6 ms·

I went through the following sources, and assuming that there is no lying involved, I'm having some difficulty explaining the observations: 1. https://theaviat

by hliyan 9y ago

I went through the following sources, and assuming that there is no lying involved, I'm having some difficulty explaining the observations: 1. https://theaviationist.com/2017/12/17/u-s-department-of-defense-video-shows-unknown-object-intercepted-by-u-s-navy-super-hornet-and-we-have-no-idea-what-it-was/ https://theaviationist.com/2017/12/17/u-s-department-of-defe... 2. https://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-edition/ https://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-edition/ The difficulties: 1. Multiple corroborating observations - radar contact, two sets of aircraft crews visual observations, one set of FLIR footage 2. Very high acceleration and deceleration - powered descent from 80K feet to 20 feet in a matter of seconds; high G turns and acceleration, BUT with no visible high temperature engine exhaust visible on FLIR footage. It's possible to mask engine exhaust and it's possible to achieve very high G's, but I can't imagine how to achieve both simultaneously. Theories: Assuming that there is no lying involved, based on (1) we can safely assume that there _were_ actual physical flying objects in the area. However, before we go off-Earth, I think we should look at propulsion systems that do not rely on thermal expansion of gases. 1. What if it's just an extremely powerful electric propellor based drone? 2. What if it can achieve burst acceleration by releasing compressed gases (which actually reduces temperature)?

tristanj 9y ago
Here is another UFO incident from another country (Belgium) with multiple corroborating observations and very high acceleration/deceleration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave The evidence includes: 1. Statements by thirty different groups of witnesses, three separate groups of police officers, documenting the sight of a large object flying at low altitude. An estimated 13,500 people on the ground saw the object, of which 2,600 filed written statements describing in detail what they saw. 2. Detection on radar of the object from two F-16 Fighter jets scrambled to intercept the object 3. Secondary detection of the object from ground radar at a nearby military airfield 4. Data from the F-16s suggesting near impossible maneuvers. Quoting wikipedia: "During the first radar lock, the target accelerated from 240 km/h to over 1,770 km/h while changing altitude from 2,700 m to 1,500 m, then up to 3,350 m before descending to almost ground level – the first descent of more than 900 m taking less than two seconds. Similar maneuvers were observed during both subsequent radar locks. On no occasion were the F-16 pilots able to make visual contact with the targets [NB: it was around midnight hence poor visibility] and at no point, despite the speeds involved, was there any indication of a sonic boom." 5. A low quality photo, which may have been faked. With regards to the evidence presented, I find it very difficult to come up with a convincing explanation of this incident.
- taneq 9y ago
  Sounds like a cluster of balloons with directional radar reflectors on it? So what you're seeing is not a single rapidly moving source, but multiple stationary point sources each being detected intermittently?
  - brango 9y ago
    You'd hope fighter pilots would be able to identify a balloon when they see one.
    - tigershark 9y ago
      I guess so. What is the connection with this story in which no pilot made any visual contact with anything?
  - tristanj 9y ago
    Explanation yes. Convincing explanation no. It could have been caused by balloons. Balloons can't fly at 2000km/h, nor accelerate at 100g, so for the ballon hypothesis to work you'd have to assume there was also a major malfunction in the two F-16 lock-on systems. You'd also have to assume there was a major failure in the military ground radar system. However, when you make those assumptions, that opens up a can of worms for other possible explanations. Assuming there was sensor system malfunction, the incident could also be explained though a flock of helicopters flying around. Or it could have been several NSA spy planes flying around. I've seen both those explanations put forth as an explanation for what happened in Belgium. I don't believe it's possible to disprove either your balloon hypothesis nor the helicopter hypothesis. There's just not enough evidence to make any convincing explanation.
    - kamaal 9y ago
      Its also a little hard to believe the systems malfunction theory. How is it that the systems from various departments of the government. Each of which are totally independent of each other, suddenly all malfunction at once at the same time, and the event happens, and then again the systems get back to functioning perfectly fine?
