Beyond Bigelow & BAASS, After AATIP and on To the Stars...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Sublant
Among other things. If a major chunk of funding and resources would've gone to more exotic thing like the Tic-Tac, you could see it, even if you couldn't see the end product.

I didn't see you stating any objections to the disturbance Fravor saw possibly being a submarine. It seems your assumption is that the Tic Tac was an "exotic thing" that would require a "major chunk of funding and resources" might be the reason for concluding a submarine wasn't involved.

Why would I? I don't know what it was. So it could have been a submarine, Cthulhu, whale, you, Bob Lazar or a whirlpool. I don't know.

What I'm saying is, I know what the level of technology of undersea warfare was around the time of the Nimitz incident. I have a pretty good idea who was studying what and what research was given funding and which ones weren't.

If Tic-Tac is ours, submarine fleet has nothing to do with it.

Could it be a completely black budget program from an aerospace company? I guess so, but I have no knowledge of it.

a reply to: Sublant

There is a wave phenomena that is documented in that area thay also only occurs in a few other locations around the world, San Nicholas just happens to be one of those locations.

There are peer reviewed scientific papers documenting this wave phenomena going back to the 60s. There were also studies completed to see if a wave energy generation facility would be feasible there not all that long ago.

But i also agree with you, it's only a possibility out of a list of possibilities.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: pigsy2400

Hey i wonder how fast atmospheric plasma can be formed on a whim...in milliseconds?....if so, then that would mean you could almost get them to travel as fast and as zany as you please.

Its a big ask for an aircraft mounted laser on the basis you'd need to be dumping massive amounts of energy into the atmosphere to get the required excitation in discrete target areas.
Presumably more movement = equals more energy required as each new target volume of atmosphere needs to be excited to the point of producing a filament.


if you had this level of power and laser targeting capabilities on an aircraft.....you'd think they could just zap the incoming missile rather than take a N/1 chance the ECM works?

a reply to: Jukiodone
Although i understand where you're coming from, refinement and methodology has come a long way. There are many factors involved that determine your bang for the buck as blooms can be complex structures. For offensive lasers they went a different route with a different means, although recently that may have changed too utilizing certain more efficient processes. Its possible you presume too much.

Besides ever think that plasmas might be a wider field of application that's not just limited to ECM?

alot of weird new post on the general forum today....my spider senses are tingling.....hmmm.....??

a reply to: celltypespecific

Weird posts where? Here? Care to elaborate. Not on what your Spidey senses whisper to you but some examples of the weird posts.

originally posted by: celltypespecific
alot of weird new post on the general forum today....my spider senses are tingling.....hmmm.....??

Well, they can't be much more weird than:

alot of weird new post on the general forum today....my spider senses are tingling.....hmmm.....??

Weird.

a reply to: pigsy2400

I should imagine that some would need to know, and that those that needed to know would be given a briefing, perhaps with a power-point presentation.

Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Mike Griffin skeptical about laser missile defense on aircraft.

www.thedrive.com...

Might be relevant to some of the theories on the nature and origin of the Tic-Tac.

a reply to: Sublant

What does he know?

Do you even plasma, bro?

a reply to: Cravens
Must be talking out of his a**.

A bit of old navy gossip to make the post longer. During the 1990's there was a navy program which, for lack of a better term, had to do with optical stealth. The premise and proposed research was if not promising, at least interesting. One of the very many things that got cut during the Clinton administration cutbacks was that program. How and when it was cut and some other things happening at the same time, had some in the navy pondering about a possible "optical stealth" R&D
program in another branch (air force) that for whatever reason, got the funds.

a reply to: Sublant

What hes talking about in the Drive article has nothing to do with what the guys talking about in the Forbes article.

a reply to: Sublant

The airforce already had the ground work inherently designed into one of their assets to try the optical stealth thing. Although thats not what it was originally designed for. Hence the air force got the funds.

a reply to: Sublant

DP

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Although thats not what it was originally designed for. Hence the air force got the funds.

Your typical equivocation. Followed by your sophomoric subterfuge.

