![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,732
- Location
- Auckland
@Angilion dropping truth bombs in your bunker.
Pentagon releases UFO footage
- Thread starter Doobedoo
- Start date
Why do you keep bringing up aliens? No one here is saying its Aliens. Nothing in FLIR videos contradicts the statements in fact they back up the statements. The report is the pilot was being effected by ECM and the FLIR video shows the object with the same message on screen as though ECM is active.
How can you know the object is not blocking the radar? It seems like your just making that up like you are that you can see flapping wings or aviation lights which is clearly not true by anyone that has watched the FLIR video. There are no flapping rings and there are no aviation lights.
The report is the pilot and weapon officer locked onto the object. Right after they locked onto the object they got hit by ECM losing radar lock, range finder and weapon lock and we can see the range finder in the video. Which is what we would expect to happen from a craft as a craft (plane or unmanned drone) would detect the weapon lock and bring up an alert. ECM is one of the main defence methods when you are under threat from a weapons lock. If ECM is activated that would also explain the unclear movements and impossible movements as they are not gettering a proper sensor readings.
So instead of believing the simple solution that its some sort of craft triggering ECM after a active sensor lock was put on it and the ECM is confusing sensors. Which I would point out the pilots reported estimating the object was 12 meters in size and oval in shape which would be the right size for a military unmanned drone from the right point of view. Instead you want us to believe its some bird or balloon that 12 highly trained people in fighter jets and 6 navy ships cannot tell is a balloon or bird. Along with by shear fluke some unknown force takes out the ranger lock, radar and weapons lock right as they get an active sensor lock on the "Bird". Your idea of its a bird or balloon sounds as crazy to me as saying its aliens.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,370
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
No he isn't as clever as he is.
I believe that how the Universe is made lends itself to creating life wherever it can, what I don't believe is that it has created other intelligent life that could reach us.
It would be a complete and utter waste of all those ingredients if some form of life wasn't on another planet somewhere.
You've also got to be some special kind of doomsayer to believe that only this rock has got some type of life on it.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,370
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
“I’m not saying it’s aliens, I’m just saying it’s probably a manned or unmanned vehicle that doesn’t match the technology any country professes to have”
I replied to that on post 3317
The pilots both had a lock on the targets, no blocking or focused interference, the jets had a lock on the bird and balloon.
To block maybe a dozen radar systems some ship based would take a huge amount of power. To generate that power would take huge systems burning huge amounts of fuel and producing huge amounts of heat. That only realistically leaves ship or ships based systems. Unless alien tech of course, then sure, antimatter engine craft the size of a plane maybe.
Maybe someone has a secret fleet of Vulcan bombers or something, but those would just light up the radar as far as it could scan, and these things seemed invisible.
The simple solution is the videos are as they seem. The reports are highly suspect.
The reports are not highly suspect though what you are saying about a bird is highly suspect. Senior Chief Kavin Day, Patrick Hugues Petty Officer (Technician), Petty Officer Gary Voorhis, Senior Chief Kavin Day, Commander David Fravor, Aex Dietrich and Commander Chad Underwood and all the others are massively more reliable then you.
Since when are modern day Stealth and ECM systems limited to 1 single target. I think your just speaking rubbish and making things up like you did when you made up the nonsense about you seeing flapping wings and aviation lights which is clearly not true. This huge amounts of fuel and producing huge amounts of heat is just more made up nonsense that's not how modern systems work.
Anyway as far as I remember from the reports everyone was using passive sensors. Only 1 plane switched to active sensors and only 1 planes active sensors got hit by ECM. That gets around your fake huge systems burning huge amounts of fuel and producing huge amounts of heat.
That makes more sense then thinking its a bird that the pilots mistake as a 12 meters drone like object that disables sensors the same as how how ECM functions. Or you know its a classified 12 meter drone with an ECM pod. Though I am sure the people on this forum are right its not a 12 meter drone with an ECM pod and in fact all the ships, fighter jets, sensor systems and crew are confused by a bird. The 12 meter object with a drone like oval shape reported as been seen was in fact a tiny bird. Having never seen a bird before the crew panicked and at the same time the fighter jet locked onto the bird with active sensors due to having of course never seen a bird before the sensor systems had a melt down for no apparent reason. Not because of ECM but because the bird did a fly by.“I’m not saying it’s aliens, I’m just saying it’s probably a manned or unmanned vehicle that doesn’t match the technology any country professes to have”
Last edited:
To take the reports at face value we first need to accept some type of super natural element.
To block radar you have to flood the collector with more spam than it’s sending. An aircraft carrier is spamming megawatts. Many ships are spamming many more megawatts. Those need spamming too. Not happening without the help of little green men IMO.
Stealth is not the same. That’s about defeating radar by blending into background noise. However, in this case that didn’t happen low power passive systems easy picked up the bird and ballon.
The ships will be using radar systems at extreme power levels. So extreme, they can’t be used when near ports. Very not good for health.
A hunch I have, is non of the radars had been set for cormorants or plastic balloons (why would they be?) and the visual sightings caused some confusion resulting in planes being sent to search the area with radars better suited to imaging low cross section objects.
