goj09dale, however, UK policemen are not trained to recognize an (alleged) alien spacecraft. Hence, they expel the same exo-ufoistic guesses and speculation, like every housewife.
UFOBevy, the late Allen Hynak could conclusivly show after had looked into thousends of cases, from all well documented (!) sighting cases, about 99.4% could be explained in the 70's and 80's. For the remaining 0.6% data was still insufficient. Today, we have much better instruments (e.g. high resolution spectrometers, 3D-scanning LIDAR, etc.), but UFoolOgists decline persistently to use it. Otherwise, their business-model with the artificial mistery might collapse quickly.
kcdl great conclusion! Where did I write housewifes would be stupid? I could have written as well as teacher, actress, pilot, dentist or every other human profession, in place of a housewife, who haven't got a forrmal training in the recognition of (alleged) aliens and their spacecrafts. Hence, every UAP-sighting, that involves a conclusion about the ordigin and type of an unknown object is nothing more than a wild, unfounded guess. If a person can't see that, then she/he IS stupid.
@debrainwasher Training has nothing to do with it. It is called a process of elimination. If you rule out natural phenomena and KNOWN man-made craft and it looks as though it is intelligently controlled then you are left with two options: ultra advance human made craft or ET craft. As long as a person accurately reports what they see it is up to the investigator to put the pieces together. If we could only identify things we were trained to identify we'd never discover anything new.
kcdl, elimination is a valid scientific methodology, but limited to determinable aggregates of possibilities. E.g. if you knew, a particular region would only be inhabited by exactly three types of mammals like bunnies, rats and elks and you saw there an antlered animal, you could conclude the elk by elimination, since neither bunnies, nor rats are horned. To solve a real UAP-case, you need additional scientific data, because hundreds of possible & impossible UAP-stimuli are known.
@debrainwasher That is a faulty argument. The process of elimination still applies no matter however many potential causes exist. This is because while there may be many potential causes those causes will fit into broad categories that can be eliminated. It only puts a limitation on what you can narrow it down to. In the case of UAPs you have the problem that there are many unknown man-made aircraft that may have capabilities of which the public is unaware.
@kcdl Once you determine that an object is intelligently controlled that rules out everything except the options discussed previously. The problem is then down to distinguishing advanced manned aircraft, UAVS and ET craft. Obviously the crux of the problem is determining that observed phenomena is intelligently controlled. However there have been cases where the sightings are very close range as with the 89/90 Belgium case, that have been confirmed with radar by multiple independent witnesses.
@kcdl, LOL! If you feel better after a lot of expensive investigative work to narrow down about 400 possibilities [MUFON's current catalogue of UAP-stimuli] to saying 20 or so - do it. You have still an UAP. Even the 'intelligent control' assumption may be wrong, as e.g. many sky-lantern cases demonstrate advection can let appear a whole fleet of such objects as under int. control. Correct is, the number of man-made objects of all sorts is steadily increasing.
@debrainwasher You are assuming that you will only narrow it down to 400 possibilities. You also still seem to be assuming ambiguous stimuli such as the sort that you get from Chinese lanterns. The more information you get the less possibilities you are left with.
The amount of man-made objects may be increasing but how many share the characteristic of intelligent control, seemingly impossible acceleration and manoeuvrability, the ability to hover soundlessly and not produce sonic booms?
@kcdl The point is that you seem to be saying there is no point investigating. This is anti-scientific. The residue of cases that can't be explained but aren't information poor show characteristics that require explanation.
kcdl, who told you, I'd have said there were no point to investigate? My stance is, humans want rather to believe than to know and , ordinary people are centuries away from a stage of evolution, they would come to the idea to discover the true nature behind UAP systematically by appropriate scientific instruments (e.g. spectrometers, 3D-LIDARs, magneto- and gravimeters, etc.). So they will continue to catalogue cases and to take blurry images with zero scientific value.
@debrainwasher I guess we've come to a point we can sort of agree upon. I agree there are "believers" out there that will accept things are face value. I think it is wrong to put all Ufologists into that basket though. Also you have to remember this isn't like a studying a predicatable natural phenomenum. You don't know when or where a sighting will occur and hence it makes using that sort of equipment hard. It also takes money and without people taking it seriously that is hard to come by.
