New York Times : "The Pentagon's Mysterious UFO Program" (plus DeLonge's new website/videos)

originally posted by: Willtell
In my humble opinion, and my opinion is of course never humble, all this stuff, warp drives, space-time continuum is UFOlogical and scientific fraud…!


All this crap about “we can take ET home, is a bunch of BS.

consider that warping space time and creating anti gravity isn't how they're doing it.

for purely speculative purposes consider the following.

if your ufo had rotating spherical boundary velocities close to C and fraught with EM discontinuities and tertiary currents causing severe temporal gradients in the H field, to an outside observer they'd sure have a hell of a time establishing a coherent frame of reference on your ufo. no coherent reference frame equals no machs principle equals no inertia.

best thing is the relativistic gradient would be profound at the boundary but not at the core where the crew would be so the crew wouldn't be effected much by the ship's drive.

the field would maybe cause ionization of air and glow. and, when moving, create a anomalous refractive index change causing a second bluish type of glow called cerenkove radiation. I'd imagine the combo of the two would make for some pretty scintillation when inside an atmosphere. look like a moving star when extra atmospheric.

for ftl travel they've got another type of system but they're big, expensive and hard to build. so 99 percent of the ufos don't come equipped with those.


all speculative of course.

originally posted by: IsaacKoi

...some of the evidence I've dug up to see if you think it is an exaggeration to say that it completely blows their credibility out of the water?

I don't want to overstate things.

(I could impose on MirageMan or TheGut, but I think they probably don't give some of the relevant people much credibility already and I'd prefer a bit more of a challenge...).

Coming from the gentlemanly king of understatement, I'd hazard to say that you are about to do ufology, as it were, and the public at large, a great and ironclad service. I can hear at least Elizondo's teeth chattering from here.

a reply to: The GUT

you know I can't help to shake the feeling elizando, delonge and company read ats frequently. I just feel like I've seen some ats jargon coopted by ttsa et al before. as if to appear like they're more on the pulse than they really are. hacks.

I hope the venerable Isaac koi puts the last nail in their charade. they deserve no less at this point.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

So why do we seam to choose the triangle shape for our craft rather than there spherical shape? Would it have to do with stability?

a reply to: myss427

the field is spherical as well as certain componanants of the drive core not the craft.

the problem with rotating things is you get precession and counter rotation which when factored in to balancing the field it interacts with makes it essentially unstable. especially the more you try to reduce inertia. ie the faster and more extreme you want to push the effect the harder it is to balance all the discontinuities and field poles. when it's unstable and fails the ship and crew can get turned into hamburger.

three smaller drive cores in a triangle configuration counter rotate against each other and prevent precession. they are inherently more stable that way. the computer has an easier time calculating the manipulation and coordination of the three in a more stable configuration than taking the risk of a singular one that's inherently more unstable. the drive cores have a physically rotating spherical structure which is where the precession comes from. the field interact with something special the spheres are doing that I won't get into.

goes back to the discontinuities and shifting of poles in the field and the dangers when the computer screws up.

but remember one thing photons don't care about reference frames.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I thought it was Borscht not Hamburgers?

a reply to: Jukiodone

yep that guy likes the term borscht, mach sheild etc. I like hamburger better and reference frame cloak. human machine frappe is a good descriptor too.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: The GUT
I just feel like I've seen some ats jargon coopted by ttsa et al before. as if to appear like they're more on the pulse than they really are. hacks.

What should I be looking for?

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I love your "speculation" at times BASS, also to make a point, you posted the other day that you didnt think that many people look or pay much attention to your posts. I am always interested in your contributions BASS, especially in the Aircraft Forums and this "speculation" you just posted I find extremely interesting to.... speculate about

Good post man..

a reply to: IsaacKoi


I'm surprised that the folks over at TTSA, haven't as of yet revealed any video/eyewitness evidence on fireball foo fighter sightings, by the U.S. Coast Guard, Air Force, Army or Navy.

The ATFLIR that took the footage of the ‘tic-tac’ UFO can be switched between ‘TV’ and ‘IR’ mode.
TV mode shows the image as if taken by a TV camera, a black object against a bright sky.
IR mode shows the parts of the object that reflect or emit heat.

Someone has overlaid the TV and IR images of the flying tic-tac, which shows a beautiful image of the unknown object and that it was indeed tic-tac shaped, probably reflecting or absorbing the heat of the sun without any additional heat signatures caused by engines.

a reply to: Guest101

The resemblance is striking…

And so is the irony: Tic tacs were introduced in 1969, the exact same year the USAF officially stopped investigating UFO’s...

a reply to: Guest101

Only recently have I come to realize that the Nimitz footage also contains regular, not just IR.
While I have no experience judging an IR image, it becomes clear with video that this is an unsual object, neither airplane nor helicopter. It might be some kind of drone, but then I would like to know how it flies.
It gives more credence to this footage and may explain why the people at TTSA thought this whould make good evidence.

