Giant UFO's

a reply to: tigertatzen

Depends on what was described I think. I always find explanations like swamp gas, Venus or weather balloons rather asinine and overdone at times and i'll dismiss those altogether.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

This is what *some* people thought the Hudson Valley Triangles *could* have been. People flying ultralight aircraft with lights attached.


I personally never bought that theory about that particular case though.

There's plenty of 'a priori' proclamations all OVER the spectrum of opinions, on some very crucial questions. I'm wondering if those assumptions might be subjected to empirical assessment. The previous poster's comments seemed very open-minded about this.

Going in, I try not to be the kind of evaluator who attributes unusual perceptions to malfunctions or failures in the witnesses, to hallucinations or optical illusions or such. Just the opposite -- in cases where I hypothesize that a perceived event departed significantly from the raw visual stimulus, it seems to me the witness's perceptual process was functioning entirely normally. Part of that function -- we've all experienced this -- is to cue up from previous experiences objects/persons/processes each of us is already familiar with, to get the 'answer' quickly in case it's hazardous or rewarding.

Our ancestors who took too long recognizing either type of sighting, usually didn't live long enough to reproduce. Practicality demanded SPEED, with an acceptable error rate that was far less dangerous than NOT recognizing the apparition.

In particular, I vividly remember my own experiences walking in crowds in New York City and elsewhere where, as I habitually scanned oncoming faces, a familiar face appeared -- only to dissolve in front of my eyes a second or two later into an altered face of a stranger, a face I saw more clearly as I neared it. I was keyed to jump to such conclusions because over time I really WOULD by chance occasionally meet familiar people walking the sidewalks and subway platforms.

So I really wondered about what sort of experiment -- deliberate or opportunistic -- might provide 'double-blind' testing of the frequency and degree of misidentification and what, if anything, could be expected about the NATURE of the misidentifications.

You can guess where I'm going, please come along for the ride.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

I have to agree with you there...my brain just automatically starts to close off when I hear "weather balloon". It's almost comical though, to see that there are still people out there who think that's a plausible explanation.

maybe some big balloon...

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

The one question I have is why are there no sonic booms?

If the theory that they would have zero mass is true, they would not compress the air and create the shockwave...and even if they did have physical mass of some kind, it would likely be of a completely alien molecular makeup; they wouldn't be bound by our laws of physics, or else they wouldn't have been able to travel here in the first place.

It's not mass that cause the BOOM it's a pressure wave .

A sonic boom is the sound associated with the shock waves created by an object traveling through the air faster than the speed of sound

Even an object with very little mass can cause a sonic BOOM

The crack of a supersonic bullet passing overhead is an example of a sonic boom in miniature.

A picture you may like High Speed

U.S. Navy F/A-18 within the sound barrier. The white cloud formed by decreased air pressure and temperature around the tail of the aircraft

a reply to: Bloodydagger

Has anyone noticed how poor the aerodynamics most of these supposed craft have? It is completely inconceivable that such a great mass, with horrible aerodynamics, could fly through the air without causing storms and intense weather, by means of their own influence on the local atmosphere. The air should grow warmer ahead of them, colder beneath them, and slowly return to normal behind them. This ought to cause unusual aerodynamic phenomena, such as artificial clouds and precipitation. Does anyone have thoughts on the relevant aerodynamics of these great craft?

Great OP and Topic. Good question.

If I would have to guess what they are I would say something holographic maybe? or something that goes into that direction maybe?

They have a technology to disappear when they wish. As others mentioned If they were fully physical the only place to hide would be somewhere deep under the Sea (or Space of course)

Has anyone noticed how poor the aerodynamics most of these supposed craft have? It is completely inconceivable that such a great mass, with horrible aerodynamics, could fly through the air without causing storms and intense weather, by means of their own influence on the local atmosphere. The air should grow warmer ahead of them, colder beneath them, and slowly return to normal behind them. This ought to cause unusual aerodynamic phenomena, such as artificial clouds and precipitation. Does anyone have thoughts on the relevant aerodynamics of these great craft?

well If they would be 'holographic' none of that would be a concern lol

a reply to: tigertatzen

If the theory that they would have zero mass is true, they would not compress the air and create the shockwave...and even if they did have physical mass of some kind, it would likely be of a completely alien molecular makeup; they wouldn't be bound by our laws of physics, or else they wouldn't have been able to travel here in the first place.

