Hold On To Your Gyroscope ~ The Nellis Range Ufo Revisited

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Box of Rain
a reply to: The GUT
There's no way for me to tell if the object is making those jerky movements or if the camera is moving that way.

The story goes that the apparent jumps are a result of the theodolite filming the thing trying to track it and not keeping up. The slow rotations and shape changes are done by the object, which traveled on a fairly smooth path.

Thanks. I figured some of the motion was from the object, but I didn't think we can really tell if the more jumpy "bee-like maneuvers", as the OP called it, were movements of the object or were caused by the camera jerking around.

originally posted by: moebius
...As soon as external friction comes in, damping the angular momentum changes or imparting additional angular momentum to the craft. The whole process becomes irreversible. The gyro would quickly saturate and become useless.

I'm not sure that's defensible. Not saying that "competing forces" wouldn't be an engineering issue, just that from your explanation it isn't clear how the concept couldn't be achieved.

a reply to: The GUT

Apparently I misunderstood your original question.

As your source says, gyros are used for attitude control in spacecraft (aiming the Kepler, for example), not propulsion. Trying to use a gyroscope for propulsion (or maneuvering) would be like trying to lift yourself up by pulling on your feet.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: The GUT

Apparently I misunderstood your original question.

As your source says, gyros are used for attitude control in spacecraft (aiming the Kepler, for example), not propulsion. Trying to use a gyroscope for propulsion (or maneuvering) would be like trying to lift yourself up by pulling on your feet.

Propulsion hasn't been on the table in regards gyroscopic precession---although the question of propulsion for the Nellis UFO is certainly left unanswered.

Again, as in the reply to Moebius, as far as spatial attitude goes I don't see how you've made the case that it's not feasible.

a reply to: The GUT

It's fully "feasible." But not as practical as aerodynamic controls. Aerodynamic controls work fine in air and weigh less. With a gyro you need the mass of the wheel to change attitude. With aerodynamic controls you have the mass of the air outside the aircraft.

a reply to: The GUT

Here's a 'Sightings' episode about it with some interesting interviews.

originally posted by: Phage

I was never very impressed with the Nellis video.

Not trying to detract from thread, but I am curious which , if any ufo vid or case, has left you "impressed?"
I am not being snarky, I just value your perspective. Thank you
Apologies to the OP for my inquiry and Phage you could PM me if you'd rather, so not to distract.

a reply to: waftist

Here's one of my very favorites (you've probably seen this before) that comes with just about the only possible debunk.

The debunk is not based on "nothing" but what the chap says and what the video shows as regards his claim about it following the movement of the camera doesn't seem to me to be true.

I say that as a professional videographer that specializes in action photography such as hot air ballooning, shooting from ultra-lights, professional wake boarding etc and I see the orb moving independent of the camera in ways a refraction doesn't.

If it has something to do with the internals of their special camera rig they make no mention or claim in that regard.

Thanks for joining in.

a reply to: The GUT

Hey GUT, yes I have seen that one and agree with your assessment.
I recall this one that had me stumped,although Mirageman referenced an x machine(?) vid that seems to match.