Exellent UFO footage out of Utah taken in 2016 just now posted Clear What do you think ATS?

a reply to: dimaggio13
That guy who made the "Truth Serum" video you mentioned is very confused.
He doesn't understand gravitational redshift, but apparently he has a colleague who does and his colleague tried to tell him why it didn't apply.

But then he whips out this warp drive hypothesis by Alcubierre which is so hypothetical that it may never actually work, it requires exotic matter with negative mass to work and there may be no such thing, probably isn't. But what's even more odd is that is faster than light technology NASA has tried to do some research on, and nobody would say that object was going faster than light. Light travels so fast it would circle the entire earth seven times in one second, so hopefully everybody agrees it's not going that fast, so why is he talking about warp drive?

His analysis seems to be based on his gross misinterpretation of this warp drive thing.

If you want to read about real gravitational redshift, it's a very small effect which takes very sensitive measurements to detect it such as in the Pound Rebka experiment.They had to use gamma ray photons way outside the visible light range to detect such a tiny effect in that experiment:

short wavelength high energy photons are required to detect such minute differences.

So as that test confirms, there is such a thing as gravitational redshift, but Truth Serum hasn't the foggiest clue of what it takes to detect it. Not only that, gravitational redshift occurs when the direction of motion is toward the center of the earth, or away from it. Truth Serum partially understands that concept since his drawing sort of shows that concept, and it's true that light gets blueshifted heading toward the earth and redshifted heading away from the earth, but again by very, very tiny amounts too small to measure over short distances in the visible light frequencies, that's why the experimenters used gamma rays to detect it.

What Truth Serum doesn't seem to understand is that for motion parallel to the earth's surface more or less, like this object for the most part, gravitational redshift would be effectively zero.

So, tl;dr:
Warp drive faster than light technology is hypothetical and completely different than gravitational redshift, which is too small to measure with visible light over short distances on earth and that's if it's straight up or down. If it's not going up or down it's impossible to measure even with gamma rays because gravitational redshift doesn't happen in that case. Maybe Doppler shift could occur but I'm sure he has no idea how to measure that either. Truth Serum has no clue.

If you want to hear a real scientist talk about the Alcubierre drive that Truth Serum mentioned, listen to this and you will probably know more than Truth Serum.

Is The Alcubierre Warp Drive Possible? | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios

a reply to: dimaggio13

You're welcome. There's nothing wrong with trying to understand witnessed phenomena. Often though people get excited too early in on their analysis and jump to their conclusions prematurely. But then again its good to put the hypothesis out there to be scrutinized because its a good way to grow and learn.

As for arbitrageur. He's a good guy and very knowledgeable about science, especially physics. He doesnt debunk things from a malicious intent. He genuinely likes helping people to learn and his understanding of physics is not based on google fu or of the armchair variety. Conversation with him is a good thing.

Wow, special and genuine thanks,to both Arbitrageur and BASSPLYA. I have spent (as far as I know! ) approaching 54 years on this planet,and aspire to "learn and self educate' every single day, I try to think laterally, and apply my own BS filter(s) to all and everything,hence and defacto,I am always in genuine 'awe' of those obviously with far greater perspective and intelligence than I,all I can say is,this has me perplexed..... CGI v something else!

a reply to: booyakasha

yes it has been proven to be cgi.

When you slow down the video the UFO appears in every frame. This is impossible for an object flying that fast.

It should only appear in every fourth frame or so. The frame rate is too slow to pick up something that fast in every frame.

It is against the laws of physics.

Wrong. Learn what the difference between framerate and shutter speed is.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: dimaggio13

This would not be in accord with a uniform expansion of time space behind the object.

BASSPLYR, with respect, could you elaborate on this please? I'm not sure we're on the same page. Thanks

originally posted by: TruthS3rum
a reply to: booyakasha

yes it has been proven to be cgi.

When you slow down the video the UFO appears in every frame. This is impossible for an object flying that fast.

It should only appear in every fourth frame or so. The frame rate is too slow to pick up something that fast in every frame.

It is against the laws of physics.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Learn what shutter speed is.

Hes on the right track just got it completely backwards. The object being filmed at 60 fps all 60 frames would show the object. What you would see however is the object jump from one point to the next. It would not be smooth flight path. Are object would jump from point to point as the frame rate is not high enough to capture something moving that fast.

To see that object moving that fast would require 1000 fps. Then we would see the object just like it shows in video. But since I doubt it was filmed at 10000 fps then it confirms its CGI. Something moving that fast is not going to be recorded on anything below 2500. And even at 2500 you may only get about 2 seconds and a very jumpy object.

Man, this place has changed. It absolutely reeks of "debunker" in here.

originally posted by: dragonridr

What you would see however is the object jump from one point to the next.

And just what do you suppose it's doing in the video, if not exactly that?

To see that object moving that fast would require 1000 fps.

Wrong, unequivocally wrong. Learn what the difference between framerate and shutter speed is.

The object is purported to be somewhere in the vicinity of 15 feet wide. It approached the camera at a low angle of incidence in broad daylight from a distance of roughly 2 miles. There is no basis for this assertion, whatsoever.

originally posted by: Jubei42
If this is the real deal I would suspect some sort of forcefield in place that separates the craft from its surroundings. You can't accellerate at those speeds without tearing the place up.

My bet is on some sort artificial gravity, reduce your mass to zero. Maybe enter some alternate dimension where you don't have to obey our rules of physics.
They could be folding space-time itself and sliding right through and all we see is some kind of light phenomenon, who knows.

