Here are two examples of video and photographic evidence of UFOs in the atmosphere that are moving faster than light.

You can tell by the amount of movement seen in a single frame that the UFO must be moving faster than light in order to create such large and chaotic patterns.

What they are doing is showing us a bit about themselves, not only that they are here. This shows great intelligence. It shows awesome technological capability. It shows the blatant manipulations of space-time. It also shows that they are not attempting to take us over or destroy us, but just to make themselves and their capabilities known to our public scientific community, which military researchers are excluded from. Any race that would attempt to conquer a planet or take over its population would not attempt such blatant displays of their technological capabilities.

http://www.mufoncms.com/files/9638_submitt..._collection.JPG
(While flying into Manchester England on the morning of 18 Dec 2007, I awoke to a beautiful dawn. So beautiful in fact, that I woke up the person next to me. He grabbed his camera, and I grabbed mine. We both spent the next 15 minutes snapping pictures of this fantastical scene. It wasn't until I looked at the pictures on my PC that I found that what looked like a star or satellite to my naked eye was actually something quite different. I thought that maybe I had jostled the camera while clicking it, but that would not explain the loopdy-loops! Anyone care to provide a reasonable explanation as to what this could possibly be? All pictures are available for scrutiny at http://s252.photobucket.com/albums/hh28/wild-rumpus/. The only thing I did to some of them was 90-degree rotation.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWKBfE6jmYs
(Stephenville, Texas)

There may also be other separate events of similar observed flight patterns other than these two.

If it were moving faster than light then when it flew past you thats when you would see it coming, you would see it coming and going at the same time. If it were moving at FTL then we could not see it with our eyes. If it were moving FTL then they must be using massive amounts of power and warping space-time.

They are showing off, thats why.

You should know, that it is not possible to photograph something that is moving faster than light. No only would it be impossible to see, but there would be no light rays for the aperture to capture.

I was trying to count the contradictions in this one sentence, but ran out of fingers....

First of all, according to physics as we know it nothing can travel faster than light, c, (except by warping the fabric of space-time); we don't even have the theory to describe let alone determine how it looks visually from a distance. It just doesn't make sense.

If one warps space (right now neglecting the absurd amount of power it would take), to an outside observer the craft would move at velocities past the speed of light, whereas locally within "the warp" the velocity would not exceed that of the speed of light. But, again, we have no idea of determining how that would look visually (it probably wouldn't look at all, but that is just a guess on my part). Also, in this respect, if space was warped to the extent of enabling c+ velocities within the atmosphere of the Earth I think it would have a rather detrimental effect on us here. Not something that one would be likely to stand calmly capturing.

Finally, c is ~3*10^8m/s (which is indeed awfully fast already). That gives 7 round trips of the Earth in just one second. So if this visiting ET was indeed taking his new ride for a spin around the Earth at c+ velocities, it leaves 2 options for the photographer:

1) He has an awfully fast shutter mechanism, as the craft would move more than 100km in 0.33ms. And then the picture had to be stored and the camera ready for the next shot. Not impossible, but awfully fast.

2) He has synchronized his camera to the round trip time of ET, so he takes one picture each time ET comes around - which would basically be impossible.

I could go on, but don't really have time. What it is is most likely a shaky camera capturing a static light of some kind!

Cheers,
Badeskov

Well I want to point out that it is manipulating space-time. So really, it isn't moving at all. The space around it is moving. This is how many ufologists such as Stanton Friedman believe the crafts fly, and that is what I believe these photographs are showing. They are showing the crafts ability to manipulate space-time. So in a single frame it appears to be in all those places at once, therefore, the light does radiate from all those positions at once. It is effectively traveling faster-than-light, but only by manipulating the space around the craft, not the craft itself.

If you look at the original pictures, the camera is quite still, and the only thing "shaky" in the picture is the phenomena in question

There is no way we can determine that, no fixed and known frame of reference to hold it against. The only thing we have is the horizon, and is moving from frame to frame (albeit hard to tell from the fuzziness and we can't say how much it is). Secondly, the camera doesn't have to move very much given the level of zoom applied.

