Navy UFO Reports and the Laws of Physics

Amber Robot

Active Member
No. He'd assume it was some kind of telephone handset, or (shortly before his death) a transistor radio:
Article:
In July 1954 the Texas Instruments and Industrial Development Engineering Associates (I.D.E.A.) companies embarked on a six month project to produce a pocket-sized radio for the Christmas market. The result was the Regency TR-1, the world’s first pocket transistor radio. Over one hundred thousand, in a range of colours, were sold during its first year of manufacture.
H5580-2-Transistor-radio.jpg


What was your point?
My point was that the current situation is not analogous to handing Einstein an iPhone and asking him to explain it.

if we had actual high-resolution video of what appear to be alien spacecrafts we’d be closer. Now we just have low quality video of saturated, unresolved blobs, which basically give us no information from which to determine its nature. Speculation of origins that go beyond the mundane are merely fanciful whimsy without additional, reliable information (and eye witness testimony does not count).
 

gtoffo

Active Member
Interesting questions indeed, but we are more at the point of asking “what if Einstein were shown a blurry, saturated image of a person holding a rectangle up to their ear?” Would he conclude it was a highly advanced piece of communications technology?
Ok let's make it even more accurate :)

Galileo and Einstein walk into a bar. A friend tells them about a strange sighting he made one night... high in the sky a dark shape with two long luminous streaks behind it. Moving at an incredible speed. It was a ghost!

Ghosts don't exist. G&E have no idea on how to investigate this. How to collect data? They don't know where and when the ghost appears. Also, nothing moves so fast and so high in the air. Their friend must be crazy.

But one day. Someone takes a picture of a ghost in the sky. It was flying so fast and so high they could barely see it. And the picture is of very poor quality and in black and white.
SR-71-blackbird-735x413.png
They timed the observation and it is traveling at over 3,500 km/h! Surely the observer must have made a mistake in their observation. Nothing moves SO fast. It's impossible! "Friction would melt any flying object!" says Einstein. The guy probably took a picture of a black plastic bag flying in the air and lied about the timing. The object is never observed again. Although some legends still exist.

Would G+E approach this "phenomena" like this? If they assumed it was real would they figure out how it could work? Maybe Einstein could have... although jets were in their infancy when he died. If he had taken the observers seriously. Galileo instead would have been totally unable to comprehend. He had never even imagined an aircraft or an engine so powerful.

(Note: this picture is an SR71 blackbird that could fly at mach 3+. The A-12 it derived from first flew in 1962, 7 years after Einstein's death but was secret until 1982. It's performance is still unmatched to this day).

So we could be Galileo. Totally unequipped to comprehend.
Or we could be Einstein. Just a generation away and maybe just able to imagine it and figure it out. If we think very hard about it.
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
Ok let's make it even more accurate :)

Galileo and Einstein walk into a bar. A friend tells them about a strange sighting he made one night... high in the sky a dark shape with two long luminous streaks behind it. Moving at an incredible speed. It was a ghost!

Ghosts don't exist. G&E have no idea on how to investigate this. How to collect data? They don't know where and when the ghost appears. Also, nothing moves so fast and so high in the air. Their friend must be crazy.

But one day. Someone takes a picture of a ghost in the sky. It was flying so fast and so high they could barely see it. And the picture is of very poor quality and in black and white.
SR-71-blackbird-735x413.png
They timed the observation and it is traveling at over 3,500 km/h! Surely the observer must have made a mistake in their observation. Nothing moves SO fast. It's impossible! "Friction would melt any flying object!" says Einstein. The guy probably took a picture of a black plastic bag flying in the air and lied about the timing. The object is never observed again. Although some legends still exist.

Would G+E approach this "phenomena" like this? If they assumed it was real would they figure out how it could work? Maybe Einstein could have... although jets were in their infancy when he died. If he had taken the observers seriously. Galileo instead would have been totally unable to comprehend. He had never even imagined an aircraft or an engine so powerful.

(Note: this picture is an SR71 blackbird that could fly at mach 3+. The A-12 it derived from first flew in 1962, 7 years after Einstein's death but was secret until 1982. It's performance is still unmatched to this day).

So we could be Galileo. Totally unequipped to comprehend.
Or we could be Einstein. Just a generation away and maybe just able to imagine it and figure it out. If we think very hard about it.
That is not a poor quality photo. It is vastly better than any photo presented in these threads of UAPs so far. If we had something that well resolved and with such good contrast we’d be having a very different conversation.

also, is there any video that has enough information to independently verify the speeds and maneuvers that have been claimed? Or just eye witness testimony?
 
Last edited:

Domzh

Active Member
they only have radar afaik
so thats a pretty strong pointer towards electronic warfare, especially next to san clemente island.

we have some semi combination of eye witnesses and radar which would be the tic tac that left when fravor saw it and "appeared seconds later at CAP point 60miles away". which would indicate hypersonic speed. however, in this case there are so many open questions and contradictions that i would not consider this proof imo.
 

