expertise
which is quite extensive when it comes to the specific and narrow areas of
aircraft design, computer imaging, and embedded real time software systems.
While I am a TV Production person! Let's just say that my knowledge of
high speed aircraft and mission politics extends considerably into areas
where those of you who have been there will get it:

My ceiling is higher than your sky!

Sure, and I asked you to speculate with me but you skipped over that

44 is not old, but it's older than me, you're right. You disclose it in your previous thread, I'm not NSA. Peace!

Originally posted by markymint
Sure, and I asked you to speculate with me but you skipped over that

44 is not old, but it's older than me, you're right. You disclose it in your previous thread, I'm not NSA. Peace!

edit on 5-7-2013 by markymint because: (no reason given)

---

What parts would you further like speculation on?

and it IS ALMOST ALL SPECULATION --- my comments are!

reply to post by StargateSG7


---

One more thing I forgot to mention regarding the use of luminosity
and colour temperature to predict distance is the amount of atmospheric
dust or gasses of various densities that distort the flame envelope which
is a major factor in determining distance/altitude. Measuring a single factor
gets you almost nowhere, but if you take into account MULTIPLE factors,
then a spreadsheet calculation will give me plus/minute 10,000 feet altitude
estimate which is of course MOSTLY a reasonable estimate rather than
an absolute true measurement.

As asked earlier, some healthy skepticism allowed one poster to ask for
the BASIS for my estimates of height, speed and size. And the above
posts should hopefully have ANSWERED those questions.

And again, I must outline some caveats that while my posts are ESTIMATES
and not true, repeatable measurements by calibrated instruments, but they
are better than nothing!

Originally posted by StargateSG7
......
......
......

So I am gonna guess this is a full-on ScramJet aircraft!

Bet ya two bits that in the next two days we'll see some Russian Bombers
near Alaska doing a tit-for-tat incursion of air space as I suspect this
craft was NOT doing a test flight but rather a fully operational recon
mission probably almost over to the Kara Sea in Northern Russia to look
for evidence of new northern-ocean Russian submarine operations.

North Korea and China overflights would be from Guam, the Philipines
or Australia so this was a Russian overflight. If ya hear about
one or two Russian Bombers near Norther Alaska or Aleutions, then
ya know I am correct in my assertions on a recon flight.

THere's no other physical details that I can give other than
what I phsycially saw and the very rough calculations on altitude
and airspeed. Plotting the course of the craft on google maps
gives me the Utah to Alaska to Kara Sea recon run so I am
guessing this is an OPERATIONAL craft rather than a test bed!

---

Looks like my prediction was correct:

See Russian Overflight notice in Northern Canada/Alaska:
english.ruvr.ru...

in this game of tit-for-tat spycraft...it seems that my suspicions as to WHAT this high flying IFO
probably is confirmed! According to Russian officials July 7 to 21 will be some overflights of our
northern areas fron CFB Trenton in Canada and Elmendorf Air Field, USA.

While these are scheduled INSPECTION overflights based upon the Open Skies Treaties,
some very recent (last few days!) changes to the inspection flight path indicates to me
that Russia is not pleased with secret USA flights NEAR its territories.

Ergo, my sighting of a high-flying Mach 24 aircraft veering towards the Northwest
suddenly coincides with a flight path change in an inspection flight that now veers
very close to the northern portion of the Norther American portion flight path
I predicted for the craft. I suspect this is a MESSAGE to the USA that Russia
is AWARE of the spycraft.

Again, I also suspect some Russian bombers will soon-enough be "intercepted"
near USA and Canadian airspace. It's all a game and Russia/USA jockey back
and forth...but what I REALLY WANT TO KNOW...is what the heck is so deep
in the Kara Sea in Northern Russia that the USA feels it needs to send a super-high
speed MANNED spycraft near or over Russian territory. I know some commercial
oil and gas companies are doing exploration over there so it could be an ECONOMIC
issue of a NEW ultra-large scale oil or gas field discovery in order to get the Halliburton
or Schlumberger companies some early info on supply or drilling/servicing contracts.

....or it could be for what certain sources I know say....is all about finding the supply/services
bases and testing centres for the newest Russian versions of the USA's SEAWOLF submarines.
THAT would really interest the U.S. powers that be...enough to risk a MANNED overflight or near-flight
of northern Russian territory!!!

reply to post by StargateSG7


----

I should note that while the news story does not specifically say that the flight plan
has changed for the Open Skies Treaty overflight, further digging has confirmed to me
that an official request to modify the flight plans have been requested and GRANTED
for BOTH the Trenton and USA overflights in an obvious acquiescence to certain
events that have recently unfolded.

On a technical or spycraft basis, there is no obvious need for such a flight plan change,
but for POLITICAL PURPOSES, a smoothing over of relations was required in order to
preserve cooperation in other areas of US/Russian activities.

Google Maps Coordinates of Kara Sea Region:
75.606801,73.19824

Just copy and paste the coordinates in the maps search box.

AND just for some good measure, certain employees of a Norwegian
oil & gas contractor working for Russian companies have confirmed
to me that INDEED Russian arctic-capable sea craft activities
HAVE INCREASED within the last few days (i.e. more sightings
and "naval exercises")

The area in question which is the POSSIBLE INTENDED target of the POSSIBLE
IFO flight I have recently outline is near this google map location:

80.353314,95.709228

The white stripes you see are lack of satellite overflights due to limited
photographic resources for the time being rather than a concerted effort
to hide or conceal. (i.e. public sats aren't flying near this area that have
a need for taking pics) but for military purposes, the arm between the
two land masses, when NOT iced up, HAS been used for naval training
and as a re-supply area.

SO SOMETHING IS COOKING HERE! I WONDER WHAT IT IS?