• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

US DoD AATIP program 2009-2012 - In search of UFO/UFP

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,271
Reaction score
1,295
fredymac said:
I am guessing the two voices in the video are pilot and weapons operator on the same f-18 so they are looking at the same display. If it had been two f-18's and seeing the same thing, I would be more inclined to think the object was real and not an artifact such as a spec of debris sitting on an intermediate image plane in the optical train.
What kind of "spec of debris sitting on an intermediate image plane in the optical train" can be detected by an Aegis radar system, descending from 80,000 ft, and subsequently also detected by an E-2?
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,102
Reaction score
619
sferrin said:
What kind of "spec of debris sitting on an intermediate image plane in the optical train" can be detected by an Aegis radar system, descending from 80,000 ft, and subsequently also detected by an E-2?
That's where data fusion would really be handy in making sure the radar tracks were truly geo-located with the FLIR image. Usually a laser rangefinder is mounted independently of a FLIR sensor so if there is a target range marker somewhere on that display, it would also confirm the object was external and real.
 

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,392
Reaction score
603
Anybody have an answer to Matt Parry's question in Reply #13?

Chris
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,000
Reaction score
787
I guess ASA have something to to with Situational Awareness MFD mode.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,271
Reaction score
1,295
fredymac said:
sferrin said:
What kind of "spec of debris sitting on an intermediate image plane in the optical train" can be detected by an Aegis radar system, descending from 80,000 ft, and subsequently also detected by an E-2?
That's where data fusion would really be handy in making sure the radar tracks were truly geo-located with the FLIR image. Usually a laser rangefinder is mounted independently of a FLIR sensor so if there is a target range marker somewhere on that display, it would also confirm the object was external and real.
If an Aegis ship, an E-2, and fighter, can't figure out if they're all looking in the same spot we're in trouble.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
2,102
Reaction score
619
sferrin said:
If an Aegis ship, an E-2, and fighter, can't figure out if they're all looking in the same spot we're in trouble.
Hence the need for CEC and all the computer algorithms that disambiguate multiple sensor inputs. If all these assets were linked up through CEC, that also would add to the argument this was real.
 

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
664
Reaction score
12
fredymac said:
I am guessing the two voices in the video are pilot and weapons operator on the same f-18 so they are looking at the same display. If it had been two f-18's and seeing the same thing, I would be more inclined to think the object was real and not an artifact such as a spec of debris sitting on an intermediate image plane in the optical train.

The sensor boresight angle shifts from around 50 degrees to almost 0 degrees while the aircraft maintains a left bank turn. It would have been useful if the sensor was not in track mode (I assume the vertical bars bracketing the object are a track mode symbol) so the object moved around on the detector plane. That would also rule out a bug splat or spec of dust on an internal lens/mirror. The rotation movement of the object almost looks mechanical like an image derotator prism (which would mean the spec would be on the prism and the prism located at an image conjugate). Not enough info but the last odd thing is the inversion in thermal signature from hot to cold in the immediate area beyond it.
You forget that ground radar operators and US Navy ships have dealt with these same objects dozens of times before in the exact same operating areas. That rules out bugs or dust. The F-18s were vectored to the area to get footage and were even asked what ordinance they had onboard.
 

Nigelhg

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
27
Reaction score
8
kcran567 said:
fredymac said:
I am guessing the two voices in the video are pilot and weapons operator on the same f-18 so they are looking at the same display. If it had been two f-18's and seeing the same thing, I would be more inclined to think the object was real and not an artifact such as a spec of debris sitting on an intermediate image plane in the optical train.

