UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

These highly trained and highly experienced first-hand witnesses are clearly no match for the devastating logic of our very own expert debunker James R, or his forum hierarchy approved trolling accomplices. Who can shred such 'evidence' with a single 'SFW?'. That easy.
Anyone interested in chipping in to a special purpose fund - where SF gets to return-trip fly James R and approved accomplices to hopefully an arranged, video-recorded meeting with the folks appearing in above vid (and maybe a few others, like Chris Mellon). Where subsequently we all get to watch as James R & co just rip em to pieces?!
 
Good video...Pretty much shoots down the whole dumbass "jet plane seen from the rear" explanation. I was pretty sure that was total bullshit. The object in the gimbal video looks nothing like jet engine flare.

Here's Navy pilot David Fravor's interview about his encounter with the tic tac object. He gives more details that might've have been left out in all the skeptic BS versions of events.

 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Good video...Pretty much shoots down the whole dumbass "jet plane seen from the rear" explanation. I was pretty sure that was total bullshit. The object in the gimbal video looks nothing like jet engine flare.

Here's Navy pilot David Fravor's interview about his encounter with the tic tac object. He gives more details that might've have been left out in all the skeptic BS versions of events.

Click to expand...
Right. Close visual contact for several minutes, and not just by Fravor. Either genuine 'not of this world' encounter, or one has to argue outright lying. No other sensible options here.

Put it together with the East coast naval encounters - on essentially a daily basis, and anyone with an open mind can come to only one rational conclusion. It's real not fantastically improbable confluences of multiple 'glitches' in hardware/software synchronized with multiple human gross misidentifications. Bunkum.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but afaik there has never been a report of a sonic boom associated with clearly hypersonic UFO/UAC/AAP (the acronym list grows) recorded and/or estimated speeds.
Hence one reason why I dismiss secret advanced tech experimental aircraft. Way beyond that.
 
Q-reeus said:
Right. Close visual contact for several minutes, and not just by Fravor. Either genuine 'not of this world' encounter, or one has to argue outright lying. No other sensible options here.

Put it together with the East coast naval encounters - on essentially a daily basis, and anyone with an open mind can come to only one rational conclusion. It's real not fantastically improbable confluences of multiple 'glitches' in hardware/software synchronized with multiple human gross misidentifications. Bunkum.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but afaik there has never been a report of a sonic boom associated with clearly hypersonic UFO/UAC/AAP (the acronym list grows) recorded and/or estimated speeds.
Hence one reason why I dismiss secret advanced tech experimental aircraft. Way beyond that.
Click to expand...

That's correct. No sonic booms associated with the sighting of supersonic ufos. Another one of the physics-defying traits of ufos.
 
Magical Realist said:
No sonic booms associated with the sighting of supersonic ufos. Another one of the physics-defying traits of ufos.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say "physics-defying" (because that would be cranky). I'd say the lack of sonic booms suggests that they're not moving as fast a they seem to be.
 
sideshowbob said:
I wouldn't say "physics-defying" (because that would be cranky). I'd say the lack of sonic booms suggests that they're not moving as fast a they seem to be.
Click to expand...

"In the Nimitz incident, radar operators say they tracked one of the UFOs as it dropped from the sky at more than 30 times the speed of sound. Black Aces squadron commander David Fravor, the Nimitz-based fighter pilot who was sent to intercept one of the objects, likened its rapid side-to-side movements, later captured on infrared video, to that of a ping-pong ball. Radar operators on the USS Princeton, part of the Nimitz carrier group, tracked the object accelerating from a standing position to traveling 60 miles in a minute—an astounding 3,600 miles an hour. According to manufacturer Boeing, the F/A 18 Super Hornet fighter jet typically currently reaches a maximum speed of Mach 1.6, or about 1,200 miles an hour."--- https://www.history.com/news/ufo-sightings-speed-appearance-movement
 
Magical Realist said:
No sonic booms associated with the sighting of supersonic ufos.
Click to expand...
This is evidence that contradicts the theory that the objects moved at supersonic speeds - and supports the theory that it was a misinterpretation of what happened.

It's not compelling or conclusive evidence, it's just one more chink in the theory of super-fast advanced craft.
 