Mauro

Active Member
They timed the observation and it is traveling at over 3,500 km/h! Surely the observer must have made a mistake in their observation. Nothing moves SO fast. It's impossible! "Friction would melt any flying object!" says Einstein.

Poor Einstein.. "friction would melt any flying object!" ?? Don't put him in such a bad light.. suffice to say V2 rockets had a top speed in excess of 5000 km/h, eleven years before Einstein's death, and they were built on science well-known since decades earlier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket

Einstein new of no physical law forbidding the existence of an SR-71, nor of an interstellar fusion- or even anti-matter-powered spaceship, for that matter, and even today we cannot say they are unphysical (the spaceships, I mean). But we today (as Einstein, but not as Galileo) can say the 80kft/1sec object is unphysical, at least much, much more unphysical than interstellar anti-matter powered spaceships.
 
Last edited:

gtoffo

Active Member
That is not a poor quality photo. It is vastly better than any photo presented in these threads of UAPs so far. If we had something that well resolved and with such good contrast we’d be having a very different conversation.

also, is there any video that has enough information to independently verify the speeds and maneuvers that have been claimed? Or just eye witness testimony?
I tried simulating low quality by making it 100x100 pixels :) and it should probably be in black and white and slighly out of focus if it was shot in the 50s ;-)

Poor Einstein.. "friction would melt any flying object!" ?? Don't put him in such a bad light.. suffice to say V2 rockets had a top speed in excess of 5000 km/h, eleven years before Einstein's death, and they were built on science well-known since decades earlier.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket

Einstein new of no physical law forbidding the existence of an SR-71, nor of an interstellar fusion- or even anti-matter-powered spaceship, for that matter, and even today we cannot say they are unphysical (the spaceships, I mean). But we today (as Einstein, but not as Galileo) can say the 80kft/1sec object is unphysical, at least much, much more unphysical than interstellar anti-matter powered spaceships.
Yes this is true. However if they saw the blackbird overhead for a long time that would probably confuse Einstein a bit more. The propulsion system would be pretty exotic to them (afterburner jet basically operating as a ramjet).

Einstein wouldn't be that wrong about friction. The blackbird operated at the structural limits of known material science even today. It was 90%+ titanium and would expand so much with the heat that the engineers never figured out how to avoid gas leaking when it was not flying. http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2011/02/betrayed-by-heat-sr-71-blackbird.html
Even by today's standard it almost breaks the rules of physics :-D
 

Mauro

Active Member
Einstein wouldn't be that wrong about friction. The blackbird operated at the structural limits of known material science even today. It was 90%+ titanium and would expand so much with the heat that the engineers never figured out how to avoid gas leaking when it was not flying. http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2011/02/betrayed-by-heat-sr-71-blackbird.html
Even by today's standard it almost breaks the rules of physics :-D

I've always been astonished by what they did with SR-71, wonderful airplane if there ever was one, amazing!

But I wouldn't say it 'almost breaks the rules of physics', it never did, I'd rather say 'it's at the edge of technology even today'. And this is actually a sobering consideration: almost 60 years later there has been little progress in achieving better performances, not last because technology started hitting scientific 'walls'. And notice we're yet very far from 80kft in one second (nevermind the accelerations). The same goes for space travel: we're about at the same point as we were ~50 years ago, a human lunar mission today would be almost a copycat of Apollo (just look at the Orion capsule), because the problems are not in technology, but in raw physics.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
I've always been astonished by what they did with SR-71, wonderful airplane if there ever was one, amazing!

But I wouldn't say it 'almost breaks the rules of physics', it never did, I'd rather say 'it's at the edge of technology even today'. And this is actually a sobering consideration: almost 60 years later there has been little progress in achieving better performances, not last because technology started hitting scientific 'walls'. And notice we're yet very far from 80kft in one second (nevermind the accelerations). The same goes for space travel: we're about at the same point as we were ~50 years ago, a human lunar mission today would be almost a copycat of Apollo (just look at the Orion capsule), because the problems are not in technology, but in raw physics.
I partially agree.

Some walls are based on physics. But many of the walls are just economic. There is simply no economic incentive to build such advanced tech. There is no space race. There is no war. There is no threat.

It's sad. But true. Humans advance most when faced with destruction/annihilation that pushes them to do whatever it takes. This has been demonstrated time after time.

The budgets involved in Apollo were enormous compared to today's NASA budget. Almost 5% of GDP!! Today they would be unthinkable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#/media/File:NASA-Budget-Federal.svg

If we invested the same amounts today given the enormous advancements we have made I can assure you we would not be sending Orion. Apollo basically didn't even have computers! The memory storage for the rocket was made of woven "rope memory" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_rope_memory

Look at what Elon Musk is doing. All you need is the right incentive. We could build stuff today (maybe we are) that would look like magic.
 

FatPhil

Active Member
I tried simulating low quality by making it 100x100 pixels :) and it should probably be in black and white and slighly out of focus if it was shot in the 50s ;-)


Yes this is true. However if they saw the blackbird overhead for a long time that would probably confuse Einstein a bit more. The propulsion system would be pretty exotic to them (afterburner jet basically operating as a ramjet).