Hiya TT, this is where it pays to be careful; it's too easy to explain UFOs using ufology.

Let's say one of these sightings involved a ship as described by witnesses? It's a clearly mechanical, technological object that has been constructed somewhere using alloys, plastics, metals etc. We might also speculate that on-board this ship are a population of Folk from Elsewhere. They could be AIs or flesh and blood with the first requiring power and the second requiring a breathable atmosphere and food/water. The AIs or inhabitants would have a 'back story,' the cultural and political history that defined them just like we have - they will have evolved from basic tool use to grand-scale projects.

The hull of the ship would have to be sealed just like our aircraft and space shuttles are. It would have to displace air whether it was made of an unknown alloy or not. If it 'popped' into our atmosphere, it would have to displace air and would have to be shielded from materialising and finding a flock of birds or light aircraft embedded in the structure or passengers.

These elements suggest they originate from worlds that abide by the same environmental pressures and physical laws as ours. The ship would have to comply with the laws of physics in our universe. It's tempting to throw some quantum physics in there (lots of researchers do) and, no doubt, an advanced technology will have bridged the gap we still face between general relativity and qp. The thing is, no matter how weird qp can be, the wider universe still exists according to the laws of physics.

Obviously there are plenty of 'dunno' factors, but these are some reasons why the 'massive ship' sightings leave me looking for more terrestrial explanations.

a reply to: Eagleyedobserver

Why bother to appear in the first place, why have exterior lights simple things like that don't add up.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Eagleyedobserver



Why bother to appear in the first place, why have exterior lights simple things like that don't add up.

These questionsd seem to lead in a useful direction.

The lights are seen. Witnesses are consistent in that.

Is anything else BEYOND the lights real? Or does the formation of lights in the dark sky trigger mental memories that 'fill in the blanks' as normal perceptual processes are SUPPOSED to do automatically and consciously unnoticed.

If only there were a category of precisely-documented events that CREATE fast-moving groupings of bright lights in the night sky that startled ground witnesses are exposed to [for the first time in their lives], where we could gather their perceptual impressions before any exposure to supposed 'explanations'.....

If only.... [you can guess where I'm headed, drum roll please....]

a reply to: tigertatzen
Freedom of speech, sweetheart.

What i've been leading up to, is my invitation to read my report at www.jamesoberg.com...
about a 1963 Russian report of a fireball swarm over Ukraine with dozens of illustrations.



Several slides from my report:

-- A significant subset of world UFO reports consist of LARGE quiet slow-moving craft mounted with lights and emitting trails
-- More than merely statistical, they are among the most spectacular “unsolved cases”
-- Speculative prosaic explanations that involve formation-flying bright objects [aircraft or meteor fragments] require a significant degree of eyewitness mental misperception, defying common sense
-- This report persuasively bridges that gap in a broad and visually compelling manner

Characteristics of night reentry fireball swarms
•Multiple bright objects; some may go on or off
•Swarm spread can be LARGE – 40-50 degrees
•Unchanging relative positions [‘formation’]
•Dazzle of brights dim out background stars
•Totally silent, but often casts moving shadow
•Horizontal flight path, may seem to veer
•Up to 60-90 seconds to cross sky, 60 miles up
•Different flaming pieces may give varied colors
•Sometimes light beams project randomly
•Coincidental witness-centered events noticed

How does this pertain to “UFOLOGY”?
•The degree of perceptual elaboration of many reports defies ‘common sense’ and ‘a priori’ would be patently incredible if suggested for a UFO
•Only faced with a thoroughly documented range of perceptions for a subsequently fully-explained stimulus, is it ‘believable’. It CAN happen because it DID.
•1963 event may be the most important double-blind “control experiment” in the history of UFO studies, and it was completely accidental – and overlooked.
•Its application to OTHER reports of large structured silent light-equipped craft is both unavoidably obvious AND revolutionary in its implications

a reply to: wmd_2008

It's not mass that cause the BOOM it's a pressure wave .

