87 replies to this topic

[synchronomy]

John Rayne, on 01 October 2012 - 04:15 AM, said:

Real good video, and liked the female narration as well...

I wish we could harnass that underwater technology so that we humans could finally explore the biggest mystery of our own planet.  The depths...

There has got to be a way to reduce friction underwater and achieve better speed and depths.  At the rate we are going it would take a Thousand years to map and cover all the deep water in the world, salt and fresh.
* NOTE - that's my own exaggeration of time but it seems like progress there is slow and at the low end of dollars going into it.

Just my 2cents

I saw something the Russians were doing years ago.  They were researching high-speed torpedoes.  It involved the torpedo releasing compressed air through it's tip so that it was travelling through an envelope of air while underwater.  Not sure of the success though, it was shrouded in the usual cold-war style, cloak and dagger secrecy.
Also heard some chatter about oceanic mapping.  The idea involves hundreds of small robotic submarines being released in all the World's oceans.  They would be programmed with search parameters and conduct detailed grid surveys of all the oceans using radar etc.  The data would be communicated back via satellite.  One of the problems was power to keep them going.  There was some talk about nuclear power, but that would freak out the environmentalists knowing hundreds of reactor are swimming about on their own.
I believe it was one of the oil-giants that were toying with the idea.

[R4z3rsPar4d0x]

synchronomy, on 26 October 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

I saw something the Russians were doing years ago.  They were researching high-speed torpedoes.  It involved the torpedo releasing compressed air through it's tip so that it was travelling through an envelope of air while underwater.  Not sure of the success though, it was shrouded in the usual cold-war style, cloak and dagger secrecy.
Also heard some chatter about oceanic mapping.  The idea involves hundreds of small robotic submarines being released in all the World's oceans.  They would be programmed with search parameters and conduct detailed grid surveys of all the oceans using radar etc.  The data would be communicated back via satellite.  One of the problems was power to keep them going.  There was some talk about nuclear power, but that would freak out the environmentalists knowing hundreds of reactor are swimming about on their own.
I believe it was one of the oil-giants that were toying with the idea.

Usually great Ideas require a ton of money behind them but If it was the government they probably had it covered, atleast with the funding aspect

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

I was thinking of bothering, but when i saw it was You Tube, and not only that, a YouTubE feature film, I decided it wasn't worth the effort. It sounds very much like the same old all over again, is it?

[zoser]

747400, on 26 October 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

I was thinking of bothering, but when i saw it was You Tube, and not only that, a YouTubE feature film, I decided it wasn't worth the effort. It sounds very much like the same old all over again, is it?

If it contains true information then watch it wherever it is from.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

zoser, on 26 October 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

If it contains true information

indeed, there's the question, isn't it.

[bmk1245]

zoser, on 26 October 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

If it contains true information then watch it wherever it is from.

What is true information? White van or blue van? What is true?

[JimOberg]

The Soviet high-speed torpedo was the Shkval, it's main problem was it was unguided -- it couldn't track its target.

The slow survey unmanned small subs are another project, they're already out there, measuring ocean conditions. Not Russian, American.

[JimOberg]

synchronomy, on 26 October 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

I saw how this was done.  Sorry I don't have the source link anymore.
If I recall, the astronauts noted the object was travelling the same speed as they were.  As they orbited they measured the time it passed into Earth's shadow (or out of, can't recall which) then noted how long before they passed into (or out of) the shadow.  Knowing their orbital speed, they then calculated the approximate distance to the object.  Using that distance and the angular distance from one end of the object to the other, they could calculate the length of the UFO.
It was something like that.  The method and math used were very understandable.

You did see a real presentation but I think it was pretty garbled, because even in your version, you can see how 'measuring the distance' required you to start with 'knowing the distance'.

But you're right, they did notice the object seemed to go into shadow a number of seconds before the SkylaB did.

Now, that can be converted into a distasnce if you assume same altitude -- not measurable directly -- AND you assume there were no OTHER shadows it could have gone into to explain it going dark.

The Skylab wardroom window was on the 'backward facing' side of the station. Near sunset, as they are flying away from the sun, where do you suppose there was ANOTHER shadow zone [not Earth's shadow] that fills a large part of the space outside the window?

[synchronomy]

JimOberg, on 26 October 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

You did see a real presentation but I think it was pretty garbled, because even in your version, you can see how 'measuring the distance' required you to start with 'knowing the distance'.

But you're right, they did notice the object seemed to go into shadow a number of seconds before the SkylaB did.

