tecoyah, et al,
I would suspect that it is some sort of refection from something that happens on a scheduled basis.
No matter what the shape of an object, something that moves that fast across the sky (in the air) makes a sonic boom. It must be pushing air and creating a lot of heat.
So, it is unlikely that what is observed is actually a physical object in the air at the location it appears to be. It would most likely be something moving much, much slower, but because the like is refracted, the reflects appear to be moving very fast. I would imagine the phenomenon will change over time as the angle of the Sun changes.
Just My Thought,
R
I would suspect that it is some sort of refection from something that happens on a scheduled basis.
(COMMENT)
No matter what the shape of an object, something that moves that fast across the sky (in the air) makes a sonic boom. It must be pushing air and creating a lot of heat.
So, it is unlikely that what is observed is actually a physical object in the air at the location it appears to be. It would most likely be something moving much, much slower, but because the like is refracted, the reflects appear to be moving very fast. I would imagine the phenomenon will change over time as the angle of the Sun changes.
Just My Thought,
R
You're not considering size. the smaller somthing is, the slower it needs to go in order to become invisible. You're also wrong about sonic booms (with the right shape, it can be prevented) and if it is alien, it could have an acoustic cloak.
Granted, there are ways to counteract friction and velocity based reaction...but how the hell can we do it. I want to understand how such a thing can occur without the hypothetical.
Conspiracy theory should be based on something real, otherwise it is unimportant.
Conspiracy theory should be based on something real, otherwise it is unimportant.
David, et al,
i respectfully disagree.
The size has to be something fairly large. The video did not give us a range, however, it suggests that it is quite some distance away; yet leaves a footprint on the image moving at a frame rate faster than the eye can catch, but slow enough to be captured with electronic-optical sensors. We are lead to believe it is not the size of a fly at tens of feet away, but something large enough to be seen by just adjusting the speed of the replay (recording) at some distance (thousands of feet to several miles) using COTS, standard grade devices. It is large enough to be seen at some distance without much telescopic enhancement. It was claimed to be detected by accident. So it has some size to it; the exact size is unknown because the range is unknown.
Any object displaces air (it is a fluid). No matter what you wrap around an object, it still displaces air. In order for it not to leave turbulence in the air, it has to be smaller than the air and water molecules in the atmosphere (radiation size; but even most radiation leaves a trail). Even lightening, a flow of electrons (1843 times smaller than an atom), disrupts the atmosphere and makes a sound. We call it thunder.
No, there is no acoustic shield at that speed. Acoustic shields can dampen sound on the inside of an enclosed object, but not on the outside exposed surface. The shape can change the frequency of the sound wave; but non-spherical objects that abruptly change directions cannot suppress all frequencies and audible harmonics will be detected (heard).
Most Respectfully,
R
i respectfully disagree.
(COMMENT)
The size has to be something fairly large. The video did not give us a range, however, it suggests that it is quite some distance away; yet leaves a footprint on the image moving at a frame rate faster than the eye can catch, but slow enough to be captured with electronic-optical sensors. We are lead to believe it is not the size of a fly at tens of feet away, but something large enough to be seen by just adjusting the speed of the replay (recording) at some distance (thousands of feet to several miles) using COTS, standard grade devices. It is large enough to be seen at some distance without much telescopic enhancement. It was claimed to be detected by accident. So it has some size to it; the exact size is unknown because the range is unknown.
Any object displaces air (it is a fluid). No matter what you wrap around an object, it still displaces air. In order for it not to leave turbulence in the air, it has to be smaller than the air and water molecules in the atmosphere (radiation size; but even most radiation leaves a trail). Even lightening, a flow of electrons (1843 times smaller than an atom), disrupts the atmosphere and makes a sound. We call it thunder.
No, there is no acoustic shield at that speed. Acoustic shields can dampen sound on the inside of an enclosed object, but not on the outside exposed surface. The shape can change the frequency of the sound wave; but non-spherical objects that abruptly change directions cannot suppress all frequencies and audible harmonics will be detected (heard).