I stand my moving camera and static (or, relatively static - it could be an airplane).

Cheers,
Badeskov

I will quote myself:



Cheers,
Badeskov

My vote is for the showing off too! why get involved with such a back woods race till we can fly with the masters as equals? Just DONTEATUS

Cheers....

You cannot say that a civilization who has mastered the ability of manipulating space-time would not have some kind of over-unity-device or ZPE power supply...

You also cannot say that a civilization who has mastered the ability of manipulating space-time would not be able to do it to such a fine degree so to not affect the surrounding space. In-fact, I think that it would be necessary to make such fine-tuned distortions in order to travel safely over vast distances.

YUP! They are showing off!

I mean, how often would they get to do that?

Stephenville UFO has been covered up...Long live the long horns...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW9-U1-oIto...feature=related



what I think is that they are NOT SHOWING OFF...They are just trying to grab our mass attention...Someday when they will be done with all this peek a boo they will land....They are covering all our maps...

http://s252.photobucket.com/albums/hh28/wi...nt=HPIM0984.jpg

Here is a link to one of the full-size pictures.

If it were simply a star seen through a shaky camera, how violently would the camera have to be shaking? It seems impossible to take a clear shot of the sky, while the camera is shaking so violently.
EDIT: Also, there are no other visible stars in the sky.

Easy. You zoom in rather a lot, which is obviously what is happening here from the previous pictures you posted. A large zoom factor requires very little shaking before you get something like that. And as it is rather dark, the shutter time is most likely fairly long - no matter how still you think you can hold a camera, it will generate an effect like this. The star/plane/whatever is the only point of reference, as the horizon is too fuzzy to show the movement.



Aircraft then?

Cheers,
Badeskov

He)) Yeah! bout time sumone thunk us Texans were more that a bunch of cowboys! we all looked outts our trailers and seened it! just DONTEATUS

I agree. We cannot, maybe they do. Although I will say that I do not like the idea of a ZPE power supply. The definition of Zero Point Energy directly contradicts that any energy can be extracted. From Wiki:




Thus, ZPE is the lowest energy state a system can have and no more energy can be extracted. It is simply a definition. Like trying to drink water from an empty glass - and we are not talking a moist glass, but a glass devoid of any liquid whatsoever.



I would agree. In my original post I included the caveat that my statements were in the perspective of physics as we currently know it. It could be outside the realm of our physics, but that defeats the identification. If it is outside the realm of physics known to us, that means that we have no means of describing it and thus no means of recognizing it for what it is. We need to have a fairly good understanding of what we are seeing before being able to label it in any manner that makes sense; anything else is pure conjecture and over-interpretation.

Cheers,
Badeskov

This whole thing is silly.

An object moving at light speed would not be visible - certainly not in our visual spectrum - and could not be captured on camera.
An object moving at even a half of light speed IN OUR ATMOSPHERE would produce a thermal shockwave that would vapourise everything in that hemisphere. Nothing would survive: not even bacteria.

The picture IS blurred... look at the foreground.. the camera is moving in relation to the foreground.

Meow Purr.

Indeed! In my honest opinion this is a case of..uhm..absolutely nothing. That I like the physics behind such speculation is my burden to carry

Cheers,
Badeskov

Here are stills taken from the video from Stephenville Texas


http://www.danmensinger.com/stuff/stephensvillelights.jpg

Still think that it is a shaky camera? Watch the whole video here before it gets removed: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread339116/pg1

I honestly think this is the most amazing piece of footage ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPY50FrWGhs

There is the youtube URL

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jPY50FrWGhs&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jPY50FrWGhs&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

I just don't see how you can explain this away as a shaky camera... Its obviously alot more than that.

Then again. I could be completley wrong.

You may want to check out the videos in these links.

Link 1: Camcorder setting may be cause of "symbols" in Caron video

Link 2: David Caron Video Debunked???

