Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/20 12:27:55


Post by: Pacific


Or UAPs (Unidentified aerial phenomenon) as they are now known!

This actually seems to get some serious traction in mainstream media and reporting over previous weeks (CBS ran an episode of 60 minutes on it) and a report is being made to congress next month I believe.
So this is going beyond the classic guy in a pick-up truck seeing some moving lights in the 'UFO belt' in the US (as Bill Hicks called it), to several ex-military and even former President Obama commenting that he had seen footage of UAPs that are not explainable.

I've seen some of the limited footage and it looks pretty difficult to explain - weird blobs with no notable control surfaces travelling at hyper-sonic speeds (don't know what the technical description of this is)
I don't also know if these also appeared on radar?

What are people's thoughts on this?


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/20 12:34:39


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


First and foremost? Everything that flies is a UAP at some point.

After all, we’ll see a plane and albeit a fraction of a second, it takes time for us to recognise it.

I think the trouble for some is “I don’t know what I saw” kinda becomes “therefore it must be Aliens”. Which we know isn’t automatically the case.

With the advent of Drones, there’s even more opportunity for confusion, as what we might think to be high up and far away may be a lot lower down and closer to the observer. But in the right conditions (low light, tired brain) we fill in the gaps with the usual inaccurate mind doodles. Not explainable by the individual does not mean not explainable by anyone.

There’s always the chance it’s something military and top secret. Something your or my Government is aware of and does indeed recognise, but don’t want to reveal for any number of valid reasons.

Anyways. Preamble out the way? Got a link to the footage?


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/20 12:44:55


Post by: kodos


https://globalnews.ca/news/7871671/ufo-video-water-san-diego-california-2019-omaha/

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/15/politics/unidentified-aerial-phenomena-defense-department/index.html

because all the conspiracy is about vaccination most people missed that the US military was forced by covid-help law to talk about UFO's

first of all, being classed as unkown object just means that and nothing more (if it would be Aliens, it would not be an UFO any more as it is identified, kind of)


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/20 12:54:06


Post by: Overread


I didn't get a photo, but a few months back (it might even have been pre-corona so a year or more back) I saw two strange shapes in the sky. We pulled the car over and paused to watch as these strange, angular black shapes got closer and closer. There was also, if I recall right, a third more regular aircraft with them.

Eventually they resolved into a pair of US Stealth Bombers who Trump had sent over, presumably to fly around the British to Russian airspace as part of the general dance of "ooh look I've got fancy fighter planes and bombers" that seems to be all the rage every so often along that boarder .


Thing is there was nothing mysterious about them, save that they are a very uncommon shape for an aircraft. If they'd been flying past rather than over and had not moved close enough to resolve them one could easily have thought they were something super strange or even alien.




Drones certainly opens the watergates for strange flying things; heck I've seen a few overbikes and bathtub creations which can fly now due to drone tech and, on a still day with the right setup, you can easily make a strange looking object and shove a drone engine into it.

I'm actually surprised we've not had a huge increase in UFO sightings as a result, but I put it down to the fact that UFOs were born of another generation and era. The same which birthed many spoon benders, mind readers and all the rest. When even "serious" TV shows would have at least one token alien/spiritual/mindreader/mysterious episode where a medium or such manages to use mysterious powers to solve things or such.


Its still there today, but my impression, at least in the UK; is its not really a thing like it was.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/20 13:45:35


Post by: Flinty


I think this covers it nicely

https://xkcd.com/1235/



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/20 13:52:55


Post by: beast_gts


 Flinty wrote:
I think this covers it nicely

Yep, and the Internet lets people check what they saw. For example the weird lights a few nights ago were Elon Musk's Satellites.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/20 14:41:21


Post by: Easy E


I absolutely believe in UFOs! I just do not believe they are aliens.


I have to say though, it is much more fun to want to believe in the para-normal and follow it; even though I do not.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/20 14:51:46


Post by: Pacific


The Star Link satellites definitely unnerved a lot of people, I did have a few moments of "WTF" before I twigged what they were.
Good point about the cameras, and I think that applies to some of this military-captured footage too. The one piece of footage was from a US Navy stealth boat, taken off the coast in the Atlantic in the dead of night (so if that same phenomenon had happened even a few decades ago it would have probably been missed).

One thing you don't get from the video is a sense of scale and also whether these UAP were captured on radar - I assume if they know the speed/heading etc. then they must have been? Specifically with the stealth boat the voice commenting says that they have the detail on where the UAP entered the water.

In terms of possibilities of what these could be, are there any scenarios other than the following for these specific videos?

1. Man-made experimental vehicle/drone from the US. No - expert commentators have said the lack of control surfaces/visible means of propulsion and immense hypersonic speed are far beyond current technologies. The Pentagon has apparently been involved in the enquiry which would indicate it is unknown to them also.

2. Man-made experimental vehicle/drone from an adversary nation (Russia or China). No - although some US researchers believe China has now at least equalled or even moved past Russia in some aspects of aviation technology this would be too much of a step. Also, some of the footage recently released was from 2004 which pre-dates China's very recent technological surge

3. Visual effect/hallucination on the part of the pilot or crew member. No - details were recorded on video by multiple individuals. Also radar record?

4. Meteorological phenomenon. Possible - what isn't clear from the video/commentary is any speed or direction changes by the objects? The videos shown so far appear to be near bodies of water. Could it be something propelled by deep-sea volcanic activity, a micro-meteorite that has 'skipped' on the ocean surface and still travelling at tremendous velocity? I have no idea

5. Naturally occurring/native organism - Unless the fish peoples of Atlantis are sending up probes think this one can be discounted..

6. Aliens Too many questions/guesses around this one

7. Fraud/viral deep-fake or similar - Possible - assume this would have to be one line of enquiry with the official investigation

I am not going to finish this with "therefore Aliens" though (although that has to be one of the possibilities). Have I missed anything else?


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/20 15:55:10


Post by: Azreal13


 Flinty wrote:
I think this covers it nicely

https://xkcd.com/1235/



The trouble with that factoid is it makes no allowance for the fact that for basically half of that upswing they were still basically potato cameras, and even now with a few models featuring physical zoom functions they're still basically gak outside of a few dozen feet.

That aside, I'd be willing to bet that if one were to draw a graph of the amount of pictures and video purporting to be of "paranormal phenomena" over the same time period the graph would be near identical.

Throw the rise of easy post-processing into the mix casting doubt on even the most well shot and clearly focused footage and stills and the fact that your average phone pilot still doesn't even apparently understand to hold the phone in fething landscape when recording video and the increase in phone cameras has just generated a whole bunch of inconclusive noise.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/20 16:51:06


Post by: catbarf


 Pacific wrote:
I've seen some of the limited footage and it looks pretty difficult to explain - weird blobs with no notable control surfaces travelling at hyper-sonic speeds (don't know what the technical description of this is)
I don't also know if these also appeared on radar?


Mechanical error and simple misattribution are big ones for a lot of the military-sourced UFO sightings. Here's a fun article about three of the more popularized clips.

There's a recurring theme here- something odd is observed, and then commentators try to explain the observation, rather than address why the observation might not be valid to start with. In the third example in the link above, it looks like an object is moving at incredibly high speed just over the water, but through parallax it could just be a stationary object closer to the viewer.

I've seen a number reports of strange phenomena that were ultimately traced to mechanical problems as well. While the conspiracy wonks are touting an object flying at Mach 8 and performing impossible maneuvers and confirmed by three different aircraft, a technician finds that a bug got into a rotating radar array and died, subsequently throwing anomalous readings during flight and propagating to the other two craft via datalink.

Stuff happens.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/20 19:43:42


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Sightings of aliens strongly coincide with the popularization of the concept of sightings of aliens.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/20 20:04:52


Post by: gorgon


As I think I've shared here before, I saw something unusual once during a flying lesson. This story is 100% true. It was a silver reflective disk-shaped object that was darting around in the air, making maneuvers no plane could. Pointed it out to my instructor, who did a double-take on it.

At the same time, we said "balloon". It was a kid's mylar balloon that floated very high and was buffeting around in the breeze. Because it was against the sky, it was hard to tell at first if it was a small object close by or a large one far away. Sure fit the classic 'flying saucer' description, huh? And it was very illustrative to me how UFO sightings can happen.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/20 20:14:34


Post by: techsoldaten


Eh... the simplest explanation is someone in DC wants money.

The tictocs are either a black project that's ready to debut or an impressive specimen of private development. Leaning towards the former given the talk about fuzzing Minuteman silos. The DoD does not ignore that.

Tell you why I think this way: China and Russia are ignoring UAPs. Doesn't appear in their native media. If there was something to it, would be an international concern.

Also, Chris Mellon. He would not be involved if there wasn't money on the table.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/20 20:40:03


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Sightings of aliens strongly coincide with the popularization of the concept of sightings of aliens.


There’s also many commonalities between descriptions of abductions in the modern day, and abduction my faerie folk of yesteryear.

Suggests there may be an as yet uncategorised mental health thing going on.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/20 21:16:25


Post by: chaos0xomega


99.9% likelihood that UAVs and UAPs are neer peer adversary aircraft/drones/vehicles. The principle reason for the quiet change in classification from UAP to UFO is due principally to the stigma associated with the term "UFO" relating to its strong connection to aliens - many within the defense and national security community are taking these things more seriously than people realize, and it isn't because they think little green men are invading. This is true going back decades, by the way, hell we know that many reported UFO/UAP sightings through the Cold War were legitimately various types of aircraft/weather balloons designed explicitly to collect reconnaissance data, especially ELINT - no better way to get an adversary to light up their air defense radars and sensors than to present them with an unidentifiable target - the more mysterious and less threatening the target the better, because the longer they shine a flashlight on it the more data you can collect about the frequencies/wavelengths/waveforms/technologies they are using, etc. Both sides did this sort of thing, read about the US PALLADIUM and NEMESIS programs for examples.

The Drive has a great series of articles discussing the topic, especially this piece by Tyler Rogoway - which is also a convenient hub to jump through to other articles by Tyler ad other journalists covering the topic over the past several years with some interesting and in-depth reporting and coverage. There have been a lot of exaggerated and misreported claims about supposed out-of-this-world capabilities of these aircraft, some of the claims are unverifiable, others are blatantly false, and others are suspect and questionable. For the most part many of the supposed claims can be explained within the context of existing technology, in many cases by extrapolating the capabilities of existing consumer grade off the shelf drones out to what would be achievable with a military budget on a black project, or through the use of less commonly encountered technologies or "hybrid" designs (maybe the reason it doesn't have visible control surfaces is because its a balloon with an internal multi-axial ducted fan...).

Theres also the fact that for most of my life there have been claims published in magazines like PopSci and PopMech of Russian and Chinese engineers and scientists researching more "out there" capabilities (like electric jet thrusters and plasma engines) and making some unverifiable claims about cutting edge capabilities - many of those claims have been dismissed with large amounts of hubris and jingoistic chest-pounding (i.e. - we can't do that, so you must be lying since all Russian/Chinese, etc. tech is junk), but its entirely possible some of them are true. In general theres been some degree of "flanderization" (for lack of a better term)e with regards to the capabilities possesed by Russia, China, and some of our adversaries. While its true they are behind the curve compared to the US and some western european nations in some areas of tech and military capability, there are other areas where they are ahead of us. Its foolish to assume our adversaries are incapable of matching us and that any piece of military hardware developed by them is an inherently inferior hunk of junk held together by bubble gum and duct tape.

Tell you why I think this way: China and Russia are ignoring UAPs. Doesn't appear in their native media. If there was something to it, would be an international concern.


This is horrendously inaccurate.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/20 21:24:48


Post by: Argive


Galactic federation here we come!!!!


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/20 21:51:53


Post by: Flinty


I would prefer the Culture.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/20 23:25:49


Post by: Argive


 Flinty wrote:
I would prefer the Culture.


Ahh a man of culture I see..


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/21 00:57:16


Post by: gorgon


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Sightings of aliens strongly coincide with the popularization of the concept of sightings of aliens.


There’s also many commonalities between descriptions of abductions in the modern day, and abduction my faerie folk of yesteryear.

Suggests there may be an as yet uncategorised mental health thing going on.


More like a sleep disorder. Sleep paralysis explains the old 'night hag' folklore and others, and a lot of its symptoms pop up in alien abduction stories too.



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/21 01:20:11


Post by: Overread


There's a lot of things people can suffer or experience which they think are totally unique and might even appears so within family or friend circles; but once you study them at a population level you find they are far more commonplace.

I've certainly had the sensation of something dark being above me whilst being half awake and also had sleep paralysis a few times which is really horrible until you wake up just enough to work out what's going on and then do the only thing you can which is to go back to sleep.
Another common one is the dream of your teeth all falling out and the "falling down stairs/cliff or other high region" which then causes you to wake up with a start.







Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/21 04:24:34


Post by: techsoldaten


chaos0xomega wrote:
Tell you why I think this way: China and Russia are ignoring UAPs. Doesn't appear in their native media. If there was something to it, would be an international concern.


This is horrendously inaccurate.


Then I'd be interested in learning more.

Specifically, I was saying this phenomenon doesn't appear in their media. That doesn't mean it's not taken seriously by their respective states.

Happy to be wrong on this.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/21 06:27:09


Post by: Grey Templar


 Pacific wrote:


1. Man-made experimental vehicle/drone from the US. No - expert commentators have said the lack of control surfaces/visible means of propulsion and immense hypersonic speed are far beyond current technologies. The Pentagon has apparently been involved in the enquiry which would indicate it is unknown to them also.


Not necessarily. If you had a secret project that some civilian dumb dumb had captured a picture of and you wanted to deny any connection with it saying you are going to start an Inquiry about it would be a decent way of distracting from it. The "Pentagon" is also not some hivemind where everybody there knows everything that is going on. One group might genuinely be unaware of a secret project and make a genuine investigation into a sighting of something weird while someone on the other side of the building is keeping their mouth shut.

Let the dumb alien believers provide a smoke screen for your secret projects. It keeps the Russians from discovering what you are really doing.


3. Visual effect/hallucination on the part of the pilot or crew member. No - details were recorded on video by multiple individuals. Also radar record?


Recorded visual effects can still be distorted from what the object actually looks like. So just because no control surfaces or other specific details on the object can be seen doesn't mean they aren't there. They're just not visible because the images were taken at high speeds and thus blurry and distorted. You do a drive by of an F16 at Mach2 and try to pick out details.

4. Meteorological phenomenon. Possible - what isn't clear from the video/commentary is any speed or direction changes by the objects? The videos shown so far appear to be near bodies of water. Could it be something propelled by deep-sea volcanic activity, a micro-meteorite that has 'skipped' on the ocean surface and still travelling at tremendous velocity? I have no idea


This is also a possibility. Anything traveling at high speeds has its fine details blurred.


There are many weird aircraft designs that have been used over the years. Many of which would look a lot like a classic flying saucer.

Take the HO 229 that the Germans were testing in WW2.



Fly past any aircraft at high speed using a mono-wing design and it'll look like a flying saucer.

I'm sure there are many developers in the US and other national military RD units experimenting with weird stuff that bucks all current ideas of what aircraft look like.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/21 08:10:50


Post by: Pacific


I have to say reading some of the above and chaos0xomega's post in particular it seems like some kind of experimental tech has to be the highest likelihood.

Yes I know the ex-Navy guy on CBS was saying this was a hundred years beyond our capability, but he has come from a non-research role, not from top secret projects at the Skunkworks.

It's an interesting comment about the US defence agencies reaction to this; there is more of a focus on the fact that the Tictoc is penetrating US airspace and doing so generally unopposed, rather than 'OMG those must be Aliens' - it's therefore a national security risk, and the more it happens the more attention it will receive, more funding and efforts to find out what it actually is.

 techsoldaten wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Tell you why I think this way: China and Russia are ignoring UAPs. Doesn't appear in their native media. If there was something to it, would be an international concern.


This is horrendously inaccurate.


Then I'd be interested in learning more.

Specifically, I was saying this phenomenon doesn't appear in their media. That doesn't mean it's not taken seriously by their respective states.

Happy to be wrong on this.


Well.. I think it's just knowing what we know about how 'open' the respective media of China and Russia are. (i.e. they aren't!)

The US media is far more open and not state-operated and these videos have only really appeared through happenstance and the actions of a few individuals, but there could well be footage like this in China and Russia but it would never get anywhere near an official media outlet. Think about the Chinese space agency activities, those involve tens of thousands of people and budgets that are probably into tens of billions but you only ever hear about them once they are done or a success (much to the chagrin of the rest of the space/science industries)


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/21 08:27:54


Post by: kodos


 Pacific wrote:
I have to say reading some of the above and chaos0xomega's post in particular it seems like some kind of experimental tech has to be the highest likelihood.


does not even need to be that complicated, a large bird in the distance is enough
it won't be on the radar, making wired looking manouvers because of the big difference in speed
and because of there are no other objects nearby to get the distance right, the size is also impossible to get



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/21 11:20:33


Post by: Farseer Anath'lan


Also, with regards to RADAR, the appearance of any particular hit doesn't really mean anything. It's not some omniscient observer, it's much more like trying to conduct a complicated multivariate analysis by eyeball, with no quantitative means of checking success. They routinely return false positives, misinterpret the most mundane articles, and generally stress the operators out - and that's assuming that there's no software malfunction/hardware issue/dead bug in the unit.



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/21 12:01:21


Post by: Flinty


 Argive wrote:
 Flinty wrote:
I would prefer the Culture.


Ahh a man of culture I see..


Not yet, but I live in hope


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/21 17:07:48


Post by: Grey Templar


 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:
Also, with regards to RADAR, the appearance of any particular hit doesn't really mean anything. It's not some omniscient observer, it's much more like trying to conduct a complicated multivariate analysis by eyeball, with no quantitative means of checking success. They routinely return false positives, misinterpret the most mundane articles, and generally stress the operators out - and that's assuming that there's no software malfunction/hardware issue/dead bug in the unit.



RADAR can generate hits off clouds, flocks of birds, even just variations in atmospheric density. Thats actually how we track storms to predict the weather.

Even "stealth" aircraft still generate radar signatures. They aren't invisible to it, just a lot fainter. The idea being that you can fool the radar operator or computer tracking into thinking it was just a cloud or flock of birds or something else mundane. But if the operator knows there is a stealth aircraft in the area, they can still track it. That is how the soviets took out the blackbird spyplane back during the cold war. A heat tracking missile doesn't care about your radar signature, so once you are detected you can get tracked and shot down.

This is why modern stealth fighters are actually of limited use in the event of a war between major powers. Everybody knows you have stealth aircraft, so they will be looking for them. They are only useful if you are against an opponent with far inferior RADAR technology who is also unaware you are attempting to fly in their airspace.

Now on the other hand, if an aircraft was developed with a propulsion method that didn't generate a lot of heat and you combined that with RADAR absorbing plating you could have an aircraft that is very difficult to identify. It would probably look very weird depending on how it generates lift. Airplanes only look the way they do because of the way they generate thrust and lift. Something that generates those in some new and novel way could look totally different.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/21 19:07:19


Post by: chaos0xomega


 techsoldaten wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Tell you why I think this way: China and Russia are ignoring UAPs. Doesn't appear in their native media. If there was something to it, would be an international concern.


This is horrendously inaccurate.


Then I'd be interested in learning more.

Specifically, I was saying this phenomenon doesn't appear in their media. That doesn't mean it's not taken seriously by their respective states.

Happy to be wrong on this.


On the subject of media I can't comment as I don't speak Russian and my comprehension of Chinese is poor at best, nor do I really watch Russian/Chinese media.

As far as their military tech development I can say that both Russia and China are and have been investing significant sums of money in drone development. They have generally been a bit slower to push widespread adoption than the US has, but in part our own adoption of drones has been grossly accelerated by real-time needs in combating insurgents overseas whereas Russia/China have been focusing on other concerns where drones were less immediately relevant. That being said, Russian and Chinese drone development has been largely focused explicitly on defeating the US, whereas our drone development has been largely focused on low-end threats. In some respects, Russian/Chinese drone capabilities are ahead of our own, specifically with regards to drone swarms and as electronic warfare platforms, and they can do some impressive stuff with them in terms of integrating them into the kill-chain of manned systems (artillery, ground attack aircraft, etc.) as a reconnaissance and target aquisition platform. By comparison the US hasn't had much need to use drones as a distributed electronic attack system, because they've mostly been used against guys riding in the back of a Toyota Hilux, and in large part we've been using drones to "self-spot" for fires carried on-board themselves (i.e. hellfire missiles, etc.) as opposed to using them to provide target data to a manned fighter flying alongside them.

China, and to a lesser extent Russia, are also major drone exporters which means there is a large financial interest for them to develop drone products, especially since the US has been somewhat reserved about who we are willing to sell drones to - its a large and growing market and Russia and China are making a killing addressing customer needs. The "loyal wingman" drone concept was also to some extent pioneered by Russia who are a bit further ahead than the US is, the US really only started taking the concept seriously with the skyborg/loyal wingman programs relatively recently in response to the advances that Russia has made over the past decade (we've very quickly closed the gaps by making the program a national priority and shoveling a lot of money into it). Russias own loyal wingman drone (called the Okhotnik-B) is massive though, its more of a light bomber in and of itself (something like a 10-15 thousand pound payload capacity, its the size of an F-15E) and seems designed more as a "bomb truck"/gun caddy to increase the arsenal of weapons available to a pilot, whereas the US is focusing on much smaller and more maneuverable loyal wingmen drones that are designed to be "semi-attritable" - i.e. they will fly between an air-to-air missile and a manned aircraft in order to take the hit for the piloted aircraft.

Yes I know the ex-Navy guy on CBS was saying this was a hundred years beyond our capability, but he has come from a non-research role, not from top secret projects at the Skunkworks.


Even then, it assumes that the Navy guys understood what they were seeing correctly. If its of a shape and design they are unfamiliar with then they can easily misjudge size and distance. If theres more than one of them flying around and they lose the one they are observing and another one is sighted 60 miles away a few moments later its easy to assume that they just witnessed something travel at hypersonic velocities when the truth is a bit more mundane. To some extent many of these claims, like the claim that one of these UFOs descended 80 thousand feet of altitude in the span of a second according to radar, are uncorroborated by any actual data or evidence that has been publicly presented thus far and based purely on hearsay - in this particular instance, IIRC, that information didn't come from the radar operator but a pilot who heard the story down the grapevine (we all know how the game of telephone works, right?) - even if it did come from the radar operator its entirely possible that he misread what he was seeing in that split second of activity and added an extra zero on.

That is how the soviets took out the blackbird spyplane back during the cold war. A heat tracking missile doesn't care about your radar signature, so once you are detected you can get tracked and shot down.


The Soviets never shotdown an SR-71. Nobody has. There were reports of one occuring but if you look you will find that to be an April Fools story. I think you're thinking of the Serbs shooting down an F-117 Nighthawk during Kosovo, which was shot-down by a radar-guided missile system. The reason the Serbs successfully shot down the F-117 is because the F-117s flew the same routes consistently during the Kosovo war (whereas during the Gulf War they never flew the same track twice), additionally the Serbs had military intelligence spotters in Italy and elsewhere in Europe who were reporting aircraft launches back. On the night in question, the spotters observed that the Prowlers that typically launched from Aviano, as well as other electronic warfare and SEAD aircraft that flew protection for strike packages, were grounded due to weather concerns, etc. In short it was understood that the F-117s were flying unprotected and that Serbian air search and anti-air targeting radars could be turned on without fear of immediate destruction. The F-117 has no radar of its own and only limited radar detection and warning capabilities utilizing a system that was not intended for that purpose - the antennas associated with that system were thus typically retracted on strike missions, rendering the plane blind to whether it was being targeted.

Do you see where this is going?

The Serbs set up their early warning radars along the known flight paths of the prior F-117 strike packages on non-standard settings to spot the F-117 - against a normal aircraft they could do this from ~200 miles away, against an F-117 they could only pick up the F-117 within 10-15 miles. These radars could only detect the presence of something, not that it was an F-117 (too stealthy) and couldn't provide a tracking fix - but when the radar operators spotted that there was a small object moving at high speeds (very obviously not a bird or whatever else that a radar return of that size could be). The operators then put in a radio/phone call to the SAM batteries that were pre-staged along the known flight tracks and provided whatever info they could about range/bearing of the return. The SAM sites used a combination of three different radar systems to acquire targets and guide missiles in on them:
-The target acquisition Radar could acquire a target out to 150 miles against a typical fighter, the F-117 was entirely invisible to it, even flying directly overhead.
-The fire control Radar could guide a missile in on a typical target out to 50 miles away depending on a variety of conditions and circumstances.
-The altitude-finder had a long range but was reliant on data fed in from the other two systems and thus was functionally useless on its own.

Because there was no threat of being blown up on this particular evening, the Serbian SAM operators were free to light up their targeting radars pointing in the direction they knew the target aircraft would be coming from with relative impunity for extended periods of time (like 20 second bursts because they were cautious, whereas they might only have a 5-10 second window in normal circumstances with the Prowlers out in the sky) and at a much faster time interval (usually they would have to go dark for extended periods to avoid drawing the Prowlers in with repeated flashes, on this night they lit up in extended bursts with very short intervals between them). Even still, none of the three targeting radar systems they were using were picking up anything, until by luck one of the Serb SAM sites lit up their fire control radar five miles in front of the oncoming F-117 just as one of the three F-117s opened its missile bay - the two other F-117s flying alongside it remained totally invisible, the only reason the one was detected was because an open weapons bay is basically a radar reflector which resulted in there being a *huge* radar return on the fire control radar system for it to launch and guide a missile against. The Serbs fired off two or three missiles against the return, and the F-117 pilot was totally clueless about this until he visually observed the contrails from the missiles coming at him which detonated in close enough proximity to bring down the plane.

This is why modern stealth fighters are actually of limited use in the event of a war between major powers. Everybody knows you have stealth aircraft, so they will be looking for them. They are only useful if you are against an opponent with far inferior RADAR technology who is also unaware you are attempting to fly in their airspace.


This isn't really accurate and not how it works. Knowing that your opponent has stealth aircraft and looking for them isn't really helpful. Stealth aircraft function by using shaping, materials, and other technologies to reduce their radar cross-section to be reflective of an object much smaller than they actually are. A common example is that of the various US stealth aircraft, which are anywhere from 50-70 feet long with a wingspan between 35-170 feet or so (the B-2 is short but wide lol), being described as having the same radar cross section as a small bird, a golf ball, a marble, an overweight bumble bee, or any other number of similarly small, common, and inconsequential objects. That means that on Radar these things show up alongside every other similarly small object out there, of which there is a lot because of all the random environmental noise and clutter resulting from reflections off of clouds, thermal layers, trees/geographic features backscattering signal, etc. which could easily occlude the stealth aircrafts return (essentially it gets filtered out as noise and clutter by the radars signal processing systems and doesn't even show up on scope). Even if it isn't occluded then its often impossible to tell that you're looking at a stealth aircraft vs any number of thousands or millions of other similarly sized returns.

Without going into a really technical description of how radar systems work, in most circumstances if you were to see the golf ball sized spot of an F-22 on a radar scope its still going to be surrounded by a lot of other golf-ball (and larger) sized spots on there. Determining which one is an actual target and which one is inconsequential isn't that easy - even if you know its coming and are trying to find it. Radar systems utilize a variety of techniques to try to filter out valid returns from various sources of noise and clutter, but a lot of that is dependent on signal resolution which is itself range dependent. In typical circumstances you would be able to track and target a non-stealth aircraft at very long range because through a series of algorithms you could identify the aircraft against noise/clutter on the basis of several factors, such as its movement in relation to everything else around it. A large cross section traveling at 600+ mph within typical flight parameters/capabilities (i.e. the thing isn't going to accelerate or deaccelerate at 20,000 gs or turn 180 degrees on a dime) is easy to identify because there are only so many places that things can go in between pulses (which defines the tracking window) and because there are only so many things out there that will have a comparable RCS, meaning there is less risk of misidentifying the thing you're tracking as being something else (like a really large cloud). When the thing you're tracking has a really tiny RCS it gets a lot harder, because your resolution often isn't good enough to pick out one golf ball from any of the others surrounding it at a distance and stealth aircraft golf balls basically get lost against the background golf balls. Even traveling at high speeds, there are so many other golf ball sized things out there that its hard to signal process to find the one golf ball you're looking for because many radar systems won't even realize that the one particular go while the majority of other golfballs are precisely .001m^2 larger or smaller,lf ball has moved relative to all the other golf balls present. Its only at closer ranges that tracking that golf ball becomes possible, because as the distance closes and resolution improves the system can process signals to notice that theres one particular golfball that is precisely .013m^2 and that golfball seems to be moving at consistent distance intervals (i.e. at a relatively constant velocity and direction), while the majority of other golfballs are precisely .001m^2 larger or smaller and seemingly moving randomly and inconsequentially.

In short, just because you know theres a stealth aircraft coming and you're staring intently at a radar screen doesn't mean you can track it or target it, because by the nature of the way radar functions the target you're looking for often won't even show up on theMore modern and expensive systems, as well as systems of varying frequency/bands have different capabilities relative to stealth features, but there are various limitations associated with them in terms of range, resolution, guidance capabilities, etc. and its not a panacea to the stealth problem to just throw money at more expensive radar systems.

As far as thermal detection, etc. - Yes, thats typically part of a stealth package, particularly with an aircraft designed under an "all-aspect" stealth concept. You don't need a sci-fi propulsion method to avoid being shot down by a heat-seeker, the capability to defeat them using existing fairly conventional propulsion technologies exists by way of some clever (but often expensive) design features. screen as a result of the radar system filtering it out as noise and clutter.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/21 21:03:49


Post by: Matt Swain


Ok, the whole flying saucer thing didn;'t start in the like late 40's-early 50's. Theres a lot of historical artwork the shows things that look like them.

Here's a religious painting from 1710, i guess people just assumed it was some holy symbol for a long time.



Here's an image from 1350, again a religious theme.



Then there's this from about 13000 bc.




And I'm jot into 'ancient aliens', i know a lot of alien theories are pure trickle down economics. I never bought the idea our electronics came from aliens as there is a very long chain of evolution that can clearly be traced back to ben franklin showing how out electronics evolved from hand made components like franklin's glass jar batteries to hand wound electromagnets that made telegraphs possible, and the telegraph is a direct ancestor of the internet, sending data across vast distances in binary format thru electromagnetic means, up ton hand made condensers and relays that lead to the mas production of vacuum tubes that made widespread radios possible in the 1920's, the vacuum tube lead to the transistor, which was just a solid state semiconductor version of the vacuum tube, and the transistor lead to the microchip, which is just a vast and intricate array of microscopic transistors made by highly advanced manufacturing processes.

Also principles created in purely mechanical calculation devices like babbages difference engines were applies to electronics to create basic computers.

So no, i do not believe we got the internet from a ufo in roswell. I reject a lot of the ancient alien stuff, but i acknowledge the ancient paintings do show what looks like a modern 'flying saucer' image.I've heard some peopkle against the idea of ancient aliens try to explain it away and their explanations seem pretty lame, frankly.






Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/21 21:44:42


Post by: Mr Morden


Somewhat hopefull that this may be true but life does not appear to be that interesting....


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/21 22:19:31


Post by: Cronch


I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why it should be aliens beyond "we're important!" which...we're not.
And if it is aliens, and they've been doing it for thousands of years...why. Why skirt around, yet do it so clumsily our radars and cameras can spot it, and people 2000 years ago could see it?


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/22 01:13:37


Post by: chaos0xomega


because its not aliens, its people seeing what they want to see.

The first image is a painting made in 1710 of an event that transpired in biblical times, theres no connection there that justifies an argument of "this dude saw an alien spaceship and painted it". Its actually meant to be god deacending in the form of a dive with the sun as a disc in the sky behind him shining the light of the heavens down on the masses witnessing the baptism of christ. Verdict: No alien

The second one is a Serbian fresco of the crucifixion of christ, the two figures are meant to be the man in the moon and his counterpart in the sun, weeping for his loss. Somewhat common in Byzantine religious artwork of the era. Verdict: No alien.

