It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Correct, at the end of Fravor's sighting in 2004 he asked the other pilot who was observing from above what happened to the Tic Tac, and the other pilot said it disappeared, and there was no radar tracking between there and where another radar signal appeared. So logically there's no reason to conclude it traveled between point A and Point B at a high speed when there's no visual or radar trace of anything between A and B.
originally posted by: Jukiodone
I'm a bit TTSA'd out so havent revisited but seem to recall any alleged radar tracked movements were made by inferring Position A at start time and Position B at end time- not actual radar tracking of the transition between.
This would be entirely doable (as I think you've already pointed out in this/another thread ) by having 2 or more manifestations.
So I don't know what the distance was exactly and how possible it is to make the plasma re-appear at the CAP point from a single source by just turning off the beam and re-aiming it somewhere else.
CDR Fravor commanded the radar through the Short Range radar set and asked for a picture from Poison. Poison initially reported that the “picture was clean” (no contact) but then stated “you’re not going to believe this, its at your CAP” meaning that the AAV had flown to their training CAP, which was located in the southern end of the training area and had climbed to approximately 24,000 feet.
Even if that's true, I think there has been research along those lines where "promising" results have been obtained but it doesn't mean it actually works. Those experiments can deal with things near absolute zero which can cause experimental errors with things as trivial as air currents related to thermal flows because of the extreme temperature gradients that can be misinterpreted as positive results, so even if someone told Fouche something I don't accept that means anything more than another false positive test due to experimental error. Even NASA seems to have fallen into the experimental error trap when claiming positive results for their tests of the "impossible" EM drive, so if that was classified someone could tell Fouche something about the EM drive, but that doesn't mean the EM drive works!
originally posted by: DirtyBizzler
If you believe what folks like B****m have posted here, someone obviously told him something.
Somehow we are not communicating.
In regards to particle beams, I personally don't think this is that. There would have to be a coordinated effort between multiple platforms for the multiple beams needed to create the plasma bloom. Unless we're going into the far out realm of things like using exotic optical mediums, phase conjugation, and photon time-reversal for instantaneous beam correction, it would have to be rather powerful and very close to avoid atmospheric distortion/dispersion.
Any kind of particle beam would make more sense than a solid, physical craft, so I'm open to other types of particle beams besides protons. What kind of particles do you think are possibilities if not protons?
There is also the significant speculation in other threads about other particle beam-related happenings in 2004. Seems like a proton beam would be a waste of time when a better alternative was already operational.