UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Astrophotographer]

Mmmm... thought so... grainy film with ambiguous blobs and some stories.

Hmmm....movie poster time????

 

[23_Tauri]

He believes that UFOs are powered by anit-gravity propulsion units and cites a NASA expert to support this.

Here, he then speculates that an anti-gravity drive wouldn't create a shock wave, or a plazma trail from the UFO wouldn ionise the air, thus counteracting the generation of a sonic boom.

You missed the best bit, the why it doesn't create a sonic boom:

A system capable of maipulating gravity wouldn't have to create a shock wave. The air molecules could simply be held in place up to a point near the object and then compressed together in place to compenstae for object's volume and then decompressed behind it without any change in the surrounding air pressure ... hence no sonic boom.

It's just holds molecules in place, just like that, because of course gravity is the only force in the universe that influences the movement of molecules.....

 

[EHocking]

...Has any other reader of this thread noticed something else? As soon as I mentioned a new case:

Tremonton, Utah, UFO Colour Film (02 July 1952)
(http://www.nicap.org/utahdir.htm)
Video including the 1950 Montana film
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kwsvnmwks&feature=channel_page)

The debunkers immediately hared off in other directions? Here is film evidence of UFOs, yet the debunkers seem to want to completely ignore that evidence… Now I wonder why that could be? LOL.

Yes, I've noticed that as soon as the other posters back you into a corner (or you paint yourself into one) you bring up a new case to deflect from the one that was being discussed.

Is that what you meant?

 

[Audible Click]

Gaaaawd, everyone's a critic.

[qimg]http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg117/ThePsychoClown/Flying-Saucer-Tech-Drawing.jpg[/qimg]

I don't see any cats with bread and butter strapped to their backs.

 

[Turgor]

You missed the best bit, the why it doesn't create a sonic boom:



It's just holds molecules in place, just like that, because of course gravity is the only force in the universe that influences the movement of molecules.....

Would it be hypothetically possible to manipulate gravity to accelerate a ship, while moving the air in it's path around to prevent sonic booms, and also not accelerate any other matter in the vicinity?

 

[Correa Neto]

Pseudoscience enthusiasts fail to acknowledge technobabble is not actual science.

"I am channeling all available resources into anti-altering the tritium plasma crossfeed in the tacheon axial bombardment to destroy the to lower the defenses of the phaser banks. That should hopefully fix the problem."(*)

Is on the very same league as

A system capable of maipulating gravity wouldn't have to create a shock wave. The air molecules could simply be held in place up to a point near the object and then compressed together in place to compenstae for object's volume and then decompressed behind it without any change in the surrounding air pressure ... hence no sonic boom. And maybe the plasma glow or whatever it was has something to do with it as well ... some sort of ionization effect.

(*) From the Star Trek technobabble generator.
http://www.daughtersoftiresias.org/progs/technobabble/index.cgi
Not as good as the post modern text generator...

 

[Stray Cat]

Talk about embellishing to add authority to your sighting...

I did no such thing... My memory of drawing the drawing is accurate and precise.

Look at the comparisons between the original witness sketch and the professional one.

This discrepancy must have been down to a metric conversion I did in my head.

I mean the legs are at different angles and the landing pads are different colours FFS!!!

That's because when you look at an object from a straight on angle, the light refracts differently because the anti gravity propulsion system is stopping all the colour molecules from getting out.

You debunkers will try any lies to discredit the science of UFOlogy.

Stop persecuting me... I don't have enough hard drive space for this.

 

[23_Tauri]

Would it be hypothetically possible to manipulate gravity to accelerate a ship, while moving the air in it's path around to prevent sonic booms, and also not accelerate any other matter in the vicinity?

I delegate this question to the more learned here. We have physicists at JREF you know!

However, I think a more pertinent question would be whether this is the most likely explanation for ufology not hearing a sonic boom. Sadly, Mr Occam has just left the building on the next available Space Beetle, so we might be grasping at straws here.

 

[Turgor]

I delegate this question to the more learned here. We have physicists at JREF you know!

However, I think a more pertinent question would be whether this is the most likely explanation for ufology not hearing a sonic boom. Sadly, Mr Occam has just left the building on the next available Space Beetle, so we might be grasping at straws here.

I would like to know how much extra material there will be for Mr Occam to cut when he returns.

That's why I'm interested to know if, assuming some technology has complete control over gravity, it is possible to set up a situation in which you accelerate just a single object.
I sadly know too little physics to even speculate, but if I had to bet my money would be on that everything with mass gets accelerated in the same direction, following the inverse square law for the force with which it gets accelerated.

 

[Correa Neto]

The only proof that will satisfy the crowd here is for them all to have a personal experience together at the same time. Any individual would just end up in the same boat I'm in. News reports and science reports and videos and books and everything else is anecdotal or after the fact and would be deemed irrellevant. Even a real flying saucer wouldn't prove anything other than that we have some flying machine that maybe we built ourselves. Aliens can be be hoaxed with makeup and prosthetics, so even if one were to land in a UFO on TV, it still wouldn't prove anything.

