Jump to content

Moontanman

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    11631
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Posts posted by Moontanman

  1. 5 hours ago, beecee said:

    It certainly is! Important that is. As I have often said, some of these [those with no obvious or lilely mundane explanation] should be investigated under the auspices of the scientific methodology.

    Let me say Moontanman, it is rather pleasing to discuss this subject with you, and the reasonable position you seem to have taken. Far better then discussing it with what I term the "nutty brigade"

    Thanks, lots of nuts out there, on UFO sites I am accused of being a government shill. 

  2. On 4/17/2021 at 5:58 PM, beecee said:

    While searching for the previously recommended video, I found the following discussions on the possible and probably likely explanation of many UFO's/UAP

    Nice little video worth watching....

    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pyramid-ufos-in-night-vision-footage-maybe-bokeh.11695/

    and the following lengthy article particularly with relation to the USA....and entitled..."Adversary Drones Are Spying On The U.S. And The Pentagon Acts Like They're UFOs"

    at...

    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...entagon-acts-like-theyre-ufos?utm_source=digg

    I'm in no position to really judge the veracity of the second article or the many links within that link, I'll let others do that...plus apologies if this is seen to be in the wrong thread....a kindly mod may chose to move to a more appropriate one if needed.

    From your last link: I agree that these UAPs seem to be drones of some type, I figured they were our own drones testing our own defenses and not telling the agencies who were being trolled.

      

    Quote

    Before I move forward, I must state that just because I believe the evidence is compelling that many of the bizarre encounters with mysterious objects in the sky as of late, and especially those that the U.S. military is experiencing, emanate from peer-state competitors, not another dimension or another solar system, there are certainly well-documented cases of seemingly unexplainable events that have nothing to do with this type of capability. In other words, our conclusions do not come even close to answering the question of UAPs or UFOs as a whole, especially in terms of the many unexplained incidents in decades past. What they do is highlight an alarming new capability set and tactics that seem to have been allowed to be exploited with little response for years while the Pentagon scratched its head and shrugged, or even worse, turned largely a blind eye toward it. 

    This is also important: 

    And that brings us to one of the biggest problems with this topic, as a whole—people expect one blanket and grand explanation for the entire UFO mystery to one day emerge. This is flawed thinking at its core. This issue is clearly one with multiple explanations due to the wide range of events that have occurred under a huge number of circumstances. This thinking must be changed as it limits our ability to solve some mysteries in the hopes of coming up with some fantastical monolithic explanation for every related mystery. So, accepting that there is likely a wide array of explanations to this notoriously abused topic will be absolutely key to successfully studying it and destigmatizing it in our culture, and especially within U.S. military and intelligence circles.

  3. In a video where an old abandoned mine was being explored the people with a death wish type curiosity (the explorers)  noted that the mine was cut into what had been a volcanoes pyroclastic flow. I'm not sure what had been mined but it looked like a conglomerate rock bed, lots of large rocks with smaller and even dust type grains holding it all together. The commented the eruption had been many millions of years ago but later on they found remains of trees in the rock. 

    Would these wood fragments still been wood? They asserted they were but they didn't get samples which almost made me think they should have been beaten to death with a volcanic rock. The material certainly looked like wood and even splintered like you would expect wood to do. 

    Could they have still been wood after millions of years? The mine was very dry, no water dripping or running like most mines. They also said the pyroclastic flow had been topped with several meters of lava as well.  (at least I think they said that, it's been a few years since I saw the video. 

    There guys to these abandoned mine videos and never take samples, I would require a dump truck to hold all the samples if I was doing the exploring. 

  4. 1 hour ago, IDNeon said:

    I literally cited it in 2 separate sources. Go back and listen to the Navy's lecture on the matter.

    The Russians refitted the hull with an entirely new flight. So I'm not sure what you're claiming? 

    The Kirov from the Soviet Union no longer exists. They pulled the hull. Refurbished it. Gutted all its hardware and weapons.

    About the only thing still Soviet on it is the Horse Jaw Sonar.

    China is currently using the Liaoning just fine. Maybe you need to stop watching Military Defense News YouTube channel.

    Would be hard to do since the Peter the Great is in the Arctic Sea.

    The Peter the Great wasn't launched until 1996.

    I guess you reveal your massive ignorance not realizing that Kirov is a class of ship and I'm not talking about the eponymously named of the class.

    I'll continue to get my analysis from experts. Not from Jane's which is just pulp fiction.

    If we think Navies are trash because their ships catch fire what does that say about your views of the US navy then?

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53450469.amp

    You think my Citation of the US Navy's own rear admirals should be rejected because it's on YouTube?