Please, just spill the beans: you’re attracted to a dogma; dogmatically delusional to a means that subverts reality — subjective to all — attempting to justify a means. A scientific reality, a logical reality, an a priori reality....an objective reality (i.e. economic mobility) that pits against your attempts to perpetuate a myth of insider (i.e. ‘hidden knowledge’) knowledge, for what reason? It’s an anonymous internet board, reasons abound...but your subterfuge (some call it cryptic comments, but I’m pretty sure they’re just being pleasant and not honest) can be found in the the themes and tropes of 1950’s pop-sci. Weak sauce. Be audacious. Brave. Plagiarism works. Ditto with copy and paste.

Come correct, or don’t come at all.

originally posted by: pigsy2400
An interesting Navy patent;

US20200041236A1

Yes, that's interesting.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Hey i wonder how fast atmospheric plasma can be formed on a whim...in milliseconds?....if so, then that would mean you could almost get them to travel as fast and as zany as you please.

Faster than the speed of light? The photons in a laser can't go faster than light, but if for example you move a laser across the moon's surface it's not hard for the laser termination to travel faster than light, without breaking any faster than light speed limit. I know, [citation needed] since some people think faster than light is impossible.

faster than light laser spots
Consider...

the faster-than-light speed of a spot on the Moon's surface caused by a laser that has been aimed at that surface and is being waved around on Earth. Given that the distance to the Moon is 385,000 km, try working out the speed of that spot if you wave the laser at a gentle speed.

It's probably more limited in the atmosphere, but very fast speeds are possible I'd expect, and apparent "accelerations" too, if you change the direction of the laser quickly. Changing directions may be even faster with a charged particle beam which can be manipulated with magnetic fields.

originally posted by: Sublant
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Mike Griffin skeptical about laser missile defense on aircraft.

www.thedrive.com...

Might be relevant to some of the theories on the nature and origin of the Tic-Tac.

That's not exactly what the article says.

What it says is that shooting down small missiles from an aircraft may be possible and in fact that page links to an article where they tested ground based lasers shooting down missiles that they intend to deploy on aircraft:

The Air Force Just Shot Down Multiple Missiles With A Laser Destined For Fighter Aircraft

The skepticism he has isn't directed at all attempts to shoot down missiles with lasers, but at the largest missiles such as the intercontinental ballistic types, but even that capability has been demonstrated with the YAL-1 if the aircraft can get close enough to the launch to destroy it in the launch phase (considered not very practical since launch sites would generally be heavily defended).

originally posted by: Sublant
a reply to: Cravens
Must be talking out of his a**.

Did you notice the article you linked to mentioned that possibility?

Griffin may just be speaking about the present state of the applicable technologies, or he may even be being deliberately misleading to confuse America's opponents, as well.

Is that even remotely possible? Would some official possibly really say something that was deliberately misleading?

By the way, misleading the enemy is the only reason I can think of for some of the "science fiction" patents like the Navy's US10144532B2 patent that have been released. If some of those "game-changer" technologies were real, there's no way they'd be shared openly like that, in my opinion. There are after all ways to keep patents secret, so why would you want to give your enemy the secret to running circles around you? That wouldn't make sense, but getting the enemy devote scarce resources to chasing rainbows would make perfect sense, which means they have less resources to devote to more practical applications.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

My laser pointer is way faster than my cats. Drives 'em nuts.

That wouldn't make sense, but getting the enemy devote scarce resources to chasing rainbows would make perfect sense, which means they have less resources to devote to more practical applications.

Remember that William Cohen speech? The one that "proved" HAARP can make earthquakes.

a reply to: Cravens


You ok man? That all just read like whatever bot you used to write that mess had a short circuit.

Phage

i remember that William Cohen speech made one of my senior year teachers have a meltdown. She came in to class the next day babbling about how the USA just created some terrifying doom weapon called haarp. She was on the verge of crying. It was a bit disturbing to watch. She probably thinks nowadays that haarp is used to activate smart dust in our lungs using 5g for some mind control agenda.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Would some official possibly really say something that was deliberately misleading?