@kcdl If you look into pilot sightings however you will see there are cases where UFO have been detected in several different ways, not just radar but other forms of navigational equipment like gyroscopic compasses. These methods of detection aren't ideal but when you are dealing with an infrequent and unpridictable phenomenon you have to make do.
kcdl, I don't think, we can agree. Exo-ufoism is a steadily growing mass-religion, controlled by UFoolOgists with a well developped sense for a good business. If you were an (alleged) ET, you'd keep yourself in a safe distance from a primitive civilisation, that wanted either to dissect or worship you (or both) , expected infinite energy, life, destruction power - or at least the golden, mind-enlighting probe to be plugged in. This nexus has been recognized by *ALL* nations on this planet. ...
@debrainwasher Yes just like more advanced civilisations here keeped away from less advanced ones on Earth.....maybe it's time for me to throw in a derisive smug LOL.
As I said I agree there are blind-believers but it is true on both sides. You it seems are a believer on the other side. You believe without evidence that aliens will act a certain way and make illogical superficial assumptions. You ignore the evidence or argue against it on the basis of incredulity rather than facts.
kcdl, I am a scientist and not a believer. So I'm used to accept facts by tangible proofs - and not be assumptions. The hard and undeniable fact is, there is not one single accessible, verifyable and unambigous proof, ET visitation took ever place on earth or elsewhere in our solar system. Hence, we have an open hypothesis. Beside, there is something, termed as logic. And this logic allows us to make particular prediction. Since every applicable logic forbids a more advanced species to ...
--- (ff2) ... interfere with the wildlife of a much lower lifeform [Fermi Paradoxon], we can be pretty sure, no benevolent ET will turn up publicly. Until humanity will have reached the stage of technological, social, spiritual and mental evolution, we can turn into a spacefaring species, it will take us a couple of centuries (in the most optimistic scenario) up to millenia. Coincidently, all nations share my humble opinion.
@debrainwasher More derisive loling from me. You made some huge assumptions about the way alien would supposedly act towards a less advanced civilisation. Paradoxically the logical thing to do would be to assume you can't make a purely logical assumption about what they would do. They could be doing things for cultural reason that wouldn't follow any logic to an outsider. One might logically assume that species that had the tech to visit the moon would still maintain a presence 30 years later.
@kcdl part 2. I don't care that "all nations agree with you" beside that being an absurd statement since at most only the representives of all nations could agree with you (and I doubt that, when have ALL nations ever agreed to anything?), it also doesn't make any sense. If you have to capability to travel interstellar distances you aren't going to worry too much about being dissected by a group of primatives. Apart from that my point was it could be either ET or advanced human craft.
kcdl, it might be surprising for you, but there is a supranational organisation, termed UN, in that nations make decisions in a democratic manner. These decisions are implemented, even if nations are in war with each other. And very, very few people know there is even a dedicated office for space affairs: Google for the term "OOSA Vienna" - and be surprised. And yes, there is some knowledge, you are not eligible for. Simply accept that as a fact, you can't change.
@debrainwasher and as I said it is only representatives of those nations opinions. They don't represent the opinion of EVERYONE in their respective countries. Beside which opinions don't mean squat.
kcdl, feel free to pay a presence on moon and you have it. Or can you show us an ET? It shouldn't be an insult, but that subjective perception of logic, ordinary people believe to be able to apply is rather far away from scientific logic, that is derived from physics (e.g. entropy-state), chemistry, biology and math. And since natural laws are valid everywhery in our universe, the logic behind can be regarded as universal (to be taken literary).
@debrainwasher Who says that an alien species will use purely objective logic to decide whether to visit another planet? Purely objectively speaking there is no reason to believe that existing at is better than not existing. It is only evolution that has left us with emotions that makes feel living is better than dying. If aliens have emotions they will make decisions that aren't purely logical. Curiousity, which I suspect all tech advanced species have would be enough reason to visit.
kcdl, again, if advanced intelligent species existed, and visited us and wanted to enter into an open relationship with humanity, they did it already. Since no such incident happened for the past millenia, either, these beings don't exist, don't visit earth, or we are simply not ready to be accepted as socios inter pares. [Fermi paradoxon] Whatever of these compenents is true or wrong, the outcome (no ET will shake your hands) will remain the same. That's scientific logic.
