Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. The video has some pretty freaky stuff, but it's not so freaky that missiles suddenly become unable to track it or anything.

It's less like having a nuclear weapon during the Roman Empire, and more like having scythe chariots during the Roman Empire. It's a thing, and it'd be powerful, but not really an 'out of context' problem or anything like some people seem to be implying.

Romans dealt reasonably easily with Scythed chariots

be interesting if it was Aliens, but real life does not seem to be that interesting.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. The video has some pretty freaky stuff, but it's not so freaky that missiles suddenly become unable to track it or anything.

It's less like having a nuclear weapon during the Roman Empire, and more like having scythe chariots during the Roman Empire. It's a thing, and it'd be powerful, but not really an 'out of context' problem or anything like some people seem to be implying.

Romans dealt reasonably easily with Scythed chariots

be interesting if it was Aliens, but real life does not seem to be that interesting.

Right, that's my point. Good tactics and training can overcome that sort of purely technological advantage, especially if said super-tech is very expensive.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. The video has some pretty freaky stuff, but it's not so freaky that missiles suddenly become unable to track it or anything

Track it, yes, catch it, no. When the Hornets caught up with the two objects detected, one was underwater (????) and the other was only traveling at mach 2 according to radar aboard USS Princeton. It then accelerated away, according to radar, hitting mach 61. By the time the planes reached the second location they were given, the object was long gone.

Just for comparison, some of the fastest air to air and ground to air missiles top out at about 2.5-3km per second. This sucker hit 18km per second in under two seconds. The stress that sort of acceleration would put on the air-frame would be off the chart.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. The video has some pretty freaky stuff, but it's not so freaky that missiles suddenly become unable to track it or anything.

It's less like having a nuclear weapon during the Roman Empire, and more like having scythe chariots during the Roman Empire. It's a thing, and it'd be powerful, but not really an 'out of context' problem or anything like some people seem to be implying.

Romans dealt reasonably easily with Scythed chariots

be interesting if it was Aliens, but real life does not seem to be that interesting.

Right, that's my point. Good tactics and training can overcome that sort of purely technological advantage, especially if said super-tech is very expensive.

Just a little historical nitpick here. Chariots (both scythed and not) actually were already ancient and largely outdated weapons by the Roman era. Chariots saw their height in bronze age warfare (the battle of Kadesh in 1274 BC for example saw something like 5000 chariots involved), in the iron age they fell largely out of use as warfare shifted to ranks of massed spear-armed infantry (against which chariots are useless), although the Persians, Celtic tribes and others did keep employing them to some degree in a fast skirmishing role until eventually being replaced in that role as well by more agile light cavalry.
Also, having a nuke in the Roman era would not be that effective. You could use it to destroy a single city, but that is hardly going to give you victory in a war against a large empire. Using it against non-settled peoples would just be a waste. You also could not use it to threaten or bluff, because no one is going to believe that that funny metal cylinder can destroy an entire city. You would need to demonstrate it first, but that would lose you your nuke. Getting assault rifles and lots of ammo would be more effective than a nuke. Imagine what the world would have looked like if the Roman legions had been armed with assault rifles instead of swords and javelins.

Your point stands though. Tactics, training or sheer numbers can all overcome a technological advantage if used effectively.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. The video has some pretty freaky stuff, but it's not so freaky that missiles suddenly become unable to track it or anything

Track it, yes, catch it, no. When the Hornets caught up with the two objects detected, one was underwater (????) and the other was only traveling at mach 2 according to radar aboard USS Princeton. It then accelerated away, according to radar, hitting mach 61. By the time the planes reached the second location they were given, the object was long gone.

Just for comparison, some of the fastest air to air and ground to air missiles top out at about 2.5-3km per second. This sucker hit 18km per second in under two seconds. The stress that sort of acceleration would put on the air-frame would be off the chart.

I am more inclined to believe that this thing had something to confuse their sensors than it was actually going that fast.

