It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

AIAA AV21 Presentation

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2021 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Want to watch presentations about the UAP subject from some incredibly bright minds?
Doctors, Physicists, Engineers, Pilots and other scientific minds?
Check out the below video.

Some of the brightest minds out there - even a few of us from the SCU (which I’m also a member of)

If your looking to move away from the Greer types of absurd fantasy and want to listen to a scientific breakdown of some of the most well known UFO events, check this out.

Oh and Ryan Graves even discusses his encounters with the grey cube like anomalies.




posted on Aug, 27 2021 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Macenroe82

Can you summarize what is special? Any special conclusions? Can't watch videos because I am on a emergency mobile tether and already down to EDGE speeds, other's may have similar obstacles with video.
edit on 27.8.2021 by ThatDamnDuckAgain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2021 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

To be honest each presentation brings something unique.

Graves describes the cube in the sphere UFO encounter in great detail. Confirms that they were seen daily by many other Navy pilots besides the ones that came forward.

Ravi Kopparapu from NASA, describes the speeds of some UFOs - being able to travel from 80k ft to sea level and the forces that would put on the pilot. Shows us how we can achieve those speeds...And turn ourselves to jello haha

Peter Reali breaks down the amount power needed to achieve the manoeuvres witnesses claim the tic tac made (Gigawatts)
And that it demonstrates forces as much as 40Gs

There’s so much excellent information in the presentations - what I find interesting might not be what others find interesting. But there’s something for everyone in there.

One dude shows 2 flir videos from different angles of an airliner being followed by a triangular object. The plane showing up hot and the UFO colder than the atmosphere around it.


ETA: Graves presentation begins at 1:29:25
edit on 27-8-2021 by Macenroe82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2021 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Macenroe82
Want to watch presentations about the UAP subject from some incredibly bright minds?
Doctors, Physicists, Engineers, Pilots and other scientific minds?
Check out the below video.

Some of the brightest minds out there - even a few of us from the SCU (which I’m also a member of)

If your looking to move away from the Greer types of absurd fantasy and want to listen to a scientific breakdown of some of the most well known UFO events, check this out.

Oh and Ryan Graves even discusses his encounters with the grey cube like anomalies.



Excellent video! Actual scientists who run circles around the paid monkey shills like little Mickey West. Graves makes an excellent observation regarding the highly abnormal target aspect of the UAPs at the 1 hr 36 min mark. Target aspect is typically predictable and smooth. What he and the other pilots were witnessing followed none of the usual and customary target aspects.

Someone please let little Mickey (Arbitrageur) know of this video so he finally has a clear understanding of what real science is as well as what actual fighter pilots are trained on.

Thanks for posting.



posted on Aug, 29 2021 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Type1338

Yeah, it was great.
I can see it not being for absolutely everyone. There's a lot of jargon and numbers in there that the usual thirdphaseofmoon viewer may find difficult to comprehend. haha



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Macenroe82

Any serious research on UAPs is always welcome. However, I cannot reconcile some of your statements with the adjective 'serious'. For instance:




"the forces that would put on the pilot... we can achieve those speeds...And turn ourselves to jello"


You seem to unjustifiably believe the object is manned. Let's suppose it is: you still seem to unjustifiably believe the crew is human-size, because only then would they get killed under such acceleration forces. However, if they were the size of a domestic fly you can accelerate to 40 or 100 G-force and the fly will be kicking and happily living.

Flies inside your car will never be slammed against the rear window, no matter how much you accelerate your car. G-forces start affecting the crew depending on the size and shape of their body.

Let's suppose you still wish your incredible flying vehicle to accelerate to 100 G's, and let's assume you wish your crew to be humans. They could still happily survive: suffices for you to fill the interior of the cabin with water. In general: you simply need to be detached from the vehicle's structural frame to withstand without problems the acceleration forces you are reporting. Convince yourself by just watching a fly inside your moving car. Be careful though not to crash your car while looking at the fly: the fly will survive (again). You won't.

This means your UAPs' incredible maneuvers are 'incredible only under the condition they are manned by human-size life forms undetached from the airframe, something absolutely inadsvisable. But if they are not manned, or manned by little beings, your UAPs are perfectly feasible and working according to physics. The other possibility is that they are manned by humans, detached from the airframe. The question on whether humans can fly their planes without being physically connected to the airframe has a positive answer: just fill your new toy with highly oxygenated water. Or simply use any of the technological offers available relying on liquid breathing technology.

So no, there is nothing like 'impossible maneuvers that would kill a pilot'. Everything is possible if it is according to physics.

Quite a different thing is whether the airframe would be able to sustain such strong forces without catastrophic structural damage. The answer again is: it depends on the money you wish to invest in your toy.