... (ff 2) After the cold war, it was decided on a supranational level, nations should mothball (and cease) their involvements in SETI and UAP-reasearch for the next centuries. Consequently, all nations released their entire archives of UAP-reports into the public domain and shut down public fundings ostentatiously. All these steps have been fully implemented yet. Now, UFoolOgists can take over the topic and are welcome to play their role as useful idiots to perform free cover-up works for...
... (ff3) real advanced military crafts, UAV and other projects. And finding the reason behind a particular UAP-sighting is rather a matter of (nonexistent) scientific education and a correct reaction - but not of frequency. E.g. an ordinary CD or DVD is enough to serve as a diffraction grating get a spectrogram (a rainbow-image). One single frame of a 10 min. video were enough. Final conclusion: Simply forget the whole ET-topic for the next centuries.
@kcdl, LOL LOL LOL again! Not the amount of possibilities or propabilities, but tangible, unambigous proofs are the missing link between hypothesis and facts. Without additional unambigous scientific data, an UAP reamains an UAP - as the state of ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis) can't be changed, without one single (!) accessible, verifyable and unambigous proof for ET visitation on earth - or elsewhere in our solar system. I ask to pardon me, but I have no idea, what a 'seamingly impossible..
(ff 2) ...acceleration and manoeuvrability' could be. if that was a mystical exo-ufoistic insider-concept, I had to disappoint you, since this terminology is outside of my expertise. From physical point of view, momentary acceleration is defined as the first derivative of speed vs. time a(t)=dv/dt, and there is neither a limit for a, nor for any manuouvers, as far as your final velocity wouldn't exceed c (speed of light). Meteors cn produce sonic booms too, BTW.
@debrainwasher I said NOT produce sonic booms. Prof. Emile Schweicher (he is real and still active) looked at the RADAR data from the Belgium ufo case and described the accelerations and manoeurability as impossible because they appear make changes in acceleration instantly and made extremely sharp turns without slowing. This was from both ground and on-board RADAR back up by visual observations on the ground by the Belgium police. The military was very open with the media about the case.
kcdl, whenever physicists, not involved into advanced multidimensional physics can not explain something (yes, there is a reason: These things are mindboggling dangerous) does not mean atomatically, anybody else on this planet were in the same situation. Although I won't go into details, but I can give you a clue: Have you ever asked, why you 'feel' even a small g-force in your car, but you become weightless e.g. in a parabola-flight, a fall tower or LEO (low earth orbit)?
@debrainwasher because we can only feel changes in acceleration not speed. We only feel changes inacceleration because of the inertia of the fluid in our semi-circular canal. If the fluid was accelerated simulataneously with everthing else there would be no differential force and we wouldn't feel it. Hence the reason it's proposed some sort of inertia control is involved in the propulsion of UAPs. Something we supposedly don't know how to do yet, and if we could it would be a HUGE thing to hide.
kcdl, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you are wrong. The reason, whe you can feel g-forces (g-force=acceleration a, 1g=9.81m/s²) is, because you have a counterforce (e.g. exerted by the seat of your car, plane, the earth's surface, etc). according to Newton's law F=ma. As long as an acceleration field is gradient free |grad(a)|→0 you can't feel it, because the vectorial sum attaches at each graviton (aka Higg's boson in the projected standard model of physics) of a subatomic ...
@debrainwasher which means the same thing. I used the term differential force which implies a gradient of acceleration. I don't think you know what you are talking about, you are copying and pasting stuff from Wiki (or something) and pretending you understand it. I will end my discussion with you since you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. You are a poser.
@debrainwasher So you intended to come off as a 13 year with a laptop? Congratulations, you've won. I wish I'd read your profile page first, it would have saved a lot of time. You really are not very intelligent at all but you do like to copy and paste stuff you don't understand. Have a nice life. Ain't puberty a bitch? *Big Derisive LOL*
kcdl, LOL! Thank you for your compliment. It was so easy to manipulate and deceive you! Remember, Hitler and Goebels used the doctrine to repeat a fat lie so many times, until it became believed by the people - and was caught lying within months. This lesson was learnt in the sense, we do tell people the truth (or at least parts of it), but still have the control over belief/disbelief by adjusting our apparent credibility. Since no lies are told nobody can debunk such deceptive statements...
