Discussion in 'UFOs & Sightings' started by humanoidlord, Feb 26, 2018.
It looks like a clear one.....it also looks as if its attached to a line.
When I open one of those things I tend to end up eating the entire thing. Now you're making me run out to the store to get one
You're right. After I looked at the video again I paused it at a certain point and it does appear as if it's tethered. You can also see where it is bending indicating that it is some type of material inflated.
They probably did what these group of kids did - long balloon & string attached;
pretty sure you already posted that one, its a bug in the lens
balloon, you can see the freaking string!
its a mylar balloon actually, solar balloons are black, this one is silver
nivek, pause the video, in the times the focus is clear and you will see the string
I wonder if they are made to be see thru.
nope, they are black so the sun can heat the air inside, clear solar balloons don't exist, so i think the video shows a mylar one
IMO, it could easily be a bird. I'm not sure how this surfaced or why.
I've done lots of analysis of photos and videos that were birds. A bird can easily move 20 times its wingspan in one second - something most planes can't do (the F-18 at top speed of Mach 1.8 can do 45 times its wingspan per second).
its definitely a bird, possibly a gyr falcon as somebody has said
That zig-zag behavior had been observed in other cases. It is most likely an important clue to how UFO propulsion works. Speaking purely mechanically, in that spiraling flight (I assume 'zig-zag' was just used descriptively), two forces were at play. One is centrifugal force, and the other is force produced by UFOs propulsion in flight. Since centrifugal force is acting outwards, it means that UFO propulsion is acting inwards or as attractive force. Very important clue!
There were 2-3 other UFO cases where such behavior was witnessed.
First was Maori Island incident. Three UFOs were flying over the lake, when one of the UFOs started sputtering hot molten metal (typical failure mode of UFOs, check Peter Sturrok's book for 4 more cases). Broken UFO started wobbling and descending, and than two other UFOs approached it and lifted it up. Clearly a case of an attractive force coming out of UFO's body.
For the second case I forgot almost all the details, except the main ones. An US family was traveling through outback with woods and mountains. It was a very long journey and it was late at night. At one point they stopped at a clearing just to stretch legs and so. Than 3 or 4 UFOs approached right above where their car was parked and all 3-4 UFOs started flying super fast in circle above the family. Again, purely mechanically, in this universe and the next, two forces must had been at play one outward centrifugal and another UFO propulsion related force acting attractively inwards.
Now this particular US case reveals to us even more about that misterious UFO attractive force. Because there were 3-4 UFOs, that attractive force can not be electric field force. Like electric charges repel, opposite charges attract. That means that attraction can only exist in a 2 body system, while in 3 or higher count charged body system polarities would need to switch back to repulsion. For example, if we have 2 UFOs one electrically charged + and other charged -, there would be a very strong attractive force between them and they would be able to perform all the above maneuvers. In a 3 body system, there would need to be say two + and one - charged UFOs, so two positive UFOs would repel each other. Appearance of repulsive force would add to centrifugal force and would make all above maneuvers impossible.
Studying cases like this helps us understand physics of UFOs. Unfortunately, while this behavior excludes electric force, it doesn't prove that the external attractive force between UFOs was gravitational. It is very typical of UFO landing sites that debris doesn't rise and attach itself to UFOs hull. But that could be just UFO propulsion management, because at a moment of landing, propulsion would be near zero.
Anyway, plenty food for thought.
This analysis was a fair attempt to criticize Utah footage, but analysis displayed limitations that I would like to comment on:
Footage was shot at a very high 60fps. That means that camera's processor was loaded to the max and was gasping to catch up. Another thing is that no matter how fast is your exposure time, moving objects will always leave some blur. If moving object was flying around a circular path and at a same time tilting, the blur of that object will obviously make it appear as object is flexing.
This "flexing" actually adds to the credibility of the original footage.
Birds do charge drones all the times. There are many YouTube videos that show that.
But, first, I am not an expert on hawks and falcons, but I don't think they come in pure white, except in Arctic and Alaska. Please correct me if I am wrong, and tell me that a typical Utah hawk/falcon is normally feathered in pure white.
Second, if this was a bird charge, than there would be lot more of typical flapping of the wings, which should be clearly be visible on the footage. At angles to the camera, in this footage, bird's body would not occupy more than 1/8 of object's width. So we'll see solid white 1/8 and than very blurry, sinusoidal motion of the rest of 7/8. Unfortunately, we don't see any of that sinusoidal wing movement. Object is rock solid in shape all the time.
Third, "It's a Bird!". Hawk and falcon sizes are pretty well known. From bird's size we can use geometry of perspective and calculate distance to the bird quite well. Than, once knowing the distance, we can match it with angular speed shown in footage and calculate if "bird" was flying at 60mph or 9,000mph.
Fourth, if it was a bird, when it came close to the drone, why it didn't fly straight into it? Why did it fly off to the left side? Did drone operator ever said that drone was attacked by bird (answer: NO)? Known tactics of predator birds is to crash into other birds, from above, with their full body mass and shock the prey by physical impact. None of these things were reported.
