the belgian flap 1989 - the skeptical analysis (1)

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by spookz, Dec 11, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ives Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    88
    Yes, I know it sounds far fetched. But we're talking UFOs in the first place. . . . . And really, when you consider what our empire is already capable of, is it really that far fetched? Compared to interstellar travel?

    The field test explanation is worthy of discussion. But would the military test such a device in this way over a populated area without taking advantage of the opportunity of seeing how locals and governments/militaries react to a significant unknown like this?

    Remember, our government is not what it seems. In the 50s, we were spraying our own cities with biological agents to test germ warfare capabilities, giving LSD to servicemen and committing other attrocities. Today we incarcerate people without lawyers or trials, or even charges. The government asks mail carriers to spy on us, and wishes to track which websites we visit. We have a vice president continuing to receive income from a large corporation receiving preferential treatment in a bidding process for rebuilding a country which we bombed, yet we pretend this isn't obviously crooked on its face.

    How can anything be far-fetched these days?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. VRob Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    658
    The theory that this is one of our craft is the one that I lean towards. This does not mean I'm ruling out the off-world craft theory, as I think it's very likely that we gained this technology from backengineering off-world technology.


    Nothing can be ruled out when it comes to our Military/intelligent organizations.

    Our Nation is the most hypocritical one on the planet. The saddest part of all, is the majority of its citizens still believe we are the good guys.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    triangles have been observed at other places. where? perhaps a comparison might be of use. i recall virginia???
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ives Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    88
    Spookz,

    I believe some of the Hudson Valley sightings in the 1980s were of flying triangles. In fact, I'll bet a google search of that term reveals loads of incidents of varying quality.

    Ives
     
  8. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Originally posted by spookz
    I refer to the lack of any effect on the atmosphere,
    and this does not translate into a sonic boom?

    Not unless you were there to hear it. I refer to vortexes, but mainly condensation trails.

    the lack of propellant,
    how do you know this

    Name something dense enough that could be coming out the back to accelerate the object that fast, and not be detected.

    the ability to convert energy to KE that fast.
    you refer to the acceleration? if so why is that so far fetched?

    An object that size would be unable to produce that much acceleration with the amount of fuel it would be able to hold.

    You wouldn't get a boom unless...
    again i do not understand. are you saying an individual plane exceeding the speed of sound will not propogate a sonic boom unless there is a another object in the vicinity?

    I'm saying it wouldn't be detected unless the plane flew past you. A plane flying behind another witll never detect it's sonic boom. A town behind or two the side will never detect it. Think of a 'tree falling in the forest'. The pressure wave is there. It requires something to hear that pressure wave for the boom.

    if i recall correctly, the lack of a sonic boom was attested to by the ground observers

    First, sonic booms do have range limits. Don't remember what they are though. Second, this would be yet again another reason for saying that this would require technology currently unknown if it was artificial, which requires physics currently unkown. It is just as likely to me to be a natural event.

    the incomplete nature of the material presented in the thread is held as an account of the erroneous nature of the report.

    And? There are more likely explanations which I can't rule out because I don't have enough information... so yes, lack of information is a problem.

    it indicates a desire for simplicity and a continuation of the prevailing paradigm.

    No, it's like the rest of science. Why latch onto the increibly complicated and less likely opinion of ET when less complicated and more likely options are not ruled out?

    a "previously unseen phenomena" that does all that had been observed? (radar visibiilty.....blah)

    The majority (if not all) atmospheric phenomena are radar visible.

    what are you implying here? the belgians engaged in a slipshod investigation? even tho you are aware that we may be privy to only a fraction of the docs?

    And you expect me to assume that the rest agrees with the ET hypothesis? Why?

    Stating that it could be some unknown atmospheric phenomena is as rediculous as the UFO kooks who scream UFO everytime they see a bird or a plane in the air.

    The only thing here which tells me it can't simply be atmospheric is the video of the triange craft.

    a simple field test of new tech would be a far more plausible explanation. no one knows it is a drill. locals come out in full force. ineffectual. resounding success

    This would require a fairly incomptent government to test 'secret craft' this way... in which case I wouldn't trust their anaylsis. (although it could be a completely different government) Regardless, I don't see anybody having technology that could do this as of 10 years ago.

    If people actually knew what this was I doubt that it would still be a secret after 10 years.
     
  9. ScRaMbLe Chaos Inc. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    666
    Spookz - Excellent job. You have provided everything asked of you, within your capabilities.

    So where are all the usual skeptics? Kinda quiet in here....

    Persol

    Name something dense enough that could be coming out the back to accelerate the object that fast, and not be detected.

    An object that size would be unable to produce that much acceleration with the amount of fuel it would be able to hold.

    These comments assume the "craft" is restricted to using jet propulsion. Exotic technologies may have other means of energy storage and conversion. The hypothetical "zero point energy" devices would fit the bill quite nicely.