My guess is its some sort of super-high speed prototype aircraft that is also carrying some new tech to befuddle tracking attempts.

And what better way to test it then to have it fly by some unsuspecting friendlies to see how they can do with it? The pilots likely weren't in on it, maybe not even the people on the Princeton.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah. The video has some pretty freaky stuff, but it's not so freaky that missiles suddenly become unable to track it or anything.

It's less like having a nuclear weapon during the Roman Empire, and more like having scythe chariots during the Roman Empire. It's a thing, and it'd be powerful, but not really an 'out of context' problem or anything like some people seem to be implying.

Romans dealt reasonably easily with Scythed chariots

be interesting if it was Aliens, but real life does not seem to be that interesting.

Right, that's my point. Good tactics and training can overcome that sort of purely technological advantage, especially if said super-tech is very expensive.

Debatable, that really depends on the exact technological level. Speaking of human civilization/history, sure that holds true for the most part.

But once you put actual space-faring aliens (as some would imply) into the mix all bets are off on if training and tactics can still be effective if you can't even scratch the things you're fighting.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Sure, aliens exist, that is a pretty safe assumption based on the sheer size of the universe.

Them coming here and just flying about for a hundred years or so? Main counterargument would be a simple "why?" Any sufficiently advanced race must have much better ways of even just 'monitoring' us beyond randomly flying around.

Want a weird answer that most people don't bring up? Conservation, as in environment conservation, like we do with wildlife in the USA.

Tell me if this sounds familiar. Individual is tracked through woods from a low flying object. Individual is incapacitated, abducted and then has their vitals tested, noted, and a tracking device fitted, before being dumped in the woods to wake up with no idea how they got there. Sounds like classic Alien abduction right?

Except what I just described is standard procedure for population studies and population restoration of many larger mammal species in North America such as bears, elk, and wolves. You can't do that kind of work with a satellite, it takes boots on the ground and a helicopter. A satellite cannot perform autopsies, plant tracking devices, or even do something as simple as measure your weight. This insane sounding theory even starts to make our abductions make a lot more sense, after all they follow many of the same rough principles.

As to why theyd be doing population studies on us, it could be any number of reasons. We could be some form of nature preserve. Maybe we're some sort of pet project from another race trying to mold us into a vassal species. Maybe they're waiting to see if we're "mature" enough to enter the galactic community. Maybe we're a lab rat equivalent, where they release certain diseases and plagues to see how people react to them. Maybe they're just donkey-caves and we're the alien equivalent of reality TV?

Long story short, the UFO's entering atmosphere to make observations and abduct people was always one of the things that I felt lent credit to UFO's. We quite literally do the same thing in our national parks and if we were to develop proper space travel and find life on another planet, you could bet we'd do the same there too. "Why don't they just talk to us then?" Is like me asking "why don't we just talk to the grizzly bears we want to help?" You don't just make contact with a planet where the primary species decided the best way to keep peace was nuclear weapons unless you really really need to

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Sure, aliens exist, that is a pretty safe assumption based on the sheer size of the universe.

Them coming here and just flying about for a hundred years or so? Main counterargument would be a simple "why?" Any sufficiently advanced race must have much better ways of even just 'monitoring' us beyond randomly flying around.

Want a weird answer that most people don't bring up? Conservation, as in environment conservation, like we do with wildlife in the USA.

Tell me if this sounds familiar. Individual is tracked through woods from a low flying object. Individual is incapacitated, abducted and then has their vitals tested, noted, and a tracking device fitted, before being dumped in the woods to wake up with no idea how they got there. Sounds like classic Alien abduction right?

Except what I just described is standard procedure for population studies and population restoration of many larger mammal species in North America such as bears, elk, and wolves. You can't do that kind of work with a satellite, it takes boots on the ground and a helicopter. A satellite cannot perform autopsies, plant tracking devices, or even do something as simple as measure your weight. This insane sounding theory even starts to make our abductions make a lot more sense, after all they follow many of the same rough principles.