mb_72 9y ago
I am a massive skeptic when it comes to UFOs / the supernatural, but must relate one story. A friend of mine, who is now deployed with the UN, used to work as a fighter controller with the air force of a certain country. He is a sober and reliable person, but also made mention one time that it was 'common' to see unexplained objects on radar, and that it was policy to simply ignore them. These objects had characteristics (speed, change of direction) that made it impossible for them to be any kind of 'known' aircraft. I know, I know - it's hearsay, and - again - I am a huge sceptic. Still, it was a bit of a disturbing conversation to have with someone I know and respect, and who was highly trained and in a position of authority.
- nradov 9y ago
  Radar operators see odd returns all the time due to temporary atmospheric conditions, interference, birds, etc. I'm not trying to dismiss your friend's claims but just because a blip appears on a radar screen doesn't necessarily mean there's a real object.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  >I am a massive skeptic when it comes to UFOs / the supernatural Interestingly UFOs and supernatural events have been clumped together, but afaik these UFO claims typically don't require rewriting the laws of physics. If a UFO's existence was proven, and in the public domain, it would go from -100 to +100 in terms of people's attitudes of "that's all just a bunch of balogna" to "of course, we have always known it is very unlikely we are alone." However, a supernatural event would fundamentally shake up our scientific understanding of the universe. I think they're completely different types of possibilities.
  - sebleon 9y ago
    > supernatural event would fundamentally shake up our scientific understanding Surely we're due for one of these soon. Given our infantile understanding of quantum mechanics and physics, it's a matter of time before we observe something that defies modern science.
nradov 9y ago
The energy available in compressed gasses is very small. Even if you compress to the limit where it turns into a liquid you're not going to get enough thrust to significantly accelerate a real aircraft. Some spacecraft use cold gas thrusters for attitude control but not for really moving around.
taneq 9y ago
1) You're talking about something that would be hard to achieve with rockets, let alone propellers regardless of the drive technology. 2) Now you're talking about /bottle rockets/. There's a reason we don't use those for any serious purpose: They're worse than basically anything else in terms of both power and specific thrust.
- hliyan 9y ago
  Occam's Razor would suggest that overcoming these problems would be more plausible than an alien visitation, unless you have other theories...
CMay 9y ago
My immediate reaction (not being a physicist or an aeronautical engineer) is that I think it's unlikely you're going to see those kinds of performance characteristics in something "propulsion" based. The first line of business would be the power source. The intuition would be that you need a mobile high energy power source. The counter-intuitive idea would be that the necessary power source would be so giant that it could never be mobile (like a dyson sphere), but there may be some method of linking a stationary power source with a mobile ship across vast distances. This offers control convenience if an advanced race still needs an authority structure and the possibility of remote monitoring. That also brings up the question of un"manned" exploration drone fleets bouncing between star systems and reporting back. As for movement, I would like to think that something with the observed extreme acceleration and the assumed interstellar capability is using a highly performant computer to calculate adjustments to an inside-out standing wave solution that the ship's outer shell is built for. Imagine shifting waveforms and your ship just kind of repositions yet it feels like you're completely still. Any space debris or other objects encountered while repositioning might get trapped outside the ship so that whenever you arrive at your destination you have to shed the debris. I'm sure a physicist will chime in and say this can never work, but at least from a naive perspective I like the idea of it.
hazeii 9y ago
>assuming that there is no lying involved I've seen this video several times before, and it's usually explained as an FLIR artifact (I believe the pod has a steerable lens systen, so possibly the cause of the rotation seen in the video). As to why the audio corroboates the video? Well, not everything you hear on the internet is true....
vadimberman 9y ago
> we can safely assume that there _were_ actual physical flying objects in the are Why not some kind of an advanced hologram combined with an electromagnetic disturbance? If it were possible, it could be used as a great decoy.