The last one of the cave - who knows. Could be a cloud raining, could also be a hoax as I cant find any details about it. Verdict: Maybe aliens.



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/22 01:49:49


Post by: Voss


So no, i do not believe we got the internet from a ufo in roswell. I reject a lot of the ancient alien stuff, but i acknowledge the ancient paintings do show what looks like a modern 'flying saucer' image.I've heard some peopkle against the idea of ancient aliens try to explain it away and their explanations seem pretty lame, frankly.

They're aren't likely going to be exciting explanations. In my native land for example, we call that last image 'drawing of a hat.'


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/22 02:14:34


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


Looks more like a snake who ate an elephant to me.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/22 03:37:09


Post by: catbarf


 Matt Swain wrote:
Ok, the whole flying saucer thing didn;'t start in the like late 40's-early 50's. Theres a lot of historical artwork the shows things that look like them.


It really did, though. The 40s/50s is when sightings of 'unidentified flying objects' exploded in frequency, and only subsequently did historical images of religious significance got retroactively reinterpreted as aliens in spaceships rather than angels/God. With roughly a millennium of preserved art it's not hard to find imagery that bears a resemblance to contemporary depictions of aliens, especially when the criteria are so vague as 'round objects in the sky'.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/22 07:33:34


Post by: Olthannon


Maybe the conspiracy was the friends we made along the way.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/22 10:18:29


Post by: kodos


 Matt Swain wrote:
Ok, the whole flying saucer thing didn;'t start in the like late 40's-early 50's. Theres a lot of historical artwork the shows things that look like them.

this might be not as clear as you think

sun shinning rays of light thru clouds is not something special, or you can look at paintings about angels and ask yourself if those are Aliens or not
and the question is, are modern day portrayal inspired by old paintings or inspired by the same natural phenomenon as those were

I mean 90% of Aliens/Monsters in modern Pop Culture are inspired by the work of a single artist and it is not unlikley that that someone saw an old picture and thought I draw my spaceships to look like that, and years later people who have seen the space ship drawing first


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/22 19:17:12


Post by: Cronch


If it is aliens, we've apparently been invaded by just..thousands of species, because until pop-culture unified the global iconography, every ghost/fae/angel thing looked different. why were ancient israelites abducted by burning wheels with eyes and from the 50s onwards it's all been grey short dudes?


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/22 19:39:46


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Matt Swain wrote:
Ok, the whole flying saucer thing didn;'t start in the like late 40's-early 50's. Theres a lot of historical artwork the shows things that look like them.
In order:
-A window into heaven with god looking down, you can even see his face in the middle.
-Beings depicted inside of shooting stars.
-An abstract shape.

You are also missing that this stuff is being cherry-picked from countless other works that bear no similarity to whatever pet theory is being proposed.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/22 21:52:29


Post by: trexmeyer


Cronch wrote:
I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why it should be aliens beyond "we're important!" which...we're not.
And if it is aliens, and they've been doing it for thousands of years...why. Why skirt around, yet do it so clumsily our radars and cameras can spot it, and people 2000 years ago could see it?


That's a foolish argument. There are humans that study everything from dung beetles to snow leopards. Why shouldn't there be some aliens that are curious enough about humans to do flyovers? Also, just because we can occasionally perceive them doesn't mean they care. They may not even intentionally be hiding or even attempting to hide.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/22 22:03:39


Post by: techsoldaten


 Matt Swain wrote:
Also principles created in purely mechanical calculation devices like babbages difference engines were applies to electronics to create basic computers.

So no, i do not believe we got the internet from a ufo in roswell. I reject a lot of the ancient alien stuff, but i acknowledge the ancient paintings do show what looks like a modern 'flying saucer' image.I've heard some peopkle against the idea of ancient aliens try to explain it away and their explanations seem pretty lame, frankly.


In response, episodes in the history of thought have a tendency to rhyme.

Anaximander was a Greek philosopher, pre-dated Socrates and Pythagoras. He was a practical philosopher, having created sun-dials and other devices we might call scientific. He was drawn to cosmology and attempted to explain the origin of the universe this way.

"At the origin, after the separation of hot and cold, a ball of flame appeared that surrounded Earth like bark on a tree. This ball broke apart to form the rest of the Universe. It resembled a system of hollow concentric wheels, filled with fire, with the rims pierced by holes like those of a flute. Consequently, the Sun was the fire that one could see through a hole the same size as the Earth on the farthest wheel, and an eclipse corresponded with the occlusion of that hole. The diameter of the solar wheel was twenty-seven times that of the Earth (or twenty-eight, depending on the sources) and the lunar wheel, whose fire was less intense, eighteen (or nineteen) times. Its hole could change shape, thus explaining lunar phases. The stars and the planets, located closer, followed the same model."

If you read the fragment in full, it sounds similar to modern theories of the Big Bang. Was Anaximander prescient, understanding concepts that would not be widely acknowledged for centuries? Did the descriptions of his thoughts somehow inspire scientists thousands of years later?

Not really. A classical mechanical understanding of the cosmos requires an explanation of an original force, a "prime mover." We live in a world of cause and effect, the Greeks understood this about the same as we do today. To get to the beginning of the story, forces needed to interact with one another. A different explanation of the universe - that of the creator - might not lead to the same conclusions.

When I see cave drawings that resemble flying saucers, I think about human perception. What was it they saw that could have inspired them to draw something resembling phenomenon we observe today? While it's tempting to say they are drawing what they saw, cave drawings are not always representational. Some also depict 30 foot men with spears attacking villages - or regular sized men attacking tiny faery villages. I'm not always sure what I'm seeing.

Something about round things flying through the air, lights from the heavens shining down, etc appears in a lot of art. Maybe it's a signal, dunno, but people can draw many different conclusions from what they are perceiving. If we were living in a more religious age, we might call them Angels or the Hand of God.

Don't know if this qualifies as explaining it away, but I definitely don't trust the notion that's a drawing of a spaceship. It could be a representation of something real, or it could have been imagination. It could have been something that was observed, but we're interpreting it as a spaceship because we're looking for spaceships. If we lived in a culture dominated by Flying Spaghetti Men, we might be perceiving it as an ancient parmesan shaker.

But it could be a flying saucer. Just saying we have no way to know.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/22 22:40:46


Post by: NinthMusketeer


It's a bird! It's a plane! It's a... oh it is a bird.

https://ak.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/13982663/thumb/1.jpg


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/22 23:11:58


Post by: chaos0xomega


With all the satellites pointing at earth and photographing every square inch of this planets surface every second of every minute of every day, I feel like wed have a lot of photos of these things in flight if they were as common as theyre being made out to be.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/23 01:36:30


Post by: Matt Swain


chaos0xomega wrote:
With all the satellites pointing at earth and photographing every square inch of this planets surface every second of every minute of every day, I feel like wed have a lot of photos of these things in flight if they were as common as theyre being made out to be.


The pentagon is releasing more and more incidents of things being caught on camera now.

as to them being russian or chinese planes, unless they've learned to cancel inertia that doesn't explain some things that have been seen and recorded.

Also, for a long time people did not report seeing things, like airline pilots. If an airline pilot reported seeing a UFO, the standard result was the end of his career as corporate decided his stability was questionable and therefore he could possibly maybe be a liability, and POOF went his career and future. Airline pilots learned not to report things as their futures was not a concern of the airlines. After retirement some came forward with what they saw.

The miliar\y had the same issue, with servicemen reporting things not only being looked down on by the brass but mercilessly taunted by their peers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cronch wrote:
I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why it should be aliens beyond "we're important!" which...we're not.
And if it is aliens, and they've been doing it for thousands of years...why. Why skirt around, yet do it so clumsily our radars and cameras can spot it, and people 2000 years ago could see it?


How do you know what a non human intelligence might consider important or not? I mean we spend millions building deep submersibles to go 7 miles down and look at lifeforms that live there. We spend humdreds of millions to send a robot to mars to look at rocks.

What if an alien intelligence considers ANY form of intelligent, sentient life to be important to some degree?


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/23 11:17:33


Post by: Mr. Burning


I wonder why Aliens haven't mastered MRI scanners and prefer going via the butt for examinations.

Its curious.

And do they just not care enough about our planet to be involved in so many near misses.



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/23 20:11:50


Post by: chaos0xomega


The pentagon is releasing more and more incidents of things being caught on camera now.


The point is that I could go on google maps or any number of other platforms that host satellite photography and comb through mile upon mile upon mile of landscape, spot lots of different airplanes and ships, etc. and not see a single UFO anywhere. I know theres occasionally articles about weird gak spotted, but so far all of them have turned out to be relatively mundane things that someone gets overly excited and jumps to incorrect conclusions about.


as to them being russian or chinese planes, unless they've learned to cancel inertia that doesn't explain some things that have been seen and recorded.


Not much of whats actually been recorded and publicized would require anything that advanced. Again, as I stated previously, the most extreme claims that would justify the "1000 years more advanced than anything we have" claims are all based on hearsay and things heard down the grapevine rather than capabilities documented on the publicly released film, or anything at all that was observed by Mk1 eyeball. In fact, the observed visual capabilities of these things are fairly mundane, they haven't been seen moving particularly fast or performing maneuvers that are particularly out of the ordinary, at least not as far as released video is concerned. Things like supposedly rapid accelaration/deceleration, crash dives/climb through extreme altitude in very short intervals of time, etc. have only ever been captured via radar and other sensors - but these are the exact sorts of observations that existing domestic and foreign electronic warfare systems are capable of causing, and have been causing for several decades.

Sorry, but the truth - at least as far as what has been revealed - isn't that sexy.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/24 08:16:56


Post by: Cronch


Ok, but if aliens DO care...why do they only seem to observe some tiny boring towns and rarely if ever do so over big cities?
If they hide, they are doing worse job of it than human photographers working for Discovery Channel. If they don't hide, they seem to be picking the worst targets to observe. Why even send manned ships instead of microsatellies in the first place?


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/24 08:22:55


Post by: Pacific


Interesting have been reading about one of the 'sightings', reading about the tictok one (fighter aircraft with the camera mounted on the nose) and it did apparently include radar tracking as well as the visual/camera recording.

The figures quoted for the velocity (acceleration and top speed) are utterly insane and estimated at something like 100,000mph and at one point entered and emerged from water. So there is absolutely no way it could be within our current tech abilities. There is some discussion theoretical physics and manipulation of gravity curves (which does feel a little bit like 'a wizard did it' as a plot device I will admit, although at least it is acknowledging there has to be some sort of future tech involved.

But, I get the feeling there might be something more to this. Some quite 'learned' individuals are commenting - check out Eric Weinstein (i.e. not crack-pots) saying that there is going to be more to this and very possible some high-def video and that the releases so far have served to inure the public to the concept. We had the news last year in April and now the latest videos being de-classified, and there haven't been any mass 'Orson Welles reading War of the Worlds' type panic in the street. So as a next step we might possibly have some more video, perhaps high-def and something that can't easily be dismissed.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/24 08:35:03


Post by: Overread


UFOs are a bit like Bigfoot and the Loche Ness Monster. We've had years and years of "sightings" and "eye witness accounts" and "abductions" and all such things and yet despite increasing monitoring we've never really had an increase in evidence. If anything we've had reductions.

At this point I'd argue that many people are simply at a state where they are open to believe it, but require quite substantial evidence/a major Tv campaign.


Although I do wonder how many people believe "ancient aliens"


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/24 08:40:30


Post by: kodos


this comes down to a single question

does alien live exist, or are we alone in the Galaxy

if yes, the chance that our planet was explored once in its history is >0
if no, well there are no aliens


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/24 09:31:47


Post by: Pacific


@Kodos - I think this is why a lot more academics are willing to discuss the possibility now that we might not be alone, certainly in terms of life if not multi-cellular and intelligent life.
Think the discovery of such a vast quantity of Earth-like planets in our galaxy at least makes it a possibility.

But, you are right, the only thing we know for sure is that multi-cellular life has come into existence at least once!

 Overread wrote:
UFOs are a bit like Bigfoot and the Loche Ness Monster. We've had years and years of "sightings" and "eye witness accounts" and "abductions" and all such things and yet despite increasing monitoring we've never really had an increase in evidence. If anything we've had reductions.

At this point I'd argue that many people are simply at a state where they are open to believe it, but require quite substantial evidence/a major Tv campaign.

Although I do wonder how many people believe "ancient aliens"


Well, this is where the latest news comes into it. I'd be the first to say ancient aliens, pyramid landing platforms are nonsense (unless we are talking about Stargate of course).

It's the context of this latest info: Lots of eyewitness accounts by military personnel, radar data, camera tracking to verify that there is something there. And now the release of previously classified material by the Pentagon (with the promise that there is more to come). That we can't explain these UAP at all doesn't make their observations invalid.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/24 10:16:15


Post by: The_Real_Chris


 Flinty wrote:
I would prefer the Culture.


They would turn us into meatballs.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/24 15:37:21


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Pacific wrote:
Interesting have been reading about one of the 'sightings', reading about the tictok one (fighter aircraft with the camera mounted on the nose) and it did apparently include radar tracking as well as the visual/camera recording.
The figures quoted for the velocity (acceleration and top speed) are utterly insane and estimated at something like 100,000mph and at one point entered and emerged from water. So there is absolutely no way it could be within our current tech abilities. There is some discussion theoretical physics and manipulation of gravity curves (which does feel a little bit like 'a wizard did it' as a plot device I will admit, although at least it is acknowledging there has to be some sort of future tech involved.
But, I get the feeling there might be something more to this. Some quite 'learned' individuals are commenting - check out Eric Weinstein (i.e. not crack-pots) saying that there is going to be more to this and very possible some high-def video and that the releases so far have served to inure the public to the concept. We had the news last year in April and now the latest videos being de-classified, and there haven't been any mass 'Orson Welles reading War of the Worlds' type panic in the street. So as a next step we might possibly have some more video, perhaps high-def and something that can't easily be dismissed.


That behavior (extreme speed/acceleration/deceleration/rate of climb, etc.) has only been recorded on radar and other sensors though and is not evidenced in any of the publicly released recorded material. All of those things are explainable as a result of electronic warfare capabilities which already exist which can spoof radar into seeing false positives or motion and behavior that isn't actually occuring, etc.

With regards to the object entering the water, there are claims that a sonar operator detected an object traveling 70 knots beneath the surface (admittedly pretty fast for something like a full size attack submarine, but maybe not for a smaller object) - but there is nothing to actually link that to the TicTac (not TicTok lol) or suggest that it was an aerial vehicle which entered the water and zoomed away beneatht the waves. Its linked to the TicTac by virtue of timing - it was detected within the same extended two week timeframe of events/activities/encounters, I believe the same day as one of the visual sightings of it, but there was no observed transition from aerial flight to underwater travel of the object in question.

There is FLIR video of a different object, captured years later, entering the water but there is nothing to suggest it was a transmedium craft which zoomed away beneath the waves, versus a drone which flew too low and hit the drink. It occurred at night and helicopters were not able to identify debris or the object itself in the water, but that just means that they coudln't find anyhing in the dark or that it sunk quickly enough for them to not notice it, etc. Hardly out of the ordinary.

The initial contact with the TicTac, which wasn't recorded and only reported verbally, was that it was sighted moving erratically about 50 feet above a section of churning water where there appeared to be some submerged object, but then the TicTac suddenly accelerated away as the Hornet approached (estimated approx. 5 miles). This is explainable fully within the realm of the mundane. The churning water was a (Russian/Chinese/other)submarine or submersible near the water surface (hence churning water) launching an aerial vehicle using a tether (hence seemingly erratice movement being buffeted by wind and wave). They released the tether (probably in an oh gak moment when they realized the fighter was coming in) and the object accelerated away (like you do). There are in my mind two likelihoods as to what the object in question is:

1. A pill-shaped balloon. They already exist.
2. A hybrid airship UAV using a cylindrical lifting body with internal ducted thrusters for stealth purposes. I don't know of anything exactly like this that exists, but all of these features exist independently of one another and could theoretically be combined to produce a new type of vehicle that even military pilots are not familiar with. In fact, there are similar things out there that already exist that have some (but not all) of these features. Its not out of the realm of possiblity or plausibility.

Launching balloons via submarines is hardly new (nor for that matter is launching UAVs but I digress) - the US Navy did exactly that with PALLADIUM in order to collect intel from Russian/Cuban radar installations during the Cold War. Basically the same concept, launch a balloon carrying a radar reflector from a sub, as it ascends it comes up on long range search radar as an unidentified object, then tracking and targeting RADAR systems are brought online in order to try to identify and target the object, at which point a variety of US aircraft and ships use a variety of different sensor systems to collect waveform data from said tracking/targeting systems. Subs have also been known in the past to use balloons to extend the range of their sensor and communications capabilities beyond the horizon. I.E. stick a radio transmitter/receivier, radar antenna, camera, or other such objects on a balloon and launch it while submerged or partially subjmerged on a tether to a higher altitude so you can extend coverage beyond the ~8 mi horizon at sea-level, then reel it back in and disappear when you're done. None of this is new, unusual, or necessarily even all that novel. A light enough balloon filled with helium could accelerate pretty rapidly if it were suddenly untethered, and thats before accounting for the potential of a ducted fan providing additional thrust/acceleration. And even veteran military pilots often make errors in visual identification and reporting with objectst that they have a lot of familiarity with (such as misidentifying a pair of US Army Black Hawk helicopters as a pair of Iraqi Mi-24 Hinds). Its not hard to imagine them misunderstanding what they are seeing if its something they have never seen before, from miles away, while traveling at hundreds of miles per hour.

With regards to the performance that has actually been recorded and released, what we have seen so far is pretty boring. The released TicTac video shows an object that is sitting basically stationary about 20k feet above sea level - pretty balloon like. It appears to suddely acclerate away at the last second, but the pilot who recorded it (Lt Graves) could not confirm that it actually did accelerate away, and admits that its entirely possible that the motion was the result of the TicTac being buffeted away by the Hornets jet wash - again, pretty balloon like. This video was recorded within 5-10 miles of the object, its unclear if Lt Graves ever actually made direct visual contact with it, but he was clear in his own assessment that it was floating/sitting in place and not moving much as he observed it at closer ranges.

When he made initial contact with the TicTac via FLIR, at approximately 20miles distance, he claims that the object was moving erratically (in his own words going from 50k feet in altitude down to a couple hundred feet in a split second and then back up to tens of thousands of feet, etc.), but for whatever reason this isn't part of the recordings that were released, and its questionable how true this is or if it has been exaggerated, etc. Why it would behave erratically at 20miles but remain more or less stationary at ~5 miles seems to be a bit mysterious...

...except that a systems engineer from Raytheon who helped design and test the FLIR system used to record the video has come forward with the suggestion that the erratic behavior that was observed was the result of a well-known glitch in the FLIR that caused it to jump between similar-looking targets because the system has difficulty resolving them as being separate and distinct objects. While the glitch/performance issues were massively improved upon, the engineer says they were never completely eliminated. Its not hard to posit that a largely featureless tictac shape might cause the FLIR to struggle in such a manner, jumping between a tic tac at 200 feet above sea level and another one at 50,000 feet, and another at say 24,000 feet, etc. This jives with some of the RADAR observations made in and around that time by the USS Princeton and other vessels, which indicated there were at times over a dozen such objects flying around out there. Its not hard to imagine that multiple such objects, at 20+ miles distance, fell within the FLIRs field of view and the system was cycling between them rapidly, and the pilot -presumably unaware of the performance issue- took this to be the motion of a single object rapidly climbing and diving rather than separate objects at different heights basically remaining stationary. It would also explain why Lt Graves might have never been able to make direct visual contact with it - because the object he was viewing in the FLIR wasn't where he thought it was. Likewise it explains why it suddenly stopped jumping around erratically and seemed to just float in place - as the other tic tacs left the FLIRs field of view the sensor remained focused on the one Tic Tac that remained within it.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/24 21:04:11


Post by: FrozenDwarf


Unidentified.
"nuff said" basicly.

I visualy cannot identify the passenger jets that fly above my home every hour i just see white dots during daylight and bright blinking lights at night, so they are by defination UFO.


In regards to "visitors", shure they exists. But have you as a human tryed to teach a monkey to write? That might be how they see us. Why would they bother to teach their tecno to us??
And it would do nothing but fule a new scale of conflict on this planet, humans aint programmed by nature to share.......


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/24 21:36:35


Post by: Flinty


There have been lots of experiments relating to tool use and social communication by chimps and other apes, including people living among them. We train lots of animals by living alongside them.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/24 22:48:38


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


I prefer to be the unseen master of my goldfish.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 07:04:30


Post by: NinthMusketeer


People just blow past the reality that by the only evidence we have to go off life on another world would most likely be exclusively microbial, and almost certainly not intelligent. Look at the history of life on earth.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 08:36:45


Post by: Flinty


But there are a lot of stars in the galaxy, so even if the vast vast majority of life is single celled, just the sheer number of data points would lead to other intelligent life existing as well. Otherwise you get back to believing that humans are somehow unique, which seems unlikely given the sheer number of available planets.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 08:43:25


Post by: Overread


It also took many billions of years for humanity to evolve and that even required a mass extinction event to wipe out dinosaurs. It could be on other worlds the way life typically evolves (at least based on our current 1 data point of Earth) could end up with the chances of what we'd consider "intelligent" being very low. There could be many many worlds where life is highly evolved, it just never really develops technology.



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 09:42:33


Post by: tneva82


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
People just blow past the reality that by the only evidence we have to go off life on another world would most likely be exclusively microbial, and almost certainly not intelligent. Look at the history of life on earth.


And yet we are there. There's no reason to think we are only ones out there. It's a bloody big galaxy. You can put your imagination of how big it is to ^10 and still not big enough.

Bigger issue is there isn't feasible way to get info good enough from those distances. And any travel method is going to be basically one way trip. You can go there but by the time you would get back it's irrelevant.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 10:23:56


Post by: kodos


tneva82 wrote:
There's no reason to think we are only ones out there

from a scientific point of view

a) galactic zoo
for whatever reason, either we are exotic/primitive/reasons, aliens isolate us
hard to proof but a possibility

b) the big filter
because life took long to develop and it needs a million years from cells to form a skeletons and billions years from single cells to a from of life that can leave their solar system, there are filters during that process
could be anything that prevents a single important step during that process and it cells are not formed, skeletons not build, life only possible in oceans etc.

with us not seeing any life out there, the possibility that those filters are on our past is very likely and even with those billions of stars we are the exception

hence why some scientists see possible life on Venus as a bad thing
because if life is possible there, it would be a standard process for every solid planet out there and the reason why we have not seen anything yet would be that there is 1 big filter in our near future that prevents life from going further (and we are on the edge of extinction)


we have a limited view on the galaxy and the universe in general, but if there is a lot out there we would have seen something


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 14:29:27


Post by: Cronch


I mean, it is entirely possible there is a great filter and some civilizations passed it. Why should they bother with civilizations that haven't yet or look like they're going to fail? (yes, I have my suspicions about our viability as a long-term species)


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 15:17:01


Post by: Pacific


NinthMusketeer makes an interesting point about multi-cellular, intelligent life. If you think it took 3 billion years for life on Earth to progress beyond single-cell organisms. Once that happened, around a billion years ago, the massive diversity of life and evolution which we now see around us flourished. But AFAIK we still don't know what the contributing factor was or catalyst that allowed it to happen and therefore how likely that is to repeat elsewhere.

So while they have estimated there might be 60 billion planets in our galaxy that may have 'near earth' conditions capable of supporting life, we really don't know how many of those would only feature life that would be visible beneath a microscope.

I mean, it is entirely possible there is a great filter and some civilizations passed it. Why should they bother with civilizations that haven't yet or look like they're going to fail? (yes, I have my suspicions about our viability as a long-term species)


I think that's very true. We've already had a couple of very close calls regarding nuclear weapons where we have been in the hands of the fates and a roll of '1' and we would most likely not be sat here communicating now. The problem is if you keep taking that chance then eventually luck will run out, and it only needs to happen once.

So this one big argument against multi-planetary, advanced intelligent life is that 'great filter' (I forget who coined that phrase, Sam Harris ran a really interesting interview podcast with him once, German chap I believe) - it doesn't have to be nuclear weaponry, in twenty year's time some kind of DNA printer is released publically, suddenly making it possible to develop your own viruses or bacteria following your desired pattern. Then it only takes a handful of nutters in our population of 7 billion to decide that humanity shouldn't exist..
Or the galaxy could be littered by the blasted remains of intelligent civilisations that all discovered that Fusion bombs were straightforward when you knew how to do it..

I would like to think that intelligent life could have developed traits that made it more or less likely to pass that filter. For example, if societal/tribal bonds were far stronger, or perhaps activity was more tightly controlled, you could easily control access to the materials that you knew could ultimately be used to destroy your species.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 15:40:40


Post by: Cronch


Doesn't even have to be nuclear weapons. Making earth inhospitable to advanced civilization isn't that hard, we're doing it now while also enacting another extinction event all around us. Insects are disappearing at a rate of about 2,5% every year. We are killing off species at a rate faster than the K-P extinction (or so I read once) and we're just ignoring it as a civilization.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 15:51:03


Post by: gorgon


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
People just blow past the reality that by the only evidence we have to go off life on another world would most likely be exclusively microbial, and almost certainly not intelligent. Look at the history of life on earth.


And if that's what's out there...who cares. I mean, it'd be an interesting discovery. But how does it change anything for US? The knowledge that we are or aren't alone isn't going to change human civilization or behaviior. I mean, it's already a pretty solid assumption that there's at least some kind of extremely primitive life *somewhere* in the vastness of space. And just look around, lol.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 16:47:37


Post by: Pacific


Cronch - very true. Nuclear weapons is one of course (and I think the moment where we gained the ability to destroy ourselves in a single action/touch of button), but there could be any other number of man-made disasters, such as the destruction of our environment, or even our failure to protect ourselves properly against natural ones. This could be an incoming asteroid (we must assume the Dinosaurs never mastered an early warning system) or even a deadly virus. The events surrounding Covid over the last year have shown there are some serious shortcomings in our global capacity to protect ourselves in that regard.

 gorgon wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
People just blow past the reality that by the only evidence we have to go off life on another world would most likely be exclusively microbial, and almost certainly not intelligent. Look at the history of life on earth.


And if that's what's out there...who cares. I mean, it'd be an interesting discovery. But how does it change anything for US? The knowledge that we are or aren't alone isn't going to change human civilization or behaviior. I mean, it's already a pretty solid assumption that there's at least some kind of extremely primitive life *somewhere* in the vastness of space. And just look around, lol.


I think there would be a proportion of people that probably wouldn't care, and would barely even think of it. But, I think for anyone that has (attempted) to give serious thought about our place in the universe, ever really even read a science fiction book about that subject (most of us here probably have!) I think it would be absolutely earth shattering. Either definitive proof that we are alone or that there are a myriad number of sapient species in the galaxy and potentially in contact with us; I find both of these prospects terrifying!


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 17:47:19


Post by: Argive


I honestly think the anal probes are about fishing and its interstellar/ intergalactic tourism...

Think about it. You go fishing, you pull out a fish from its natural enviornment through your god-like the technology of bait, hook, and line. You then put it on the mat and take selfies with it weigh it and measure it before depositing it back to its world.

I've hooked fish by bellies, tails, sides, etc. Not on purpose of course but what's to say occasional anal probing isn't just alien fishing rods/measuring tape going wrong.. How do they know where out mouths are and if they even understand what a mouth is?

Just saying it.... Alien tourism/safari sounds legit.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 18:51:35


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


How common are stories of anal probing in abduction accounts? I suspect they were not particularly common, and often only one invasive medical(?) procedure of many that the experiencer endured—but they make a great point to latch onto for anyone looking to mock the entire field of UFO witnesses so as to dismiss them.

I’m honestly uncomfortable with how similar “anal probe” jokes are to prison rape jokes, and who is often the punchline.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 19:01:15


Post by: Overread


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
How common are stories of anal probing in abduction accounts? I suspect they were not particularly common, and often only one invasive medical(?) procedure of many that the experiencer endured—but they make a great point to latch onto for anyone looking to mock the entire field of UFO witnesses so as to dismiss them.

I’m honestly uncomfortable with how similar “anal probe” jokes are to prison rape jokes, and who is often the punchline.


I think some of the more authentic "anal probing" and abduction stories do sound like someone has been violated/raped or otherwise abused by another human and the whole idea it was aliens is a mental shield for them as they try to process it. This is before you even touch on the impact of people with mental disabilities, drugs and other medical situations which can result in long term or short term issues with a persons perception of the world around them.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 19:25:08


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Flinty wrote:
But there are a lot of stars in the galaxy, so even if the vast vast majority of life is single celled, just the sheer number of data points would lead to other intelligent life existing as well. Otherwise you get back to believing that humans are somehow unique, which seems unlikely given the sheer number of available planets.
Well if you consider the odds of a planet having conditions in which life as we know it is even possible that eliminates most of them. Then consider out of the history of life on earth what percentage of it has hosted intelligent life. It is very plausible we are the only intelligent life in the galaxy. Then we have to consider said intelligent life simply being on a planet that does not have the materials/conditions to create technological development. It isn't well known but agricultural, farming-based societies were, by the evidence we have currently, a step DOWN in quality of life from hunter-gathering society. It was something resorted to as humans deplected their local ecosystems from being OP.

@Great filter theory, IMO this is just a pseudo-scientific outgrowth of humanity's apocalypse fetish. It steps too far back and ignores the incalculable levels of nuance involved.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 19:32:58


Post by: tneva82


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Flinty wrote:
But there are a lot of stars in the galaxy, so even if the vast vast majority of life is single celled, just the sheer number of data points would lead to other intelligent life existing as well. Otherwise you get back to believing that humans are somehow unique, which seems unlikely given the sheer number of available planets.
Well if you consider the odds of a planet having conditions in which life as we know it is even possible that eliminates most of them. Then consider out of the history of life on earth what percentage of it has hosted intelligent life. It is very plausible we are the only intelligent life in the galaxy. Then we have to consider said intelligent life simply being on a planet that does not have the materials to cause or support technological development.

@Great filter theory, IMO this is just a pseudo-scientific outgrowth of humanity's apocalypse fetish. It steps too far back and ignores the incalculable levels of nuance involved.


Even lf odds are 0.000000000000000000001% it's still lotsa planets.

And only in galaxy? That still leaves crapload of intelligent life outside. Our galaxy is but tiny drop.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 19:39:20


Post by: NinthMusketeer


True, but getting into other galaxy stuff starts tapping into far larger concepts. The sheer amount of time and distance involved creates a host of conceptual issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote:
Even lf odds are 0.000000000000000000001% it's still lotsa planets.
Well given that 0.000000001% odds would be 1 planet, I'd say your math is a bit off.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 21:43:25


Post by: Argive


 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
How common are stories of anal probing in abduction accounts? I suspect they were not particularly common, and often only one invasive medical(?) procedure of many that the experiencer endured—but they make a great point to latch onto for anyone looking to mock the entire field of UFO witnesses so as to dismiss them.

I’m honestly uncomfortable with how similar “anal probe” jokes are to prison rape jokes, and who is often the punchline.


Your uncomforted is noted and disregarded as its not the same thing in the slightest...
I wasn't mocking.
There's whole programmes on abductions and tons of personal accounts. Pretty much all of them describing some sort of medical procedures/implants/probing (including anal probing). Vast majority seems the persons are a bit unhinged... I personally think its coping mechanism to trauma of some sort in a lot of cases.

But in some cases? I genuinely believe in some sort of safari/wildlife research type ventures, otherwise why else aliens not contact humanity and do this?