As to why theyd be doing population studies on us, it could be any number of reasons. We could be some form of nature preserve. Maybe we're some sort of pet project from another race trying to mold us into a vassal species. Maybe they're waiting to see if we're "mature" enough to enter the galactic community. Maybe we're a lab rat equivalent, where they release certain diseases and plagues to see how people react to them. Maybe they're just donkey-caves and we're the alien equivalent of reality TV?

Long story short, the UFO's entering atmosphere to make observations and abduct people was always one of the things that I felt lent credit to UFO's. We quite literally do the same thing in our national parks and if we were to develop proper space travel and find life on another planet, you could bet we'd do the same there too. "Why don't they just talk to us then?" Is like me asking "why don't we just talk to the grizzly bears we want to help?" You don't just make contact with a planet where the primary species decided the best way to keep peace was nuclear weapons unless you really really need to

Few issues with the conservation theory are reports, method and distance.

First, most of these UFO reports come from Western countries, not the whole world. Its a noticeable difference if looking at worldwide UFO sightings. So either these conservation efforts focus much more on the 'Western human' or its just more embedded in Western culture. Same for alien abduction stories really. So that's my issue with method and reports versus how we do conservation.

As for distance, you say helicopter, which is how we do it. But that helicopter has to go somewhere right? So how come we never really detect the approach or departure of a 'helicopter' even with a lot of eyes in the sky? Military hardware seems to be able to pick 'them' up in atmosphere at least.

On the subject of test subjects, wouldn't it be vastly easier and more cost effective to do that kind of research close to home? Animal testing labs here don't bother going to the chimpanzees or whatever animal they use, they take them to their lab.

As for if we would do that? I don't know but there is a distinct ethical problem linked to that, we once did it to other humans. Are we going to repeat that mistake on extraterrestrial intelligent life if we ever encounter it? Then there is the concept that being the one subjected to first contact is going to be the one worse of on the imperialist kind of note. On the subject of talking, simple, we haven't developed the capacity to converse with a grizzly bear in a significant manner. But with aliens? We have mathematics, images, music, binary code and whatever else you can think of that could be used as a communication method with other intelligent life. And I'm pretty sure they have had technology that was similarly destructive to nuclear weapons.

All in all, location seems to be the biggest argument against a conservation angle in my mind.

Keep in mind I'm mainly doing this as a fun thing, so obviously I'm not doing a ton of research into the logistics of alien abductions

First point, on the whole "mostly Western world reports UFO's, not whole world". It makes sense we mostly hear about it from a western viewpoint. I highly doubtful anyone is going to believe a random tribal in the Amazon or a villager in Ethiopia if they said they saw something strange in the sky. People would say "oh they just saw a plane or something" and move on. Much like how I highly doubt all the wild animal attacks that happen in third world countries are accurately reported. These areas are very poor and most of the world doesn't care about them. In addition, anyone looking to get UFO abduction interviews isnt likely to fly halfway across the world to interview a random Joe shmoe when he's got dozens of cases in his back yard.

On the whole "why don't we pick them up or see them", well, we do, kind of. After all we have eye witness accounts (which if we want to be honest here, best case scenario 90% or so are misidentified normal phenomenon) and supposedly military can pick them up. But let's say you're the US government and you know for a fact that there are UFO's breaking atmosphere and doing tests on human beings. You have no way to stop them. Why on Earth would you tell the general population about it? All that's going to do is spread massive amounts of panic and lead to major lack of faith in the government. So you keep it quiet, downplay it, and label anyone who challenges your viewpoint as crazy or a radical. Sure, some people will believe it, but if you can get the general public to think they're tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists the public will do more work to shut down their arguments than you ever have to. And with the massive improvements in CGI and costume effects, you could theoretically allow actual video of aliens and UFO's out onto the internet tomorrow and most people would just think it's a film student's pet project.

