It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Giant UFO's

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 03:11 PM
a reply to: Kandinsky

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.


Yes, you are right...and I agree with you actually, about the terrestrial origins. I posted about it yesterday somewhere back there...that the term UFO doesn't mean something is of extraterrestrial origin--and I think that causes a lot of confusion and misunderstanding...and is the source of much of the animosity in discussions like this. Too many assumptions are made...from both sides of the debate. Basically:

As for me personally, I do believe we are not alone and that we have been (and likely still are, periodically) being "visited". But though I love to speculate and throw different "what ifs" out there, I cannot think of any good reason why an alien race would have giant ships up there, quite possibly of such technology that they can even camouflage themselves with a convincing facsimile of our sky...convincing enough that almost everyone on the planet does not notice the difference...and just hang out, hovering above us without doing anything or having any apparent goal in mind here. It just makes no sense. An advanced race of off-world beings would have an agenda of some kind...friend or foe, they would have a reason for being here...same as we would, were the roles reversed and we were the "aliens".

I believe these ships are real. I also believe that there really are also many sightings that can be explained away. I've been criticized for being "on the fence", for not picking a side...but what is so wrong with believing that more than one thing is possible? We were not meant to be so narrow-minded. We were meant to use critical's how we grow as a civilization, how we learn.

I think the real danger is in people becoming too assuming in either direction...I call it "Chicken Little Syndrome". If every single anomalous thing up there were of alien origin, we'd be overrun by now...yet I know people, some of them very close to me, who insist that if it's a UFO, it's got to be aliens. They get belligerent about it too...simply refusing to accept any other possibility. It happens on threads here too, all the time.

What I invariably say to them is, if every single thing that occurs in the sky is purported to be the work of extraterrestrials, and despite hard evidence to the contrary, you insist that there is no other possibility, who do you think is going to believe you when you actually do see something alien? The flip side is also true...if every single sighting is dismissed right off the cuff and ignored, any alien race who wished to do us harm could waltz right on in and no one would take it seriously enough to stop them in time, because they'd automatically assume it was just phony BS.

I just want the truth. I don't care if it's ordinary. However, it needs to be the actual truth...not just someone being dismissive and trying to shut me up or attempting to degrade and mock me into silence because deep down, they're afraid that I'm right. I have certain very strong beliefs about things that will not change until I have a plausible explanation that can be tested and proven, but other than those few things I am choosing to remain objective...there are many possibilities out there.

I like to speculate, use my imagination and play around with different's entertaining to me and keeps my brain busy. But I don't think every UFO is from other worlds, and it is not my intent to come across that way. It's why I say "if" this were true. Because, whether I believe it or not I can't refute that there is a possibility that it is true. In the case of the giant craft in our sky, I believe people saw exactly what they say that they saw. However, I don't think they are alien vessels. I think we made them, and we are piloting them...and I think it is very likely reverse engineering from vessels that crashed here, mixed with our own tech. I have very good reason to believe this is true. And I want to know why. I think they are being kept secret for a reason, and I don't think that reason includes anyone's best interest...and that is simply gut instinct. If they were being used for some beneficial purpose, they would not be secretive about it.

That is my opinion, and until something occurs to make me think differently, that opinion will not change. But no, I do not believe that they are extraterrestrial, although it is fun to speculate, as well as informative...I learn a lot from these discussions. There is no one in my immediate world who would take the time to discuss things like this at such length and in such detail, so I've got to get my fix somewhere.

edit on 31143America/ChicagoFri, 14 Aug 2015 15:14:39 -050031pm31225America/Chicago by tigertatzen because: grammar matters

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 03:23 PM
a reply to: Legionlong

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.

Can you elaborate please, on the aerodynamics and why they are not suitable? I would have thought that boomerang or cigar shapes would be constructed for that making a vehicle more streamlined.

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:04 PM

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.

