The speed of flying saucers and blinking out phenomenon

[billvon]

Do you know anything about the case, apart from the most basic underlying facts? The school was visited by men in black and where specifically hushed on the subject, it had nothing to do with... the pilot.

How do you know that? And what does the color of their suits have to do with anything? (unless you mean the Men in Black either from the movie or part of a secret hush-hush military program, in which case we are departing the realm of the rational.)

Well it wasn't those things, since the X-15 plane was far faster than anything 10 years before it, clearly it was none of these things since the objects of Washington moved at 7k mph.

How do you know that? Are you referring to the apparent speed on the radar scope? Such speeds are common for transient return artifacts. Modern air traffic radars are programmed to reject such artifacts, since otherwise they'd clutter up the view of the controller.

A quick blurb on this phenomena from Wiki:

=========
Ringing artifacts pose a problem with search, detection, and ambiguity resolution in pulse-Doppler radar.

Ringing is reduced in two ways.

First, the shape of the transmit pulse is adjusted to smooth the leading edge and trailing edge so that RF power is increased and decreased without an abrupt change. This creates a transmit pulse with smooth ends instead of a square wave, which reduces ringing phenomenon that is otherwise associated with target reflection.

Second, the shape of the receive pulse is adjusted using a window function that minimizes ringing that occurs any time pulses are applied to a filter. In a digital system, this adjusts the phase and/or amplitude of each sample before it is applied to the Fast Fourier Transform. The Dolph-Chebychev window is the most effective because it produces a flat processing floor with no ringing that would otherwise cause false alarms.
==================

Do a little research before you say silly things like that!

 

[Trapped]

How do you know that? And what does the color of their suits have to do with anything? (unless you mean the Men in Black either from the movie or part of a secret hush-hush military program, in which case we are departing the realm of the rational.)

No we are not departing from the realm of the rational. This is what the teachers and the students all reported happening at their school. The idea for the movie men in black was taken directly from situations like what happened at Westall.

 

[Trapped]

How do you know that? Are you referring to the apparent speed on the radar scope? Such speeds are common for transient return artifacts. Modern air traffic radars are programmed to reject such artifacts, since otherwise they'd clutter up the view of the controller.

Because they analysed the radar data.

There was several objects and it is reported that there was definitely a consensus in control that they were solid objects, due to the accuracy of the bleeps. In fact, it was not only recorded on the radar devices, but each time the pilot said the objects flew away at incredible speeds, at that exact moment, the object would disappear off radar. This wasn't a radar anomaly, because we have visual to back it up. What the radar saw was confirmed by the pilots.

 

[billvon]

No we are not departing from the realm of the rational. This is what the teachers and the students all reported happening at their school. The idea for the movie men in black was taken directly from situations like what happened at Westall.

Ah, so Men in Black was based on a true story.

So here's a question for you.

If space aliens are indeed regularly visiting us, then you would expect the number of ground based sightings to remain about the same - but the amount of photographic evidence to greatly increase, since there are now hundreds of thousands of times more people who carry point-and-shoot cameras with them everywhere they go today.

If space aliens are a made-up phenomenon, then you would expect the number of sightings to peak around the time that there was a media frenzy about them, then decline dramatically as people failed to capture them on the ever-more-ubiquitous point and shoot cameras.

Which has actually happened?

 

[Trapped]

Plus, on top of both human and technological observation, it is said that they did see the usual weather bleeps. It is reported that and I quote

''ignored them.''

So the staff was quite capable even without the human confirmation that the objects where real.

 

[Trapped]

Ah, so Men in Black was based on a true story.

You're being facetious. You do realize the claims that men in ''suits'' have been reported in famous UFO cases for many years well before the arrival of the comedy movie which likes to make a mockery of the subject. Right up your alley.

 

[billvon]

Because they analysed the radar data. There was several objects and it is reported that there was definitely a consensus in control that they were solid objects, due to the accuracy of the bleeps.

Do you really expect people to take you seriously when you describe radar returns as "bleeps?" It would be akin to someone who claimed to know all about a famous airliner crash, then said "the problem was that the pilot didn't pull hard enough on the flying-steering-wheel thing."

As I said, learning more about how radar works might be illuminating. (pun intended)

 

[Trapped]

If space aliens are indeed regularly visiting us, then you would expect the number of ground based sightings to remain about the same - but the amount of photographic evidence to greatly increase, since there are now hundreds of thousands of times more people who carry point-and-shoot cameras with them everywhere they go today.

