A few months ago, an acquaintance told me and a fellow club member about a UFO experience he had had back in the early seventies.
He was co-pilot, in a squadron(?) that was flying towards Salt Lake(?) where they would check in and get new coordinates.
He said that the sky was crystal clear and the stars were bright.
Straight off of the right wing tip he became aware of a very bright object, that was so bright and appeared close, that he pointed it out to the pilot.
They contacted the flight control center to get their new coordinates, but were told, "We hear you, but you aren't on our radar. Hold your course."
After awhile the control center said "There is a plane that will intercept your coordinates, let us know when you have visual contact."
Awhile later, a refueling tanker flew right over them.
To me, he said, "I have no idea what a refueling tanker was doing at 42,000 feet!"
Then they got the command to make a 20 degree turn, which they did.
My acquaintance looked out and said, "Captain, that object I pointed out earlier?, it's still there, right off our wing."
The control center said, "We still hear you but still can't get a radar fix on you...make another 20 degree turn."
The planes turned once again, the bright object disappeared, and the control center could now see them on their radar.
Looking over at the pilot my acquaintance asked, "Do you want to report this?"
And the pilot replied, "No, do you?"
No he sure didn't.
From his description, I believe that this had happened enough times that they had established a protocol to follow. And part of the protocol was to send a plane they could track towards the "radar invisibility zone" to measure how large it was.
Note: My "quotes" are simply my approximations of what was said.
A possibly related subject: Quantum entanglement - Wikipedia
He was co-pilot, in a squadron(?) that was flying towards Salt Lake(?) where they would check in and get new coordinates.
He said that the sky was crystal clear and the stars were bright.
Straight off of the right wing tip he became aware of a very bright object, that was so bright and appeared close, that he pointed it out to the pilot.
They contacted the flight control center to get their new coordinates, but were told, "We hear you, but you aren't on our radar. Hold your course."
After awhile the control center said "There is a plane that will intercept your coordinates, let us know when you have visual contact."
Awhile later, a refueling tanker flew right over them.
To me, he said, "I have no idea what a refueling tanker was doing at 42,000 feet!"
Then they got the command to make a 20 degree turn, which they did.
My acquaintance looked out and said, "Captain, that object I pointed out earlier?, it's still there, right off our wing."
The control center said, "We still hear you but still can't get a radar fix on you...make another 20 degree turn."
The planes turned once again, the bright object disappeared, and the control center could now see them on their radar.
Looking over at the pilot my acquaintance asked, "Do you want to report this?"
And the pilot replied, "No, do you?"
No he sure didn't.
From his description, I believe that this had happened enough times that they had established a protocol to follow. And part of the protocol was to send a plane they could track towards the "radar invisibility zone" to measure how large it was.
Note: My "quotes" are simply my approximations of what was said.
A possibly related subject: Quantum entanglement - Wikipedia
Well obviously no-one said the "Standard Model" is a theory about everything and whether its reality is not up for debate, the laws of physics is reality and certainly not a approximation, physicists would find your views somewhat unorthodox.
The "Standard Model" is complete, the Higgs Boson particle was confirmed in 2012 long predicted by physicists. However what is missing is the linking between dark matter/energy and gravity and how it ties into the standard model.
There are no growing doubts,
the "Standard Model" has been subject to every attempt to overturn it to demonstrate in the laboratory that it must be substantially reworked – and there have been many over the past 50 years – has failed.
We can be thankful the scientists and physicists at Cern understand - The Standard Model
It's interesting that most of these sightings are high in the sky, which, let's face it, is an alien environment for us.
What UFO, the fuzzy black dots on the radar screen could be a flying potato or a DeLorean fitted with a flux capacitor and who can say otherwise.
The reality is all the world superpowers spy on each other and know what their military capabilities are, there's no surprises or advanced alien technology at play.
Stop worrying about little green aliens and their time travelling flying saucers, surely we could all spend our time more productively.
This post sums it up nicely
Yet you claim it`s a theory of "almost everything" while actually 90% is left out.
Do the math Indiglo.
You have a habit of misquoting my statements to the point of ignorance and I made no such claims about the "Standard Model" is a theory about almost everything. The article was written by a Physicist. If you have a problem understanding science go talk to a physicist.
It's obvious you didn't read the article or didn't understand it. But in very simple terms since particles constitute most of everything that we know, then the "Standard Model" is valid (with conditions), and if you bothered to read the article you would realise that dark energy/matter and gravity are not included in this model (for obvious reasons), scientists and physicists are using the Large Hadron Collider to determine the relationship to tie all this together. What part of this don't you understand ?
Now to your maths problem, whilst the universe consists of approx 95% of a combination of dark energy and matter this does not correlate to 95% of the standard physics model. You are confused with the composition of the universe to that of the individual components that define a physics model, therefore 95% of the universe does not equate to 95% of an equation.
I find your antagonistic views on science baffling.
ScottJoplin - Actually there are many reports of sightings that are quite low to the ground. All three of my own experiences were of objects that were at relatively low altitudes; from sea level to perhaps 5,000 ft before moving high enough in the sky to disappear. As mentioned before one experience was alone and two others with solid citizen witnesses. I am perhaps too close to the experience of these unknowns not to take this a bit personal but I find the buffoonery of many of the comments here to be dismaying. Maybe I just expected more of my audio friends. Once again a good reason not to talk about a serious matter since so many don't and won't take it seriously.
Indeed, there's a lot of people who just won't accept some things that others might tell them. And I can understand their reasoning behind it. It goes well beyond the audio crowd though, it permeates society in general.
