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.

 

What is your criteria for identifying a legitimate UFO/USO?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


Study physics yourself and see if you can do anti-gravity. Good luck with that. It's almost like some of you know very little about science and physics. We can't just do anything.

Seriously anti-gravity is about as amazing as aliens.

Seriously if I actually saw a man made craft capable of complete manipulation of gravitational fields or anti-gravity system my mind would be utterly blown. An alien standing in front of me would be about equal with that.
edit on 19-9-2013 by JimTSpock because: spelling



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


Thing is has there been any actual proof the TR3B actually even exists?

Hey I believe its real personally, but given all the info and where its come from theres nothing showing such a machine has ever existed outside of conjecture.

Heck the TR3B may simply be an explanation made up to explain things as the sightings you mentioned.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   

BigfootNZ
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


Thing is has there been any actual proof the TR3B actually even exists?

Hey I believe its real personally, but given all the info and where its come from theres nothing showing such a machine has ever existed outside of conjecture.

Heck the TR3B may simply be an explanation made up to explain things as the sightings you mentioned.



I have seen photographic "ufo" evidence that looks a hell of a lot like a tr3b. Whether that constitutes proof in the age of photoshop, I will maybe never know.


JimTSpock
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


Study physics yourself and see if you can do anti-gravity. Good luck with that. It's almost like some of you know very little about science and physics. We can't just do anything.

Seriously anti-gravity is about as amazing as aliens.

Seriously if I actually saw a man made craft capable of complete manipulation of gravitational fields or anti-gravity system my mind would be utterly blown. An alien standing in front of me would be about equal with that.

Scientifically speaking anti-gravity is about on par with warp speed or faster than light craft or teleportation.
According to Einstein's general relativity it is not possible. But he was wrong about a few things so there's still hope. Our current standard model of physics does not include anti-gravity unfortunately. But one day it might I hope.
edit on 19-9-2013 by JimTSpock because: add


Im leaning more towards Einstein being wrong. I think the standard model is incomplete and as the sub-atomic world proves, it doesnt even apply in that world.

There is so much we think we know, we sometimes become complacent.
Wasnt it Lord Kelvin, president of the Royal Society 1890-1895 that stated we had discovered everything, there is nothing more to learn?
See my point?
edit on 20139America/Chicago09pm9pmThu, 19 Sep 2013 16:48:54 -05000913 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


Of course the standard model is incomplete, it has many problems, such as singularities which are not modeled correctly. We are still working on a unified theory which will unify general relativity and quantum physics.
Here's your TR3A not sure about the B. As you can see it's not anti-gravity it has wings and jet engines and was a cancelled project.

www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


0-5000mph in 1-3 seconds after seeing it hover for a few minutes with no noise



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   

JimTSpock
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


We are still working on a unified theory which will unify general relativity and quantum physics.


That cracks me up every time I hear the scientists explain that one.
Just the thought of explaining the whole universe with a simple "beautiful" equation makes me wet myself with laughter.

No I was talking about the tr3b, not the tr3a, and not to forget the many other projects we know nothing about.

Heres my personal UFO experience.

Around 6 years ago I was sitting in my work van near to City Airport in east London. Was looking up at the sky watching the planes do their circuits preparing to land, when I noticed a bright light high in the sky far in the distance. Didnt really think anything of it, just thought it was a star in the daytime until....
A smaller light "fell" out of the main bright white light, the smaller light was red at first and it seemed to just fall. After about 5 to 8 seconds it started to light up bright white, and then it just went off into space.
My "explanation" is that it must have been a "craft" leaving a "space station" and heading off into space, because thats what it looked like. I could well be wrong, but I swear, thats what I saw with my own 2 eyes.
I had my work colleague with me, and as soon as I saw the red light fall, I said "wtf?", at which point we both got out and saw it.
The main bright white light stayed for a few hours, or more, but i had work to do and couldnt keep track of it.
edit on 20139America/Chicago09pm9pmThu, 19 Sep 2013 17:22:30 -05000913 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   

OneManArmy

JimTSpock
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


We are still working on a unified theory which will unify general relativity and quantum physics.


That cracks me up every time I hear the scientists explain that one.
Just the thought of explaining the whole universe with a simple "beautiful" equation makes me wet myself with laughter...


When they say a "beautiful unified field theory", they are NOT talking about a simple one-liner equation that explains everything as simply as e=mc2 explains that matter and energy have an equivalence. They know a unified field theory will be more complex than that.

However, even if the equations are complex, they can still be "beautiful" (in the eye of the beholder) because they will unify all four forces as different aspects of a single "Superforce" -- and that is a beautiful idea to some.

