Register to reply

Flying Triangles

by Rodsw
Tags: flying, triangles
Share this thread:
zoobyshoe
#37
Nov30-11, 03:04 PM
zoobyshoe's Avatar
P: 5,630
Quote Quote by Mazulu View Post
Do you have the link to this episode of Mythbusters?
Yup:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY
Mazulu
#38
Nov30-11, 03:11 PM
P: 28
The plane flies because air is flowing around the wings. What was this video suppose to demonstrate?
Mazulu
#39
Nov30-11, 03:23 PM
P: 28
Quote Quote by zoobyshoe View Post
No. There's something wrong with a pilot who doesn't realize forward thrust is coming from the prop and not the tires.
So the video demonstrates that dumb people can fly planes too? Therefore it follows logically that if a pilot observed a UFO, he must be dumb? That doesn't seem like a very strong argument. I think that the individual pilot who saw the UFO would have to be tested for "dumbness".
Mazulu
#40
Nov30-11, 03:28 PM
P: 28
I just thought of a sure fire way a pilot can get evidence that the UFO he/she is observing is real. If the UFO gets too close to the plane, the pilot should deliberately crash into it. If it's just a weather pattern, the plane will fly right through it. If it's not, then an FAA investigation will reveal that the plane collided with something.
Drakkith
#41
Nov30-11, 03:47 PM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,869
Quote Quote by Mazulu View Post
I just thought of a sure fire way a pilot can get evidence that the UFO he/she is observing is real. If the UFO gets too close to the plane, the pilot should deliberately crash into it. If it's just a weather pattern, the plane will fly right through it. If it's not, then an FAA investigation will reveal that the plane collided with something.
A great plan except for cases when it's actually something real, such as as another plane.
zoobyshoe
#42
Nov30-11, 03:51 PM
zoobyshoe's Avatar
P: 5,630
Quote Quote by Mazulu View Post
What was this video suppose to demonstrate?
It demonstrates that thrust comes from the propeller and not the wheels. The surface on which that plane is sitting is being pulled in the reverse direction of take-off by a guy in a truck. Sone people think that would render the plane unable to take off. There were endless internet debates about this.

Quote Quote by Mazulu View Post
So the video demonstrates that dumb people can fly planes too? Therefore it follows logically that if a pilot observed a UFO, he must be dumb? That doesn't seem like a very strong argument. I think that the individual pilot who saw the UFO would have to be tested for "dumbness".
What follows logically is that you can't necessarily ascribe all kinds of expertise to people just because they're doing "what they do".

Quote Quote by Mazulu View Post
I just thought of a sure fire way a pilot can get evidence that the UFO he/she is observing is real. If the UFO gets too close to the plane, the pilot should deliberately crash into it. If it's just a weather pattern, the plane will fly right through it. If it's not, then an FAA investigation will reveal that the plane collided with something.
That pilot would deserve a Darwin Award for trying, anyway.
Ivan Seeking
#43
Nov30-11, 06:12 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,500
Quote Quote by Mazulu View Post
But the Belgian airforce locked onto triangles that they found in their air space. Within 5 seconds, the triangles were observed to break lock by accelerating rapidly. You can't get gliders to do that. The argument could be made that these triangles are secret (under research) US military planes. Military planes can detect radar lock and respond accordingly.
The Belgian event is interesting because it involved the military and went public almost immediately. One explanation that seems possible is that we [the US] were toying with our allies and projecting false RADAR images from a nearby Stealth Fighter [or by some other means]. The photos and reports of crafts seen in the area fit the profile for a Stealth, right down to the red light on the bottom. Also, the object seen on RADAR and chased was never observed visually. And it appeared to dive below ground level for a short time.

We now know that we transmitted false RADAR data in the first Gulf war, so the technology has been around for quite some time. As a matter of fact, I once proposed this technology in a physics class as a way avoid speeding tickets.
Mazulu
#44
Nov30-11, 06:31 PM
P: 28
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
The Belgian event is interesting because it involved the military and went public almost immediately. One explanation that seems possible is that we [the US] were toying with our allies and projecting false RADAR images from a nearby Stealth Fighter [or by some other means]. The photos and reports of crafts seen in the area fit the profile for a Stealth, right down to the red light on the bottom. Also, the object seen on RADAR and chased was never observed visually. And it appeared to dive below ground level for a short time.