That's a mischaracterization, a lie that UFOlogists produce when they realize their arguments and evidence are found flawed by skeptics.

Imagery (especially if detailed and sharp) with reliable source would satisfy us. Example- if NASA presented a picture of a flying saucer taken, say, by one of the Mars rovers, it would be accepted. No, those blurry grainy youtubbies claimed by some as alien craft won't work, neither will pseudoscientific studies of blurry long exposure shots of red blobs.

An alien, an alien raygun or a flying saucer (heck, even bits of any of them) would be accepted, after the propper studies are presented.

 

[ufology]

Would it be hypothetically possible to manipulate gravity to accelerate a ship, while moving the air in it's path around to prevent sonic booms, and also not accelerate any other matter in the vicinity?

When I first posted this answer, I made it perfectly clear that it was based on speculation for technology that we don't know is feasible yet. I also cautioned that it would be used outside that context as a criticism. So the criticisms you see from other posters here are made outside that context and are a misrepresentation of my initial post.

As for what physicists know about gravity, you can learn as much yourself in fairly short order because they don't really know that much. It is still an unexplained force of nature, and its properties ( how to relate to it mathematically ) are based on easy to understand ideas that are based on the quatities of mass in a given area of space and the distances from that mass.

The biggest differences in the theories are based on Newtonian vs General Relativity. In general relativity gravity is a result of the spatial geometry, so it's not that hard to imagine that if it were possible for an object to use some kind of device to affect the spatial dimensions around itself, that it could simply create a gravity well nearby for it to fall into, and by constantly projecting that gravity well ahead of itself, it would be drawn in that direction. Because such as system wouldn't actually be moving the air out of its way in a conventional sense, the conditions that create a conventional shock wave may never form.

Similarly, even if we use Newtonian physics, and some some kind of "garvitational force" generator were possible, a similar kind of compression and decompression between the air molecules could be made to take place that might negate the kind of compression wave required to form a sonic boom. After all in a gravitational field, atoms are bunched together closer near the source of gravity and spread farther apart in weak field or at a distance.

Anyway ... sure, take this to a real physicist and ask them to speculate on the validity of these ideas. Also don't forget to use your own mind. And here is a link to a former NASA engineer with some ideas on how a UFO propulsion system might work.

j.r.

 

[ufology]

What makes you think "the crowd" here haven't at some point seen something they couldn't immediately identify, either alone or in company? Many have actually related such experiences.

Giving more credence to personal experiences than to objective evidence gathered using the scientific method is what woo believers and pseudoscientists do. The fact that you wrongly assume that the sceptics here would do the same proves that you have learned nothing whatever in your time here.

If the experiences you say that these people had weren't convincing enough to make them believe, then they were probably natural or manmade phenomena. Even my sighting is mild compared to what other people have seen, and it has left me with no personal doubt. If the sightings these people here have had are as good or better and they still don't believe, then they are just in a state of denial.

j.r.

 

[RoboTimbo]

If the experiences you say that these people had weren't convincing enough to make them believe, then they were probably natural or manmade phenomena. Even my sighting is mild compared to what other people have seen, and it has left me with no personal doubt. If the sightings these people here have had are as good or better and they still don't believe, then they are just in a state of denial.

j.r.

The No True Sightings^TM Fallacy.

 

[23_Tauri]

If the experiences you say that these people had weren't convincing enough to make them believe, then they were probably natural or manmade phenomena. Even my sighting is mild compared to what other people have seen, and it has left me with no personal doubt. If the sightings these people here have had are as good or better and they still don't believe, then they are just in a state of denial.

j.r.

Just like all those people who have heard the true word of Jesus Christ the Big C our saviour and still don't believe, right? Are they just in a state of denial, too? Attend a few evangelical healings and they'll soon see Jesus with their own eyes and realise the truth. Hallelujah brother!

 

[Correa Neto]

Oh, the old "I know it" last ditch... Same thing people who experienced paranormal phenomena, received Jesus or some other deity, or had some mystical experience say when their arguments are shown weak and flawed (at best).

Care to explain why all these people who had "spetacular" and/or "undeniable" sightings never managed to produce reliable evidence? For example, someone claims to have seen and filmed (with telephoto lens) a formation of UFOs "gunmetal-colored objects shaped like two saucers, one inverted on top of the other", but what we see in the film are white blobs, looking just like what birds in the distance would look like...

 

[ufology]

Just like all those people who have heard the true word of Jesus Christ the Big C our saviour and still don't believe, right? Are they just in a state of denial, too? Attend a few evangelical healings and they'll soon see Jesus with their own eyes and realise the truth. Hallelujah brother!

It's not "just like" that at all. The above a false analogy used as ridicule and mockery.

j.r.

 

[Jocce]

I have claimed that in the absence of plausible mundane explanations and in the presence of the circumstantial evidence and given that science does not rule ET visitation out - then the ETH becomes a plausible alternative.

Unfortunately, you have failed to rule out mundane explanations in any of the cases that has been discussed.