I was excited about the Caron video at first also, but after watching the videos from the links above; not so much.

I still don't even know if what is shown in the Caron video is what other witnesses described seeing. If so, it lends some credibility to the recording. For better or worse though, it's also been proven you can get those affects by playing around with settings on your video recorder.

wow what a let down...

well time to rock this MF hoax...

Maybe they are just very fast, but not faster than light?

I would very skeptical about something claimed to approach relativistic velocities in the presence of an atmosphere...

Cheers,
Badeskov

Good find LF. That does it for me. To bad for the people that needs to believe in the Caron video. But I think its better to find out the truth then to keep believing in nonsense.


Next.

Im not sure what to say about all of this here, cause there is some solid proof against it. but the funny part about is just that when looking at david carons film and how much the symbols look to be kept in some certain order and compare it to what the other bloke made that was random... well the one trying to disprove looks more like he is doing it randomly while the other signs seem a little more organized because they aren't that rough around the edges... god i am really bad at forming myself today :/

Admittedly, I am not sure where I see the ambiguity in this. We can certainly rule out something flying around in our atmosphere near or above relativistic velocities. Looking closer at the video and especially the still images, it is very obvious that the camera is moving and that will cause an effect like we see here when the exposure time is relatively long (which it will be as it is dusk). Just try with a digital camera, although preferably one with optical zoom. Finally, as LF posted, the exact effect has been replicated using the same equipment and thus pointing to an anomaly much closer to the ground than portrayed in the original videos.

Cheers,
Badeskov

I think you got what i mean wrong, cause i perfectly well know how you can do it even though i don't own any of this expensive stuff so i can try it out myself. what i meant was that david cranes* video provoked somekind of patternrecognition in the symbols, they seem more like they are following a sort of pattern instead of just random lines as it did with the guy that wants to debunk him. that is what i meant, i hope i made point, i know im not good at it i need smokes badly. But one more time, when looking at the things david crane got out of his camera it looks a little more like there is a pattern in it, and when looking at the other guys it seems like it is a little more random because he also ends up having some too long and rough lines every once in a while. i think i got it out rightly now:P and not that i say there is a pattern, only something that could be recognized as a pattern of letters/numbers/other chronologically (sh**, i think that is a really wrong word to use compared to what i mean) following stuff.

*Caron

badeskov has great point of viewsI like the thought process,as for all the post in here they are great too lots of opnions. We need that in here.my thought is that as a species,we lable a lot of things for or understanding and its worked almost. now for the flip side,time,space light math,physics,zero point energy,quantum mechanics,all man made and good for our little world.we have a fairly hard time going to orbit, the moon mars. what if another ? Hum thats the problem,we are nameing another thing so we can understand it.aleins,bugs ect why cant there be just ? other life forms that do it really well with out our picking sides and ideas? I bet there are.just my idea of a point of refference for me DONTEATUS happy postin Y`all

Lars,

I think I got what you meant, I probably just veered a bit off myself My point being that the only difference is that the original video has a bit of a pattern to it, whereas the video posted by LF has not. But that doesn't really mean anything. I would say the the similarities by far outweigh the discrepancies.

Cheers,
Badeskov

It only shows you are leaping to conclusions.

If the object was moving faster than light, you would not capture it on film, standard (not that physically moving faster than the speed of light is actually possible - but thats a whole different conversation)

Secondly, why the chaotic patterns? Are they drunk? Such patterns prove that these images are the result of random camera shake. I believe that:

a craft with with interplanetary, faster than light capabilities would be designed to fly in the most efficient way possible, ie in a straight line

is less than a leap of faith about the hypothosised designers of the craft than:



How do you know how the craft works? You're making too many assumnptions. I know that ALL moving crafte EVER designed by humans is based on the knowledge that the quickest way to get from a to b is a straight line. Those chaotic patterns make no sense as craft.

They DO make sense as the random effects of camera shake.