We now know that we transmitted false RADAR data in the first Gulf war, so the technology has been around for quite some time. As a matter of fact, I once proposed this technology in a physics class as a way avoid speeding tickets.
I want to assume that those who witnessed the event were sincere about what they observed or thought they observed. In other words, let's assume it's not a conspiracy. For the Belgium event, there were:
1. hovering triangles: explained as handgliders with spotlights;
2. scrambled jets and ground radar mistaking weather patters for triangles but not visually observing them. or,
3. scrambled jets observing a secret US made triangular shaped stealth fighter plane with three spot lights and high maneuverability.

I think #3 makes a little bit more sense without being "out of this world". Handgliders and incompetent pilots and radar technicians just seems a bit of a stretch.
Ryan_m_b
#45
Nov30-11, 06:41 PM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,469
Quote Quote by Mazulu View Post
I want to assume that those who witnessed the event were sincere about what they observed or thought they observed. In other words, let's assume it's not a conspiracy. For the Belgium event, there were:
1. hovering triangles: explained as handgliders with spotlights;
2. scrambled jets and ground radar mistaking weather patters for triangles but not visually observing them. or,
3. scrambled jets observing a secret US made triangular shaped stealth fighter plane with three spot lights and high maneuverability.

I think #3 makes a little bit more sense without being "out of this world". Handgliders and incompetent pilots and radar technicians just seems a bit of a stretch.
Why you would think that "secret military project" is a more reasonable explanation than mistaken pilot, radar technician or media hyperbole is beyond me.
Ms Music
#46
Nov30-11, 07:02 PM
P: 175
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
We now know that we transmitted false RADAR data in the first Gulf war, so the technology has been around for quite some time.
Many years ago I worked on the B2 program, and I was often the first person in the "white world" to hear when a plane landed from a test flight. One time I had a conversation with the caller about how the UFO sightings would go through the roof during flights. If false radar is involved, I am 100% certain that this would explain the sightings and Belgian air force event. But then again, I am one of those boring people that believes all UFOs are of terrestrial origin.

Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
As a matter of fact, I once proposed this technology in a physics class as a way avoid speeding tickets.
Love it!
zoobyshoe
#47
Nov30-11, 07:19 PM
zoobyshoe's Avatar
P: 5,630
Quote Quote by Ms Music View Post
But then again, I am one of those boring people that believes all UFOs are of terrestrial origin.
They are, but their propulsion system is derived from the plans for Tesla's Death Ray, which was stolen from his apartment on the day he died by agents of the Government and which technology is now a CIA black ops concern. They also have silent black helicopters that kidnap and mutilate cattle.
Ivan Seeking
#48
Nov30-11, 07:37 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,500
Quote Quote by Mazulu View Post
3. scrambled jets observing a secret US made triangular shaped stealth fighter plane with three spot lights and high maneuverability.

I think #3 makes a little bit more sense without being "out of this world". Handgliders and incompetent pilots and radar technicians just seems a bit of a stretch.
The military pilots never directly observed the target. The photos and reports of observed crafts were public, not military.

As for mistaken RADAR hits, RADAR mirages and the like, these explanation do not seem to be consistent with a plane in pursuit and changing direction. Any weather phenomenon or mirage would be good for one or a few hits. At the least it would have to be a failure of the RADAR system.
AlephZero
#49
Nov30-11, 08:10 PM
Engineering
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 7,156
Quote Quote by zoobyshoe View Post
No. There's something wrong with a pilot who doesn't realize forward thrust is coming from the prop and not the tires.
Thrust doesn't make a plane take off. Lift does.

OK, so the pilot may have made an order-of-magnitude error estimating the ground effect of the conveyor belt on lift. But I would be a lot more worried flying with a pilot who didn't know that ground effect was important, than somebody who made that mistake.
DaveC426913
#50
Nov30-11, 08:18 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by AlephZero View Post
Thrust doesn't make a plane take off. Lift does.
This does not change what zooby said.

The thrust (which will move the plane, which will provide lift) comes from the prop. What the wheels are doing under the plane does not affect thrust or lift. It is troubling that a pilot would make such a mistake.
zoobyshoe
#51
Nov30-11, 08:28 PM
zoobyshoe's Avatar
P: 5,630
Quote Quote by AlephZero View Post
Thrust doesn't make a plane take off. Lift does.