The idea itself is not complex at all -- i.e., that the four forces (the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear for, electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force) can be unified. The electrical force and magnetic force were once thought to be separate, but they have successfully been unified, and is now known to be a single force (with two different aspects -- electricity and magnetism). There are working theories that attempt to combine the weak nuclear force with the electromagnetic force.

If you put enough energy into a system (such as via an extremely powerful particle accelerator), there is some evidence that the separation between the forces tend to go away. The idea is that the early universe was an extremely energetic place, and in that soup that was the early and energetic universe, there were not the separate forces we see today, but only one -- and that one force was like the parent of those other forces, and (seemingly) separated into the forces we see today, after the universe cooled a bit.

THEREFORE, if all of the forces we see today were born out of a single parent force that existed in the early universe, then they must all be simply different aspects of that single parent force, and can thus be unified by equations.

And that's what makes it a beautiful.


edit on 9/19/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Soylent Green Is People

OneManArmy

JimTSpock
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


We are still working on a unified theory which will unify general relativity and quantum physics.


That cracks me up every time I hear the scientists explain that one.
Just the thought of explaining the whole universe with a simple "beautiful" equation makes me wet myself with laughter...


When they say a "beautiful unified field theory", they are NOT talking about a simple one-liner equation that explains everything as simply as e=mc2 explains that matter and energy have an equivalence. They know a unified field theory will be more complex than that.

However, even if the equations are complex, they can still be "beautiful" (in the eye of the beholder) because they will unify all four forces as different aspects of a single "Superforce" -- and that is a beautiful idea to some.

The idea itself is not complex at all -- i.e., that the four forces (the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear for, electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force) can be unified. The electrical force and magnetic force were once thought to be separate, but they have successfully been unified, and is now known to be a single force (with two different aspects -- electricity and magnetism). There are working theories that attempt to combine the weak nuclear force with the electromagnetic force.

If you put enough energy into a system (such as via an extremely powerful particle accelerator), there is some evidence that the separation between the forces tend to go away. The idea is that the early universe was an extremely energetic place, and in that soup that was the early and energetic universe, there were not the separate forces we see today, but only one -- and that one force was like the parent of those other forces, and (seemingly) separated into the forces we see today, after the universe cooled a bit.

THEREFORE, if all of the forces we see today were born out of a single parent force that existed in the early universe, then they must all be simply different aspects of that single parent force, and can thus be unified by equations.

And that's what makes it a beautiful.


edit on 9/19/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


The theorists I have seen describing a unified theory is exactly a simple uncomplicated equation.

I will be honest with you, your argument has been the most impressive description I have seen to date.

But your argument also makes some assumptions...
1. That the big bang is a reality. Thus everything is from a singularity.
2. That we can quantify gravity. I have read recently that it may not be the constant we are led to believe, same with the speed of light.

I do not understand neither of the nuclear forces so cannot comment on those.
Surely we would have to also quantify dark energy/matter because wouldnt they also be a major factor in the unified theory as they are used to plug the gaps in the standard model?

I would lean more towards wave theory or the electric universe. I think we are actually living in a simulation, but thats just down to instinct and a history of being a programmer and nothing much else.

Sorry, I apologise for derailing this thread. I will cease and desist right away.
But soylent, firstly great name, and it was a great movie, and great description of a unified theory, for a layman such as myself.
edit on 20139America/Chicago09pm9pmFri, 20 Sep 2013 13:27:28 -05000913 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


Something that is capable of flying faster than a bat out of hell --- so to speak --- I would tend to speculate... a technological aerial wonder that can travel around 15,000 mph in our atmosphere, including submerged speeds of 220 knots.

For ET alien daylight OP's in our our atmosphere/hydrosphere...the classic disc shape, which supersedes anything we have on Earth --- save for the classic Frisbee.

For otherworlder nighttime OP's in our atmosphere/hydrosphere....different colored plasma power level's : from the high-power --- bluish-white --- to the down and dirty --- red-orange fusion plasma --- that has the capability of scaring the hell out of everybody.

Cheers,

Erno


edit on 20-9-2013 by Erno86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
This basic terminology has always bugged me. If it is a UFO or USO... it is only one thing we can use in speaking or referring to it.

By definition it is either: an Object either Flying or Submerged, and that both (also by defintion) are UN-I-DENTIFIABLE.

That makes the whole question un-answerable. Why? Because, as you asked here....they BOTH...are UNIDENTIFIED!!!

So my criteria is simple: if both cant be identified, there-in lies the answer. They can't be identified.

Kinda like that cassarole my wife baked Tuesday....



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   

mysterioustranger


Kinda like that cassarole my wife baked Tuesday....


LMAO.

Gotta love unidentifiable food.
Takes an adventurous guy to marry a woman that cooks like that, you're a better man than me.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   

JimTSpock
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


Study physics yourself and see if you can do anti-gravity. Good luck with that. It's almost like some of you know very little about science and physics. We can't just do anything.