I certainly don't buy that somehow an inter stellar/intergalactic entity would be unable to interface with our tech or want to communicate.
The "They are waiting for us to be ready" line also seems a bit presumptuous. We are millennia from any tangible inter stellar/ intergalactic capability.

Unless of course we are so primitive to them we are no better than apes in a zoo.
Which makes sense, considering humans aka sentient being have been going around document and looking at weird gak in natural world since time immemorial.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 21:57:46


Post by: Cronch


Which still makes no sense that we've seen no proof. Africa is overrun with eager tourists, and their trash is everywhere. Where is our Roadside Picnic?


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 22:13:20


Post by: Argive


Exactly. It doesn't make sense either..

I don't think unmans are "alone" in the universe as a sentient species.
But I don't think we have any significant importance to be worth of interest to any potential type 2+ civilisation...

I'm more in the camp of what we are seeing is man made things perhaps reverse engineered from extra terrestrial debris.
Could well be some remains of a malfunctioned probe/scanning beacon etc. that made its way here.

The "tic tacs" and other such are likely unmanned considering they allegedly preform manoeuvres which would G force a humie brain into pulp.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 22:18:56


Post by: Overread


The thing is aerodynamics don't change because you're alien. However how we design things is rarely purely for one factor. Eg a lot of cars are very poorly designed for air flow, however they are practical for certain applications or they just "look nicer".

If you start stripping down aircraft to be purely functional machines built to be the best they can be then chances are you do end up with some "alien" designs. Esp if you pair them with top end engines and guidance and perhaps even remote control so that you can indeed remove the pilot from the system .


Drone warefare is in its infancy right now and the idea that they've been working on way more advanced stuff than that which lands in the field makes full sense.




As I noted earlier if you didn't know about them and they were kept secret and you only saw them at a distance, a stealth bomber looks very alien.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 23:00:15


Post by: Flinty


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Flinty wrote:
But there are a lot of stars in the galaxy, so even if the vast vast majority of life is single celled, just the sheer number of data points would lead to other intelligent life existing as well. Otherwise you get back to believing that humans are somehow unique, which seems unlikely given the sheer number of available planets.
Well if you consider the odds of a planet having conditions in which life as we know it is even possible that eliminates most of them. Then consider out of the history of life on earth what percentage of it has hosted intelligent life. It is very plausible we are the only intelligent life in the galaxy. Then we have to consider said intelligent life simply being on a planet that does not have the materials/conditions to create technological development. It isn't well known but agricultural, farming-based societies were, by the evidence we have currently, a step DOWN in quality of life from hunter-gathering society. It was something resorted to as humans deplected their local ecosystems from being OP.

@Great filter theory, IMO this is just a pseudo-scientific outgrowth of humanity's apocalypse fetish. It steps too far back and ignores the incalculable levels of nuance involved.


“Life as we know it” wasn’t the question, just intelligent life. So we can’t arbitrarily put limits on what kind of planet that might need.

And under what metric did farming reduce quality of life?


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/25 23:09:36


Post by: Overread


 Flinty wrote:

And under what metric did farming reduce quality of life?



Sedentary life brought with it a huge number of diseases.
Farming basically encourages you to remain in one spot rather than move along, that means that waste becomes a huge issue. It's very easy to contaminate your own water source when you don't fully understand bacteria and water contamination.

Furthermore as you start to domesticate livestock you gain a huge number of diseases that jump species because now you're living in prolonged close proximity. Viruses that jump cross species also have a much higher level of lethality because you're not the target species so it doesn't "care" if you die. Or rather in a normal host species a virus typically evolves to a point where it can self replicate and thus spread; but has to keep the host alive in order to spread. Zoonosis is a huge issue.



I believe there were also impacts to human dental and diet contents as farming led to excess in some regions but lacks in others. Plus when you stop migrating away when the seasons change you can gain a host of new issues as you have to deal with both long term food storage and shortage and also colder and harsher conditions.



Yes Farming brings many benefits such as a more reliable food source and a more easily defended territory that you can use structures to further enhance your defence of. However it also brings many challenges of its own and many health implications. Heck even today we have to deal with issues of people over-eating on the "wrong" food groups and having health issues as a result of a lack of exercise.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/26 00:05:52


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Farming is a way to get more food from the same amount of land, that's the benefit. There are some neutral trade offs; instead of needing to move, you need to stay put. Instead of being unable to maintain static defenses you have land which requires static defenses. Meanwhile labor goes up, nutrition goes (way) down, reliability of resources goes down, ability to adapt to changing conditions goes down, and so on. But when the alternative is starvation it is still the better choice for the individuals involved.

When any species does 'too well' it depletes its available resources. For every other species the the next step is dying off until the ecosystem gets back into balance. Humans are unique in finding a way around that.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/26 00:08:08


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Overread wrote:
The thing is aerodynamics don't change because you're alien. However how we design things is rarely purely for one factor. Eg a lot of cars are very poorly designed for air flow, however they are practical for certain applications or they just "look nicer".

If you start stripping down aircraft to be purely functional machines built to be the best they can be then chances are you do end up with some "alien" designs. Esp if you pair them with top end engines and guidance and perhaps even remote control so that you can indeed remove the pilot from the system .


Drone warefare is in its infancy right now and the idea that they've been working on way more advanced stuff than that which lands in the field makes full sense.




As I noted earlier if you didn't know about them and they were kept secret and you only saw them at a distance, a stealth bomber looks very alien.


The unwritten unspoken assumption about alien aerodynamics is that its irrelevant - their tech has somehow allowed them to ignore aerodynamic design entirely through the use of anti-gravitic reality bending technology that allows the craft to virtually phase through reality itself, or something.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/26 00:33:11


Post by: Overread


 NinthMusketeer wrote:

When any species does 'too well' it depletes its available resources. For every other species the the next step is dying off until the ecosystem gets back into balance. Humans are unique in finding a way around that.


I believe we are also unique in that we are the about the only species which will hunt a prey species to extinction and also the only species that actively hunts the best of a prey species. Most predators focus on young, sick, old, injured or otherwise vulnerable prey. Because most predators have to get into direct combat for the kill and that means putting themselves at danger. In the wild there's no one to set your bones, patch you up and protect you whilst you heal.

Humans, on the other hand, have spears (close but not fully close), traps, bows, guns etc... We can remove ourselves from the danger-zone. This means we don't have to go for the sick weak animal, we go for the prime best. That means human predation (unregulated) will result in a prey species not only being depopulated, but also being stripped of their best breeding stock and being left with weaker or immature individuals. Indeed I recall reading that an issue with elephants in Africa is that many herds lose their older matriarch individuals who know the migration routes; leaving immature herds who have fragmented family systems (no clear leadership) and no idea about the migration pathways.

Basically human hunting is exceptionally effective at not just harvesting to the point of extinction, but also weakening a prey species into the extreme.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/26 08:34:51


Post by: Pacific


 Overread wrote:
The thing is aerodynamics don't change because you're alien. However how we design things is rarely purely for one factor. Eg a lot of cars are very poorly designed for air flow, however they are practical for certain applications or they just "look nicer".

If you start stripping down aircraft to be purely functional machines built to be the best they can be then chances are you do end up with some "alien" designs. Esp if you pair them with top end engines and guidance and perhaps even remote control so that you can indeed remove the pilot from the system .

Drone warefare is in its infancy right now and the idea that they've been working on way more advanced stuff than that which lands in the field makes full sense.

As I noted earlier if you didn't know about them and they were kept secret and you only saw them at a distance, a stealth bomber looks very alien.


The biggest issue with this is the performance levels monitored in some of the recently released video. Using the radar returns it is estimated at something like 100,000mph. We currently have probes travelling through the solar system at over 30,000mph, but they are travelling through vacuum and were launched into orbit on rockets that propelled them to a speed to leave Earth's orbit. But these UAPs are accelerating to that speed in just moments, which suggests a further level of technology. One thing mooted (which does sound a bit like 'magic tech') is geodesics or the ability to manipulate gravity curvature and space-time. I'll be honest I read an article on it and don't really understand it, but apparently in theory it would be one way of removing the restrictions (air resistance, inertia etc.) of flying in our atmosphere, and would also explain the characteristics of the one UAP which seemingly moved in and out of water without any impact on its movement. So, it's the behaviour of these things, rather than what they resemble that's the factor.

So to get back on topic here and away from the psychology of anal probes ( ) I think what has changed from even when X-Files first aired on TV..
- We now have far better video record and radar capture of these UAPs apparently with more to come
- These are happening with enough regularity that a commission in US congress is taking place, much of the evidence is from the military some of whom went onto CBS 60 minutes to say they were seeing these UAP daily.
- Research from the Kepler telescope has revealed many more 'earth like' planets, potentially something like 60 billion in our galaxy alone. As NinthMusketeer has pointed out we simply don't know the regularity of multi-cellular life developing, let alone advanced intelligent life. But, this has removed one question mark from before, which was a) the existence of planetary bodies like our own outside of our solar system b) those planets to exist within a 'goldilocks zone', a distance from a star to support life, while also containing an atmosphere.
- There is now some theoretical physics which is seeking to explain the tremendous performance ability seen in these videos and captured on radar. Presumably, an ability to accelerate to enormous speeds in moments could make the concept of interstellar travel something that is no longer an impossibility, given the vast gulf between stars.

If I were a betting man I would still say that there is most likely some much more mundane explanation for these sightings. One is that apparently a lot of them have been captured by an F-18 camera system. It's therefore more likely this is some form of fault or artefact combined with false radar returns. But, the factors in the list above, for me at least have moved the potential for it to be an extra-terrestrial origin from tin-foil hat level to perhaps a remote possibility.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/26 10:00:05


Post by: tneva82


 Pacific wrote:

- There is now some theoretical physics which is seeking to explain the tremendous performance ability seen in these videos and captured on radar. Presumably, an ability to accelerate to enormous speeds in moments could make the concept of interstellar travel something that is no longer an impossibility, given the vast gulf between stars.


Well it's not really impossible as such if we can power up ship to near light speed. Given close enough you can be other side of the galaxy in matter of days.

Of course when you arrive there people on earth are tens of thousands of years older So that's why any space travel will be one way ticket. You can get there fast but not for the people staying back.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/26 10:35:21


Post by: Cronch


@Overread
Farming (specifically grains) led to cavities being a thing (albeit to much lesser degree than once we invented refined sugar, which...was horribly bad time for europeans that could afford sugar) but more importantly, we were using rock hand-mortars and later millstones to grind the grain. Which in turn meant we were now actively eating grains of rock in our food,something our teeth weren't too happy about.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/26 10:42:32


Post by: Overread


Cronch wrote:
@Overread
Farming (specifically grains) led to cavities being a thing (albeit to much lesser degree than once we invented refined sugar, which...was horribly bad time for europeans that could afford sugar) but more importantly, we were using rock hand-mortars and later millstones to grind the grain. Which in turn meant we were now actively eating grains of rock in our food,something our teeth weren't too happy about.


Ahh yes I forgot about cavities! Something we still struggle with today where sugar is plentiful.

Heck your comment about eating rocks reminds me that until very recently a lot of game birds were shot with lead shot which you'd sometimes find when then eating the bird. A nasty thing is that there's a fair few who spent years shooting and eating game birds who later developed various forms of bowel cancers - perhaps as a result of consumption of bits of lead shot.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/26 14:51:03


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Pacific wrote:
 Overread wrote:
The thing is aerodynamics don't change because you're alien. However how we design things is rarely purely for one factor. Eg a lot of cars are very poorly designed for air flow, however they are practical for certain applications or they just "look nicer".

If you start stripping down aircraft to be purely functional machines built to be the best they can be then chances are you do end up with some "alien" designs. Esp if you pair them with top end engines and guidance and perhaps even remote control so that you can indeed remove the pilot from the system .

Drone warefare is in its infancy right now and the idea that they've been working on way more advanced stuff than that which lands in the field makes full sense.

As I noted earlier if you didn't know about them and they were kept secret and you only saw them at a distance, a stealth bomber looks very alien.


The biggest issue with this is the performance levels monitored in some of the recently released video. Using the radar returns it is estimated at something like 100,000mph. We currently have probes travelling through the solar system at over 30,000mph, but they are travelling through vacuum and were launched into orbit on rockets that propelled them to a speed to leave Earth's orbit. But these UAPs are accelerating to that speed in just moments, which suggests a further level of technology. One thing mooted (which does sound a bit like 'magic tech') is geodesics or the ability to manipulate gravity curvature and space-time. I'll be honest I read an article on it and don't really understand it, but apparently in theory it would be one way of removing the restrictions (air resistance, inertia etc.) of flying in our atmosphere, and would also explain the characteristics of the one UAP which seemingly moved in and out of water without any impact on its movement. So, it's the behaviour of these things, rather than what they resemble that's the factor.


No such behavior or performance has been recorded or monitored on *any* released video. As to the rest of your post - are you ignoring me intentionally? Because I've already explained how electronic warfare systems can spoof telemetry data to make it appear as though an object is jumping around very rapidly in different locations in order to make it more difficult to target. Likewise I have explained how glitches in FLIR systems can result in them rapidly jumping between various similar looking targets that they cannot distinguish between, making it look like an object is moving around rapidly even though it isn't.

In short, stop making false claims that these supposed performance levels justify proof that these are aliens when they are actually explainable within the context of present day human reality.

If I were a betting man I would still say that there is most likely some much more mundane explanation for these sightings. One is that apparently a lot of them have been captured by an F-18 camera system. It's therefore more likely this is some form of fault or artefact combined with false radar returns. But, the factors in the list above, for me at least have moved the potential for it to be an extra-terrestrial origin from tin-foil hat level to perhaps a remote possibility.


I literally elaborated on this and explained it, now you're doing it on-purpose!


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/27 13:35:47


Post by: Pacific


Hah.. sorry chaos0xomega I missed your previous post! Not sure what happened there, I will go back and have a read..

++EDIT++ consider myself more educated on the subject! I think you had posted something like 'holding post' or something like that, and then edited the post with the full comment? That would explain why I missed it (or else Aliens did it!)

Really interesting post though thanks for taking the time to write it. You've actually gone several steps further than any of the professional media posts I have read on the subject, the bit about the Hornet radar/camera system was especially interesting.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/27 16:43:43


Post by: chaos0xomega


Sorry if I came off like an ass, lol. Yeah I had the "hold" there - I posted an even lengthier and more detailed post originally which included links and sources for everything, but theres something going on with my company firewall that causes my posts on dakka (and sometimes reddit and even google search terms) to get scrambled - even though I *wrote* a cohesive and well cited post, when I hit submit it posted out with sentence fragments randomly re-arranged, entire paragraphs deleted, all the links replaced with just one link (which was itself incorrect, I think part of it got cut off).

Worst part is is that the scrambling seems to actually occur before I ever hit submit, as I've tried copy/pasting my work into notepad or word docs since then and every once in a while it will paste out scrambled even though the written post is clear as day. Ultimately I ended up rewriting what I could in notepad from memory and pasting that into dakka, but I didn't have time to re-source all the citations.

oh well, serves me right for posting on dakka on company dime I suppose.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/29 19:37:42


Post by: Ketara


I personally always liked the theory that UFO's are simply human time travellers. They don't interact because they don't want to influence the future; merely to study the past. The reason that there is no hard evidence is because if they happened to leave any; the minute they get back they can pick up on it in a history book and go back to excise it. Their craft perform impossible feats due to being more technologically advanced than ours by a few hundred years. It's even possible that the 'anal probing' incidents are merely the equivalent of time travelling sex offenders.

It's a surprisingly elegant explanation that accounts for all variables; except for the fact that time travel is currently thought to be impossible. But then again, so was flight once upon a time.



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/29 19:44:55


Post by: Overread


Lets face it, go back 100 or 200 years and tell people that you can talk to people in Australia in real time with a machine that can fit onto your palm and even show them a video of yourself in real time and they'd call you insane.

Now tell them that that same machine can not only talk to people on the other side of the world, but in outer space; and access the combined knowledge of the whole world; and do maths; and play snake; and take photos; and be a calendar and it still fits on your palm. Then tell them that you can travel around the world in only 3 days (and that included stops for concord); travel to the moon; destroy whole cities with a single bomb; generate enough power to block out the stars themselves.



We live in the age of science fiction.


Heck I often joke that there's only 3 things from Star Trek that we don't yet have - replicators (3D printers are getting there - slowly ); Warpdrive and Shields. Heck we have automatic sliding doors!!!!


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/29 19:53:52


Post by: Ketara


 Overread wrote:

We live in the age of science fiction.


Wouldn't it be funny and fantastic if it turned out that all the 'alien' sightings were a bunch of future historians wearing pound shop gray alien masks and standing in front of LED lighting? It explains why they're bipedal, don't seem to carry supplies, can walk around outside and so on.

Spoiler:



It could even account for some of the old 'aliens in past sculpture/artwork' chestnuts - historians wouldn't just be interested in our period alone after all.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/29 22:48:36


Post by: NinthMusketeer


I don't think time travel is possible. I just don't think it works like that.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/29 23:01:39


Post by: kodos


time travel is possible, but only in one direction


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/29 23:42:34


Post by: Ketara


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't think time travel is possible. I just don't think it works like that.


By contemporary understandings of physics, certainly. But then again, our understanding of physics in 1850 ruled powered flight to be impossible. And even today, large areas of quantum and sub-atomic physics constantly break our carefully built up 'rules' of physics for the normal world, leaving much bafflement in their wake.

Who's to say what our understanding of things will be two hundred years from now? As pointed out by someone else above, I'm sitting next to a 3D printer which is a solid first step towards a Star Trek replicator. Scientific paradigms are continually overturned and challenged. Time travel may well be the tourism industry of the future. Instead of watching a documentary on WW2, why not go and see the Reichstag fall for yourself?

Frankly, time travel makes infinitely more logical sense than extra-terrestrials. That's not to say that either has much weight to it, but if we're going on faith, I'd be more inclined to believe the former than the latter.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/29 23:49:48


Post by: Overread


I believe that science can tell us how things might work and what things we can and cannot do currently.

It cannot outright say what is impossible because by definition even if they have evidence to prove it; its only evidence based upon our current understandings and material access. New materials, new understandings even just approaching a problem from a different perspective - can all change science and change what is possible


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/30 01:49:11


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Ketara wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't think time travel is possible. I just don't think it works like that.


By contemporary understandings of physics, certainly. But then again, our understanding of physics in 1850 ruled powered flight to be impossible. And even today, large areas of quantum and sub-atomic physics constantly break our carefully built up 'rules' of physics for the normal world, leaving much bafflement in their wake.

Who's to say what our understanding of things will be two hundred years from now? As pointed out by someone else above, I'm sitting next to a 3D printer which is a solid first step towards a Star Trek replicator. Scientific paradigms are continually overturned and challenged. Time travel may well be the tourism industry of the future. Instead of watching a documentary on WW2, why not go and see the Reichstag fall for yourself?

Frankly, time travel makes infinitely more logical sense than extra-terrestrials. That's not to say that either has much weight to it, but if we're going on faith, I'd be more inclined to believe the former than the latter.
Do you have a source for that claim? Also, we have always known that flight is possible--birds exist. We have always known it is possible for matter to travel through space--planets, comets, etc are doing just that. We know it is possible for life to evolve to an intelligent state--we exist. None of these things are analogous to time travel.

Imagine someone saying 30 years ago there is no way to create a dynamic model suspended by a tornado balanced on a base suitable for wargaming. Well those new Lumineth just proved them wrong. But imagine a person instead saying it is impossible to create a base that sinks the model down so its feet are lower than the surface of the table it stands on--no amount of advancement in model technology will change that.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/30 02:33:27


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


The arguments against FTL and Time Travel rest on our current assumptions about causality. We’re pretty sure we’re right, but we haven’t found a way to really test the limits of causality. Things could get crazy if our assumptions are flawed.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/30 07:35:47


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Possible that everything is fixed anyways, but then unless one can actually see the future there is no difference between fate being flexible and fate being set in stone.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/30 08:32:03


Post by: Flinty


 NinthMusketeer wrote:


Imagine someone saying 30 years ago there is no way to create a dynamic model suspended by a tornado balanced on a base suitable for wargaming. Well those new Lumineth just proved them wrong. But imagine a person instead saying it is impossible to create a base that sinks the model down so its feet are lower than the surface of the table it stands on--no amount of advancement in model technology will change that.


You could make the table out of something else... non-Newtonian fluid or something.



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/30 10:03:04


Post by: Overread


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't think time travel is possible. I just don't think it works like that.


By contemporary understandings of physics, certainly. But then again, our understanding of physics in 1850 ruled powered flight to be impossible. And even today, large areas of quantum and sub-atomic physics constantly break our carefully built up 'rules' of physics for the normal world, leaving much bafflement in their wake.

Who's to say what our understanding of things will be two hundred years from now? As pointed out by someone else above, I'm sitting next to a 3D printer which is a solid first step towards a Star Trek replicator. Scientific paradigms are continually overturned and challenged. Time travel may well be the tourism industry of the future. Instead of watching a documentary on WW2, why not go and see the Reichstag fall for yourself?

Frankly, time travel makes infinitely more logical sense than extra-terrestrials. That's not to say that either has much weight to it, but if we're going on faith, I'd be more inclined to believe the former than the latter.
Do you have a source for that claim? Also, we have always known that flight is possible--birds exist. We have always known it is possible for matter to travel through space--planets, comets, etc are doing just that. We know it is possible for life to evolve to an intelligent state--we exist. None of these things are analogous to time travel.



It took years for the concept of evolution to properly appear and even when it was proposed it took more years to be accepted. The idea that humanity was related to a "lesser" species was a hard pill for some to take (heck there's still many today who don't want to believe it).
The idea that flying is possible was never in question; it was the idea of making a human fly that was. Birds are freakishly light if you ever hold one, hollow bones, light structure and if you pluck them they are a lot smaller than their feathers let you believe. They are built for it; the idea that you could make a machine that would allow a human - thick bones, chunky muscle etc... - to fly (not just glide or fall with style) was for a long time a dream. It took hundreds of years to achieve.



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/30 10:10:07


Post by: Ketara


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Do you have a source for that claim?


Which claim? If it's the one about scientific paradigms, the book usually trotted out is Thomas Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions'. If you want one that goes into some detail about the problems science had accounting for/incorporating what the likes of the Wright brothers achieved on a theoretical basis, Hugh Driver did a wonderful book which touched on that whilst also detailing the British state's dicking about with the Dunne 'aeroplane'. If it's the one about current holes in physics, there's a whole goddam wikipedia page, including the 'Arrow of time' problem (which would be directly relevant here). I'm told the Standard Model is so holey when you know anything about it that it starts looking like a Swiss cheese - as it doesn't incorporate the primary force of gravity or dark energy or all sorts (though I'm no scientist and couldn't confirm/deny the details there).


Also, we have always known that flight is possible--birds exist.We have always known it is possible for matter to travel through space--planets, comets, etc are doing just that. We know it is possible for life to evolve to an intelligent state--we exist. None of these things are analogous to time travel.

You're mixing up two ideas here. The idea that something is scientifically impossible - which is defeated by the fact that science itself is flawed and continually overturned. And the separate idea that nobody knows a way to make something possible meaning no-one has seen it before - which is frequently defeated by someone who devises the first way to do it.

Bizarely, the second one of those often predates the first. Our entire history of technology is riddled with cases of men achieving something, and then science spending two decades trying to figure out how they did it and adapting scientific theory to match (look at Marconi's wireless radio for an absolutely classic example of that).

Funnily enough, if UFO's ARE time travellers, then we have actually seen proof of time travel. We've just been misinterpreting what we've seen as alien life.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/30 10:30:50


Post by: Overread


What if they are alien time travellers?!

Land on a planet, study it and then go into the past and study that too!


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/30 16:49:29


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


 Overread wrote:
What if they are alien time travellers?!

Land on a planet, study it and then go into the past and study that too!


Getting it all in in one trip rather than commuting again and again? Sounds nice.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/30 18:11:55


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Hm, I did not communicate my point clearly and that is on me.

I am trying to express that Clark's third law has nuance to it. There are varying degrees of 'impossible' and it is ones on the lower end that get overturned. It was once believed to be impossible to make an aircraft travelling faster than sound, but comparing that to a belief that it is impossible to make a craft travelling faster than the speed of light and one can easily see that those two impossibilities are not equivalent.

To go further, theoretical FTL travel today does not even revolve around actually travelling faster than light but rather getting to the destination faster than light would via shenanigans. The craft undertaking this journey, from its perspective, never has a speed faster than the light around it but rather has altered the surrounding space so that the same rate of movement covers more ground. Like squishing a race track to the racers can do it faster at the same speed. But the idea that FTL is impossible, in this instance, remains true.

Bringing things back to time travel, and to emphasize this is entirely just personal opinion and conjecture; I feel like the past does not actually exist except as a concept. There is nothing to travel back to, there is no destination. Time is a state of being and not a line with many points along the way; one might as well try to travel into two-dimensional space.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/30 19:36:01


Post by: tneva82


Well hopefully its not aliens here. Travel between stars will be one way so they aren't here to take info back. If there were aliens here at best refuelling. At worst colonization and if they come here they have so much bigger energy output and other tech ye ain't able to stop. At that point only defence is earth is non-hospitable for them and they are interested in other planet like that. And that they won't just delete humans for safety.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/30 20:00:07


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Why would it be one-way?


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/30 20:16:28


Post by: Ketara


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Hm, I did not communicate my point clearly and that is on me.

I am trying to express that Clark's third law has nuance to it. There are varying degrees of 'impossible' and it is ones on the lower end that get overturned. It was once believed to be impossible to make an aircraft travelling faster than sound, but comparing that to a belief that it is impossible to make a craft travelling faster than the speed of light and one can easily see that those two impossibilities are not equivalent.

To go further, theoretical FTL travel today does not even revolve around actually travelling faster than light but rather getting to the destination faster than light would via shenanigans. The craft undertaking this journey, from its perspective, never has a speed faster than the light around it but rather has altered the surrounding space so that the same rate of movement covers more ground. Like squishing a race track to the racers can do it faster at the same speed. But the idea that FTL is impossible, in this instance, remains true.

Bringing things back to time travel, and to emphasize this is entirely just personal opinion and conjecture; I feel like the past does not actually exist except as a concept. There is nothing to travel back to, there is no destination. Time is a state of being and not a line with many points along the way; one might as well try to travel into two-dimensional space.


You say all that, but wouldn't it be funny if Ron Mallett or someone like him succeeded?



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/30 21:51:00


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Indeed!


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/31 00:24:21


Post by: Matt Swain


I'm not an Xfile fan, really couldn't stand the show after trying an ep or two. Still....

Yeah, i want to believe.

If ET craft of advanced technology fay beyond our one are visting earth, it means that a lot of things may be possible. Energy sources beyond our current comprehension. Methods of movement beyond newtonian principles. Control of gravity and inertia directly. FTL travel.

it also means an intelligent species can evolve from animal origins and overcome it's animal nature, something humanity is at best struggling to do, and survive to become a nature intelligent species.

Yeah, i want to believe that's possible.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/31 04:19:03


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Matt Swain wrote:
evolve from animal origins and overcome it's animal nature, something humanity is at best struggling to do, and survive to become a nature intelligent species
With all due respect, you reeeeallly don't understand that subject.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/31 09:35:05


Post by: Just Tony


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Why would it be one-way?


Because everyone in the known and unknown universe is beholden to our limited understanding of the universe and our precise technical advancement level. Apparently.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/31 10:14:53


Post by: Overread


NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Matt Swain wrote:
evolve from animal origins and overcome it's animal nature, something humanity is at best struggling to do, and survive to become a nature intelligent species
With all due respect, you reeeeallly don't understand that subject.


I dislike how a lot of earlier sciences did try and separate mankind from the rest of the natural world. Even today we maintain terms like man-made and natural environments and the like. Whilst they can be understood their phrasing helps casually reinforce the idea that we are somehow separate from them. When in reality we are 100% just animals. Smart ones, but still animals and in part our smarts are enhanced by our ability to manipulate the world around us through our hands. Even then it took us thousands of years to go from sticks and stones to what we have today


Just Tony wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Why would it be one-way?


Because everyone in the known and unknown universe is beholden to our limited understanding of the universe and our precise technical advancement level. Apparently.


There's theories - slingshots and catapult ideas - where faster than light travel would result in essentially a one-way trip to a specific target. However most of those methods also make the assumption that if you did that you'd send a ship large enough to locally construct its own return device so that it could get back. Basically creating the idea of jump-gates/slings/etc... Thus whilst the method might mean its one-way you can establish a network of one way connections thus allowing you to travel to wherever.




Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/31 13:09:28


Post by: AegisGrimm


Closest I have gotten to a "UFO sighting" was seeing some sort of stealth-variant flying high over my house in Michigan a few years ago. It was flying South to North against an early evening sky, so was really obviously silhouetted (kind of shortsighted on their part) , but unlike known stealth planes, it was absolutely an equilateral triangle. It had nothing of the rear "cutouts" that common stealth fighters and B2 bombers have.

And it had wing blinkers on the two rear points, so obviously man-made, lol.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/31 15:03:28


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Overread wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Matt Swain wrote:
evolve from animal origins and overcome it's animal nature, something humanity is at best struggling to do, and survive to become a nature intelligent species
With all due respect, you reeeeallly don't understand that subject.


I dislike how a lot of earlier sciences did try and separate mankind from the rest of the natural world. Even today we maintain terms like man-made and natural environments and the like. Whilst they can be understood their phrasing helps casually reinforce the idea that we are somehow separate from them. When in reality we are 100% just animals. Smart ones, but still animals and in part our smarts are enhanced by our ability to manipulate the world around us through our hands. Even then it took us thousands of years to go from sticks and stones to what we have today.
It's more that 'animal-like nature' means a certain thing in pop culture, but in science doesn't mean anything at all. We are (obviously) distinct from other animals and most part separated as well, but that doesn't mean in science what it means in pop culture. Like many concepts the idea of 'the beast within' is a great staple for fiction but is just that: fictional.

Sidenote; humans were never at a sticks-and-stones level of technology. We didn't even invent fire use. Rather those were inherited from ancestral species who were using them before humans even evolved.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/31 23:26:51


Post by: Matt Swain


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Matt Swain wrote:
evolve from animal origins and overcome it's animal nature, something humanity is at best struggling to do, and survive to become a nature intelligent species
With all due respect, you reeeeallly don't understand that subject.


You make an assertion without showing any proof.

You reeeeaaalllllyyyy don't understand how to make a valid point.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/31 23:31:06


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


The craziest technology older than humans, in my mind, has to be boats.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/31 23:32:38


Post by: Matt Swain


 Matt Swain wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Matt Swain wrote:
evolve from animal origins and overcome it's animal nature, something humanity is at best struggling to do, and survive to become a nature intelligent species
With all due respect, you reeeeallly don't understand that subject.


You make an assertion without showing any proof.

You reeeeaaalllllyyyy don't understand how to make a valid point.


We are primates, related to but not evolved from "monkeys", but we come from a common ancestor. We have many tendencies in common with animals. The survival instinct, the urge to reproduce, the desire to be the 'alpha", to dominate others, the tendency to use force to get our way, etc. the human brain has parts under the cerebellum that resemble the brains of lower animals.

Our DNA is ~98% identical to other primates. Our brains are slightly more sophisticated but of largely identical structure. We do have animal origin and are driven by many of the same needs and desires that are common in animals.

I think I've proven i reeeeeeally understand the subject after all.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/05/31 23:55:08


Post by: Overread


Yes but you've not really elaborated on your concept of "nature intelligent species". Which I suspect is the issue. This concept that you've presented that humanity can evolve away from being "an animal".




Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/01 09:11:31


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Matt Swain wrote:
 Matt Swain wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Matt Swain wrote:
evolve from animal origins and overcome it's animal nature, something humanity is at best struggling to do, and survive to become a nature intelligent species
With all due respect, you reeeeallly don't understand that subject.