OK, so the pilot may have made an order-of-magnitude error estimating the ground effect of the conveyor belt on lift. But I would be a lot more worried flying with a pilot who didn't know that ground effect was important, than somebody who made that mistake.
Oh come on. Ground effects are helpful but incidental. Thrust gets the plane moving forward, which gets air flowing around the wings which creates lift. If ground effects were required, jets couldn't take off, and prop planes couldn't fly above a very low altitude, nor could you launch a model glider with your hand.
Mazulu
#52
Nov30-11, 08:46 PM
P: 28
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
Why you would think that "secret military project" is a more reasonable explanation than mistaken pilot, radar technician or media hyperbole is beyond me.
Quoting from this article: http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc473.htm
It had started on the crazy night of November 29, 1989, during which 30 groups of witnesses, among them three police patrols, scattered over 800 square kilometers of territory between Liege and the German/Netherlands border, reported UFOs. All of the wit- nesses observed for hours a strange triangular object nearly silent, maneuver- ing at low speed and very low altitude, without creating the least amount of turbulence.
-30 groups of witnesses including police patrols
-observed for hours a strange triangular object nearly silent, maneuver- ing at low speed and very low altitude, without creating the least amount of turbulence.

At least 30 witnesses of slow moving and very quiet triangles (gliders?).

The range of the two radars is 300 KM, which is more than e nough to cover the area where the reports took place. In this region the land is fairly flat, rolling country without any prominent hills. The radar has a perfect view of all flying objects with an altitude above 200 meters over the ground. Nevertheless, Headquarters determined to do some very precise studies during the next 55 minutes to eliminate the possibility of prosaic explanations for the radar images. Excellent atmospheric conditions prevailed, and there was no possibility of false echoes due to temperature inversions.
Two radar stations scanning a country side without prominent hills. Good weather. Investigators were aware of the possibility of false images.[/QUOTE]

Pilots are looking at radar images. Witnesses on the ground are looking at triangles. What ties radar images to the triangles? This...

"In three cases the pilots managed to get their radar locked on the object, with the immediate result that the object's behavior drastically changed. The object literally played hide and seek with the fighters. It dived toward the ground to evade the airborne and ground radars. Then it climbed back into radar range in a liesurely manner, thus initiating a new chase. This fantastic game of hide and seek was observed from the ground by a great number of witnesses, among them 20 national policemen who saw both the object and the F-16s.
The Belguim policemen observed both the F-16's and the Triangle. The question then becomes: are the Beguim police lying or conspiring? If so, then what were the pilots chasing?

I believe that the Belguin police are telling the truth. If so, then the Triangle and the radar images are linked.

If you want a terrestrial answer, then it has to be a very high tech air craft, probably an American fighter.
zoobyshoe
#53
Nov30-11, 09:15 PM
zoobyshoe's Avatar
P: 5,630
Quote Quote by zoobyshoe View Post
Oh come on. Ground effects are helpful but incidental. Thrust gets the plane moving forward, which gets air flowing around the wings which creates lift. If ground effects were required, jets couldn't take off, and prop planes couldn't fly above a very low altitude, nor could you launch a model glider with your hand.
Hehe. This is half jabbering.

Let me put it this way: no thrust, no ground effects, no lift. Thrust comes from the prop, not the wheels.
Drakkith
#54
Nov30-11, 09:47 PM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,869
Quote Quote by Mazulu View Post
To play devils advocate, there's no real way of knowing how accurate this is. Not in that the person who wrote it is incorrect or lying (which is still a possibility. I can't get to that site from here at work so I haven't had a chance to read it.), but in the accuracy of the eyewitnesses. It is extremely common for people to misunderstand something they see in the sky. And trying to explain something you don't even understand to someone else only compounds the issue.

Two radar stations scanning a country side without prominent hills. Good weather. Investigators were aware of the possibility of false images.

Pilots are looking at radar images. Witnesses on the ground are looking at triangles. What ties radar images to the triangles? This...
Assuming that the pilots never had visual contact, that puts the object at least several miles if not more beyond the aircraft. I find it hard to believe that eyewitnesses saw both the F-16's and the object playing "hide and seek" at somewhere between 200-1000 mph and varying altitudes with any real accuracy. People can easily give incorrect times where something that took 10-15 seconds can be reported as "In just seconds". There are plenty of other things that can make the eyewitnesses information inaccurate.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Flying Triangles General Discussion 38
Triangle congruent problem Precalculus Mathematics Homework 2
Find three different right-angled triangles Introductory Physics Homework 17
About triangles Introductory Physics Homework 6
The case of flying triangles General Discussion 2