(ff 2) ... as untrue. And this concept works for more than 60 years in politics, economy and science. Check it out for yourself: Under the assumption, you'd be a respected financial specialist, you can push every share by a convincing analysys. If you speculate on a falling value, you can present the same analysis, but simply wear jeans instead of a business suit during your presentation. Your credibility becomes damaged, the value drops - and you can encash.
++ (ff 2) ...particle of your body. Hence, there is no force difference between atoms, even if you change a fast. There is a simple proof: Within a rotational movement (e.g. at the end of a rope), the tangetial acceleration component is canceled out. When you released the rope, you'd fly away in tangential direction. In the moment, you form the vectorial sum between gravitation and a gravitation-like force, you can survive every a within the field. Isn't that simple?
it was a real ufo , no doubt. the britsh just released all kinds of stuff about ufos
TheUfoKidFresno 1 year ago
Helvetica Bold turns me on.
fiscornioman 2 years ago
you can always trust a uk policeman
the best police force in the world
goj09dale 2 years ago
goj09dale, however, UK policemen are not trained to recognize an (alleged) alien spacecraft. Hence, they expel the same exo-ufoistic guesses and speculation, like every housewife.
(\_/)
+_+
debrainwasher 2 years ago
I agree, but these men drove these roads every night/day for over 10 years.
Venus? I dunno>?
UFOBevy 2 years ago
UFOBevy, the late Allen Hynak could conclusivly show after had looked into thousends of cases, from all well documented (!) sighting cases, about 99.4% could be explained in the 70's and 80's. For the remaining 0.6% data was still insufficient. Today, we have much better instruments (e.g. high resolution spectrometers, 3D-scanning LIDAR, etc.), but UFoolOgists decline persistently to use it. Otherwise, their business-model with the artificial mistery might collapse quickly.
(\_/)
~_^
debrainwasher 2 years ago
@debrainwasher So housewifes are stupid? Why because they are women?
kcdl 1 year ago
kcdl great conclusion! Where did I write housewifes would be stupid? I could have written as well as teacher, actress, pilot, dentist or every other human profession, in place of a housewife, who haven't got a forrmal training in the recognition of (alleged) aliens and their spacecrafts. Hence, every UAP-sighting, that involves a conclusion about the ordigin and type of an unknown object is nothing more than a wild, unfounded guess. If a person can't see that, then she/he IS stupid.
(\_/)
#_o
debrainwasher 1 year ago
@debrainwasher Training has nothing to do with it. It is called a process of elimination. If you rule out natural phenomena and KNOWN man-made craft and it looks as though it is intelligently controlled then you are left with two options: ultra advance human made craft or ET craft. As long as a person accurately reports what they see it is up to the investigator to put the pieces together. If we could only identify things we were trained to identify we'd never discover anything new.
kcdl 1 year ago
kcdl, elimination is a valid scientific methodology, but limited to determinable aggregates of possibilities. E.g. if you knew, a particular region would only be inhabited by exactly three types of mammals like bunnies, rats and elks and you saw there an antlered animal, you could conclude the elk by elimination, since neither bunnies, nor rats are horned. To solve a real UAP-case, you need additional scientific data, because hundreds of possible & impossible UAP-stimuli are known.
(\_/)
0_o
debrainwasher 1 year ago
@debrainwasher That is a faulty argument. The process of elimination still applies no matter however many potential causes exist. This is because while there may be many potential causes those causes will fit into broad categories that can be eliminated. It only puts a limitation on what you can narrow it down to. In the case of UAPs you have the problem that there are many unknown man-made aircraft that may have capabilities of which the public is unaware.
kcdl 1 year ago
@kcdl Once you determine that an object is intelligently controlled that rules out everything except the options discussed previously. The problem is then down to distinguishing advanced manned aircraft, UAVS and ET craft. Obviously the crux of the problem is determining that observed phenomena is intelligently controlled. However there have been cases where the sightings are very close range as with the 89/90 Belgium case, that have been confirmed with radar by multiple independent witnesses.
kcdl 1 year ago
@kcdl, LOL! If you feel better after a lot of expensive investigative work to narrow down about 400 possibilities [MUFON's current catalogue of UAP-stimuli] to saying 20 or so - do it. You have still an UAP. Even the 'intelligent control' assumption may be wrong, as e.g. many sky-lantern cases demonstrate advection can let appear a whole fleet of such objects as under int. control. Correct is, the number of man-made objects of all sorts is steadily increasing.