It would appear that you are, once again, speaking to something that has nothing to do with what I said. So, I'll say it yet again. Please, try to pay attention :

1) I am not talking about aircraft...but even if I were, all the streamlining in the Universe will not keep them from creating a sonic boom if they are traveling faster than sound, so what is the point of bringing that up? And you're half right about the reason for their shape. They also have to have balance to maintain altitude and the shape corrects that, keeping the center of gravity stable and balancing the weight on the wings to get the proper lift to be able to fly.

2) Anything, given the right conditions, could technically become a "fast moving object". Apparently, whoever constructed ships like these don't much care about them being streamlined...yet they can move pretty fast if they want to, according to witness reports.

3) What does reduction in air resistance have to do with a sonic boom from a UFO? What does it have to do with the mass of an object relative to Earth's gravity? Nothing. Even if you type it IN ALL CAPS, it remains irrelevant.

4) I don't know what kind of BASIC SCIENCE you were taught, but mass does affect flight, streamlined object or no. Why do you think air traffic controllers designate huge airplanes as "heavy"? Because their weight affects how they fly. The more mass they have, the heavier they are, and "heavies" create quite a bit of turbulence, which is dangerous for smaller craft, so the traffic has to be directed accordingly, to give them a wide berth. And they do not retain the same mass because part of their total mass is the amount of fuel they're they fly, that amount changes. That's why the pilots trim the plane, to adjust for the change in mass.

But, as I said, I wasn't talking about airplanes. I was talking about an enormous hypothetical UFO the size of a football field, which is the topic of the thread. Someone asked why there are no sonic booms from these things. I offered a theory, based on other possible factors that had been suggested by other people earlier in the thread, specifically that a ship such as that does not have any mass. And if they don't, if they are completely weightless here in Earth's gravity, that could be an explanation as to why they create no sonic booms. It has nothing to do with their shape. An object does not have to be a certain shape to create a sonic boom. All it has to do is travel faster than the speed of sound. It has to do with their weight. Which is the force of gravity acting on what? Their mass. So you can stop obsessing about airplanes now. The end.

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:14 PM
a reply to: tigertatzen

I think you've chased the hare far off into the forest.

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:40 PM

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.

Fascinating discussion overall in this thread (besides a few wise crackers that want to be smart , not You
). I am more of a reader than contributor but this one I wanted to address.

Why do You assume they ( if they exist) would want to be hidden or not hide ? What I am getting at is that they might simply not care at all, one way or another. They have lights because that's how the ship is build. They have lights because those lights have another purpose, other than exterior lighting as we understand it. They have lights because the ship is build for atmosphere interaction and needs lights to be visible, so that somebody does not fly into it. Those ones with lights (because who said that those sightings with lights are all there is, maybe that is only 5% of crafts around the globe) are performing an experiment in which lights are needed for some purpose. Or they have lights because thy like lights ,like we like fancy wheels on cars (a bit joking here but You get my point) .

What if they simply do not care
? Think about it this way, do You care that the ant farm that You set up in Your home has a glass window and ants (theoretically) can see You
? No You don't, because You do not care what the ants think about You.
edit on 14/8/15 by Thill because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 05:53 PM
a reply to: JimOberg

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?

Ok. From what I understand, the force of the sonic boom would be more intense if the craft is heavier, because of the amount of accelerated air. But I'm not sure about the sound of it...correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it have to do with the length of the craft too? Because the cone would stretch out further? That would make the boom sound less loud because the air compression would be not as tight. Kind of like a slinky...if you dangle it the coils separate instead of springing back together? If it only depended on the weight and not the length, I'd say it would be very loud for the one with water, and not as loud for the hollow fuselage.

And I don't know about the vacuum thing. If something was falling from a great height inside a vacuum I don't think it would be able to reach terminal velocity because it would counteract the drag, so it would keep accelerating. But a flying craft under propulsion, I'm not sure. I would think that the same thing would happen and the craft would have no air resistance, so it would just keep accelerating and probably hit such a high rate of speed that there wouldn't be much of an actual noise. But if the cone is automatically going to get really tight from the speed, it might be that the vacuum would just finish it off, suck up that air and make it to where there is no sound at all.

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:02 PM
a reply to: JimOberg

a reply to: tigertatzen

I think you've chased the hare far off into the forest.

