UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

There's more evidence suggesting there were multiple objects than that one object moved supersonically.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Pilot Cmdr Fravor said he observed the tic tac one moment, and then the next moment it was gone. That's exactly what suddenly accelerating to mach speed looks like. And that matches Day 's description of the uaps ascending to 80, 000 ft and then suddenly descending to sea level at incredible speed. See video in #8657
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Wrong. Pilot Cmdr Fravor said he observed the tic tac one moment, and then the next moment it was gone. That's exactly what suddenly accelerating to mach speed looks like.
Click to expand...
That's a conclusion. It's also what one thing disappearing and another thing appearing elsewhere looks like.

You know this. You know perfectly well that there is more than one possible explanation; it just happens that you prefer the more exotic one. Don't be dishonest.
 
A UAP disappearing and another one appearing somewhere else is more exotic than a UAP flying at hypersonic speed from point A to point B. When hearing hoofs, suspect a horse not a zebra.
 
Magical Realist said:
A UAP disappearing and another one appearing somewhere else is more exotic than a UAP flying at hypersonic speed from point A to point B. When hearing hoofs, suspect a horse not a zebra.
Click to expand...
No. Two similar objects in the sky is quite mundane. Happens all the time. Requires no advanced technology.
Losing sight of things and gaining sight of things is quite mundane. Happens all the time. Requires no advanced technology.

I can show you pictures of multiple non-aerodynamic things in the sky; we have evidence such things already exist.

You cannot show us pictures of one non-aerodynamic thing moving supersonically; you cannot show they exist.

Magical Realist said:
When hearing hoofs, suspect a horse not a zebra.
Click to expand...
Correct. You have zero evidence of your zebra. Whereas horses are a dime a dozen.
 

You cannot show us pictures of one non-aerodynamic thing moving supersonically; you cannot show they exist.
Click to expand...

The AARO has already concluded that such supersonic uaps exist. I've already posted about this and the video showing one. You can't pretend not to know this.

kUtcqGl.png
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
...
Click to expand...

Yep. That's a still image. It shows no sign of moving supersonically.

Because such things don't exist, as far as we know.

You know what does exist? Losing sight of one object here and gaining sight of another object elsewhere.

That's what makes it more plausible. That's what makes it the horse, not the zebra.
 
Magical Realist:

There has been a lot of discussion here about the "tic tac" case. Many of the claims you have made have been questioned or debunked, sometimes several times over. And yet, you post this:
Magical Realist said:
"The most famous incident was in 2004 where pilots who were attached to the USS carrier Nimitz had this encounter that has been described as the “Flying Tic Tac.” They were out flying over the ocean, and they looked down and they saw what appeared to be whitewater on the surface of the ocean, where the surface was troubled or roiling in some kind of a way. They look down and atop this spot in the water they see this object that they’ve described as looking like a capsule—which is where the flying Tic Tac analogy comes from. It was moving very erratically, seemingly very randomly over the surface of the water, doing all kinds of things that a plane doesn’t do. It doesn’t appear to have wings. It doesn’t appear to have a propulsion system like a jet or a propeller. And then it just disappears. There’s been some reporting that it’s then picked up two seconds later, many, many miles away by the radar systems on the carrier. So these people are describing—and the sensors are backing them up—some kind of physical object that appears to be moving at rates of speed and demonstrating aerodynamic properties and characteristics that don’t match what we understand as human technology."---- https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/shane-harris-interview-uap-ufo-report.html
Click to expand...
It's as if you want to start over again, conveniently forgetting all the discussion from earlier in the thread.

Why are you doing this?

This is yet another second- or third- hand description of what somebody else supposedly saw, but not in the eyewitness's words. The person describing this makes claims of his own, which are not supported by evidence - just like you so often do.

Can't you see that these sorts of claims are worthless?
Magical Realist said:
The UAP was being tracked on the USS Nimitz's radar. That's how they knew it had traveled from one point to another at extraordinary speed.
Click to expand...
As you know, you have been completely unable to produce any radar records that might confirm your claim.

Your assertion about what was tracked is worthless.
Magical Realist said:
Correction, that is the testimony of Kevin Day, chief radar operator on the Princeton that day. If anybody should know how the uaps performed that day, he would.
Click to expand...
He doesn't seem like a reliable witness, for a number of reasons.
There's nothing suggesting that's what happened. It's just another screwball scenario like water drops or stars that you pulled out of your ass in order to invalidate the firsthand experiences of the eyewitnesses who were actually there.
Click to expand...
You weren't actually there. And now, here you are, four or five steps removed on the Kevin Bacon chain from the people who actually were there. And you're making shit up.

You should stop that.
 
Magical Realist said:
Pilot Cmdr Fravor said he observed the tic tac one moment, and then the next moment it was gone.
Click to expand...
We walked you through this earlier. Did you forget?