The sensor boresight angle shifts from around 50 degrees to almost 0 degrees while the aircraft maintains a left bank turn. It would have been useful if the sensor was not in track mode (I assume the vertical bars bracketing the object are a track mode symbol) so the object moved around on the detector plane. That would also rule out a bug splat or spec of dust on an internal lens/mirror. The rotation movement of the object almost looks mechanical like an image derotator prism (which would mean the spec would be on the prism and the prism located at an image conjugate). Not enough info but the last odd thing is the inversion in thermal signature from hot to cold in the immediate area beyond it.
You forget that ground radar operators and US Navy ships have dealt with these same objects dozens of times before in the exact same operating areas. That rules out bugs or dust. The F-18s were vectored to the area to get footage and were even asked what ordinance they had onboard.
Yes they sent the f18s out with no ordinance which suggests it was a friendly and this was a capability check.
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
135
Nigelhg said:
Yes they sent the f18s out with no ordinance which suggests it was a friendly and this was a capability check.
Huh?
The F-18s were out there as part of an unrelated training evolution. They were in the area and were asked to check out the radar contacts the Princeton had been seeing off and on for several days.
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
135
fredymac said:
If it had been two f-18's and seeing the same thing, I would be more inclined to think the object was real and not an artifact such as a spec of debris sitting on an intermediate image plane in the optical train.
Three F-18s were present and saw the same thing.
 

Nigelhg

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
27
Reaction score
8
quellish said:
Nigelhg said:
Yes they sent the f18s out with no ordinance which suggests it was a friendly and this was a capability check.
Huh?
The F-18s were out there as part of an unrelated training evolution. They were in the area and were asked to check out the radar contacts the Princeton had been seeing off and on for several days.
If you read the Seattle times of the NYtimes article in which the pilot was directly quoted (not the third party account on the UFO site) Princeton called him to check if they had any ordinance onboard- (they had only training missiles that cannot be fired) before sending them in to take a look.
Them being there as part of a training mission is just a happy coincidence. (Maybe).

I mean really - would you send unarmed fighters to intercept an unknown aerial vehicle which had been tracked at 80000 feet unarmed if you didn't know if it was a friendly especially as they'd been tracking it for 2 weeks?
 

mrmalaya

Consider it done.
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
322
Reaction score
1
Whilst I agree with you to some extent, I can't find any information on the development of stealthy, ultra-manoeuvrable, hypersonic tic-tics anywhere on this forum.....
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,271
Reaction score
1,295
fredymac said:
sferrin said:
If an Aegis ship, an E-2, and fighter, can't figure out if they're all looking in the same spot we're in trouble.
Hence the need for CEC and all the computer algorithms that disambiguate multiple sensor inputs.
You do realize the various assets have been handing data back and forth for decades, right? It wasn't to the degree CEC is intended but E-2s would be pretty useless if they couldn't vector fighters to targets.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,271
Reaction score
1,295
Nigelhg said:
Yes they sent the f18s out with no ordinance which suggests it was a friendly and this was a capability check.
Again. Could we please actually READ the pieces before speculating. If you'd actually read it you'd know the planes were ALREADY in the air when they were tasked to go take a look.

Nigelhg said:
I mean really - would you send unarmed fighters to intercept an unknown aerial vehicle which had been tracked at 80000 feet unarmed if you didn't know if it was a friendly especially as they'd been tracking it for 2 weeks?
Ye Gods.
 

Mat Parry

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
417
Reaction score
7
https://www.livescience.com/61253-alien-alloys.html

It's important to point out that while Blumenthal did go on cable news and say the alloys were unidentifiable mysteries, helping to spur speculation, that's not what his article actually stated. Here's the full quote from Saturday's piece:

"The company [involved in the DOD research] modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials that … program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena. Researchers also studied people who said they had experienced physical effects from encounters with the objects and examined them for any physiological changes. In addition, researchers spoke to military service members who had reported sightings of strange aircraft."

From this statement, there's no actual sign that there's anything unusual about the alloys themselves. All the Times wrote was that the DOD researchers tasked with finding weird UFO stuff collected some metal, interviewed some people who had claimed startling experiences with it, and decided that it was UFO-related.

In an email to Live Science regarding these metal alloys, Blumenthal said, "We printed as much as we were able to verify. Can't go beyond that."
 

Nigelhg

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
27
Reaction score
8
sferrin said:
Nigelhg said:
Yes they sent the f18s out with no ordinance which suggests it was a friendly and this was a capability check.
Again. Could we please actually READ the pieces before speculating. If you'd actually read it you'd know the planes were ALREADY in the air when they were tasked to go take a look.

