Say what?!?!?!

What laws goven aerodynamics? In addition, what are the four forces acting upon an aircraft?

I also want to add this question:

Why did the Belgian Air Force exclude aircraft as reponsible for the Belgian UFO incidents in its official report?

Excuse me... what level of education do you have?

The laws of physics govern aerodynamics. THe four forces acting upon an aircraft are thrust, trag lift and gravity. Whats your point?



They excluded known aircraft. I am quite certain this is what they meant, because once again, performance characteristics cant determine whether an object is an aircraft or not. The dictionary definition of aircraft states nothing about what performance an aircraft can have.

That is beside the point.

Now answer the question:

Why did the Belgian Air Force exclude ALL aircraft, as responsible for the Belgian incidents?

If you don't know, just say so! It would indicate that you have no knowledge of what is spoken here in regards to the laws affecting aircraft in flight.

No, it is not "besides the point". I have a problem with "armchair physicists" trying to teach me about physics.



Im assuming you have the links to the report handy? Can you paste the report and then we can analyse it?

Maybe its me, but I just cant find were it says ET in this document you posted skyeagle, please be so kind and show me were.




Wait, dont tell me, its another one of your special reading between the lines tricks!?

Of course they did because no aircraft in the world could undergo such drastic maneuvers and stay intact.

Besides, aircraft do not have the technology needed to do what the Belgian object was capable of doing and, another point, it exceeded the speed of sound and never produced a sonic boom, and I have pointed out numerous times, references in the Aeronautical Information Manual and FAA Regulations (AIM/FAR) manual to make that point very clear that we didn't have the tecnology to produce an aircraft of such nature.

In a 1952 Air Force intelligence report on UFO maneuvers, it basically said that if the UFOs in question conducted such maneuvers, they were not ours.

Major Dewey Fournet, USAF

In case you missed it before, here it is one more time.

In regard to his message, you don't need the ability to read between the lines since he came straight out and made it clear as to what he is talking about.

The ability to reading between lines is what I have used to prove the skeptics wrong time after time. That is how I was able to determine that no weather balloon nor a Project Mogul balloon were involved in the Roswell incident. Additionally, learning to read between the lines is how I determined that the Air Force's 1997 Roswell report was false as well, but given the fact the skeptics were unable to read between the lines, they supported the weather balloon explanation of the Air Force prior to 1994 and now, there are those who have found that no Project Mogul balloon was responsible for the Roswell incident as well.

Learning to read between the lines is not needed in regards to the 1997 report; just plain old common sense, and amazingly, there were those who took that bait regardless, and I can point to other case files as well where it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the debunking routines of UFO debunkers such as Donald Menzel, Phil Klass, and of course, CSICOP, now known as CSI, and The Skeptic's Dictionary and Skeptical Inquirer just to name a few.

And now, the FOIA has proven that the skeptics have been on the wrong side of the fence in regards to UFO reality since day one, and the skeptics that I am speaking of are the closed-minded skeptics and debunkers, not the open-minded skeptics, so I want to make a distinction between them.

So, learning to read between the lines has certain advantages over those who are unable to do so, especially when the facts were later revealed.

OK ..let me make this simply for those who seem unable to grasp the concepts being talked about here..

lets say for the purpose of this example there is intelligent life on Mercury and they wish to travel away from their planet.

Mercury has no atmosphere but has a gravitational field which means that all the civilisation has to do is construct a craft that can negate the gravitational pull of the planet. That means a brick shaped object and a rocket shape object of the same mass, both need exactly the same force applied to them to achieve lift off. Why? Because there is no atmosphere, they DO NOT have to take into consideration the laws of flight. They can build ships of any shape they like the effort to push them from the surface of Mercury is always exactly the same so long as the weights are equal.

That is not so for a planet with an atmosphere because of the laws of flight. An aerodynamic object of the same mass as a non aerodynamic object will need less force and therefore fuel, to achieve the same end, ie lift off.

The laws of flight and ergo ,aerodynamics, only have any relevance to building a travelling craft in a situation where there is atmosphere. That atmosphere can be what we call air, it could just as easily be methane, as on a gas giant like Uranus, or carbon dioxide, as on Venus. Had we been born on those two planets what we refer to as aircraft would be called methane craft or carbon dioxide craft. Just what is so hard to grasp about that concept?