You make an assertion without showing any proof.

You reeeeaaalllllyyyy don't understand how to make a valid point.


We are primates, related to but not evolved from "monkeys", but we come from a common ancestor. We have many tendencies in common with animals. The survival instinct, the urge to reproduce, the desire to be the 'alpha", to dominate others, the tendency to use force to get our way, etc. the human brain has parts under the cerebellum that resemble the brains of lower animals.

Our DNA is ~98% identical to other primates. Our brains are slightly more sophisticated but of largely identical structure. We do have animal origin and are driven by many of the same needs and desires that are common in animals.

I think I've proven i reeeeeeally understand the subject after all.
See here I was going to provide proof and you went and did it for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Overread wrote:
Yes but you've not really elaborated on your concept of "nature intelligent species". Which I suspect is the issue. This concept that you've presented that humanity can evolve away from being "an animal".
Even the concept of "overcoming our animal nature" is nonsense to begin with. It does not mean anything outside of pop culture. "Animal nature" does not mean anything outside of culture. It has no scientific basis. He might as well have said humanity is struggling to align our inner thetons.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/01 09:16:08


Post by: tneva82


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHUGkImz5V8

There's alien for you


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/01 23:17:48


Post by: Matt Swain


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Matt Swain wrote:
 Matt Swain wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 Matt Swain wrote:
evolve from animal origins and overcome it's animal nature, something humanity is at best struggling to do, and survive to become a nature intelligent species
With all due respect, you reeeeallly don't understand that subject.


You make an assertion without showing any proof.

You reeeeaaalllllyyyy don't understand how to make a valid point.


We are primates, related to but not evolved from "monkeys", but we come from a common ancestor. We have many tendencies in common with animals. The survival instinct, the urge to reproduce, the desire to be the 'alpha", to dominate others, the tendency to use force to get our way, etc. the human brain has parts under the cerebellum that resemble the brains of lower animals.

Our DNA is ~98% identical to other primates. Our brains are slightly more sophisticated but of largely identical structure. We do have animal origin and are driven by many of the same needs and desires that are common in animals.

I think I've proven i reeeeeeally understand the subject after all.
See here I was going to provide proof and you went and did it for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Overread wrote:
Yes but you've not really elaborated on your concept of "nature intelligent species". Which I suspect is the issue. This concept that you've presented that humanity can evolve away from being "an animal".
Even the concept of "overcoming our animal nature" is nonsense to begin with. It does not mean anything outside of pop culture. "Animal nature" does not mean anything outside of culture. It has no scientific basis. He might as well have said humanity is struggling to align our inner thetons.


No.

First off i consider your comparing what i said to the vile drivel spewed by scientologists to be extremely offensive and insulting. I'm usually not the type to go running to mod so i'm telling you it was over the line personally.

Secondly, yes we have an animal nature, to take what we want/need by force, to use violence to get what we want, to reproduce as much as possible due to the genetic imperative to spread our DNA, to dominate others, etc. We have the same drives found in many mammals and other primates. Our brain's lower levels are very similar to those of prior classes of animals, like the 'reptile brain' at the base of our brains. It gives us violent urges, like the one i felt when i saw you comparing what i said to the ravings of scientologists.

What makes us different is that aeons of evolution as a collective species whose survival depended on cooperation lead to the development of traits that facilitate cooperation, like empathy and communication. Our primate ancestors who had the trairts for empathy and even compassion tended to survive better than the more selfish individuals, and so those traits were fixed and reinforced in our genepool as we evolved.

We still have our animal instincts and rives, but we have evolved things like mirror neurons to resist them. Among humans as a collective the ability to feel empathy for other humans wasa positive survival trait when we were little more that slightly brighter than average primates in the african veldt.

I could go on but it's likely given the snarkiness you've shown in you last comment re me that it would likely be a waste of time. I maintain that 'animal urges' are a real thing in humanity and we constantly struggle to overcome them, to at best modest levels of success unfortunately.



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/01 23:56:03


Post by: Overread


I dislike the notions of "high and lower" as generalist concepts since they often promote a concept of a linear scale where something is inherently better than another. As if its a test and one has scored higher/done better.


Also you seem to be leaning heavily on the idea of cooperation and unity and empathy as traits superior to "base animal" ones; yet multiple animals other than humanity show empathy and cooperate and work together.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/02 00:04:27


Post by: Matt Swain


 Overread wrote:
I dislike the notions of "high and lower" as generalist concepts since they often promote a concept of a linear scale where something is inherently better than another. As if its a test and one has scored higher/done better.


Also you seem to be leaning heavily on the idea of cooperation and unity and empathy as traits superior to "base animal" ones; yet multiple animals other than humanity show empathy and cooperate and work together.


Yes, it's common among mammals and many mammals have the mirror neurons that humans do, presumably an evolved trait that aided survival among them.

If you're going to talk about social insects, they're a different thing altogether. Many social insects, like ants and bees, work together, yes, but have no empathy. In their case it's because the individual ant or bee is in some ways not a complete living organism by itself but part of a hive organism. Most ants and bees cannot carry out an essential function of being considered a complete organism, they cannot reproduce (Yes mules can't either, different case) on ther own and are not fully functional living organisms in the clinical sense as they cannot propagate.

A beehive or ant colony as a whole can reproduce. Thus a beehive or ant colony can be considered a fully functional living organism, and in a sense the individual ants and bees cooperate in the same sense as the cells of your body do, without empathy or individual awareness and sentience.

So social insects and many mammals survive by forms of cooperation, but among mammals empathy seems to be a requirement. Among social insects instinctive behavior that is basicaly genetic programming is all that seems necessary.



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/02 00:11:08


Post by: Overread


But that isn't talking about humanity separating itself from its animal base, instead its simply reinforcing that we are indeed animals and that we are indeed mammals.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/02 11:47:54


Post by: Crispy78


If UFOs were time-travelling future humans instead of aliens, I'd like to think at least one of them would have attended the time-travellers party that Stephen Hawking threw in secret. Instead of, you know... buggering rednecks...


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/02 14:18:01


Post by: Matt Swain


 Overread wrote:
But that isn't talking about humanity separating itself from its animal base, instead its simply reinforcing that we are indeed animals and that we are indeed mammals.


Yes, we are of animal origin, but we have intelligence and we can, at least some of us, choose to try not to act like animals.

Hey, kirk's speech to anon 7 in 'a taste of armageddon" summed it up pretty nicely.

https://youtu.be/lbsXklGF_WM

Also, the line in forbidden planet where Adams says "Morbius, we're all part monster in our subconscious, so we have laws and religion!"

Yes, we have out monsters from the id, the mindless animal, the savage, it's part of what we are, where we came from. We also have minds, and we can at least try to choose to be more than animals.

And this is likely going to be my last exchange with you on the subject. no matter what i say you juat keep saying "no, that's not the point!" basically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crispy78 wrote:
If UFOs were time-travelling future humans instead of aliens, I'd like to think at least one of them would have attended the time-travellers party that Stephen Hawking threw in secret. Instead of, you know... buggering rednecks...


Who knows? Maybe they did and hawking realized he had to keep it on the QT to avoid changing the future.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/02 15:29:50


Post by: Azreal13


We also have minds, and we can at least try to choose to be more than animals.


Other animals are superior to us in infinite ways. We'd be better off learning more from them, not casting ourselves as somehow above them.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/02 17:57:55


Post by: NinthMusketeer


If drives for violence and reproduction are part of this so called 'animal nature' that must be overcome then dam fething sea sponges must be ascended beings for lacking the complexity to have drives in the first place.

And for that matter, empathy is a strictly selfish trait. Natural selection does not care. Nature does not care. The whole pop culture concept of a harmonious 'natural order' is in reality a stalemate between countless opposing parties, every single one of which is trying to hoard as much as they can for themselves while denying it to everything else. Every single species in existence would overpopulate just like we have if given the chance. Even the idea of a static balance is flawed, drawn from the limits our lifespans impose on perceiving change over time. Nature is constant, unrelenting, and utterly merciless competition at every level.

So how did empathy evolve then? Because some organisms have adapted such that the group is more than the sum of its parts. When a group of humans works together every individual gets more than they could alone. The most selfish possible thing to do is to work as a team. Empathy is a thoughtless emotion, it is not at a higher level than anger or fear. It ONLY exists to give creatures an instinctive desire to work together when they aren't intellectually developed enough to consciously put together that concept themselves.

If 'rising above' such base urges was truly the goal, one would advocate for emotionless logic. That would include identifying empathy at the same level as those drives we label more 'savage'. By trying to elevate it as something more refined, you are quite ironically demonstrating how mired in those very drives you are. And even that is operating under the assumption that such an ascension is a good thing in the first place!

You want to be taken seriously? Start by understanding that emotions are not a lower level. Your believe that 'animal drives' are something to be transcended is entirely based on those drives. A strictly logic-based approach would conclude that logic itself only exists as a means to serve emotion.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/02 18:58:35


Post by: Cronch


 Matt Swain wrote:
 Overread wrote:
But that isn't talking about humanity separating itself from its animal base, instead its simply reinforcing that we are indeed animals and that we are indeed mammals.


Yes, we are of animal origin, but we have intelligence and we can, at least some of us, choose to try not to act like animals.

You literally use your animal brain to act like an animal when you decide to "not act like an animal". You cannot choose to not act like an animal, you are an animal. Your animal nature is to use your brain and it's fancy intelligence to solve problems and make choices.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/02 19:20:49


Post by: BaronIveagh


We're looking at a three way agreement between radar on ship, radar and inferred on aircraft, and the eyeball mark 1. I can see one of these being fooled. Indeed, in one case the aircraft were brought in because the objects were detected on ground based systems, in order to verify what the operators on the ground were seeing.

It starts to seem to me to be the greater stretch claiming these to be weather balloons or some atmospheric phenomena than to suggest they're powered craft of some sort. Very unusual powered craft at that. They do not seem to conform to our current understanding of generating lift, at least, not based on their apparent performance.

Which I find more interesting and on topic than watching everyone here rehash the Fermi paradox.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/02 19:40:51


Post by: Cronch


 BaronIveagh wrote:
We're looking at a three way agreement between radar on ship, radar and inferred on aircraft, and the eyeball mark 1. I can see one of these being fooled. Indeed, in one case the aircraft were brought in because the objects were detected on ground based systems, in order to verify what the operators on the ground were seeing.

It starts to seem to me to be the greater stretch claiming these to be weather balloons or some atmospheric phenomena than to suggest they're powered craft of some sort. Very unusual powered craft at that. They do not seem to conform to our current understanding of generating lift, at least, not based on their apparent performance.

Which I find more interesting and on topic than watching everyone here rehash the Fermi paradox.

If they are indeed aliens, then well...we have final proof that we're just not very interesting, they decided not to talk.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/02 20:12:34


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


There could be many, many reasons for them to avoid direct contact even if they think we’re interesting. Perhaps they want to avoid cultural contamination, or they have a prime directive, or want to see how we deal with this kind of outside context mystery. Perhaps “Primitive cultures speculate on our motives” is a highly profitable genre.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/02 21:01:35


Post by: Azreal13


Netflix have just released an interesting doc on black holes.

While it doesn't directly feed into this topic, I think it's an excellent illustration of how tenuous out understanding of physics is, and how very little of what we take to be "known" would need to be inaccurate for some reason to upend the whole apple cart.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/02 21:13:05


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


 Azreal13 wrote:
Netflix have just released an interesting doc on black holes.

While it doesn't directly feed into this topic, I think it's an excellent illustration of how tenuous out understanding of physics is, and how very little of what we take to be "known" would need to be inaccurate for some reason to upend the whole apple cart.


Right here, being a purveyor of Dodgy Docus?

Are those behind it actually qualified astrophysicists with experience in that specific field of their studies?

I’m not having a pop at you, my dude. Just that Netflix has proven a poor moderator of its own content. And possibly pseudo science begins with a whiff of plausibility.

Beware of blanket statements. Beware of statements said, but not supported. Be very aware that highly complex physics, when broken down for the mass market can seem silly - especially if it’s someone who specialises, because being super knowledgeable doesn’t mean they’re a good teacher.

Seriously not having a pop at you yourself. You shared info, and you’re not responsible for the quality of that info


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
There could be many, many reasons for them to avoid direct contact even if they think we’re interesting. Perhaps they want to avoid cultural contamination, or they have a prime directive, or want to see how we deal with this kind of outside context mystery. Perhaps “Primitive cultures speculate on our motives” is a highly profitable genre.


That, and the rate we’re going?

Why bother with a complex and costly invasion when there’s every chance we’ll send ourself extinct in a few decades? We’re only ever a few idiots in the wrong place from that fate.

If aliens can cross galactic space? Pretty sure they can hoover and dust whatever we do to make it all clean and spanky new, without having to exterminate the natives.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/02 21:17:10


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Why, I don't understand how explaining quantum physics as "when things are really small they exist in two places at once until you look at them" does not adequately summarize it in a manner consumable by the average person


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/02 21:22:13


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Why, I don't understand how explaining quantum physics as "when things are really small they exist in two places at once until you look at them" does not adequately summarize it in a manner consumable by the average person


Ahhhh! But being SciFi nerds, we likely first encountered the term, then looked into it.

Look back at your post, and consider someone with no basic knowledge might interpret it? Someone with no knowledge to extrapolate from.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/02 22:50:04


Post by: Azreal13



Are those behind it actually qualified astrophysicists with experience in that specific field of their studies?


Well one of the guys is this rather talented chap, sadly (spoilers) he dies halfway through.

Stephen something...

But thanks for the condescension and assumption I can't tell the difference between solid info and a History channel sensatio-doc.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/02 22:59:00


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Why, I don't understand how explaining quantum physics as "when things are really small they exist in two places at once until you look at them" does not adequately summarize it in a manner consumable by the average person


Ahhhh! But being SciFi nerds, we likely first encountered the term, then looked into it.

Look back at your post, and consider someone with no basic knowledge might interpret it? Someone with no knowledge to extrapolate from.
Was being sarcastic, as indicated by the "" because that would make no sense whatsoever to someone without prior knowledge. Even the scientists who study it say it doesn't make sense!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Azreal13 wrote:

Are those behind it actually qualified astrophysicists with experience in that specific field of their studies?


Well one of the guys is this rather talented chap, sadly (spoilers) he dies halfway through.

Stephen something...

But thanks for the condescension and assumption I can't tell the difference between solid info and a History channel sensatio-doc.
Dude he specifically said twice that he meant it in good humor and was asking, not judging.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/02 23:06:09


Post by: Azreal13


Yeah, I should have started my response with "with all due respect" so I made it clear I was responding in kind.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/03 05:42:21


Post by: Matt Swain


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If drives for violence and reproduction are part of this so called 'animal nature' that must be overcome then dam fething sea sponges must be ascended beings for lacking the complexity to have drives in the first place.

And for that matter, empathy is a strictly selfish trait. Natural selection does not care. Nature does not care. The whole pop culture concept of a harmonious 'natural order' is in reality a stalemate between countless opposing parties, every single one of which is trying to hoard as much as they can for themselves while denying it to everything else. Every single species in existence would overpopulate just like we have if given the chance. Even the idea of a static balance is flawed, drawn from the limits our lifespans impose on perceiving change over time. Nature is constant, unrelenting, and utterly merciless competition at every level.

So how did empathy evolve then? Because some organisms have adapted such that the group is more than the sum of its parts. When a group of humans works together every individual gets more than they could alone. The most selfish possible thing to do is to work as a team. Empathy is a thoughtless emotion, it is not at a higher level than anger or fear. It ONLY exists to give creatures an instinctive desire to work together when they aren't intellectually developed enough to consciously put together that concept themselves.

If 'rising above' such base urges was truly the goal, one would advocate for emotionless logic. That would include identifying empathy at the same level as those drives we label more 'savage'. By trying to elevate it as something more refined, you are quite ironically demonstrating how mired in those very drives you are. And even that is operating under the assumption that such an ascension is a good thing in the first place!

You want to be taken seriously? Start by understanding that emotions are not a lower level. Your believe that 'animal drives' are something to be transcended is entirely based on those drives. A strictly logic-based approach would conclude that logic itself only exists as a means to serve emotion.


I am talking about people choosing to act on their intelligence or this instinct, and you make a comparison to sponges.

I'm not responding to any posts you make anymore, because i just can't keep reading them. They hurt my brain too much.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/03 12:06:48


Post by: Cronch



There ya go, mystery of why UFOs don't talk to us solved.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/03 13:25:59


Post by: Skinnereal


 Azreal13 wrote:
Are those behind it actually qualified astrophysicists with experience in that specific field of their studies?

Well one of the guys is this rather talented chap, sadly (spoilers) he dies halfway through.

Stephen something...

But thanks for the condescension and assumption I can't tell the difference between solid info and a History channel sensatio-doc.
Is it this one?
https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/81343342
If you'd have listed the documentary, we'd have known that it was made by Peter Galison:
Galison received his Ph.D. at Harvard University in both physics and in the history of science in 1983

Netflix isn't known to have much of a scientific grounding, so info like this would have helped up front.

It does look to be worth a watch. There's a lot to be learned from a good docu.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/03 16:46:17


Post by: Overread


 Matt Swain wrote:


I am talking about people choosing to act on their intelligence or this instinct, and you make a comparison to sponges.

I'm not responding to any posts you make anymore, because i just can't keep reading them. They hurt my brain too much.



Instinct as a term isn't even that well established in the non-scientific community*. Don't forget for a long time many animals were considered almost purely instinctual. It's only in more recent times that we have woken up to the fact that animals are not born knowing all they need to know. Heck there's been more than one re-introduction of a species or animal that died because it had zero actual survival skills in the natural world because it grew up in an enclosure. It led to a huge change in dynamics and approach to the whole concept.


What many consider instinct is simply impulsive behaviour. A well thought out action can still be "instinctual". I also dislike that you're still generally drawing a negative line to things; here presuming that many "instinctive" actions are violent/hostile or otherwise lesser to "intelligent" responses




* I say that only because I don't know enough to know if they really have a formally universally agreed upon concept for it.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/03 18:34:04


Post by: NinthMusketeer


He admitted he doesn't understand and bowed out of the discussion. A bit snarky about it but it is a fair move to make and I respect that, probably best to let that particular line to dialogue die.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 02:03:20


Post by: Argive


Ooohh some really cool discussions.

I think a lot of arguments of the Man v Animal and Mans Ascension beyond being "just an animal" really comes down to definitions and language.
You'd have to define what is intelligence and what an animal is. And what the pre-exquisite for an intelligent life form are. Acording to "the internet": Intelligent life form = Sapience, wisdom or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment.

A crow/ parkeet being able to problem solve a lock faster than average person or a chimp having a perfect eidetic memory does not necessarily mean they are sentient or intelligent in the same capacity as us. Or does it? ​
Not sure what the consensus is on the matter. But as far as I'm aware we haven't recognised any animal as "human".
I think the closest thing are whales/dolphins. Octopus seem pretty dang smart too and creepy as hell.. However we are all still slaves to biology.

I think humans will only truly be able to set themselves apart from other animals when we remove the biology from consciousness. I.E. A human mind in a computer/machine devoid of biological constraint. But then again that would no longer be a human I believe.

IMO any extra-terrestrial beings coming planet side are likely to be some sort of AI or Drones. I doubt any sentient being capable of real spacefaring would risk their "person" to come see us. We can be pretty destructive.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 02:44:19


Post by: Matt Swain


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
He admitted he doesn't understand and bowed out of the discussion. A bit snarky about it but it is a fair move to make and I respect that, probably best to let that particular line to dialogue die.



NO I DID NOT!

I said i could no longer deal with your posts in which you brought up a mindless sponge in a discussion on intelligent creatures choosing how to behave. I also could not longer stand your demeaning and condescending tone. I certainly did not 'bow out", I withdrew in disgust.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 06:30:27


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Matt Swain wrote:
I'm not responding to any posts you make anymore, because i just can't keep reading them. They hurt my brain too much.
Well if the first one was a lie I suppose it makes a sense the second statement was too. Is it really so hard to imagine that I read that and legitimately thought you were leaving this line of discussion, and that 'they hurt my brain' meaning you were struggling with comprehension?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Matt Swain wrote:
I said i could no longer deal with your posts in which you brought up a mindless sponge in a discussion on intelligent creatures choosing how to behave.
"Animal behavior" a sponge is an animal. It has behavior. This is why I come across as demeaning, because I need to explain that if you want to have a discussion on a scientific level you need use the language of the scientific level. You repeatedly demonstrate that you do not understand the subjects, and simply ignore us calling it out in favor of making emotional responses to perceived slights.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 09:54:49


Post by: Overread


 Argive wrote:
Ooohh some really cool discussions.

I think a lot of arguments of the Man v Animal and Mans Ascension beyond being "just an animal" really comes down to definitions and language.
You'd have to define what is intelligence and what an animal is. And what the pre-exquisite for an intelligent life form are. Acording to "the internet": Intelligent life form = Sapience, wisdom or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment.

A crow/ parkeet being able to problem solve a lock faster than average person or a chimp having a perfect eidetic memory does not necessarily mean they are sentient or intelligent in the same capacity as us. Or does it? ​
Not sure what the consensus is on the matter. But as far as I'm aware we haven't recognised any animal as "human".
I think the closest thing are whales/dolphins. Octopus seem pretty dang smart too and creepy as hell.. However we are all still slaves to biology.



I think the concept of intelligence is marred by its scientific history. In the past, for example the Victorians, there was a lot of science, but also a lot of religious impact as well. Lets not forget Darwin spent a long time getting his ideas accepted (and remembering he wasn't the only scientist who developed evolution theory or at least the concept of it). All through a lot of history there have been social, religious and just general species preference aspects which shape our perception of things. Heck even the language we use when working with animals can define this in a subtle way.

We don't "teach" dogs/horses etc... we nearly always train them.
Even though most of the teaching process is based on the very same principles as teaching humans - repetition coupled with reward/punishment.

We also have perception issues that we are only now coming to really understand. Things like how animals see and hear differently to us and thus might react to the same stimulus in a different way - eg a dog missing a coloured ball on a grass field we might see as the dog being silly, but in actuality whilst we can see the coloured ball, the dog can't so easily because of how they see colours and light.




I think today we are steadily starting to have more acceptance, at least at the scientific end, of animals having far more complex thinking and emotional states. That essentially humans might be one of the most intelligent animals, but that its more that we have an edge rather than a vast fundamental difference.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 10:18:56


Post by: Cronch


But as far as I'm aware we haven't recognised any animal as "human".

That is based purely on bias, not any scientific reasons. The difference is quantitative, not qualitative. A crow that learned to drop nuts on the road and then taught it's offspring to do the same is doing exactly the same thing as a human that teaches it's children how to make a spear. A chimp using a right-shaped rock is no different to our early ancestors doing the same thing. There was no magical point at which we were imbued with Spark of Sapience, we just continued to select for tool usage.
The outlook that "humans aren't animals" is the same as "fish can't feel pain" or the racist idea that "black people have thicker skin and don't feel pain as much as whites" which some medical professionals STILL believe. A human is an animal that specialized in tool use, not the pinnacle of evolution.

That, as we all know, is the crab.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 11:22:46


Post by: Overread


 Matt Swain wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
He admitted he doesn't understand and bowed out of the discussion. A bit snarky about it but it is a fair move to make and I respect that, probably best to let that particular line to dialogue die.



NO I DID NOT!

I said i could no longer deal with your posts in which you brought up a mindless sponge in a discussion on intelligent creatures choosing how to behave. I also could not longer stand your demeaning and condescending tone. I certainly did not 'bow out", I withdrew in disgust.



I think Ninth's point was that you were using behavioural traits to define a "higher" state of living/evolution. Ninth was then showing you a species which could be ascribed those same behavioural traits, but which many would argue is a "lesser" order of life (by varying metrics). The point was to show that your perception of superior living/intelligence was based upon concepts which are not unique to a species moving "toward a higher state of being" and that some species already had such behavioural traits.



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 12:25:26


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Why, I don't understand how explaining quantum physics as "when things are really small they exist in two places at once until you look at them" does not adequately summarize it in a manner consumable by the average person


Well, the main thing is that explanation is wrong

Having objects in two different locations and then one suddenly disappearing because someone looked breaks conservation of momentum and energy. That is a pretty big no-no in physics

A better explanation might be:

"For very small objects, the possible places it could be each have a probability that it is there and we do not know where it is until we look. Once we do look, however, it becomes guaranteed that the object was at that location at that time. If we took a time machine back and repeated the experiment again, taking our observation at the exact same time, the object would be found at that position every time we did it, regardless of the probability that it was there before we first looked."

But really, quantum mechanics is pretty mind bending and a lot of people will not get it. People like certainty and quantum mechanics has uncertainty as a fundamental concept.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 12:39:12


Post by: BaronIveagh


Well, disappointment time: part of the report will remain classified.

While the Pentagon says they have no evidence the craft are alien, they also have no idea what they are, stating that if Russian or Chinese, they'd have to be so far ahead of US development of similar technologies, particularly hypersonics, that it's unlikely, but a concern all the same.

Over 120 incidents in the last ten years could not be explained, and will be in the report.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 14:52:34


Post by: chaos0xomega


And theres part of the problem - the Russians and Chinese have been advertising and claiming some very advanced capabilities for the past decade +, particularly in the field of hypersonics. Western observers have largely dismissed the claims as nonsense - not necessarily because the claims are impossible, but because it would mean acknowledging that the Russians or Chinese did something better than the US, which isn't really out of the question (and in fact the Soviets did have a huge edge over the US in certain key technological areas, something which American defense analysts to this day will only reluctantly admit to - it stands to reason that Russia has managed to maintain at least some of these edges). In short, the dismissal is more symptomatic of hubris than anything else, many observers and analysts already believe that China and/or Russia may have a slight edge over the US in terms of hypersonics already.

What if the claims weren't nonsense and the edge is larger than we've realized?


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 15:00:30


Post by: Azreal13


While I accept your point is entirely valid, it would have to be the first time since WW2 where one side has made strides that the other hasn't broadly matched.

Even then, things the Nazis were doing were known, even if they weren't understood.

For China, and especially Russia, to have apparently done nothing of note in terms of aeronautics all through the cold war that wasn't largely matched by the West, or at least aware of, to in the space of 30 years or so achieve things so far ahead that the west isn't aware of?

That strikes me as a story on a par with aliens in terms of its mind blowing capacity.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 15:47:44


Post by: Ketara


 Azreal13 wrote:
While I accept your point is entirely valid, it would have to be the first time since WW2 where one side has made strides that the other hasn't broadly matched.

Even then, things the Nazis were doing were known, even if they weren't understood.

For China, and especially Russia, to have apparently done nothing of note in terms of aeronautics all through the cold war that wasn't largely matched by the West, or at least aware of, to in the space of 30 years or so achieve things so far ahead that the west isn't aware of?

That strikes me as a story on a par with aliens in terms of its mind blowing capacity.


If the advance is based upon just one or two very key disruptions in physics/aerodynamics, and the discovery was made by the military? It wouldn't surprise me if it was kept top secret, rather than being filtered out to the rest of the aviation/civil industry. Having one or two key aces in the event of war would be worth the cost.

Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if they deliberately engineered the craft to look like UFO's on the basis that it would make foreign governments discount sightings. In the same way the US could use the myth to hide weapons tests, there's nothing stopping foreigners doing the same thing. And the result would be identical; no-one would believe anyone who saw anything significantly enough to fund a counter-weapons or observation program. Basic psyops.

Though I'd put money on the Russians over the Chinese. The Chinese are only just leaving the 'let's buy a rusted Soviet aircraft carrier and try to copy an American stealth fighter through binoculars' stage.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 15:54:12


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Ketara wrote:

If the advance is based upon just one or two very key disruptions in physics/aerodynamics, and the discovery was made by the military? It wouldn't surprise me if it was kept top secret, rather than being filtered out to the rest of the aviation/civil industry. Having one or two key aces in the event of war would be worth the cost.

Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if they deliberately engineered the craft to look like UFO's on the basis that it would make foreign governments discount sightings. In the same way the US could use the myth to hide weapons tests, there's nothing stopping foreigners doing the same thing. And the result would be identical; no-one would believe anyone who saw anything significantly enough to fund a counter-weapons or observation program. Basic psyops.

Though I'd put money on the Russians over the Chinese. The Chinese are only just leaving the 'let's buy a rusted Soviet aircraft carrier and try to copy an American stealth fighter through binoculars' stage.


If there is an advance in aerodynamics that allows you to make aircraft which are so far beyond the current designs then the appearance of the craft will be determined by the requirements of that advance. You won't be able to make it look like a UFO unless that shape is what gives the required aerodynamics.

And that is easy to test in any wind tunnel coupled with aerodynamic flow software or just through pure simulation.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 16:12:24


Post by: Ketara


 A Town Called Malus wrote:

If there is an advance in aerodynamics that allows you to make aircraft which are so far beyond the current designs then the appearance of the craft will be determined by the requirements of that advance. You won't be able to make it look like a UFO unless that shape is what gives the required aerodynamics.

And that is easy to test in any wind tunnel coupled with aerodynamic flow software or just through pure simulation.


That's why I said, 'physics/aerodynamics'.

The logical advance which might make it possible would be control over gravity. If you can exert attractive and repulsive forces sufficiently powerfully, you'd be able to accelerate and move in such a fashion as to be impossible for anything susceptible to Earth's own pull. It's also a very obvious blind spot in Western scientific theories.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 16:22:49


Post by: chaos0xomega


For China, and especially Russia, to have apparently done nothing of note in terms of aeronautics all through the cold war that wasn't largely matched by the West, or at least aware of, to in the space of 30 years or so achieve things so far ahead that the west isn't aware of?


This is just grossly inaccurate. Russian rocketry was generally well in advance of the Wests own rocket tech - they might not have put a man on the moon or completed their own space shuttle system, but that was due to a deficiency in other technologies. Its not out of the question to think that they were able to leverage that into a hypersonic boost-glide system. By extension, Russian missile tech was generally more advanced than American missiles in almost every category (ballistic, air to air, surface to air, anti ship, anti tank, etc.), generally having higher speeds, larger payloads, longer ranges, and greater maneuverability than western equivalents, as well as more sophisticated guidance and counter-EW capabilities than American equivalents. That advantage continues to exist in many areas to this date, many of the capabilities in these fields weren't matched by the US until 15-25 years after the Soviets/Russians first demonstrated them - its safe to assume that the Russians weren't resting on their laurels for 2 decades and continued advancing those techs over that timeframe. The Soviets/Russians even have underwater rockets, like the Shkval rocket-torpedo which can supercavitate to something like 250 mph (~5x faster than any known piece of underwater hardware developed by the US and western powers). For a long time it was assumed that they were unguided/could only fire in a straight line, but nope turns out they can even thrust vector and maneuver on-target. Unless theres some real secret squirrel capability that the US military developed in total secret and has not advertised at all (possible, but unlikely considering how long ago the Soviets were able to publicly demonstrate the capability), the US is still far far behind in this arena and public research and demonstration of supercavitation tech indicates that we are struggling to build anything even remotely similar. If the Soviets were able to make these things operational in 1977, what might that tech have advanced to over the next 50 years of development? Something like the Status-6 Poseidon torpedo, i.e. the Doomsday Torpedo, which many western observers initially dismissed as nonsense?

I'm less familiar with Chinese tech, but what little I do know of indicates that they likewise have specific areas of technological competitive advantage over the US, at least some of which could conceivably be linked to some of what is being witnessed - drone swarms and small drones for example. DJI, a Chinese firm, has a roughly 80% global marketshare on small drone and consumer/government grade drone tech, to the point that US government agencies purchase and use them because theres nobody in the US or the West that can offer comparable capabilities.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 16:25:29


Post by: Azreal13


 Ketara wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
While I accept your point is entirely valid, it would have to be the first time since WW2 where one side has made strides that the other hasn't broadly matched.

