Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
I'mConvinced

Now that we have hard evidence of UFO's

326 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ChrLzs
2 hours ago, khol said:

Thread might be beyond reviving...but lets step outside the box for a minute and assume these naval pilots and other personel have seen exactly what there describing

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-a-believable-explanation-of-those-ufo-videos-released-by-the-navy-2019-10-15

I havent researched any of the claimed science and its from last year so many have possibly read it

But it goes without saying technology like this would be a game changer in so many ways. How would it be presented and what kind of politics involved would be the interesting part

 

I'd be happy to look at the data and then the associated maths, but the problem is that as Stereo rightly points out, NONE of the video footage shows anything in the way of high-g maneuvers.  They don't even show abnormally high speeds in a straight line, or even any unusually tight turns.

The high-g claims are based solely on anecdotes (NOT data or screengrabs or anything in the way of actual hard evidence), so even if we accept the stories 100%, there is no way to verify the claims or determine if these radar operators may have mistakenly linked individual returns as being from one craft, rather than multiple craft or other phenomena.  I would note that it appears that much of this was happening during training exercises or testing of new equipment that the operators may have been unfamiliar with, or that may not have been proerly calibrated....  Radar interpretation is quite different from looking at visuals  - it's a high level artform, and there are *many* ways in which it can give a false positive, or can think it has locked onto something when in fact it is a different object on the second/subsequent return/s.  Now I'll happily concede that I haven't dug deeply into this particular type of radar to look at it's potential weaknesses.  But the reason I have not done that is that NO-ONE has supplied any raw data and shown the full process by which the claims were made, including the associated maths from which they worked out these alleged high-g figures.  If there IS actual data that we can look at to verify the claims, I'm happy to do so, but all we have is assurances and promises.  The actual data has never been presented.  I'll be delighted if that changes, but I'm certainly not holding my breath, given the dismal history of this thread.   

BTW, patents are often speculative and may have no basis in reality.  The high-g protection system outlined in that article doesn't make sense to me.  You simply can't avoid high-g unless you can 'spread it', and that is simply not physically possible in a small craft.  But the more idiotic part of this is - why on earth (hahah) would you put a pilot in a high-g craft in the first place? - why not simply have it remotely controlled?  The whole thing is a moot point unless you must, for some reason, have a biological life-form aboard.. so DON'T put a life-form onboard....  Duh..

Edited by ChrLzs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.