    Citations:

    Kirov class capabilities:

    Future USN Fleet composition. Increase of SSGN capacity with VPN replacement and increase from 12 to 40 cruise missiles:

    Dunno how more plain I can be.

    AFAIK you tube videos are not citations, your mileage may vary.  

  5. 3 hours ago, iNow said:

    Very difficult, but with a bit of sandpaper or a shooting board (and a metric assload of patience) you can likely get super close.

    As studiot mentions, the type of plywood involved matters, too. Avoid OSB, and even some of the cheaper plys found at Lowe’s/Home Depot etc. Get a type made of better wood more commonly used in furniture making from a dedicated wood store, but even then your risk of tear out and splintering is high. 

    https://www.popularwoodworking.com/article/the-genius-of-miter-shooting-boards/

     

    Would marine plywood be better? I am thinking of making an octagonal aquarium out of plywood. 

     

  6. 4 hours ago, iNow said:

    Technically, I already have. Thanks, though 

    ROFLMAAO

    On 4/30/2021 at 9:42 PM, farsideofourmoon said:

    The main point in that article is posted below.

    “The discovery of this new fossil suggests to us that the evolution of multicellular animals had occurred at least one billion years ago and that early events prior to the evolution of animals may have occurred in freshwater like lakes rather than the ocean.”

    This finding does not in any way bridge the gap between monkeys and humans.

    Ape.jpg

    It's sad that you have been indoctrinated so strongly that the two words "missing link" can only mean one thing when in fact, even in evolutionary biology, "missing link" can apply in a great many ways to things both in and outside biology. 

    The OP does indeed not bridge the gap between monkeys and humans. To be sure mating with an ape would be a difficult task but the chromosome difference between humans and Gorillas, Bonobos, Chimps, and even Orangutans is far less than the difference between horses and donkeys yet they do produce offspring. I would be surprised if a mating between Humans and Chimps or Bonobos wouldn't produce offspring. The problem is that most scientists have a moral code that would prevent such a thing from being done. 

    One of the most important things about science is that when you stop believing it it doesn't go away.    

  7. On 4/30/2021 at 3:05 PM, joigus said:

    Thanks for the tip.

    I'm especially interested in the pre-Cambrian. Obviously the key to life is there. I'm not sure, as you, because of the word "unnecessary", that another nail in the coffin will do much to convince creationists. As someone very far from an expert, I would very much like to have a map of the territory, so to speak, of those Archaean seas, lakes, and puddles, and the events that took place.

    The precambrian facentates me as well, far to many people assume the world began with dinosaurs, but before the reign of those terrible lizards some really fascinating and complex animals existed and the precambrian was definitely through a glass darkly..  

  8. 9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    Apparently, Putin's security messes up the GPS signal wherever he is for some distance around him.

    Sounds like a job for a 100 megaton nuke. 

  9. 8 hours ago, Enthalpy said:

    A single impactor needs guidance, possibly after the initial acceleration if the target has some agility and detects the missile start. A salvo of mirved missiles by a single truck could release dumb impactors against some targets and guide only the initial acceleration. A salvo of 8 000 impactors against an aeronaval group can use impactors of plain solid metal, which can't be fooled and offer some resilience.

    It has been demonstrated against ballistic nuclear missiles, yes.

    One advantage of kinetic impactors is that they are dense and fast, hence difficult to destroy and deflect. Shrapnel will do little against them. Think of them as a long thin cones of plain steel, chromium plated, like 1m long and 0.1m wide, slightly hollow at the rear, arriving at 4km/s.

    The other advantage of the assailant against the defender is cost. The salvo of 8 000 impactors costs maybe 50M$ in series production. At that price, a laser or antimissile doesn't destroy a single impactor.

    Rods from god? Not to be confused with "The Rod of God Ministries

    What I am seeing is that a huge well armed, well armored with both passive and aggressive defences, nuclear powered platform might be viable. It could also carry fuel in very well armored storage and even make fuel with electricity provided by it's reactors, to fuel surface ships to extend their range. 

  10. Is slower than light warp drive possible? Maybe we are passing up a possibility that would open up the solar system without the negative mass required to go faster than light?

    I couldn't find much on the idea but Sabine Hossenfelder mentions it in this video at about 02:30.  