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Direne

You should invest the time and watch and listen to the video. The math is presented which dispels your theory we somehow possess the capable tech to achieve such maneuvers. Also, if you have some links to airframes known to withstand the maneuvers and speeds as witnessed then please feel free to share.

It has nothing to do with the size of a pilot. It has to do with mass. The Earth's gravitational field strength (g) is 10 N/kg. This means that for each kg of mass, an object will experience 10 N of force.

Assuming "flies" are not piloting the UAPs then , yes, they would be turned to Jell-O. However, that's assuming they are piloted directly versus remotely.




edit on 30-8-2021 by Type1338 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2021 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Type1338




This means that for each kg of mass, an object will experience 10 N of force.
Acceleration due to gravity, which has nothing to do with acceleration due to changes in velocity.


However, that's assuming they are piloted directly versus remotely.
Does this mean it must be built by ET?

edit on 8/30/2021 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2021 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Type1338




It has nothing to do with the size of a pilot. It has to do with mass.


Hmmm... no. It has to do with the ratio of the pilot's mass to the mass of the aircraft, plus the viscosity of the medium separating the pilot's body from the airframe, which is the only thing in your system accelerating. See, if you could float somehow inside a huge object, no matter how much does the object accelerate you would notice nothing. Ask the mosquito flying inside your car.

But if I extract the air inside your car, creating a vacuum, the mosquito will slam against the rear window, unless I shrink its size some order of magnitude. The key thing here is the ratio between the size of the beings inside any vehicle and the size of the vehicle itself.

What I wanted to pinpoint is that the word incredible is never used in physics. We do not talk about the incredible speed of light, or the incredible small size of the eta particle. We talk about physical properties without using adjectives which are subjective in nature. In my opinion, a good phrasing related with UAPs woud be something like they have been recorded to sustain speeds of about X Kms/s instead of we have witnessed these objects to move at incredible speeds. That was my point.



posted on Aug, 31 2021 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Macenroe82
Some of the brightest minds out there - even a few of us from the SCU (which I’m also a member of)
Did SCU ever fix the flawed analysis by Larry Cates in Appendix K (A Video Analysis) of this report where he claims the object in the FLIR video accelerates?

2004 USS Nimitz Navy Strike Group Incident Report

You don't need to be a scientist to create this graph that any high school student should be able to create after watching the TTSA version of the FLIR video, explaining what the azimuth numbers on the display mean. This graph clearly contradicts the claims of Cates in the SCU report about acceleration since this clearly shows no significant acceleration at the end of the video.

www.metabunk.org...


As far as I can tell, Larry Cates completely ignores this data from the on-screen display, but if you think he considers it, please provide the page reference, and possibly even a quote showing where he considered it. But he apparently didn't, and a proper analysis can't be done without it. It's only human to make mistakes, but if there are so many bright people in SCU, why did nobody else catch this embarrassing mistake?

By the way that graph is plotting the sensor azimuth numbers on the display, explained in this screenshot of the TTSA version of the video:

That display data is plotted up until target lock is broken, then the motion is plotted after target lock is broken using the 0.7 degrees horizontal field of view at 1x and half that at 2x zoom, from the SCU report.

As some of you might know, a retired Air Force pilot instructor named Chris Lehto was initially claiming as Larry Cates does that the FLIR video shows acceleration at the end. But Lehto said his youtube comments were filling up with statements like "do the math dummy" and such, which finally inspired him to do the math instead of making incorrect claims. When Lehto finally did the math, he came to the same conclusion as the above graph, that there's no significant acceleration at the end. It's a very simple graph, which again any high school student should be able to create given the explanation of the numbers on the video display.

I read somewhere that SCU received feedback about Cates' failure to consider this angular data in the comments from the public but I haven't been able to find any updated report where Cates has corrected this blatant error of ignoring some of the most important data on the display, for his analysis. The fact that nobody else in SCU has corrected Larry Cates is also rather disturbing. So if I say that my confidence in SCU as a scientific organization is very low, their failure to correct Cate's blatant omission and therefore completely false conclusion is what I'm basing that comment on.

Here is Lehto's video explaining he finally did the math to confirm that the video shows "no sudden moves" as Mick West has claimed:

Chris Lehto and Mick West Discuss UFO Videos

...after subscriber comments I realized I needed to seriously consider his (West's) case and found his math to be correct based on the FOV size information in the SCU report. It hurts to change and retract my views but if we can't change our minds when presented with valid evidence we won't get to the truth. And the truth unfortunately often hurts hah.


So Lehto did refer to the SCU report to get the FOV size information, but he definitely now agrees with Mick West that there's no significant acceleration at the end, contrary to Larry Cates' claim in the SCU report. Anybody who does the math properly will come to the same conclusion. As far as I can tell, Larry Cates completely ignored this very important data, thus his analysis is fatally flawed.



posted on Aug, 31 2021 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Macenroe82
Graves describes the cube in the sphere UFO encounter in great detail. Confirms that they were seen daily by many other Navy pilots besides the ones that came forward.
I watched the full 3 hours, following Chris Lehto's tip to watch it at 1.7x normal speed, it's perfectly watchable at that speed and that only takes 2 hours.

