UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

If it were concluded that this escape velocity, all it points to is that it's not anything we know we can do. Who did/can do it, is still a matter of speculation.


Certainly. That the above interpretation of observations is incorrect.

We do not know of any way artificial craft can move at escape velocity in the atmo.
We do know of many ways that humans can misinterpret dynamic artifacts (whether naked eye or via devices).

Interestingly, the article tends to paint the situation as if it’s not human engineered, it may (must?) be space aliens. Like, there’s no box to check “other.”

I’m pretty excited to see that scientists and science enthusiasts are interested in exploring the topic, though. All this time, I thought y’all were close minded.
 
This is the same study I mentioned before. It details in scientific terms the measurements of UAPs in terms of velocity, altitude, size, and luminosity. It proves that contrary to other opinions science CAN study this phenomena and reach helpful conclusions about its nature. All that is needed now is further studies to replicate the results. NASA's investigation may provide studies of this nature that solidly establish the existence UAPs. As far as what they are, we are still largely in the dark. I guess we'll have to wait and see what they come up with.
I’ll take “we don’t know” over swift dismissal and incessant mockery. Progress, MR. ;)
 
To be fair, there's only about 10 people doing the mockery.:)
Ten too many, Seattle. Ten too many. lol

Joking aside, I like this new friendlier version of the UAP thread. I’m learning about escape velocity which is pretty mind blowing, I have to say.
 
This strikes me as poor science.
" The Main Astronomical Observatory of NAS of Ukraine conducts a study of UAP. We used two meteor stations installed in Kyiv and in the Vinarivka village in the south of the Kyiv region. 7 8 Observations were performed with colour video cameras in the daytime sky. A special observation technique had developed for detecting and evaluating UAP characteristics.
Why was it necessary to use a specially-developed observation technique? What's wrong with tried and true cameras etc.?
There are two types of UAP, conventionally called Cosmics, and Phantoms. Cosmics are luminous objects, brighter than the background of the sky. Phantoms are dark objects, with contrast from several to about 50 per cent.
What does "contrast" mean, here?
We observed a broad range of UAPs everywhere.
Sounds very vague indeed. Problem in translation, perhaps?
We state a significant number of objects whose nature is not clear. Flights of single, group and squadrons of the ships were detected, moving at speeds from 3 to 15 degrees per second.
Wait! Ships? What ships?

Is there some kind of evidence of ships? Where is that evidence?
Squadrons????
It looks like somebody is jumping to conclusions. Or had a preferred conclusion in mind right from the start, before any data was collected.

A speed in "degrees per second" doesn't tell us much. That's just a measure of how fast an object appears to cross the field of view of the camera. To find the object's linear speed, we'd need to know how far away from the camera it was, in addition. Was that determined by this researcher? How?
Some bright objects exhibit regular brightness variability in the range of 10 - 20 Hz.
Just bright objects in general, or is this what was detected in this study?
Two-site observations of UAPs at a base of 120 km with two synchronised cameras allowed the detection of a variable object, at an altitude of 1170 km.
The objects were in space, then? Not in the atmophere?
It flashes for one hundredth of a second at an average of 20 Hz. Phantom shows the colour characteristics inherent in an object with zero albedos.
What method was used to measure albedo? Was there some kind of active detection used?
We see an object because it shields radiation due to Rayleigh scattering.
??
An object contrast made it possible to estimate the distance using colorimetric methods.
What are these methods? Does the paper explain them?
Phantoms are observed in the troposphere at distances up to 10 - 12 km.
Distances from what?
We estimate their size from 3 to 12 meters and speeds up to 15 km/s."
How were these estimates made?

----
I look forward to your detailed answers, Magical Realist, since I'm sure you've read the article. You have, haven't you?
 
This is the same study I mentioned before. It details in scientific terms the measurements of UAPs in terms of velocity, altitude, size, and luminosity. It proves that contrary to other opinions science CAN study this phenomena and reach helpful conclusions about its nature.
It remains to be seen what is proven and what is not, from this "study".

What are the credentials of the researchers, by the way, and what are their affiliations?
All that is needed now is further studies to replicate the results.
As usual.
NASA's investigation may provide studies of this nature that solidly establish the existence UAPs.
Or it might not.
As far as what they are, we are still largely in the dark.
I hear they are "squadrons" of "ships", but so far I've seen no evidence that supports that conclusion.

Got any?
 
it could. It would just require a nuclear explosion under it…

In the Pascal-A underground nuclear test on July 26, 1957, a metal manhole cover over the shaft leading down 150 meters to the detonation came off the top of the hole with a velocity that might have been several times Earth's escape velocity. It's unclear if it ever made it to space, since it might have burned up in the admosphere during its upward ascent, like a meteor in reverse.

https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/fastest-manmade-object-manhole-cover-nuclea-test/
 
Last edited:
If it only appeared in one frame would the frame rate of the camera help to at least give a range of velocities?
Yes. They did that calculation.

"A high-speed camera, which took one frame per millisecond, was focused on the borehole because studying the velocity of the plate was deemed scientifically interesting. After the detonation, the plate appeared in only one frame, but this was enough to make an estimation of its speed. Dr. Brownlee joked the best estimate of the cover's speed from the photographic evidence was it was "going like a bat!". Brownlee estimated that the explosion, combined with the specific design of the shaft, could accelerate the plate to approximately six times Earth's escape velocity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob#Missing_steel_bore_cap
 
could accelerate the plate to approximately six times Earth's escape velocity

Thanks

Doubt the team is still around but if a somewhat similar group is I'd like to contact them and ask about if they could calculate the objective speed of time

Subjective is well known (should be we invented it (agreed upon it)

So why did we construct our own version of time?

when
Time is objectively real.
Was not objectively real time good enough for us?

:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: C C
Thanks
Doubt the team is still around but if a somewhat similar group is I'd like to contact them and ask about if they could calculate the objective speed of time
Subjective is well known (should be we invented it (agreed upon it)
So why did we construct our own version of time?
when
Was not objectively real time good enough for us?
:)
This is way off-topic.
 
[...] So why did we construct our own version of time? [...] Was not objectively real time good enough for us? :)

Yah, I expect any hypothetical space aliens would suffer the same problem, especially with respect to those that hadn't upgraded from their original bodies or whatever life-facilitating substrate.

Biology had no choice but to introduce its own temporal standard for consciousness, due to the dependence on summarizing aggregations of "rapid" particle, atom, and molecular events as one extremely "slow", higher-level mental event.

Our cognition discriminates and displays environmental changes that endure for "long" milliseconds. Whereas subatomic changes can occur within the range of ludicrously short yoctoseconds.

In essence, a bulky increment of conscious experience can't even "fit" into the temporal increments of the non-represented world's rate of change. The former spans over a vast series of electrochemical changes in the brain, as well the chunk-sequence of alterations that contribute to its appearance/manufacture beforehand.

_
 
In the Pascal-A underground nuclear test on July 26, 1957, a metal manhole cover over the shaft leading down 150 meters to the detonation came off the top of the hole with a velocity that might have been several times Earth's escape velocity. It's unclear if it ever made it to space, since it might have burned up in the admosphere during its upward ascent, like a meteor in reverse.
Good luck to the craft and any human occupants that is shot up to space with that acceleration. ;)
 
HvmAS1z.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top