Maybe?

Because the very first report of the object seen was of a disk...

here is what the video was:

It was taken directly from the cockpit camera of one of our ships fighter pilot jets F-18....
The UFO was floating extremely still in mid air, this was 30,000 ft above ground level. It looked literally and i mean LITERALLY just like a disk, no stupid traingles or any gimicky things like Independence Day or whatever. It looks exactly how the goverment wants you to NOT think it looks like. It's simply put, a disk.

After about I say 10 seconds or so the UFO started to move. It moves in ways that we have never seen before, it spontaniously moved in a half circle upward and paused once again. Then it suddenly teleported about five times all over the pilots screen. The movement is instant and cannot be followed. It simply put, is amazing and so fast the eyes cant see it.

There was a bright light and suddenly it dissapeared, out of sight.

Original ATS Post Feb 4th 2007

However a day (29 hours) later the same poster had changed that description in a new post to a more familiar one...

Date 14 November 2004

Two interceptor fighters were directed to a certain location.....

A jet descended down from 24KFT to gain a better view of the object in the water. The jet then spotted an air contact, it appeared to be a capsule shaped (wingless, mobile, white, oblong pill shaped, 25-30 feet in length, no visible markings and no glass) 5 NM west from the object in the water....

Original ATS Post Feb 5th 2007

Even the almost autistically obsessive, Lt. Tim, (who has admirably given up his career as police officer to take a much lower paid freelance role) quotes it in his own blog The Tale of the Tape.

But he omits any commentary on the initial descriptions of the craft as a disk there.

Many others have missed this and will continue to ignore it and the other inconsistencies. But they were the very first details made public. Made just a day apart.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: pigsy2400
An interesting Navy patent;

US20200041236A1

Yes, that's interesting.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Hey i wonder how fast atmospheric plasma can be formed on a whim...in milliseconds?....if so, then that would mean you could almost get them to travel as fast and as zany as you please.

Faster than the speed of light? The photons in a laser can't go faster than light, but if for example you move a laser across the moon's surface it's not hard for the laser termination to travel faster than light, without breaking any faster than light speed limit. I know, [citation needed] since some people think faster than light is impossible.

faster than light laser spots
Consider...

the faster-than-light speed of a spot on the Moon's surface caused by a laser that has been aimed at that surface and is being waved around on Earth. Given that the distance to the Moon is 385,000 km, try working out the speed of that spot if you wave the laser at a gentle speed.

It's probably more limited in the atmosphere, but very fast speeds are possible I'd expect, and apparent "accelerations" too, if you change the direction of the laser quickly. Changing directions may be even faster with a charged particle beam which can be manipulated with magnetic fields.

originally posted by: Sublant
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Mike Griffin skeptical about laser missile defense on aircraft.

www.thedrive.com...

Might be relevant to some of the theories on the nature and origin of the Tic-Tac.

That's not exactly what the article says.

What it says is that shooting down small missiles from an aircraft may be possible and in fact that page links to an article where they tested ground based lasers shooting down missiles that they intend to deploy on aircraft:

The Air Force Just Shot Down Multiple Missiles With A Laser Destined For Fighter Aircraft

The skepticism he has isn't directed at all attempts to shoot down missiles with lasers, but at the largest missiles such as the intercontinental ballistic types, but even that capability has been demonstrated with the YAL-1 if the aircraft can get close enough to the launch to destroy it in the launch phase (considered not very practical since launch sites would generally be heavily defended).

originally posted by: Sublant
a reply to: Cravens
Must be talking out of his a**.

Did you notice the article you linked to mentioned that possibility?

Griffin may just be speaking about the present state of the applicable technologies, or he may even be being deliberately misleading to confuse America's opponents, as well.

Is that even remotely possible? Would some official possibly really say something that was deliberately misleading?
[

Would a government official lie? Yes. Not much of a counter though.

When they agree with me, they tell the truth. When they disagree, they must be lying.

USD(R&E) is "extremely skeptical" in 2020. Make of that what you will.