Ryan Graves presentation is definitely the best one. He says he's not a UFO guy and just states what observations were made. By the way there's a patent for radar reflectors with something along the lines of the cube in a sphere technology, that's either an interesting coincidence or maybe it's related. What surprised me though was he said the objects were maybe 15-30 feet IIRC, which was larger than I expected. Unlike the normal unreliable claims of UFO size, that claim is the rare exception where Graves claims there was a frame of reference where the object went between two of their aircraft so they had another aircraft a short distance away for size comparison.

Another part of Graves presentation I found interesting was that the "Gimbal" UFO was part of a formation of flying objects, in the tail position of a delta formation of about 5 other objects. I had never heard that before. So I would recommend the Graves presentation.

I didn't think the scientists were very scientific, I was very disappointed in those presentations. For example the first three speakers seemed to assume that the there was an object that descended from 80,000 feet to 50 feet above sea level in a few seconds. That is not a very good scientific approach. I was much more impressed with Neil DeGrasse Tyson's approach, which is to question everything, and by the way, the captain of the Princeton said he thought the readings coming from 80,000 feet were some kind of artifact of some kind of atmospheric phenomenon. It's hard to imagine how a real object can do that, but do these scientists question the data? I think Knuth's peer-reviewed paper has such caveats as "if the data are correct..." but I didn't really hear him even make that caveat in this presentation, instead he calculated it would have had to accelerate and decelerate at 5000 g's to do that, and all these scientists seem to assume the sensor data are accurate, which is not a safe assumption, even the UAP report mentions that there could be some misleading sensor data.

As Tyson says in this interview with Rogan, nobody saw any objects do that 80,000 to 50 feet in 1 second descent, so it seems unreasonable to assume that such an unlikely occurrence represents a solid object maneuvering. This scientist is asking much more scientifically relevant questions than any of the scientists in that 3 hour video, they all need to watch this and learn something from this man:


6:30 Rogan talks about objects going from 80000 feet to 50 feet in 1 second
Tyson responds '"This is what their sensors told them. You're stating this as if it were a fact"
Then Tyson explains the correct way to phrase it is "We have sensors that told us this is what happened. That's a very important distinction.
Your first question then; tell me about the sensors. But if you say there was this "craft", then everyone's thinking about the craft, and nobody's thinking about the sensors"
Rogan: "They saw it with their eyes too"
Tyson" You can't see something at 80,000 feet."
Rogan "...They didn't see it at 80,000 feet, but they saw it"
Tyson "But they didn't see it at 80,000 feet, that's my point."

So I think all of the scientists in that video need to take a step back and question the 80,000 feet to 50 feet in one second data like Tyson is doing, nobody saw any craft do that.

Knuth is a qualified physicist, but he really needs to educate himself about photographic artifacts. He showed this slide at 49:06, talking about "plasma sheath" the white halo around the Gimbal UFO.


We see a similar halo around these two F-15's which is not a plasma sheath:


The technical explanation for how this occurs is here

One of the most relevant characteristic of the images obtained with ferroelectric arrays, which can be a drawback in some applications, is the halo that surrounds objects having a large contrast with the background (see Fig. 2): bright spots on a dark background will be surrounded by a region darker than the background is and vice versa. The halo is due to the mechanical chopper failing to fully block infrared radiation: a hot source will heat the back of the chopper, and since this secondary radiation is less focused, it will heat the sensor array over a larger area than that of the actual image of the object. It is created when the system electronically subtracts the images with and without chopper obstruction.



It's not a plasma sheath around the Gimbal UFO nor is it a plasma sheath around the two F-15s nor around the human seen in figure 2's left image.

Knuth shows what looks like another photographic artifact, which he assumes is an object moving in and out of the water without slowing down when it enters the water, where he estimates the speed at ~100 mph. I don't have a canned explanation for that artifact like the infrared halo but it looks like an artifact to me and it's hard to understand why a physicist wouldn't question the behavior he describes more than he does, since he has to know traveling through water creates a lot more drag than through air. Maybe he's considering the effects of his fictitious "plasma sheath", but it's really not scientifically valid thinking, since the well known halo artifact is not a plasma sheath.

Lastly, see my previous rant about the SCU paper on Chad Underwood's "FLIR" video, where Larry Cates erroneously calculates acceleration at the end. It looks like Peter Reali, the third speaker in the 3 hour video, also shows erroneous acceleration figures. There is no significant acceleration in the FLIR video, at the end, it's really disappoinging these folks can't make the simple graph I posted earlier which demonstrates that.

edit on 2021831 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




top topics



 
8

log in

join