As for distance, there's still major swathes of the Earth that are not properly explored, and of course the oceans as well. Taking a page from XCOM, it wouldn't be surprising if an Alien presence intent on studying us hid small outposts on the planet. We get tons of reports of "underwater UFO's" and if you've got technology to go halfway across the Galaxy building a have underwater is probably child's play. And there are studies done out in the middle of nowhere, it's not unheard of for research crews to work in Backcountry conditions for a few weeks or months at a time.

As for doing the research "at home", unless you're researching a very low intelligence lifeform, like bugs, having an artificial habitat greatly influences animal behavior. Imagine a human for example, you're not going to get much useful information from one locked up in a glass box in outer space. Especially if they're interested in how our behavior works. So you need to go out in the field and view us in our "natural habitat". If we're going to give this theory a serious view, then i think it's safe to say an Alien species probably only really cares about developed countries like America, Russia, and China, major players that can destroy half the planet if they wanted to. If alien life were to contact us, these would be the most likely ambassador nation's, so knowing how we think is very valuable. I would imagine it's this research precisely that would be why no sane aliens have outright talked to us yet

And as for if we would do that, absolutely. We do it every day. Not as much on humans anymore, but we gladly use monkeys and other animals in lab tests for everything from disease and psychology research to cosmetics. Obviously not everyone is this callous, but we absolutely have the potential within us to do it as a species. Think about all the horrible human testing done in WWII by the Nazis and Japanese, that's still within our living memory. And that was against our own species. don't think any of us can be naive enough to think that humans wouldn't do that again, especially to something sentient that actually is another species. Look at modern biology research papers sometime, we do seriously messed up stuff every day in the pursuit of knowledge. At my local college, there was a study done on wolf spiders to see if leg length affected chances of finding a mate. They'd observe each pair, see what happened, then euthanize the spiders to measure them. All for a little bit of knowledge on spider breeding habits. Not every human is like that obviously, but I think it's safe to say that some would.

On the whole "aliens surely have stuff way stronger than a nuke", I'm sure they do. I could buy a rifle that can drop a grizzly from 500 yards, but that doesn't mean I want to be 10 feet away from one when it's mad

So yeah with any theory it has it's holes and issues. Obviously I'm not writing a dissertation on this, I just think that if we were being visited by alien life it's the most likely explanation. Any other one would involve the aliens actually making contact with us, and since that's clearly hasn't happened it cuts down the possibilities a bit. I just think it's a fun mental excercise.

For my actual viewpoint, I believe there is absolutely alien life out there, but more than likely it's things like bacteria and more primitive things like that. The amount of coincidence and luck it took for humanity to become a highly advanced species borders on the realm of a miracle, so I highly doubt there's a species out there so advanced they can not only avoid detection but study us on an active basis. But just because it's highly unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible.

 Grey Templar wrote:

I am more inclined to believe that this thing had something to confuse their sensors than it was actually going that fast.

My guess is its some sort of super-high speed prototype aircraft that is also carrying some new tech to befuddle tracking attempts.

And what better way to test it then to have it fly by some unsuspecting friendlies to see how they can do with it? The pilots likely weren't in on it, maybe not even the people on the Princeton.

Given the sheer number of systems that it befuddled, I have an easier time believing in mach 61. What little data we have suggests that it used some non-standard form of propulsion. You know, what with the lack of wings and all. Something electromagnetic, but you'd still have the issue of inertia.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

I am more inclined to believe that this thing had something to confuse their sensors than it was actually going that fast.

My guess is its some sort of super-high speed prototype aircraft that is also carrying some new tech to befuddle tracking attempts.

And what better way to test it then to have it fly by some unsuspecting friendlies to see how they can do with it? The pilots likely weren't in on it, maybe not even the people on the Princeton.

Given the sheer number of systems that it befuddled, I have an easier time believing in mach 61. What little data we have suggests that it used some non-standard form of propulsion. You know, what with the lack of wings and all. Something electromagnetic, but you'd still have the issue of inertia.

