150 replies to this topic

[TheSearcher]

Lord Vetinari, on 26 February 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

then what does one say if one has seen something like the object illustrated (the metallic sphere) that does look very much as if it is flying? Many people have, Sweetpumper, i believe, among them. Might it be not actually what it looks like, i.e. a metallic sphere, but actually some kind of energy?

Then one still should expect some propulsion of some kind. if it is some kind of energy, then the question is moot. It does by no means negate what I said.

Edited by TheSearcher, 26 February 2013 - 10:13 AM.

[Kludge808]

Sweetpumper, on 25 February 2013 - 09:32 PM, said:

Can this fly?

A steel ball bearing such as the one pictured can only be launched as a ballistic projectile.  I supposed what happens could be considered flight but not by any realistic definition.

[Kludge808]

TheSearcher, on 25 February 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

Unless it has some kind of propulsion, no it cannot. Funnily enough it's not even the most aerodynamic shape either. The most aerodynamic shape would be a Sears–Haack body, Kludge probably will be able to confirm that, or correct me if I'm wrong.

They look kinda like this :

While what you're showing cylindrical, the shape is correct.  Take a projection of the profile and you create an ideal high performance wing section as used on many fighters etc today.  The F-104 Starfighter (aka: Missile with a man in it) had leading edges sharp enough that they had to be padded while being serviced or in maintenance to protect people on the ground as well as the surfaces.  While not the first airplane to use it, it did use that airfoil to great advantage.

[Kludge808]

zenfahr, on 25 February 2013 - 10:45 PM, said:

Ya'll say its fake... its an RC toy, or my fav... if you know anything about aerodynamics you know that it is a hoax.  Soooooo RC toy that fly's YET defies the physics of Aerodynamics.  Chances are, its what it appears to be... an experimental craft. Probably soon to be declassified if its being flown in day light.

Is it?  Do you have definitive proof of that?  Or are you looking at the cover and not reading the book?

A few pages back, someone checked frames in the video and discovered that there are frames with the sky but no aircraft.  That says CGI.  A CGI "aircraft" doesn't fly.  All it has to do is stand still to be videoed with the camera moving.  Even better, it doesn't even have to exist if one's a decent 3D artist.  Even if it was done using a green screen (You know how that works, right?), the frames won't sync perfectly unless one has terribly high end software & hardware and there will be dropped frames in one or the other of the videos when they're merged.  There are several reasons this happens including the fact that home video equipment and software isn't perfect or even great but rather is "good enough" to work while still remaining competitive in the market.  (This is also why I stay with Canon cameras and a mix of software including Adobe.  They tend to set the bar a little higher.)

So, yes, I call hoax.

[Kludge808]

Lord Vetinari, on 26 February 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

then what does one say if one has seen something like the object illustrated (the metallic sphere) that does look very much as if it is flying? Many people have, Sweetpumper, i believe, among them. Might it be not actually what it looks like, i.e. a metallic sphere, but actually some kind of energy?

Okay, so what you're saying is that if it's not the metal sphere shown but rather a ball of energy or even a silvered mylar balloon then it's a whole new ballgame.  You're right, it is.  Sooo ... the new question is, what did it actually look like and how did it behave?  Actually, there are other questions but that's a good start.

[Sweetpumper]

Kludge808, on 27 February 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

A steel ball bearing such as the one pictured can only be launched as a ballistic projectile.  I supposed what happens could be considered flight but not by any realistic definition.

Well, it wasn't launched, wasn't 'energy' (it looked just like that pic), certainly flew from a standstill position, was fast enough to break the sound barrier but didn't, and was the size of a mini-van.  So, I guess the only question is what it was and what kind of propulsion it used.

[Kludge808]

Sweetpumper, on 27 February 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

Well, it wasn't launched, wasn't 'energy' (it looked just like that pic), certainly flew from a standstill position, was fast enough to break the sound barrier but didn't, and was the size of a mini-van.  So, I guess the only question is what it was and what kind of propulsion it used.

Rockets such as those launched at Cape Canaveral don't fly by definition.  Instead they are lifted by pure directed thrust from gimbal-mounted engines underneath, the direction of which is fine tuned to control the direction of travel.  Balloons don't fly by definition but rather are lifted due to a lighter/lower density mass inside than outside making them lighter than air.  Controlling that mass, as with hot air balloons, allows some altitude control but direction is entirely up to the wind.

What the object you witnessed did wasn't flight by definition but rather it was propelled by some directed means to accomplish what it did.  As to what it was and how it accomplished what it did, the only answer I can offer is "unknown."

[Sweetpumper]

The definition of flight is exactly what it was.

[Sweetpumper]

The whole thing is "unknown".

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

What we seem to be arguing about is flight, in aerodyanmic terms, vis-a-vis being able to counteract gravity. It would sugegst very firmly that your sighting, if it was an artificial object, could seem to do the latter. The only man-made object that might be likely to hover silently would be a Balloon, but Balloons can rarely do the other things that it did. Therefore that would seem to have to be some pretty exotic technology.

[Sweetpumper]

For something to move that fast and the way it did, I'd say yes, something that counteracts gravity. It left no trail, no sign anything had been hovering or had ever flown by. Weird stuff.

Edited by Sweetpumper, 27 February 2013 - 09:18 PM.

[Kludge808]

Lord Vetinari, on 27 February 2013 - 09:02 PM, said:

What we seem to be arguing about is flight, in aerodyanmic terms,vis-a-vis being able to counteract gravity.

Gravity can be counteracted by lift which is flight by definition or by other means.

In aerodynamics, there are precisely four forces working on an airplane in two opposing pairs.  Pair one is lift and gravity.  Pair two is thrust and drag.  For straight and level flight, each pair has to be in balance.  Change any one of them and the airplane will take on a different attitude.  It can get a little complicated due to the vectors involved when not in straight and level flight but not a whole lot.  Well, not if you have a handle on vector math.

Quote

It would sugegst very firmly that your sighting, if it was an artificial object, could seem to do the latter. The only man-made object that might be likely to hover silently would be a Balloon, but Balloons can rarely do the other things that it did. Therefore that would seem to have to be some pretty exotic technology.

It is "by other means" to be sure.  What those means are remains unknown.

[rpclennon]

Does the president or any president know what's going on at area 51,and why it's never mentioned

[DKO]

rpclennon, on 01 March 2013 - 01:29 AM, said:

Does the president or any president know what's going on at area 51,and why it's never mentioned

Presidents usually don't go public about Top Secrets sites.

[Chrlzs]

I'd suggest you google "area 51 bill clinton"..