You've heard the saying: "There are believers, and there are disbelievers".
That is why I choose not to discuss some things both in person, and over the internet - I've set a certain line of behavior and tolerance towards contoversial subjects by experiences of the past.
In fact, I too have my own disbeliefs of things, other things I simply don't fuss over.
I try to keep a reasonably healthy balance, and individual priorities suitable for my own life.
Face it, there are people with all sorts of differences and mindsets in the world, and you can't always mesh with all of them.
The only serious aspect of this topic is how it's proliferation may affect the safety of the population. And I don't mean from the "aliens". It's the kooks we need protection from. Good thing it's self regulating. The government keeps it alive to hide their research. That's about it. Nothing more going on, just the usual snow job.
Last edited:
Just observe fish in a pond: imagine they figure almost everything out, currents, density, flow, their world of physics.
Now there's a fish that says there's people flying up above and that the world made up above them reaches as far as below them. Then they give him the treatment of having an antagonistic world view.
Imagine that.
I choose not to see the impossibilities but let the possibilities stand out. To find that unscientific, antagonistic or whatever you can throw at it is not a case for my world view, it is of the other.
Stop blaiming others for not reading, comprehending or understanding mathematics or the impossibilities of physics, it is merely the limited scope and comprehension of one self that points out the need to blame others for stating the obvious.
Like I said before, it's besides the point.
Regarding the "almost everything", it's in the headline!
Oh, we get it alright. The issue is, they don't. When they do, you, and they, may(or may not) have a position.
Answer:
Your own post, number #78, you remember, the one we should "try to read"?
You`re reading different things than that I wrote. I said it doesn`t matter because it`s besides the point. I never argued I accepted particle physics, the standard model, E=MC2 or not. That`s the beauty of it.
Well, if you`re not confused, good at math and the standard model and you keep on persisting that it describes physics the best, tell me: what is the percentage of the known universe that is described by the Standard Model?
Answers in percentage per volume, energy and/or matter are allowed.
Because our little soiree has gone a bit off topic, I would like to get back on topic and ask if any of these particle accelerations , the standard model etc etc have any direct relationship to the original claim that was made (by you) when it was used as the absolute, single rule made against the possibility of interstellar travel.
So what does the standard model, or anything really, say about it, other than that, as discussed before, classical speed enhancement probably isn`t feasible and would you just admit we, and that means you too, just don`t know enough to rule interstellar travel out completely? As in: you shouldn`t have made that claim.
There`s nothing to understand, it`s the relationship between current physics and the (im)possibility of interstellar travel that is just not proven, that`s all. And about particles: it doesn`t explain gravity, dark matter or dark energy, let alone the fact that it isn`t even sure those are caused by particles at all, but a particle physicist wouldn`t tell you that of course.
P.S. do you know what a weak force is? Personal insults!
Try reading again! It was the title of the article written by a physicist, how many times do I have to tell you this.
And again you didn't read the article or what I wrote, seriously are you just straight up ignorant.
And again, I didn't make the claim, a physicist wrote the article and again how many times do I need to point out the bleeding obvious to you and again you continue to misquote what I say.
Since comprehension eludes you, I have to repeat myself over and over again to the point of annoyance because of your petulant behaviour.
In future and before responding try to at least read and comprehend on who wrote what and desist from paraphrasing and misquoting everything I say, quiet frankly I find your responses unjustified and personally offensive.
Additionally I refer you to Rule 12 of the forum
And again, I`m not impressed with no answer to any question I asked.
You can solve all this by just replying with a straight answer.
It speaks volume that you don`t and resort to personal attacks and forum rules.
That`s the last thing you`ll hear from me.
Sorry for this guys, let`s get it back on track shall we?
On topic: warp drive seems to be possible without using negative energy, that`s a great feat and we haven`t even scratched the surface of what`s possible.
Check PBS` Spacetime or Sabine Hossenfelder on Warp Drive.
You can solve all this by just replying with a straight answer.
It speaks volume that you don`t and resort to personal attacks and forum rules.
That`s the last thing you`ll hear from me.
Sorry for this guys, let`s get it back on track shall we?
On topic: warp drive seems to be possible without using negative energy, that`s a great feat and we haven`t even scratched the surface of what`s possible.
Check PBS` Spacetime or Sabine Hossenfelder on Warp Drive.
I responded to you to the point of ad nauseam with several links of information that answered all your questions based upon current knowledge provided by the scientific community but for some inexplicable reason that's not what you wanted to hear.
I referred you to the forum rules which you contravened by deliberately misquoting and paraphrasing my posts after I asked you numerous times for you to desist from doing so.
Saagar Enjeti: Here’s Why UFO Disclosures Are NOT A Pentagon Ploy For More Funding - YouTube
Tucker says it's time for answers - YouTube
UFOs are a military issue, not a matter of belief: Jeremy Corbell - YouTube
Tucker reacts to footage of 'spherical' UFO captured by Navy - YouTube
Retired US Navy Chief explains tech witnessed in UFO aircraft sighting - YouTube
Tucker says it's time for answers - YouTube
UFOs are a military issue, not a matter of belief: Jeremy Corbell - YouTube
Tucker reacts to footage of 'spherical' UFO captured by Navy - YouTube
Retired US Navy Chief explains tech witnessed in UFO aircraft sighting - YouTube
When you've already seen one of these UFO's as I did, all those news stories and bulletins are not so exciting anymore.
Maybe if one sets down on my front lawn some afternoon, my excitement will be rekindled.
Maybe if one sets down on my front lawn some afternoon, my excitement will be rekindled.