No, the images are not still. Any hand held photo is never going to be 100% still, especially one taken in low lighting conditions. The you zoom into any photo taken under similar conditions to such a degree and you are going to get shake. You won't notice it when you look at the photo as a whole of course, which is the mistake you've made.

You are right about that. I also only thought it a bit strange that there seems to be a pattern, but when you still calculate on it he may have been the lucky number that was actually capable of creating something that could look like a pattern, but it still looks funny to me:)

good article by WmB Stoeckers on front pg,of Mysteries. good read, Isnt that what we are all on a great space ship traveling through space? may be some one made earth just right for us to trip through the cosmos on. They might of even been miceLoL DONTEATUS

By all means of respect, but I would certainly disagree - it was another article written as to give it a scientific sounding content, but at a little closer look it turns out to be another poorly researched piece of fiction. Unfortunately Mr. Stoecker seems unable to actually write a piece where the facts are correct. Pitiful.

Cheers,
Badeskov

right the key being "columnist" I was just reffering to possibilitys of one ideas. we need more post on faster than light.

Agreed, he is a "columnist", which is fine. And I also agree that more stuff on FTL would be nice. However, I just have a problem when it is based on serious factual errors (which some basic research would have shown) and significant omissions of other work. That to me signals a hidden agenda and I have a very good idea of what it is..

So if we could find some articles on the matter, written by people without an obvious hidden agenda and some actual skills in doing technical research, it would be most helpful

Cheers,
Badeskov

My vote is on time-lapse in this photo.

However, for the sake of argument, if this photo has actually captured a UFO at high speed by a camera mounted on a tri-pod with no time-lapse, I don't think it would have to be going faster than the speed of light to create this effect. Fast, yes, but not speed of light fast. What I mean is this:

How much time did it take for the camera used to take this picture? 1/10 of a second? 1/30? 1/60? I have no idea.

At any rate, as I'm sure you all have seen/experienced, it is easy to take a blurry photo of a moving object. So how fast would a glowing object in the night sky need to be moving to create a light trail like this and be captured in one frame? The object certainly would not need to be moving fast enough to circle the earth 7 times in one second, let alone faster than that,in order to create this photograph.

I believe this same principle would also apply to the videos. How many frames/second are these camera's filming at? Once again, the object wouldn't need to be traveling "faster-than-light". Granted, the distance between the object and the camera needs to be taken into account, but still wouldn't justify the extraordinary claims within this topic. Besides, if any of the camera's were shaky as well (as in, not on a tri-pod), then the UFO could move even slower still and produce the effect.

In other words, unless these cameras have the ability to take pictures at the speed of light, then the objects aren't moving faster than the speed of light, if that makes sense.

Once again: fast, yes - but not at the speed of light or faster.

Just my .02.

Thats because it was useing the Infinte Improbability Drive to jump in and out of our time space.DONTEATUS

Something moving faster than the speed of light would appear to move away from you, when in reality, it was moving towards you. That's my best guess, anyway. Truth is, I have no idea what would actually happen.

I would guess that we wouldn't even see it.



Truth is, neither would I - nor anybody else for that matter. Fact is that we have no way of predicting what it would look like, as currently our knowledge tells us it is plain out impossible

Cheers,
Badeskov

I wondered about something when taking a look at that we wouldn't see it...

is light the fastest moving particle of the universe?

Well, not really. To the best of my knowledge, besides Photons, W- and Z-Bosons also travel at the speed of light. And the same does the Higgs Boson it has been theorized, however, we are still waiting for experimental verification of the existence of that.

But strictly speaking, all of the above are quanta, i.e. force carrying entities, and not really particles (the photon included) therefore have no mass. All particles with mass (particles that would be the building blocks of a spaceship or the like) will travel at speeds below light speed.