Thanks for posting this!

a reply to: SacredLore

Not that the whole case rests on this one aspect, but wasn't the gimbal-style movement pretty conclusively camera zoom?

The reason I ask, is you mention the possibility of a drone and I concur that could be it. Elizondo pretty much admitted speed and maneuvers we're not outside our advanced reach in the recent Q & A vid.

Someone who would be in the know, but might be spinning disinfo (Col. Michael Aquino) referenced gyroscopic drones.

Remember the Nellis UFO vid? I think we have drones that can gyroscopically pull serious G-s and make incredible and precise maneuvers.

originally posted by: The GUT
a reply to: SacredLore


The reason I ask, is you mention the possibility of a drone and I concur that could be it. Elizondo pretty much admitted speed and maneuvers we're not outside our advanced reach in the recent Q & A vid.

huh? I never heard Elizondo claim we had the speed and maneuverability, that would be a total flip flop to what he has been saying.

a reply to: Harpua

I think if you listen closely to his Q & A it sounds like he doesn't believe any of the characteristics were beyond what we're theoretically capable of, but at the same time claims it's an "other.".

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure. Have you listened to the Q & A?

a reply to: The GUT

Yep... I think all of them. He has consistently said that if this was another nations tech then we really should be concerned because they are light years ahead of us.

a reply to: The GUT

Not that the whole case rests on this one aspect, but wasn't the gimbal-style movement pretty conclusively camera zoom?

Yes, it's been proven to be the zoom. It raises questions about the selection process.

Somebody with access to the footage appears to have cherry-picked the segment and removed context from either side. Snipped the lead in and snipped the follow on to leave what looked like what they wanted to promote - UFOs. Whoever that was passed it along to the folks at TTSA. Somebody knowingly passed it along because the object would have been identified as an aircraft before or after the curated clippette.

To me it suggests the enterprise is a charade or a cat's paw for who knows what?

The only thing that the FLIR1 footage seems to confirm is the shape of the object and the fact that it does not seem to have any serious heat exhaust. It does not confirm any ‘beyond next gen’ movement capabilities.

Metabunk has a thread with a very thorough analysis of the video, a very interesting read.

This analysis shows that the object is moving from right to left with respect to the jet at a constant pace during the entire second half of the footage. You can deduce this movement by looking at the changing viewing angle of the ATFLIR, which is locked on the object and keeps it in center view. This angle is displayed at the top.

When the ATFLIR lock is broken in the last few seconds, there is no net change in the movement of the object with respect to the jet. The only difference is that the ATFLIR does not lock it in center view anymore.

Note that the ATFLIR field-of-view is only 0.35 degrees at zoom level 2.0 and setting ‘NAR’ (NAR = narrow field-of-view). So the angle from center screen to the edge of the screen is just 0.175 degrees and covered very quickly by the object once the ATFLIR lock is broken. The switch in zoom level during the object’s movement gives an additional impression of sudden acceleration.

Source:
Member ‘Spindle’ on Metabunk has made a table that shows how the ATFLIR viewing angle changes over time.
This table is repeated below. In the left column is the viewing angle, in the right column the first frame where the viewing angle changes to a new value.

In the last half of the table, the rate at which the angle of the object changes with respect to the jet is constant, even in the last bit where it leaves the screen. The only thing that happens at the end is the loss of the ATFLIR lock so the ATFLIR does not keep it in center screen anymore.

Note that the relative movement of the object with respect to the jet can be caused by object movement, jet movement, or both. This is impossible to tell from the footage alone.

---------------
Framerate 29.97 frames per second, right column is frame number.
‘4R’ means ‘ATFLIR points 4 degrees to right of jet’

4R - Start of video
3R- 0249
4R- 0369
3R- 0397
2R- 0638
1R- 0832
1L- 0887
0 - 0972
1L- 1134
2L- 1221
3L- 1358
4L- 1453
5L- 1558
6L- 1650
7L- 1732
8L- 1854
Target lost at 1879, after traversing angle of 0,175 degrees between center and left edge of screen (= 8L+ 0,175 degrees).

So one of the videos is now a confirmed to be a zoom effect as opposed to an actual object?

I'm trying to understand that highly detailed debunking.

If this is true... what the hell are these guys thinking? They would have to realize that it would get debunked. Was this whole project set up to fail?

Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. Curious to hear if these videos provide any evidence at all of something unexplainable by current aircraft standards.