Now, that can be converted into a distasnce if you assume same altitude -- not measurable directly -- AND you assume there were no OTHER shadows it could have gone into to explain it going dark.

The Skylab wardroom window was on the 'backward facing' side of the station. Near sunset, as they are flying away from the sun, where do you suppose there was ANOTHER shadow zone [not Earth's shadow] that fills a large part of the space outside the window?

As I've said before, I do my research.  Yes I am aware that things other than sunsets create shadows.
I was recalling the methodology from memory from something I read probably about 20 years ago.
I see you've clarified your position on it here:
http://debunker.com/...abUFO_1973.html

[1963]

JimOberg, on 26 October 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

I always found it curious that the lines-of-sight to the Trent/McMinnville object crossed beneath an overhead power line that was usually conveniently cropped out of most published versions of the photos, and one other photo on the same roll had one of the Trent kids standing by a stepladder in the yard with a mischievous grin on his face. I'd bet not 1 UFO buff in 1,000,000 has ever seen -- or been shown -- THAT photo. Anybody hereabouts?

Is this post above by James Oberg, and the post by Anthony Bragalia below ... the final proof that "Debunkers" such as  'Jimmy-boy' cannot be trusted, and that he and his ilk will deploy any false information in their quest to debunk cases, whether genuine or not !..?

http://bragalia.blog...y-brouhaha.html


...I know what I think! ....what about you guys....?


Cheers.


The question is...did our own Jim Oberg know that he was indeed spreading

[DONTEATUS]

They have pills for that  !

[praetorian-legio XIII]

1963, on 28 December 2012 - 03:19 AM, said:

Is this post above by James Oberg, and the post by Anthony Bragalia below ... the final proof that "Debunkers" such as  'Jimmy-boy' cannot be trusted, and that he and his ilk will deploy any false information in their quest to debunk cases, whether genuine or not !..?

http://bragalia.blog...y-brouhaha.html


...I know what I think! ....what about you guys....?


Cheers.


The question is...did our own Jim Oberg know that he was indeed spreading

Can't wait for Obergs response, sure seems like he was just so busted.

[Chrlzs]

1963, on 28 December 2012 - 03:19 AM, said:

Is this post above by James Oberg, and the post by Anthony Bragalia below ... the final proof that "Debunkers" such as  'Jimmy-boy' cannot be trusted

Do you really think that using terms like 'Jimmy-boy' helps you appear credible?  In some places, that sort of name-calling would be found quite offensive.  Guess not at your place?

Quote

he and his ilk will deploy any false information in their quest to debunk cases, whether genuine or not !..?

So, you claim that the photo is false and was knowingly posted as such?  Or was it an error that was made and corrected - eg that Trent took it, when it appears that more likely the Life magazine reporter did?  In what way does that make the picture 'false'?

If you claim the image is false - on what basis do you make that claim?  My quick look at that image and comparison to other images suggests it is genuine, even if it was likely taken by a Life photog and taken some days after the UFO 'claim'.  So, is there some problem in showing that ladder and the kid on it?  It seems to me that it might be a useful image to show, in order to discuss things like the perspective and depth of field issues and, golly gosh, potential fakery...  Indeed, surely Trent was there when it was taken - maybe Trent wanted that image to go out as a bit of a giggle?  I don't know, but it's interesting to surmise...

If you just 'feel' that the image isn't genuine, then please say so, and perhaps provide an explanation for your 'feeling'.  Otherwise I'd suggest that this is a case of pot meeting kettle..


BTW, what if another well-known poster here was to deliberately post a false claim and then refuse point blank to admit it - should that person never be trusted again...?  Be careful how you answer...

[TheMacGuffin]

1963, on 28 December 2012 - 03:19 AM, said:

Is this post above by James Oberg, and the post by Anthony Bragalia below ... the final proof that "Debunkers" such as  'Jimmy-boy' cannot be trusted, and that he and his ilk will deploy any false information in their quest to debunk cases, whether genuine or not !..?

The question is...did our own Jim Oberg know that he was indeed spreading

I have no doubt that he does, since he has been caught doing it many times, but then again there are others of us who also worked for the government and the military that have very different information from his.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 29 December 2012 - 01:22 AM.

[Chrlzs]

Here's a link that suggests that yes, it was definitely a Life photograph, despite many different folks on the interwebz claiming otherwise..

Expanded set of Life images from McMinnville UFO case

(Note that I am not endorsing that site as a reference.. {grin})


Oh, and I'm pleased to see MacGuffin here.

Q1. MacGuffin, do you ever post false information?

Q2. Perhaps more importantly, do you admit it when it is pointed out to you?