Even then, things the Nazis were doing were known, even if they weren't understood.

For China, and especially Russia, to have apparently done nothing of note in terms of aeronautics all through the cold war that wasn't largely matched by the West, or at least aware of, to in the space of 30 years or so achieve things so far ahead that the west isn't aware of?

That strikes me as a story on a par with aliens in terms of its mind blowing capacity.


If the advance is based upon just one or two very key disruptions in physics/aerodynamics, and the discovery was made by the military? It wouldn't surprise me if it was kept top secret, rather than being filtered out to the rest of the aviation/civil industry. Having one or two key aces in the event of war would be worth the cost.

Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if they deliberately engineered the craft to look like UFO's on the basis that it would make foreign governments discount sightings. In the same way the US could use the myth to hide weapons tests, there's nothing stopping foreigners doing the same thing. And the result would be identical; no-one would believe anyone who saw anything significantly enough to fund a counter-weapons or observation program. Basic psyops.

Though I'd put money on the Russians over the Chinese. The Chinese are only just leaving the 'let's buy a rusted Soviet aircraft carrier and try to copy an American stealth fighter through binoculars' stage.


I agree that it would likely be the Russians if it were anyone, they've been the de facto arms supplier for most of the "developing" world for a long time now.

But I'm skeptical about keeping it under wraps, I don't mean a deliberate filtration of info out to a wider audience so much as espionage and surveillance. I mean, North Korea can't fart without it being observed and recorded, I find it hard to believe that a technology has been developed by the official Big Bad™ of the world that there is zero knowledge of. Complete understanding of? Fair enough. But an absolute absence of any clue about what they're up to and what they may be able to do with it in the golden age of information? I'm not so sure. I'd leave room for the possibility, but I'd be doubtful.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 16:38:14


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Ketara wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:

If there is an advance in aerodynamics that allows you to make aircraft which are so far beyond the current designs then the appearance of the craft will be determined by the requirements of that advance. You won't be able to make it look like a UFO unless that shape is what gives the required aerodynamics.

And that is easy to test in any wind tunnel coupled with aerodynamic flow software or just through pure simulation.


That's why I said, 'physics/aerodynamics'.

The logical advance which might make it possible would be control over gravity. If you can exert attractive and repulsive forces sufficiently powerfully, you'd be able to accelerate and move in such a fashion as to be impossible for anything susceptible to Earth's own pull. It's also a very obvious blind spot in Western scientific theories.


It isn't a blind spot, it is flat out physically impossible. It's like saying being able to turn off the charge of an electron and make it neutral. There is no antigravitational force, unless you can make something with negative mass. Something which has never been observed. The closest to it is dark energy which is driving the acceleration of universal expansion, yet this only affects stuff on cosmological scales.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 16:43:01


Post by: Ketara


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Ketara wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:

If there is an advance in aerodynamics that allows you to make aircraft which are so far beyond the current designs then the appearance of the craft will be determined by the requirements of that advance. You won't be able to make it look like a UFO unless that shape is what gives the required aerodynamics.

And that is easy to test in any wind tunnel coupled with aerodynamic flow software or just through pure simulation.


That's why I said, 'physics/aerodynamics'.

The logical advance which might make it possible would be control over gravity. If you can exert attractive and repulsive forces sufficiently powerfully, you'd be able to accelerate and move in such a fashion as to be impossible for anything susceptible to Earth's own pull. It's also a very obvious blind spot in Western scientific theories.


It isn't a blind spot, it is flat out physically impossible. It's like saying being able to turn off the charge of an electron and make it neutral. There is no antigravitational force, unless you can make something with negative mass. Something which has never been observed. The closest to it is dark energy which is driving the acceleration of universal expansion, yet this only affects stuff on cosmological scales.


I swear we've already done the discussion of the scientifically possible a few pages back....


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 16:43:48


Post by: A Town Called Malus


chaos0xomega wrote:
Russian rocketry was generally well in advance of the Wests own rocket tech - they might not have put a man on the moon or completed their own space shuttle system, but that was due to a deficiency in other technologies.


This is not true. The russians were unable to reach the moon because they could not build a rocket engine with the power of the F-1, and tried to instead accomplish the required thrust with a larger number of smaller engines, which drastically increases the complexity of the design as each rocket needs to fire simultaneously, be able to be cut off simultaneously, throttled simultaneously etc.

Sure, the F-1 wasn't a closed loop engine, but they actually worked and were more advanced than any of the russian engines in a different area because it was able to make use of cryogenic fuels, rather than the highly toxic and corrosive fuels the russians were using. And a rocket that is less efficient but actually accomplishes its goals is a better rocket than one which doesn't.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 16:55:11


Post by: chaos0xomega


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Ketara wrote:

If the advance is based upon just one or two very key disruptions in physics/aerodynamics, and the discovery was made by the military? It wouldn't surprise me if it was kept top secret, rather than being filtered out to the rest of the aviation/civil industry. Having one or two key aces in the event of war would be worth the cost.

Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if they deliberately engineered the craft to look like UFO's on the basis that it would make foreign governments discount sightings. In the same way the US could use the myth to hide weapons tests, there's nothing stopping foreigners doing the same thing. And the result would be identical; no-one would believe anyone who saw anything significantly enough to fund a counter-weapons or observation program. Basic psyops.

Though I'd put money on the Russians over the Chinese. The Chinese are only just leaving the 'let's buy a rusted Soviet aircraft carrier and try to copy an American stealth fighter through binoculars' stage.


If there is an advance in aerodynamics that allows you to make aircraft which are so far beyond the current designs then the appearance of the craft will be determined by the requirements of that advance. You won't be able to make it look like a UFO unless that shape is what gives the required aerodynamics.

And that is easy to test in any wind tunnel coupled with aerodynamic flow software or just through pure simulation.


 Ketara wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:

If there is an advance in aerodynamics that allows you to make aircraft which are so far beyond the current designs then the appearance of the craft will be determined by the requirements of that advance. You won't be able to make it look like a UFO unless that shape is what gives the required aerodynamics.

And that is easy to test in any wind tunnel coupled with aerodynamic flow software or just through pure simulation.


That's why I said, 'physics/aerodynamics'.

The logical advance which might make it possible would be control over gravity. If you can exert attractive and repulsive forces sufficiently powerfully, you'd be able to accelerate and move in such a fashion as to be impossible for anything susceptible to Earth's own pull. It's also a very obvious blind spot in Western scientific theories.


Nothing that advanced is really required here. As I stated before there are existing rotorcraft and aerostatic technologies that could account for some of the observed capability. They are uncommon and largely experimental or were dismissed as having no practical application 50-70 years ago, etc. and thus even experienced military pilots would have zero familiarity with them or their capabilities - some of which would or could have potentially unusual shapes or appearances. Some of what was observed could be fairly mundane, but if the pilots and ship crew making the observation are only familiar with fixed wing aircraft, conventional helicopters, and hot air balloons then seeing something like an Avrocar or a Triebflügel or a Coleopter/annular wing or a Kytoon or a Flettner Rotor or a Fanwing or a cyclorotor or.... Theres even more obscure stuff out there, like the Russian Thermoplan. Stick a stop secret program with a military budget behind any of these technologies and you could end up with something that looks really out of this world with unusual capabilities that can be confused for something out of this world and appears wholly unfamiliar to someone who has thousands of hours of experience flying but is otherwise fairly mundane.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 17:15:18


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Ketara wrote:


I swear we've already done the discussion of the scientifically possible a few pages back....


Which highlighted some major misunderstandings on your part. Quantum mechanics is not separate from classical mechanics. You can derive classical mechanics, such as Newton's laws, from quantum mechanics by applying the required conditions to the equations. Classical mechanics is just an approximation which is accurate enough for the macroscopic world, like how galilean relativity is just an approximation of special relativity which is useable when the velocities in question are small compared to the speed of light, Newton's law of universal gravitation is just an approximation of general relativity etc.



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 17:57:39


Post by: Argive


Th the soyuz rocket (russian) has been the only approved vehice capable of docking with the ISS from 2011 to 2021. NASA scrapped its space shuttle in 2011 and switched to the soyuz. Of course your average person wont know as no credit is given.

That decision IMO is driven purely by cost effectiveness rather than anything else. But still, That's is a impressive endorsement and possibly a statement of capabilities. .

So who knows, maybe the tic tac is Russian seeing as they are more capable of cost efficient space travel than USA.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 17:59:09


Post by: chaos0xomega


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Russian rocketry was generally well in advance of the Wests own rocket tech - they might not have put a man on the moon or completed their own space shuttle system, but that was due to a deficiency in other technologies.


This is not true. The russians were unable to reach the moon because they could not build a rocket engine with the power of the F-1, and tried to instead accomplish the required thrust with a larger number of smaller engines, which drastically increases the complexity of the design as each rocket needs to fire simultaneously, be able to be cut off simultaneously, throttled simultaneously etc.

Sure, they weren't closed loop engines, but they actually worked. And a rocket that is less efficient but actually accomplishes its goals is a better rocket than one which doesn't.


It is true and you're only telling part of the story. The struggles the Soviets had can be put down to a result of politics and interpersonal squabbles more than it is a technological failing. Valentin Glushko had very simple and workable designs (proven by the success of Proton, Zenit, and Energia) to produce engines that were theoretically more capable than the F-1, but his designs were dismissed due to the Soviets (specifically Sergei Korolev) belief that the toxicity of the hypergolic propellants that Glushkos designs would have required would have made them a safety issue. As a result they opted to pursue designs based on safer fuels which the Soviets had little experience using. Glushko refused to be involved with the project, as did other experienced rocket designers, and thus an engineer who was an experienced jet engine designer with no rocket design experience (Nikolai Kuznetsov) was brought in to lead the rocket design. At that point Glushko and other more experienced engineers were put on what was essentially a parallel spaceflight program owing to their political connections and political favoritism, etc. which resulted in a cut in funding and resources/talent into the moon program.

Due to a lack of budget and experience Kuznetsov and given tight time constraints Kuznetsov did not have the opportunity to even attempt to develop and test a large engine comparable to the F-1, which forced him to pursue an unnecessarily complex design which utilized smaller rockets (which you referenced) in order to circumvent the combustion instability issues that the Soviets had encountered while attempting to use LOX/RP1 fuels in the past. Funding issues meant that the engine was never actually ground tested before being sent to flight test on the N-1 - something which most engineers regard as absolute insanity given how advanced and novel the the engine design actually was. The lack of testing proved to be the N-1s failure, as the design of the fuel distribution system essentially doomed it to failure - but the issues would have been detected in ground test and the solution to the issue was not beyond the abilities of Soviet engineering. FYI - American engineers encountered the same exact issues with the F-1 that the Soviets had experienced attempting to build large LOX/RP1 engines, but they were given both time and budget to do significant amounts of testing to develop a relatively simple workaround which the Soviets only managed to figure out years later. Interestingly, the design of the N-1 (with the fuel distribution issues worked out) has basically become the standard of modern American rocketry, so the Soviets were somewhat ahead of their time which reinforces the thesis of their superiority in terms of rocket design.

Most analysts are in agreement that the Soviets would have been able to build something comparable or superior to the F-1 had they been given time and budget and not had their resources split amongst several competing programs, some of which were destined to failure as a result of being helmed by inexperienced engineers and incompetent managers.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 18:14:10


Post by: BaronIveagh


Guys, I hate to point out the obvious but while I'll grant the Russians have created some quality hyper-sonic missiles, these are throwing a lot of what we know about physics out the window. We're talking major materials breakthroughs (a field neither Russia nor China is known for) alone, and that's assuming it's unmanned.

While I won't deny it's possible for Russia or China to be ahead of the US, we're talking decades, maybe centuries ahead. Not seeing it.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 18:17:49


Post by: Ketara


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Ketara wrote:


I swear we've already done the discussion of the scientifically possible a few pages back....


Which highlighted some major misunderstandings on your part. Quantum mechanics is not separate from classical mechanics. You can derive classical mechanics, such as Newton's laws, from quantum mechanics by applying the required conditions to the equations. Classical mechanics is just an approximation which is accurate enough for the macroscopic world, like how galilean relativity is just an approximation of special relativity which is useable when the velocities in question are small compared to the speed of light, Newton's law of universal gravitation is just an approximation of general relativity etc.


My posts were more along the lines of 'The laws of physics are understood to be absolute until they turn out not to be, and then science comes up with a spanking new theory (or adjusts the old one) to explain how the impossible is now possible'.

So yeah. You can claim that control of gravity is impossible. For sure. By contemporary public understandings of physics. That is, until something proves it not to be.

We apparently have here (according to the leaks I'm reading about this report), a repeatedly occurring phenomenon, where aerial devices are not behaving in line with known physics. One that has been observed on many hundreds of occasions, by different means, by different observors. This means one of three things.

1) The accounts are all lies or exaggerations for some unknown nefarious purpose.
2) The accounts are mistaken and misinterpreting what they are observing.
3) Somebody (whether aliens or humans) has devised a way of defying the laws of physics (or 'classical mechanics').

Logically speaking, one of these three is true. The likelihood of it being 1) or 2) goes down proportionately to the numbers of observers and methods. From what I'm reading (correct me if I'm wrong), we have literally hundreds of military personnel observing through multiple means (eyeballs, radar, and a few others). If that is in fact, actually the case, then the odds of it being 1 or 2 are likely to be slimmer than 3. And 3 is, when you really get down to it, no more unlikely than any other major unforeseen scientific advance. Whether it boils down to gravity or some other means is really beside the question; it's still something in advance of contemporary physics that implies a significant rewrite/adjustment of theory.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Nothing that advanced is really required here. As I stated before there are existing rotorcraft and aerostatic technologies that could account for some of the observed capability. They are uncommon and largely experimental or were dismissed as having no practical application 50-70 years ago, etc. and thus even experienced military pilots would have zero familiarity with them or their capabilities - some of which would or could have potentially unusual shapes or appearances. Some of what was observed could be fairly mundane, but if the pilots and ship crew making the observation are only familiar with fixed wing aircraft, conventional helicopters, and hot air balloons then seeing something like an Avrocar or a Triebflügel or a Coleopter/annular wing or a Kytoon or a Flettner Rotor or a Fanwing or a cyclorotor or.... Theres even more obscure stuff out there, like the Russian Thermoplan. Stick a stop secret program with a military budget behind any of these technologies and you could end up with something that looks really out of this world with unusual capabilities that can be confused for something out of this world and appears wholly unfamiliar to someone who has thousands of hours of experience flying but is otherwise fairly mundane.


Perhaps this is the case instead. I'm simply going off what's been written by people who are theoretically more familiar with the capabilities and limitations of aerial craft than myself. My own studies more or less cut off with the Sopwith Camel.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 20:25:04


Post by: chaos0xomega


 BaronIveagh wrote:
Guys, I hate to point out the obvious but while I'll grant the Russians have created some quality hyper-sonic missiles, these are throwing a lot of what we know about physics out the window. We're talking major materials breakthroughs (a field neither Russia nor China is known for) alone, and that's assuming it's unmanned.

While I won't deny it's possible for Russia or China to be ahead of the US, we're talking decades, maybe centuries ahead. Not seeing it.


As I've stated and explained several times over the past several pages, almost none of the actually visibly observed capabilities come even remotely close to defying laws of physics. The most extreme claims of capability and physics-defying flight characteristics come from radar readings which can be explained as a result of electronic warfare capabilities. The closest anyone has actually come to actually seeing one of these things defy physical law went unrecorded (object observed climbing and diving tens of thousands of feet in seconds through FLIR - FLIR engineers that worked on the system used to observe it have come forward postulating it was the result of a known glitch in the FLIR system), the segment of the observations of that same object that were recorded don't show it doing anything of the sort, it just floats there (in a manner similar to a high altitude balloon).

As for materials breakthroughs, I think thats an erroneous take on your part. Can't speak for China, but as far as Russia is concerned - they pioneered the production of use of titanium and titanium alloys in a variety of applications and Russia has continued to demonstrate titanium working capabilities that the US has yet to match. The flip side of that is that is that iron and steel metallurgy in the USSR and modern Russia is *generally* inferior in terms of the purity of the metal as well as the precision with which they are able to work said metals which is why their jet engines are inferior to American engines - but there are certain things that they do very well in this regard though, such as precision timing clocks, to the point that the US defense industry uses Russian clocks because we simply haven't been able to build anything to match. The Soviets also pioneered the development of synthetic diaomonds and by extension the production of diamond nanocrystals/nanodiamonds. The Soviets and Russians have also been a leader in developing a number of fiber-based materials and fabrics. The first composite armor system was deployed by the Russians in the T-64 in the form of Combination K and supposedly their most modern tanks are using a more advanced composite armor system than anything used elsewhere. etc etc etc

While I wouldn't characterize Russia as possessing superior materials science and engineering technologies, to say they aren't known for material breakthroughs is just wrong.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 21:29:26


Post by: BaronIveagh


chaos0xomega wrote:
The most extreme claims of capability and physics-defying flight characteristics come from radar readings which can be explained as a result of electronic warfare capabilities. The closest anyone has actually come to actually seeing one of these things defy physical law went unrecorded.


Then explain to me why they're not white hot from aerodynamic heating. The concord, far more aerodynamic in form than these, would reach temps above 300 degrees F traveling at mach 2.4

And, again, that would be a mighty unusual, and very specific, effect to generate, for an ewar package. Radar determines speed via the doppler effect. Because of the variety of frequencies involved, and the very specific information it would have to spoof, plus it's dubious use in combat, I have to question this explanation.

Aircraft, with certain very specialized exceptions, don't typically carry powerful radar compared to ships and surface installations because of size and power requirements. I can much more easily believe a drone being able to carry off fooling an aircraft. But spoofing the US navy's best surface radars I find less believable.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/05 23:07:02


Post by: chaos0xomega


 BaronIveagh wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
The most extreme claims of capability and physics-defying flight characteristics come from radar readings which can be explained as a result of electronic warfare capabilities. The closest anyone has actually come to actually seeing one of these things defy physical law went unrecorded.


Then explain to me why they're not white hot from aerodynamic heating. The concord, far more aerodynamic in form than these, would reach temps above 300 degrees F traveling at mach 2.4



Because none of them have actually moved that fast?Thats literally the entire point of what you responded to.

The fastest recorded speed for any of these craft was 200mph or so), radar and non visual sources indicate faster movement, but that hasn't been visibly witnessed or confirmed and that level of performance can be spoofed on radar withh EW techniques, as per my previous post.

And, again, that would be a mighty unusual, and very specific, effect to generate, for an ewar package. Radar determines speed via the doppler effect. Because of the variety of frequencies involved, and the very specific information it would have to spoof, plus it's dubious use in combat, I have to question this explanation.


Its not a specific or unusual capability by any means, just one of many ways to defeat a missile. Not going to say much more on the topic than that.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/06 00:31:27


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Why, I don't understand how explaining quantum physics as "when things are really small they exist in two places at once until you look at them" does not adequately summarize it in a manner consumable by the average person


Well, the main thing is that explanation is wrong

Having objects in two different locations and then one suddenly disappearing because someone looked breaks conservation of momentum and energy. That is a pretty big no-no in physics

A better explanation might be:

"For very small objects, the possible places it could be each have a probability that it is there and we do not know where it is until we look. Once we do look, however, it becomes guaranteed that the object was at that location at that time. If we took a time machine back and repeated the experiment again, taking our observation at the exact same time, the object would be found at that position every time we did it, regardless of the probability that it was there before we first looked."

But really, quantum mechanics is pretty mind bending and a lot of people will not get it. People like certainty and quantum mechanics has uncertainty as a fundamental concept.
My statement was wrong, because that was the point; oversimplification to the point of being incorrect. That said, what you are saying isn't how it works either. Best I can say is the Shroedinger's cat analogy is how things actually work on the quantum level; the cat is both alive and dead, simultaneously, until you open the box. It is terrifying how we have repeatedly demonstrated this to be the case when it flies so thoroughly against what we know to be sensical.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/06 05:29:34


Post by: Matt Swain


 BaronIveagh wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
The most extreme claims of capability and physics-defying flight characteristics come from radar readings which can be explained as a result of electronic warfare capabilities. The closest anyone has actually come to actually seeing one of these things defy physical law went unrecorded.


Then explain to me why they're not white hot from aerodynamic heating. The concord, far more aerodynamic in form than these, would reach temps above 300 degrees F traveling at mach 2.4

And, again, that would be a mighty unusual, and very specific, effect to generate, for an ewar package. Radar determines speed via the doppler effect. Because of the variety of frequencies involved, and the very specific information it would have to spoof, plus it's dubious use in combat, I have to question this explanation.

Aircraft, with certain very specialized exceptions, don't typically carry powerful radar compared to ships and surface installations because of size and power requirements. I can much more easily believe a drone being able to carry off fooling an aircraft. But spoofing the US navy's best surface radars I find less believable.


Also a lot of modern first world military platforms have radar and ladar, which uses laser pulses instead of microwave pulses. A system that could cause both to give a false speed reading may not actually exist yet, in any earthly technology.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/06 13:39:17


Post by: chaos0xomega


I don't know of any military system which uses LIDAR in the way you claim, and that type of application would be a very advanced usage of the technology given the various limitations with it.

LIDAR is generally used in "visual range" applications as a rangefinder/target designator or for mapping stationary objects. It can be used for speed detection but the scenarios in which you could use it that way are currently limited. Given what we currently know about the UFO events theres a high probability that LIDAR was not involved other than the various encounters recorded via FLIR, all of which recorded the object aa being somewhere between stationary and approx. 200knots.

There is research into LIDAR in missile defense applications which would see it used in conjunction with AEGIS type systems at long ranges, etc but as far as I am aware that is still a theoretical capability that has not been deployed. Very much doubt they used LIDAR in any of the non-visual scenarios in which these objects were supposedly breaking physics.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/06 15:58:03


Post by: Cronch


I don't know, aliens seem far more likely to me than faulty readings on equipment made by the lowest bidder.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/06 16:50:21


Post by: BaronIveagh


chaos0xomega wrote:

Its not a specific or unusual capability by any means, just one of many ways to defeat a missile. Not going to say much more on the topic than that.


A missile, yes, but a recently upgraded Arleigh Burke's sensor suite? Or the entire base at San Diego? Much more dubious on that.

And, again, you're ignoring their relative lack of aerodynamic form. Even at 200 miles an hour, at those altitudes, that's still greater than terminal velocity. You'll still have atmospheric friction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cronch wrote:
I don't know, aliens seem far more likely to me than faulty readings on equipment made by the lowest bidder.


Individually, sure, but en mass? Probably not. What you're talking about would be the equivalent of every single rifle in a platoon spontaneously misfiring at the same time. The bulk of them would have gotten some accurate reading. Some of these took place over a few of the Navy' most important installations, like NBSD.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/06 17:05:03


Post by: chaos0xomega


 BaronIveagh wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:

Its not a specific or unusual capability by any means, just one of many ways to defeat a missile. Not going to say much more on the topic than that.


A missile, yes, but a recently upgraded Arleigh Burke's sensor suite? Or the entire base at San Diego? Much more dubious on that.

And, again, you're ignoring their relative lack of aerodynamic form. Even at 200 miles an hour, at those altitudes, that's still greater than terminal velocity. You'll still have atmospheric friction.


It would depend on which systems and settings were being used to track the object. I very much doubt they were using full wartime power and settings. Beyond that AEGIS is not infallible, nor are its human operators, as we should have learned during the Iran Air Flight 655 disaster.

And theres nothing particularly non-aerodynamic about the forms, in fact from what we can see they generally are *very* aerodynamic, just not necessarily in terms of conventional design. And you can't possibly know what their terminal velocities are without knowing its mass, area, and drag coefficient - not that the terminal velocity matters anyway because thats only applicable to an object in freefall under the effects of gravity, and not an object in level powered flight as was seemingly the case in all the released visual recordings.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Individually, sure, but en mass? Probably not. What you're talking about would be the equivalent of every single rifle in a platoon spontaneously misfiring at the same time. The bulk of them would have gotten some accurate reading. Some of these took place over a few of the Navy' most important installations, like NBSD.


Whos to say they didn't acquire an accurate reading? Again, performance within visual range (i.e when radar could be cross-refreenced with Mk1 eyeball and/or FLIR) was mundane, between 0 and 200knots, no sudden or extreme acceleration, relatively normal movement. It was only outside of visual range (i.e. requiring the use of radar or other sensor systems, the readings of which could not be confirmed visually) that these things were doing weird gak. Perhaps the visually confirmed performance were the accurate readings, and the gak that occurred outside of visual confirmation was false readings. It would certainly make sense as EWAR techniques are generally more effective at longer ranges, as once you approach a sensor systems burn through range a lot of jamming and spoofing techniques fall off the table. Would explain why aircraft radar at 20 miles and ship radar at 60+ miles were having trouble with it but within the 5-10 mile range at which these things were recorded via FLIR they were behaving relatively normal.

If one of these pilots could say "I saw this thing dart off faster than a speeding bullet from a complete standstill with my own eyes" it would be one thing, yet even the most ardent UFO believers among them say "I was not able to visually confirm any of what I was seeing on my radar or FLIR".


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/06 18:24:37


Post by: BaronIveagh


chaos0xomega wrote:

If one of these pilots could say "I saw this thing dart off faster than a speeding bullet from a complete standstill with my own eyes" it would be one thing, yet even the most ardent UFO believers among them say "I was not able to visually confirm any of what I was seeing on my radar or FLIR".



The Nimitz CAG said exactly that. It was approaching him, and then vanished faster than the eye could follow. An object shaped like a tic tac and the size of an F18. It was reacquired by USS Princeton's radar 60 miles away a few seconds later. Parts of the incident were caught on camera. There are, supposedly, 120 incidents like that in the report that supposed to be released soon.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/06 18:37:38


Post by: Cronch


 BaronIveagh wrote:


Individually, sure, but en mass? Probably not. What you're talking about would be the equivalent of every single rifle in a platoon spontaneously misfiring at the same time. The bulk of them would have gotten some accurate reading. Some of these took place over a few of the Navy' most important installations, like NBSD.

120-something reports over 20 years. That's around 6 reports a year, that's such a statistically insignificant amount that it makes them being aliens even less probable.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/06 18:42:22


Post by: Kall3m0n


I have seen many Unidentified Flying Objects. Do I think a single one of them came from another planet? No.
They were flying objects I could not identify.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/06 18:50:55


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


It would be hilarious if they were actually aliens using electronic warfare to exaggerate their ships’ performance.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/06 18:51:30


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Yes it would


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/06 18:52:17


Post by: BaronIveagh


Cronch wrote:

120-something reports over 20 years. That's around 6 reports a year, that's such a statistically insignificant amount that it makes them being aliens even less probable.


It's not like the US blankets the planet. I dunno about aliens, but there's something there. The problem is that many of the explanations that I've seen in this forum have already reportedly been examined and discarded by the Pentagon, or have nearly equaled 'aliens' in degree of improbability.

And, generally speaking, if fighters are scrambling, once is far too frequent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It would be hilarious if they were actually aliens using electronic warfare to exaggerate their ships’ performance.


Have an Exalt.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/06 18:58:06


Post by: Cronch


We come back to the problem of "if they're aliens, why do we see them". We have tech to mask gak from radar, turning airplanes into bird-sized blips. Aliens somehow haven't figured it out? If they don't care about being hidden, where are the mass sightings? Why are they never observed in broad daylight over city centers? Are they observing the dominant lifeform of this planet, the crabs instead of humans? Why haven't the NASA, ESA, Russians or Chinese space agencies reported anything? The aliens specifically avoid the ISS but then don't give a feth about being spotted by air force?

(and if I were being cynical, why was it again brought to public attention just as USA's ally was stirring a fethstorm in the middle east?)


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/06 19:39:20


Post by: NinthMusketeer


I don't buy into the aliens-visiting-earth thing but I can still see them understanding that as long as they don't get seen too obviously the native society will brush it off. There are a lot of steps between wanting to be completely unseen and being completely apathetic to witnesses.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/06 19:43:22


Post by: BaronIveagh


Cronch wrote:
We come back to the problem of "if they're aliens, why do we see them". We have tech to mask gak from radar, turning airplanes into bird-sized blips. Aliens somehow haven't figured it out? If they don't care about being hidden, where are the mass sightings? Why are they never observed in broad daylight over city centers? Are they observing the dominant lifeform of this planet, the crabs instead of humans? Why haven't the NASA, ESA, Russians or Chinese space agencies reported anything? The aliens specifically avoid the ISS but then don't give a feth about being spotted by air force?

(and if I were being cynical, why was it again brought to public attention just as USA's ally was stirring a fethstorm in the middle east?)


Well, that last one is the easiest (A report on it was demanded by law last year, and the deadline is this month)

On the tech angle, assuming there are aliens, the designs we've seen aren't conducive to stealth. The fact that aircraft have extremely small radar signatures is an effect of their physical shape as well as advanced coatings and material composition. Also, they're not stealthy at all depending on how you're looking, and it's been beaten even by fairly low tech means by countries like Serbia.

There have been mass sightings. Amusingly, some in major cities, though mostly not during the day. As far as space agencies go, SETI tends to be their focus, but James McDivitt, commanding Gemini 4, did report an incident, as well as Leroy Chiao, aboard the ISS, though he's since recanted and tried to explain what he saw in ways that don't involve UFOs. The fact is that, for a long time, if you said you saw something, no matter how much evidence you had, you were dismissed as a nutjob. A common statement with the pilots the Pentagon was interviewing was 'If I was flying solo, I wouldn't have reported it'.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/06 20:44:14


Post by: Cronch


and it's been beaten even by fairly low tech means by countries like Serbia.

Which observed the fact that US pilots got lazy and flew the same corridor. Stealth isn't invisibility, especially when you know where to look and when (they had a spotter near the airfield to tell them when it takes off). Spotting a target you don't know exists and using modern stealth instead of 70s tech like the F117 is another matter.
And why aren't the alien designs conductive to stealth? if they break laws of physics in flight, they sure as hell shouldn't have trouble making the ships in any shape they need, or even (if they're as some suggest some sort of scientific missions) stealthed probes.


As for individual sightings, why aren't there clear videos? Why are the "aliens" zigging, zagging and not just holding low and stationary for good obeservation? And if their tech is so good that they don't have to, why not plop some satellites round Venus to observe us? Or even around earth, if their stealth is so good.

My point is, those aliens are at the same time so advanced it's impossible to get them on the camera in clear view, and so low-tech or incompetent that they can be spotted at all.

And somehow they're spotted more easily in the atmosphere than in the orbit where there's almost nothing around beyond satellites going on stable orbits.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/06 20:48:33


Post by: chaos0xomega


 BaronIveagh wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:

If one of these pilots could say "I saw this thing dart off faster than a speeding bullet from a complete standstill with my own eyes" it would be one thing, yet even the most ardent UFO believers among them say "I was not able to visually confirm any of what I was seeing on my radar or FLIR".



The Nimitz CAG said exactly that. It was approaching him, and then vanished faster than the eye could follow. An object shaped like a tic tac and the size of an F18. It was reacquired by USS Princeton's radar 60 miles away a few seconds later. Parts of the incident were caught on camera. There are, supposedly, 120 incidents like that in the report that supposed to be released soon.