Last edited:
I remember as a kid driving through a country road in Kent where I use to live with my brothers and parents and looking out the car window seeing a strange looking object ( almost cigar shaped)sitting over a field high up in the sky not moving almost floating with which I can remember a haze almost all around it then 10 seconds later if was in a completely different location in a blink of an eye it was very odd to see and then in a blink of an eye again it was gone (this was also day time about around lunch time) and we all saw it and couldn’t make it out of what we just witnessed then we read the paper
The next day and apparently other people saw a strange object in the same location in Kent too , too this day I don’t know what we saw but I have never seen something move the way this object did and after seeing this I believe there might be something out there we don’t know about
Also to to add this was back in about 2000 before we had smart phones if I had a smart phone back then I wish I could have filmed this as it would have been incredible
The next day and apparently other people saw a strange object in the same location in Kent too , too this day I don’t know what we saw but I have never seen something move the way this object did and after seeing this I believe there might be something out there we don’t know about
Also to to add this was back in about 2000 before we had smart phones if I had a smart phone back then I wish I could have filmed this as it would have been incredible
Last edited:
What do you mean that didn’t happen? Isn't that just was the witnesses described, the object was being lost and regained as they struggled to maintain a lock with passive sensors. Just like Stealth would when it blends into background.
As I said before I don’t remember the witness's saying the navy ships radar was being blocked by ECM. As far as I recall only 1 fighterjet had its radar blocked the same fighter jet that activated locked onto the target. The simplest explanation is the object picked up the weapon lock and as a defensive measure targeted ECM back at the single fighter jet. Isn't there also a 2nd type of ECM that instead of blocking makes false readings and you appear in multiple places which would explain the impossible movements if its a false reading.
Isn’t the thermal temperature of the object massively too hot to be a bird or balloon? Birds and Balloons don’t give out that much heat. On the other hand a drone or plane would put out that high a thermal temperature.
I can’t see anything in the videos or described in statements being capable of jamming anything. I can see how it might be difficult to image a bird or balloon depending on orientation and other factors.
Trying to measure a heat signal is tricky. If the balloon had shiny surface say, that would reflect heat/photons and could give a false reading or bad image. The military are tuned for picking up other military hardware so when faced with something non military it might cause a few issues requiring out of the box use of hardware, on the fly human interpretation of data etc. Not easy in a potential combat scenario when making adjustments might mean not seeing other incoming threats.
80,000 feet is a tall order for any craft outside of a balloon. That is a real high flyer. 80,000 feet in a oval 12 foot drone with radar blocking capabilities is not happening. 80,000 feet and 12ft craft alone does not compute. 80,000 to sea level in seconds is magical. When you add what’s in the reports it simple can’t be true. IMO the witnesses are either wrong, confused, misinterpreting data or a combination of things. It’s that or what was actually witnesses is something supernatural.
To passively block the radar of a fighter jet or, more likely a network of jets would take some doing. To actively block many systems would take huge amounts of power.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 759
- Location
- UK
From a recent Mick West tweet, not seen these before, pretty advanced tech, all it took was a few billions years.
The subject of technology advancement is interesting.
When a technology is created that is so far away from current technologies, so it appeared with no public evolution, then it does tempt the question of how it comes into existence.
I find it interesting that some of the technology today was only seen in fiction in the past.
The gadget I'm waiting for is a device which scans a person and instantly tells the operator all the mineral and vitamin levels the subject has.
When a technology is created that is so far away from current technologies, so it appeared with no public evolution, then it does tempt the question of how it comes into existence.
I find it interesting that some of the technology today was only seen in fiction in the past.
The gadget I'm waiting for is a device which scans a person and instantly tells the operator all the mineral and vitamin levels the subject has.
I think that you're setting a very low bar for "clever" by referring to acknowledging ignorance as being a claim of high intelligence. There are very many things I don't know. Does that make me an awesome genius? I don't think so. I'm certainly not claiming that not knowing things makes me clever. Acknowledging ignorance shows some degree of intelligence, but it's a pretty basic level of intelligence. I think everyone does it for anything they don't have some sort of faith about.
It's not unusual for people who believe devoutly in something to interpret not having that belief as something horrible. Doomsayer, nihilist, whatever. Any atheist who's talked with enough theists is familiar with that. But it's completely wrong because it's subjective and being applied to the wrong subject. Your faith is important to you, so you interpret not having that faith as a bad thing, a loss. Because it would be to you. But that's you. It's not me. I don't share your faith. Not having your faith isn't a bad thing to me.
You're also showing another common trait amongst believers - being unable to understand a lack of belief. You're wrongly interpreting a lack of belief as belief in the opposite. I said that I don't know about life elsewhere. I was very clear about that. I belaboured the point, repeating it over and over again. I didn't say that I believe that life only exists on Earth. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. I don't know and I acknowledge that I don't know.
I don't regard acknowledging that I don't know what I don't know as being "a special kind of doomsayer".
