- #36
Mazulu
- 26
- 0
zoobyshoe said:No. There's something wrong with a pilot who doesn't realize forward thrust is coming from the prop and not the tires.
Do you have the link to this episode of Mythbusters?
zoobyshoe said:No. There's something wrong with a pilot who doesn't realize forward thrust is coming from the prop and not the tires.
Yup:Mazulu said:Do you have the link to this episode of Mythbusters?
zoobyshoe said:Yup:
zoobyshoe said:No. There's something wrong with a pilot who doesn't realize forward thrust is coming from the prop and not the tires.
Mazulu said: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.
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.Mazulu said:What was this video suppose to demonstrate?
What follows logically is that you can't necessarily ascribe all kinds of expertise to people just because they're doing "what they do".Mazulu said: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".
That pilot would deserve a Darwin Award for trying, anyway.Mazulu said: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.
Mazulu said: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.
Ivan Seeking said: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.
Why you would think that "secret military project" is a more reasonable explanation than mistaken pilot, radar technician or media hyperbole is beyond me.Mazulu said: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.
Ivan Seeking said:We now know that we transmitted false RADAR data in the first Gulf war, so the technology has been around for quite some time.
Ivan Seeking said:As a matter of fact, I once proposed this technology in a physics class as a way avoid speeding tickets.
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.Ms Music said:But then again, I am one of those boring people that believes all UFOs are of terrestrial origin.
Mazulu said: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.
zoobyshoe said:No. There's something wrong with a pilot who doesn't realize forward thrust is coming from the prop and not the tires.
This does not change what zooby said.AlephZero said:Thrust doesn't make a plane take off. Lift does.
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.AlephZero said: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.
Quoting from this article: http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc473.htmRyan_m_b said:Why you would think that "secret military project" is a more reasonable explanation than mistaken pilot, radar technician or media hyperbole is beyond me.
-30 groups of witnesses including police patrolsIt 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.
Two radar stations scanning a country side without prominent hills. Good weather. Investigators were aware of the possibility of false images.[/QUOTE]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.
"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.
Hehe. This is half jabbering.zoobyshoe said: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 said:Quoting from this article: http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc473.htm
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...
I thought I was the one playing devil's advocate?Drakkith said: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.
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.
So maybe the US military has an unmanned plane that can hover, and also reach velocities of 1800km/hr (without creating a sonic boom).http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc473.htm said:After having seen this dramatic sequence, I posed a number of questions to Col. DeBrouwer. First, could the object have been a radiosonde balloon? "No, the object acted as if it was totally independent of the winds, and we have done, among other things, a complete review of meteorlogical conditions. This is why we did not publish the report until now. We wanted to do a complete study to verify all aspects of the case. Our military defense system is not prepared for this sort of thing. We had to analyze and interpret the data from the recording inside the fighters."
Is it a natural phenomenon, or perhaps the debris from rockets or satellites or space junk? "No, a meteorite or a fragment of a rocket does not enter the atmosphere in a zig zag fashion. The analysis of the radar traces showed numer ous changes in direction, and the atmosphereic conditions that prevailed pre cluded any electromagnetic phenomenon as the cause."
But I asked how about the famous F-117 the American Stealth airplane, which many people think may be responsible? "This airplane is absolutely designed for penetration at low altitude. On the other hand it has a minimum speed of 278 KPH and the UFOs speed went down to 40 KPH. The F-117 does not have engines that can be tilted down for very slow speed flight. Also no airplane is capable of flying at 1,800 KPH or so low to the ground without creating a sonic boom." Then he gave me a telex sent by the Military Attache of the U.S. Ambassador to the Commander of the Belgian Air Force confirming that the Stealth airplane was never stationed on European territory nor did it ever fly over that territory.
FlexGunship said:That might not quite be the best debunk. Either way, you don't need to attribute all UFO sightings to something for it to be true of a few.
A very old post for you to review (notice that the quoted version has bad URLs, but if you follow the link provided just below, you can still visit each website).
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2871349&postcount=11
I'm sure people who see UFOs honestly believe whatever they say. ("Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.")
Dotini said:Accordingly, the phenomenon must be almost purely energetic (lacking mass)
DaveC426913 said:How did you get to this conclusion? We've got unexplained phenomena, what leads you to conclude that - categorically - they all come from the same phenom and that they cannot have mass?
I can see massless objects being one plausible explanation for many of the incidents, but I don't see how it's categorically true of all unexplained aerial phenomena.
There is a line between what we know and what we surmise.
A couple/three seconds:Mazulu said:How long will it take you to debunk 1000 pilot reports?
Mazulu said:Now here is a nice organized table that describes lots of weird things seen by pilots. No fluff or flaky observers, just the facts.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/WeinsteinPilotCatalog.pdf
The table has light, balls, glowing cylinders, airfoils, foo fighters, pink spheres, even a green parallelogram. Maybe this is the mother-lode. By my count, there are about a thousand reports from pilots of UFO encounters. In a nutshell, they're lights, cylinders, spheres, glowing geometric shapes.
How long will it take you to debunk 1000 pilot reports?
Mazulu said:On the one hand there are people who see UFO's and are filled with wonder and joy about life; they are filled with awe that there is something out there. In the other hand, the scholarly community routinely ridicules these people and calls them stupid. I don't know how to reconcile this. If you're happy then you're stupid?
Mazulu said:On the one hand there are people who see UFO's and are filled with wonder and joy about life; they are filled with awe that there is something out there. In the other hand, the scholarly community routinely ridicules these people and calls them stupid. I don't know how to reconcile this. If you're happy then you're stupid?
Carl Sagan said:For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
I really can't call anyone "stupid" for believing that these are aliens or (insert popular cultural/religious icon). The phenomena is literally messing with people's heads. Just read down the table from any page ofDrakkith said:The issue isn't that people see UFO's, it's that they see them and then believe that the most likely explanation is aliens. They are most likely incorrect, and in many people's eyes they are indeed "stupid". Most likely incorrect means that if you look at just the number of explainable phenomena compared to unexplained there is an overwhelming majority for the former.
Most likely ... is another way of saying in my humble opinion. We still have silvery saucers, disks and cylinders to explain.Drakkith said:The issue isn't that people see UFO's, it's that they see them and then believe that the most likely explanation is aliens. They are most likely incorrect, and in many people's eyes they are indeed "stupid". Most likely incorrect means that if you look at just the number of explainable phenomena compared to unexplained there is an overwhelming majority for the former.
Mazulu said:Most likely ... is another way of saying in my humble opinion.
FlexGunship said:Wrong. "Most likely" is an expression of approximated probability.
When you have two puncture wounds on your neck you should probably think of the vampire-hypothesis last. The prevalence of movies and books about vampires does not lend credence to the hypothesis itself. Likewise, the prevalence of movies and books about aliens visiting Earth does not lend credence to that particular hypothesis.
How do you know?It is a fact that, given our present understanding of the universe, alien visitation is probably the least likely hypothesis to explain UFO sightings of any flavor.
This is a fallacious comparison. There has never been any evidence that extraterrestrial life exists nor any evidence that extraterrestrial life has ever visited this planet and flown around in our atmosphere. Winning the lottery by comparison can have it's probability easily determined.Mazulu said:If you buy a lottery ticket, most likely you won't win; yet several people around the country win every week