(\_/)
o_=
debrainwasher 1 year ago
@debrainwasher You are assuming that you will only narrow it down to 400 possibilities. You also still seem to be assuming ambiguous stimuli such as the sort that you get from Chinese lanterns. The more information you get the less possibilities you are left with.
The amount of man-made objects may be increasing but how many share the characteristic of intelligent control, seemingly impossible acceleration and manoeuvrability, the ability to hover soundlessly and not produce sonic booms?
kcdl 1 year ago
@kcdl The point is that you seem to be saying there is no point investigating. This is anti-scientific. The residue of cases that can't be explained but aren't information poor show characteristics that require explanation.
kcdl 1 year ago
kcdl, who told you, I'd have said there were no point to investigate? My stance is, humans want rather to believe than to know and , ordinary people are centuries away from a stage of evolution, they would come to the idea to discover the true nature behind UAP systematically by appropriate scientific instruments (e.g. spectrometers, 3D-LIDARs, magneto- and gravimeters, etc.). So they will continue to catalogue cases and to take blurry images with zero scientific value.
(\_/)
^_~
debrainwasher 1 year ago
@debrainwasher I guess we've come to a point we can sort of agree upon. I agree there are "believers" out there that will accept things are face value. I think it is wrong to put all Ufologists into that basket though. Also you have to remember this isn't like a studying a predicatable natural phenomenum. You don't know when or where a sighting will occur and hence it makes using that sort of equipment hard. It also takes money and without people taking it seriously that is hard to come by.
kcdl 1 year ago
@kcdl If you look into pilot sightings however you will see there are cases where UFO have been detected in several different ways, not just radar but other forms of navigational equipment like gyroscopic compasses. These methods of detection aren't ideal but when you are dealing with an infrequent and unpridictable phenomenon you have to make do.
kcdl 1 year ago
kcdl, I don't think, we can agree. Exo-ufoism is a steadily growing mass-religion, controlled by UFoolOgists with a well developped sense for a good business. If you were an (alleged) ET, you'd keep yourself in a safe distance from a primitive civilisation, that wanted either to dissect or worship you (or both) , expected infinite energy, life, destruction power - or at least the golden, mind-enlighting probe to be plugged in. This nexus has been recognized by *ALL* nations on this planet. ...
debrainwasher 1 year ago
@debrainwasher Yes just like more advanced civilisations here keeped away from less advanced ones on Earth.....maybe it's time for me to throw in a derisive smug LOL.
As I said I agree there are blind-believers but it is true on both sides. You it seems are a believer on the other side. You believe without evidence that aliens will act a certain way and make illogical superficial assumptions. You ignore the evidence or argue against it on the basis of incredulity rather than facts.
kcdl 1 year ago
kcdl, I am a scientist and not a believer. So I'm used to accept facts by tangible proofs - and not be assumptions. The hard and undeniable fact is, there is not one single accessible, verifyable and unambigous proof, ET visitation took ever place on earth or elsewhere in our solar system. Hence, we have an open hypothesis. Beside, there is something, termed as logic. And this logic allows us to make particular prediction. Since every applicable logic forbids a more advanced species to ...
debrainwasher 1 year ago
--- (ff2) ... interfere with the wildlife of a much lower lifeform [Fermi Paradoxon], we can be pretty sure, no benevolent ET will turn up publicly. Until humanity will have reached the stage of technological, social, spiritual and mental evolution, we can turn into a spacefaring species, it will take us a couple of centuries (in the most optimistic scenario) up to millenia. Coincidently, all nations share my humble opinion.