The drag coefficients of objects in another atmosphere would be slightly different but the laws of flight would still be exactly the same. That is....The amount of power needed to achieve lift off is still directly proportional to the size of the planets gravitational field and the speed you need to achieve to provide lift over a wings surface.

The blades of a helicopter are its wings. That is why normal aircraft are referred to as *fixed wing* aircraft because Helicopters use a rotating wing surface... Rockets can only fly under control using the concept of gimbalilng. It was this technique that was the hardest nut to crack until the use of gyroscopes by the Germans in WW2. There is nothing to stop you building a rocket in the shape of a brick. it would work, only you'd need so many gyroscopes and so much fuel to make it a practical proposition, it would be a waste of time and effort because of the laws of aerodynamics...ie the laws of flight...

As for balloons. They have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. They merely use the law of simple science that. If you fill an object with a gas lighter than the surrounding atmosphere and the object itself is made of a sufficiently light material, you will achieve lift. However, to be of any truly practical use, you then have to use the laws of flight to guide them in any direction, other than that of the prevailing wind. Thus, if you have a balloon with an engine that can develop a maximum speed of 30 mph, if you want to travel into a wind of 20 mph you will, actually be travelling at 10 mph, because of the laws that govern flight...

If however, you could somehow surround that same balloon with a vacuum field. The craft could travel, with an appropriate engine, 30 mph into a wind becasue the vacuum would negate the drag coefficient of the craft into the wind and therefore circumnavigate the laws of flight...

You have to laugh..What was oe of the first experiments they did on reaching the Moon. Oh yes... they dropped two different objects in a vacuum to show that, under gravitation and no atmosphere, they both fall at the same rate. Sadly, that experiment and its' outcome, doesn't seem to have registered with some of the people posting on this thread...

"They excluded known aircraft. I am quite certain this is what they meant, because once again, performance characteristics cant determine whether an object is an aircraft or not. The dictionary definition of aircraft states nothing about what performance an aircraft can have."

That is one of the most asinine statements i have ever seen on this forum...

The laws of flight that govern aircraft are such that...

It is impossible to build a practical aircraft using a propeller driven engine that will exceed, roughly 540 mph in level flight, in our atmosphere. Above a certain height there simply isn't enough air for the propeller blades to *bite* to produce thrust. At lower levels the size of the propeller needed, will result in a machine that is just not practically efficient.

An aircraft, with no swept wings, reaching close to the speed of sound in our atmosphere builds up such a shack wave in front of its wing surfaces that, it become wholly unstable and ceases to fly and then shakes itself to pieces. As happened to numerous pilots from Russia/Germany/England/and the USA in the 1940s.


Jet aircraft are scientifically limited by the amount of air they can force through their engines to produce lift and thrust. There is here , as with propellers, a maximum limit whereby above that, it is wholly useless to try and achieve any greater speeds by using a Jet engine..

As for my education, degree level and over the years, my IQ has constantly been measured at between the upper 130s and lower 150s. one thing i have learned though is this. Education and IQ levels are no guide to intelligence. The best educated and brightest IQs can be stunningly stupid.

IMO 2411 post LoL DONTEATUS

I think you know the answer to that question?



I really believe that you have no idea what aerodynamics is all about.

Im sorry, but no, even if there was an atmosphere, they would not have to take into consideration the "laws of flight" in order to create this antigravity craft.



Sorry, but the weight wont even be equal, as soon as any sort of gravity field is applied, or as soon as the object is raised slightly above the surface. Weight is not the same as mass.



So? That is simply what resistance causes. It doesnt change the fact that they can use the very same propulsion method. THe same can be said for an object under water. Infact, your "laws of flight" work the same way for underwater craft... Thats because there are no "laws of flight"... what you speak of are laws of physics.



Nothing is hard to grasp about the concept. No one is rguing the concept. What we are arguing is that there are no "laws of flight", what youre refering to are laes of physics.



First of all, you just conceded that not all flying objects need wings. Now, can you please tell me the definition of these "laws of flight" you speak of? Come on... if they exist, you should be able to define them, just as I can define newtons laws, or keplers laws...

No one refers to "laws of flight", they are specific laws of physics which permit and dictate flight.



"Law of simple science"? Wow, you're just making up the names of laws, arent you?