EDIT: Also, you're assuming that there is a purpose to the universe. That requires an entity to assign purpose to it, i.e. a god or gods. Or the universe as a god. It can't be "a complete and utter waste of all those ingredients" unless someone exists who assigns a purpose to those ingredients. Purpose requires sentience.
Last edited:
Can you give an example? Preferably recent, to rule out the possibility of the related prior knowledge having been lost to history.
Observation and ingenuity comes to my mind as the reason. Take smelting, for example. A radical, world-changing technology with no public evolution beforehand. Lots of development of the process afterwards, but no immediately obvious prior steps or knowledge. It wasn't until millenia later that there was knowledge of how smelting works or even what substances are involved. For the most important smelting in human history, copper carbonate hydroxide breaks down to copper oxide, carbon dioxide and water when heated and copper oxide will react with carbon monoxide to form copper and carbon dioxide if enough energy is put into the mixture of copper oxide and carbon monoxide. But people were smelting copper from ore for well over 6000 years before anyone had any clue about any of that.
Which does raise the question of how that happened, but I think that the answer is observation and ingenuity. The existence of metal was known from metal that naturally exists in metallic form. The existence of different metals was known from the same source (several metals naturally occur in metallic form, including copper). Two metal ores will smelt in an ordinary small open air fire and people at least as far back as the neolithic deliberately put stones into such fires for use in cooking (and possibly heating). So smelting would have been observed, probably quite often. But the metals from those ores are lead and tin, which were neither use nor ornament in the stone age. Maybe lead saw some use for sling projectiles, possibly, but stone was easier for that. I'd bet that some people tried different types of stone, maybe different types of wood in the fire, maybe adding herbs or prayers or whatever, hoping to get a different metal, something decorative or useful. But none of that would work. A higher temperature is required. A lot of time passed until the invention of a device to create higher temperatures than an open air wood-burning fire. But that too can be explained by observation and ingenuity. Blowing air onto a fire causes it to burn more intensely. Very often observed in times when people routinely made fires outdoors. The ingenuity came into play in the form of inventing a device to do so reliably and controlably. Which can be as simple as a pottery funnel and a stick with slats stuck on it. Easy after the first person thought of it. Probably invented to improve pottery production. But it'll also work for smelting that requires higher temperature. But there are lots of types of stone. How did anyone figure out which was the right type? Observation again. Copper (which people knew about because it sometimes occurs in metallic form) goes green when exposed to the air. Some rocks are green. The same shade of green. Worth a try! Copper was hugely valuable, very high status stuff.
Someone has to think of the idea first. Sometimes the same person who invented the technology, sometimes not. Sometimes the person who invented the tech was inspired by the person who thought of the idea. Mobile phones come to mind - the person who invented the first one was quite open about the fact that they got the idea from Star Trek.
The communicator from Star Trek now exists. Maybe the medical tricorder will exist in the future.
Last edited:
I can't think of a good example off the cuff without me going back researching it. But an example we could say today is quantum computing.
How have we made it possible to go from 1 OR 0 in binary to now be 1 AND 0?
Why do we think there is a long gap between some ideas and the technology? I can understand having a practical version of it can be decades away. But what changes a thought for it to become real?
For example I've seen VR (virtual reality) as an idea. Then it became a reality in the early 90s (I saw it on a tv show called Cyberzone). But it's not until recent years its become a practical home device. From reality to practical use there was always progress. But some ideas seem to be an idea with nothing happening and then appear decades later.
Who was that? Because the concept of mobile phones and wireless technology came about from Nikola Tesla. He spoke and wrote of a world where power and communication happens over the airwaves. His inventions are what every piece of tech we use today employ at their core. For all intents and purposes, if Tesla had the continued funding and didn't get blind sided by Thomas Edison with false claims to ruin his public image, he'd have created the first devices.
Last edited:
I think the same applies. Quantum computing was an idea, then it became a reality and maybe at some point in the future it will become a practical home device. I don't know why there was a long (by modern standards) gap between the idea and the first working implementation of the idea, but that's probably because I don't understand quantum physics. Come to think of it, was it a long time? A quick look indicates that the idea was first put forward in 1980 and the first working device was in 1998. Maybe the time period from the first general purpose computer (1942 IIRC...nope, 1943) to the idea of a quantum computer is a long period of time by modern standards. My quick look turned up an interesting possible explanation - there was very little overlap between people who were developing computers and people who were quantum physicists.
Martin Cooper. Nikola Tesla didn't invent a mobile phone. He also didn't invent the basis of every piece of tech we use today. The hype about Tesla is extraordinary.
EDIT: Ah, the idea, not the device. Martin Cooper said he got the idea from Star Trek. Not Nikola Tesla. Who wasn't anywhere near as famous then as he is now.
Last edited:
When I was at college we had a class that went on for a slot of 3 hours per week. They had us making a calculator using binary code, 1's and 0's. Apparently computers can't subtract so we had to do different calculations if we wanted a subtraction answer. But I can honestly say after that class I came out of there mentally tired. I've never felt tired like that before. My brain was doing over time and only just keeping up. So I can't begin to imagine the complexity of quantum computing. I'll keep with the abacus!