I've read and watched most relevant material and I've yet to see anything that involved the Nimitz CAG. I'm assuming you're referring to Commander David Fravor's encounter with the TicTac, as he was a squadron commander aboard the Nimitz and the only pilot I know of to have a clean eyeball visual on the object. The recent media narrative around his encounter kind of matches what you're describing - BUT doesn't match earlier reports of the same event. Note this article was written in 2015, prior to the recent media circus. In it he claims that the object passed behind him and then blitzed away at "multi-mach" speed. In more recent articles and interviews he claims instead that it disappeared or accelerated away in front of him as he came up behind the object instead. Likewise, recent interviews claim that the Princeton re-identified the object 60 miles away, but this story doesn't indicate the distance but based on the narrative I would guess the CAP point that it reappeared at was a lot closer than 60 miles away. Fravor and his wingman (Alex Dietrich), nor neither of their backseaters could locate the object that the Princeton was reporting at the CAP point. None of these events were caught on camera. There are a lot of conflicting accounts which make me question to what extent these reports are being sensationalized or exaggerated. If the object is capable of hovering more or less stationary as the article states, it seems more likely to me that what Fravor witnessed was not a mach speed acceleration away, but rather a rapid deceleration to a stop.

A second sortie later in the day, which was recorded (by Lieutenant Commander Chad Underwood) and released as the TICTAC video, did identify the object at the previously reported CAP location, starting 30nm out via FLIR. As per the article I linked:

The WSO first picked up a contact on the radar around 30nm away while it was operating in the RWS scan mode. He checked the coordinates and it was indeed hovering at their precise CAP point. He attempted several STT locks, to no avail. Later, in the debrief, he explained that he had multiple telltale cues of EA.

The target aspect on the track file was turning through 360 degrees along with some other distinct jamming indications. In the less precise scan mode, the return indicated that the object was, in the WSO’s words, “A few thousand feet below us. Around 15-20K– but hovering stationary.” The only movement was generated by the closure of the fighter to the CAP location.


EA is, in case you're unfamiliar, Electronic Attack, i.e. electronic warfare. I actually haven't read this article before today, but its nice to have confirmation to my suspicions that there was electronic warfare capabilities involved in the contact. The article goes on to say that the object later rapidly accelerated off screen, but in recent interviews Underwood has claimed that he is uncertain if it actually did accelerate away and that he believes its possible that it was buffeted away by the air displaced by his fighter as he flew past it, or that it was the result of parallax through the FLIR as he flew past the object. The only thing he is uncertain of is that he lost visual on the TicTac after that and could not reacquire it. He has also said that neither he, nor his (unidentified) wingman ever had an unaided visual on the object, it was only viewed through FLIR in this encounter.

Theres also one more interesting thing that makes me question some of the recent reporting:

They even queried the crew of the USS Louisville, a Los Angeles-class Fast-Attack submarine that was in the area as part of the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group who reported there were no unidentified sonar contacts or strange underwater noises on that day.


Recent reporting claims there was a sonar contact doing 70 knots underwater. Given the significantly greater levels of detail and clearer narrative of events in the article I linked, I'm inclined to believe that over the more recent reporting, and dismiss/discount the existence of the underwater contact.

FWIW, Alex Dietrich (Fravors wingman) has said she doesn't believe the objects in question were alien or extraterrestrial in origin and thinks discussions of them in that context is counterproductive and unhelpful. She has said that she could not verify some of Fravors claims as she lost sight of the object before Fravor did.

Its also worth mentioning that some of the reporting indicates that the Princeton was tracking *multiple* such objects simultaneously going into this encounter, which indicates the possibility that if there was an object on radar 60 miles away from Fravor and Dietrichs location, that it was in fact a separate object altogether rather than the same object popping up somewhere where it probably couldn't be.



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/06 20:55:42


Post by: Mr Morden


It seems unlikely to be as insteresting as Aliens would be.....

Unless its drunk rich kid aliens buzzing primitives for a laugh....which woud explain alot.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/06 21:26:02


Post by: Ketara


chaos0xomega wrote:

EA is, in case you're unfamiliar, Electronic Attack, i.e. electronic warfare.


I could be wrong, but I swear I remember from previous discussions that Baron is a literal USAF pilot.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/06 22:17:35


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Ketara wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:

EA is, in case you're unfamiliar, Electronic Attack, i.e. electronic warfare.


I could be wrong, but I swear I remember from previous discussions that Baron is a literal USAF pilot.


Did a quick search through his posts and didn't see anything to indicate that, but I did find this post of his from 2018 about this exact encounter: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/90/746987.page#9807102

Well, Pop Sci has put out what appears to be a report excerpt, so the 61knts thing is apparently bogus. My bad for repeating what turned out to be a rumor.

CVW-11 EVENT SUMMARY
14 NOVEMBER 04
EVENT SUMMARY

110/100, 303/305, 401
FAST EAGLES 110/100 UPON TAKE OFF WERE VECTORED BY PRINCETON AND BANGER (1410L) TO INTERCEPT UNID CONTACT AT 160@40NM (N3050.8 W11746.9) (NIMITZ N3129.3 W11752.8). PRINCETON INFORMED FAST EAGLES THAT THE CONTACT WAS MOVING AT 100 KTS @ 25KFT ASL.

FAST EAGLES (110/100) COULD NOT FIND UNID AIRBORNE CONTACT AT LOCATION GIVEN BY PRINCETON. WHILE SEARCHING FOR UNID AIR CONTACT, FAST EAGLES SPOTTED LARGE UNID OBJECT IN WATER AT 1430L. PILOTS SAW STEAM/ SMOKE/CHURNING AROUND OBJECT. PILOT DESCRIBES OBJECT INITIALLY AS RESEMBLING A DOWNED AIRLINER, ALSO STATED THAT IT WAS MUCH LARGER THAN A SUBMARINE.

WHILE DESCENDING FROM 24K FT TO GAIN A BETTER VIEW OF THE UNID CONTACT IN THE WATER, FAST EAGLE 110 SIGHTED AN AIRBORNE CONTACT WHICH APPEARED TO BE CAPSULE SHAPED (WINGLESS, MOBILE, WHITE, OBLONG PILL SHAPED, 25-30 FEET IN LENGTH, NO VISIBLE MARKINGS AND NO GLASS) 5NM WEST FROM POSITION OF UNID OBJECT IN WATER.

CAPSULE (ALT 4K FT AT COURSE 300) PASSED UNDER FAST EAGLE 110 (ALT 16KFT). FAST EAGLE 110 BEGAN TURN TO ACQUIRE CAPSULE. WHILE 110 WAS DESCENDING AND TURNING, CAPSULE BEGAN CLIMBING AND TURNED INSIDE OF FAST EAGLE’S TURN RADIUS. PILOT ESTIMATED THAT CAPSULE ACHIEVED 600-700 KTS. FAST EAGLE 110 COULD NOT KEEP UP WITH THE RATE OF TURN AND THE GAIN OF ALTITUDE BY THE CAPSULE. 110 LOST VISUAL ID OF CAPSULE IN HAZE. LAST VISUAL CONTACT HAD CAPSULE AT 14KFT HEADING DUE EAST.

NEITHER FAST EAGLES 110 OR 100 COULD ACHIEVE RADAR LOCK OR ANY OTHER MEANS OF POSITIVE ID. FAST EAGLE 100 WAS FLYING HIGH COVER AND SAW THE ENGAGEMENT BY FAST EAGLE 110. FAST EAGLE 100 CONFIRMS 110 VISUAL ID; 100 LOST CONTACT IN HAZE AS WELL.

CPA OF ACFT 110 FROM CONTACT 4000-5000 FT.


If this report is legitimate then it throws even more uncertainty into the mix. Most of the reporting claims that the TicTac/Capsule was seen flying above the area of disturbed water (this is a somewhat important point in the narrative as there were suggestions that it was causing the disturbances in the water in some articles), this report indicates it was instead seen 5 miles west of it. Additionally the report does not indicate any out of this world speeds - it states that it achieved 600-700 knots, which is fast (much faster than the 200 knot top speeds visually observed in other reporting, etc.) but not faster than what a superhornet is capable of. It states that visual contact was lost in haze by both Fravor and Dietrich, whereas the more recent reporting claims that visual was lost when it either disappeared entirely or accelerated away at unreasonable speeds. Likewise, this indicates that the object was 25-30ft long, but Fravor has recently been claiming it was 40-45 feet in length. It would be nice if we could have a straight and consistent story that clearly states known facts or "high certainty" facts/events, and then indicates what was assumed by the pilots or what they were uncertain about, right now this sounds like one of those fishing stories where the size of the fish and the events surrounding it are exaggerated more and more each time the story is told.


Also, I'm a bit confused by the "resembled a downed airliner but much larger than a submarine" bit. A 747 is like half the length of an American Ohio class submarine or a Russian Typhoon, Oscar, or Delta IV class boat, but otherwise comparable to American Sea Wolf or Los Angeles class boats. I'm really curious what he was trying to say here - did it have the shape of an airliner but was a lot larger? or does he actually think that submarines are smaller than 747s??


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/06 23:40:17


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Ketara wrote:

I could be wrong, but I swear I remember from previous discussions that Baron is a literal USAF pilot.


I am most certainly not. Though Dakka posters have made a starling variety of claims about me over the years, or shoved words in my mouth that I did not say.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote:

Also, I'm a bit confused by the "resembled a downed airliner but much larger than a submarine" bit. A 747 is like half the length of an American Ohio class submarine or a Russian Typhoon, Oscar, or Delta IV class boat, but otherwise comparable to American Sea Wolf or Los Angeles class boats. I'm really curious what he was trying to say here - did it have the shape of an airliner but was a lot larger? or does he actually think that submarines are smaller than 747s??


(I had completely forgotten about this)

They're talking about two separate contacts, one in the water, one in the air. I had interpreted the statement about the one in the water to be that it was large and white,like a downed airliner, but bigger than the sub.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 00:15:54


Post by: chaos0xomega


Yeah, I understood that they were separate contacts, its just unclear what they mean by this description given the relative sizes of the two objects involved. Would have been nice if the point had been clarified or articulated more clearly in terms of what he was trying to describe.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 00:17:32


Post by: Ketara


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Ketara wrote:

I could be wrong, but I swear I remember from previous discussions that Baron is a literal USAF pilot.


I am most certainly not. Though Dakka posters have made a starling variety of claims about me over the years, or shoved words in my mouth that I did not say.

I must be thinking of someone else then. I know we had a USAF pilot around here somewhere....


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 00:36:46


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Ketara wrote:

I must be thinking of someone else then. I know we had a USAF pilot around here somewhere....


We did. I vaguely recall him talking about the superbug at one point, but I don't remember the subject of the discussion.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 00:44:48


Post by: chaos0xomega


I know we had a Navy pilot back in the day. I think his handle was Seaward.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 01:41:07


Post by: BaronIveagh


chaos0xomega wrote:
I know we had a Navy pilot back in the day. I think his handle was Seaward.


Yeah, he hasn't posted for about a decade at this point.

But anyway, so we have unknown aircraft that out perform the Hornet in a turn while climbing, use an unknown means of generating lift and propulsion, and, if the Princeton's radar is to be believed, came down from 80,000 feet before aircraft were vectored to it's location.. None of these things are, by themselves, impossible, but all in the same airframe boggles the mind.


You know, it occurs to me, what if the contact in the water was cooling? The Blackbird dropping for that altitude could get damn hot fast and these dropped faster, supposedly.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 03:11:19


Post by: Matt Swain


UFOs aren't new. In ww2 pilots on all sides reported seeing unknown red luminous orbs that allies dubvbed 'foo fighters' and were assumed to be axis weapons or aircraft.

After the war it was revealed axis pilots assumed they were allied in origin.



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 09:17:11


Post by: Just Tony


Cronch wrote:
(and if I were being cynical, why was it again brought to public attention just as USA's ally was stirring a fethstorm in the middle east?)


If you're talking about who I THINK you're talking about, I'd say "stirring up a fethstorm" is a bizarre way of saying "existing".




One thing to consider in all of this is that fighter pilots are more than aware of the capabilities of their aircraft, almost every other aircraft used by their military, a general idea of the capabilities of foreign military aircraft, and don't tend to be prone to hyperbole. If they're spooked, there's a reason. If they're saying it's NOT military jet X, Y, or Z, they're probably the subject matter expert in that convo.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 09:45:50


Post by: Cronch


and don't tend to be prone to hyperbole

Pilots (in fact all military!) over-reports things. US tankers killed more tigers and panthers in ww2 than germany ever produced, and indentified every german tank as a "cat" notoriously, and Allied airmen claimed to kill a swathe of tanks in France that, when examined later on the ground, limited their killcount to...like 10% of what they claimed I recall? TheChieftain has a good vid on that topic.
Which makes sense- in high stress situation humans arent' at their most rational and observant, and doubly so when talking about things in the air where we have little to no frame of reference.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 11:30:09


Post by: chaos0xomega


 BaronIveagh wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
I know we had a Navy pilot back in the day. I think his handle was Seaward.

Yeah, he hasn't posted for about a decade at this point.
But anyway, so we have unknown aircraft that out perform the Hornet in a turn while climbing, use an unknown means of generating lift and propulsion, and, if the Princeton's radar is to be believed, came down from 80,000 feet before aircraft were vectored to it's location.. None of these things are, by themselves, impossible, but all in the same airframe boggles the mind.

You know, it occurs to me, what if the contact in the water was cooling? The Blackbird dropping for that altitude could get damn hot fast and these dropped faster, supposedly.

I'm somewhat dubious about the existence of anything in the water. Recent reporting says something was moving around at 70 knots below the surface but I can't find a source for that. Older reporting indicates there were no unknown sonar contacts in the area whatsoever. Even if the giant jetliner submarine thing was somehow silent, the reported area of roiling whitewater bubbling at the surface would not have been, I have to imagine they would have heard that much at least on hydrophones/sonar. Additionally, Fravor has been inconsistent in his mention of the object - in some accounts of the story he mentions it explicitly, in others he only mentions the whitewater wile omitting the presence of another object, etc. If there was something in the water I think it more likely that it was a submarine that launched the tictac rather than a transmedium air vehicle which went for a dip in the ocean.

One thing to consider in all of this is that fighter pilots are more than aware of the capabilities of their aircraft, almost every other aircraft used by their military, a general idea of the capabilities of foreign military aircraft, and don't tend to be prone to hyperbole. If they're spooked, there's a reason. If they're saying it's NOT military jet X, Y, or Z, they're probably the subject matter expert in that convo.


Thats a bad take. They are human and thus not infallible, and pilots are amongst the most hyperbolic people you will ever meet. Even veteran pilots often misidentify what they are seeing, sometimes with tragic consequences. See the 1994 Blackhawk Shootdown for an example - pair of veteran USAF pilots mistook US Army Black Hawks for a pair of Iraqi Hinds and swatted them down. This sort of thing happens way more often than you probably realize (though more often than not its dropping bombs or strafing the wrong side on the ground). Beyond that, they can only know the capabilities of known aircraft - as is the case with the US the Russians and Chinese also have their own top secret aircraft that we know little to nothing about.

In any case, most (if not all) of the pilots in question have been pretty straight in saying they don't believe these aircraft to be alien or extraterrestrial in origin.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 11:49:32


Post by: techsoldaten


Chimed in on this thread previously. Very interesting conversation, this should probably be thread of the year for Dakka for the quality of the debate.

Still convinced the mainstream attention to UFOs is a ploy meant to gain Federal funding related to production of next-gen drones / warfighters. Wanted to add I've spent time listening to a range of interviews with Luis Elizondo and Chris Mellon. Seems to me some of their claims are overstated, a few things those two in particular ought to be aware of seem curiously absent from their discussions.

While it's (likely) true TicTocs etc are real objects that possess capabilities beyond those used in the US arsenal, skeptical of the claims the science to do this light years ahead of the state of the art. Specifically, the following claims stand out as things that could be done today:

- Frictionless surface that could avoid creating a sonic boom when travelling at high speeds

- Levitation / moving with no obvious signs of propulsion

To be clear, I'm not trying to explain how to build a TicToc. I am saying I'm skeptical of the claim building one is far beyond what we already know, material science and photonics could offer excellent starting points for a group that was sufficiently motivated.

For the first claim, 2D materials, like Graphene, are a thing. 1 molecule thin, almost no measurable weight, and stronger than steel. If someone wanted to produce an object that doesn't produce a sonic boom when travelling at high speeds, they would start there. It's terrifically hard to produce and industrial applications are mostly limited to strengthening other materials, like grinding it up to mix in with fabrics and paint. But fashioning sheets that act as surfaces for a craft is certainly possible.

Sonic booms are the product of displacement of air when an object with mass passes through them. Dramatically reducing the mass would be a way of reducing this affect within the atmosphere. If someone wanted to use a 2D material to produce something rugged, capable of travelling at high speeds, and operating with almost zero drag, it's probably just a math problem.

More I could say about graphene as a replacement for solid-state components, this is specifically to address the question of sonic booms.

For the second claim, Spintronics is a fun area of physics related to creating and destroying magnetic fields. It happens quickly, measured in milliseconds, but you can take non-ferrous materials and create a magnetic field that can persist over time. The creation / removal of a field can displace an object in space, moving it in tune with other physical laws. The industrial applications for spintronics are mostly limited to fabricating HDDs and semi-conductors. Applied at scale, they could be used to create objects that are capable of levitating / moving precisely from point to point with no obvious signs of propulsion.

To put this in perspective, I spend time at SPIE conferences and have sat through a lot of presentations on spintronics. When there is a video, it typically involves a spinning disk moving up and down a Z-axis. The spin is created by the rapid induction / reduction of magnetic fields, which are themselves created with electricity.

More I could say about necessary resources for doing this with something as large as a warfighter, which are significant but achievable with current technology. Upcoming sessions dealing with the topic:

https://spie.org/OPN/conferencedetails/spintronics?SSO=1

So the question I'm asking, do all these claims rely on the public's lack of awareness of the state of the art in physics? Yes, TicTocs as described do things that are beyond what we know about in the US military arsenal. But are we actually seeing objects that do something beyond what happens everyday with hard drives and bike coatings?

My current hypothesis is we are seeing semi-conductor technology applied at scale to large objects. We're used to thinking about aircraft in terms of big, heavy objects moving according to the laws of aerodynamics and propulsion. That model does not explain what we've been seeing, but maybe that's the point of the videos. Someone realizes we can do more operating with a different model, so there's an effort to make everyone aware.




Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 19:49:15


Post by: BaronIveagh


 techsoldaten wrote:

For the first claim, 2D materials, like Graphene, are a thing. 1 molecule thin, almost no measurable weight, and stronger than steel.


But only only about three times as tough as silicon. Remember that being as strong (resistant to deformation) is not the same as being tough (resistant to fracture). https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10546

When building a structure, it's better to strike a balance between tough and strong materials. A component made of graphine will break before it bends, making it slightly more than 'just a math problem' . Particularly since graphine has the alarming tendency to shatter like glass.


Cronch wrote:
and don't tend to be prone to hyperbole

Pilots (in fact all military!) over-reports things. US tankers killed more tigers and panthers in ww2 than germany ever produced, and indentified every german tank as a "cat" notoriously


And how many of those tankers would have faced possible punishment/censure for reporting those kills? Or just the mockery of their fellows? There's no motive for pilots to report UFOs unless they're looking to get grounded.


 techsoldaten wrote:

But are we actually seeing objects that do something beyond what happens everyday with hard drives and bike coatings?


Yes. Individually, the phenomena associated with aren't outside our technology, mostly. But combining them all in the same package and having it work is something else all together. And it would still require a powerplant that could actually power the thing.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 20:07:54


Post by: Cronch


There's no motive for pilots to report UFOs unless they're looking to get grounded.

As someone pointed out, WW2 pilots reported foo fighters a lot.
Which brings another question, those UFOs always seem to be operating outside of scope of human tech, but not too much- they could've been visually spotted by prop plane pilots long enough to confirm they're not another prop or (later in the war) german jet, and now they linger just slow enough that human radars and bare eye can spot them. What is their nefarious plan, teasing our brave flyboys like that?


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 20:21:03


Post by: chaos0xomega


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:

For the first claim, 2D materials, like Graphene, are a thing. 1 molecule thin, almost no measurable weight, and stronger than steel.


When building a structure, it's better to strike a balance between tough and strong materials.


That really depends on what you're building and what kind of forces you expect it to be under. In general terms, you're right, but in the aerospace world theres lots of niche applications for improbable materials to be used, especially in regards to experimental aerostructures.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 20:46:47


Post by: techsoldaten


chaos0xomega wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:

For the first claim, 2D materials, like Graphene, are a thing. 1 molecule thin, almost no measurable weight, and stronger than steel.


When building a structure, it's better to strike a balance between tough and strong materials.


That really depends on what you're building and what kind of forces you expect it to be under. In general terms, you're right, but in the aerospace world theres lots of niche applications for improbable materials to be used, especially in regards to experimental aerostructures.


Furthermore, the quality of the graphene sheet itself.

Most graphene is fabricated on a substrate and possesses imperfections at the lattice level. A refined fab process that accounts for imperfections leads to much more reliable materials.



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 20:50:47


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 techsoldaten wrote:

Sonic booms are the product of displacement of air when an object with mass passes through them. Dramatically reducing the mass would be a way of reducing this affect within the atmosphere. If someone wanted to use a 2D material to produce something rugged, capable of travelling at high speeds, and operating with almost zero drag, it's probably just a math problem.

It isn't about mass of the aeroplane, it is about volume and shape. The aeroplane is having to displace the air as it moves through. This creates pressure waves which, when the plane breaks the sound barrier, creates the sonic boom.

Reducing the mass of the plane without a corresponding change in its volume and aerodynamic profile wouldn't change anything about the sonic boom it creates as it has to displace the same amount of air.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 21:01:08


Post by: techsoldaten


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:

Sonic booms are the product of displacement of air when an object with mass passes through them. Dramatically reducing the mass would be a way of reducing this affect within the atmosphere. If someone wanted to use a 2D material to produce something rugged, capable of travelling at high speeds, and operating with almost zero drag, it's probably just a math problem.

It isn't about mass of the aeroplane, it is about volume and shape. The aeroplane is having to displace the air as it moves through. This creates pressure waves which, when the plane breaks the sound barrier, creates the sonic boom.

Reducing the mass of the plane without a corresponding change in its volume and aerodynamic profile wouldn't change anything about the sonic boom it creates as it has to displace the same amount of air.


True, assuming the volume is a solid, the shape is coherent and the surface displaces air uniformly.

You offered a perfect description of how a sonic boom occurs with known materials. Now explain what's different about the TicTocs.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 21:48:07


Post by: kirotheavenger


Tictocs don't exist as flight capable craft.
They start as a barely perceived object at the edge of perception that the brain fills in with detail - which generally means the brain assumes the most dangerous outcome.

Like when you see a leaf blowing across the floor out of the corner of your eye, and your brain screams "spider!".

When you reach those speeds materials and shape don't matter that much, you're creating the sonic boom whether you like it or not.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 22:02:38


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 techsoldaten wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:

Sonic booms are the product of displacement of air when an object with mass passes through them. Dramatically reducing the mass would be a way of reducing this affect within the atmosphere. If someone wanted to use a 2D material to produce something rugged, capable of travelling at high speeds, and operating with almost zero drag, it's probably just a math problem.

It isn't about mass of the aeroplane, it is about volume and shape. The aeroplane is having to displace the air as it moves through. This creates pressure waves which, when the plane breaks the sound barrier, creates the sonic boom.

Reducing the mass of the plane without a corresponding change in its volume and aerodynamic profile wouldn't change anything about the sonic boom it creates as it has to displace the same amount of air.


True, assuming the volume is a solid, the shape is coherent and the surface displaces air uniformly.

You offered a perfect description of how a sonic boom occurs with known materials. Now explain what's different about the TicTocs.


Nothing can travel faster than the speed of sound through the atmosphere without creating a sonic boom. Even small objects like bullets and the tips of a whip obey these laws. It doesn't matter what the material is, if it takes up physical space then air must be displaced and a sonic boom will occur.

If people are claiming to see an object move faster than sound without a corresponding sonic boom then they are just wrong. If your observations do not agree with fundamental physical laws then your observations are wrong.

The best you can do is use very carefully designed angles to reduce the boom.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 22:22:03


Post by: Azreal13


I guess it's conceivable, given we're talking about tech potentially beyond current understanding, that something could reduce the atmosphere in advance of the craft, a bit like they bubble the water in diving pools to reduce the chance of injury?


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 22:35:06


Post by: kirotheavenger


Air doesn't have surface tension to break though.

Sonic booms are caused because the air can't get out of the way fast enough, it trips over itself being pushed away. Like a fire in a crowded theatre.

So breaking up the air wouldn't help, unless you had some way to teleport the air elsewhere.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 22:38:46


Post by: techsoldaten


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:

Sonic booms are the product of displacement of air when an object with mass passes through them. Dramatically reducing the mass would be a way of reducing this affect within the atmosphere. If someone wanted to use a 2D material to produce something rugged, capable of travelling at high speeds, and operating with almost zero drag, it's probably just a math problem.

It isn't about mass of the aeroplane, it is about volume and shape. The aeroplane is having to displace the air as it moves through. This creates pressure waves which, when the plane breaks the sound barrier, creates the sonic boom.

Reducing the mass of the plane without a corresponding change in its volume and aerodynamic profile wouldn't change anything about the sonic boom it creates as it has to displace the same amount of air.


True, assuming the volume is a solid, the shape is coherent and the surface displaces air uniformly.

You offered a perfect description of how a sonic boom occurs with known materials. Now explain what's different about the TicTocs.


Nothing can travel faster than the speed of sound through the atmosphere without creating a sonic boom. Even small objects like bullets and the tips of a whip obey these laws. It doesn't matter what the material is, if it takes up physical space then air must be displaced and a sonic boom will occur.

If people are claiming to see an object move faster than sound without a corresponding sonic boom then they are just wrong. If your observations do not agree with fundamental physical laws then your observations are wrong.

The best you can do is use very carefully designed angles to reduce the boom.


Eh.

'Wrong' is a poor way to refute an argument. There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical of the UFO claims, just dismissing them based on the physics isn't a good one.

Sure, there should be a sonic boom if these things actually exist and the measurements of their speed is right. The fact no sonic boom happens introduces a lot of questions, one possible answer is they don't exist. Another possible answer is we haven't put together the scientific explanation for their existence.

There are other things we can observe that move through the air faster than the speed of sound. Photons are one of them, they have a quantum state yet do not displace other particles. Light doesn't cause sonic booms.

My thoughts are that the science that could explain these things isn't that far beyond what we're already doing with material sciences and photonics. But sure, it's possible everyone involved is just making this up, maybe it's a distraction to keep us from thinking about other things.

But I doubt that. The reality is probably more interesting.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/07 22:39:50


Post by: BaronIveagh


 kirotheavenger wrote:


Tictocs don't exist as flight capable craft.

They start as a barely perceived object at the edge of perception that the brain fills in with detail - which generally means the brain assumes the most dangerous outcome.

Like when you see a leaf blowing across the floor out of the corner of your eye, and your brain screams "spider!".


When FLIR/Radar/ and the eyeball mk 1 are all in agreement, something is clearly flying. And, supposedly, some of the encounters that supposedly have been reported have been as close to the cockpit as 50 feet. That's not 'edge of perception', that's 'change of shorts'


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/08 00:33:12


Post by: chaos0xomega


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:

Sonic booms are the product of displacement of air when an object with mass passes through them. Dramatically reducing the mass would be a way of reducing this affect within the atmosphere. If someone wanted to use a 2D material to produce something rugged, capable of travelling at high speeds, and operating with almost zero drag, it's probably just a math problem.

It isn't about mass of the aeroplane, it is about volume and shape. The aeroplane is having to displace the air as it moves through. This creates pressure waves which, when the plane breaks the sound barrier, creates the sonic boom.

Reducing the mass of the plane without a corresponding change in its volume and aerodynamic profile wouldn't change anything about the sonic boom it creates as it has to displace the same amount of air.


True, assuming the volume is a solid, the shape is coherent and the surface displaces air uniformly.

You offered a perfect description of how a sonic boom occurs with known materials. Now explain what's different about the TicTocs.


Nothing can travel faster than the speed of sound through the atmosphere without creating a sonic boom. Even small objects like bullets and the tips of a whip obey these laws. It doesn't matter what the material is, if it takes up physical space then air must be displaced and a sonic boom will occur.

If people are claiming to see an object move faster than sound without a corresponding sonic boom then they are just wrong. If your observations do not agree with fundamental physical laws then your observations are wrong.

The best you can do is use very carefully designed angles to reduce the boom.


This isn't entirely correct. There is active research right now into several methods of producing supersonic flight while minimizing or virtually eliminating the sonic boom, largely linked to the effort to resuscitate supersonic commercial air travel without the restrictions which were imposed on the Concorde. At least a few of these methods have already been proven and others are very promising. There are various other methods being tested and evaluated as well. While the supersonic shockwave is not eliminated, the noise basically is - which is the part that most people care about and are concerned about within the context of this discussion.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/08 01:27:35


Post by: BaronIveagh


chaos0xomega wrote:
While the supersonic shockwave is not eliminated, the noise basically is - which is the part that most people care about and are concerned about within the context of this discussion.


That's highly debatable. The best of the two reduced it to 75db, which is about as loud as a vacuum cleaner or the average stereo. Neither of which is enough to get the ban on supersonic flight over land lifted. They do work, but not well enough to eliminate the sound.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/08 01:45:17


Post by: chaos0xomega


 BaronIveagh wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
While the supersonic shockwave is not eliminated, the noise basically is - which is the part that most people care about and are concerned about within the context of this discussion.


That's highly debatable. The best of the two reduced it to 75db, which is about as loud as a vacuum cleaner or the average stereo. Neither of which is enough to get the ban on supersonic flight over land lifted. They do work, but not well enough to eliminate the sound.


QueSST is promising 60dB, which is a good bit quieter than that - and thats not even the quietest option out there. The recently defunct Aerion was working on a mach cutoff speed technique to eliminate the boom entirely at ground level. I also stumbled across a more esoteric method the other day which used a membrane of hydraulic liquid (or something equally esoteric) on leading edges to disperse shockwaves in order to mitigate the boom.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/08 07:34:45


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 techsoldaten wrote:
There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical of the UFO claims, just dismissing them based on the physics isn't a good one.
That's a very good reason to dismiss them.

My thoughts are that the science that could explain these things isn't that far beyond what we're already doing with material sciences and photonics. But sure, it's possible everyone involved is just making this up, maybe it's a distraction to keep us from thinking about other things.

But I doubt that. The reality is probably more interesting.
It isn't really about eliminating every possible option, because once the explanation becomes less likely than 'error in human perception' there's not much of a point.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/08 19:30:08


Post by: BaronIveagh


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
That's a very good reason to dismiss them.


Not really. Challenging the validity of 'what we know' is sort of one of the corner stones of science. There's a always the possibility that there's a way around it that we simply haven't found yet. It *is* reason to treat them with skepticism, however. Once you sift through all the explainable incidents, there are still some left in the 'unexplained' bin, where the usual explanations fall short themselves. Ignoring them hasn't made them go away, or stop happening, so one really an only come to the conclusion that something is happening. What exactly is happening, however, needs serious study by qualified experts, which is, to a degree, what *hasn't* been happening.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It isn't really about eliminating every possible option, because once the explanation becomes less likely than 'error in human perception' there's not much of a point.


'Less likely' than that also doesn't necessarily equate that human error is the 'correct' answer, either. Jefferson, IIRC, held that 'stones falling from heaven' was less likely than that. Yet, geologists and astronomers at Chicxulub and Barringer Crater will tell you all about what happens when they do. Our current understanding of physics isn't the be all and end all of science.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/08 19:58:34


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Well I suppose one has to compare how often established laws of physics are overturned verses how often human perception proves fallible.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/08 20:03:49


Post by: Ketara


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Well I suppose one has to compare how often established laws of physics are overturned verses how often human perception proves fallible.


What are the laws of physics except empirically tested human perception?


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/08 20:08:32


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Ketara wrote:

What are the laws of physics except empirically tested human perception?


The key point there is empirically tested. Also independently verified.

None of which applies to UFO sightings.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/08 20:13:37


Post by: Ketara


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Ketara wrote:

What are the laws of physics except empirically tested human perception?