*sigh* THat has nothing to do with "laws of flight", that has to do with fluid dynamics and just basic physics... so basic its not even considered a "law". Its just the algebraic addition of speeds.



You really have no clue what this discussion is about, do you?



Ill stop you right there. Before proceeding, define "laws of flight". Go ahead. Just like this:

Newtons first law: An object at rest tends to stay at rest, and an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless a force acts upon it.



I didnt ask you about your IQ, nor do I care about the reults of some online IQ testing. I asked you for what kind of education you have. It doesnt matter if we take the man with the highest IQ, what is he going to do with no education? How will he argue physics with no education in it?

Ill ask you again, were do they "come straight out" and mention extraterrestrials in this document!?

Im dead serious. Just like with submarines and boats. The submarines and boats are heavier than water... the physics behind it doesnt have to do with the weight though, it has to do with the volume. You can have two objects of the same weight, one which floats, one which sinks... The deciding factor is the cubic density of the object. If the density is less than the density of the fluid it displaces, it rises.

So? That is simply what resistance causes. It doesnt change the fact that they can use the very same propulsion method. THe same can be said for an object under water. Infact, your "laws of flight" work the same way for underwater craft... Thats because there are no "laws of flight"... what you speak of are laws of physics.



You really don't have the slightest clue about when you are spouting total and utter contradictory rubbish do you?

Like all sceptics if a person comes on here and says... "But what if some race has developed faster than light technology"? You immediately jump on them and start quoting science to say that is, practically, impossible due to the energy required.

Then when someone points out that under the laws of Flight, which are based on the exactly the same physics, an aircraft CANNOT accelerate from 50-1000 knots in 2 seconds and then execute a 90 degree turn you abandon the science you were so precious about for quackery based on a dictionary definition, not scientific definition, of what flight and an aircraft actually is, or can ever be... That is becasue i don't think you actually have any true understanding of the science you so freely quote and like so many sceptics, are only interested in science when it's tenets agree with your agenda.

FACT..If that was a craft that was seen on the Belgian radar and all those involved, from the commander to the scientists involved say it was... it was NOT an aircraft because the laws of physics/flight preclude that possibility.

If you can't understand that simple concept just quit pontificating about something you haven't a clue about, because you are just making yourself look a complete and utter fool...

Mogul. Now may I have a link showing that there was no flight #4, as you repeatedly assert?

I just hope the day comes when we see a FTL ship? is that a oxymoron, well anyway I hope the forum is still up and running that day cause the s***t will hit the fan. Its just an opinion of many around the world that we are not alone. How could we be? Texas has tons of spookey creatures comeing into our planet every day. DONTEATUS

Comon hazz, we all know that sky can see aliens in every document he posts, thats why he keeps posting them.

If this were such a "no brainer" that he seems to believe, we would have this tought to us in schools already. Thats not happening, and thats telling me that the evidence is weak, to say the least.

It also tells me that disclosure would be redundant, since documents released through FOIA have "proven" they're here. And since the US gov't has released those documents, that's tantamount to disclosure right there.

BUT....the documents that have been released don't show any sort of smoking gun, so we're back to where we started: the "best evidence" for the existance of aliens isn't very good. Although it's managed to convince some, it doesn't pass the sniff test that science demands.

True.

One day maybe... but not today.

I can do better than that. Check out the Mogul records of A. P. Crary, of Project Mogul and you can go to your local library and pull a copy of the Air Force's 1994 Roswell report to confirm the text that I am providing to you.



Note that only a service balloon was launched, which was not a Project Mogul balloon train. Also, the service balloon carried only a sono buoy and no rawin devices because the service balloons were expendable and no effort were made to recover them so there was no reason to waste rawin devices on them.

The main fact is, Charles Moore knew that the Mogul balloon flight for June 3 and again, on June 4, were cancelled.

Now, others have seen the light.



Last year, an experiment was conducted using a 1/2 model copy of a real Mogul balloon train and there were some Roswell skeptics present when the experiment was conducted.

The simulated Mogul balloon train was launched and when it crash to Earth after it was shot down, there were many eyebrows raised. The debris field was much smaller than anyone had anticipated and the conclusion was: there was no way that a Mogul balloon train could have created the debris field on the Foster ranch.