Seriously anti-gravity is about as amazing as aliens.

Seriously if I actually saw a man made craft capable of complete manipulation of gravitational fields or anti-gravity system my mind would be utterly blown. An alien standing in front of me would be about equal with that.
edit on 19-9-2013 by JimTSpock because: spelling


You seem to be saying "it is technology far beyond what humans can figure out -- therefore it must be alien".

My point is that if aliens can figure it out, then why not humans? If you believe an alien can make a technology (inertial dampeners/g-force compensator/whatever) that allows it not to not suffer bodily harm due to g-forces, then why do you feel that technology is beyond human understanding.

I'm don't necessarily believe humans have this tech -- I'm just stating hypotheticals for the sake of discussion.


In fact, let's take "bodily harm due to g-forces" out of this discussion altogether. Going back to what the OP asked, If there was ever a positive no-doubt-about-it identification of a craft that acceleration 0-8000 mph in seconds, then how do we know it isn't an advanced technology (human-made) military robotic drone? -- i.e., a craft with no pilot/reduced concern for g-forces.

I guess I'm trying to address the OP's point about a craft that goes from 0-8000 mph as necessarily being alien (he didn't say "alien", but let's go with that) when we can't assume it IS alien based solely on the fact that it accelerated at fantastic speeds.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Soylent Green Is People

JimTSpock
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


Study physics yourself and see if you can do anti-gravity. Good luck with that. It's almost like some of you know very little about science and physics. We can't just do anything.

Seriously anti-gravity is about as amazing as aliens.

Seriously if I actually saw a man made craft capable of complete manipulation of gravitational fields or anti-gravity system my mind would be utterly blown. An alien standing in front of me would be about equal with that.
edit on 19-9-2013 by JimTSpock because: spelling


You seem to be saying "it is technology far beyond what humans can figure out -- therefore it must be alien".

My point is that if aliens can figure it out, then why not humans? If you believe an alien can make a technology (inertial dampeners/g-force compensator/whatever) that allows it not to not suffer bodily harm due to g-forces, then why do you feel that technology is beyond human understanding.

I'm don't necessarily believe humans have this tech -- I'm just stating hypotheticals for the sake of discussion.


In fact, let's take "bodily harm due to g-forces" out of this discussion altogether. Going back to what the OP asked, If there was ever a positive no-doubt-about-it identification of a craft that acceleration 0-8000 mph in seconds, then how do we know it isn't an advanced technology (human-made) military robotic drone? -- i.e., a craft with no pilot/reduced concern for g-forces.

I guess I'm trying to address the OP's point about a craft that goes from 0-8000 mph as necessarily being alien (he didn't say "alien", but let's go with that) when we can't assume it IS alien based solely on the fact that it accelerated at fantastic speeds.



I think that might add some credence to some people claiming that they are demonic or spiritual in nature.

But by the simple mathematics of probability, it would be insane to think we are the only life in the universe.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   

OneManArmy
...But by the simple mathematics of probability, it would be insane to think we are the only life in the universe.


I personally believe there is almost certainly other intelligent life in the universe (even in our galaxy), based on the sheer size of the universe...

HOWEVER, I am yet to be convinced intelligent ETs are visiting Earth in space ships. Maybe they are, but I personally don't have enough evidence to believe they are.

To me, these are two separate issues.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Soylent Green Is People

OneManArmy
...But by the simple mathematics of probability, it would be insane to think we are the only life in the universe.


I personally believe there is almost certainly other intelligent life in the universe (even in our galaxy), based on the sheer size of the universe...

HOWEVER, I am yet to be convinced intelligent ETs are visiting Earth in space ships. Maybe they are, but I personally don't have enough evidence to believe they are.

To me, these are two separate issues.



I think that there is enough circumstantial and historical evidence to suggest that not only have they been visiting earth for as long as man has been here, they may even be the "gods" of old and may even have "created" us.
My personal opinion is that we are their pet project.
The clues have been there since time immemorial.
edit on 20139America/Chicago09pm9pmFri, 20 Sep 2013 16:44:26 -05000913 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   

JimTSpock
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


Study physics yourself and see if you can do anti-gravity. Good luck with that. It's almost like some of you know very little about science and physics. We can't just do anything.

Seriously anti-gravity is about as amazing as aliens.

Seriously if I actually saw a man made craft capable of complete manipulation of gravitational fields or anti-gravity system my mind would be utterly blown. An alien standing in front of me would be about equal with that.
edit on 19-9-2013 by JimTSpock because: spelling


Exactly.

And what exactly is this test? No, it's not something hovering. The actual experimental phenomena would be

a) alteration in inertia
b) "tabletop" gravitational lensing

Both would be profound physical effects with engineered metrics of the magnitude necessary for warp drive. By the way, this requires an effect astronomically more powerful than what is currently known to exist from general relativity.

