Peer-reviewed paper on UFOs. 80k feet to sea level in 0.79 sec (50,000+ mph!)

[exchemist]

The NASA meeting today.
If anyone is interested in what was said about the "Go fast" uap, see time mark 2:28:25

NASA meeting

************************************************************
Mick west on "Go Fast" Rock on Mick West.

Very informative - and cautionary for people trying to interpret video images on YouTube, as even trained pilots can be fooled by things like parallax.

In fact, I'm reminded by this of the parallax effect one often sees when driving past an airport. Landing aircraft can seem to be flying backwards (!) , since they are being observed relative to a background - of trees or buildings - that is a lot further away than the plane. The motion of the observer's vehicle is responsible for the apparently anomalous motion of the place.

 

[DaveC426913]

If anyone is interested in what was said about the "Go fast" uap, see time mark 2:28:25

"approximately 40 miles per hour"

And that, my friends, is why it is critical to be skeptical of extraordinary claims (and scuttlebutt) until the facts are in.

Also, proof positive that trained, military personnel can be fooled by routine, mundane events.

Those of us familiar with geometry and motion knew this was most likely to be the outcome for the 'go fast' video; now it's official.

 

[foghorn]

Parallax

In fact, I'm reminded by this of the parallax effect one often sees when driving past an airport. Landing aircraft can seem to be flying backwards (!) , since they are being observed relative to a background - of trees or buildings - that is a lot further away than the plane. The motion of the observer's vehicle is responsible for the apparently anomalous motion of the place.

I noticed you referred to balls in a couple of recent posts. Add the Parallax effect and you get:

 

[C C]

[...] Also, proof positive that trained, military personnel can be fooled by routine, mundane events. [...]

And this is a different approach and less derisive ambiance than some of the [occasionally ludicrous] sham explanations provided in the 50s and 60s, to shield the military's own technological developments and other concerns. Suggesting a different motive for wanting to reverse UAP stigma this time, in contrast to encouraging that very odium during the Cold War days (180 degree switch in propaganda strategy).
_

 

[DaveC426913]

Parallax
I noticed you referred to balls in a couple of recent posts. Add the Parallax effect and you get:

It has been an extremely long and difficult time educating UAP enthusiasts to shake their pre-existing beliefs that trained military pilots and ground personnel are simply too smart and experienced to make such mundane mistakes. Such videos as this (obvious) demo don't convince the die-hards who need it explicitly shown that it actually happened. It's been a real uphill battle.

 

[Magical Realist]

So they're saying the uap is really just an object standing still in midair? What does that? A balloon? A helicopter? A hummingbird? lol

It has been an extremely long and difficult time educating UAP enthusiasts to shake their pre-existing beliefs

Yes..it must be SO exhausting copying and pasting all those Mick West videos..

 

[foghorn]

It has been an extremely long and difficult time educating UAP enthusiasts to shake their pre-existing beliefs that trained military pilots and ground personnel are simply too smart and experienced to make such mundane mistakes. Such videos as this (obvious) demo don't convince the die-hards who need it explicitly shown that it actually happened. It's been a real uphill battle.

Yesterday on the Youtube page, where I got the link for my post#80, I read the comments under the video. The first 14 were all negative about NASA and getting nastier as they went down the page.
Today, all the comments have disappeared and the comment function gone.
Funny old world. I bet Mick West has to watch his step in some places out there.

 

[DaveC426913]

So they're saying the uap is really just an object standing still in midair? What does that? A balloon? A helicopter? A hummingbird? lol

Forty miles per hour is not "standing still". And many things do that in (as he stated) "a prevailing wind of about 40 miles per hour".


But you didn't watch the relevant section of the video, did you? It's not long - certainly not even as long as it took you to write this reply.

He says explicitly that 'what it might be' is not the focus of this press meeting. The point he is making, simply, is that this very highly publicized UAP account is very well within the parameters of normal things (which incidentally includes balloons, helicopters and hummingbirds. I'm not sure why you are laughing out loud about that. Do you think such things as balloons, helicopters and hummingbirds are preposterous?

The takeaway being: even very well publicized UAP videos with strong visual recordings and multiple trained witnesses still get it wrong.

 

[billvon]

So they're saying the uap is really just an object standing still in midair?

Nope.

You're not following the conversation, are you.

 

[Magical Realist]

Dave said: Forty miles per hour is not "standing still". And many things do that in (as he stated) "a prevailing wind of about 40 miles per hour".

Those anomalous metallic spheres can certainly go 40 mph. I don't see how this rules them out, especially in light of the statement made about them by the director of the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office last week:

"Sean Kirkpatrick, the director of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office set up by the US Defence Department last summer, said that “the vast majority” of UAP reports related to round spheres or “orbs” that were one to two metres in size, were white, silver or metallic, and capable of speeds of up to Mach 2 or 1,522mph.

“This is the thing we see most of. We see these all over the world, and we see these making very interesting apparent manoeuvres,” he said.

A public meeting on Wednesday has played footage of a sphere moving across the sky at a site in the Middle East in 2022, though Mr Kirkpatrick said it was “no threat to airbourne safety”."--- https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...ar&cvid=ddd3a48b4c2042f0c57c4e0055392ba7&ei=8

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4Bt6_Potk5Q

 

[spidergoat]

Maybe the jet stream is faster than we thought and these are balloons. Made of vibranium.