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/abdf6e

     

    Quote

    Conceptually, we demonstrate that any warp drive, including the Alcubierre drive, is a shell of regular or exotic material moving inertially with a certain velocity. Therefore, any warp drive requires propulsion. We show that a class of subluminal, spherically symmetric warp drive spacetimes, at least in principle, can be constructed based on the physical principles known to humanity today

     

  11. On 4/23/2021 at 8:52 AM, Enthalpy said:

    I suspect the cited Wiki article is complete cr*p. Either written by a waco or intentionally by some state agency to fool the enemy.
    Dynamic_armour
    I want to see the hyperfast electricity source capable of evaporating even a tank flechette - much bigger is possible. Worse, I want to grasp why a vaporized flechette is less penetrating than a solid one. The metal's strength plays no decisive role when a kinetic impactor penetrates an armour. If electricity shall disperse the flechette's mass over more area within tenths of microseconds, it demands more speed hence energy than the round has provided, in itself difficult, and vaporisation increases the pressure of the impact too.

    The other proposed protective measures, including the cited Trophy
    Trophy
    all need a slow small flechette launched by a battletank, but against a valuable battleship, faster bigger rounds would be used.

    I've been telling for years that fast big kinetic impactors can be built. Just a truck can launch a low-tech 20t missile that flies above the atmosphere and falls on the target. 16t of safe powder give 3.8km/s to the remaining 4t metal that have 700km range, prior to any optimization and staging. That's 20* more squared speed and 200* more mass than the battletank flechette. Or the truck can launch many missiles like a Katiushka did, and each one can be mirved, and the impactor designed to spread when piercing the first metal, so the holes below the waterline are bigger. More efficient, because a ship's armour doesn't need such a huge impactor.

    Maybe this is the kind of missiles the Chinese built after I suggested it. Anyway, this is the style of weapons against which I want to read an armour of any kind, because a big ship deserves such big weapons, and even bigger ones.

    The defence against the impactors should also be cheaper than the weapon. Presently, anti-missiles are hugely more expensive, because their target is more difficult to aim at. In a race between dumb mirved kinetic impactors and many super smart aiming anti missiles, the assailant wins.

    Until this threat is neutralized, all big surface ships are complete nonsense to my opinion. They were weapons in the mid-20th century, in the 21st they are only targets. This includes aircraft carriers. Insofar submarines aren't detected yet, they still make sense.

    Let me if I understand you, you are saying that kinetic impactors cannot be defended against in a reasonable way? Are such kinetic impactors as effective against a target that moves? How much more powerful would a laser defence have to be that what we already have to defend against such a weapon?   

     

  12. 8 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

    What did you think about the purported physical evidence that they discussed?  This section is at timestamp: 1:18:00.  Dr. Jacques Valleé (PhD) and Dr. Garry Nolan (PhD) analyze the results of a multibeam ion imaging scan of several purported metallic fragments from a UFO.   This device can analyze substances down to their atomic structure.  

    Nolan stated that the results of the scan showed the isotopic composition of the elements in the metallic fragments did not match anything that exists on Earth.  To paraphrase Dr. Nolan:  "Whoever made this material created it at the atomic level, working with individual isotopes, and not just elements."

    My question:  Is there any technology that anyone is aware of that can construct a synthetic material by manipulating individual isotopes? 

    Dr. Nolan's credentials here:   https://profiles.stanford.edu/garry-nolan

    Here is an article explaining the technology they were using:  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20753-5

    (Images below)

     

    Screen Shot 2021-04-16 at 09.19.33.png

    931669060_ScreenShot2021-04-16at07_27_30.png

    If the results Dr. Nolan got can be replicated it will be difficult to dismiss this out of hand. 

    16 hours ago, beecee said:

    Mostly I bypass documentaries on UFO's or UAP's as sensationalistic junk...mostly, not all. I will certainly try and watch this particular doco, as I have just watched a preview. As I have said previously, and as the question was answered in that preview, yes, some of the more notable  unexplained sightings should be thoroughly investigated, by all means at our disposal. I see it is on "Prime Video" if not I will certainly get my Son, who is educated and learned in IT, to get it for me. 

    In saying that, my built in cynicism and sceptism, keeps telling me and asking me the many questions I have mentioned in this thread, as to why they, visiting Aliens [if they exist] do not make their visitation official.

    It is puzzling that they don't just warp into orbit and simply say "we're here" but alien motivations may not be similar to ours. On the other hand we do communicate with ants and they don't seem to recognize it. 

  13. On 4/12/2021 at 9:12 PM, Alex_Krycek said:

     

    Quite a fascinating documentary was released back in 2020 called "The Phenomenon", directed by James Fox.  Makes a very compelling case that Earth has and is being visited by some unknown intelligence.  

    Personally I think it's extremely naive to conclude that in our universe another intelligent species would not develop the means of interstellar travel before us.  An anthropocentric bias, so to speak.  Modern day geo-centrism.  