Magical Realist said:
That's correct. No sonic booms associated with the sighting of supersonic ufos. Another one of the physics-defying traits of ufos.
Click to expand...

Or rather technology can work with it and possibly exploit it in bizarre ways in the remote future. They certainly haven't eliminated a boom, but that they've had a degree of success at all makes one marvel a bit at engineering prospects a century and centuries from now, if there's still any civilization left by then that's innovation oriented.

“It’s all about getting rid of the boom,” Coen says. “I want to have, one day, a headline that comes out in the paper that says, ‘Supersonic Aircraft Flies Over City; Nobody Notices.’”
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-sonic-booms-the-dod-doesnt-want-you-to-hear

Ed.: Yes, we can make sonic booms that are very quiet, and can't be heard over normal conversation. It sometimes sounds like distant thunder. And referring to my last comment sometimes you can make the boom totally quiet if the aircraft is slow enough or high enough in altitude. https://www.nasa.gov/connect/chat/sonic_boom_chat.html

The key to making the LBFD a "low-boom" aircraft is its shape. The long pointed nose, the sharply swept wings and the shape of the canards (small wings positioned forward of the main wings) ensure that the individual pressure waves that the airplane produces at speeds faster than Mach 1 never converge and cause a traditional sonic boom. Otherwise, the LBFD won't greatly differ from other supersonic aircraft. It won't be made of specialized materials and it will use an existing General Electric F414 engine. "A low sonic boom is directly attributable to the shape of an aircraft," Iosifidis says. "If the airplane was shorter, we would not be able to separate those shocks like we need to." The nose on the LBFD is so pointy that the cockpit won't have a natural field of vision out the front. So instead of a windscreen, it will use a monitor called an external vision system that NASA will provide. https://www.cnet.com/news/supersonic-without-the-boom/ ​

Does Fu Manchu have a hidden research and manufacturing facility buried in remote mountains of Asia? I'm not sure the secret-agent conspiracy plots versus time travel versus space-aliens and so-forth package has a breakaway leader running away from the group in terms of statistical probabilities. But I'd be surprised to learn that anyone had ever tried to quantitatively compare them. Would Kim Jong-un have the will-power to not directly show off the Kim dynasty's biggest clandestine weapon? We know Trump couldn't restrain his ego enough, so...
 
C C said:
Or rather technology can work with it and possibly exploit it in bizarre ways in the remote future.
Click to expand...

putting on my sci-fi hat for a moment
if someone developed a sub-space field generator
they could potentially move a ship through sub-space to another position which would not require all the clunky old worldy steam engine type intellectualism.

the sounds mentioned in many sightings is quite distinct(though ive not been following ufology for many years now)
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
That's correct. No sonic booms associated with the sighting of supersonic ufos. Another one of the physics-defying traits of ufos.
Click to expand...

Was anyone in position to hear any sonic booms in these 'tic tac' cases (2004 and 2015)? They occurred over the open ocean didn't they? The encounters were on radar and by jet aircraft. The objects didn't pass over any ships at sea to my knowledge.

So do we really know that they didn't produce sonic booms?
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
You can hear thunder in a jet.
Click to expand...

The boom in both the thunder and sonic boom cases is caused by a shockwave passing one's location.

Lightening would be expected to produce a (more or less) circular shockwave propagating away from the location of the lightening. If an aircraft passes through that expanding surface, a boom should be heard by its occupants. (Provided that they are close enough, the shockwave weakens as it expands.)

In the case of a supersonic aircraft, the shockwave propagates behind the aircraft as a cone. One would hear a sonic boom if the surface of the cone crosses one's location. Pursuing jets located inside the cone probably wouldn't hear any booms.

So a great deal would seem to depend on the geometry of these encounters and on where nearby aircraft were positioned relative to a nearby unknown supersonic object (assuming that one existed).

Cone-shaped_supersonic_shockwave.png
 
Last edited:
RainbowSingularity said:
putting on my sci-fi hat for a moment
if someone developed a sub-space field generator
they could potentially move a ship through sub-space to another position which would not require all the clunky old worldy steam engine type intellectualism.

the sounds mentioned in many sightings is quite distinct(though ive not been following ufology for many years now)
Click to expand...

Except for a few cases where humming was heard, ufos generally don't make any noise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top