US Navy UFO video

[MigL]

You know that a helicopter, or a WW1 Sopwith Camel, can easily outmaneuver an F-18, right Alex?
The F-18 has a turning radius measured in miles, dependent on speed of course.
( unloaded, it can pull +9g in a banked turn, but only for seconds as the pilot will black-out )

I would be more surprised by the displayed acceleration.
An AV-8B  Harrier can hover, move sideways or backwards, and possibly accelerate to high subsonic speed faster than an F-18, due to its higher power to weight ratio.
But apparently we have no hard numbers as to its speed or acceleration.
Only subjective eye-witness reports.

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by MigL

[Alex_Krycek]

 

9 hours ago, MigL said:

You know that a helicopter, or a WW1 Sopwith Camel, can easily out maneuver an F-18, right Alex?
The F-18 has a turning radius measured in miles, dependent on speed of course.
( unloaded, it can pull +9g in a banked turn, but only for seconds as the pilot will black-out )

I would be more surprised by the displayed acceleration.

Right, acceleration should be the main focus.  The video shows the jet tracking the UFO, and then suddenly the object accelerates out of frame at such a speed that the jets could not keep up with it.  According to David Fravor, the object practically disappeared in front of their eyes, reappearing a few seconds later 60 miles away after the Princeton picked it back up on radar.  However, if there were multiple objects in that AO then that would explain the object "reappearing" on the radar 60 miles away. 

Here is an excerpt from the Popular Mechanics article:

The second object suddenly rose up and flew towards the Super Hornets, with one pilot. Commander David Fravor, saying it appeared it was rising up to meet him. The Hornet turned towards the object to meet it and the object peeled away, accelerating, “like nothing I’ve ever seen,” Fravor later said.

The Super Hornets conferred with the USS Princeton and were vectored to a CAP point 60 miles away. Within seconds, the pilots were told by the Princeton that radar had picked up the object already at the CAP point. By the time the Super Hornets arrived however the object had already disappeared.

Source:  https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a14456936/that-time-the-us-navy-had-a-close-encounter-with-a-ufo/

-----------------------------------------------

Another point of focus: the USO (Unidentified Swimming Object) aspect.  

There are several interesting details about the sighting here. For one, there were clearly two unidentified objects. The first was a large underwater object that was “much larger than a submarine.” For reference, the U.S. Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines are 377 feet long. The object also had some passing resemblance to a “downed airliner.” This was technically a USO, or unidentified swimming object. Although much rarer than UFOs, such craft have been sighted over the years.

I find this interesting, because similar to UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), the military has been working on USOs for sometime also:

Full-sized, staffed ships and other sea platform cannot perform safely in all Navy missions in near-shore, or littoral waters. These missions include mine location and avoidance as well as remote surveillance. In 1988, a joint DARPA/Navy Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV) Program was initiated, with the goal of demonstrating that UUVs could meet specific Navy mission requirements. The program started with a memorandum of agreement between DARPA and the Navy that specified the design and fabrication of test-bed autonomous vehicles, the independent development of mission packages, and their subsequent integration. The Navy initially pursued a submarine-launched UUV that would either guide the submarine through an area that might be mined or search an area for mines. When the Cold War ended, however, the Navy revised the program with the objective of developing a tethered shallow-water mine reconnaissance vehicle for littoral warfare. The work in the UUV led to many follow-on projects, along with a range of technology developments. Even as the Agency enters its seventh decade, UUV R&D remains part of its portfolio.

Source: https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/unmanned-undersea-vehicle-a

So, perhaps this weapons system was a combination of USOs/UUVs and UAVs working in some kind of CODE organzation.  The UAV would rendezvous with the USO/UUV into a battle group and then launch back out on mission, similar to the photo I posted above where the UAVs are grouped in formation just above the water's surface.  This would correspond to what Fravor saw: a smaller "Tic Tac" (the UAV) launched from a much larger submarine like craft.

 

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[MigL]

On the other hand...

Did you ever see the movie, The Abyss ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abyss

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Have we done any manufacturing in space? 
 

Yes, yes we have on a tiny scale on the ISS https://www.nasa.gov/oem/inspacemanufacturing

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Have you presented an analysis to support the claim that it will cut costs to do so?