We are already doing some experiments with electromagnetic propulsion, so that is still plausible for some secret government project. Likewise, inertial dampeners would also be within the realm of possibility, or some high tech material making it able to endure the stress.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Keep in mind I'm mainly doing this as a fun thing, so obviously I'm not doing a ton of research into the logistics of alien abductions

First point, on the whole "mostly Western world reports UFO's, not whole world". It makes sense we mostly hear about it from a western viewpoint. I highly doubtful anyone is going to believe a random tribal in the Amazon or a villager in Ethiopia if they said they saw something strange in the sky. People would say "oh they just saw a plane or something" and move on. Much like how I highly doubt all the wild animal attacks that happen in third world countries are accurately reported. These areas are very poor and most of the world doesn't care about them. In addition, anyone looking to get UFO abduction interviews isnt likely to fly halfway across the world to interview a random Joe shmoe when he's got dozens of cases in his back yard.

On the whole "why don't we pick them up or see them", well, we do, kind of. After all we have eye witness accounts (which if we want to be honest here, best case scenario 90% or so are misidentified normal phenomenon) and supposedly military can pick them up. But let's say you're the US government and you know for a fact that there are UFO's breaking atmosphere and doing tests on human beings. You have no way to stop them. Why on Earth would you tell the general population about it? All that's going to do is spread massive amounts of panic and lead to major lack of faith in the government. So you keep it quiet, downplay it, and label anyone who challenges your viewpoint as crazy or a radical. Sure, some people will believe it, but if you can get the general public to think they're tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists the public will do more work to shut down their arguments than you ever have to. And with the massive improvements in CGI and costume effects, you could theoretically allow actual video of aliens and UFO's out onto the internet tomorrow and most people would just think it's a film student's pet project.

As for distance, there's still major swathes of the Earth that are not properly explored, and of course the oceans as well. Taking a page from XCOM, it wouldn't be surprising if an Alien presence intent on studying us hid small outposts on the planet. We get tons of reports of "underwater UFO's" and if you've got technology to go halfway across the Galaxy building a have underwater is probably child's play. And there are studies done out in the middle of nowhere, it's not unheard of for research crews to work in Backcountry conditions for a few weeks or months at a time.

As for doing the research "at home", unless you're researching a very low intelligence lifeform, like bugs, having an artificial habitat greatly influences animal behavior. Imagine a human for example, you're not going to get much useful information from one locked up in a glass box in outer space. Especially if they're interested in how our behavior works. So you need to go out in the field and view us in our "natural habitat". If we're going to give this theory a serious view, then i think it's safe to say an Alien species probably only really cares about developed countries like America, Russia, and China, major players that can destroy half the planet if they wanted to. If alien life were to contact us, these would be the most likely ambassador nation's, so knowing how we think is very valuable. I would imagine it's this research precisely that would be why no sane aliens have outright talked to us yet

And as for if we would do that, absolutely. We do it every day. Not as much on humans anymore, but we gladly use monkeys and other animals in lab tests for everything from disease and psychology research to cosmetics. Obviously not everyone is this callous, but we absolutely have the potential within us to do it as a species. Think about all the horrible human testing done in WWII by the Nazis and Japanese, that's still within our living memory. And that was against our own species. don't think any of us can be naive enough to think that humans wouldn't do that again, especially to something sentient that actually is another species. Look at modern biology research papers sometime, we do seriously messed up stuff every day in the pursuit of knowledge. At my local college, there was a study done on wolf spiders to see if leg length affected chances of finding a mate. They'd observe each pair, see what happened, then euthanize the spiders to measure them. All for a little bit of knowledge on spider breeding habits. Not every human is like that obviously, but I think it's safe to say that some would.

