Edit: For perspective, you'd have to get up to Mach 43 (that's 43 times the speed of sound), in order to travel 14749m/s (14.749km/s). Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think humans have even accomplished Mach 10 yet, never mind Mach 43.
Some of that tech can also do 90 degree, right-turns in mid-air (such as the "tic tac"). That would liquify any human occupants, unless of course such an object was bending time and space around it.
I didn't realize how much Flight of the Navigator ended up being so accurate to modern UAP sightings. I'm going to have to watch that again!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
What games? I would think if you could easily reference these things you could easily share the relevant pieces of text.
Passive aggressive blah blah blah nonsense.
Save your little passive aggressive commentary and quit playing the victim card. You do nothing but play games. "As far as I know" like you have researched the subject matter when you did nothing but do a google search seconds before. That's game playing. You know nothing that google does not present to you in an immediate search. Research is beyond you, which is exactly why I'm drawing a line in the sand here. The extent to your knowledge on any subject, especially this one, is limited to the first 10 items google presents. Please, go ahead and try and deny it. All YOU had to say was "my google search suggests this has been debunked" instead of trying to pass yourself off as having some actual insight into the subject matter, which was a passive aggressive attempt to discredit the source I gave to GGG. Again, this is part of YOUR game and your behaviors. You attack the source or you attack the person posting the information with snide passive aggressive comments and disinformation about the content. So instead of giving you something that you are going to use to nitpick and attempt to discredit I'm instead going to make you work for it for a change.
I gave you all the breadcrumbs you need to find the information. I obviously know where it is because I referenced it when you questioned it in the first place. I gave you the name of the author. I gave you the reference to the battle. I gave you the reference to the imagery used. You're the google Grand Master, do your own work, although you may need printed form here. I ain't doing it for you because you're doing nothing but piggybacking off the work of others and make criticisms of others who actually do the work and put the effort in to bring an argument. I don't think I'm asking too much here. Now off you go. Enjoy your time at the library.
The more I think about it the more I don't believe it's possible they were detecting any object "3-12m in diameter and reaching speeds of 15km/s".
It's more likely that humans would project an image which would appear to be moving at that speed from our perspective, than to actually build that object. I don't believe it's remotely possible for humanity to propel an object at 50,000+ km/h through the troposphere.
What tech does the US (or anyone on Earth) have that is capable of travelling 15km per second?
Edit: For perspective, you'd have to get up to Mach 43 (that's 43 times the speed of sound), in order to travel 14749m/s (14.749km/s). Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think humans have even accomplished Mach 10 yet, never mind Mach 43.
The more I think about it the more I don't believe it's possible they were detecting any object "3-12m in diameter and reaching speeds of 15km/s".
It's more likely that humans would project an image which would appear to be moving at that speed from our perspective, than to actually build that object. I don't believe it's remotely possible for humanity to propel an object at 50,000+ km/h through the troposphere.
Based on the technology we have available to us, unlikely. The concept of gravimetric drives would theoretically make it possible, but the jet and propellant engines we are familiar with makes it almost impossible. The friction and heat from the atmosphere would make it impossible IMO. Those speeds can only be attained where the atmosphere is non-existent and won't work to slow the craft down. You would need to eliminate the effects of the atmosphere by creating a field around the craft and bending it through space. Again, all theoretical, but supposedly that's how these things would be possible.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Today I learned that the ozone layer is at the bottom of the stratosphere. I always thought it was the top of the troposphere... like a ceiling... but it turns out it's actually a floor.
That's just a few flea beetles jumping past the camera lens.
Flea beetles the size of a school bus! That's the incredible thing here. Based on the measurements they're talking about, that's a school bus sized object flying along at mach 44. Can you imagine the kinetic energy in something like that? And yet it has the ability to do 90 degree turns? What kind of energy would it take to get to that speed, and then make those types of turns?
Flea beetles the size of a school bus! That's the incredible thing here. Based on the measurements they're talking about, that's a school bus sized object flying along at mach 44. Can you imagine the kinetic energy in something like that? And yet it has the ability to do 90 degree turns? What kind of energy would it take to get to that speed, and then make those types of turns?
That's where your line of thought loses me. My brain goes "well that's ridiculous, there must be something else going on here we don't understand."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
That's where your line of thought loses me. My brain goes "well that's ridiculous, there must be something else going on here we don't understand."
Hahaha. I hear you. The bolded is the important part. As the James Webb telescope is showing us, we really don't understand the universe around us. A lot of the assumptions we have don't hold up, which is why we have to continue to challenge what we think we know and continually re-examine many of the things we firmly believe we know. When you consider that much of our body of knowledge has been developed in the past hundred years, and how long our species, our planet, and the universe has been around, it should tell you just how little we likely have down cold. We have to be open to the idea that what we understand may not be the way things actually are. As my dissertation chair reminded me, there is nothing irrefutable and nothing that we should not challenge. What may seem crazy today may be commonplace in another 100 years as we learn more. I'm sure the Wright Brothers never imaged their invention leading to devices that could break the sound barrier with ease and cruise at those speeds for distances that were unfathomable at the time.
Save your little passive aggressive commentary and quit playing the victim card. You do nothing but play games. "As far as I know" like you have researched the subject matter when you did nothing but do a google search seconds before. That's game playing. You know nothing that google does not present to you in an immediate search. Research is beyond you, which is exactly why I'm drawing a line in the sand here. The extent to your knowledge on any subject, especially this one, is limited to the first 10 items google presents. Please, go ahead and try and deny it. All YOU had to say was "my google search suggests this has been debunked" instead of trying to pass yourself off as having some actual insight into the subject matter, which was a passive aggressive attempt to discredit the source I gave to GGG. Again, this is part of YOUR game and your behaviors. You attack the source or you attack the person posting the information with snide passive aggressive comments and disinformation about the content. So instead of giving you something that you are going to use to nitpick and attempt to discredit I'm instead going to make you work for it for a change.