There you got me,it was an assumption on my part that using in situ materials instead of hauling them up of earths grvity well would be less expensive. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I didn’t say you made a claim about speed. You referred to a claim about speed. I want to know details about what you’re referring to.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120270-us-navy-ufo-video/page/5/?tab=comments#comment-1140011

I asked string junky about the speed of drones, he answered me. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

 

All known physics? Freeman Dyson was able to popularize an idea that violates all known physics? How does it violate the laws of thermodynamics? Newton’s laws?

No, a distorted take on a dyson sphere was popularised, he was talking about a swarm of small objects in space that could harvest all the energy of the sun, O'Neil cylinders were part of what he envisioned... 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I never mentioned a Dyson swarm. Stop pretending I did. (funny how the don’t mention how a Dyson sphere violates all physics, though)

Again dyson's vision was of a swarm not a solid shell covering a star... others came along later and didn't understand his Idea. 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I never claimed otherwise.

Is the ISS a Dyson swarm?

It is an orbiting space station but anything functioning in space around the sun can be defined that way. A dyson swarm has to start with the first object.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Straw man. My comment was regarding extraterrestrials visiting, and these are not crewed vessels.

I would not expect the objects on film to be manned nor would I expect them to have traveled from another star. Either a manned mothership sends them or an AI machine... if indeed they are anything but military drones testing our technology.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

 

Are you not capable of determining whether or not I called something impossible?

evidently not

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You have not answered questions, and provided jokes instead. Not acknowledging that you made a reference to speed.

In all honesty i had forgotten but thank you for reminding me.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Every reference of mine to a logical fallacy is tap-dancing.

Thank you or pointing that out.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Based on our experience building things in space? You say pithy things like this, but provide NO analysis to back it up

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Bldg-structures.html

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/astronauts-robots-and-the-history-of-fixing-and-building-things-in-space

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You can search this thread. The search box is in the upper right corner (choose the “this topic” radio button)

 

Thankyou.  

[Alex_Krycek]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

On the other hand...

Did you ever see the movie, The Abyss ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abyss

I read the book a long, long time ago.

Used to be a big Crichton fan.

[MigL]

Excellent book; better than the movie.
But it was Orson Scott Card.

[Alex_Krycek]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

Excellent book; better than the movie.
But it was Orson Scott Card.

Ah right.   I'm thinking of Sphere.

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Yes, yes we have on a tiny scale on the ISS https://www.nasa.gov/oem/inspacemanufacturing

Quote

 

In-Space Manufacturing

Objective: To develop the technologies and processes which will enable on-demand manufacturing capability during long-duration space missions.

 

Develop implies it's not there yet. These are SBIR awards, meaning they are given to companies here on earth.

What the ISS has is 3-D printing. Fabrication of parts. Not manufacturing, and certainly not large-scale. You were talking about O'Neill cylinders (which, of course, were not proposed for travel)

8 hours ago, Moontanman said:

There you got me,it was an assumption on my part that using in situ materials instead of hauling them up of earths grvity well would be less expensive. 

You've made a lot of assumptions, which you have not examined for reasonability.

Space is a vacuum. There are no in situ materials for manufacturing. You have to go somewhere, like a moon or an asteroid.

 

8 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I asked string junky about the speed of drones, he answered me. 

No, that doesn't wash. You didn't ask how fast a drone can move. Speed of a drone is meaningless to know, unless it was being compared to the speed of the UFO. Is there any evidence of the UFO speed?

 

8 hours ago, Moontanman said:

No, a distorted take on a dyson sphere was popularised, he was talking about a swarm of small objects in space that could harvest all the energy of the sun, O'Neil cylinders were part of what he envisioned... 

No, he clearly is talking about a sphere. A swarm would not block all visible radiation from a star, it would only block some of it.

http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/SETI1.HTM

"the mass of Jupiter, if distributed in a spherical shell revolving around the sun at twice the Earth's distance from it"

 

8 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Again dyson's vision was of a swarm not a solid shell covering a star... others came along later and didn't understand his Idea. 

No. Read his very short paper.

8 hours ago, Moontanman said:

It is an orbiting space station but anything functioning in space around the sun can be defined that way. A dyson swarm has to start with the first object.

Once again, the true answer is "no" but you refuse to acknowledge this, and contort your response rather than admit that it's not. 

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Moontanman said:

20 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

With what we currently know about physics, it seems to me at least, that any sustained interstellar space travel with living beings is so unlikely as to be essentially impossible. 

Please elaborate...