You're right. I'm done now. Thank you

posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 08:59 PM
I am a physics major at one of Canada’s better universities. I still have a few more years to go, but I do seem to have a better grasp of physics then the average folk.

So in this regard of the possibly of large space craft I have a few things to say.

In regards to sonic booms, Nasa and I am sure other groups, have already developed designs that cancel out sonic booms of aircraft traveling at multiples the speed of sound. These methods are mostly mechanical and are not exploiting more exotic or advanced methods potentially possible form QM and other non-classical theories. Some of the scientists/engineers for the Nazis in world war 2 where already close to some such designs (I was actually reading one of their papers the other day).

Advanced interstellar traveling ETs that I am sure would be hypothetically way smarter than us, using say let’s assume some method of accelerating mass in a non-convention way (to us), could also easily use said method to manipulate not only the mass of their craft but also the mass of the fluid the craft enters (the air in this case). If they can move metal, why not air? They could potentially have in their design say some field that gathers and compresses the air that would be displaced, then after the craft passes the zone, or leave, rerelease the gathered compressed air in a controlled fashion, therefor having no traditional expected effect on the wind/fluid environment.

Currently NASA and other groups are investigating what tends to be called “Field Effect Propulsion” methods. That seem to defy the conservation of momentum. I have been reading a bit up on these; which interestingly brings up a conversation I had with one of my Physics Professors in first year about the consequences of QM in certain cases.
I had presented him two cases of hypothetical thought experiment on entanglement. Case 1 was a cases of particles being entangled a certain way in which their momentum was unknown, (can’t go in to details as I had to draw it out), and that at the end the sum of the momentum traditionally must be conserved, but because of this, the momentum in the super state at certain points therefore must be determinable, and therefore broke the uncertainty principle. Assuming momentum could not be conserved, however he replied saying that the momentum would not be determinable, which would then imply the momentum would not be conserved.

I then presented case 2 using the same principles that built case 1, but build a model that would result in the results of a classical none QM set up, and he said well in this case, momentum would be conserved, because momentum has to be conserved, I then showed him that case 2 was in fact the same as case 1. He then replied that in Case 1, the rules didn’t hold arbitrarily because they did not make sense, “unless momentum was conserved”. So, this kind of pointed out a hole in QM, as QM was traditionally understood, (Note he was not a QM specialist).

So I then looked up the case in the research paper data base, and found that a few months prior a paper was published regarding a formal version of the issue of the two cases I had presented to my prof, and they did come to the same conclusion, that in case 1 momentum must be conserved. However, this left open, and unanswered open problem for a consequence of QM, that momentum can be non-classically transferred and potentially left in super sates. Which might actually explain the phenomenon of momentum not seeming to be conserved in the field effect propulsion methods.

In order to explore this further I would need grounding in Field Theory which is still a bit a ways from me time wise. In the future, I plan to look way more into all of this, and if I find anything interesting post it on ATS.

However the point of this is that ETs being more advanced, might be able to make technology that seems to break physics but that doesn’t actually break physics (Because we humans clearly do not now all of physics). Meaning they might be able to do things that seem impossible, but actually aren’t.

So in a way we have to keep an open mind, and cannot rule out say a large UFO sightings by saying ”well conventional physics says this must cause this effect therefore that case must not be true”. Basically skepticism is good, but you still need to consider that fact that we don’t know everything, and we cannot arbitrarily rule out something because it does not fit in what we currently know.

edit on 14-8-2015 by halfmask because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-8-2015 by halfmask because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 12:30 AM
Although extremely rare, very large UFOs are sometimes reported. There is no real limit on size with the alien ships. Their warp field renders them immune to gravity. Thanks to our reverse-engineering effort, we too can now nullify gravity. The terrestrial TR3-B is estimated to be about 300 feet across. The best reason for the usual smaller disk-shaped craft is that they are less noticeable, better to observe us with.
a reply to: Bloodydagger

posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 12:40 AM

originally posted by: Parthin96
Although extremely rare, very large UFOs are sometimes reported. There is no real limit on size with the alien ships. Their warp field renders them immune to gravity. Thanks to our reverse-engineering effort, we too can now nullify gravity. The terrestrial TR3-B is estimated to be about 300 feet across. The best reason for the usual smaller disk-shaped craft is that they are less noticeable, better to observe us with.
a reply to: Bloodydagger

i believe magnetics plays a large part in all of it..on your other part i suppose you could view the smaller craft as reconnaissance, heck we do the same exact thing. Were not a few of these picked up on radar?

posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 01:19 PM
a reply to: tigertatzen

In relation too sonic booms and drag:

If the Foo Fighter has a magnetically encased plasma shield around it's hull..."The plasma gives the high pressure an escape route to travel around the aircraft instead of coming in direct contact, avoiding the creation of drag and shockwaves."

posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 01:29 PM
a reply to: Itsshuma

The plasma shield simply absorbs any radio or microwaves, rendering the Foo Fighter radar stealthy, but not invisible to a naked eye at reasonable distances; since the plasma shield emits light.

posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:14 PM

This was reported over Kiev in 1963.

Does it belong in the category 'giant UFO' ??

posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:18 PM
Other sketches based on witness descriptions at Kiev. Presumably all of the same large object.

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 06:50 AM
a reply to: Erno86

What a load of BS talking as if you know what foo's are & how they work that's if they even exist.

Using your theory the plasma deflecting the air would cause a sonic boom just the same.

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 08:48 AM
a reply to: wmd_2008

any one given thought that foo fighters are not physical objects shrouded in plasma. plasma blooms can be created out of the atmosphere by triangulating lasers or microwaves. the blooms are mostly spherical.

plasma blooms in turn radiate their own radiowaves and electric fields which can induce magnetic fields with in objects. sounds useful as an electronic countermeasure. can probably with enough power steer the bloom around as fast as you can aim the triangulated lasers.

what if during ww2 the allies though of using radar like a bat uses sound so their bombers could see where they were going. what if the Nazis thought of using the radar differently and created these plasma bloom "foo fighters" to zap or knockdown the incoming allied bombers. maybe they had limited success but the idea was a good one and it bloomed into a whole new type of technology and tactics.

as for NASA and the major aerospace contractors trying to build boom less aircraft. that it correct. bet they are along pretty well in their research.

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 09:52 AM
a reply to: BASSPLYR

"WHAT IF" can be used to claim anything, I would rather deal with ACTUALLY IS .

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 10:20 AM
a reply to: wmd_2008

well there actually is plasma bloom technology. thats not debatable.

military uses it for ECM.

probably for a lot of other stuff too.

i know they use it like an air spike to cavitate air away from high speed aircraft.

they also use it to create virtual cowlings in front of engine intakes like a supercharger to force more air in the intake.

i know they also have created pep weapons that create a plasma bloom on target. the plasma bloom can create EM fields within the target and stun them, or kill them. can probably induce anomalous reactions in the individual like memory loss.

ever wonder what abductees are getting hit with when they say they saw a bright white flash and then they were out. ever think maybe that bright white flash is mostly in their head and its the exact moment they are blasted with a PEP their neurons on over load.

bet they can use it on low power and broadcast RF that will disrupt memory ie..."missing time."

perhaps even elicit responses like forcing the subjects brain into a trance or panic or ellation. ever notice witnesses to ufos often get just those responses.

plasma can do some funky things. that being said I feel foo fighters were early attempts at plasma bloom ECM.

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 11:06 AM
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Got any links to this that are not conspiracy sites or fiction !

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 11:30 AM
a reply to: wmd_2008

let's start with Google. &ie=UTF-8 &ie=UTF-8#q=laser+induced+plasma+blooms ed=0CCEQFjAAahUKEwjDwcTZxLDHAhWGo4gKHd1cAYA&usg=AFQjCNEGRKj_24dquoz6tIj1JhVQKxsLug&sig2=sXovukWD3v0dTX7VNQyh4Q
edit on 17-8-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in