The key point there is empirically tested. Also independently verified.

None of which applies to UFO sightings.


Well, yeah. Obviously.

An Unidentified Flying Object is, by definition, unverified/tested. Otherwise it would't be unidentified. It would just be an FO.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/08 20:17:56


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Ketara wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Ketara wrote:

What are the laws of physics except empirically tested human perception?


The key point there is empirically tested. Also independently verified.

None of which applies to UFO sightings.


Well, yeah. Obviously.

An Unidentified Flying Object is, by definition, unverified/tested. Otherwise it would't be unidentified. It would just be an FO.


Which makes your response to Ninth meaningless, doesn't it? Considering that science operates in a way which removes the weakness of any individuals observation.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/08 20:31:32


Post by: BaronIveagh


 A Town Called Malus wrote:

The key point there is empirically tested. Also independently verified.

None of which applies to UFO sightings.


Point of fact, a UFO sighting would qualify as the first stage of the empirical cycle, since it's an observation is being made. The issue is the fact that it's hard to predict when the next will occur, so that various hypotheses could be tested.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/08 20:32:41


Post by: Ketara


 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Which makes your response to Ninth meaningless, doesn't it? Considering that science operates in a way which removes the weakness of any individuals observation.


Hardly? I'll break it down.

Baron stated 'Challenging the validity of 'what we know' is sort of one of the corner stones of science. There's a always the possibility that there's a way around it that we simply haven't found yet.' This is a basic summary of how the entire point of scientific method is that it must be constantly challenged on the assumption that existing theory is flawed. Why? Because our empirical perception of the results leads to an human (or personal) interpretation of the results which can be flawed. Any scientific theory can be flawed due to poor logical grasp of the results, because we don't understand what we saw, or because the experiment itself was flawed and had an angle that was not accounted for or understood.

Ninth's response was 'Well I suppose one has to compare how often established laws of physics are overturned verses how often human perception proves fallible.'

Hence my point was that the two are effectively the one and same thing. The 'laws of physics' are nothing more than empirical human perception in their purest form. It isn't an 'either-or' scenario. Both of them have identical fallibility rates. The minute that human perception proves fallible IS the moment that the laws of physics are overturned and vice versa.

There's a whole branch of abtruse philosophy about this sort of thing, though I find it tedious myself. Apologies if I'm not explaining it very well. It tends to lead into solipsism, which is hardly a useful area of enquiry.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/08 20:38:22


Post by: A Town Called Malus


But it isn't being challenged. In order for it to be challenged an actual testable hypothesis must be put forward.

Just saying "These UFOs cannot fly like this if our understanding of physics is correct, therefore our understanding of physics must be wrong" is not an actual challenge to the current model as there is no way to falsify the claim.

There isn't even any evidence that the multiple sightings are real, or of the same object if they are real.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/08 20:50:13


Post by: Ketara


EDIT:- I just realised that I'm leading this entire discussion down a philosophical rabbit-hole that even I detest. So I'll withdraw my comments there so as to spare both myself and everybody else meaningless intellectual labour.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/08 21:55:37


Post by: Azreal13


 kirotheavenger wrote:
Air doesn't have surface tension to break though.

Sonic booms are caused because the air can't get out of the way fast enough, it trips over itself being pushed away. Like a fire in a crowded theatre.

So breaking up the air wouldn't help, unless you had some way to teleport the air elsewhere.


That's not exclusively what the bubbles do. They reduce the density of the water, and as a consequence change the way it interacts with objects passing through it. You can sink a boat by releasing gas in a column underneath it.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1350-bubbling-seas-can-sink-ships/

If a UFO could project a corridor of reduced atmosphere in front of itself, then the speed threshold for a sonic boom would increase or go away entirely.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/08 22:48:17


Post by: BaronIveagh


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
But it isn't being challenged. In order for it to be challenged an actual testable hypothesis must be put forward.

Just saying "These UFOs cannot fly like this if our understanding of physics is correct, therefore our understanding of physics must be wrong" is not an actual challenge to the current model as there is no way to falsify the claim.

There isn't even any evidence that the multiple sightings are real, or of the same object if they are real.


Ok, well, let's put forward this hypothesis, which would seem straight forward. Something is clearly happening. Evidence: video, eye witnesses, radar readings, photographs, other detected readings, etc.

Let me ask, what are the odds that the radar screws up, on two separate ships AND an air recon platform,in exactly the same way, creating exactly the same false return, that pilots go out and see an unusual phenomena with their own eyes and record it on camera, but somehow it's all false? This isn't something the military jumped up and down and officially released to the press, they buried it and it leaked.

Clearly, something *is* happening. The offered explanation does not match observations. Therefore the explanation is incorrect. That's also science. You want religion if you want to deny the Observation with the assumption that you're right and the universe is the one that's wrong.

The proper course is to examine the evidence and see if we can determine what's happening. The previous hypothesis, that it's just 'human error', isn't holding water as well as it used to at this point, so it's time to stop and examine what's taking place in detail and come up with a hypothesis.

So far, almost every explanation that's been put forward has problems. Aliens included. So, when the report actually hits the web, we should examine it to see if we can figure it out.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/08 23:56:24


Post by: NinthMusketeer


If it is the same technology the same factor could cause all of it to screw up the same way. To go back to the rifle brigade example someone used earlier; it is quite unlikely that every rifle suddenly misfires at the same time. But if they all fired at a target and all the shots missed by skewing right one would assume there was a common factor causing it.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/09 02:14:12


Post by: BaronIveagh


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If it is the same technology the same factor could cause all of it to screw up the same way.


FLIR and radar are not the same technology. Ships and aircraft also do not use the same tech, and operate on different frequencies, generally, though it's all radar. The eyeball mk 1 is not tech at all (though I suspect the mk2 will be, and eagerly await it's arrival.)


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/09 08:17:24


Post by: kirotheavenger


 Azreal13 wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
Air doesn't have surface tension to break though.

Sonic booms are caused because the air can't get out of the way fast enough, it trips over itself being pushed away. Like a fire in a crowded theatre.

So breaking up the air wouldn't help, unless you had some way to teleport the air elsewhere.


That's not exclusively what the bubbles do. They reduce the density of the water, and as a consequence change the way it interacts with objects passing through it. You can sink a boat by releasing gas in a column underneath it.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1350-bubbling-seas-can-sink-ships/

If a UFO could project a corridor of reduced atmosphere in front of itself, then the speed threshold for a sonic boom would increase or go away entirely.

I would describe that as teleporting the air elsewhere. At least in order for it to work.
If all you did was project low density bubbles ahead of you, those bubbles would also produce sonic booms when displacing the air.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/09 08:45:01


Post by: techsoldaten


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 techsoldaten wrote:
There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical of the UFO claims, just dismissing them based on the physics isn't a good one.
That's a very good reason to dismiss them.


Not really. There are a lot of questions to answer before coming to that conclusion.

Is the object in the videos something that has mass? Easy to assume it's solid, but it could be a hollow object with a perforated 2D shell. This could explain the lack of a sonic boom, the air is not being displaced but instead travelling through the object.

Why can't we observe any signs of propulsion? We're assuming propulsion is the only means of locomotion, there are other ways to precisely move an object from point to point (especially if it's extremely light.)

I would not say anything in those videos violates any laws of physics. Seems like observers are making a lot of assumptions about the design of the object, based on what they know about aircraft.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
My thoughts are that the science that could explain these things isn't that far beyond what we're already doing with material sciences and photonics. But sure, it's possible everyone involved is just making this up, maybe it's a distraction to keep us from thinking about other things.

But I doubt that. The reality is probably more interesting.
It isn't really about eliminating every possible option, because once the explanation becomes less likely than 'error in human perception' there's not much of a point.


Yeah, these things have been observed by a lot of humans and sensors. Not ready to chalk it up to observer error.



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/09 11:27:40


Post by: Cronch


Out of curiosity, why is everyone focusing on the ufos being aliens, when in ages past it was widely accepted these strange flying things were spiritual beings? Nothing about aliens is inherently more possible than creatures existing on another plane of reality.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/09 14:30:47


Post by: Matt Swain


Cronch wrote:
Out of curiosity, why is everyone focusing on the ufos being aliens, when in ages past it was widely accepted these strange flying things were spiritual beings? Nothing about aliens is inherently more possible than creatures existing on another plane of reality.


well to be honest some people do just this, and they are generally so toxic and repugnant, not to mention revolting stupid, that few people are willing to be lumped in with them.



pat robertson said that aliens are demons, and people who confess to having encounters with them should be murdered.

https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread168123/pg1

a few others link alien and ufos to demonic entities and have made the concept so vile few will join in with them.



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/09 14:48:29


Post by: Ghool


It could be that these things are also not well understood plasma phenomena.
There’s a ton we don’t fully understand about the electromagnetic spectrum, and plasmas are a huge part of that. The ‘UFOs’ caught on some of the volcano cameras are likely plasmoids or some sort of plasma phenomenon, and they will often behave erratically, and appear to be under intelligent control.

Fact is, no one really knows what these UFOs are. They could be a number of things. But just because we can’t explain something within our current understanding doesn’t mean that it’s impossible. The hubris when it comes to science is pretty acute - we don’t know everything nor understand fully how our universe even works. We have a rough idea.
But to say that our science fully explains all observable phenomena is egotistical. We can barely predict the weather on earth accurately, and yet we’re 100% certain that our tiny slice of physics can explain all there is?
Take a look at the ‘Big problem with Cosmology’ and one will realize how little we do understand.

Things are interconnected and integrated far beyond our current comprehension and computing power, and that’s something that goes beyond our current understanding of how things work. Which means these UFOs could be real and actually exist.
As for aliens? Again, we can’t ever be 100% sure one way or the other and until we can down one of these and examine the contents.

I’d say it’s more akin to some sort of probe or drone. Alien or black project. And it could be some sort of dense plasma, which would explain the lack of propulsion and the ability to turn 90 degrees at speed, which would also explain the lack of a sonic boom - there is no solid surface to create one.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/09 14:58:08


Post by: Just Tony


Cronch wrote:Out of curiosity, why is everyone focusing on the ufos being aliens, when in ages past it was widely accepted these strange flying things were spiritual beings? Nothing about aliens is inherently more possible than creatures existing on another plane of reality.


Because any time they do, fringe raving left wingers come out to bash the intelligence of the person because that theory gives credence to things they desperately need to prove wrong...


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/09 15:10:06


Post by: Cronch


Fair, but i think it's worth considering. It could be proof that Apollo does in fact ride a sun chariot. Religions of the world are full of flying entities, it makes more sense than aliens when you think about it.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/09 15:15:31


Post by: infinite_array


Cronch wrote:
Fair, but i think it's worth considering. It could be proof that Apollo does in fact ride a sun chariot. Religions of the world are full of flying entities, it makes more sense than aliens when you think about it.


Not really? Humans have been able to send probes and machines to other planets with technology that would confound humans of earlier eras. It's not much of a leap to posit that civilizations that could cross interstellar spaces might have technology that would stump us.

The leap to transdimensional or "spiritual" beings is so much wider as seem illogical. Not to mention that, as Matt Swain said, they also tend to come from more unsavory (and that's putting it lightly) sources.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/09 16:24:58


Post by: techsoldaten


 infinite_array wrote:
Cronch wrote:
Fair, but i think it's worth considering. It could be proof that Apollo does in fact ride a sun chariot. Religions of the world are full of flying entities, it makes more sense than aliens when you think about it.


Not really? Humans have been able to send probes and machines to other planets with technology that would confound humans of earlier eras. It's not much of a leap to posit that civilizations that could cross interstellar spaces might have technology that would stump us.

The leap to transdimensional or "spiritual" beings is so much wider as seem illogical. Not to mention that, as Matt Swain said, they also tend to come from more unsavory (and that's putting it lightly) sources.


You have a good point. But is it the simplest explanation?

Sure, technological advancements always look like magic until they're understood and there's a cost / benefit rubric for sending drones that might be universal.

At the same time, space is a big place and we skew heavily towards carbon-based entities in how we define life.

Considering all of the carbon-based lifeforms we know of are highly dependent on scarce resources / environmental constants to avoid extinction, what makes us assume interstellar travel would prove a successful strategy for any advanced civilization based on this phenotype?

Greater than 90% of innovations in automobile technology since 1960 has developed around driver error. Humans are incredibly inefficient operators, it's kind of arrogant to assume an 'advanced' civilization would optimize around our current state of being. If anything, they would be looking to innovate beyond biological limitations because we do exactly that as a species.

So I don't agree that 'transdimensional' or 'spiritual' beings are illogical, there's a case to be made human-like entities and drones are less suited to the task. Any sufficiently advanced biology may indeed be indistinguishable from a 'spiritual' entity.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/09 16:31:47


Post by: chaos0xomega


I feel like the fact that one of the Navy pilots confirmed that the object evidenced telltale signs of electronic attack and jamming capabilities would indicate that its definitely not plasma phenomena or something truly bizarre. I think it pretty much narrows down the scope of what these things are to just "aliens" and "humans", and I personally would put a lot more weight on it being "humans". I mean, I guess its not out of the question that "angels" or "demons" or "interdimensional beings" might use/need to use something so "profane" as a technology that interacts with our own in a somewhat mundane manner, but at that point I think the distinction between alien and whatever else becomes essentially meaningless to me and its easier to just say they are aliens but weird. Advanced technology confused for magic and all that.

To me, it seems unlikely that a seemingly hyperadvanced interestellar alien race would still be using radio frequency technologies (especially not within the same wavelength/spectrum/frequency range that we are currently using) and thus wouldn't have compatible electronic attack capabilities built into their craft - then again, if they've been watching us for long enough they may be utilizing that capability solely as a defensive measure for their observations or whatever. IF aliens were using RF tech I would assume that their EA/EW capabilities would drastically outclass our own and they would have been much more effective at it than they actually seem to have been based on whats been disclosed - the fact that we were able to get radar locks on these things that were definitely utilizing EW capabilities to attempt to jam our sensors is basically self-evident proof that the claims of these things being 100 or 1000 years, etc. beyond our own tech is more or less pure hyperbole.

While the flight characteristics *might* (and I say might because there is a lot of uncertainty and inconsistency surrounding the narrative with regards to their actual capabilities) be indicative of a significantly more advanced technological ability than the US can presently field, there is a self-evident incongruence in the supposed level of technological advancement shown between the supposed flight capabilities and the evidenced electronic attack capabilities. This incongruence would indicate an extreme disparity in general technological capability, which in turn indicates an extreme non-uniformity/inconsistency in technological development. This seems more in line with the idea that a power like Russia or China had one specific technological breakthrough in the aerospace technology field (assuming that the flight capabilities of these things aren't being grossly exaggerated, which I think they are), as opposed to the general technological superiority expected of an advanced spacefaring species that is seemingly capable of more or less breaking the laws of physics (if the most extreme claims being made are believed).

 Just Tony wrote:
Cronch wrote:Out of curiosity, why is everyone focusing on the ufos being aliens, when in ages past it was widely accepted these strange flying things were spiritual beings? Nothing about aliens is inherently more possible than creatures existing on another plane of reality.

Because any time they do, fringe raving left wingers come out to bash the intelligence of the person because that theory gives credence to things they desperately need to prove wrong...


Hot takes, get your hot takes here! Hot takes!


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/09 17:08:48


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Ghool wrote:
It could be that these things are also not well understood plasma phenomena.
There’s a ton we don’t fully understand about the electromagnetic spectrum, and plasmas are a huge part of that.


That would be because plasma isn't part of the EM spectrum. Plasma is the 4th state of matter (the others being gas, liquid and solid). The EM spectrum is electromagnetic waves, which is light.

And you're gonna have to elaborate on what we don't understand about the EM spectrum.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/09 18:17:29


Post by: BaronIveagh


chaos0xomega wrote:
I feel like the fact that one of the Navy pilots confirmed that the object evidenced telltale signs of electronic attack and jamming capabilities would indicate that its definitely not plasma phenomena or something truly bizarre. I think it pretty much narrows down the scope of what these things are to just "aliens" and "humans", and I personally would put a lot more weight on it being "humans".


The issue with this is that the common sign of ewar they cited was that it was that the return was rotating. Which, given what we see in some of the FLIR videos, they actually do rotate. So, that might not be ewar.


chaos0xomega wrote:

To me, it seems unlikely that a seemingly hyperadvanced interestellar alien race would still be using radio frequency technologies (especially not within the same wavelength/spectrum/frequency range that we are currently using) and thus wouldn't have compatible electronic attack capabilities built into their craft - then again, if they've been watching us for long enough they may be utilizing that capability solely as a defensive measure for their observations or whatever. IF aliens were using RF tech I would assume that their EA/EW capabilities would drastically outclass our own and they would have been much more effective at it than they actually seem to have been based on whats been disclosed - the fact that we were able to get radar locks on these things that were definitely utilizing EW capabilities to attempt to jam our sensors is basically self-evident proof that the claims of these things being 100 or 1000 years, etc. beyond our own tech is more or less pure hyperbole.


Not necessarily. You're making an assumption that an alien culture's technology evolved in a similar way to our own. Given how technology evolved on earth, and how that technology is related to our biology, this may not apply. You're also making an assumption that this is an active effect rather than a passive side effect of another technology.







Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/09 19:26:23


Post by: NinthMusketeer


That seems a lot less plausible to me than human perception (and memory, for that matter) being fallible. That's really what it comes down to for me; I do not disregard the possibility of a given UFO being aliens or that the theoretical explanations for such could be valid, they just seem like the less likely conclusion. Many of these theories are also defined by a non-scientific approach of trying to prove that it IS aliens, which doesn't help.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/09 20:01:44


Post by: kirotheavenger


Wasn't it mentioned earlier in the thread that every time this pilot got interviewed facts were added, changed, or removed?

To me, that's text book human fallibility.
You see something out of the corner of your eye, or perhaps it's been a long day over empty blue skies and you're starting to hallucinate. Your brain can't really get a precise lock on the 'thing' so, as it does, it just kinda makes up the rest of the details.
You're sure of what you've seen, so you describe it to other people. But you realise it sounds a little silly, so you embolden the story with a few details. Your fallible human memory is happy to retroactively remember these details as "real", and the story is starting to take on a life of its own.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/09 20:07:44


Post by: chaos0xomega


Yeah, theres lots of stretches required for it to be aliens, whereas the explanation being human is fairly compliant with occams razor.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
I feel like the fact that one of the Navy pilots confirmed that the object evidenced telltale signs of electronic attack and jamming capabilities would indicate that its definitely not plasma phenomena or something truly bizarre. I think it pretty much narrows down the scope of what these things are to just "aliens" and "humans", and I personally would put a lot more weight on it being "humans".


The issue with this is that the common sign of ewar they cited was that it was that the return was rotating. Which, given what we see in some of the FLIR videos, they actually do rotate. So, that might not be ewar.




The tictac is called the tictac because its tictac shaped. I.E. it has a definitive long axis and a definitive short axis. Given he was watching the object on FLIR, which he reported as stationary, while also observing aspect rotation, it seems pretty safe to say that it wasn't because it actually rotated. Beyond that, you're ignoring the rest of the sentence "The target aspect on the track file was turning through 360 degrees along with some other distinct jamming indications." If the aspect rotation was the only thing going on I would agree with you, but there comes a point where theres too much going on for it to be incidental (and in this case the reason those indications aren't be divulged is most likely because they are classified).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
Wasn't it mentioned earlier in the thread that every time this pilot got interviewed facts were added, changed, or removed?

To me, that's text book human fallibility.
You see something out of the corner of your eye, or perhaps it's been a long day over empty blue skies and you're starting to hallucinate. Your brain can't really get a precise lock on the 'thing' so, as it does, it just kinda makes up the rest of the details.
You're sure of what you've seen, so you describe it to other people. But you realise it sounds a little silly, so you embolden the story with a few details. Your fallible human memory is happy to retroactively remember these details as "real", and the story is starting to take on a life of its own.


Yes, I've pointed out several times there are inconsistencies in a variety of the facts being reported in different sources and each time the story is told it gets progressively more fantastical.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/09 21:03:41


Post by: BaronIveagh


chaos0xomega wrote:

Yes, I've pointed out several times there are inconsistencies in a variety of the facts being reported in different sources and each time the story is told it gets progressively more fantastical.


Which is why on goes back to original reports that were written shortly after the event, as well as original recording of readings and gun camera footage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote:
there comes a point where theres too much going on for it to be incidental (and in this case the reason those indications aren't be divulged is most likely because they are classified).


A fair point, but men in positions to know that classified data felt that it was unusual enough to warrant investigation. NASA has, I guess, also weighed in, though I haven't read their response yet.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/09 21:19:48


Post by: Argive


Interesting stuff.

I wonder, do people think extra terrestrial/ intergalactic civilisations and beings are less plausible then extra dimensional ones?


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/09 23:15:03


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Argive wrote:
Interesting stuff.

I wonder, do people think extra terrestrial/ intergalactic civilisations and beings are less plausible then extra dimensional ones?


We can prove other planet's exist. Other dimensions are only theorized. So, I'll say 'marginally so, yes.'


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/09 23:54:05


Post by: Ghool


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 Ghool wrote:
It could be that these things are also not well understood plasma phenomena.
There’s a ton we don’t fully understand about the electromagnetic spectrum, and plasmas are a huge part of that.


That would be because plasma isn't part of the EM spectrum. Plasma is the 4th state of matter (the others being gas, liquid and solid). The EM spectrum is electromagnetic waves, which is light.

And you're gonna have to elaborate on what we don't understand about the EM spectrum.


The entire sun is made of plasma and is an electromagnetic phenomenon.
Stating that electromagnetism is solely propagated by photons only is flat out wrong.
Plasmas are created, contained and directed by magnetic fields and are created in extreme electromagnetic events, just the same as lightning. Which is comprised of much more than just photons.
Our current electric grid functions by pushing electrons through wires. Not photons.
EM covers a lot more than just light.

We have begun to predict earthquakes from electromagnetic precursors from the sun. The coronal holes and the solar wind, which consist mostly of charged particles and have a profound affect on earth crust slippage due to these charged particles reaching down into the crust close to the low velocity zone close to the mantle, which then decouples the friction that’s holding it steady, creates a slip and we have an earthquake.
This is all proven with NASA beginning to use EM precursors to detect and predict earthquakes.

There are plenty of papers detailing our misunderstanding of the electromagnetic force. I suggest reading some of them for a better understanding than from some armchair scientist on Dakka.


I think you’re making a mistake in believing that the EM spectrum contains only photons and light.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/10 01:32:37


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Ghool wrote:

The entire sun is made of plasma and is an electromagnetic phenomenon.


No. A star is a gravitational phenomena that just happens to emit electromagnetic energy as a byproduct of nuclear fusion caused by its tremendous mass and gravitational pull.

 Ghool wrote:

Stating that electromagnetism is solely propagated by photons only is flat out wrong.


Which is why he didn't.

 Ghool wrote:

Plasmas are created, contained and directed by magnetic fields and are created in extreme electromagnetic events, just the same as lightning.


Only in the laboratory. In nature they can also be created by tremendous heat and pressure. While a tokamak can use em fields to create circumstances that allow plasma to be generated, it's not the only way it comes about.

 Ghool wrote:

We have begun to predict earthquakes from electromagnetic precursors from the sun.


No, we haven't. Vito Marchitelli et al's paper is pretty controversial, since it's not the first time someone has had this idea, and thus far, they either failed to prove, or actually refuted, the connection. While there is, to my knowledge, 1 satellite launched by the Chinese and Italians studying if there is a connection, their results have yet to be released. Marchitelli appears to be making the classic correlation = causation mistake.

Here, for a study with 100 years data.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50211

 Ghool wrote:

I suggest reading some of them for a better understanding than from some armchair scientist on Dakka.


One might make a statement about pots and kettles and coloration thereof.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/10 08:25:13


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ghool wrote:

Plasmas are created, contained and directed by magnetic fields and are created in extreme electromagnetic events, just the same as lightning.


Only in the laboratory. In nature they can also be created by tremendous heat and pressure. While a tokamak can use em fields to create circumstances that allow plasma to be generated, it's not the only way it comes about.


Also, the glowing neon in a neon light? That is a plasma. It is contained by glass.

Plasma TVs? they use a plasma and are contained by glass.

Plasma does not require extreme electromagnetic events. Some plasmas are created by them but it is not always required. Plasma is just ionised gas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ghool wrote:

I think you’re making a mistake in believing that the EM spectrum contains only photons and light.


The EM spectrum explicitly refers to Electromagnetic waves, which is light. The spectrum in EM spectrum refers to the wavelengths/frequencies of the light and the corresponding classification of the light.

Radio (longest wavelength), Microwave, Infrared, Visible, Ultraviolet, X-Rays (overlaps with gamma but is produced by electron excitation), Gamma Rays (shortest wavelength and produced in the nucleus as a result of radioactive decay). That is the EM spectrum.

You are arguing with an astrophysicist on this one. I'd just take the loss.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/10 11:14:33


Post by: techsoldaten


 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ghool wrote:

I think you’re making a mistake in believing that the EM spectrum contains only photons and light.


The EM spectrum explicitly refers to Electromagnetic waves, which is light. The spectrum in EM spectrum refers to the wavelengths/frequencies of the light and the corresponding classification of the light.

Radio (longest wavelength), Microwave, Infrared, Visible, Ultraviolet, X-Rays (overlaps with gamma but is produced by electron excitation), Gamma Rays (shortest wavelength and produced in the nucleus as a result of radioactive decay). That is the EM spectrum.

You are arguing with an astrophysicist on this one. I'd just take the loss.

I would include THz on that list.

Partially for the sake of completeness. Also, those TicTocs get pretty close to ships and warfighters, suggests long wavelengths on whatever scanners they use.



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/10 19:11:39


Post by: BaronIveagh


 A Town Called Malus wrote:

You are arguing with an astrophysicist on this one. I'd just take the loss.


I hope you're talking about you, since one or two people have told me they suspected me of this one as well, and I'm not.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/10 19:33:23


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:

You are arguing with an astrophysicist on this one. I'd just take the loss.


I hope you're talking about you, since one or two people have told me they suspected me of this one as well, and I'm not.


Yep, talking about me.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/10 20:09:15


Post by: NinthMusketeer


This is the 21st century; expertise means nothing next to conviction.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/11 13:13:05


Post by: Matt Swain


I think some reluctance to agree to the possibility of ETI is that a lot of humans just can't acknowledge the possibility of a better species existing in 'their' universe.

I mean, what if we did make contact, or were contacted by, an intelligent starfaring species that had gotten its gak together, stopped having wars, achieved a peaceful advanced culture, eliminated scarcity, etc.

Now on earth people can just shrug and say "Ehh, war, murder, yeah, bad gak happens, it's just human nature, we can't change it."

Then the little grey gits with big heads and eyes show up and say "Uh, actually, if you really wanted too..."


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/11 14:22:01


Post by: Grey Templar


 Matt Swain wrote:
I think some reluctance to agree to the possibility of ETI is that a lot of humans just can't acknowledge the possibility of a better species existing in 'their' universe.

I mean, what if we did make contact, or were contacted by, an intelligent starfaring species that had gotten its gak together, stopped having wars, achieved a peaceful advanced culture, eliminated scarcity, etc.

Now on earth people can just shrug and say "Ehh, war, murder, yeah, bad gak happens, it's just human nature, we can't change it."

Then the little grey gits with big heads and eyes show up and say "Uh, actually, if you really wanted too..."


Its quite an assumption that a space faring race has "gotten its gak together" just by virtue of being a space faring race. More likely, they're just as fractured and messed up as us. And if they're not, well, they are in big trouble because it means we are gonna kick their butts all the way to Alpha Centauri after we've stripped their technology off whatever ship they come here in.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/11 18:15:45


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Matt Swain wrote:
I think some reluctance to agree to the possibility of ETI is that a lot of humans just can't acknowledge the possibility of a better species existing in 'their' universe.

I mean, what if we did make contact, or were contacted by, an intelligent starfaring species that had gotten its gak together, stopped having wars, achieved a peaceful advanced culture, eliminated scarcity, etc.

Now on earth people can just shrug and say "Ehh, war, murder, yeah, bad gak happens, it's just human nature, we can't change it."

Then the little grey gits with big heads and eyes show up and say "Uh, actually, if you really wanted too..."


Not terribly likely since all those are powerful motivators for the development of technology. You'd be surprised how much 'World War 2' is still in many of the technologies we use every day, not just in space exploration.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/11 18:31:12


Post by: NinthMusketeer


He does raise a point in that while the belief is irrational a lot of people do buy into the idea that humans are an inherently violent or barbaric species; it is a very popular trope in fiction despite the inherent irony.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/11 20:29:09


Post by: Azreal13


 Matt Swain wrote:
I think some reluctance to agree to the possibility of ETI is that a lot of humans just can't acknowledge the possibility of a better species existing in 'their' universe.

I mean, what if we did make contact, or were contacted by, an intelligent starfaring species that had gotten its gak together, stopped having wars, achieved a peaceful advanced culture, eliminated scarcity, etc.

Now on earth people can just shrug and say "Ehh, war, murder, yeah, bad gak happens, it's just human nature, we can't change it."

Then the little grey gits with big heads and eyes show up and say "Uh, actually, if you really wanted too..."


This smells an awful lot like a rejigged version of your "humans need to stop being animals" schtick from a few pages back.

Also, I don't think people are reluctant to agree to the possibility of ETI, notable numbers of highly qualified professionals in fact have stated the opposite if only by dint of sheer numbers and the probability inherent in those numbers.

The point of conjecture is whether those intelligences are space faring, or if the possibility not interstellar travel is even technically possible. Which brings us neatly back to the broad topic at hand.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/11 20:37:59


Post by: NinthMusketeer


The point of conjecture isn't even that possibility, it is whether X or Y incident is caused by such entities. Which is where the dichotomy of qualified experts who very much believe in the possibility of other intelligent life also being very skeptical of such beings causing a given UFO sighting.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/11 21:28:52


Post by: Cronch


I suspect, assuming we are still here as a technological civilization in a 100 years, someone will be asking "well what else but aliens can they be" when some space trucker reports a blip on their radar. I'd say the need for Something to exist just beyond the hills is a human psychological need and they will fit anything and everything into it.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/12 10:52:28


Post by: Matt Swain


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Matt Swain wrote:
I think some reluctance to agree to the possibility of ETI is that a lot of humans just can't acknowledge the possibility of a better species existing in 'their' universe.

I mean, what if we did make contact, or were contacted by, an intelligent starfaring species that had gotten its gak together, stopped having wars, achieved a peaceful advanced culture, eliminated scarcity, etc.

Now on earth people can just shrug and say "Ehh, war, murder, yeah, bad gak happens, it's just human nature, we can't change it."

Then the little grey gits with big heads and eyes show up and say "Uh, actually, if you really wanted too..."


Not terribly likely since all those are powerful motivators for the development of technology. You'd be surprised how much 'World War 2' is still in many of the technologies we use every day, not just in space exploration.


no, not really.

I'm fairly aware of a lot of WW2 innovations that we still use today. The microwave oven was an outgrowth of radar research. Teflon was invented during the Manhattan project. Modern computers trace their roots to the bronze goddesses of Bletchley park, research on the transistor to replace huge, slow, fragile, power hungry vacuum tubes began ij ww2m, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Azreal13 wrote:
 Matt Swain wrote:
I think some reluctance to agree to the possibility of ETI is that a lot of humans just can't acknowledge the possibility of a better species existing in 'their' universe.

I mean, what if we did make contact, or were contacted by, an intelligent starfaring species that had gotten its gak together, stopped having wars, achieved a peaceful advanced culture, eliminated scarcity, etc.

Now on earth people can just shrug and say "Ehh, war, murder, yeah, bad gak happens, it's just human nature, we can't change it."

Then the little grey gits with big heads and eyes show up and say "Uh, actually, if you really wanted too..."


