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.
originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
This technology is the reason that objects can go from stop to incredible speeds without G-force causing crushing conditions.
And no physical laws are being broken.
Hey this just my opinion based upon personal experience with several facets of this issue.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
originally posted by: Phantom423
Hi - Thought I would chime in with a couple of comments and questions.
It might seem strange using a modern video camera which has much better low light sensitivity, but back in the 1980s low light sensitivity of consumer grade camcorders was poor, so I don't find it strange, I just presume the UFO was a lot brighter than the stars. Also recall the whole moon hoax theory that claims you can't see stars in the photos or videos so the moon landing must be a hoax, but it wasn't a hoax, so photography is not that simple.
First, it seem strange that Lazar's video doesn't pick up anything in the background like stars, planets.
Second, a still image of the object isn't that different than a proton beam used in medical therapies. Below is an image from this paper: iopscience.iop.org...
I didn't know it was 3 degrees but that might explain why Fravor's fighter didn't pick it up on radar but maybe the dedicated radar plane which wasn't limited to 3 degrees apparently picked up something, actually about 9 somethings that day.
As far as radar is concerned, my other half who flew F4 Phantoms and was a Top Gun instructor says that the radar in conventional fighters had a 3 degree aperture and was calibrated to a very narrow frequency.
I am not sure exactly which article you are referring to, but one of the huge problems in this case is the unwarranted assumption that the video is the same object Fravor saw. The radar plane radar picked up about 9 objects that day, possibly one thing that Fravor saw and maybe 8 or so other UFOs. Then Fravor and his wingman (wingwoman?) left the area, without having made any video. Fravor had a camera ready to go with a helmet mounted switch which he could have easily turned on, but he didn't think of that, so he left without getting any video, and both Fravor and the pilots on the other plane lost track of the UFO Fravor was investigating. The other pilot remained at 20,000 feet so they could get a "birds-eye" view of what was going on below and Fravor asked them what happened to the UFO and they told Fravor that the object "disappeared".
After reading the article about Fravor's observations, I would question the instrumentation and measurements made from that video. It's an anomaly, but their results and conclusions are still speculative. What do you think about their conclusions?
You're absolutely right about that, however listen to time index about 38 seconds when you hear them say "Did you see that move it did?". That does not appear to be camera shake and the audio suggests real movement. I don't see any particular reason to doubt that they could be video recording a proton beam test, in the unedited beginning of the video.
I uploaded the video from YouTube to one of my programs and used a stabilization app to remove some of the shaking. It looks like at least some of the movement was from the camera itself.
I think the resolution of the video is a bit low to be doing much further analysis other than the two points above, and I am not convinced about any time lapse where you can hear the audio, since the audio seems to sync with what is being observed, such as at the 38 second mark. After the audio disappears it's no longer the original video, it's the same thing being replayed at different speeds, talking about this video:
And as I mentioned previously, I think there was a time lapse element in the final video that made the object appear to be moving around very fast. The polynomial mapping appeared layered but that's what the technology does - map layers of an object. So nothing new there either.
No doubt there are some utterly ridiculous "analyses" of the video, but I'm not even sure it's Lazar's video exactly, I suspect it was made by one of his friends, possibly Gene Huff, or else John Lear, and I don't get the impression they were in on Bob's hoax about it being a flying saucer, only that they were victims of it since they were told it was a flying saucer even if Bob Lazar knew it was a particle beam test.
I think Lazar's video is a hoax. I could make a list a mile long of questions about that video starting with where exactly were they positioned relative to the object when filming? The data he provides, even in the polynomial mapping video, is ridiculously absent of any content or context. The guy isn't a rocket scientist.
Once again I don't think over-analyzing a video with such low resolution is going to tell you much and there are some poor analyses available which make lots of bad assumptions.
Another question I had was the object appeared to generate a purple section on the bottom. Purple is the shortest wavelength that humans can see as it actually is in the UV range. The rest of the object appeared as white light with some transparent cross sections. The polynomial images didn't show any layers at the bottom. However they edited the image, they did a lousy job.
I have a lot more reason to believe it could be a proton beam test than a flying saucer, that's for sure. I can only hope if it's a proton beam test, someday that might get declassified so they can admit that what it is. There's no way I can believe what Lazar says when he's obviously lying about so much.
Anyway, just my opinion. It ain't a flying saucer, however. Of that, I'm sure.