by hliyan 9y ago

tristanj 9y ago

Here is another UFO incident from another country (Belgium) with multiple corroborating observations and very high acceleration/deceleration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave The evidence includes: 1. Statements by thirty different groups of witnesses, three separate groups of police officers, documenting the sight of a large object flying at low altitude. An estimated 13,500 people on the ground saw the object, of which 2,600 filed written statements describing in detail what they saw. 2. Detection on radar of the object from two F-16 Fighter jets scrambled to intercept the object 3. Secondary detection of the object from ground radar at a nearby military airfield 4. Data from the F-16s suggesting near impossible maneuvers. Quoting wikipedia: "During the first radar lock, the target accelerated from 240 km/h to over 1,770 km/h while changing altitude from 2,700 m to 1,500 m, then up to 3,350 m before descending to almost ground level – the first descent of more than 900 m taking less than two seconds. Similar maneuvers were observed during both subsequent radar locks. On no occasion were the F-16 pilots able to make visual contact with the targets [NB: it was around midnight hence poor visibility] and at no point, despite the speeds involved, was there any indication of a sonic boom." 5. A low quality photo, which may have been faked. With regards to the evidence presented, I find it very difficult to come up with a convincing explanation of this incident.

taneq 9y ago
Sounds like a cluster of balloons with directional radar reflectors on it? So what you're seeing is not a single rapidly moving source, but multiple stationary point sources each being detected intermittently?
- brango 9y ago
  You'd hope fighter pilots would be able to identify a balloon when they see one.
  - tigershark 9y ago
    I guess so. What is the connection with this story in which no pilot made any visual contact with anything?
- tristanj 9y ago
  Explanation yes. Convincing explanation no. It could have been caused by balloons. Balloons can't fly at 2000km/h, nor accelerate at 100g, so for the ballon hypothesis to work you'd have to assume there was also a major malfunction in the two F-16 lock-on systems. You'd also have to assume there was a major failure in the military ground radar system. However, when you make those assumptions, that opens up a can of worms for other possible explanations. Assuming there was sensor system malfunction, the incident could also be explained though a flock of helicopters flying around. Or it could have been several NSA spy planes flying around. I've seen both those explanations put forth as an explanation for what happened in Belgium. I don't believe it's possible to disprove either your balloon hypothesis nor the helicopter hypothesis. There's just not enough evidence to make any convincing explanation.
  - kamaal 9y ago
    Its also a little hard to believe the systems malfunction theory. How is it that the systems from various departments of the government. Each of which are totally independent of each other, suddenly all malfunction at once at the same time, and the event happens, and then again the systems get back to functioning perfectly fine?

mb_72 9y ago

I am a massive skeptic when it comes to UFOs / the supernatural, but must relate one story. A friend of mine, who is now deployed with the UN, used to work as a fighter controller with the air force of a certain country. He is a sober and reliable person, but also made mention one time that it was 'common' to see unexplained objects on radar, and that it was policy to simply ignore them. These objects had characteristics (speed, change of direction) that made it impossible for them to be any kind of 'known' aircraft. I know, I know - it's hearsay, and - again - I am a huge sceptic. Still, it was a bit of a disturbing conversation to have with someone I know and respect, and who was highly trained and in a position of authority.

nradov 9y ago
Radar operators see odd returns all the time due to temporary atmospheric conditions, interference, birds, etc. I'm not trying to dismiss your friend's claims but just because a blip appears on a radar screen doesn't necessarily mean there's a real object.
wallace_f 9y ago
>I am a massive skeptic when it comes to UFOs / the supernatural Interestingly UFOs and supernatural events have been clumped together, but afaik these UFO claims typically don't require rewriting the laws of physics. If a UFO's existence was proven, and in the public domain, it would go from -100 to +100 in terms of people's attitudes of "that's all just a bunch of balogna" to "of course, we have always known it is very unlikely we are alone." However, a supernatural event would fundamentally shake up our scientific understanding of the universe. I think they're completely different types of possibilities.
- sebleon 9y ago
  > supernatural event would fundamentally shake up our scientific understanding Surely we're due for one of these soon. Given our infantile understanding of quantum mechanics and physics, it's a matter of time before we observe something that defies modern science.

nradov 9y ago

The energy available in compressed gasses is very small. Even if you compress to the limit where it turns into a liquid you're not going to get enough thrust to significantly accelerate a real aircraft. Some spacecraft use cold gas thrusters for attitude control but not for really moving around.

taneq 9y ago

1) You're talking about something that would be hard to achieve with rockets, let alone propellers regardless of the drive technology. 2) Now you're talking about /bottle rockets/. There's a reason we don't use those for any serious purpose: They're worse than basically anything else in terms of both power and specific thrust.

hliyan 9y ago
Occam's Razor would suggest that overcoming these problems would be more plausible than an alien visitation, unless you have other theories...

CMay 9y ago

My immediate reaction (not being a physicist or an aeronautical engineer) is that I think it's unlikely you're going to see those kinds of performance characteristics in something "propulsion" based. The first line of business would be the power source. The intuition would be that you need a mobile high energy power source. The counter-intuitive idea would be that the necessary power source would be so giant that it could never be mobile (like a dyson sphere), but there may be some method of linking a stationary power source with a mobile ship across vast distances. This offers control convenience if an advanced race still needs an authority structure and the possibility of remote monitoring. That also brings up the question of un"manned" exploration drone fleets bouncing between star systems and reporting back. As for movement, I would like to think that something with the observed extreme acceleration and the assumed interstellar capability is using a highly performant computer to calculate adjustments to an inside-out standing wave solution that the ship's outer shell is built for. Imagine shifting waveforms and your ship just kind of repositions yet it feels like you're completely still. Any space debris or other objects encountered while repositioning might get trapped outside the ship so that whenever you arrive at your destination you have to shed the debris. I'm sure a physicist will chime in and say this can never work, but at least from a naive perspective I like the idea of it.

hazeii 9y ago

>assuming that there is no lying involved I've seen this video several times before, and it's usually explained as an FLIR artifact (I believe the pod has a steerable lens systen, so possibly the cause of the rotation seen in the video). As to why the audio corroboates the video? Well, not everything you hear on the internet is true....

vadimberman 9y ago

> we can safely assume that there _were_ actual physical flying objects in the are Why not some kind of an advanced hologram combined with an electromagnetic disturbance? If it were possible, it could be used as a great decoy.