In a summary, four strong points against "bird" theory.
This is a big problem. A typical case of selective reporting or not researching the case enough, but having an opinion anyway.
There are many other videos analyzing this footage and many of them clearly show that object first appeared in a distance, than it fell behind a 3.5miles distant ridge, than it flew above that ridge and turned. So, footage tells us that this object was at least 3.5miles away when it first appeared in the clip.
Unfortunately, the initial distance to object is known. It was 3.5miles. And that distance was crossed in 1-2sec. Not something falcon can do.
On another note, it is very interesting that UFO was flying low, between mountains. There was 1-2 more cases where UFO was videoed flying through vallies. Please correct me if I am wrong, but Utah is one of these "empty" states, like Nevada and New Mexico, with lots of military bases and government owned land. This must be part of UFO tactics to avoid radars.
most of these ISS UFOs are lens flare from the solar panels
Danny Silva tracked down this interesting clip:
Here’s his article for context:
Chris Mellon/Air Force UFO Video
No I mean that they actually executed hard, acute-angle changes in direction with no visible change in speed: a true zig-zag trajectory across the sky, no spiraling, and not even the slightest curving when then nearly reversed course very suddenly. True, inertia-defying flight, exactly as predicted of gravitational field propulsion.
In fact, gravitational field propulsion is the only theoretically known method that permits reactionless flight, so that appears to be the correct solution.
Technically, gravitation is an acceleration field, not a force field - forces are proportional to mass, gravitation isn't, i.e. a 10kg mass falls at the same rate as a 1kg mass.
A defining feature of gravitational field propulsion, is that the craft and occupants feel nothing, even when the craft makes dramatic accelerations. So there would be no centripetal forces using that type of system. Which as I said, is the only theoretically viable model that can explain flight without expelling any reaction mass.
Interesting cases, thanks.
It seems counterintuitive, but with a gravitational field propulsion system, you can execute a fast circular trajectory and be subjected to no centripetal forces. Within the field, there's never any sense of acceleration at all, ever: it always feels like you're standing still no matter what the craft is doing.
its a plane, just like the ones youtuber UFOlou has been showing in his channel for years
other people have also captured nearly identical videos of planes using night vision devices
i don't like to brag but really thomas? have you sunk this low, just to worship TTSA?
How about: instead of running your mouth, you show us a video of a plane that actually looks like that?
When you look at that clip frame-by-frame, you can use the stars in the background to see that A.) there's no object in front of the luminous trails, and B.) you can watch the stars go in-between the lights without getting blacked out by any wings. So there doesn't appear to be any structure connecting those luminous trails.
That clip had nothing to do with TTSA - it was aired on broadcast television years before Chris Mellon mentioned it.
And being criticized by some joker who thinks that every insane fish-headed alien spider story is irrefutable fact, without any corroborating evidence whatsoever, is actually a form of compliment. So thank you: if you agreed with me about anything, I'd have to completely re-evaluate my worldview.
Hmmm, pure zig-zag. Really crazy.
Did the crafts lean to the side when on the tip of the zig-zag? Like in that Utah UFO video, where UFO took a bend by leaning to the side like cyclist do on curve.
These cases I mentioned, and few other from "UFOs and Water" suggest that there is an attractive force field under the UFOs in flight. How would that fit with gravity drive? Why would there be attractive gravitational force under the UFO?
We should discuss this kind of thing in a more appropriate thread - we're not even remotely talking about ufo videos right now.
But briefly: I think that Carl Feindt is way off base with his assessment. I've seen lots of cases where a UFO hovering over water created a depression on the surface of the water (as gravitational field propulsion theory predicts), and only rarely do we hear about cases where a stationary UFO is drawing water up from the ocean or lake below it - and that sounds more like a specific operation rather than a residual field effect from the propulsion system. To bolster his idea, Carl cites cases where an underwater UFO creates a bulge on the surface of the water before it rises up out of the water - which is obviously a totally different situation, which indicates an attractive gravitational field above the craft, as we expect to find with a gravitational field propulsion system (this should in theory be accompanied by a repulsive gravitational field below the craft, in order to generate vertical lift). He also seems to be bending over backwards to shape the field just like a magnetic dipole, with little to no empirical evidence to support that idea. Carl's database is fascinating and valuable, but I don't see much value in his modeling of the propulsion field: I think he started with an arbitrary idea: "the UFO field must look like a magnetic field because that seems scientifical," and he's convinced himself that it's a valid description.
I know its a still picture and not a video but with the Hannah McRoberts UFO pic - if it's moving as fast as has been suggested shouldn't it be a bit more blurred?
Or I guess we assume it zipped in, stopped for a fraction of a second just as she was taking the picture, and then zipped out.
That sounded silly to me as I typed it.
Oh great, you are reading "UFOs and water". Agreed, value of Karl's book is in the database of cases that reveal a lot about fields around UFOs.
Any special insights you developed from reading the book? We can continue in a new thread.
Separate names with a comma.