If space aliens are a made-up phenomenon, then you would expect the number of sightings to peak around the time that there was a media frenzy about them, then decline dramatically as people failed to capture them on the ever-more-ubiquitous point and shoot cameras.

Which has actually happened?

The UFO's assuming they are aliens, have most likely had a change of heart over the last 80 years because the Military have shown an expressed concern in shooting them down. Would you be surprised if their appearances depleted somewhat over the years? I wouldn't be surprised... but amazingly, there is photographic evidence, some have even been kept hidden by the government, a famous case would be the Pitlochry event.

The objects are still in our skies and many people see them on a daily basis. There are of course, mass UFO sightings, like the Pheonix lights which wasn't that long ago and was caught on film.

Don't go to youtube to find a video, you're likely to be duped into a CGI encounter of the 3D kind.

 

[Trapped]

Do you really expect people to take you seriously when you describe radar returns as "bleeps?"

I am trying to make the terminology as less technical as possible. I hope I am taken seriously for my sharp knowledge of these accounts rather than my terminology used to describe it.

 

[Trapped]

So here is how I see it Billvon.

Since we started our conversation only a few days ago, we have covered two subjects, the Washington and Westall case.

In either case, I have had no convincing evidence to perhaps even sow a seed of doubt in my mind about my conclusions I reached before. That there is a technology in the skies we can't explain and it doesn't appear to be of our own making.

I have given you more than ample evidence that the timeline proves that it couldn't have been our craft: you can't have something 10 years before the best arrives, and even then the high powered X-15 had been relatively a secret program due to the cold war. There is no air craft you could propose that we had in our hands in that date which matches the radar and visual made by the pilots, estimated at about 7000 mph. Won't work, won't wash.


Your explanation of a towing operation for Westall, is actually one of the oldest explanations that was offered by skeptics early on for the case, did you know this?

Well, the explanation never washed back then and to me, today, doesn't wash now. The extreme efforts of the Military to keep the situation quiet with... less than petty threats supports the claim I made that this was more than a simple towing operation. Though, albeit, it was your best explanation, but still it patently has holes all over it, not only the military hushing, but the fact no one reported the object moving in synchronocity as though being towed by anything, nor does it explain why an air craft would get so low as to land the object in the field nearby. Also, when the towing hypothesis came about, the skeptics said, ''it flew by,'' as though a simple towing operation... little did they know the full details that the object was reported to have landed, which is unusual again and not what you would expect from any casual towing operation.

My conclusions haven't changed, I do believe there is more to the phenomenon that meets the eye, but as a skeptic I will give you your due, you have tried; though at times you could have tried harder. I am thinking back to the other day now, when you said you have done your investigations and that is why you don't believe. No offence, but the conversations so far has been horribly one-sided when it comes to the details of UFO sightings. I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't been convinced something is going on, with only the very basic knowledge of some sightings. Perhaps you never did a proper study of the subject, because you never truly believed in it. If that is the case, perhaps you should revisit the phenomenon in a different light and do yourself and your knowledge of the subject, some justice.

 

[Trapped]

Ok, so unless anything more can be added to this Billvon, might I suggest two new UFO case topics? The previous two are my favourite and possibly the best out of all sightings I know about... but others come close.

If you would like to continue the discussion, just leave a yes attached to this post and I will return tomorrow. My night cap is calling me.

 

[Russ_Watters]

I am trying to make the terminology as less technical as possible. I hope I am taken seriously for my sharp knowledge of these accounts rather than my terminology used to describe it.

What would enable you to be taken more seriously would be actual evidence instead of fanciful claims presented as if they were common knowledge/ well established facts.

 

[billvon]

In either case, I have had no convincing evidence to perhaps even sow a seed of doubt in my mind about my conclusions I reached before.

That is where we differ. When it comes to decades-old descriptions of odd aerial phenomena that people have difficulty explaining, I think there are a lot of possibilities. You believe fervently that it must be space aliens (or as you call it, "technology not of our making.")

Why do I think this? Several reasons.

1) There is more than one rational explanation for every incident out there. Some explanations are unlikely - but most are less unlikely than harassing space aliens.