Nigelhg said:
I mean really - would you send unarmed fighters to intercept an unknown aerial vehicle which had been tracked at 80000 feet unarmed if you didn't know if it was a friendly especially as they'd been tracking it for 2 weeks?
Ye Gods.
I am not debating that they were already in the air.... It's the fact that they CHECKED whether they had ordinance on board was more than likely to protect an asset. If this was seen as a threat they would have made sure the pilots had a means of defence. Remember this was tracked for 2 weeks giving them plenty of time to decide what to do.
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,790
Reaction score
1,073
Presumably since these contacts were spotted descending and given the Hornet crew saw a large disturbance on the surface of the water that the Navy would have investigated that phenomenon and what might have caused it?
The implication is the mysterious craft were descending and then entering the water and effectively becoming submarines. That would surely make a noticable acoustic signature that could be picked up by sonar?

I'm surprised given the craft has descended from 80,000ft to low level in "seconds" (and presumably entered the atmosphere not much earlier) that the IR signature isn't greater.

I'm sceptical of the strange alloys that always seem to crop up with these UFO crash stories. There are only so many metallic elements in the periodic table. Nanotechnology has opened up new possibilities but its still mixing with the known elements we have.

Its also odd how UFOs follow the aerodynamic trend of the age they are spotted in; V-2-esque rocket shapes, low-aspect ratio circular 'disc' wings, 'Dorito' flying wings and now wingless lifting bodies... (the X-37 is 30ft long too). Either the Sidney Camms and 'Kelly' Johnsons of the alien world can't agree what shape works best or, like us, they are still learning to find what the best aerodynamic shape is.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,271
Reaction score
1,295
Hood said:
Its also odd how UFOs follow the aerodynamic trend of the age they are spotted in; V-2-esque rocket shapes, low-aspect ratio circular 'disc' wings, 'Dorito' flying wings and now wingless lifting bodies... (the X-37 is 30ft long too). Either the Sidney Camms and 'Kelly' Johnsons of the alien world can't agree what shape works best or, like us, they are still learning to find what the best aerodynamic shape is.
Or people are describing similar shapes with what they're familiar with. Could you identify the difference in shape of a randomly oriented, fleeting, distant "rocket shape" or "lifting body" shape?

Would you say this:



looked like this:



Hell, one could be forgiven for thinking that first one was a hypersonic RV if you'd never seen Have Blue/F-117 before.
 

BlastWave

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
mrmalaya said:
Whilst I agree with you to some extent, I can't find any information on the development of stealthy, ultra-manoeuvrable, hypersonic tic-tics anywhere on this forum.....
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,814.msg6366.html#msg6366

;)
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,829
Reaction score
296
sferrin said:
Going multiple mach numbers and coming down from 80,000 feet?
Which leads me to think of a MaRV employing some form of E/MHD for aero control,
thermal protection and/or propulsion. Might explain the intermittent nature
of the radar returns.
 

mrmalaya

Consider it done.
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
322
Reaction score
1
Thanks BlastWave, best wishes of the season to you!

Worth revisiting some of those comments now I wonder? :p
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,000
Reaction score
787
marauder2048 said:
Which leads me to think of a MaRV employing some form of E/MHD for aero control,
thermal protection and/or propulsion. Might explain the intermittent nature
of the radar returns.
NOTAMS?
 

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
664
Reaction score
12
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
Going multiple mach numbers and coming down from 80,000 feet?
Which leads me to think of a MaRV employing some form of E/MHD for aero control,
thermal protection and/or propulsion. Might explain the intermittent nature
of the radar returns.
On the F-18 video one of the pilots clearly says there is a "squadron" of these objects. Also, the object was still on the surface and then rose to 80k feet in a matter of seconds. No MaRV can do that. This has to be some form of exotic propulsion or as yet undisclosed black tech if it is real (if not extraterrestrial in origin).

Again I keep asking this, why did the Dod and Navy allow this to be released in the first place. Why not gag the pilots and make them sign confidentiality agreements to keep them from saying a word? Why is Dave Fravor all over the news with this?
Hence, that's why it leads me to suspect disinfo program...Navy is controlling this to go where they are leading us.
 

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
664
Reaction score
12
The 'Nimitz Incident' Involved A Mysterious Craft Hovering Over Churning Water Then Lurching Away

One of the videos that has been released was taken off the coast of San Diego in 2004 by two Navy fighter jets from the aircraft carrier Nimitz. In a detailed report of the Nimitz incident, the New York Times recounts how the pilots, Commander David Fravor and Lieutenant Commander Jim Slaight, received unexpected instructions from an operations officer on the USS Princeton, a Navy cruiser, regarding some mysterious objects.