Yes, I know what a sonic boom is. And in order for that shock wave to occur and result in a boom, something with physical mass, traveling faster than the speed of sound, has to be there to compress the air. Therefore, if a craft has zero physical mass...or at least not mass that is subject to our laws of physics...the air does not compress and there will be no sonic boom. I am not talking about an object with "very little mass". I am talking about no mass whatsoever.

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: wmd_2008

It's not mass that cause the BOOM it's a pressure wave .

Yes, I know what a sonic boom is. And in order for that shock wave to occur and result in a boom, something with physical mass, traveling faster than the speed of sound, has to be there to compress the air. Therefore, if a craft has zero physical mass...or at least not mass that is subject to our laws of physics...the air does not compress and there will be no sonic boom. I am not talking about an object with "very little mass". I am talking about no mass whatsoever.

Don't you mean 'volume', not 'mass'?

My whole family saw a ufo while camping, it wasnt massive but it started to shine like the moon and sped off, very interisting.

As to massive ufos planetoids could be spacecraft, we are moving through space rather fast, does anyone know where earth/the solar system is headed?

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
My whole family saw a ufo while camping, it wasnt massive but it started to shine like the moon and sped off, very interisting.

As to massive ufos planetoids could be spacecraft, we are moving through space rather fast, does anyone know where earth/the solar system is headed?

it takes the sun approximately 225-250 million years to complete one journey around the galaxy’s center. This amount of time – the time it takes us to orbit the center of the galaxy – is sometimes called a “cosmic year

a reply to: JimOberg

Don't you mean 'volume', not 'mass'?

Did I? Mass is the measurement of how much physical matter an object is made up of, while volume refers to how much physical space an object takes up, correct? If two objects of the same volume take up the same amount of physical space, yet one is heavier, the heavier one would need to have more mass than its counterpart for gravity to act upon, if the gravitational force is constant on both, yes? Like two balloons with the exact same circumference, length, etc. but one has water inside while the other one has only air...the water gives it more mass for gravity to act upon and therefore it is heavier, right? Or someone who wears a size 6 and weighs 130lbs, but does weight training for six weeks and then weighs herself again, only to find that though she still wears the same size, she is now 15lbs heavier...she added more lean muscle mass, which adds weight without adding volume to her body.

And mass means that an object physically exists...it has weight in the presence of gravity, it is tangible, yes? So, volume would have no bearing on whether or not something traveling faster than sound would cause a sonic boom to occur...supersonic projectiles, big or small, heavy or light, are all capable of creating that shockwave because they have physical mass, but something that has zero physical mass (or is made up of some type of matter that is not affected by our constant gravity and therefore is utterly weightless in our environment) is not going to physically affect the air it is traveling through, and so would not be able to cause a sonic boom, correct?

No, I don't think i mean 'volume' at all. The amount of physical space the craft would take up was not what I was talking about. I'm talking about a craft that, despite its enormous size, would not physically affect the air that it is flying around in. I'm talking about such a craft having zero mass...this was suggested earlier by a few people in answer to the question of how such a huge ship would be able to stay aloft in our skies; either the thing has no mass or is made of a type of matter that our gravity has no effect on.

a reply to: tigertatzen

RUBBISH why do you think aircraft are shaped like they are or rockets or cars attempting land speed records it's not mass .

Fast moving objects are STREAMLINED to travel through the AIR or WATER quicker by reducing air resistance basic BASIC SCIENCE.

a reply to: tigertatzen

Interesting 'thought experiment', it's how I was taught physics, and you have the right building blocks.

Imagine an aircraft full of water making a sonic boom, then a hollow fuselage at the same speed -- is the force of the sonic boom diminished? Less loud? Then imagine a hollow shell of super-light super-strong material, holding a vacuum, but rushing through the air at the same speed. Will it's sonic boom be almost zero, or instead, just as loud as the lead jet?