    Question to all...

    Why is it assumed that IF these "craft" are man made then they must belong to the US governments black project division? Why are other countries ruled out? Japan, Russia, China and many other smaller rich nations have equivalent tech to the US. Go live in Japan for a year, it may open your eyes. The US are NOT world leaders in every aspect of tech.

    Wouldn't it make more sense that the reason the US government denies the existance of UFOs is because they are not theirs but someone elses and they dont want to cause panic by admitting it?

    Japan said it would never use the bomb, you think they havent tried to develop alternatives? God only knows what toys the Russians have developed...
     
  10. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    persol

    And you expect me to assume that the rest agrees with the ET hypothesis? Why

    quite simple. the official conclusion was formed from all available data. the official conclusion accepted the possibilty of et origin. it ruled out common terrestrial phenomena as causes. that is how it works. to think otherwise would be to insinuate that the belgian govt has an agenda and had made selective use of the data to push a ufo hypthesis. in essence the belgian govt is a front for a ufology org. i am sure you can see how outrageous that line of reasoning is. there has to be a limit in the smear campaign.

    i am beginining to think even a state of the union speech that acknowledges ufo's will be inadequate. the denial is such that an alien will have to walk into each and every one's home and exchange business cards.
     
  11. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    less complicated and more likely options are not ruled out?

    such as?
    please take into account the belgian analysis and explanation.
    for instance do not say "balloon"!
     
  12. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    "The field test explanation is worthy of discussion" (ives).

    and so it shall be. since the pseudo skeptics are unable to provide a productive critique of the et hypothesis in the belgian flap, lemme give it a shot and see we can rule out terrestrial stuff
     
  13. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Well, you asked for it. 'Balloon'! Or anything else that would cause a radar image. As for pilots seeing lights below them, well there are plenty of reports that have turned out to be terrestrial light sources, that appear to be moving in the darkness.

    The problem lies in that this all rests on a 10 year old document, written in a foreign language, translated by 'who knows'. I can't even find any references to the professor who analyzed the photos (the only part that screams craft to me). An analysis of the photos/video (by somebody who actually does this type of analysis) are the way to go. If you can show me this, you have me that it is actually a solid object up there.

    As for the movements, I'm still doubtful of it... for reasons I've previously pointed out. (location discrepencies, the inability of almost all pilots to accurately judge the position and velocity of another plane in relation to the ground at high speed) This is where radar tracking would come in handy.
     
  14. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    The experimental LoFLYTE aircraft will be used to explore new flight control techniques involving neural networks, which allow the aircraft control system to learn by mimicking the pilot.

    The model is a Mach 5 waverider design -- a futuristic hypersonic aircraft configuration that actually cruises on top of its own shockwave. Waverider aircraft, powered by airbreathing hypersonic engines, would fly at speeds above Mach 4. LoFLYTE represents the first known flying waverider vehicle configuration, but upcoming flight tests at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, will be flown only at low subsonic speeds to explore take-off and landing control issues.

    The waverider was chosen as the testbed for the neural networks because the configuration has an inherently high hypersonic lift-to-drag ratio. If neural networks can control this "worst-case scenario" configuration, then they should be able to handle virtually any other configuration. The waverider configuration was also chosen because it allows for long hypersonic cruise ranges of up to 8,000 miles. At an altitude of 90,000 feet, a Mach 5 waverider would fly at a rate of one mile per second.

    NASA HQ Public Affairs Office


    loflyte

    image
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2003
  15. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    a12

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    The Triangle, which flies over New Mexico nightly, has these characteristics
    1. Flies maneuvers with F-117s (USAF)_
    2. Uses same range as C-130 laser bed aircraft (USAF)
    3. Flies Silent (except climbing in altitude, then it makes quiet "jet" noise)
    4. Has 4 circular convex ports on undercarriage (VTOL thrust ports)*
    5. Can travel at very slow speeds
    6. White strobes and normal aircraft lights
    7. Flies training missions nightly (recently in 2000, with an attack helicopter)
    8. Sharp wing tips under night vision viewing
    9. Entire aircraft glow
    *Layout of triangle's ports matches position of Harrier's 4 vertical exhaust ports

    Dan,


    *click pic for link

    a12 cancelled

    Not much has been released about the Avenger II, no doubt due to the lawsuits that followed the government's cancellation of the production contract. Virtually everything was destroyed in the aftermath - both data and jobs.

    indeedly doodly. they moved it underground and are making incredible progress

    *cancelled or not?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2003
  16. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    UFOS ARE NOT A-12

    The A-12 was never finished. The pictures you see in this page are of a full scale model, built out of wood, not an actual operational prototype.

