4734 replies to this topic

[DingoLingo]

you know the one thing that gets me abou the whole 'ufo's as big as aircraft carriers etc' is no one reports anything about the turbulence or shockwave they would create when taking off at incredible speeds..

[DONTEATUS]

DingoLingo, on 10 July 2012 - 02:42 AM, said:

you know the one thing that gets me abou the whole 'ufo's as big as aircraft carriers etc' is no one reports anything about the turbulence or shockwave they would create when taking off at incredible speeds..

THey have shazzmoe power dont you know ? Theres been Mile wide UFO`s the Size of Aircraft carriers for years spotted zipping around with out a peep !
THe Texas Stephenville sighting one in point ! many witness`s and even some FAA radar and military responce. Although its hard to read between the lines on this point.
Great name there "DingoLingo" welcome to the Forum !
By the way Shazzmoe power is kinda like  Gageeezzzzmoe power units !  Both totally silent ! ITs based on the Human ability to silence ones own farts in public evac situations !
They are afterall Light years and Beer`s ahead of us !
CHeer`s Keep looking up !

[TheMacGuffin]

psyche101, on 09 July 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

I do not mind people having a good crack at an explanation, if it is wrong, transparency should reveal such. And that's what I like about Jim, transparency. He will answer any question, and offer the best possible solution his experience can muster. I think it is good to have a starting point that is well thought out, and is qualified by it's own properties. Having him visit here I find adds a personal touch that few seem to bother with.

Any particular case that you think Jim was unfair on?

Jerry Cohen has an article about his exchanges with Oberg regarding Gordon Cooper and other UFO matters here:

http://www.cohenufo....iterebut_7d.htm

[TheMacGuffin]

There were also exchanges on UFO Updates between Cohen and Oberg about the "Sky Thing" that was seen in 1960, and I think that Cohen was correct that it was never identified, although we know that it was tracked and photographed orbiting around up there.  It was not the only such case of "mystery satellites", which were also detected and studied by people like Lincoln LaPaz even before Sputnik in 1957.

Jacques Vallee saw it in 1961 and LaPaz and Clyde Tombaugh saw it in 1953-54.  It was a strange thing because it was always moving in reverse of all our satellites; its motion was retrograde.

http://www.cohenufo.org/ocr.2.html


We have had UM discussions about Sky Thing before:

http://www.unexplain...ic=198940&st=15


I've seen these pictures of it, too, but it was never identified so far as I know,



"A mysterious REDDISH object circling the earth has been
photographed by a tracking camera of the Grumman Aviation
Engineering Corp., in Bethpage, it was disclosed today.

Grumman said the photograph was taken by a special tracking crew
which has been on watch.

[ The flying object appears to be about a tenth the size of the
Echo I balloon satellite and traveling about twice as fast.  
Sightings from amateur astronomers and others have been received
from throughout the United States.

Robert L. Johnson, director of Chicago's Adler Planetarium, is
compiling data on the object.  He says it doesn't appear to be an
artificial satellite or a meteor. ]

[ An added touch of the unusual is the east to west trajectory of
the object.  Satellites launched by the United States and the
Soviet Union have followed the opposite trajectory, west to east,
to take advantage of extra speed provided by the earth's rotation.]"

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 10 July 2012 - 04:13 AM.

[TheMacGuffin]

I'm not sure who first called this satellite the "Black Knight" but in reality its color was reddish, not black.  It was small and spherical, moving at twice the speed of normal satellites, and in the "wrong" direction.  Nor did it seem to keep a regular schedule, but was spotted, tracked and photographed at irregular intervals.

It seems that a lot of mythology was built up later concerning this real UFO sighting.  I'd have to call a lot of this subsequent stuff pure science fiction.

http://www.theliving..._Satellite.html

Sky Thing was not hidden or covered up, though, but openly discussed in the media at the time.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 10 July 2012 - 04:38 AM.

[TheMacGuffin]

We later have these stories about the Black Knight being much larger than anything in orbit, sending us signals and star maps, as well as radio messages to Epsilon Boötes, but they do not match the actual description we have on record of the Sky Thing.


http://www.latest-uf...ack-knight.html

And there has also been much speculation over the years that mystery radio signals and Long Delayed Echoes (LDEs) on the radio might have been from alien probes visiting this solar system.  No doubt there have been anomalous radio signals detected since the days of Tesla and Marconi, although like everything else connected with UFOs, there are always more prosaic explanations for these.

To me, it often comes down to picking your own poison, although I have never believed that the simplest and most commonplace explanation must always be the correct one.  Far from it in this world.

http://www.klimaco.n...-radio-echo.htm

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 10 July 2012 - 05:25 AM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

DingoLingo, on 10 July 2012 - 02:42 AM, said:

you know the one thing that gets me abou the whole 'ufo's as big as aircraft carriers etc' is no one reports anything about the turbulence or shockwave they would create when taking off at incredible speeds..