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
There are a lot of videos of these things on the internet, many accounts, they are even depicted in ancient art, I don't think it is an aircraft because the things we are seeing today that we have video evidence of were the same things people saw before. It was easy to dismiss them saying they made it up, but now in the digital age everybody has a camera in their pocket. I like roccor's theory that they are reflections or bent light, but I really think it is from something other than aircraft activity, it could be from atmospheric phenomena, our even cosmic phenomena. I think people jump to conclusions that it is extra teraestrials
I'll give you the size thing but air can be deflected in a way that won't produce a sonic boom (it's why supersonic passenger plans are about to make a come back). And I said acoustic cloak, not shield. Air waves can, like any other wave, be wrapped around an object by a cloaking device thus allowing it to flow uninterrupted. In the same way a light cloak thus renders an object invisible, an acoustic cloak prevents the creations of acoustic wave which means no sound. The Japanese are currently working on a variant that can cloak earthquakes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080109104244.htm
David, et al,
Yes, this has been around the research table for several years; even longer if you count the time they experimented with it as a surveillance countermeasures technique. But it is slightly different than what you are talking about.
References:
(COMMENT)
Both acoustic piercing shapes and the use of metamaterial It is more effective as "sound proofing material" than external dampening. It is the exact same technology and science used in stealth aircraft. But there are a couple big problems in this science. (Please notice the thumbnail reference above and the shape of the material.)
In general, we don't bend light. That sort of implies gravitational lensing. We don't do that. You can reflect, refract and cause interference with light. We can absorb its energy --- and we can even block it. But not bend it.
Sound is a bit different. It has a medium, and we can alter a medium under controlled conditions. In water, the propagation rate changes by (most commonly) temperature, salinity, and depth.
When we talk about cloaking, we are actually talking about the ability to spoof a detector; whether is is audio, electromagnetic, or mechanical. By changing the detector through range, sensitivity, or bandwidth, and view, almost anything anything becomes visible.
In the video we are discussing, look at all the sudden vector changes.
Most Respectfully,
R
Yes, this has been around the research table for several years; even longer if you count the time they experimented with it as a surveillance countermeasures technique. But it is slightly different than what you are talking about.
References:
(COMMENT)
Both acoustic piercing shapes and the use of metamaterial It is more effective as "sound proofing material" than external dampening. It is the exact same technology and science used in stealth aircraft. But there are a couple big problems in this science. (Please notice the thumbnail reference above and the shape of the material.)
- In the case of a submarine or ship, the objective in the use of the cloak is to redirect the sound (the "ping" of an active sonar) in a direction away from the sonar defector (the "ear" that hears the returning echo). It actually doesn't eliminate the echo; but scatters it. The "ping" can still be heard, but in another direction.
- In the case of an aircraft, the metamaterial cannot dampen the rapid colaspe of the displaced air. That, as you say, has to do with the piercing shape of the fuselage. And the sonic effect (the tail cone) can be reduced (but not entirely eliminated) as long as the aircraft is continuously vectored in the same direction relative to the air. If the aircraft changes direction, the acoustic piercing qualities are lost, and you hear the new sonic tail because the configuration changes.
In general, we don't bend light. That sort of implies gravitational lensing. We don't do that. You can reflect, refract and cause interference with light. We can absorb its energy --- and we can even block it. But not bend it.
(Note: I do acknowledge that there are a few non-baryonic materials that we can alter through the manipulation of a magnetic field; electrons as an example are routinely accelerated to near light speed. But that is not light.)
Sound is a bit different. It has a medium, and we can alter a medium under controlled conditions. In water, the propagation rate changes by (most commonly) temperature, salinity, and depth.
When we talk about cloaking, we are actually talking about the ability to spoof a detector; whether is is audio, electromagnetic, or mechanical. By changing the detector through range, sensitivity, or bandwidth, and view, almost anything anything becomes visible.
In the video we are discussing, look at all the sudden vector changes.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
If it's not a UFO, what is it? You know what UFO is the initialism of, yes?
We don't even know that it is a flying object. It could be an effect of light as Rocco pointed out. Also there is a difference between flying and being blown in the air. Leaves do not fly.
Unidentified Floating Object is still a UFO.
UFO generally stands for unidentified flying object, not floating (I've never heard that use of it). Either way, the thing isn't necessarily floating either.
Similar threads