Kal Korff stated the following:

QUOTE

Kal Korff played the Mogul balloon train so far in left field, that he needed a taxi to get back to the stadium of reality. He thought that the Project Mogul balloon operations were a super-secret operation, but let's take another look just how secret those operations were.



This is how we really detected the Soviet's first nuclear explosion:

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/m...2006_4_44.shtml



As you can see, the military was actively supplying the public with tons of information as to what they were doing with Mogul balloons. Note, that some of the articles are from New Jersey, which was home of Project Mogul.

It all comes down to this; Kal Korff ddidn't know what he was talking about in his book because if he had, he would have found that Project Mogul balloons were NOT classified and that the miilitary provided details on Project Mogul balloon experiments back in July 1947 in hewspapers around the country, which means that the operations were not so secret as he thought.

You will find that the Mogul balloon flight of June 3, and of June 4, were cancelled due to clouds and there are no flight records of any kind either in the records of NYU nor in the Air Force's 1994 Roswell report online beause the Air Force made of the story of Project Mogul balloon flight #4 that never was as it had done with the weather balloon story of 47 years, and there were those who didn't catch on as to what the Air Force was doing.

And, there are hundreds of government and former government workers willing to testify under oath in Congress as to the reality of ET visitation, AND many of their cases are covered by documents under the FOIA.

Amongst those, are the confirmed saucer landing and incidents at Kirtland AFB, which knocked out military and civilians radar systems all over the area and when calculations conducted, it was found the interference was coming from the area of the landing.

Just as I keep posting to the skeptics that no weather balloon was involved in the Roswell incident and in 1994, I got the last laugh just as I got in other issues becasue I did my homework and the skeptics didn't!

Also, Kal Korff should have known that Project Mogul balloons were not classified, and here are additonal examples taken from the records.



Mogul balloon gear stolen because it was left lying near a roadway????

Goes to show that Project Mogul balloon operations were not classified at all, and were recovered by civilians for rewards after answering questionnaires that were printed in spanish and in english. Civilians were also invited to add their own data input on Project Mogul balloon questionnaires that were attached to Project Mogul balloons, as to the time and location and the estimated rate of decent of the Project Mogul balloons, other words, Project Mogul balloon records were not documented on Top Secret documents, and that was another clue that Kal Korff has missed., including the fact that Mogul balloons had identification tags attached as well.

Even a blind man could have seen the light that Project Mogul balloons were not classified objects at all, nor were the operations as evident by the fact that Mogul balloons were occasionally recovered by civilians as was another case where a policeman recovered a Mogul balloon that snagged itself on the roof of a tavern in Flat Bush, New Jersey and the military revealed in newspapers around the country, the purpose of the experiments.

All of those clues that the skeptics and Kal Korff had missed.

What is written in that report?

I thought you knew how to read between the lines, Hazzard!!

But the ability to read between the lines is not needed in that report since he confirms that the U.S. government has known all along that the UFOs in question, were not ours.



Since he was already aware of UFO sightings beforehand, the UFOs in question are not those of previous misidentifications.

That is what I thought. Now, it is lesson time again.

I might add that many of those who have stated that ET visitation is a reality, are scientist.

Hello Sky.

I have been following this topic the whole time.Fascinated by the info you got, have to say really did your homework.

Thank You!!

These speculations were made by scientist before the launch of Sputnik. I don't suppose you have anything more recent, say from the 21th century?

QUOTE

Former Canadian Defense Minister Speaks Out on Extraterrestrial Visitors & Government Secrecy
by Michael E. Salla, PhD

Former Canadian Defense Minister Speaks Out on Extraterrestrial Visitors & Government Secrecy

On September 25, 2005, Hon Paul Hellyer, the former Canadian Minister for National Defense gave a speech in Toronto at an event titled: "Exopolitics Toronto: A Symposium on UFO Disclosure and Planetary Direction" . Hellyer described his time as Minister for Defense from 1963-1967 where the occasional UFO sighting report crossed his desk.

First, Hellyer claimed that evidence concerning UFOs is the "greatest and most successful cover up in the history of the world". He confirmed that senior political officials even at the rank of Minister of Defense, a position he himself occupied, are simply out of the loop when it comes to information concerning UFOs and visiting extraterrestrials. From a democratic perspective, that raises many concerns about oversight, transparency and accountability of those in control of the information, technology and projects concerning the extraterrestrial visitors.