This smells an awful lot like a rejigged version of your "humans need to stop being animals" schtick from a few pages back.

Also, I don't think people are reluctant to agree to the possibility of ETI, notable numbers of highly qualified professionals in fact have stated the opposite if only by dint of sheer numbers and the probability inherent in those numbers.

The point of conjecture is whether those intelligences are space faring, or if the possibility not interstellar travel is even technically possible. Which brings us neatly back to the broad topic at hand.


Don't like my posts? This is me caring.

Figure out how to use the ignore list if my posts are so unbearable to you..


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/12 14:42:45


Post by: Azreal13


Lol, ok kid, calm down.

Regurgitating debates with a new hat doesn't help anyone. Stop being so touchy and you might learn something.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/12 15:51:58


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Matt I say this out of a genuine interest in helping you--that last comment really comes across as immature. A simple 'agree to disagree' would come across as much more reasonable.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/12 16:44:15


Post by: Matt Swain


 Azreal13 wrote:
Lol, ok kid, calm down.

Regurgitating debates with a new hat doesn't help anyone. Stop being so touchy and you might learn something.


I did just learn something: I no longer want to see your condescending posts anymore!


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/12 17:22:29


Post by: Azreal13


If anyone has "tells someone they're being ignored rather than clicking ignore and moving on" on their Dakka bingo cards, be sure and tick that off!


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/12 17:49:46


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Azreal13 wrote:
If anyone has "tells someone they're being ignored rather than clicking ignore and moving on" on their Dakka bingo cards, be sure and tick that off!


You do realize that 'ignore' really is a half measure, right? I've had Ninthmusketter on ignore for years, and I can still see his posts.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/12 18:19:46


Post by: NinthMusketeer


I can think of a lot of good reasons, which leaves me curious as to which one it is/was.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/12 18:45:58


Post by: Azreal13


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
If anyone has "tells someone they're being ignored rather than clicking ignore and moving on" on their Dakka bingo cards, be sure and tick that off!


You do realize that 'ignore' really is a half measure, right? I've had Ninthmusketter on ignore for years, and I can still see his posts.


I think you need to tell Matt this, not me. I mean, I could tell him, but then he wouldn't see it!

But you're right if course, if a user has the annoying habit of spamming the forum with multiple dead end threads, Ignore does nothing, if they're quoted, Ignore does nothing.

I don't use ignore, I just keep scrolling past the responses I know are written by people who I'm likely not interested in.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/12 18:56:07


Post by: NinthMusketeer


I have adopted a habit of being more liberal with hitting ignore, but going through my ignore list every few months to remove any names for which I cannot remember the exact reason I put them there.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/13 10:35:49


Post by: Matt Swain


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
If anyone has "tells someone they're being ignored rather than clicking ignore and moving on" on their Dakka bingo cards, be sure and tick that off!


You do realize that 'ignore' really is a half measure, right? I've had Ninthmusketter on ignore for years, and I can still see his posts.


Sometimes I don't want to deal with people's gak anymore, but i don;t want them to feel like i;'d been beaten down and forced to withdraw by their 'superior' logic, i've been driven away by thing slike attitude or stupid arguments. (Comparing a sponged to a human in behavioral and intellectual terms. OWW! MY BRAIN!)





Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/13 11:22:39


Post by: Just Tony


 Matt Swain wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
If anyone has "tells someone they're being ignored rather than clicking ignore and moving on" on their Dakka bingo cards, be sure and tick that off!


You do realize that 'ignore' really is a half measure, right? I've had Ninthmusketter on ignore for years, and I can still see his posts.


Sometimes I don't want to deal with people's gak anymore, but i don;t want them to feel like i;'d been beaten down and forced to withdraw by their 'superior' logic, i've been driven away by thing slike attitude or stupid arguments. (Comparing a sponged to a human in behavioral and intellectual terms. OWW! MY BRAIN!)





So basically you want the last word and to be right.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/13 14:32:45


Post by: NinthMusketeer


The funny part being it was him who put humans and sponges on the same intellectual level and I was pointing out the absurdity; the argument that 'hurts his brain' so much is his own.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/13 17:20:13


Post by: chaos0xomega


I want to revisit the "looked like a downed jetliner, larger than a submarine" observation from a few pages back:




This is a diagram of a Russian seismic survey submarine, you can read more about it here: http://www.hisutton.com/Seismic_Survey_Sub.html

So heres the rub - this thing hasn't been built yet, not even sure if its currently under construction or not, but definitely could not have been seen in 2004....

...unless something similar was secretly built previously. This thing is actually slightly smaller than a Typhoon (length wise), and back in '04 our pilots would not have had a lot of familiarity with the Typhoon or any submarine nearly that large - there were only 7 laid down that we know of, of which only 6 were completed. By 2004, half of them had been withdrawn from active service years prior and the other half were mostly spending their time rusting away at dock. Entirely possible one of them had been refit with wings or that there was an 8th one-off with something similar fixed to it, etc.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/13 17:58:18


Post by: BaronIveagh


chaos0xomega wrote:
'04 our pilots would not have had a lot of familiarity with the Typhoon or any submarine nearly that large - there were only 7 laid down that we know of, of which only 6 were completed. By 2004, half of them had been withdrawn from active service years prior and the other half were mostly spending their time rusting away at dock. .


Point of fact,the guys that we trained to watch for those were still flying birds in '04. The decommissioned boats hadn't been out of circulation THAT long, only one of which had actually been scrapped, the rest had vanished into the Russian mothball fleet, and the Russians were loudly making noise about recommissioning them with new load outs or repurposing them for other uses at the time. I seem to remember that one of the suggestions that was actually examined was using them as submarine freighters.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/13 18:30:01


Post by: Matt Swain


 Just Tony wrote:
 Matt Swain wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
If anyone has "tells someone they're being ignored rather than clicking ignore and moving on" on their Dakka bingo cards, be sure and tick that off!


You do realize that 'ignore' really is a half measure, right? I've had Ninthmusketter on ignore for years, and I can still see his posts.


Sometimes I don't want to deal with people's gak anymore, but i don;t want them to feel like i;'d been beaten down and forced to withdraw by their 'superior' logic, i've been driven away by thing slike attitude or stupid arguments. (Comparing a sponged to a human in behavioral and intellectual terms. OWW! MY BRAIN!)





So basically you want the last word and to be right.


Whatever. I explained how i felt, take it how you want to.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote:
I want to revisit the "looked like a downed jetliner, larger than a submarine" observation from a few pages back:




This is a diagram of a Russian seismic survey submarine, you can read more about it here: http://www.hisutton.com/Seismic_Survey_Sub.html

So heres the rub - this thing hasn't been built yet, not even sure if its currently under construction or not, but definitely could not have been seen in 2004....

...unless something similar was secretly built previously. This thing is actually slightly smaller than a Typhoon (length wise), and back in '04 our pilots would not have had a lot of familiarity with the Typhoon or any submarine nearly that large - there were only 7 laid down that we know of, of which only 6 were completed. By 2004, half of them had been withdrawn from active service years prior and the other half were mostly spending their time rusting away at dock. Entirely possible one of them had been refit with wings or that there was an 8th one-off with something similar fixed to it, etc.


Honestly, what would this thing do? I mean, what goal justifies the titanic cost of building this monstrosity? I'm not attacking the OP, no. I'm asking what the payoff for building this would be especially is a country like russia who's economy is a radioactive trainwreck. (Fun fact time! Russia is the largest country in the world in terms of surface area, yet its GDP and economy are slightly smaller than New York state's! )

Given russia's economy is pretty much at third world levels for most people i imagine there'd have to be some pretty big ROI projected for this kind of expense. I can't see what this thing could do that smaller, cheaper vessels couldn't do as well or better. Unless it just gives pooty a thrill to have big biggest longest...sub in the world at his command.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/13 19:49:50


Post by: Flinty


Mineral deposits, oil fields, stuff of that nature I would think. Also long duration observation missions.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/13 20:24:55


Post by: chaos0xomega


 BaronIveagh wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
'04 our pilots would not have had a lot of familiarity with the Typhoon or any submarine nearly that large - there were only 7 laid down that we know of, of which only 6 were completed. By 2004, half of them had been withdrawn from active service years prior and the other half were mostly spending their time rusting away at dock. .


Point of fact,the guys that we trained to watch for those were still flying birds in '04. The decommissioned boats hadn't been out of circulation THAT long, only one of which had actually been scrapped, the rest had vanished into the Russian mothball fleet, and the Russians were loudly making noise about recommissioning them with new load outs or repurposing them for other uses at the time. I seem to remember that one of the suggestions that was actually examined was using them as submarine freighters.


Seeing one in the wild is a bit different from seeing photography of one, chances are none of them had ever encountered one before in-person given the ranks of everyone involved, all of them likely commissioned into the fleet after the fall of the Soviet Union when the boats were mostly rotting away at their piers - not that they probably would have encountered them anyway given that the Typhoons were mostly used to sail routes under the Arctic circle. Stick those long sensor wing arrays on one and a pilot isn't going to have any idea what they are looking at.

Also, to say they hadn't been out of circulation that long is a bit inaccurate. One of the 6 had been in drydock since 1990 and was only just starting to go through sea trials after completing a 12+ year long refit, 2 others had been formally withdrawn from active service 8 years prior to these events - but neither had left dock in 4-5 years prior to that anyway, so the withdrawal from service was more a formality than it was a practical change in status. The fourth had basically been sitting at dock since 1995 in need of repairs and wouldn't formally be retired until 1999. I could only find details on one of the boats (TK-20) remaining in consistent, regular and active use through the 90s and early 2000s, what little I could find about the other outstanding boat (TK-17) leads me to believe that it was mostly in a similar level of activity but there is an absence of detailed OSINT accounting for it unlike the other boats.

Honestly, what would this thing do? I mean, what goal justifies the titanic cost of building this monstrosity? I'm not attacking the OP, no. I'm asking what the payoff for building this would be especially is a country like russia who's economy is a radioactive trainwreck. (Fun fact time! Russia is the largest country in the world in terms of surface area, yet its GDP and economy are slightly smaller than New York state's! )

Given russia's economy is pretty much at third world levels for most people i imagine there'd have to be some pretty big ROI projected for this kind of expense. I can't see what this thing could do that smaller, cheaper vessels couldn't do as well or better. Unless it just gives pooty a thrill to have big biggest longest...sub in the world at his command.


Those wings carry sonar arrays which would be used to survey for seismic and geological activity under the arctic icecap - its an activity that is mostly done by surface vessels today, but can't be done in the arctic due to the presence of ice - the Russian solution is to go under the ice to survey the unsurveyable areas. The primary motivating factor here is to identify minerals and resources that will be available for exploitation in the coming decades as the arctic ice continues to thin out and withdraw - so the potential ROI is actually pretty massive. The cost is actually pretty low (provided the Russian gov't is being ransparent) as they are not being fit out with military hardware and systems which is where most of the cost in constructing a submarine is, russian sources indicate it only costs about 40% that of other Russian military submarines of similar size. You also have to keep purchasing power in mind - the Russians (and Chinese) can get a lot more for every dollar spent than the US can due to the significantly higher standards of living in the US (thats why the whole "the US spends more on defense than the next 10 nations combined" thing is a hilarious meme when you actually consider what all that defense spending actually gets us relative to our peers - our personnel expenditures alone are larger than the entire military budget of Russia or China, and it isn't because we have more personnel in uniform than they do).

And yes, Russia does currently have the biggest subs in the world - this would actually be smaller.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/13 21:11:48


Post by: Matt Swain


chaos0xomega wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
'04 our pilots would not have had a lot of familiarity with the Typhoon or any submarine nearly that large - there were only 7 laid down that we know of, of which only 6 were completed. By 2004, half of them had been withdrawn from active service years prior and the other half were mostly spending their time rusting away at dock. .


Point of fact,the guys that we trained to watch for those were still flying birds in '04. The decommissioned boats hadn't been out of circulation THAT long, only one of which had actually been scrapped, the rest had vanished into the Russian mothball fleet, and the Russians were loudly making noise about recommissioning them with new load outs or repurposing them for other uses at the time. I seem to remember that one of the suggestions that was actually examined was using them as submarine freighters.


Seeing one in the wild is a bit different from seeing photography of one, chances are none of them had ever encountered one before in-person given the ranks of everyone involved, all of them likely commissioned into the fleet after the fall of the Soviet Union when the boats were mostly rotting away at their piers - not that they probably would have encountered them anyway given that the Typhoons were mostly used to sail routes under the Arctic circle. Stick those long sensor wing arrays on one and a pilot isn't going to have any idea what they are looking at.

Also, to say they hadn't been out of circulation that long is a bit inaccurate. One of the 6 had been in drydock since 1990 and was only just starting to go through sea trials after completing a 12+ year long refit, 2 others had been formally withdrawn from active service 8 years prior to these events - but neither had left dock in 4-5 years prior to that anyway, so the withdrawal from service was more a formality than it was a practical change in status. The fourth had basically been sitting at dock since 1995 in need of repairs and wouldn't formally be retired until 1999. I could only find details on one of the boats (TK-20) remaining in consistent, regular and active use through the 90s and early 2000s, what little I could find about the other outstanding boat (TK-17) leads me to believe that it was mostly in a similar level of activity but there is an absence of detailed OSINT accounting for it unlike the other boats.

Honestly, what would this thing do? I mean, what goal justifies the titanic cost of building this monstrosity? I'm not attacking the OP, no. I'm asking what the payoff for building this would be especially is a country like russia who's economy is a radioactive trainwreck. (Fun fact time! Russia is the largest country in the world in terms of surface area, yet its GDP and economy are slightly smaller than New York state's! )

Given russia's economy is pretty much at third world levels for most people i imagine there'd have to be some pretty big ROI projected for this kind of expense. I can't see what this thing could do that smaller, cheaper vessels couldn't do as well or better. Unless it just gives pooty a thrill to have big biggest longest...sub in the world at his command.


Those wings carry sonar arrays which would be used to survey for seismic and geological activity under the arctic icecap - its an activity that is mostly done by surface vessels today, but can't be done in the arctic due to the presence of ice - the Russian solution is to go under the ice to survey the unsurveyable areas. The primary motivating factor here is to identify minerals and resources that will be available for exploitation in the coming decades as the arctic ice continues to thin out and withdraw - so the potential ROI is actually pretty massive. The cost is actually pretty low (provided the Russian gov't is being ransparent) as they are not being fit out with military hardware and systems which is where most of the cost in constructing a submarine is, russian sources indicate it only costs about 40% that of other Russian military submarines of similar size. You also have to keep purchasing power in mind - the Russians (and Chinese) can get a lot more for every dollar spent than the US can due to the significantly higher standards of living in the US (thats why the whole "the US spends more on defense than the next 10 nations combined" thing is a hilarious meme when you actually consider what all that defense spending actually gets us relative to our peers - our personnel expenditures alone are larger than the entire military budget of Russia or China, and it isn't because we have more personnel in uniform than they do).

And yes, Russia does currently have the biggest subs in the world - this would actually be smaller.


To quote Vin Diesel in one of his movies "I live for this XXXX!"

I asked a reasonable question and you make an extremely reasonable, cogent, informative response, sans snark . This is one reason i stay on the internet, the occasional diamond among the detritus. I exalted this and wish i could do more.

I was thinking that we should not be looking for more oilfields, we should be sinking money into permanent alternatives to fossil fuels. However russia's flaming, radioactive, toxic trainwreck of a third world economy depends on fossil fuels for survival, so yes, i guess putting the rubles into this is sensible from the perspective of pooty.

I am somewhat surprised they want to builds an original submarine when they could just repurpose one of the Typhoon class hulls at maybe a fraction of the cost of a new hull. Remove the missile and torpedo systems and you'd have lots of space to work with. Oh well, i guess pooty has to keep his oligarch buddies in the construction contracting business happy. I should realize a kratocracy can't be expected be logical.

You did a great job making sense of this, or at least pointing me in the direction i could see the sense of it from the russians (Pootys') POV. It was informative and thought provoking. I hope oy keep posting like this.

(But i still think america wastes waay too much on defense spending that we should spend on education, infrastructure, new energy, etc. )



Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/14 22:41:36


Post by: NinthMusketeer


The passive-aggressive is strong in this one.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/16 10:55:04


Post by: Pacific


Guys please don't get the thread locked, it has been such interesting reading so far. :(

 Grey Templar wrote:
 Matt Swain wrote:
I think some reluctance to agree to the possibility of ETI is that a lot of humans just can't acknowledge the possibility of a better species existing in 'their' universe.

I mean, what if we did make contact, or were contacted by, an intelligent starfaring species that had gotten its gak together, stopped having wars, achieved a peaceful advanced culture, eliminated scarcity, etc.

Now on earth people can just shrug and say "Ehh, war, murder, yeah, bad gak happens, it's just human nature, we can't change it."

Then the little grey gits with big heads and eyes show up and say "Uh, actually, if you really wanted too..."


Its quite an assumption that a space faring race has "gotten its gak together" just by virtue of being a space faring race. More likely, they're just as fractured and messed up as us. And if they're not, well, they are in big trouble because it means we are gonna kick their butts all the way to Alpha Centauri after we've stripped their technology off whatever ship they come here in.


There was a quote I read some time ago about any space-faring race (which has gained the ability to travel between stars) will have to have resolved it's self-destructive and violent tendencies, or it would have destroyed itself with the technology before reaching that point. Sadly I can't remember who said it - possibly either Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawkins?

Although I know Hawkins issued a kind of 'warning' some years ago about it perhaps not being that good an idea to broadcast our existence quite so widely, as we don't know who is listening and whether they would be benevolent, so who knows!


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/16 12:26:46


Post by: Cronch


Water-stealing alien invaders would steal less water than Nestle and CocaCola, I say bring on alien invaders for a better future


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/16 19:24:15


Post by: NinthMusketeer


"Self-destructive" and "violent" tendencies really aren't. They are maladaptive, aspects of traits which are beneficial in natural conditions but have become detrimental in the wholly unnatural conditions of large-scale societies. The other aspect is a tragedy of the commons, where the self-destructive act of a whole population is tied to behaviors that are benign or even helpful at an individual level.

But those aren't our most powerful drives. Take any random group of strangers and put them in a situation, the first thing they will do is make their best effort at communication and cooperation. Even our most violent actions are done only within a context of cooperation and being part of a larger group. The human "tendancy" for violence is entirely subservient to the human tendency for cooperation. If it wasn't, we would never have created large scale civilization in the first place. And we have no reason to believe any other intelligent species would be different.

To put more simply, any species able to create civilization has already overcome any inherent drive for violence long before they hit the bronze age, let alone space travel.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/16 19:46:57


Post by: BaronIveagh


 NinthMusketeer wrote:

But those aren't our most powerful drives. Take any random group of strangers and put them in a situation, the first thing they will do is make their best effort at communication and cooperation. Even our most violent actions are done only within a context of cooperation and being part of a larger group. The human "tendancy" for violence is entirely subservient to the human tendency for cooperation. If it wasn't, we would never have created large scale civilization in the first place. And we have no reason to believe any other intelligent species would be different.


Actually we created civilization to protect ourselves from other groups more efficiently. Archeological and Paleontological finds suggest that violence is hot on the heels of prostitution and hunting, possibly beating out even farming, when it comes to human occupations. Further, once those strangers determine who can communicate and who can't, they immediately segregate into groups, which then typically come into conflict with one another.

Which means that it's entirely possible that we could encounter an alien species that believes in 'preemptive defense'.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/17 00:47:45


Post by: Grey Templar


 Pacific wrote:
Guys please don't get the thread locked, it has been such interesting reading so far. :(

 Grey Templar wrote:
 Matt Swain wrote:
I think some reluctance to agree to the possibility of ETI is that a lot of humans just can't acknowledge the possibility of a better species existing in 'their' universe.

I mean, what if we did make contact, or were contacted by, an intelligent starfaring species that had gotten its gak together, stopped having wars, achieved a peaceful advanced culture, eliminated scarcity, etc.

Now on earth people can just shrug and say "Ehh, war, murder, yeah, bad gak happens, it's just human nature, we can't change it."

Then the little grey gits with big heads and eyes show up and say "Uh, actually, if you really wanted too..."


Its quite an assumption that a space faring race has "gotten its gak together" just by virtue of being a space faring race. More likely, they're just as fractured and messed up as us. And if they're not, well, they are in big trouble because it means we are gonna kick their butts all the way to Alpha Centauri after we've stripped their technology off whatever ship they come here in.


There was a quote I read some time ago about any space-faring race (which has gained the ability to travel between stars) will have to have resolved it's self-destructive and violent tendencies, or it would have destroyed itself with the technology before reaching that point. Sadly I can't remember who said it - possibly either Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawkins?

Although I know Hawkins issued a kind of 'warning' some years ago about it perhaps not being that good an idea to broadcast our existence quite so widely, as we don't know who is listening and whether they would be benevolent, so who knows!


Yes, someone said it. It was also a stupid thing to say, humanity is itself a good example. We still are as violent and self-destructive as ever, and have more and more destructive means than ever before. Yet, we have not wiped ourselves out. The opposite in fact.

If anything, a species as fiercely as competitive as ours would be more likely to develop advanced space faring technology. You want to beat your neighbors to space, beat them to making extraterrestrial colonies, etc...

If there are space faring aliens out there they would most likely be fractured into as many different geopolitical organizations as we humans are. Each competing with each other for resources, just on a larger scale than we currently have on Earth. That would actually make more sense with what we have seen in history, competition and war is what drives innovation and advancement, not peace and harmony. Peace and harmony leads to stagnation and decay.

18th-19th century China is an example of what an insular alien society would look like if it was totally unified and had no internal divisions or threats. A society with no drive towards innovation or development, only technological stagnation.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/17 04:23:31


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:

But those aren't our most powerful drives. Take any random group of strangers and put them in a situation, the first thing they will do is make their best effort at communication and cooperation. Even our most violent actions are done only within a context of cooperation and being part of a larger group. The human "tendancy" for violence is entirely subservient to the human tendency for cooperation. If it wasn't, we would never have created large scale civilization in the first place. And we have no reason to believe any other intelligent species would be different.


Actually we created civilization to protect ourselves from other groups more efficiently. Archeological and Paleontological finds suggest that violence is hot on the heels of prostitution and hunting, possibly beating out even farming, when it comes to human occupations. Further, once those strangers determine who can communicate and who can't, they immediately segregate into groups, which then typically come into conflict with one another.

Which means that it's entirely possible that we could encounter an alien species that believes in 'preemptive defense'.
I don't know where you got that narrative but it is very inaccurate.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/17 08:14:06


Post by: Pacific


NinthMusketeer wrote:"Self-destructive" and "violent" tendencies really aren't. They are maladaptive, aspects of traits which are beneficial in natural conditions but have become detrimental in the wholly unnatural conditions of large-scale societies. The other aspect is a tragedy of the commons, where the self-destructive act of a whole population is tied to behaviors that are benign or even helpful at an individual level.

But those aren't our most powerful drives. Take any random group of strangers and put them in a situation, the first thing they will do is make their best effort at communication and cooperation. Even our most violent actions are done only within a context of cooperation and being part of a larger group. The human "tendancy" for violence is entirely subservient to the human tendency for cooperation. If it wasn't, we would never have created large scale civilization in the first place. And we have no reason to believe any other intelligent species would be different.

To put more simply, any species able to create civilization has already overcome any inherent drive for violence long before they hit the bronze age, let alone space travel.


Managed to find the quote (I think one of them) and it's Stephen Hawking.
https://fortune.com/2017/03/09/stephen-hawking-technology-humanity/

I agree completely that there is an inherent drive for co-operation - our species is social in nature and our genes are passed on through success of our tribes/groups.

But, the instinct for competition is still very much who we are (I'm grossly simplifying here but you could argue is part of the drive for survival of life itself) and specifically amongst humans within tribal groups. The concept of 'us' vs 'them' is a very powerful one and some of the worst atrocities in human history have been carried out on that basis.
Has that really changed? We've seen the resurgence of populist governments in the last decade in Hungary, Turkey, the Philippines, sadly the UK and US too that have driven that narrative where our instincts for compassion and caring for our neighbours are overwhelmed by a fear for our survival, of our own group, and to achieve this that 'other' (who we do not recognise as a human being, or like 'us') - and at that point the violence still occurs.

So re. this topic, right now the civilisation-ending capabilities are restricted to the use of nuclear weapons. We are fortunate that the production of these weapons requires a high technological base, and the creation of them can be monitored by international bodies. You can't create a weapon that could kill millions with a bit of tin foil and a microwave. But what if that was to change in future? The creation of new energy forms that have a vast destructive potential, or can be produced more simply. The use of DNA-printing devices, where suddenly someone with a medical degree can produce a highly dangerous virus - this technology in particular is likely to be created within the next 20 years.
At this point the cracks in our 'global' society become potentially more dangerous. It would only need a single group or person, feeling aggrieved or persecuted against that tribal 'other' (whatever form that might take; political, religious, ethnic) to release that weapon. And events of the last 18 months have to show that really our balance as a civilisation and society is absolutely not set in stone.

Re. Grey Templar's comment about violence in society, reading Yuval Harari's book Sapiens quite recently, we are actually far less violent/destructive now than we have been as a species at any other time of our history, in terms of total volumes of death caused by war (either state or internecine). That's just looking at the raw numbers, of course with media coverage and the fact that war is now available for everyone to view 24/7 it would appear otherwise.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/17 13:52:15


Post by: Cronch


Yet, we have not wiped ourselves out. The opposite in fact.

We're in the middle of an anthropogenic extinction event and I am sure it will not cause a collapse of foodchains across the world.
Oh, and the climate change which is pretty much at point of no return.
I'm sure we'll be fine.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/17 20:59:25


Post by: BaronIveagh


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't know where you got that narrative but it is very inaccurate.


"The evolution of lethal intergroup violence" Kelly, 2005

Also the dig at Jebel Sahaba. When 40% of bodies found on site have apparently died of weapon injuries, odds are good that those weapons were probably in the hands of other hominids, 13,000 years ago or not.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/17 23:36:43


Post by: NinthMusketeer


I'm going to back out of this line of discussion now, I don't want to invest the effort into untangling that.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/19 17:49:10


Post by: Azreal13


So here's a random thought that struck me while watching Discovery.

What if the classic "Grey" wasn't an example of an alien race, but an engineered organism designed specifically to pilot an exploratory craft and designed after the template of the dominant species of the planet being travelled to?

I mean, we're well on our own way to being able to build organics from scratch, wouldn't it be feasible that a more developed spacefaring civilization would be able to do this too?


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/19 21:27:20


Post by: Cronch


The classic "grey" never appeared in any recountings of aliens prior to the 1960s when it was popularized by one abduction claim. I find it very suspicious that the aliens that abduct people change their look based on popular fiction of the time.
Also why would you design an organism so poorly suited to space/air travel and yet so clearly different to the dominant species?


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/20 16:07:28


Post by: Azreal13


It became popular in the 60s yes, but to say "it never appeared" prior to then is objectively untrue.

I can't answer your questions as to the design as that would require speculation upon speculation on something that's purely hypothetical in the first instance.

However, making assumptions as to what they may or may not be suited to, without establishing a theoretical baseline of their biology nor how they might indeed be travelling on board a vessel isn't a compelling rebuttal.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/20 22:27:32


Post by: Argive


I think the classic grey being some sort of drone makes perfect sense. Seen this theory in various places and it kind of makes sense.

If you were advanced to be sending out scout ships/probes to get data and explore the universe. It makes sense you wouldn't be sending your best and brightest on these potentially dangerous trips on the front lines..

IF interstellar travel has been achieves by these civilisations, there is no reason to assume it would be totaly safe or that their technology would be infallible. Anomalies solar flares and other things all could occur at random. I don't see why assume whatever civilisation is doing this exploration/visits would have mastered the technology, and not be in the process of development. After all the universe is a very big place full of very weird and strange phenomenon.

If we assume they have total mastery of the technology and knowledge of the universe, why bother with any kind of exploration in the first place using physical craft?

The only thing that bugs me with this theory is: Why you'd make your drone bipedal humonoid.. Seems like a very inefficient frame to work with.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/20 22:54:08


Post by: Cronch


 Azreal13 wrote:
It became popular in the 60s yes, but to say "it never appeared" prior to then is objectively untrue.

I can't answer your questions as to the design as that would require speculation upon speculation on something that's purely hypothetical in the first instance.

However, making assumptions as to what they may or may not be suited to, without establishing a theoretical baseline of their biology nor how they might indeed be travelling on board a vessel isn't a compelling rebuttal.

You're right, it did appear before that, in sci-fi. 1891 novel if wikipedia is to be believed, and a handful other novels afterwards.
But yes, I find it extremely unlikely that actual aliens would have the same shape as invented by a sci-fi writer.
It makes sense you wouldn't be sending your best and brightest on these potentially dangerous trips on the front lines..

Except that's literally what we do, because what sense is there to send a dullard on a mission of exploration? If you just need something to gather samples, a machine will do the job so much better than a sentient being.

Like I said before, nothing about ufo and alien sightings makes coherent sense, they function on the same basis as conspiracy stories- so complex and deep they have the whole world dancing to their tune, yet so simple and easy to detect that a dentist from Nowhereville can decipher their evil plans. These aliens are also so advanced we cannot tell what they want, but so clumsy as to be detected by basic equipment like radar and so careless as to be flying on the same path as primitive airplanes. They can travel through the stars to observe humanity, but have to land and probe butts to learn about us, and apparently are worse than med student at keeping victims knocked out.


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/20 23:35:14


Post by: Azreal13


Except that's literally what we do


After we'd sent cats, dogs, monkeys...


Sooo.. UFOs @ 2021/06/20 23:35:29


Post by: Argive


Cronch wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
It became popular in the 60s yes, but to say "it never appeared" prior to then is objectively untrue.

I can't answer your questions as to the design as that would require speculation upon speculation on something that's purely hypothetical in the first instance.

However, making assumptions as to what they may or may not be suited to, without establishing a theoretical baseline of their biology nor how they might indeed be travelling on board a vessel isn't a compelling rebuttal.

You're right, it did appear before that, in sci-fi. 1891 novel if wikipedia is to be believed, and a handful other novels afterwards.
But yes, I find it extremely unlikely that actual aliens would have the same shape as invented by a sci-fi writer.
It makes sense you wouldn't be sending your best and brightest on these potentially dangerous trips on the front lines..

Except that's literally what we do, because what sense is there to send a dullard on a mission of exploration? If you just need something to gather samples, a machine will do the job so much better than a sentient being.

Like I said before, nothing about ufo and alien sightings makes coherent sense, they function on the same basis as conspiracy stories- so complex and deep they have the whole world dancing to their tune, yet so simple and easy to detect that a dentist from Nowhereville can decipher their evil plans. These aliens are also so advanced we cannot tell what they want, but so clumsy as to be detected by basic equipment like radar and so careless as to be flying on the same path as primitive airplanes. They can travel through the stars to observe humanity, but have to land and probe butts to learn about us, and apparently are worse than med student at keeping victims knocked out.


Except we don't.. We send robots/probes to places like mars and beyond as its too dangerous/technologically challenging for live humans.
Yes we routinely send people to the ISS, but that's only because we've been at it for a while and its really not that far.. We haven't followed up to the moon with more people really either but probes(robots essentially) plenty. The human space faring was built on sending out monkeys and dogs and frogs out before humans as well. Why would we risk humans being blasted into the unknown if a an android/robot could get the same data?

The only reason we currently send humans because our robotics/ engineering just cant perform as well as a humans.. And we have not developed sufficient AI as well.
If we could make androids truly in every sense of the word, they would be more survivable and resilient than a human, not require the same level of life support or be as vulnerable to void of space/radiation. I think we would be sending these androids out rather than humans to do really dangerous jobs/trips if we could actually make them and certainly if you could somehow interface with them and operate them remotely.