 

[Magical Realist]

Maybe the jet stream is faster than we thought and these are balloons. Made of vibranium.

Don't think so:

"Jet streams vary in height of four to eight miles and can reach speeds of more than 275 mph (239 kts / 442 km/h )."---National Weather Service

 

[foghorn]

Was someone asking about a transcript for the NASA meeting?
This transcript timings seem to match the video below.
Transcript here:
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/nasa-holds-first-public-meeting-on-ufos-transcript

 

[Magical Realist]

Mysterious glowing lights swarmed WWII military planes flying over France and Germany in the 1940s. Nicknamed "foo fighters", no explanation was ever found for them. But they were witnessed many times by military pilots and widely reported in newspapers.

 

[Yazata]

Maybe the jet stream is faster than we thought and these are balloons. Made of vibranium.

Either vibranium or unobtanium.

 

[James R]

foghorn:

The NASA meeting today.
If anyone is interested in what was said about the "Go fast" uap, see time mark 2:28:25

Everybody who has been participating in this conversation about the US military videos should be interested in this. Some UFO believers, I think, would rather not know the answers, because the answers aren't the ones they want to hear.

MR:

So they're saying the uap is really just an object standing still in midair? What does that? A balloon? A helicopter? A hummingbird? lol

That's right. All of those things you mentioned can "stand still" in midair. Birds can also fly at relatively slow speeds in midair.

Yes..it must be SO exhausting copying and pasting all those Mick West videos..

Not want you want to hear?

Those anomalous metallic spheres can certainly go 40 mph.

What metallic spheres? Who said metallic? Where's the evidence?

A public meeting on Wednesday has played footage of a sphere moving across the sky at a site in the Middle East in 2022, though Mr Kirkpatrick said it was “no threat to airbourne safety”.

Sounds like somebody knows what it is.

 

[exchemist]

Don't think so:

"Jet streams vary in height of four to eight miles and can reach speeds of more than 275 mph (239 kts / 442 km/h )."---National Weather Service

I see you have engaged your SS (selective stupidity) Field to avoid understanding what is being said. It's nothing to do with any jetstream.

An object at relatively low altitude, seen from a plane at high altitude and moving fast, can appear to move quickly, relative to a stationary background, due to parallax. The observations are consistent with an object moving at between zero and 40mph, at such an altitude. No suggestion is made as to what the object was, but it obviously could easily be be one of a number of prosaic, everyday things.

The more general lesson, which should be applied when analysing this and similar reports, is that even trained pilots can fall prey to such illusions. So due care should be taken to eliminate such effects when interpreting them.

 

[Magical Realist]

I see you have engaged your SS (selective stupidity) Field to avoid understanding what is being said. It's nothing to do with any jetstream.

An object at relatively low altitude, seen from a plane at high altitude and moving fast, can appear to move quickly, relative to a stationary background, due to parallax. The observations are consistent with an object moving at between zero and 40mph, at such an altitude. No suggestion is made as to what the object was, but it obviously could easily be be one of a number of prosaic, everyday things.

The more general lesson, which should be applied when analysing this and similar reports, is that even trained pilots can fall prey to such illusions. So due care should be taken to eliminate such effects when interpreting them.

I understand all that. I was replying to spidergoat's suggestion that the jet stream travels at higher velocities than we thought. He was referencing the quote I posted about the metallic spheres flying at Mach 2. See post #90.

 

[Magical Realist]

James R: "Sounds like somebody knows what it is."

Yes...the AARO office of the Pentagon certainly knows what it is, at least by description:

"Sean Kirkpatrick, the director of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office set up by the US Defence Department last summer, said that “the vast majority” of UAP reports related to round spheres or “orbs” that were one to two metres in size, were white, silver or metallic, and capable of speeds of up to Mach 2 or 1,522mph.

“This is the thing we see most of. We see these all over the world, and we see these making very interesting apparent manoeuvres,” he said.

 

[C C]

There's one item of the NASA meeting that seems to address the report of a UAP going into the water (described in a news video as a 6-foot sphere). Which below SK briefly mentions is a sensor quirk that they'll publish more about later.

Mike Gold (59:58): ... One, relative to what Nadia was asking you about the number of anomalous phenomena. What makes it anomalous in your view?

[...] Sean Kirkpatrick (01:02:29): Your first question on what makes it anomalous to me, we actually developed some definitions on all of these things. We gave it both to the White House and to Congress. I think we’ve got some of that into law now. But essentially, anomalous is anything that is not readily understandable by the operator or the sensor. It is doing something weird, whether that’s maneuvering against the wind at Mach-2 with no apparent propulsion or it’s going into the water, which we have have shown is not a case. That is actually a sensor anomaly that we’ve now figured out and we’re going to be publishing all of that. Those kinds of things make anomalous signature… We’ll call it signature management, but it’s things that are not readily understandable in the context of, “Hey, I’ve got a thing that’s out in the light. It should reflect a certain amount of light. If it doesn’t reflect that amount of light, something weird.”​

_