On the whole "aliens surely have stuff way stronger than a nuke", I'm sure they do. I could buy a rifle that can drop a grizzly from 500 yards, but that doesn't mean I want to be 10 feet away from one when it's mad

So yeah with any theory it has it's holes and issues. Obviously I'm not writing a dissertation on this, I just think that if we were being visited by alien life it's the most likely explanation. Any other one would involve the aliens actually making contact with us, and since that's clearly hasn't happened it cuts down the possibilities a bit. I just think it's a fun mental excercise.

For my actual viewpoint, I believe there is absolutely alien life out there, but more than likely it's things like bacteria and more primitive things like that. The amount of coincidence and luck it took for humanity to become a highly advanced species borders on the realm of a miracle, so I highly doubt there's a species out there so advanced they can not only avoid detection but study us on an active basis. But just because it's highly unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible.

No, I know its just for fun and so are my musings.

Its not just poor countries though. Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East. All have less, so it tends to come across as a more cultural thing. For the theory to work on it not being reported the reasoning is much more complicated than the answer that there just aren't many.

But the problem with the theory that the government knows (besides the fact they are competent enough to hide it) is why the government then goes and spends millions on researching these sightings. If they already know why bother? Why not just dismiss them? The issue being that the answer is so complicated and almost downright impossible. We would be talking about decades, thousands or tens of thousands of government employees and multiple countries. No one ever blabbed for money or fame? And how do they keep the scientific community that watches the skies so to speak quiet too?

The distance argument was more aimed at them coming from beyond earth/the solar system. So they would have to fly in and supply or go back 'home'. They of course could have bases in the oceans if its aliens, but that still doesn't solve the question of where. While the ocean is not very well known, space around the planet isn't so unknown..

The research at home was more referring to you saying they test diseases on us. Yeah if you want to do natural habitat research of course you keep them there. But when you say knowing how we think combined with developed nations, why don't they seemingly kidnap more experts? Wouldn't they be able to learn much more? Plenty of abduction stories mention the aliens communicating.

Yeah we do, I know, the question is if we can resist the urge based on the moral implications by that time (I assume at least centuries). The shift away from animal testing goes slowly but surely. For the most part testing on animals such as apes, cats, dogs and such are increasingly frowned upon and avoided. Of course that doesn't mean it won't happen anymore, but the trend is that were moving away from it. I would like to believe in a few centuries we have invented better ways of testing than live subjects. When testing on humans in the context of WW2 were talking about some of the most morally bankrupt regimes in history, if aliens are found by a regime like that, live testing is likely the least of their worries.

For the grizzly analogy to work we just have to assume that A. We can hit them with a nuke even from short range and B. That it would do enough damage or even any at all, having no idea on their materials and such.

Problem with most likely is that we have no clue how they think or what the logic behind it might be. Maybe its a preperation for an alien invasion or wiping us out. Nothing points against that either for example depending on how they would approach that. It is a fun excersise though.

As for your actual viewpoint, I think we mostly agree on that. Its likely out there somewhere in some capacity.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

I am more inclined to believe that this thing had something to confuse their sensors than it was actually going that fast.

My guess is its some sort of super-high speed prototype aircraft that is also carrying some new tech to befuddle tracking attempts.

And what better way to test it then to have it fly by some unsuspecting friendlies to see how they can do with it? The pilots likely weren't in on it, maybe not even the people on the Princeton.

Given the sheer number of systems that it befuddled, I have an easier time believing in mach 61. What little data we have suggests that it used some non-standard form of propulsion. You know, what with the lack of wings and all. Something electromagnetic, but you'd still have the issue of inertia.

Mach 61 is over 72,000 kilometres per hour. There is zero way an object could travel anyway near 72,000 kilometres per hour in the atmosphere without burning up due to friction and ram pressure. It is not physically possible.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

I am more inclined to believe that this thing had something to confuse their sensors than it was actually going that fast.

My guess is its some sort of super-high speed prototype aircraft that is also carrying some new tech to befuddle tracking attempts.