2) Some of these sightings have, in the past, been proven to be observer mistakes. Some of these sightings have, in the past, been proven to be military aircraft or spacecraft. Some of these sightings have, in the past, been proven to be more prosaic explanations like meteors, weather balloons, ball lightning or atmospheric reflections. None of these sightings have been proven to be space aliens. Therefore the most logical explanation for any other example of the same sort is one of the causes that have been proven in the past.

3) As it turns out we DID have flying saucer programs as early as the 1940's. Given that, the first sighting that resulted in a lot of publicity (1947) might well have been one of our own.

I have given you more than ample evidence that the timeline proves that it couldn't have been our craft: you can't have something 10 years before the best arrives

We HAD such technology at that time. You just don't believe that it could be such a vehicle. That's fine - but that means that you simply think it's improbable, not impossible. I agree.

But again ask yourself what is more likely. A state-of-the-art military vehicle off course? Or space aliens harassing Americans?

There is no air craft you could propose that we had in our hands in that date which matches the radar and visual made by the pilots, estimated at about 7000 mph. Won't work, won't wash.

How did they calibrate that radar? Did they fly a 7000 mph aircraft, see the returns, observe the range/displacement or doppler shift and say "ah, they match!" Or did they just . . . guess?

As any radar operator will tell you, calibration is important in ensuring the accuracy of a radar system.

Your explanation of a towing operation for Westall, is actually one of the oldest explanations that was offered by skeptics early on for the case, did you know this?

I figured the oldest would be the "weather balloon" explanation. But - OK.

but the fact no one reported the object moving in synchronocity as though being towed by anything, nor does it explain why an air craft would get so low as to land the object in the field nearby.

The tow vehicle does not move in synchrony with the towed target when it is circling. Again, the reason you think it "doesn't wash" is that you don't understand the process you are objecting to!

Also, when the towing hypothesis came about, the skeptics said, ''it flew by,'' as though a simple towing operation... little did they know the full details that the object was reported to have landed, which is unusual again and not what you would expect from any casual towing operation.

Right. But if a foolish tow pilot circled a field waiting for the training aircraft to arrive, then this could well happen. You would then expect the aircraft to show up and the tow aircraft along with the training aircraft to fly off. This is in fact what happened according to witnesses. You would further expect that, once found out, the pilot (or base commander, or training officer, or whoever had the most to lose) would be most interested in covering it up. They might even own a black suit.

Does that mean that that is definitely what happened? No. Does that mean that it is POSSIBLE that that happened? Yes.

My conclusions haven't changed

Honest question. Is there ANY evidence that could cause you to change your mind? Or is it firmly made up no matter what facts are presented?

 

[Trapped]

1) There is more than one rational explanation for every incident out there. Some explanations are unlikely - but most are less unlikely than harassing space aliens.

Why do you just assume this?

Not only are scientists telling us that life is likely in this universe other than Earth, but in fact they are telling us it is probably thriving with life. These are respectable scientists making these claims. If the universe is teeming with life, why then would it be so unlikely that we have had a visit?

You're problem is that you don't understand this. I am well aware about the physics of space and time, so don't use that old herring on me. I am aware of quite a few different propulsion systems they could be using. Indeed, some of these scientists even are telling us that an alien civilization could be millions of years ahead of us in evolution, but still, you would think it is unlikely that aliens have visited. I actually think it is possible and likely there is life out there, in total contradiction.

The problem with saying

''There is more than one rational explanation for every incident out there.''

Is that it simply isn't true. To believe that in every case, you can draw a rational explanation, is either

a) being deluded yourself

b) or simply ignoring all conflicting data

Which one is it? I think a skeptic has to be a little bit of both, since there are plenty UFO cases which appear outside of the conventional explanations. So where is your rational answer? You have to simply ignore all the witness testimony and stick your head in the ground to have such a view. That is dangerous and misleading - it certainly isn't the scientific way.

You first need to take the subject seriously to even entertain the idea that we are being visited. You don't, you will hear out a story, the accounts and even the claims, but you will stubbornly still believe there is always an Earthly answer no matter if

a) objects fly at incredible speeds or that the technology is forbidden in our timeline

b) that there can be many witness accounts which often none of them contradict each other

But still, in the face of all of this, you would still rather fool yourself and others into thinking that somehow they were all mistaken, that it wasn't anything on the radar scope and the pilots must have been suffering delirium. Am I close?

Your explanations are certainly not more ''rational.'' They are in fact irrational in the face of the evidence provided and you must know this. It's far more rational to take the evidence in hand and use that evidence to draw a consistent conclusion.