To first-order in space-time curvature (so you can parameterize the warp by a scalar field which is not true in general, warping space has a similar effect to altering the vacuum electrical permittivity and magnetic permeability multiplicatively (and in opposite directions). There was a paper from H. Putoff found around here a few months ago to this effect. This makes intuitive calculations easier---pretend you are in Euclidean metric and change these parameters instead.

Now, ASSUMING some magic which doesn't currently exist....what does this mean?

You would get strange optical effects from space-varying permittivity & permeability. You might get significant effects on the fundamental atomic physics because of the gradients. You might get optical emissions if atoms which had electrons in their normal energy states transitioned to regions of modified epsilon & mu which change the solutions of the Schroedinger equation, and not only that but in their path outward from the warp drive area the emitted photons would be affected by gravitational red/blueshifts.

Well, thinking along those lines, let's say that inside altered gravity it means epsilon is altered such that the ground states of atoms are lower energy. So if there is a difference in potential energy, thus matter will be attracted inward towards the regions of curved space, and emit light. So it's a tractor "beam" too if you work it right. It also means that if you turn it on you might be sticking yourself to the ground even stronger, which can suck for trying to meet the Vulcans. If you point the field at high-atomic number atoms like heavier metals when you change the inner electron shells you might radiate yourself with X-rays. (hmm, is this how people get radioactive poisoning from those flying saucer encounters?) And of course you'd need some enormous and compact power source of so far unknown operational capacity. (And by the way, where is the thermodynamically required exhaust from the flying saucers?)

In a nutshell, real warp drive would be an optical and physical freak show. And potentially biologically hazardous; I wouldn't want to imagine the effects on chemical reaction rates in finely tuned biology from changing relative energy states from space gradients of curvature.


edit on 20-9-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-9-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-9-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-9-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Why do you put oblivious to radar or sonar in there, many are seen by radar and sonar. That is not a criteria I would put in there. I think as many have said here what is the bigger question is how do you define a ET controlled UFO. Or are you someone who just lumps them all together.

I don't, I think there are a great many UFO's that are probably things that could be explained that I have no reference for or the ability to find. I have seen both.... UFO that I ended up believing probably had some sort of explanation, like maybe a satelite etc. and ones that I know had to had something controlling it and was not of this planet, because me and the whole town saw it and watched it leave into space lol...

Not gonna go there but just say I think it is not as easy of a question as you put it out. Needs to be clarified and put in another form I think....

the bot



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
- It should not be a visible star, I've learn the north hemisphere's stellar map, don't even try me
- it should not be a shooting star - quick or one entering the atmosphere - bright light moves at the same speed than disappears (burns down), moving in what would appear 'forward direction' to the human eye
- should not be a satellite or ISS - a small light dot crossing the horizon, website can check it did go through that part of the world
- it should not be a Chinese lantern - these floating in the sky lights, I can detect them
- it should not have a blinking light - airlines, planes, helicopters
- it should be doing maneuvers that no helicopter or airplane can do - drastically changing direction, releasing object(s) around it that also rotate and float around it - that would not be typically conventional..
- 3 lights in the sky that appear and disappear forming a triangle (e.g Tinley Park, IL and others of that kind)
- it should land, hover 20-500 meters over the ground, visible to humans, duh
- stop a car, breaks or disturbs a device, causes injuries (Cash & Landrum case)

So far I haven't met anything that I cannot identify or that is nothing of the listed above, so I've never seen a UFO no matter if man-made yet alone any UFOs that defy human technology



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
My criteria since my last really good sighting of an actual, nuts and bolts ship:

Sucker has to be hovering/ parked no less than 30 feet from me, and I have a working camera to aim at it. I will occasionally see a mystery light, and if it intrigues me enough I will snap a pic of it, for all the good it'll do.



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by wylekat
 



I have two recent cases to put under test:

Case#1 Daytime: Almost static object spotted from 3:20pm to 5:42pm 09/27/13, that is 2 hours and 22 minutes! Drifting slowly west, moving against the wind, visible only in IR, I tried to spot it using binoculars and I was unable to see it. These are some segments of that video capture, in this footage I present first some standard objects as reference and to have some "visual calibration" in identifying an object, the main point in this case is that this object was oblivious to the wind and was drifting against the wind, visible on two cameras for 2 hours and 22 minutes when it got hidden behind clouds:



Case#2 09/27/13 Nighttime: Multiple Fastwalkers, using generation 3 NV, watching this footage you need to use HD to see all fine details, these objects are very faint:


edit on uf2013fSaturday462013-09-28T12:46:47-05:00k47 by ufoflicks because: (no reason given)







 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join