.

Wrong!

It was already stated by the Air Force back in the late 1940's and in 1952, that they were real and not ours.
In fact, the Air Force even detailed an encounter between an F-86 and a flying saucer and the DIA, State Department and even the Department of Defense, acknowledged the 1976 Iranian UFO encounter that involved Iranian jet fighters.

A UFO knocked out the electronics of both aircraft until they turn away from the craft and only then, did the avionics of both aircraft return to nomal. It was later revealed that one of NOARD's DSP satelllites tracked the encounter as well.

The Iranian UFO incident was one of many UFO incidents that were withheld from the public.

You still dont get it. It doesnt matter if there was a weather baloon or a "broken arrow". What matters is real evidence of an ET ship and its crew, and so far I havent seen any.

To me Roswell is a classic example of retrospective falsification. An extraordinary story is told, then retold with embellishments and remodeled with favorable points emphasized while unfavorable ones are dropped. False witnesses put in their two cents, such as the mortician Glen Dennis. In the case of Roswell, we also have a few unreliable characters who add their delusions, such as Whitley Strieber, Budd Hopkins and John Mack.

The likelihood that Roswell is a reconstruction involving many events over many years is supported by the fact that Roswell was ignored by UFOlogists until Charles Berlitz and William Moore published a book on the subject in 1980, more than thirty years after the event.

Roswell might be settled some day since it involves testable hypotheses and refutable claims. But dont count on it. UFO enthusiasts are every bit as devoted to their belief system as religious devotees are to theirs.

Evidence and rational argument are of little concern to those Skyeagles out there who consider science fiction to be a wiser guide than science, logic and reasonable probability.

Actually, any hard evidence would be played down by the government who does not want the people to panic in case of alien invasion

"Broken Arrow" also pertains to military nuclear incidents.



I have always said in the past, just because you don't have it, doesn't exclude those who do.



Mainly on the part of the Air Force, and proven as so.



What you are forgetting is that we have the Air Force's news released that is etched in stone, that it recovered a flying saucer, so it was the Air Force that got the ball rolling in that respect. Colonel Blanchard would never have allowed such a story to be released unless he saw for himself the exotic nature of the debris on his desk, and that is yet another clue.



You have been visiting too many skeptical websites that are still claiming a Mogul balloon train was responsible and that pretty much sums it up as far as where they are coming from.

You don't seem to know how the Air Force works, but I do from many years experience, and that is the main difference between you and I, and why I have stood by my claim on Roswell that it was an extraterrestrial event and besides, the Air Force would never have reported such an extraordinary story for no reason to the whole world, and, we can exclude classified projects as responsible as well.

Have you forgotten that many of the UFO case files are of scientist, engineers, and astronomers who'd documented their own observations and provided data evidence to back their experiences.

Sky - Hon Paul Hellyer earned a degree in aeronautical engineering, but I'm sure that wouldn't qualify him as a "scientist". He's more politician than anything else. Got any more?

Heres a good you you can use skyeagle "simply the frisson of an eschatological tale" quote from phillip ball. Remember out gose the lights in 50 months! we may not get to see 2012. DONTEATUS

How about a compromise?

Roswell was a weather balloon of extraterrestrial origin.

I plan on it.

Given the importance of learning about the Soviet Union's nuclear capabilities, I'd be very surprised if only one method were being used (Mogul or otherwise). I'd imagine we also had spies in the USSR finding out everything they could at the same time.

The fact of the matter is if aliens from other planets are here, they haven't left definitive proof of their existence. Until that happens, I'm firmly in the "sure, it's possible, but I'm unconvinced" group.

When you do, please provide the text of the flight data. You will find data from other Mogul balloon flights, but none for any Mogul balloon flight #4.

Originally, I had thought that such a flight occurred, but that it didn't have anything to do with the Roswell incident, but I became suspicious because I couldn't find any flight data pertaiing to a Mogul balloon flight #4, so I went to the Air Force for help, and help they did. They pointed me into the direction of Mogul balloon records and that of A.P. Crary. It was then, that I realized that no such flight occurred and the flight was in fact, cancelled due to cloulds and in keeping with an agreement with the CAA.