Einstein wouldn't be that wrong about friction. The blackbird operated at the structural limits of known material science even today. It was 90%+ titanium and would expand so much with the heat that the engineers never figured out how to avoid gas leaking when it was not flying. http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2011/02/betrayed-by-heat-sr-71-blackbird.html
Even by today's standard it almost breaks the rules of physics :-D

From your link:
This doesn't sound like a reliable report from a mechanically-minded person, it sounds like something that has been mangled by someone who thinks that when a nut is heated and the metal expands, the diameter of the hole decreases.
 

JMartJr

Active Member
Just for those who have not seen it, the fuel leakage from a Blackbird on the ground is pretty amazing -- my hat is off to the first pilot who walked up to his new plane, saw that, and got in to fly anyway. At 6:56 in the attached video -- if I knew how to cue it up I would, but sadly that is among the several things I do not know.

 

gtoffo

Active Member
From your link:
This doesn't sound like a reliable report from a mechanically-minded person, it sounds like something that has been mangled by someone who thinks that when a nut is heated and the metal expands, the diameter of the hole decreases.
Not sure what you mean but that is an accurate description.

The SR-71 would expand more than 10cm during flight. The engineers never figured out how to seal the tanks on the ground due to this. The solution was take off with tanks leaking. Accelerate as fast as possible to heat up and seal the tanks. Then air refuel immediately and continue the mission.

Crazy :)
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
Not sure what you mean but that is an accurate description.

The SR-71 would expand more than 10cm during flight. The engineers never figured out how to seal the tanks on the ground due to this. The solution was take off with tanks leaking. Accelerate as fast as possible to heat up and seal the tanks. Then air refuel immediately and continue the mission.

Crazy :)
I think what he means is that if everything were the same material then when it expanded the gaps would scale too, only getting bigger not closing up.

what is likely is that the body panels and what they attached to are not the same material and thus when the panels expanded they did close the gaps.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Agent K Why all the UFO reports from the Navy, and not the Air Force? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 8
bird_up "Gimbal UFO video rendered in 3D" by Abominati0n UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 5
Mick West The Evolution of Official DoD/Pentagon Statements Regarding The Navy UFO Videos and UAP Investigations UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 6
Mick West Explained: New Navy UFO Videos UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 163
Mick West Are the Navy UFOs "Real," or just in the Low Information Zone? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 31
Mick West Why Michio Kaku is wrong about the UFO Burden of Proof & Navy Videos UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 32
Getoffthisplanet Flir1, Go Fast, Gimbal - Navy Releases New Information: Official Dates UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 9
Getoffthisplanet Navy spokesman Gradisher's definition of UAP UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 12
Mick West Cube in a Sphere UFO's Seen by Navy pilots. Radar Targets? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 17
Mick West NYT: GIMBAL Video of U.S. Navy Jet Encounter with Unknown Object UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 727
Mick West Explained: Chilean Navy "UFO" video - Aerodynamic Contrails, Flight IB6830 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 186
MikeG Claim: Secret Navy Electromagnetic Warfare Training Conspiracy Theories 0
TEEJ Contrails during Russian Navy Cruise Missile Strike in Syria, 2015 Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Debunked: Leaked US Navy Map, New Madrid, Submerged US General Discussion 40
Gary Cook Debunked: 'Gun used in Navy Yard shooting was an assault rifle.' General Discussion 8
Alhazred The Sane Alex Jones & the Navy Yard Shootings Conspiracy Theories 1
Mick West Washington Navy Yard Shootings - False Flag Conspiracy Theories? Conspiracy Theories 73
FreiZeitGeist HAARP-Website offline (Navy renegotiating management contract) HAARP 28
dizzle Boston: Navy Seals Boston Marathon Bombings 28
Cairenn US Navy map of US General Discussion 13
RustamShah PIA pilot Reports Seeing UFO In Pakistan's Airspace General Discussion 6
Jedo How can we interpret witness reports of buckling? 9/11 5
benthamitemetric Other WTC7 Investigations: Aegis Insurance v. 7 World Trade Company Expert Reports 9/11 39
Bruce Lansberg Dutch Safety Board publish reports on MH17 crash, Tuesday Oct 13 Flight MH17 14
deirdre Searchable State Police Report and OFFICIAL reports/press releases Sandy Hook 3
Mick West MH370: Reports of Debris in Malacca Strait by Elka Athina Oil Tanker Flight MH370 15
J Flight MH370: China reports possible debris observed Flight MH370 51
Rroval Reports of UFO Sightings Across California Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
Mick West Debunked: CNNs Fake News Broadcasts - Charles Jaco and the Fake Live Gulf War Reports Conspiracy Theories 222
FreiZeitGeist Radio Station New Jersey 101, talks and reports about Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Chew The Tianjin explosion and the scaling laws of nuclear weapons Conspiracy Theories 6
Related Articles































Related Articles

Top