Fravor was busy flying an aeroplane. He had to at least glance at his instruments from time to time. He couldn't possibly keep watching the "tic tac" the whole time. It makes perfect sense that he might have lost track of it, while he was busy flying the airplane.
That's exactly what suddenly accelerating to mach speed looks like.
Click to expand...
It's also exactly what trying to multitask while flying a complicated jet plane looks like.
And that matches Day 's description of the uaps ascending to 80, 000 ft and then suddenly descending to sea level at incredible speed.
Click to expand...
Hearsay.
Magical Realist said:
A UAP disappearing and another one appearing somewhere else is more exotic than a UAP flying at hypersonic speed from point A to point B.
Click to expand...
No. They are about equally "exotic". In both cases, we have people spotting objects they couldn't identify. They could have been the same object, or different objects - or not objects at all. There's no way to know, without more data.

Why do you pretend to know things you don't know? Why do you keep making shit up?
Magical Realist said:
The AARO has already concluded that such supersonic uaps exist.
Click to expand...
Is that a published conclusion? Based on what?
 
It's as if you want to start over again, conveniently forgetting all the discussion from earlier in the thread.

Why are you doing this?
Click to expand...

Wegs made some comments about the tic tac not being seen as flying at supersonic speeds. I was simply responding with statements on how that was ascertained. I have the right to address raised issues involving previously stated accounts.

You
Click to expand...
weren't actually there
Click to expand...

Which is why I go by the accounts of those who were actually there. Beats giving credence to a skeptic's specious and agenda-laden armchair speculations.

Is that a published conclusion? Based on what?
Click to expand...

It's the AARO director's oral testimony to Congress based on analysis of 650 cases. Do you think he is lying? Why?
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
It's the AARO director's oral testimony to Congress based on analysis of 650 cases. Do you think he is lying? Why?
Click to expand...
You mean this one?

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/download/kirkpatrick-statement?download=1

Excerpt:
"I want to underscore today that only a very small percentage of UAP reports display signatures that could reasonably be described as ‘anomalous.’ The majority of unidentified objects reported to AARO demonstrate mundane characteristics of balloons, unmanned aerial systems, clutter, natural phenomena, or other readily explainable sources. While a large number of cases in our holdings remain technically unresolved, this is primarily due to a lack of data associated with these cases.

I recognize that this answer is unsatisfying to those who in good faith assume that what they see with their eyes, with their cameras, or with their radars is incontrovertible evidence of extraordinary characteristics and performance. Yet, time and again, with sufficient scientific-quality data, it is fact that UAP often, but not always, resolve into readily-explainable sources. Humans are subject to deception and illusions, sensors to unexpected responses and malfunctions, and in some cases intentional interference. Getting to the handful of cases that pass this level of scrutiny is the mission of AARO."

...

"I should also state clearly for the record that in our research AARO has found no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity, off-world technology, or objects that defy the known laws of physics. In the event sufficient scientific data were ever obtained that a UAP encountered can only be explained by extraterrestrial origin, we are committed to working with our interagency partners at NASA to appropriately inform the U.S. Government’s leadership of its findings."


No mention of supersonic anything. Care to provide your own citation?
 
And just to get closure on this particular one:

"Humans are subject to deception and illusions, sensors to unexpected responses and malfunctions"
- Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick Director, All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office

 
“What we have done is reduce the most typically reported UAP characteristics to these fields, mostly around 1 to 4 meters wide,” said Sean M. Kirkpatrick, director of AARO, who appeared in front of a subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, describing how UAPs mostly appear. “Silver. Translucent. Metallic. 10,000 to 30,000 feet [in the air] with apparent velocities from the stationary to mach to no thermal exhausts usually detected.”--- https://www.vice.com/en/article/7kx...drone-spotted-metallic-orb-ufo-in-middle-east
 
Magical Realist said:
“What we have done is reduce the most typically reported UAP characteristics to these fields, mostly around 1 to 4 meters wide,” said Sean M. Kirkpatrick, director of AARO, who appeared in front of a subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, describing how UAPs mostly appear. “Silver. Translucent. Metallic. 10,000 to 30,000 feet [in the air] with apparent velocities from the stationary to mach to no thermal exhausts usually detected.”--- https://www.vice.com/en/article/7kx...drone-spotted-metallic-orb-ufo-in-middle-east
Click to expand...
Again, a general statement, defining a category for disparate incidents, it says nothing about supersonic except 'up to Mach' and it says nothing about tic tac objects.

In other words, you are once again trying to confabulate multiple incidents as if they all have the same characteristics. And they just don't.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Again, a general statement, defining a category for disparate incidents, it says nothing about supersonic except 'up to Mach' and it says nothing about tic tac objects.

In other words, you are once again trying to confabulate multiple incidents as if they all have the same characteristics. And they just don't.
Click to expand...

No...No confabulation of multiple incidents. It's a general description of the metallic sphere uap as seen in many accounts and photos and videos. And it's solid confirmation of what many eyewitnesses have claimed to see. Simple as that.

it says nothing about supersonic except 'up to Mach'
Click to expand...

Then it does say something about supersonic speed. Mach speeds are supersonic. Do I have to spell it out for you?
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
Up to mach. So: sonic. It says nothing about faster than that.
Click to expand...

Speed of sound is
  • about 761 mph
  • in atmosphere
  • on a standard day
  • at sea level
  • static conditions

Sub sonic - Up to speed of sound
Sonic - Speed of sound (Mach)
Supersonic - Above speed of sound

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top