And we're back to that old argument: if you want to believe that tomorrow will deliver, what's impossible today; I'll defend your belief against ridicule, whilst reserving the right to not believe you.

[Area54]

On 4/29/2020 at 3:34 PM, Alex_Krycek said:

All of these gentlemen describe the same thing:  an aerial vehicle maneuvering in such a manner as to defy the known laws of physics

I am troubled when an obsevation is combined with an interpretation based upon that observation. It is a form of equivocation and that, either intentionally, or accidentally may mislead. The observers saw a suite of manouvres. Given the status and training of the observers we may find their description of what they believe they saw moderately reliable. However, they then interpret those manouvres to "defy the known laws of physics". That interpretation seems both exaggerated and questionable. What laws of physics does it defy?

[aradii]

@dimreepr I answer your question here because of moderation warning in other thread, I said MAYBE, I'm sure there ARE living humans on this earth that have a vast amount of knowledge on these craft, extra-terrestrial or not, the propulsion systems in these vehicles would revolutionize the energy industry. I believe this technology is intentionally being kept from us by the "mega-elite".

[swansont]

1 hour ago, aradii said:

@dimreepr I answer your question here because of moderation warning in other thread, I said MAYBE, I'm sure there ARE living humans on this earth that have a vast amount of knowledge on these craft, extra-terrestrial or not, the propulsion systems in these vehicles would revolutionize the energy industry. I believe this technology is intentionally being kept from us by the "mega-elite".

!

Moderator Note

Any approach that avoids presenting evidence will not fly. That includes appeal to conspiracy, as you do here, or just avoiding answering questions, as others have tried.

 

[Alex_Krycek]

On 5/1/2020 at 2:01 PM, dimreepr said:

And we're back to that old argument: if you want to believe that tomorrow will deliver, what's impossible today; I'll defend your belief against ridicule, whilst reserving the right to not believe you.

Not sure why you wouldn't believe that, considering it has been the trajectory of human development since the Scientific Revolution (i.e. the last 400 years) to far exceed our understanding of what is possible.

Future human innovation has consistently produced novel technology that seems impossible today.   The notion that human beings won't innovate technology that we currently consider impossible is much more unlikely, given this historical context.

14 hours ago, Area54 said:

That interpretation seems both exaggerated and questionable. What laws of physics does it defy?

Fravor stated that the object "disappeared" in front of their eyes and then reappeared 60 miles away a few seconds later at a new location.  However, I did state that it's possible there were multiple objects that day and perhaps one was able to evade the pilots while another was picked up by the Princeton's radar at the same time. 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[Area54]

30 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Fravor stated that the object "disappeared" in front of their eyes and then reappeared 60 miles away a few seconds later at a new location.  However, I did state that it's possible there were multiple objects that day and perhaps one was able to avoid them while another was picked up by the Princeton's radar at the same time. 

I'm still not clear what law of physics that would violate. Current engineering technology couldn't achieve that, but I still fail to see which physical laws are violated. The apparent absence of a supersonic shock wave would be surprising, but perhaps there is an engineering workaround. So, I ask again, can anyone suggest what laws of physics are actually violated?

It just seems that this is an all to common claim with UFO sightings, that the objects did things "that just aren't physically possible". That appears more like a lack of knowledge or imagination on the part of the observer. I'm quite ready to accept an assertion that it is a violation of physical law because . . . reason, complete with detailed justification, including the maths. But those never seem forthcoming.

And, of course, your alternative explanation is highly plausible and negates the need to go for ephemeral violations of unamed physical laws.

Edited May 3, 2020 by Area54
"there" for "their"

[Alex_Krycek]

6 hours ago, Area54 said:

perhaps their is an engineering workaround.

It just seems that this is an all to common claim with UFO sightings, that the objects did things "that just aren't physically possible". That appears more like a lack of knowledge or imagination on the part of the observer.

I agree with you there.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Not sure why you wouldn't believe that, considering it has been the trajectory of human development since the Scientific Revolution (i.e. the last 400 years) to far exceed our understanding of what is possible.

Future human innovation has consistently produced novel technology that seems impossible today.   The notion that human beings won't innovate technology that we currently consider impossible is much more unlikely, given this historical context.

There is also technology that was promised and society has yet to deliver. Flying cars were supposed to be ubiquitous by now, for example. There are always the unanticipated problems that crop up, and not all of them can be solved. Wishful thinking doesn't make them go away.