    The famous "Black Triangle" ufos do not match the looks of the A12. The general shape is not the same, the size is not the same, the color is not the same, the texture is not the same, the lights under the "Black Triangle" type of ufo do not match with anything on the A-12. The only common feature is the global triangle shape as seen from a top view, if you disregard the testimonies who make clear that the black triangle ufos have cut edges.

    The performances of the A12 have nothing to do with the performances of "Black Trianle" ufos as measured by radar on several occasions. The A12 cannot hover, or fly at the speed of a bicycle at 50 meters altitude, or have 40G acceleration when chased.

    The "Black Triangle" ufos appear sometimes over cities of countries such as Belgium, or near civilian airports, or in agricultural countryside of Mexico. A secret aircraft of the US would never be sent in such era. This is also the position of the USAF and US Navy.

    The interest of "stealth" aircraft such as the A-12 is to escape radar detection. On the contrary, "Black Triangle" ufos and other types of ufos are detected by military radars of numerous countries, this is what lead them to take the ufo topic seriously, since radar recordings are physical evidences.


    UFOS ARE NOT A-12
     
  17. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    Big Black Delta

    NIDS researchers contend that these type vehicles are lighter-than-air, blimp-style craft of the U.S. military's making. Likely powered by "electrokinetic" drive, the lifting body-shaped airships have been skirting the skies from perhaps the early to mid 1980s.

    Among a range of NIDS observations, the group believes the BBDs are powered by electrokinetic/field drives, or airborne nuclear power units. These craft also fly at extreme altitudes, high above conventional aircraft and the pulsing of ground-based traffic control radar.

    Elecrokinetic propulsion means that no propellers or jets are used. A hybrid lighter-than-air craft would rely on aerostatic, lift gas, like a balloon. No helicopter-like downwash would be produced. Except for a slight humming from high-voltage control equipment -- and in older BBD versions an occasional coronal discharge -- a Big Black Delta makes no noise.

    Given a slew of BBD capabilities -- from silent running, diminished drag, elimination of sonic shockwaves, to operation from ground level to full vacuum -- NIDS calls for pushing this black world technology out into daylight for commercial benefit.

    The BBDs have been seen accelerating very rapidly from a hovering position. "They can look as though they are leaping across the sky. Being silent, it's almost spooky," Kelleher said.


    Investigation Casts Light on the Mysterious Flying Black Triangle
     
  18. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    persol

    the pseudo skeptic jab is just useless rhetoric. ignore please. i value your input
     
  19. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    But the object had speeded up from an initial velocity of 280 KPH to 1,800 KPH, while descending from 3,000 meters to 1,700 meters...in one second! This fantastic acceleration corresponds to 40 Gs. [A "G" is a unit of acceleration. One G is equivalent to the gravitational pull of the earth, 9.81 m/sec/sec.] It would cause immediate death to a human on board.

    In regards to inertia, how do complex beings survive near instantaneous accelerations and decelerations and sharp turns to thousands of k's per hour?
     
  20. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    when the ufo is observed to accelerate beyond the speed of sound, there is no associated sonic boom

    Objects cannot move through the atmosphere at those speeds without creating a sonic boom, a direct result of the Doppler Effect:

    http://www.gmi.edu/~drussell/Demos/doppler/doppler.html
     
  21. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Someone mentioned propellants and why none could be detected.

    In regards to Newtons third law, an object could not be made to move without forcing some other object in the opposite direction.
     
  22. VRob Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    658
    Q,

    Why can't you fathom a technology above our own?

    The velocity & manueverability of these vehicles is what makes most of us consider the ET hypothesis. Since you disregard the entire event because of impossible(by our standards) speeds, it's quite obvious that you're incapable of thinking outside of the box.
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,359
    This thread is a good example of the kind of lack of critical thinking which so typically characterises believers that UFOs represent alien spacecraft. The problem is not that the believers concoct stories or invent facts, but more that they draw unreasonable conclusions from the agreed facts. They also fail to question the accuracy of disputable facts, instead preferring to uncritically adopt the interpretation which best supports their prejudice that UFOs must be alien objects.

    In the present case, we have some recorded sightings of <i>something</i>, along with radar observations and so on. But it doesn't take long at all to go from that to a detailed discussion of "vehicles" and unknown technologies. The problem is that an assumption is made very early on, and conclusions are drawn which are not actually mandated by the data. To show you what I mean, I will extract a few quotes from recent posts.

    In addition, <b>spookz</b> has attempted to ridicule the people who dare to question his conclusion. He asks:

    <i>perhaps you wanna the president to sign off on the doc? the un? you? perhaps we got have the mighty jamesr as the final arbiter of all things?</i>

    No, spookz, I'm not the arbiter of all things. It's much simpler than that. You see, I am willing to suspend judgment on this information until there is data which points us inevitably towards one conclusion or another. You, and the other believers, want to prejudge the case and jump to the conclusion that these observations represent alien spacecraft. I have said before that argument from authority is a very weak form of argument, but apparently you missed that. I don't care what the President believes regarding this data. What I want is not somebody in authority to tell me what to believe, but good enough data to be able to draw my own conclusion.