Facinating stuff

You're right. A gravitational field would be that force field—radiating at the speed of light.

a reply to: TruthS3rum

Sure, although i feel i explained it well enough in my first post. In both frames you highlight it appears that you are looking at a halo or ring artifact and not gravitational redshifting. The second frame you show ( "side view" i believe) you'll notice that the ring artifacts intensity and size corresponds to the light intensity of the object in contrast to the background light intensity. Ie where the objects brightest, so too is the ring artifact. This is in accord with how light artifacts form during signals processing.

If the backside of the object had a altered time space metric causing redshifting like you describe it would be a uniform gradient back to front going from a redshift towards the blue shift. Instead its not uniform. Its "lumpy" and not a smooth gradient. Its got a redshift at its strongest degree where the largest contrast of light values occurs, just like in a halo artifact.

In your first frame you highlight (the "head on" image ) The object is more uniform in the contrast of its light value in regards to that of the back ground (the second frame -"side view" you highlighted, its brightest at the upper rear portion of the object) and, corresponding to my conjecture, so too is the halo of the light artifact. It forms almost a even ring around the object. (More or less)

Its my opinion that you are seeing a ring or halo artifact. As far as it being cgi or not i cant comment because i dont know about frame rates and cgi etc.

I still say that you made the best effort of those that did in attempting to prove a exotically propelled vehicle in the video. And im not trying to debunk the footage. I do however, think that you are mistaken that you are seeing redshifting due to a space time gradient.

Now before you think that im jumping on a sceptic debunking bandwagon please know that my opinions and posts arent exactly well regarded amongst most members of ats, heck im practically persona non grata in the aviation forum, and that I've had my fair share of seeing "ufos" on multiple occasions. You could say i know a lot more about the subject than i appear particularly in regards to their propulsion. And you are right that ufos do redshift light, but not exactly for the reason you've mentioned.

In regards to arbitrageur and dragonridr. Neither are malicious or uneducated. Ive actually found them both alright. Im positive i push their buttons sometimes with my personality and especially with the zany questions i ask in their "ask any physics question " thread. But im confident neither are debunking from a malicious angle nor are bad guys.

Finally, when considering exotic propulsion i think its best to think like Einstein. Instead of E=MC2. look at it the way Einstein originally did M=E/C2.

It's always amusing to me to hear people theorizing about things like warp drive, as if humankind actually has a clue. Do you honestly think our best scientists really have even the most feeble grasp on things like warp drive? They don't. They only have theories based on current levels of knowledge. Which amounts to jack.

It's like when people try to talk about quantum physics like they "know" what's going on. We are infants. It's funny, because now, we look at theories in our history that at the time, seemed laughable, based on what we know now. In the future.. 30, 50.. maybe 100 years, our scientific heirs will only chuckle at our presumptuous opinions.

We don't "know" what is achievable in propulsion. I imagine a civilization even 20k years advanced of us, would be amused at our assumptions. We have NO idea what is achievable. That's why whenever a sighting occurs, I can only shake my head at opinions about "what is possible," as if we'd have ANY clue, whatsoever. We wouldn't.

Thank you,to each and every contributer,in the last few hours,for ' to a layman,me!' the forensic explanations, and thought provoking 'debate'
Genuinely, scintillating stuff,plus,an education for me,I try,rather late in life,to soak up knowledge,learn from my peers,and educate myself,great reading the debating,hope everyone keeps it civil. Thank You again. Paul

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I appreciate your response! Thanks. I'm not putting you on any bandwagon, and honestly, skeptics (barring the clearly religious and delusional ones) don't bother me at all as long as they're respectful.

I'm unfamiliar with this halo effect you're referring to, but I'm definitely going to look into it. Do you happen to have any examples I can take a gander at?

Again, thanks for your insight. This is what science is all about.

a reply to: TruthS3rum

There is a reason you need a high speed camera to see a bullet. At 60 fps a bullet is invisible because our eyes cannot process the dots as continued motion. At 10000 fps we can slow the bullet down with enough information for our brains to process the forward motion. Bottom line someth I'm mg moving that fast is virtually invisible because our brains are unable to process the information.

In this video that is clearly not the case we can easily track the object which confirms it's fake. An object moving that quickly at 60 fps would not even be identifiable you only got 60 screen captures as it flew over 2 miles. Think about how much this object would travel between each frame .

a reply to: fleabit

You're right, fleabit. Truthfully, we don't know. I feel that realization makes you better off than 97% of the diffuse population. If we want to make any advancements in this area though, we have to start somewhere, right?

If Heaviside hadn't #ed with Maxwell's equations at the dawn of the 20th century, I think we'd be in a much better place than we currently are, but alas, the cards have been dealt, and we're left with what we've got. All we can do is make the most of it.

a reply to: dragonridr

The reason you need a high-speed camera to see a bullet in flight is not just because it's really fast, but also because it's really small. A much larger object moving at a similar speed would be much easier to see.

The object's movement from frame to frame is commensurate with its purported speed. There is nothing unusual about this.

originally posted by: TheOnlyBilko

originally posted by: peacefulpete


I think it's still an open case; this one person saying it's "proven" to be CGI, didn't give a link when asked (because I'm curious about this topic).

He didn't give a link? A link? What type of link?

There is NO stinking "link", the link is what he told you about the frames. It's his personal analysis on why it's CGI. There Is no stinking link to give lol

lol I was asking because he had made the authoritative statement that the case was "proven" CGI.

So I was curious if there was a good video etc. that showed the proof.

I guess not.

So until I see otherwise, it still seems an open case...

a reply to: TheJesuit


16 pages and 78 flags? WOW!

Didn't read the thread, too long. Watched the video with the sound off, once. It looks like a plastic bag that got caught in a an updraft.