Stanford Professor warns massive UFO disclosure is around the corner.

Status
Not open for further replies.
BMWTurboDzl said:
Software error Agent Mulder..software error.
Click to expand...
bobdoo said:
I've been photographing meteors and aurora since 1999. I live near an airport, and also have a wall of windows through which I observe all the aircraft in the jetstream, satellites, and meteors passing across the sky.

I've seen a Space-X satellite train (spooky-looked very close-by).

I've seen three UFOs.

After just a bit of introspection, and a little intelligence, I identified them as a firework, the planet Jupiter, and an airplane coming in for a landing. Even with all my nighttime viewing, I was fooled.

For those few of you who aren't actively trying to fool yourselves, I highly recommend these two sites:

https://www.metabunk.org/home/
https://skeptoid.com/

As for the US services 'announcements', google the term "disinformation". All the posters here should be old enough to be skeptical.
Click to expand...

99%+ of everything ever seen has a mundane explanation. It's a tiny fraction that doesn't.

Seen by one, is way different than seen by many while being corroborated with multiple radars.

As the highly entertaining Mick West said - maybe it was just a bus full of hippies?
 
UncleDave said:
How would you categorize the measurements that came from the crew of the Princeton?
Click to expand...
IF what they measured was real (and for very good reason, I doubt their results) there is a simple explanation:

F=MA

Big A - so M was small and/or F was really big.

NO NEWTONIAN principles were broken. None. Stop using that description, it's what pseudo-scientists use.
 
UncleDave said:
You cant and I cant, nor can anyone we know of - but they can, and we've watched them do it for decades.
Click to expand...
What I know for sure is you can't and I can't, nor can anyone we know possibly know anything about what an advanced intelligent species does or doesn't know. HOWEVER, what I also know is we have a very good, very solid, and very comprehensive knowledge of physics. Even the things we don't understand fully, like dark energy and dark matter, we know they are there. We know there must be someone way to reconcile general relativity with a quantum description of gravity. We can look out billions of light years into the universe in every direction and every natural phenomenon can be explained by what we already know and those things we can't explain like dark energy and dark matter we know we don't know. The likelihood that our universe is filled with large areas of physics which operate all around us and we do not know exist is very, very, very remote because it would lead to large gaps in our understanding of how the world around us works and those gaps do not exist.
 
Astro14 said:
IF what they measured was real (and for very good reason, I doubt their results) there is a simple explanation:

F=MA

Big A - so M was small and/or F was really big.

NO NEWTONIAN principles were broken. None. Stop using that description, it's what pseudo-scientists use.
Click to expand...

We can see no action / reaction in their propulsion. Thats a violation right there.

If the device was as heavy as an F18 which is just a guess based on size - "F" was something over 1100 gigawatts. (with no heat sig)

Ole doc brown would have been proud no?

spy-1A is the best maritime radar we've got and the core of our seaboard ballistic missile defense.
What reason do you have to believe it was selectively giving false reason that were corroborated by pilots and other radars?
 
UncleDave said:
Heres a snippet.
Pretty astonishing considering no visible form of propulsion or heat signature.
This would appear to directly violate the 3rd law.

View attachment 113896
Click to expand...
Got it.

The physics is predicated on a reading, taken from a SPY-1 radar.

The fact that the math can be done, means that no Newtonian principles were violated.

But, and it's a big but, all that math is based on an interpretation of radar data.

Why do you accept the interpretation of the data as absolutely true?

I've seen it present false readings before. Processing errors happen, with fantastic results. That explanation, sensor error, is far more likely than the crazy accelerations derived from the track observation.
 
I am fairly convinced that there is some 3rd grade Science student who is looking at some swamp water under his microscope. We are in that swamp water... Hope he doesn't grab his probe... Or boil me....
 
The TRUTH is out there. :alien:
1661377446262.webp
 
There was supposed to be something in Al Capone’s safe too. We all know how that ended.

I’ll believe it when I see it.
 
Astro14 said:
Got it.

The physics is predicated on a reading, taken from a SPY-1 radar.

The fact that the math can be done, means that no Newtonian principles were violated.

But, and it's a big but, all that math is based on an interpretation of radar data.

Why do you accept the interpretation of the data as absolutely true?

I've seen it present false readings before. Processing errors happen, with fantastic results. That explanation, sensor error, is far more likely than the crazy accelerations derived from the track observation.
Click to expand...

Actually there is a document that shows it (many) were corroborated by multiple radars. Ill dig that up.

Doesnt every carrier group have 2 arleigh burkes?

Fravor saw it on radar and said it could actively jam him .

It seemed to work fine tracking everything else.

So in this event we had an F18 (AESA?) , a Spy1, a lantirn pod, and pilot eyeballs - all see the same thing - what are the odds they all had processing errors that fixed themselves after?
 