Hmmm, maybe not the best of explanations

Cheers,
Badeskov

I'm sorry for using the word particles too after having read a little about the theories on light on wikipedia:P i apologize. But okay then, if look at it theorically then, if an object like myself for example moved at the speed of light (probably never happens because i amn't the best runner:P) i would move so fast that i actually wouldn't be capable of reflecting light. I don't know if it would be true, But wouldn't that be like dematerialising yourself and instead teleport to another place?

Also, when i come to think of it, light couldn't be the fastest moving in the universe since scientists actually have managed to make a teleporter that teleported light?

No problem, Lars, I know how it is



No, that is never going to happen and not only because you are as bad a runner as myself, but mainly because you are made up of particles with mass, thus not ever being able to reach such speed. Only massless "particles" can reach such speeds and those are the force carrying quanta mentioned in the previous post



The problem is, we do not know, we can only guess. And my guess is that for something to travel at c+ speed, space would somehow have to be warped around it and any particles entering this field would be caught up in it. But I emphasize, it is only a private guess and I have no scientific evidence whatsoever (not even anything remotely smelling like it) to back up my assertion



There are strange forces at play in the universe, but so far teleportation is not one of them. I think the teleportation experiment you are referring to is this:





The information was transmitted at lightspeed I think the topic of quantum inseparability more puzzling and very interesting.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Well its a close call if we maynot be allowed to go faster than light then how about a really long trip to the ends of the known universe? why rush when we can look around and learn as we go.I like the slow as you go way and many generations of star travlers.just a thought.DONTEATUS

To badeskov: Hmmmm... yes well. But still let us assume that a thing with a mass got spinned around 'till it reached the speed of light. Things with mass cannot move at the speed of light, but if we say that the mass gradually reduced because of the amount of speed, based on that it would loose it's structure gradually... i really don't know how that would ever happen, so i guess this here is just rambling sh**^^ like i usually do:D i'll stop that immediately... But i hope you can get the basic of my idea about this


"The problem is, we do not know, we can only guess. And my guess is that for something to travel at c+ speed, space would somehow have to be warped around it and any particles entering this field would be caught up in it. But I emphasize, it is only a private guess and I have no scientific evidence whatsoever (not even anything remotely smelling like it) to back up my assertion"- Badeskov.


But if we said (and this is highly likely to be impossible) that space could be laid out as flat walls that could rupture, and an object moving at the speed of light made this rupture and therefore provoked a wormhole in the universe, that would be like teleporting?

And regarding the teleportation of light i talked about, i am not sure if it was that experiment i referred to, i think the experiment i referred to was made by MIT and they teleported a laserbeam to another room at the institute, but i am certainly not sure of what of the experiments it was (or if the one i think about has ever been done), it was something i read in an old sciencemagazine i have laying around somewhere here.

To Badeskov: nope, we talked about the same teleportation theory. Sorry:P

Physics as we know it does not allow for anything to travel faster than that of light; that doesn't mean that we might not be able to span vast distances it short amounts of time, if we one day learn to master wormhole technology and/or the localized warping of space

While theoretically possible, both seem rather difficult to put it mildly simply because of the energy requirements. To travel from one star to another within our galaxy using either of those technologies, we'd basically have to snuff out the galaxy to get enough energy for such a feat, and that kinda makes the trip moot

Generation ships might be an option, however, I personally consider that rather implausible - but then again, who knows

Cheers,
Badeskov

Well, we are both rambling along in unchartered territory, so I guess your sh** is a good as mine in this case. If we say (not possible, I know) that we spun particles with mass up to a velocity of c and we lost the mass of the particles in that process, that would mean that we lost the characteristics of the particles and thereby whatever they were a part of.



No, teleporting and wormholes are two different entities in that respect. Teleportation really translates into breaking something into the smallest possible building blocks and then transfering the information by whatever means possible/necessary and then reassembling it correctly again in the destination end. Teleportation does not imply transfer of anything above light speed, actually, if feasible you could use a bunch of carrier pigeons . A wormhole is wrapping space around so instead of a very long distance to travel, one suddenly has a much shorter distance and therefore making the time required much smaller at sub-light speed.

Cheers,
Badeskov