When you draw a conclusion, it isn't consistent with the reports and therefore cannot be the rational explanation. Sherlock Holmes the fictional character had a very appropriate line suitable here:

''if you eliminate the possible, no matter how improbable must remain the truth.''

Do you see my point? You are ignoring very basic evidence at some parts of these discussions and then claiming there has to be a rational explanation but all the time, making imaginative theories up completely ignoring everything. Do you believe this is rational? Do you believe you are rational? I think not.

 

[Trapped]

Honest question. Is there ANY evidence that could cause you to change your mind? Or is it firmly made up no matter what facts are presented?

You see, I have offered facts, I know of the documented history of the accounts we have spoken about and they are hard to deny. My mind is made up because of the facts.

You don't have any.

 

[Trapped]

I feel a bit bad about post 154 ... it does look like I am focusing my attention on your abilities only Billvon. Actually, there are much more notorious skeptics who offer incredibly irrational explanations, you should read up on Krauss, but not for too long because he is an insipid fool. Some so-called ''conventional explanations'' he had offered over the years where so ... obscure in how they actually fitted in with the evidence already present that he was on a number of occasions attacked even by some of his own peers on his ability to discern a proper theory.

Don't fall into this same catagory. Krauss had a hidden hate for those claiming to have seen bona fide UFO's and so he often downplayed it with some of the worst theories imaginable... often it is the believer who is tried to make a joke of, not the one trying to debunk it.

But of course, a lot of skeptics have adopted this way of thinking and have duped themselves into thinking they are doing valid scientific work, when they are really not, quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Billy T]

... If the universe is teeming with life, why then would it be so unlikely that we have had a visit? ... I am aware of quite a few different propulsion systems they could be using. Indeed, some of these scientists even are telling us that an alien civilization could be millions of years ahead of us in evolution, but still, you would think it is unlikely that aliens have visited. ...

They may have more advanced propulsion system, but there is the speed of light limit on them too.

If you are suggesting they know how to avoid that via worm holes etc. then you are suggesting that they can time travel and go back to kill all their grand parents etc. too, I think. Returning to be in the past is so filled with logical problems that it I think, is not possible.
Also even if some "worm holes" can be made, all seem to agree that takes a lot of energy. Why would they want to visit such a primitive life form as Earth creatures?
Assuming that is like postulating that humans would use up a solar out put of energy to go look at an ant hill.

Even if you can make and release a lot of energy it all ends up as heat in the end - They would "cook their own goose" to visit us.

 

[Trapped]

They may have more advanced propulsion system, but there is the speed of light limit on them too.

If you are suggesting they know how to avoid that via worm holes etc. then are you suggesting that they can time travel an go back to kill all their grand parents etc. too?
Also even if some "worm holes" can be made, all seem to agree that takes a lot of energy. Why would they want to visit such a primitive life form as Earth creatures? It is like postulating that humans would use up a solar out put of energy to go look at an ant hill.

Exactly why time travel or it's retrocausal cousin is forbidden by the Chronological Conjecture.

However, that is my opinion. Micho Kaku believes in wormholes, in fact, many scientists do think that spacetime is a violant wormhole activity at the subatomic level. The required energy for a wormhole is about the Planck Energy, just enough to rip a ''hole'' in the fabric of spacetime, that is equivalent to an accelerator the size of our solar system. I don't think the energy is a problem per se, it's trying to keep one open long enough. To do this, we need exotic matter, which so far, we don't have a real world example. There is a region of pseudo negative energy in the Casimir effect but how to harness that is unknown.

No, it's far more likely they have an advanced sense of physics, (physics is universal, so they will know what we know and probably much more) that they probably have made a spacetime distortion device, like an Alcubierre drive. Let's say they are only a few thousand years ahead of us, then maybe (just maybe) they have learned how to harvest large amounts of antimatter for an antimatter drive, drastically cutting down the time required to travel from one place to another at close the speed of light. These are two examples... one more theoretical than the other.

 

[Billy T]

I don't think the energy is a problem per se, it's trying to keep one open long enough. ...

Perhaps not. Perhaps they did generate and release it, but sadly they no longer exist except in the "cooked goose" form.

 

[Billy T]

I don't think the energy is a problem per se, it's trying to keep one open long enough. ...

Perhaps not. Perhaps they did generate and release it, but sadly they no longer exist except in the "self cooked goose" form.