UFOs have landed in LBN!

[onager]

U.S. pilot was ordered to shoot down UFO

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3553819

1957. The U.S. pilot was flying an F-86 jet fighter, maximum speed 687 mph.

Pilot's description of the UFO: the size of an aircraft carrier, flying at 7,600 mph (how did he measure that, anyway?). Capable of jumping around the sky until it "suddenly disappeared."

And he was ordered to SHOOT IT DOWN?

:rofl:

[Evoman]

1. No doubt....

You come across a ship that may have traveled halfway across the galaxy, can fly at incredible speeds, and has technologies that are millenia if not millions of years ahead of anything we have.

And your first instinct is "shoot it down".

That's like walking into a biker bar naked and throwing a feather as hard as you can at the biggest fucker in the place.

Of course, if the biker doesn't exist, and the bar is actually a nude massage parlour, it doesn't really matter, does it?

[onager]

Shoot it down, Part II

This just occurred to me. I'm slow sometimes. Well, most of the time. Anyway...

The pilot said he had "24 rockets" ready to fire at that aircraft-carrier-sized UFO.

Given that number of rockets, I assume they were the standard weapon of the day: the 2.75-in. (70mm), unguided, FFAR (Folding Fin Aerial Rocket).

Which is the first thing that has me scratching my head. Those rockets were usually packaged in pods of either 7 or 19 missiles. I can't come up with any combination that equals 24, but I quibble. As usual.

The F-86 was also armed with six .50-caliber machine guns.

Wikipedia has some good info in its FFAR article. I read this, and try to picture the F-86 attacking that humongous UFO:

Wartime experience had shown that .50 caliber (12.7 mm) machine guns were not powerful enough to reliably down a bomber, certainly not in a single volley...

The original Mk 4 FFAR (had a) high-explosive warhead of about 6 lb (2.7 kg)...Its maximum effective range was about 3,700 yards (3,400 m).

Because of its low intrinsic accuracy, it was generally fired in large volleys, some aircraft carrying as many as 104 rockets...

The Mk 4 was dubbed "Mighty Mouse" in service, after the popular cartoon character.

The Mighty Mouse was to prove a poor aerial weapon. Although it was powerful enough to destroy a bomber with a single hit, its accuracy was abysmal. Its spin rate was not high enough to compensate for the effects of wind and gravity drop, and the rockets dispersed widely on launch: a volley of 24 rockets would cover an area the size of a football field.

So 6 machine guns. And 24 rockets, dispersing to an area the size of a football field, hitting something the size of an aircraft carrier, that had survived a jaunt across the universe. Not to even mention entry into Earth's atmosphere.

I don't think that poor F-86 would even have DENTED the thing.

[Orrex]

11. He had two pairs of the 7-pack sets

He'd already wasted four of the rockets trying to bullsye womp rats.

[TZ]

2. You evil hard core skeptic!

What do you mean by bringing FACTS to a woo fight?:P

[dawgmom]

3. It's about to get better -- thread started in the lounge

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x8177238

This should be better than last week's ghost stories.

[dawgmom]

4. Hmmm. No responses to the UFO thread

So, apparently there is a stronger belief in ghosts than in UFOs, judging from the numerous ghost stories that were shared in response to that earlier thread. There must be a hierarchy of woo belief. I wonder where ESP ranks on that list?

[TZ]

5. Pretty high.

There have been some real flame wars in GD about that....

[dawgmom]

6. Hmmm. Perhaps the closer one gets to religion and family...

...the touchier the subject. There was an ugly flare-up on Friday night over religion.

But back to my what I was saying. Ghost stories oftentimes seem to involve dead loved ones, which I think reflect the longing to have them with us once again. So, in a dream state, lots of things can be imagined. ESP/premonition stories seem to be like that, also -- premonitions of death, the whole "I was thinking of her, and then the phone rang and it was my Dad saying Grandma died."

[Orrex]

13. Well, I posted one, for what it's worth

Glad to chip in.

[Orrex]

15. Not worth much, apparently!

The thread still sank like a stone. An alien stone.

[dawgmom]

16. One can never predict

One can never predict with certainty what will catch people's attention. Sometimes I'll see a thread on the board and it will have 800 Views, and 80 responses, and it's not something I was even inclined to open. And other times, there's a thread that find interesting or funny, and as you said, it sinks like a stone. Go figure. :)

[Orrex]

17. My wife (House of Kewpie) frequently laments that phenomenon

Someone will post a heart-rending story about a child dying because his insurance won't cover the cost of transporting his new liver accross the country, and that thread will get ten hits and no replies.

But then someone else will say "we had to put our puppy to sleep today," and it'll get 15 recommendations and 300 responses.


Weird sense of priorities some folks have...

[Nevernose]

18. Is it a sense of priorities?

Or just a lack of knowing what to say?

[Orrex]

19. Even the view-counts is wildly skewed in favor of the dead puppy

And whatever the reason, I'm afraid that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth--even as I acknowledge the the reason could be perfectly legtimate, as you suggest.

[Pierre.Suave]

7. Not to mention...

that it is mentioned in the article that the pilots said they had a "lock on"

Did the F-86 even have a radar? much less one capable of getting a "lock on?"

[TZ]

8. Hi JasonC!

Welcome to SSP! We will get you your narrow minded science worshipping member card asap!:hi:

[Pierre.Suave]

9. Awesome

I have always wanted one of those.

[Orrex]

12. Wait a minute--you're a Skeptic?

Hey, you're geekier than I thought!

Welcome to the DU haven for closed-minded scientism.

[Pierre.Suave]

14. I am a full fledged scientific person

yes.

[Pierre.Suave]

10. Since my editing time is up I will add this here...

The article also quotes one of the pilots as saying,

"One pilot said he was seconds away from firing 24 rockets at the object, which moved erratically and gave a radar reading like "a flying aircraft carrier."

My first thought is why is there no description of what this thing looked like? If he was so close to be within seconds of firing, with weapons with maximum ranges described in yards, unguided, how did he NOT see it?

Second, If all he had was unguided weapons, then why did he need a radar lock?

I actually agree with this assesment:

"the CIA once had a program intended to create phantom signals on radar — and that this may have been an exercise in electronic warfare."