    <b>spookz</b> writes:
    <i>it is interesting how the belgian airforce is held to be incompetent in order to support argument for a prosaic explanation. radar operators/pilots/analysts competence is held to be questionable. it is simple arrogance and denial.</i>

    I don't think anybody has suggested that the Belgian airforce is incompetent, so this is a straw man argument. What I <i>have</i> suggested is that people can sometimes make mistakes, which is a different thing altogether.

    <b>VRob</b> writes:
    <i>The evidence has been layed out.

    1. Multiple radar detections.
    2. Visual sighting from the ground and from the air.</i>

    Yes, something was seen and detected. We don't know what. And that's what makes your next statement problematic:

    <i>3. Vehicle performance that our current level of technology considers to be impossible.</i>

    How do we know we're dealing with a vehicle here? Where's the evidence of that? You and the other believers are making a very big jump in going from lights in the sky to vehicles.

    <i>4. A genuine Government of this planet providing the facts. Not some UFO web sit, or organization.</i>

    Governments consist of people. They are not infallible.

    <i>Facts:
    There was a vehicle in the Air over Belgium.
    It performs manuevers unknown to our technology.
    The only question remains is who's vehicle is it. Ours, or theirs.</i>

    No. You're getting way ahead of yourself. The skeptics are stuck back at "There was a vehicle...", while you've accepted that and moved on to speculate on where the aliens come from. It's not just you - this kind of logical leap is typical of UFO believers.

    <i>Stating that it could be some unknown atmospheric phenomena is as rediculous as the UFO kooks who scream UFO everytime they see a bird or a plane in the air.</i>

    Why ridiculous? What rules that out as a possible explanation, other than your own prejudice? Trying to belittle those who disagree with you is also a logically invalid method of argument, since it appeals to emotion rather than fact.

    <i> think our Mililtary would be much more likely to test an experimental craft over foreign ground than they would over an American city.

    It's much easier for them to maintain control of the information that comes from an overseas report.</i>

    Think about this for a minute. Are you serious? Do you think that the US government has more control over the foreign press than over their own press? What a strange thought.
    ----

    Next, we have another side of the UFO believer psyche - the conspiracy theorist, as demonstrated by <b>Ives</b>:

    <i>Remember, our government is not what it seems. In the 50s, we were spraying our own cities with biological agents to test germ warfare capabilities, giving LSD to servicemen and committing other attrocities. Today we incarcerate people without lawyers or trials, or even charges. The government asks mail carriers to spy on us, and wishes to track which websites we visit. We have a vice president continuing to receive income from a large corporation receiving preferential treatment in a bidding process for rebuilding a country which we bombed, yet we pretend this isn't obviously crooked on its face.</i>

    ...and therefore any light in the sky must be an alien spaceship which the government is covering up. Give me a break.

    <b>ScRaMbLe</b> is quick to jump on this bandwagon...

    <i>Wouldn't it make more sense that the reason the US government denies the existance of UFOs is because they are not theirs but someone elses and they dont want to cause panic by admitting it?

    Japan said it would never use the bomb, you think they havent tried to develop alternatives? God only knows what toys the Russians have developed...</i>

    Yes, the US is not really the only superpower left in the world today. Other countries are secretly much more advanced, even though they never show it. And the US government, instead of telling people or trying to gain the technology via espionage or by diplomatic or trade efforts, keeps it under wraps.

    <b>VRob</b> takes another jab at the skeptics:

    <i>Why can't you fathom a technology above our own?</i>

    Obviously, if such a technology existed, we would be working in the dark. It would be like showing a digital watch to somebody from the 17th century and asking them to provide a possible explanation for its workings, all without actually allowing them to open it up or examine it in any way except superficially.

    If we gained access to more advanced technology, I'm sure it wouldn't take too long to reverse engineer it. But we're unlikely to develop an interstellar drive, if such a thing exists, by examining lights in the sky.

    <i>The velocity & manueverability of these vehicles is what makes most of us consider the ET hypothesis. Since you disregard the entire event because of impossible(by our standards) speeds, it's quite obvious that you're incapable of thinking outside of the box.</i>

    There's the assumption again - two assumptions actually. First, that we are talking about "vehicles" here, which is a logical leap. Second, that anybody who asks sensible questions must be closed-minded and ignorant.

    It seems the UFO believers have an axe to grind with the skeptics. Apparently, it is wrong to ask questions. Instead, we are supposed to accept without question any wacky conclusion the UFOlogist wants to throw our way.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page