10 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Fravor stated that the object "disappeared" in front of their eyes and then reappeared 60 miles away a few seconds later at a new location.  However, I did state that it's possible there were multiple objects that day and perhaps one was able to evade the pilots while another was picked up by the Princeton's radar at the same time. 

How was that 60 miles measured?

[Alex_Krycek]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

There is also technology that was promised and society has yet to deliver. Flying cars were supposed to be ubiquitous by now, for example. There are always the unanticipated problems that crop up, and not all of them can be solved. Wishful thinking doesn't make them go away.

A distinction should be made between what is technically feasible and what is ubiquitous.  There are plenty of reasons why something (for example the flying car) could be technically feasible but not widespread in society (consumerism, logistical problems, lack of an adequate regulatory environment, lack of infrastructure, lack of production incentives, an interest in maintaining a power differential between classes, an interest in preventing public access to potentially dangerous technology, etc). 

By the way, here are some companies working on the flying car:  https://www.nanalyze.com/2016/06/9-companies-building-flying-cars/

Certainly there are unanticipated problems just as there are unexpected innovations and breakthroughs.  My basic point is that the trajectory of radical, transformative technological change emerging from collective scientific progress has (and will) continue to produce material realities which were previously conceivable only in the realm of the imagination.    

“The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.”
― Arthur C. Clarke

11 hours ago, swansont said:

How was that 60 miles measured?

The Princeton was responsible for tracking the unknown objects and directing the Black Aces towards them.  After the they lost visual contact with the first object, the Princeton reported to the Black Aces when the object "reappeared in another location" (the CAP point), according to David Fravor.  

The “capsule” was not only more maneuverable than the Hornets but also much faster —for it to have reached the CAP point ahead of the Navy fighters it would have had to have flown in excess of 2,400 miles an hour. According to FighterSweep.com, which published a detailed chronicle of the event in 2015, the object did not emit hot jet exhaust typical of ordinary aircraft.

Source:  https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a14456936/that-time-the-us-navy-had-a-close-encounter-with-a-ufo/

2,400 mph.  Pretty fast.  The Super Hornet has a top speed of Mach 1.8 (1370 mph). 

There are unmanned aircraft that have been documented to go much faster than that.  

The aircraft below have a recorded top speed of 7,546 mph and 13,201 mph respectively.  So it would be within the realm of possibility for these UFOs to be unmanned craft piloted / navigated by advanced A.I. capable of going twice or three times as fast as the Super Hornets and directing themselves to a predetermined point incredibly quickly.  But the propulsion is another mystery as they had no evidence of a traditional propulsion mechanism. 

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Alex_Krycek

[swansont]

37 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 

The Princeton was responsible for tracking the unknown objects and directing the Black Aces towards them.  After the they lost visual contact with the first object, the Princeton reported to the Black Aces when the object "reappeared in another location" (the CAP point), according to David Fravor.  

The “capsule” was not only more maneuverable than the Hornets but also much faster —for it to have reached the CAP point ahead of the Navy fighters it would have had to have flown in excess of 2,400 miles an hour. According to FighterSweep.com, which published a detailed chronicle of the event in 2015, the object did not emit hot jet exhaust typical of ordinary aircraft.

Source:  https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a14456936/that-time-the-us-navy-had-a-close-encounter-with-a-ufo/

2,400 mph.  Pretty fast.  The Super Hornet has a top speed of Mach 1.8 (1370 mph). 

2400 mph assumes it was the same object. These objects appeared and disappeared from the radar, and a positive identification could not be made. So this number does not have the certainty you give it.

More to the point, a lot of the numbers given are clearly estimations from the pilots, and not measured by the radar. The size and distances from the planes. If you err on one, you must be in error on the other, when assessing by eye. If something you estimate to be 10 meters long and 500 m away is in fact 20 meters long, then it must actually be 1 km away.  

 

 

 

[MigL]

While doing some reading concerning US Navy patents and countermeasures for aircraft, I came across this interesting article

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/05/11/us-navy-laser-creates-plasma-ufos/#57d8f4031074

and it isn't even classified.

Seems the Navy has patents that suggest the use of pulsed lasers to 'form' plasma decoys, and defeat the infra-red seekers of approaching missiles. These would basically be shaped 'lightning', and could be maneuvered by moving the lasers, in ways that defy explanation.

Could the UFO incident have been a test ?