And what better way to test it then to have it fly by some unsuspecting friendlies to see how they can do with it? The pilots likely weren't in on it, maybe not even the people on the Princeton.

Given the sheer number of systems that it befuddled, I have an easier time believing in mach 61. What little data we have suggests that it used some non-standard form of propulsion. You know, what with the lack of wings and all. Something electromagnetic, but you'd still have the issue of inertia.

Mach 61 is over 72,000 kilometres per hour. There is zero way an object could travel anyway near 72,000 kilometres per hour in the atmosphere without burning up due to friction and ram pressure. It is not physically possible.

Insert something about "according to our science" blah blah blah. Insert something else about how aliens have transcended reality.

Conclude with some flourish about how we're all doomed.

Add post-conclusion niggling remark about how our sensors were right 100% and Mach 61 was definitely the speed - if only to reinforce the first two claims.

When I was much younger, I was a devout believer in many of the earthly anomalies - Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, etc. However, with every person (practically) on the planet running around with a camera on their phone, why do we not have any current photographic evidence? Why are the TV shows touting 'searching for bigfoot or the big creature from the deep' a complete waste of time? Well, had something been found, it would have been on the news way before your TV show hit the cable networks. Therefore, I call these purely fantastic lore.

As far as aliens? I can buy into the theories the universe is way too big not to have other habitable planets. I also think nearly all of them would be primitive, yet evolved life. Just look at how many millions of years the dinosaurs were around and they never got really any more smarter than our animals of today. It takes miracles and miracles of accidents to create truly intelligent life.

So, are there some out there, possibly millions of years old with the technology that we cannot ever comprehend? Sure, just look at how long we have been around and where we are today. Where would man be in a few million years, if still around? Give us another 200 and see where we are!

 MDSW wrote:
When I was much younger, I was a devout believer in many of the earthly anomalies - Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, etc. However, with every person (practically) on the planet running around with a camera on their phone, why do we not have any current photographic evidence? Why are the TV shows touting 'searching for bigfoot or the big creature from the deep' a complete waste of time? Well, had something been found, it would have been on the news way before your TV show hit the cable networks. Therefore, I call these purely fantastic lore.

The very first post in this thread is video taken from a military aircraft that was published in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other reputable news sources.

 Ouze wrote:

 MDSW wrote:
When I was much younger, I was a devout believer in many of the earthly anomalies - Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, etc. However, with every person (practically) on the planet running around with a camera on their phone, why do we not have any current photographic evidence? Why are the TV shows touting 'searching for bigfoot or the big creature from the deep' a complete waste of time? Well, had something been found, it would have been on the news way before your TV show hit the cable networks. Therefore, I call these purely fantastic lore.

The very first post in this thread is video taken from a military aircraft that was published in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other reputable news sources.

Heh, this complaint reminds me of how GW leaks worked for years: shaky, unfocused, poorly lit photos of White Dwarf or codex pages. So, this isn't really unique to alien phenomena.

 Ouze wrote:

 MDSW wrote:
When I was much younger, I was a devout believer in many of the earthly anomalies - Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, etc. However, with every person (practically) on the planet running around with a camera on their phone, why do we not have any current photographic evidence? Why are the TV shows touting 'searching for bigfoot or the big creature from the deep' a complete waste of time? Well, had something been found, it would have been on the news way before your TV show hit the cable networks. Therefore, I call these purely fantastic lore.

The very first post in this thread is video taken from a military aircraft that was published in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other reputable news sources.

I was referring to other common theorists phenomenon, like Big Foot, etc. I tried to speak separately about the UFO issue, which I think is a bit different...

I see. I'd agree with you on those examples. The Loch Ness monster specifically, it's one of those things I want to believe in, but know in my heart, lol, no way bruh.

 Ouze wrote:
I see. I'd agree with you on those examples. The Loch Ness monster specifically, it's one of those things I want to believe in, but know in my heart, lol, no way bruh.