(\_/)
^_~
debrainwasher 1 year ago
@debrainwasher More derisive loling from me. You made some huge assumptions about the way alien would supposedly act towards a less advanced civilisation. Paradoxically the logical thing to do would be to assume you can't make a purely logical assumption about what they would do. They could be doing things for cultural reason that wouldn't follow any logic to an outsider. One might logically assume that species that had the tech to visit the moon would still maintain a presence 30 years later.
kcdl 1 year ago
@kcdl part 2. I don't care that "all nations agree with you" beside that being an absurd statement since at most only the representives of all nations could agree with you (and I doubt that, when have ALL nations ever agreed to anything?), it also doesn't make any sense. If you have to capability to travel interstellar distances you aren't going to worry too much about being dissected by a group of primatives. Apart from that my point was it could be either ET or advanced human craft.
kcdl 1 year ago
kcdl, it might be surprising for you, but there is a supranational organisation, termed UN, in that nations make decisions in a democratic manner. These decisions are implemented, even if nations are in war with each other. And very, very few people know there is even a dedicated office for space affairs: Google for the term "OOSA Vienna" - and be surprised. And yes, there is some knowledge, you are not eligible for. Simply accept that as a fact, you can't change.
(\_/)
^_~
debrainwasher 1 year ago
@debrainwasher and as I said it is only representatives of those nations opinions. They don't represent the opinion of EVERYONE in their respective countries. Beside which opinions don't mean squat.
kcdl 1 year ago
kcdl, feel free to pay a presence on moon and you have it. Or can you show us an ET? It shouldn't be an insult, but that subjective perception of logic, ordinary people believe to be able to apply is rather far away from scientific logic, that is derived from physics (e.g. entropy-state), chemistry, biology and math. And since natural laws are valid everywhery in our universe, the logic behind can be regarded as universal (to be taken literary).
(\_/)
O_O
debrainwasher 1 year ago
@debrainwasher Who says that an alien species will use purely objective logic to decide whether to visit another planet? Purely objectively speaking there is no reason to believe that existing at is better than not existing. It is only evolution that has left us with emotions that makes feel living is better than dying. If aliens have emotions they will make decisions that aren't purely logical. Curiousity, which I suspect all tech advanced species have would be enough reason to visit.
kcdl 1 year ago
kcdl, again, if advanced intelligent species existed, and visited us and wanted to enter into an open relationship with humanity, they did it already. Since no such incident happened for the past millenia, either, these beings don't exist, don't visit earth, or we are simply not ready to be accepted as socios inter pares. [Fermi paradoxon] Whatever of these compenents is true or wrong, the outcome (no ET will shake your hands) will remain the same. That's scientific logic.
(\_/)
^_?
debrainwasher 1 year ago
... (ff 2) After the cold war, it was decided on a supranational level, nations should mothball (and cease) their involvements in SETI and UAP-reasearch for the next centuries. Consequently, all nations released their entire archives of UAP-reports into the public domain and shut down public fundings ostentatiously. All these steps have been fully implemented yet. Now, UFoolOgists can take over the topic and are welcome to play their role as useful idiots to perform free cover-up works for...
debrainwasher 1 year ago
... (ff3) real advanced military crafts, UAV and other projects. And finding the reason behind a particular UAP-sighting is rather a matter of (nonexistent) scientific education and a correct reaction - but not of frequency. E.g. an ordinary CD or DVD is enough to serve as a diffraction grating get a spectrogram (a rainbow-image). One single frame of a 10 min. video were enough. Final conclusion: Simply forget the whole ET-topic for the next centuries.
(\_/)
#_#
debrainwasher 1 year ago
@kcdl, LOL LOL LOL again! Not the amount of possibilities or propabilities, but tangible, unambigous proofs are the missing link between hypothesis and facts. Without additional unambigous scientific data, an UAP reamains an UAP - as the state of ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis) can't be changed, without one single (!) accessible, verifyable and unambigous proof for ET visitation on earth - or elsewhere in our solar system. I ask to pardon me, but I have no idea, what a 'seamingly impossible..
debrainwasher 1 year ago
(ff 2) ...acceleration and manoeuvrability' could be. if that was a mystical exo-ufoistic insider-concept, I had to disappoint you, since this terminology is outside of my expertise. From physical point of view, momentary acceleration is defined as the first derivative of speed vs. time a(t)=dv/dt, and there is neither a limit for a, nor for any manuouvers, as far as your final velocity wouldn't exceed c (speed of light). Meteors cn produce sonic booms too, BTW.