For two weeks, the operator said, the Princeton had been tracking mysterious aircraft. The objects appeared suddenly at 80,000 feet, and then hurtled toward the sea, eventually stopping at 20,000 feet and hovering. Then they either dropped out of radar range or shot straight back up.

[The New York Times]


Fravor told the Times that shortly after the incident, he told a colleague that the object "had no plumes, wings or rotors and outran our F-18s."

Chris Mellon, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for intelligence who is now involved with To the Stars, recently described the features that made the craft in the Nimitz incident so unusual.



At a recent press conference for To The Stars in Las Vegas, Mellon described one of the sightings reported by U.S. Navy pilots: "It is white, oblong, some 40 feet long and perhaps 12 feet thick … The pilots are astonished to see the object suddenly reorient itself toward the approaching F/A-18. In a series of discreet tumbling maneuvers that seem to defy the laws of physics, the object takes a position directly behind the approaching F/A-18. The pilots capture gun camera footage and infrared imagery of the object. They are outmatched by a technology they've never seen."

http://digg.com/2017/ufo-evidence-pentagon
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,829
Reaction score
296
flateric said:
marauder2048 said:
Which leads me to think of a MaRV employing some form of E/MHD for aero control,
thermal protection and/or propulsion. Might explain the intermittent nature
of the radar returns.
NOTAMS?
Some of the SUAs in that region don't (or at least didn't) require them.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,829
Reaction score
296
kcran567 said:
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
Going multiple mach numbers and coming down from 80,000 feet?
Which leads me to think of a MaRV employing some form of E/MHD for aero control,
thermal protection and/or propulsion. Might explain the intermittent nature
of the radar returns.
Also, the object was still on the surface and then rose to 80k feet in a matter of seconds. No MaRV can do that. This has to be some form of exotic propulsion or as yet undisclosed black tech if it is real (if not extraterrestrial in origin).
Was any of that captured on the FLIR? By MaRV, I'm thinking of something like Delta Clipper.
 

sublight is back

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
770
Reaction score
53
So if this really is a thing, and there are some sort of solid state propulsion units on the surface of the airframe, wouldn't the air around the trailing surfaces of the craft cavitate since there is no traditional inlet and exhaust?
 

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
664
Reaction score
12
The pilots specifically said no IR plumes, doesn't that rule out conventional propulsion? The object also is rotating in a controlled manner while out turning and accelerating an F-18.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,271
Reaction score
1,295
sublight is back said:
So if this really is a thing, and there are some sort of solid state propulsion units on the surface of the airframe, wouldn't the air around the trailing surfaces of the craft cavitate since there is no traditional inlet and exhaust?
What about some kind of electrostatic / MHD propulsion thing-a-majig we hear about now and then?
 

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
664
Reaction score
12
sferrin said:
sublight is back said:
So if this really is a thing, and there are some sort of solid state propulsion units on the surface of the airframe, wouldn't the air around the trailing surfaces of the craft cavitate since there is no traditional inlet and exhaust?
What about some kind of electrostatic / MHD propulsion thing-a-majig we hear about now and then?
Maybe to go a few knots in a lighter than air blimp, but unless there's also a highly exotic power source as well to fit in such a small space (40ft. x10) unlikely, but you never know...If it was a black project why are they trying to spook Navy F-18s?
 

sublight is back

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
770
Reaction score
53
sferrin said:
sublight is back said:
So if this really is a thing, and there are some sort of solid state propulsion units on the surface of the airframe, wouldn't the air around the trailing surfaces of the craft cavitate since there is no traditional inlet and exhaust?
What about some kind of electrostatic / MHD propulsion thing-a-majig we hear about now and then?
Yes, but according to the aviators, the only features discernible were "midline horizontal axis (like a fuselage) but having no visible windows, nacelles, wings or propulsion systems". So air would have to be repulsed from a surface as opposed to being sucked through an intake and expelled out the back end. I'm wondering from a CFD standpoint what sort of aerodynamic nightmares would result from implementing that sort of propulsion system.
 

Mat Parry

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
417
Reaction score
7
Any notional MHD type system would have to throw incredible volumes of ionized air to achieve the kinds of acceleration exhibited by the San Diego / Nimitz phenomena.

From the statements Luis Elizondo has made, AATIP appears to have taken a rational scientific approach in analysing the performance characteristics of these phenomena. I wouldn't be surprised if AATIP considered some of the conclusions Paul Hill came to regarding potential propulsion methods.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Hill

Note, Hal Puthoff wrote a synopsis of Paul Hill's book which is linked below. (Puthoff is now involved in Tom Delonge's To The Stars).

https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.disclosureproject.org/docs/pdf/ScienceArticle1.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwier4eF073YAhVCupQKHUoTCugQFgh7MBA&usg=AOvVaw07NG5W1IBdZQwYUoxduEjm

One of the most consistently-observed characteristics of UFO flight is a ubiquitous pattern in which they tilt to perform all maneuvers. Specifically, they sit level to hover, tilt forward to move forward, tilt backward to stop, bank to turn, and descend by "falling-leaf" or "silver- dollar-wobble" motions. Detailed analysis by Hill shows that such motion is inconsistent with aerodynamic requirements, but totally consistent with some form of repulsive force-field propulsion
In an effort to examine the force-field propulsion hypothesis yet further, Hill analyzed a number of cases involving near-field interactions with an apparent craft in which some form of force was in evidence. These include examples in which a person or vehicle was affected, tree branches were parted or broken, roof tiles were dislodged, objects were deflected, and ground or water were disturbed. Under close analysis the subtleties of these interactions combine to point unequivocally to a repulsive force field surrounding the craft, while discriminating against propulsion mechanisms involving jet action, pure electric or magnetic effects, or the emission of energetic particles or radiation
Further detailed investigation indicates that the particular form of force field propulsion that satisfies observational constraints is what Hill labels a directed acceleration field; that is, a field that is, in general, gravitational-like in nature, and, in particular, gravity-canceling. Such a field acts on all masses in its sphere of influence as does a gravitational field. Corollary to this conclusion is that observed accelerations ~100 g's relative to the environment could be sustained without on-board high-g forces. One of the consequences of the above identification of field propulsion type by Hill is his conclusion, supported by detailed calculation, computer simulation and wind-tunnel studies, that supersonic flight through the atmosphere without sonic booms is easily engineered. Manipulation of the acceleration-type force field would, even at supersonic speeds, result in a constant-pressure, compression-free zone without shockwave in which the vehicle is surrounded by a subsonic flow-pattern of streamlines, and subsonic velocity ratios.
A further example of the type of correlation that emerges from Hill's analytical approach is provided by an analysis of the economy of various flight-path profiles. It is shown that high-angle, high- acceleration departures on ballistic-arc trajectories with high-speed coast segments are more efficient than, for example, intermediate-level, horizontal-path trips, both in terms of required impulse-per-unit-mass and time-of-flight parameters. This he correlates with the observation that UFO departures are of the dramatically high-angle, high-acceleration type.
Another typical nugget of information is found in Hill's discussion of the results of the analysis of a possible UFO artifact, the famous Ubatuba magnesium fragments claimed to have originated from an exploded unidentified craft near Ubatuba, Brazil. Laboratory analysis of the samples found the magnesium to be not only of exceptional purity, and anomalous in its trace composition of other elements, but 6.7% denser than ordinary pure magnesium, a figure well beyond the experimental error of the measurement. Hill's calculation shows that this observation can be accounted for by assuming that the sample contained only the pure isotope Mg26, rather than the naturally-occurring distribution among isotopes Mg24, Mg25 and Mg26. Since the only isotope separation on a significant scale in terrestrial manufacture is that of uranium, such a result must be considered at least anomalous, and possibly as evidence for extraterrestrial manufacture.
In the final analysis, one must conclude that Hill has assembled as good a case as can be made on the basis of presently available data that the observation of some "unconventional flying objects" is compatible with the presence of engineered platforms weighing in at something around 30 tons, which are capable of 100-g accelerations and 9000-mph speeds in the atmosphere. Perhaps more important for the technical reader, however, is Hill's supporting argumentation, based on solid analysis, that these platforms, although exhibiting the application
of physics and engineering principles clearly beyond our present-day capabilities, do not appear to defy these principles in any fundamental way.
Was Puthoff employed by Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies to work on AATIP? If so, how involved was he in forming opinion within AATIP?

We appear to be covering the same old ground again (analysis of performance characteristics, rumor of recovered materials, gravity cancellation hinted at by a Tom Delonge tweet).

As I said earlier in this thread, here we go again...
 

sublight is back

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
770
Reaction score
53
Sorry, I don't find any value in lumping all anomalies together into the UFO bucket. Thats like referring to all unidentified animal species as "bigfoot". Where was the shock cone as this thing broke the sound barrier? Did any of the fighters involved fly through the shock wave / turbulence created in its wake? I've seen the interviews and unless I missed it, there is no mention of any turbulent wake created by the AAV which the fighters would have undoubtedly experienced.
 

Mat Parry

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
417
Reaction score
7
I'm not really sure what you are getting at with your Bigfoot analogy? I am very sure Paul Hill was far more qualified than me to conduct a scientific investigation of the aerodynamic behavior of these phenomena. Is your favoured approach is to investigate each incident in isolation? I am a scientist by trade (admittedly a very average one) my experience is that graphing a single data point won't get you very far.

You are correct that there was no mention of sonic booms, turbulent wake etc. Taking this at face value how would this be achieved? Paul Hill's hypothesis is explained in his book and (in a more readily digestible format) in Puthoff's synopsis.

Personally I'm skeptical of an extra terrestrial hypothesis, and find a man made or natural phenomena far more likely.

Regarding man made explanations, as I understand it MHD (electromagnetic propulsion using ionized air as propellant) would not avoid sonic booms, (ie. you can't propel an object forwards at mach 5 by throwing subsonic plasma in the opposite direction). Of course there's other (very old) evidence of attempts at drag reduction (perhaps even resulting in dissipation of sonic booms) via ionizing the air infront of an object in a wind tunnel but there's no evidence this work progressed any further and it certainly wasn't a propulsion system.
 

sublight is back

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
770
Reaction score
53
Mat Parry said:
I'm not really sure what you are getting at with your Bigfoot analogy? I am very sure Paul Hill was far more qualified than me to conduct a scientific investigation of the aerodynamic behavior of these phenomena. Is your favoured approach is to investigate each incident in isolation? I am a scientist by trade (admittedly a very average one) my experience is that graphing a single data point won't get you very far.
This should be studied completely independently of any other incident. For example, the "gigantic thing" flying with F-16's over Stephenville/Dublin/Brownwood MOA in 2007, was nothing like the "hypersonic tic tac" in the subject of this thread. Lumping them together and calling them "UFO's" (which is synonymous with cow excrement) does no good whatsoever in providing a sound explanation.


Regarding man made explanations, as I understand it MHD (electromagnetic propulsion using ionized air as propellant) would not avoid sonic booms, (ie. you can't propel an object forwards at mach 5 by throwing subsonic plasma in the opposite direction). Of course there's other (very old) evidence of attempts at drag reduction (perhaps even resulting in dissipation of sonic booms) via ionizing the air infront of an object in a wind tunnel but there's no evidence this work progressed any further and it certainly wasn't a propulsion system.
Regardless of drag reduction there is no way to accelerate a platform like that without it creating a gigantic turbulent wake in its path. If there was no violent physical interaction with the environment, then there may not have been an actual hypersonic acceleration at all. I'm thinking some sort of new jammer or camouflage test sounds a lot more plausible.
 

Mat Parry

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
417
Reaction score
7
sublight is back said:
This should be studied completely independently of any other incident. For example, the "gigantic thing" flying with F-16's over Stephenville/Dublin/Brownwood MOA in 2007, was nothing like the "hypersonic tic tac" in the subject of this thread.
Without meaning to appear snarky, the only person who brought the "gigantic thing" to this discussion was you. The sightings that Paul Hill was most interested in bear remarkable similarities to the San Diego / Nimitz encounter.

sublight is back said:
Regardless of drag reduction there is no way to accelerate a platform like that without it creating a gigantic turbulent wake in its path. If there was no violent physical interaction with the environment, then there may not have been an actual hypersonic acceleration at all.
Paul Hill wouldn't agree with you.

sublight is back said:
I'm thinking some sort of new jammer or camouflage test sounds a lot more plausible.
I generally agree, radar systems have been fooled into reporting incredible acceleration's previously. A central tennent of Mark Pilkington's book "Mirage Men" relates to the 1960's Palladium program involving a special electronic transmitter that could project a false target into the "Tall King" and "Spoon Rest" radar systems. So when I hear about mysterious radar contacts performing incredible maneuvers over somewhere like Iran, I assume it's spoofing of some kind.

The San Diego / Nimitz is much more difficult to explain due to the quality and numerous types of sensors both passive and active in a number of wavelengths.

https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/gimbal
https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/2004-nimitz-flir1-video
https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/nimitz-report

https://youtu.be/K-FsylX3NgE
 

martinbayer

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
696
Reaction score
164
sublight is back said:
Sorry, I don't find any value in lumping all anomalies together into the UFO bucket. Thats like referring to all unidentified animal species as "bigfoot". Where was the shock cone as this thing broke the sound barrier? Did any of the fighters involved fly through the shock wave / turbulence created in its wake? I've seen the interviews and unless I missed it, there is no mention of any turbulent wake created by the AAV which the fighters would have undoubtedly experienced.
sublight is back said:
Mat Parry said:
I'm not really sure what you are getting at with your Bigfoot analogy? I am very sure Paul Hill was far more qualified than me to conduct a scientific investigation of the aerodynamic behavior of these phenomena. Is your favoured approach is to investigate each incident in isolation? I am a scientist by trade (admittedly a very average one) my experience is that graphing a single data point won't get you very far.
This should be studied completely independently of any other incident. For example, the "gigantic thing" flying with F-16's over Stephenville/Dublin/Brownwood MOA in 2007, was nothing like the "hypersonic tic tac" in the subject of this thread. Lumping them together and calling them "UFO's" (which is synonymous with cow excrement) does no good whatsoever in providing a sound explanation.
I'm admittedly only an aerospace engineer, not a scientist, but in my best understanding, within the scientific method there is certainly value in starting out by collecting data across a wide range of observations and then sorting and categorizing them according to different criteria, patterns and common characteristics. That approach will fairly quickly help you to separate sightings of Bigfoot from those of, say, Chupacabras, while both (assuming they actually existed), would presumably still both be members of the superclass Tetrapoda. And if you look at an excerpt of Hill's book, which I only became aware of through this thread, at http://redwheelweiser.com/downloads/unconventionalflyingobjects.pdf, you will see that this is exactly what he did - on page 12 it shows for example a taxonomy of a variety of observed shapes. Insisting to treat every single sighting as an isolated incident risks missing potential underlying commonalities, while comparing notes and looking at the bigger picture may well yield significant insights. I'd like to add that although a Concorde looks nothing like a PZL M-15 and exhibits very different performance parameters, both are crewed jet propelled aircraft that rely on aerodynamic lift - looks can be deceiving...

Martin
 

sublight is back

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
770
Reaction score
53
First off, Matt, sorry to sound snarky. I'm just of the opinion that throwing everything in the UFO bucket seems counterproductive. I brought up the "gigantic thing" flying with F-16's over Stephenville/Dublin/Brownwood MOA in 2007, because I think its just as interesting and relevant but all the data surrounding that incident does not correlate to the Navy incident except for the fact that the military was involved in both incidents.

Four years ago a crewman on the carrier told that same story to the UFO crowd on Reddit. It REALLY seems like the Navy wanted this story to get out, one way or the other:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1qyu5i/my_ufo_encounterexposure_while_on_board_an/


I decided to create an account to tell this story of an experience I had while on board an aircraft carrier far from the coast of California in the Pacific.

*FIRST OFF, I am relaying information and supporting circumstances, I did not see a UFO personally. However, it is an interesting story.

I am intentionally going to be vague about certain specifics just to protect my identity, although this information was never told to be kept secret and was wide spread.

During a one or two month "work-up" on an aircraft in the Pacific Ocean, we encountered a UFO. For those that are unfamiliar, "work-ups" are training exercises in preparation for deployment. So, the ship will deploy for anywhere from 2-8 weeks and let the pilots get aircraft carrier experience.

So, we are on a routine "work-up" in the Pacific Ocean. However, this work-up involved multiple carriers and battleships in a rather large exercise. I have zero recollection of the time in the work up that the encounter occurred, but I believe it was a few weeks in.

I was attached to an F18 squadron and worked in a technical capacity, as opposed to working on the flight deck. For 3 days in a row, an Operations Officer noticed an aircraft breaching our restricted airspace. The aircraft was traveling at a low speed at around 20,000 feet. The first 2 days the aircraft was observed, it disappeared from radar after a few minutes before being able to investigate. In preparation for this aircraft, the carriers had f18s ready to scramble.

On the 3rd sighting, a formation of around 10 (very rough guess, but it was a large group) F18c&d's scrambled to the location to investigate including my Commanding Officer.

This is where the story becomes hard to believe and almost silly to tell.

According to the pilots and confirmed by a friend in intel, when they encountered the aircraft it had disappeared from sight. However, there was a large disruption in the ocean below and it was assumed that the aircraft crashed. So, the strike group circled the area and inspected the scene. OK, crazy part now, an object that was described by multiple pilots and a friend in intel as resembled a very large "tic-tac".

Sounds like the ultimate troll job, I know. So, the "tic-tac" oval object lifted from the water. Out of fear or impulse (I have no idea) our pilots decided to engage the object. After lifting from the water and sitting briefly, the object flew at a speed that none of the pilots had ever encountered. It was just gone.

The incident was not cloaked in secrecy. The entire carrier was buzzing with rumors. I was not able to see the COM/NAV actual flight recording, so I was very skeptical. Things get dull in the middle of the ocean and it is not uncommon for troll jobs. So I wasn't exactly sold.

That night in the berthing I asked a very close friend in intel if he could confirm the legitimacy of the film. Without speaking, he gestured that it was correct. So, my skepticism began to fade and that next day a group of individuals were "cod'ed" onto the carrier and they retrieved all the tapes. I can confirm they cod'ed onto the ship, but the seizure of tapes came from people that work in those shops.

Years later I had practically forgotten this experience and I was watching tv at a friend's house. The show was about UFO's and some Russian pilots were describing an experience they had and they actually released the flight footage. The object that captured on film was shaped just like a "tic-tac" and moved faster than anything in existence. If someone can find a video or pic of that doc, much love! It was on History Channel years ago.

Anyways, I hope you guys enjoyed the read. I will try to answer any questions if anyone has any! I don't want to go into details about dates, ship name, my job, etc.... although I don't think it matters, we weren't told to be quiet and it was pretty wide-spread (minus certain details I acquired through discussions)
 

sublight is back

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
770
Reaction score
53
martinbayer said:
... And if you look at an excerpt of Hill's book, which I only became aware of through this thread, at http://redwheelweiser.com/downloads/unconventionalflyingobjects.pdf, you will see that this is exactly what he did - on page 12 it shows for example a taxonomy of a variety of observed shapes. Insisting to treat every single sighting as an isolated incident risks missing potential underlying commonalities, while comparing notes and looking at the bigger picture may well yield significant insights. I'd like to add that although a Concorde looks nothing like a PZL M-15 and exhibits very different performance parameters, both are crewed jet propelled aircraft that rely on aerodynamic lift - looks can be deceiving...
I cannot take that book seriously because the forward quote invalidates everything afterwards:
Hill knew that UFO technology so far exceeded the capability of terrestrial technology that UFOs could not have been made by humans
And I counter with this, the CIA has said "it was us" in regards to the UFO craze of the 50's and 60's that spawned project bluebook. The phrase "history repeats itself" comes to mind.
 

Mat Parry

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
417
Reaction score
7
Books and covers springs to mind.

You are judging the quality of the author's content by a foreword that somebody else wrote. Fair enough, it is a poor foreword.

I would argue the quote "Paul was a good engineer—he designed the fuselage for the World War II P-47 fighter-bomber" is rather playing down his career at NASA.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Hill

I'd say we're done here, let's see if "to the stars" promises of more releases comes to pass.
 
Top