Gnomes. They are out there! Who do you think steals all the left socks*? They use them for hats I tell you! HATS!

*They are also known for stealing underpants.

 Ouze wrote:
I see. I'd agree with you on those examples. The Loch Ness monster specifically, it's one of those things I want to believe in, but know in my heart, lol, no way bruh.

I was so bummed when the Nessie "Surgeon's Photo" turned out to be a hoax in the mid 90's. My inner Mulder died a bit that day.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I see. I'd agree with you on those examples. The Loch Ness monster specifically, it's one of those things I want to believe in, but know in my heart, lol, no way bruh.

Gnomes. They are out there! Who do you think steals all the left socks*? They use them for hats I tell you! HATS!

*They are also known for stealing underpants.

It's the Eater of Socks who takes the socks. The Nomes steal food, electricity, control of elevators and the occasional lorry/jcb/plane/telecoms satellite.

Gnomes don't steal anything if you treat them well. Evidently you guys have not been treating your house spirits well. You have to leave regular gifts and offerings for them, and in return they will perform helpful tasks and chores for you around the house. Neglect them and they start stealing to keep themselves alive and they will play pranks on you to vent their anger. It is pretty logical.

This is how the Machine Cult started.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I see. I'd agree with you on those examples. The Loch Ness monster specifically, it's one of those things I want to believe in, but know in my heart, lol, no way bruh.

I was so bummed when the Nessie "Surgeon's Photo" turned out to be a hoax in the mid 90's. My inner Mulder died a bit that day.

Thats just what the Illuminati want you to think. Clearly the loch Ness monster was a fall guy for the real cryptids, mole people.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Gnomes don't steal anything if you treat them well. Evidently you guys have not been treating your house spirits well. You have to leave regular gifts and offerings for them, and in return they will perform helpful tasks and chores for you around the house. Neglect them and they start stealing to keep themselves alive and they will play pranks on you to vent their anger. It is pretty logical.

Americanized Gnomes. They survive on socks and the tears of the sockless, which they drink strained through stolen socks.

 Ouze wrote:
I see. I'd agree with you on those examples. The Loch Ness monster specifically, it's one of those things I want to believe in, but know in my heart, lol, no way bruh.

Yes, but it is way more fun to believe!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Insert something about "according to our science" blah blah blah. Insert something else about how aliens have transcended reality.

Conclude with some flourish about how we're all doomed.

Add post-conclusion niggling remark about how our sensors were right 100% and Mach 61 was definitely the speed - if only to reinforce the first two claims.

According to our science, dakka posters have transcended trollality.

This thread is now doomed.

Our Mod sensors are 100% right all the time. Lock incoming at mach 61.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Mach 61 is over 72,000 kilometres per hour. There is zero way an object could travel anyway near 72,000 kilometres per hour in the atmosphere without burning up due to friction and ram pressure. It is not physically possible.

Actually that's partially true. DARPA actually floated an idea to manipulate air pressure electromagnetically once as an anti missile system. Basically the idea was to charge the air around the ship, while giving the ship the opposite charge, so that atmospheric pressure rose to the point that extreme high speed anti ship missiles would break apart when hitting it due to the sudden change in air density. It's not an idea without merit, but even a carrier's nuclear plant doesn't have enough output to make it practical.

If you had enough power though, in theory you could give the air in front of the craft the same charge as the craft, effecting a kind of atmospheric supercavitation. So, yes, with a powerful enough compact power source, it is indeed possible.

It wouldn't work. Moving that fast there isn't enough time for the air to move out of the way so it instead gets increasingly compacted, increasing the pressure which then increases the temperature (as per the gas equation). This would result in the air in front of the ship in question getting superheated to the point it would be incandescent, exactly as for meteorites.

The Space Shuttle, IIRC, does a max speed of Mach 25 on re-entry. Mach 61 would obviously be a lot faster, but is it faster enough that a more advanced form of thermal shielding couldn't protect something travelling at mach 61?