I gave you all the breadcrumbs you need to find the information. I obviously know where it is because I referenced it when you questioned it in the first place. I gave you the name of the author. I gave you the reference to the battle. I gave you the reference to the imagery used. You're the google Grand Master, do your own work, although you may need printed form here. I ain't doing it for you because you're doing nothing but piggybacking off the work of others and make criticisms of others who actually do the work and put the effort in to bring an argument. I don't think I'm asking too much here. Now off you go. Enjoy your time at the library.
It really has nothing to do with whatever this drama you’re trying to stir up is. I’m genuinely curious and not buying your angle here.
Last time we went through this it with you accusing me of… I dunno, researching on the internet (I’m sure as a real professor none of your real students use the internet) you were presenting yourself as an expert on memory and psychology, and when I presented actual studies from actually respected academics in the field, you shrunk like a violet and then PM’d me “#### you #######”. So, while you might consider yourself reputable in every field (who wouldn’t, being a psychologist criminologist historian professor of ufology who negotiates high profile business deals on the side while acting as an event promoter in their spare time and translates Ancient Greek/Macedonian in their sleep), I actually just don’t think you know the texts that specifically reference the event (I’m going to guess you’re referring to the “flying shields” event since you’re being so intentionally vague to avoid having to actually have evidence in hand) and are just repeating someone else’s unsourced reference to it, like Clark, Fenoglio, or Edwards.
But, by all means, if you know the texts, name it and where in the text it’s referenced. It’s certainly less difficult than spending paragraphs complaining about someone not going to the library. I’m genuinely curious. Let’s talk some ancient aliens!
Actually, if anyone else knows the source of the claim (Ozy? I feel like you could actually answer reasonably lol) then please share!
Yes and no. I don't recall anyone saying sightings went up, just that sightings during war are very common. Clark has collected historical sighting information from around the globe and many encounters are narratives from the military or during military campaigns. I'm pretty sure it was Clark's book where he recounted a narrative from Alexander the Great about a sighting during wartime. It's historical narratives, and much of our history is focused on wartime events, so you kind of get the gist of what to expect. Don't expect a modern structured report as these are documented narratives rather than critical analysis.
Essentially people saw things they didn’t understand in the sky during well recorded historical events doesn’t seem noteworthy
Been thinking lots of this, and keep in mind I'm typing as I think.
Lets say there was a alien civilization that broke the speed of light limit with some crazy tech. Would that mean that they know we are out there in the galaxy?
How would they know if we did not have faster than light tech to communicate that we are out there?
Would they just randomly be flying by FTL but detect our signals?
Or would they just happen to "stop" in our area of sending signals sphere and get there attention?
"Graviton drives" sure yeah...But how did they know to stop here at our infinitesimally small influence of the galaxy(or universe?) and stop to take a look.
How at faster than light did they see our signals?
Been thinking lots of this, and keep in mind I'm typing as I think.
Lets say there was a alien civilization that broke the speed of light limit with some crazy tech. Would that mean that they know we are out there in the galaxy?
How would they know if we did not have faster than light tech to communicate that we are out there?
Would they just randomly be flying by FTL but detect our signals?
Or would they just happen to "stop" in our area of sending signals sphere and get there attention?
"Graviton drives" sure yeah...But how did they know to stop here at our infinitesimally small influence of the galaxy(or universe?) and stop to take a look.
How at faster than light did they see our signals?
This is why I think it’s highly unlikely we have been visited.
If developing FLT travel was easy such that there are many civilizations so that the sheer number makes it likely that one of them would randomly find us then we should have already found evidence of communication in the Galaxy.
It seems quite long odds that life would be scarce enough for us not to detect yet comms in space, lucky/advanced enough to find us, yet dumb enough to be observed.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
This is why I think it’s highly unlikely we have been visited.
If developing FLT travel was easy such that there are many civilizations so that the sheer number makes it likely that one of them would randomly find us then we should have already found evidence of communication in the Galaxy.
It seems quite long odds that life would be scarce enough for us not to detect yet comms in space, lucky/advanced enough to find us, yet dumb enough to be observed.
Yeah, that's one I have a tough time getting past: if you have the tech to get here, then either it's going to be an epic appearance, or you could easily avoid detection if desired
Also, traversing galactic or inter-galactic distances, in some little tic tac shaped #### box
All the sighting claims I've seen seem very limited to the human imagination
Well, the speed of light is 300,000 km/second. I don't think anything that has been tracked up to now (public or otherwise) is going that fast. The recent Ukrainian study were capturing these objects going a fraction of that speed but still going bloody fast nonetheless.
I believe it's more likely they are already here rather travel from super far distances to get here. Or, perhaps, exist in a multi-dimensional reality that lets them hop "in and out" to achieve vast distances or extremely quick travel. Even some sort of fourth dimensional reality whereby their interaction in our reality is an aberration, a sighting, or a blip. It is argued that there may be up to 10 or 11 dimensions out there, if one is a follower of string theory.
Then there is the whole argument about what is consciousness, and how does quantum entanglement play into our existence. Are we just vibrating frequencies that exist in a physical state, and get returned to the universe upon death? Are we all just one and we are experiencing ourselves over and over?
I think we still have a long ways to go before we understand our true reality. It might be more mind-bending than we think. I'm open to it, I don't think we have a full understanding of who we are or how we came to be. But I do believe answers are coming for the human race in due time.
And no PepsiFree, I don't follow ancient or historical information as much as I probably should, so I don't know the source of that claim. I do like the 1561 Nuremberg sighting though, that intrigues me.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