Well, it would be a very foolish extraterrestrial race who tried to land a craft as big as an Aircraft carrier; it would be fairly foolish to bring it into atmosphere at all. But if they did, they'd almost certainly use some means to elminate atmospheric shock waves, I'd have thought. We must learn not to assume that we know our technology to be capable of is the be all and end all.

[psyche101]

747400, on 10 July 2012 - 06:54 AM, said:

Well, it would be a very foolish extraterrestrial race who tried to land a craft as big as an Aircraft carrier; it would be fairly foolish to bring it into atmosphere at all. But if they did, they'd almost certainly use some means to elminate atmospheric shock waves, I'd have thought. We must learn not to assume that we know our technology to be capable of is the be all and end all.

That is true, but we must not let imagination make our decisions for us as well. It's a good point, why would you land something that large on a planet? The resources required to overcome gravity to get back into space would have to be immense, and far in excess of what is required for space travel. So no matter how you look at it, whatever mileage these things get, it would go through the roof to break gravity. Shuttles would be a safer, cheaper, easier option. Particularly on an earth like planet.

Interesting Star Trek trivia. The Enterprise was originally supposed to land on planets, but due to the high cost of having building sets all the time to accomodate that idea, that was reduced to a shuttle idea, and then budget concerns decided to "materialise" people to cut the cost even further and the Star Trek Transporter was born. No great insight, not incredible vision, budgetary cuts and film capability.

[psyche101]

TheMacGuffin, on 10 July 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

Jerry Cohen has an article about his exchanges with Oberg regarding Gordon Cooper and other UFO matters here:

http://www.cohenufo....iterebut_7d.htm

I am just about done for the day, but I will bookmark the link and get back to it, thanks for the link.

[quillius]

psyche101, on 09 July 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

Indeed he is, it just seems unjust to have these little people running around his feet just biting his ankles. After a career in NASA it seems just not right that he should have to deal with accusations from the likes of Dave Rudiak. Not even in the same ballpark as Jim.

psyche101, on 10 July 2012 - 12:13 AM, said:

. I find the debates he has had with Bill Nye are very disappointing. In them I find Ed to be rude and to have no pertinent information whatsoever, and a constant reminder that his tale requires the crutch of an appeal to authority to stand up.

Hey Psyche,  I didnt think Ed was rude at all on the show, I thought that Bill Nye's tone and apporach was very condesending and promopted the response from Ed. I think the comments you made regarding Jim and his career at NASA should also extend to Ed in the same way. IMO.

[quillius]

psyche101, on 10 July 2012 - 12:00 AM, said:

He is not a sicko like Gacy and Manson, I agree but he is a bonafide criminal. One of the real people to be concerned about not the "snakes" Zoser fears. Personally I would never sign a petition to help him get off scott free for outright breaking the law. From an IT point of view he is a petty thief. What he did was simple break and enter with intent to vandalise. Also from an IT point of view he could easily have disseminated any proof such as he claimed to the entire world with one keystroke, and he did not follow any rule of IT and backup, also his ISP's hold no records of his wild claims. As far as I can see all the evidence convicts him rightly as a lying vandalist petty thief. I have zero sympathy for McKinnon and his crimes.
If anything, the UFO crowd should be chastising McKinnon, he took the entire community for a fool in my opinion.

I feel it is a little harsh to place those names in the same sentence as McKinnon. Anyhow I am curious about a couple of points you have raised, when you say his ISPs hold no record of his wild claims, surely they have the record of him breaking and entering, right? Also the intent to vandalise part....can you elaborate on why you think this intent was there.

[bee]

DingoLingo, on 10 July 2012 - 02:42 AM, said:

you know the one thing that gets me abou the whole 'ufo's as big as aircraft carriers etc' is no one reports anything about the turbulence or shockwave they would create when taking off at incredible speeds..

that's because they wouldn't be using propulsion......they would probably be using magnetic/gravitational fields....and just zip to where they want to go.

kind of instant (ish) relocation...teleportation....?

[DingoLingo]

anything moving through the atmosphere at speed will cause a bow shockwave.. no ifs.. no buts.. sorry guys thats the laws of displacement..

[quillius]

DingoLingo, on 10 July 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

anything moving through the atmosphere at speed will cause a bow shockwave.. no ifs.. no buts.. sorry guys thats the laws of displacement..

plasma?

[Chrlzs]

TheMacGuffin, on 09 July 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

My main criticism of Oberg is his tendency to splash some kind of "explanation" on UFO reports even in cases where they are truly unexplained.  I don't say he's 100% wrong since he knows his missiles, but he's far from being 100% rights.  And I know of other former NASA people who strongly disagree with him, like Richard Haines, but they do not appear on UM.  Not so far as I know.

Like psyche, ...

Q.1  I'd ask you to give us a couple of examples of such 'splashing'.  Eg cases where Jim actually gave a '100%' claim and was 'far from being 100% right'.   After all, MacG, we all know you aren't one to vaguely handwave, right..?

Further:

Q.2  What's the difference between 'splashing' an explanation and simply OFFERING one?

Q.3 Is there some problem with offering possible explanations?  Please elaborate on what that problem is.


Depending on the answers, I may need to reconsider my approach to investigation...