I explained why “blimp” and “squid boat” were implausible alternatives (because the historical and eyewitness evidence eliminates them as plausible alternatives) and I explained why “oilwell fires” was indeed a plausible alternative for the FLIR (but not for the radar returns).

And it has patiently been explained to you why they are plausible explanations but you're blinded by your belif in "alien" UFOs.

That is simply a false statement. The historical record shows NO blimp activity in the area (repeat NONE at all). As for ET – whatever was observed defies plausible mundane explanation. Nothing more, nothing less. I will leave it to others to suggest alternative explanations.

On the contrary. The records show that blimps has been active in the area for many years both before, during and after the event. You're blinded by your belief in "aliens" visiting earth.

You have been informed enough times about those drawings to know precisely what they represent. Yet you continue to repeat your false assertions. That says something about your character Jocce. The eyewitnesses described a circular object, like a coin or pancake – and that is precisely what is represented in the technical drawings of the object made by the draftsman. The drawings may be viewed here (http://www.ufocasebook.com/pdf/specialreport14.pdf - p.86) and the sworn eyewitness testimonies here (http://www.brumac.8k.com/Rogue/RogueRiver2.htm).

And they look very much like blimps. It has been explained to you several times that it is perfectly possible to interpret a blimp as a circular object seen from an angle. Especially when you're in a rocky boat, using crappy binoculars on a heat hazy day. You fail to seee this because you're blinded by your belif in "aliens" visiting earth.

Oh but it is. The witnesses, using binoculars, observed no protuberances that would relate to a blimp (ie; fins, engines, gondola). These witnesses were able to resolve the object closely enough to observe that the skin was (in places) dirty and wrinkled. Under such conditions they could hardly have missed the protuberances of a blimp.

They could see no proturberance apart from a fin and the skin appeared dirty and wrinkled. They were using crappy binoculars, sitting in a small boat on a river during a warm may day with heat haze. Of course they couldn't see details. Absebce of evidence is not evidence of absence. All this has been explained to you before but you're too blinded by your belief in "aliens" visiting earth to understand it.

Are you now contending that the distance estimates were accurate? I thought you also contended that size/distance estimates in a clear blue sky could not be relied on? I do not remember any calculations you made in regard to the noise of the blimp (only the mere unfounded assertion) - besides, blimp engines of the time were invariably described as very noisy and easily able to be heard over a number of miles.

I was using the closest distance mentioned and I can't possibly be blamed for your bad memory. Go back and look up the post and all will become clear.

I contended that you have simply ignored the evidence that makes “blimp” implausible an explanation. So far nothing you have stated since has demonstrated that you have accounted for any of that evidence.

It's painfully obvious to everyone that you dismiss all evidence towards blimp. I mean...the witnesses even drew pictures of a blimp.

And perhaps you will be able to inform us of the likelihood of ET then? Of course you cannot because it is a complete unknown. If ET is visiting, then the likelihood is 100%. If ET does not exist – then the likelihood is zero. There is simply no way of determining the likelihood - so it is utterly disingenuous to claim that you actually know the likelihood of ET visitation – especially to know it well enough to compare it with other explanations!

It's very close to zero because as far as I can tell, no reports of alien ships has been confirmed.

It is reasonable enough to assume that when the radar indicated a direction and range and the witnesses looked to that indicated area and a light was there visible and it also shifted range and direction in accord with eyewitness and radar observations, then the radar return and the light were one and the same. They even captured it on film! See here (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/A History of NZ Sightings 12 31 78.doc), here (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/RADARUFOS.doc), here (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZFlashingLight/NZFlashingLight.html) and here (http://brumac.8k.com/NEW_ZEALAND/NZSB.html).

It has all been explained to you but you will never learn unless you stop and investigate evidence. I've seen no research comming from you, only regurgitated stories from websites and it getting ooooooooold...

 

[23_Tauri]

It's not "just like" that at all. The above a false analogy used as ridicule and mockery.

j.r.

Forgive my flippancy. It's Friday afternoon. But, why is it a bad analogy (accepting that all analogies fail to some extent, as they never compare identical things)? People see what they consider to be miraculous sightings or experience things that they can't put down to known natural or man-made phenomena, and they conclude that it must be the Big J.

Then they go to church a lot and praise the laaaard above.

 

[ufology]

Oh, the old "I know it" last ditch... Same thing people who experienced paranormal phenomena, received Jesus or some other deity, or had some mystical experience say when their arguments are shown weak and flawed (at best).

Care to explain why all these people who had "spetacular" and/or "undeniable" sightings never managed to produce reliable evidence? For example, someone claims to have seen and filmed (with telephoto lens) a formation of UFOs "gunmetal-colored objects shaped like two saucers, one inverted on top of the other", but what we see in the film are white blobs, looking just like what birds in the distance would look like...

Hey at least my so called "last ditch" is that I know from personal experience. I'll take that over the skeptic's "last ditch" any day.

j.r.

 

[Correa Neto]

Skeptic's "last ditch" is the same as the "first ditch".

"Show me reliable evidence".

Got some?