Last edited:
UncleDave said:
Actually there is a document that shows it (many) were corroborated by multiple radars. Ill dig that up.

Doesnt every carrier group have 2 Raleigh burkes?

Fravor saw it on radar and said it could actively jam him .

It seemed to work fine tracking everything else.
Click to expand...
If you’re being actively jammed, the radar track data is highly suspect.

That’s what jamming does - make the radar see things that are not real.

Then the radar-equipped unit (anti aircraft battery, ship, plane, whatever) can’t shoot you, because it isn’t seeing what is really there, so it can’t guide the weapon.

Processing errors…glitches…look a lot like jamming because they produce crazy results. A good operator can tell when they’re being jammed.

So, extraterrestrials traveled light years to visit us?

Or a processing error?

Or an adversary trying out a new jamming system?

Yeah, let’s go with the least likely explanation…
 
Astro14 said:
If you’re being actively jammed, the radar track data is highly suspect.

That’s what jamming does - make the radar see things that are not real.

Then the radar-equipped unit (anti aircraft battery, ship, plane, whatever) can’t shoot you, because it isn’t seeing what is really there, so it can’t guide the weapon.

Processing errors…glitches…look a lot like jamming because they produce crazy results. A good operator can tell when they’re being jammed.

So, extraterrestrials traveled light years to visit us?

Or a processing error?

Or an adversary trying out a new jamming system?

Yeah, let’s go with the least likely explanation…
Click to expand...

Fravor said although he could see it - it seems to be able to blind itself to (his) radar at will.
It didnt seem as though it could blind IR, but move fast enough to lose track.

Princeton operators said a number of these things descended from 80K to sea level and stopped in under a second.

Who know who or what this is - but the capabilities are not found in any inventory we know of. (?) If its China or someone else - we're cooked.

I do not like this one bit at all and hope its nothing more than faulty gear, but its not looking like thats answer and nothing good will come of it. I do not like it on a train I do not like it on a plane.
 
Last edited:
You guys read this right?

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf

These statements stand out-


144 reports originated from USG sources. Of these, 80 reports involved observation with multiple sensors.
o Most reports described UAP as objects that interrupted pre-planned training or other military activity.

UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security.
 
Last edited:
"Description:

Unidentified Aerial Phenomena investigation, Future tech, ask an (ex) fighter pilot. I was an F16 pilot for 18 years and retired in 2020. I had an amazing career but have moved on to a new phase. I now live with my wife and 3-kids in Lagos, Portugal. I spend my free time making investigative YouTube videos about Unexplained Aerial Phenomena. I started making videos to try and impress my kids (their dreams to become YouTubers have since changed hah) but now find meaning and motivation to use my experience towards solving the UAP mystery."



 
The fact of the matter is, our top technology and military equipment can't identify it. So much so they are now looking into it, as is NASA.

Take a look at Chris Lehto's videos he's a former F-16 pilot. He goes into detail on the radar stuff. These are also seen with the naked eye as well, not just radar.

Separate from that and even more strange is how things are handled at the government level.
 
UncleDave said:
How would you categorize the measurements that came from the crew of the Princeton?
Click to expand...
The only way to travel at light speed is to be massless, or more to the point, massless things MUST travel at lightspeed. Interestingly, things that travel at light speed do not experience time. From our reference frame, a photon left the star 100 million years ago but from the photon's reference frame, it left the star and instantly arrived at earth.

If you have mass, you have to overcome inertia, and you have to necessarily travel at speeds that are sub-lightspeed, AND you have to necessarily travel through the 4th dimension of time.

Our universe is not made of space and time - it's made up of spacetime and everything is moving through spacetime at the same speed. How? The faster you are moving through space the slower you move through time - if you are traveling at lightspeed then your movement through spacetime is 100% through space and 0% through time. If you moving at speeds we are familiar with then you have mass, you are traveling through space some and traveling through time some such that the combined contribution of both is equal to the speed of light. Problem is it takes A LOT of energy to overcome the inertia for massive objects and if you plot velocity on x-axis vs energy on the y-axis you hit a big ass vertical asymptote before reaching light speed. This would correspond to "infinite energy" being required for a massive object to reach light speed and even then that vertical asymptote means you can get infinitesimally close to but never actually reach light speed. What about accelerating a 1-ton object to just 10% of light speed? You can easily calculate this with KE = 1/2 mv^2 (x2 since you have to decelerate once you get there) and it is equivalent to the total output of energy by the entire planet in one year x 2. You must add more energy if you want to go faster and because it's the square of the velocity and the faster you go the greater the energy required per increase in unit velocity. The data you provided is completely inconsistent with this and we know this to be true. To not be true would mean the KE formula would have to be wrong and that's been confirmed so many times in so many ways that it is true.

As an aside...the next issue is at relativistic speeds even benign things like space dust would cause catastrophic damage to a ship not to mention debris the size of rocks etc.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom