Do you believe in other life in the Universe?

[T.Lex]

You know, there is another data point from the FLIR that undermines the optical effect theory: the relative position to the tracking aircraft.

At the top of the FLIR screen is a measure of the orientation of the FLIR to the aircraft. It starts out (IIRC) at about 4 degrees right of the aircraft. The aircraft itself maintains a relatively stable hold at heading 249-251 (a little south of west) and altitude of 20k. Yet, the FLIR lock rotates (unsteadily) from just right of the aircraft to just left of the aircraft. The movement of the target does not appear to correlate with any change in heading of the aircraft. The 2 appear independent.

 

[Alpo]

Do optical effects have mass that will reflect radar?

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

Do you know the answer?

 

[Alpo]

You know, there is another data point from the FLIR that undermines the optical effect theory: the relative position to the tracking aircraft.

At the top of the FLIR screen is a measure of the orientation of the FLIR to the aircraft. It starts out (IIRC) at about 4 degrees right of the aircraft. The aircraft itself maintains a relatively stable hold at heading 249-251 (a little south of west) and altitude of 20k. Yet, the FLIR lock rotates (unsteadily) from just right of the aircraft to just left of the aircraft. The movement of the target does not appear to correlate with any change in heading of the aircraft. The 2 appear independent.

How does that correlate with the pilot's statement of circling?

 

[printcraft]

Do you know the answer?

Yes.
No, they won't as far as my understanding of the physical world goes.
I'm just wanting to know your theory on how an optical effect can be detected by radar. I'm here to be educated.

 

[Alpo]

An event can have effects visible in any number of bandwidths. A photon is just a photon.

 

[printcraft]

An event can have effects visible in any number of bandwidths. A photon is just a photon.

Photons don't have mass.

 

[ATM]

...Many can be satisfied with, "I don't know what it is, but I know what it isn't." For me, I feel compelled by curiosity to at least try to figure out what it MIGHT be.

In the Holmesian sense, by eliminating everything it isn't, we are left with what it is, however improbable it might be.

Hmm... this thread suddenly became interesting.

 

[jamil]

In the Holmesian sense, by eliminating everything it isn't, we are left with what it is, however improbable it might be.

Of course this only applies domains of discourse where all the things it isn't is knowable. In an unknown domain, one in which you can't know everything that it isn't, it isn't possible to conclusively arrive at what it is merely through the process of elimination. This is essentially similar to the question of God, a domain in which you can't prove a negative. In other words, if you eliminate everything else you know it could be, but your knowledge isn't complete, "God" is what you come up with to explain such things. Or UFOs. Either way.

But I'm not saying you shouldn't try.

 

[T.Lex]

How does that correlate with the pilot's statement of circling?

Ah - different part of the event.

Nimitz sees radar anomaly. Pilots 1 and 2 were training relatively nearby and were vectored to the anomaly. Problem is, they didn't have live weapons. They made the visual report that included circling. They observed the anomaly in 2 places. Nimitz launches pilots 3, 4, 5 and 6 to go to (I believe) the 2 locations. These aircraft have actual weapons. Pilots 3 and 4 make it to one of the locations and observe the anomaly and record at least 1 records it with FLIR.

That is my unreferenced understanding of the events.

Hmm... this thread suddenly became interesting.

Like a moth to a flame.

Of course this only applies domains of discourse where all the things it isn't is knowable. In an unknown domain, one in which you can't know everything that it isn't, it isn't possible to conclusively arrive at what it is merely through the process of elimination. This is essentially similar to the question of God, a domain in which you can't prove a negative. In other words, if you eliminate everything else you know it could be, but your knowledge isn't complete, "God" is what you come up with to explain such things. Or UFOs. Either way.

But I'm not saying you shouldn't try.

Well, within this domain are certain natural events and known technologies.

For instance, the gas leak theory. I am (barely) imaginative enough to consider that a huge vent in the ocean floor could open up and all that gas could reach the surface in a massive, dense cloud. That cloud or clouds could (being imaginative) show up on radar and get attention from a CVN. Arriving aircraft could see the phenomenon and not recognize it as a cloud or series of clouds. The clouds would have a "hot" reading on FLIR as they rise. If it stayed coalesced (<- probably not the right meteorological word) it could get pushed by the jetstream or prevailing winds in one direction. Perhaps even pretty quickly.

Something like that would be really cool to see. And different enough to take a little while to recognize.

But, something like that also wouldn't be mistaken for a drone, or behave as the unidentified vehicle is described as behaving. The ocean/swamp gas idea only checks some of the boxes.

 

[printcraft]

You are forgetting to add weather balloon caught in that gas pocket that was reflecting the light from Venus.

 

[T.Lex]

You are forgetting to add weather balloon caught in that gas pocket that was reflecting the light from Venus.

As I alluded to, I'm not all that imaginative. (And I don't have a pen with a red light.)

 

[BugI02]

Ah - different part of the event.

Nimitz sees radar anomaly. Pilots 1 and 2 were training relatively nearby and were vectored to the anomaly. Problem is, they didn't have live weapons. They made the visual report that included circling. They observed the anomaly in 2 places. Nimitz launches pilots 3, 4, 5 and 6 to go to (I believe) the 2 locations. These aircraft have actual weapons. Pilots 3 and 4 make it to one of the locations and observe the anomaly and record at least 1 records it with FLIR.

That is my unreferenced understanding of the events.



Like a moth to a flame.


Well, within this domain are certain natural events and known technologies.

For instance, the gas leak theory. I am (barely) imaginative enough to consider that a huge vent in the ocean floor could open up and all that gas could reach the surface in a massive, dense cloud. That cloud or clouds could (being imaginative) show up on radar and get attention from a CVN. Arriving aircraft could see the phenomenon and not recognize it as a cloud or series of clouds. The clouds would have a "hot" reading on FLIR as they rise. If it stayed coalesced (<- probably not the right meteorological word) it could get pushed by the jetstream or prevailing winds in one direction. Perhaps even pretty quickly.

Something like that would be really cool to see. And different enough to take a little while to recognize.

But, something like that also wouldn't be mistaken for a drone, or behave as the unidentified vehicle is described as behaving. The ocean/swamp gas idea only checks some of the boxes.

But recall that at one point on the audio one of the crew (wizzo?) says the target is moving against the wind (which I believe he says is 120kts on their nose)

 

[Leadeye]

I see the "Close Encounters" stuff this way. Growing up, UFOs were something that you saw on the news or read about from time to time. Pictures were spotty and sometimes debunked as fakes, others were unexplained. Today just about everybody has a good quality movie camera in their pocket but you don't see near the amount of pictures and stories that there used to be. My conclusion is that the "Close Encounters" were never really there. That's not to say that there isn't life out there in the galaxy, it's just making few, if any, visits here.

 

[T.Lex]

But recall that at one point on the audio one of the crew (wizzo?) says the target is moving against the wind (which I believe he says is 120kts on their nose)

Indeed, oh man-of-teal, that is one of the boxes that would remain unchecked by that scenario.

Perhaps I also should have been clearer: I'm not advocating that as What Really Happened. I'm simply using that to illustrate how the domain is full of commonly (and some not so commonly) known facts, rather than a vastness of the unknown. Indeed, we really can be considered masters of this domain.

 

[Alpo]

Photons don't have mass.

True, but not contextual. Your original observation that mass is necessary to reflect radar is not sound. Gravity and electromagnetics could also cause a "reflection", though I don't think gravity is relevant in this case. Given quantum states and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it is unknown whether the photon is truly reflected, or absorbed and re-emitted. In addition, you assume the mass is what it might appear to be: a lozenge-shaped craft. It may be that, or it could be any number of other things. For example, any craft capable of right angle turns and high acceleration in the atmosphere might be shielded in some manner and its appearance might therefore also be altered.

While I would be happy to learn that it is an alien craft, I don't think there is anywhere near enough information to reach that conclusion.

 

[T.Lex]

While I would be happy to learn that it is an alien craft, I don't think there is anywhere near enough information to reach that conclusion.

Is there enough information to reach a different conclusion?

That's not a trap question.

For me, it is coming down to 3 options:
1. Manmade (from Earth), of a technology unknown in the larger common experience, that is being kept secret extraordinarily well.

2. Combination of natural phenomena that was extraordinarily coincidental and misunderstood by the people and sensors involved.

3. Alien technology.

If pressed, I think that's the order I would have them in terms of likelihood.

ETA:
Right on cue...

Pentagon Seeks Laser-Powered Bat Drones. Really. - Defense One

On Wednesday, the the Defense Enterprise Science Initiative, or DESI, announced a competition for basic science grants to build “new paradigms for autonomous flight, with a focus on highly-maneuverable platforms and algorithms for flight control and decision making.”

 

[Alpo]

Indeed, oh man-of-teal, that is one of the boxes that would remain unchecked by that scenario.

Perhaps I also should have been clearer: I'm not advocating that as What Really Happened. I'm simply using that to illustrate how the domain is full of commonly (and some not so commonly) known facts, rather than a vastness of the unknown. Indeed, we really can be considered masters of this domain.

Gas cools as it rises, doesn't it? At least that is what I remember from thermodynamics.

A gas "leak" on the ocean bed is under tremendous pressure from the water column. As it rises, it expands (lecture 4 from Sea Hunt). So, a relatively small leak can become a fairly sizable bloom when it hits the surface. I remember the ocean got deep fairly quickly off of San Diego.

 

[T.Lex]

Gas cools as it rises, doesn't it? At least that is what I remember from thermodynamics.

You're making me defend something that I don't really agree with, but that's ok. I'm a trained professional.

Gas does cool, but so does the atmosphere as altitude increases, along with the "air" becoming less dense. Moreover, there are currents that flow vertically. If the gas cloud was cooling more slowly than the air around it, the cloud could continue to "float" up until it was carried by a more horizontal current, e.g. jetstream.

 

[Alpo]

Is there enough information to reach a different conclusion?

That's not a trap question.

For me, it is coming down to 3 options:
1. Manmade (from Earth), of a technology unknown in the larger common experience, that is being kept secret extraordinarily well.

2. Combination of natural phenomena that was extraordinarily coincidental and misunderstood by the people and sensors involved.

3. Alien technology.

If pressed, I think that's the order I would have them in terms of likelihood.

ETA:
Right on cue...

Pentagon Seeks Laser-Powered Bat Drones. Really. - Defense One

There is the possibility that there was cross-dimensional anomaly. I'm not saying a wormhole, exactly. A natural phenomenon but not what we would necessarily classifly as 'natural'. It might be intelligent, intelligence-driven, or not.

 

[T.Lex]

There is the possibility that there was cross-dimensional anomaly. I'm not saying a wormhole, exactly. A natural phenomenon but not what we would necessarily classifly as 'natural'. It might be intelligent, intelligence-driven, or not.

I like it, but if it wasn't an intentional event, then it was natural IMHO. If it was intentional, I think it would be alien tech unless DARPA has some REALLY cool stuff.