    I watched "The Phenomenon" last night, I have to say it was the best UFO documentary I've seen. It blowed my former fav out of the water and then some. It had lots of footage of people who ere involved back in the day and other footage I had never seen. I thought I'd pretty much seen them all but this one resets the bar. 

    It really too bad it's not on youtube so we could go through it by timestamp, lots of interesting things to discuss! 

    I would ask anything here who wants to discuss the UFO subject to watch this video, really great stuff and relatively unbiased, "just the Facts ma'am" (vague TV reference, Dragnet" 

  14. 2 hours ago, beecee said:

    Perhaps by some. And perhaps, the facts that so many reported sightings, kidnappings, anal probings etc, by less then reputable sources, could have "biased" the view/s of some scientists. 

    Again, personally I have not made a study or really researched any of this subject, but two cases do seem extraordinary without any real explanation....the Nimitz tic tac one, and another in Africa somewhere involving some school children, the landing of some craft and emerging of little green men. What are your views on these two? and do you have any other worthy of unbiased total scientific inquiry?

    The Zimbabwe school kids report is puzzling for sure, I've read attempts to explain it as mass hysteria or school kids fantasies but such explanations would seem to fall short so far. 

    The Tic Tac is puzzling but it has an air of some sort of military test more than extraordinary technology to me.

    The 1952 Washington, DC sighting is, I think, one of the most inexplicable sightings and it also showcases the dishonesty of the military at the time in how they tried to explain it way with things like temperature inversions when in fact it had multiple independent eyewitnesses, multiple independent radars, Air Force pilots, interaction with air force jets, commercial jets, and even had the president demanding to know what was above the white house. 

    The Coyne sighting as it is known was seen by the crew of a military helicopter and people on the ground and remains inexplicable as well. 

    The Japan Airlines sighting over Alaska is yet another interesting sighting and is still debated today as to the particulars. Considerable disagreement over how the government reacted, differing accounts of the sighting, and a supposed cover up make this one interesting but also confusing. 

  15. 2 minutes ago, beecee said:

    I'm all for complete scientific inquiry into that percentage that remain as UFO, obviously also as reported by reputable individuals and intriguing and unexplained evidence that tend to support it. But also while not an expert in this area, I would have presumed that such inquiry/investigations have taken place.

     

    Here is where most of my problems with the status quo come in. There have been some private studies by scientists but since the two main ones I am aware of suggested there is something to study at least but were dismissed out of hand by many in the scientific community due to the conclusion. Not as far as I or others have been able to show due to the evidence or lack thereof. J. Allen Hynek is probably the most famous scientist who supported the idea of extraordinary technology from place else. He started out as a debunker for the USAF but ended up, if not a believer, at least thinking something extraordinary was going on. 

    Some members of the science community pretty much poo pooed the entire idea out of hand which I always thought was somewhat less than scientific. Many scientists from this group participated in ridiculing anyone who suggested otherwise. 

    One study, The Condon Report, is thought by some to be the definitive study on UFOs but others cite problems with the methodology of the people involved, see Low Memo. 

     

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

    Low memo controversy[edit]

    In July 1967, James E. McDonald, a confirmed believer in the validity of UFO sightings, learned from a Committee member about a memo Low had written on August 9, 1966, in which he reassured two University of Colorado administrators that they could expect the study to demonstrate that UFO observations had no basis in reality.[15] McDonald, after locating a copy of the memo in the project's open files, wrote to Condon, quoting a few lines from it.[2]

    In response to the memo, on April 30, 1968, NICAP severed its ties with the Committee and Keyhoe circulated copies of Low's memo. Press coverage included an article in the May 1968 issue of Look, "Flying Saucer Fiasco", that presented interviews with Saunders and Levine, detailed the controversy, and described the project as a "$500,000 trick."[16] Condon responded that the article contained "falsehoods and misrepresentations."[17] Scientific and technical journals reported the controversy.[18] Representative J. Edward Roush said the Look article raised "grave doubts as to the scientific profundity and objectivity of the project."[19] He held a hearing dominated by critics of the Project.[20] Low resigned from the Project in May 1968.[21]

    Some later critics of the Committee's work saw little reason to make much of the memo. Committee member David Saunders wrote that "to present Low as a plotter or conspirator is unfair and hardly accurate."[22] Project investigator Roy Craig's later wrote that the memo did not trouble him because Condon had not known of the Low memo for eighteen months and it did not reflect his views.[23] Condon wrote in the Project's Final Report that the memo's description of the Project as emphasizing the "psychology and sociology" of those who report UFO sightings showed how completely Low misunderstood the Project when he wrote the memo.[24]

    There have been scientists who supported the idea of UFOs as extraordinary and others who do not. 

    My own take on this is that a unbiased scientific study has yet to be done. 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.