Now, other researchers have failed to find any flight data on that particular flight as well. In addition, here is what was carried aloft on Mogul balloons but none are eivdent in any of the Roswell photos:

* Dribblers---not recovered nor photographed

* Parachutes---not recovered nor photographed

* 28 balloons---not recovered nor photographed

* 17.5 pound payload---not recovered nor photographed

* Ballast Tubes---not recovered nor photographed

* Radiosode---not recovered nor photographed

* Several rawin devices with flowered tape---not recovered nor photographed

* Yards and yards of braided line used on Mogul balloon trains---not recovered nor photographed

* Sono Buoy---not recovered nor photographed



We expected the Soviets to eventually detonate their first nuclear blast and we also knew that one way to detect a nuclear blast was from the fallout.

Personally, I need more than unnamed sources who are supposedly high ranking government officials or people who claim to have worked for the government (But can't produce any proof of that).

I want a combination of Photo's, Video, Radar, thousands of eyewitnesses, physical proof and remnants - all for the same occurrence...

Yes!

Don't want much do you......?

You know what 'they'd' say about that.....the photos and videos are fakes, the radar is a technical error, the
eye-witnesses just saw a hologram, you can only see the physical proof and remnants in a glass display case,
(so they could be fakes too)......and all the paper-work has been falsified to provide 'so-and-so' with material
for a new book (or workshops) that they will con you into buying.......

So....even with your criteria....it could be explained away....oh, and I forgot....anyone who believes that it
happened would be called.....weak-minded believers, wishful thinkers, uneducated, etc etc.......

From Skyeagles post



I'm thinking that Congress will probably never call on them to testify under oath.....and this is
a major block to the whole thing.

I wonder if there is some other equivalent.....to Congress...that they could testify under oath before??

Like a court of law of some kind? And if this wasn't possible in America....maybe they could go to another
country and do it?? European Court of human rights?? Imagine the kerfuffle THAT would cause......

I'm not being snarky, but serious.

Witnesses would have to convince Congress that it's worth their while to hold an investigation, and then convince them to be allowed to testify.

However, IMO, the fact that it'd be extremely difficult (I won't say absolutely impossible) to convince Congress to allow that means many believers would say, "See? Congress won't let the 400+ witnesses testify! That proves they're hiding something!" When in reality, Congress would see it as a waste of time and resources (forget the fact that Congress wastes time and resources on political earmarks, etc.).

Convince Congress to investigate it, find some proof, and we can go from there. Same for a court of law. Convince a judge to listen to the case, then bring the evidence.

The US government isn't some sort of omnipotent being; it's been successfully sued in other, lesser matters over the years.

This wasn't the only time that UFOs were brought up before members of Congress.

QUOTE

I surpose as it's closely connected to the military and therefore involved with all kinds of issues
regarding classified information and national security......I don't think Congress would allow it,
no matter what.

I wonder if any other country would dare to hear the 400+ witness statements, within a formal
legal setting?? And go against the wishes of the American Government.

This is why I thought of the European Court of Human Rights......or could the UN be a vehicle for
some kind of formal, legal hearing that involves a legally binding oath?

So....what you said about if a 'judge' could be persuaded to hear the 'case'.....I wonder if the group
has approached any likely judges? Or more to the point ARE there any likely judges....and even
if there were....would they be willing to risk their job.....or their life to do it?

I know that. The point Im making is that I dont care what crashed, it could have been anything. Im saying that there is no real evidence for it being ET in origin.





This is an argument from ignorance, tantamount to saying -I cant show you good evidence because i havent got it.





And again, your cherry picking the things that supports you belief. In the end all we have here is his word and the AF first news release. Could it have been a coverstory for something else, like a lost nuke?? Sure it could.





I have probably read more believers posts and more on believer sites then I care to mention. But sure, I like to look at both sides of a claim.



Thats not the main difference between you and I. I want mainstream science to tell me that alien visitation is real, you dont. You probably believe that all those skeptics and world wide scientists are blind and dumb for not seeing "the obvious". You saw something once that you couldnt explain and after that day your mind is closed to any and all other possible explanations then alien spaceships.

Its a real long shot that ET has paid us a visit, its not inherently impossible, but there just doesnt seem to be any real-solid-no doubts-scientific-evidence. available.

Untill the day we have that real proof, for me, the question remains one of speculation.