(\_/)
0_0
debrainwasher 1 year ago
@debrainwasher I said NOT produce sonic booms. Prof. Emile Schweicher (he is real and still active) looked at the RADAR data from the Belgium ufo case and described the accelerations and manoeurability as impossible because they appear make changes in acceleration instantly and made extremely sharp turns without slowing. This was from both ground and on-board RADAR back up by visual observations on the ground by the Belgium police. The military was very open with the media about the case.
kcdl 1 year ago
kcdl, whenever physicists, not involved into advanced multidimensional physics can not explain something (yes, there is a reason: These things are mindboggling dangerous) does not mean atomatically, anybody else on this planet were in the same situation. Although I won't go into details, but I can give you a clue: Have you ever asked, why you 'feel' even a small g-force in your car, but you become weightless e.g. in a parabola-flight, a fall tower or LEO (low earth orbit)?
(\_/)
o_=
debrainwasher 1 year ago
@debrainwasher because we can only feel changes in acceleration not speed. We only feel changes inacceleration because of the inertia of the fluid in our semi-circular canal. If the fluid was accelerated simulataneously with everthing else there would be no differential force and we wouldn't feel it. Hence the reason it's proposed some sort of inertia control is involved in the propulsion of UAPs. Something we supposedly don't know how to do yet, and if we could it would be a HUGE thing to hide.
kcdl 1 year ago
kcdl, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you are wrong. The reason, whe you can feel g-forces (g-force=acceleration a, 1g=9.81m/s²) is, because you have a counterforce (e.g. exerted by the seat of your car, plane, the earth's surface, etc). according to Newton's law F=ma. As long as an acceleration field is gradient free |grad(a)|→0 you can't feel it, because the vectorial sum attaches at each graviton (aka Higg's boson in the projected standard model of physics) of a subatomic ...
debrainwasher 1 year ago
@debrainwasher which means the same thing. I used the term differential force which implies a gradient of acceleration. I don't think you know what you are talking about, you are copying and pasting stuff from Wiki (or something) and pretending you understand it. I will end my discussion with you since you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. You are a poser.
kcdl 1 year ago
kcdl, Your conclusion was intended.
(\_/)
o_o
debrainwasher 1 year ago
@debrainwasher So you intended to come off as a 13 year with a laptop? Congratulations, you've won. I wish I'd read your profile page first, it would have saved a lot of time. You really are not very intelligent at all but you do like to copy and paste stuff you don't understand. Have a nice life. Ain't puberty a bitch? *Big Derisive LOL*
kcdl 1 year ago
kcdl, LOL! Thank you for your compliment. It was so easy to manipulate and deceive you! Remember, Hitler and Goebels used the doctrine to repeat a fat lie so many times, until it became believed by the people - and was caught lying within months. This lesson was learnt in the sense, we do tell people the truth (or at least parts of it), but still have the control over belief/disbelief by adjusting our apparent credibility. Since no lies are told nobody can debunk such deceptive statements...
debrainwasher 1 year ago
(ff 2) ... as untrue. And this concept works for more than 60 years in politics, economy and science. Check it out for yourself: Under the assumption, you'd be a respected financial specialist, you can push every share by a convincing analysys. If you speculate on a falling value, you can present the same analysis, but simply wear jeans instead of a business suit during your presentation. Your credibility becomes damaged, the value drops - and you can encash.
(\_/)
^_^
debrainwasher 1 year ago
++ (ff 2) ...particle of your body. Hence, there is no force difference between atoms, even if you change a fast. There is a simple proof: Within a rotational movement (e.g. at the end of a rope), the tangetial acceleration component is canceled out. When you released the rope, you'd fly away in tangential direction. In the moment, you form the vectorial sum between gravitation and a gravitation-like force, you can survive every a within the field. Isn't that simple?
(\_/)
^_~
debrainwasher 1 year ago
Are the two officers still alive now?
sim0b 2 years ago
yeah I think it's kewl!
kissmytwinkys 2 years ago
some pretty old footage.. nice stuff.
Vleesball 2 years ago