The Paranormal, UFO's, and Mysteries of the Unknown

Chukzombi · Feb 1, 2019

Kiroy said:
Look forward to his discussion about the protrusions. Also, did he say that ALL megalithic tight fitting walls were made out of silicate rock? Cause just one or two not being made out of the 'melt-able' rock hurts the theory.

Good video though

he said they were all igneous and contained silica. its pretty interesting these guys used stone tools, but supposedly knew how to scientifically melt rocks. i think people are overthinking it a tad to make the narrative fit the timeline. oh howd they get these 100 ton melted rocks on that mountain cliff? oh well they invented the wheel and then invented a semi truck to haul it up there.

Void · Feb 1, 2019

MusicForFish said:
Here are some good follow up videos for that Utah UFO. Pretty cool shit.

I watched the first one, since it apparently only has words typed on the screen, which is perfect for me trying to watch at work. I also went ahead and found the raw footage so that I could see more than just those few seconds, particularly the moments after the object passed through the camera's view.

That footage is below:

I know you guys probably think I'm just a jerk that won't believe anything, no matter how definitive the proof. And in general I guess that's fair. So if you'd rather not have a discussion where you know that I am going to doubt anything anyway, I understand.

Let's just assume that somehow we're all in agreement that there exists a craft capable of such speeds and maneuverability, and all the inherent structural integrity that would entail. And of course the propulsion system that such speeds would require. Furthermore, since saying "aliens" is frowned upon here, let's assume that we are all in agreement that it is some sort of secret man-made craft (because if we can't agree upon that, it's aliens, right?).

Ok, let's assume all of that. I'll go ahead and stipulate that somehow our "anti-grav" technology has achieved such capability without being leaked into other government or commercial applications even a tiny, tiny bit. And I'll even stipulate that somehow it negates all the stresses upon the craft itself so that g-forces and structural integrity at 9000 mph (which that video estimated the speed at) aren't a concern. Let's even stipulate further that somehow this guy's calculations are off by a factor of 10, and it is only going 1000 mph.

Now you have to explain to me how not a single leaf or blade of grass, or the drone itself, experiences any turbulence in the wake of the unknown craft, even if it is only going 1000 mph and not 9000 mph. Even if I accept all of the above conditions, am I now supposed to believe that we have also developed the capability to pass through the air at supersonic (or hypersonic if you believe his calculations) speeds without the requisite compression waves that I studied so much in my aeronautics classes oh so many years ago? How would that even begin to be theorized? Short of the craft literally phasing out of reality somehow, even the most aerodynamic shape is going to create a shockwave at those speeds. Even if you surrounded it with some sort of "anti-grav bubble", air is still being displaced. If it was really going 9000 mph no less, the wake behind that thing would be clearly visible all the way back along its path. On top of that, I stipulated the material is somehow capable of it, but realistically, if we've developed something that is capable of withstanding air friction THROUGH MANEUVERS at 9000 mph without glowing bright fucking red, or snapping right off the moment it attempts any sort of course change (anti-grav or not, air resistance is still a thing), you'd think that material might have shown up somewhere else by now, given how gigantically useful (and more importantly, lucrative) it would be in a myriad of applications.

Like I said, I realize I'm far more skeptical than most of you, but even if I allow myself to somehow believe in one thing, I still can't explain another thing, so the whole thing falls apart for me. Maybe there is video explaining it, or maybe one of you can shed some light.

Kharzette · Feb 1, 2019

There's also no shadow. Looked like a bug near the camera to me.

MusicForFish · Feb 1, 2019

Kharzette said:
There's also no shadow. Looked like a bug near the camera to me.

Already has been verified as not a bug. They have in the video an actual bug flying a few seconds before this zips by for an immediate comparison.

Void I'll try my best to get a post out to answer some of your questions.
Skepticism is always needed bro. Even the best of us still keep that hint of skepticism in the back of our mind at times. I mean, theres still huge portions of the world that belive we havent been to space, let alone the moon, cause they cant experience it themselves, therefore they flat earth, etc.

Moogalak · Feb 1, 2019

Void said:
I watched the first one, since it apparently only has words typed on the screen, which is perfect for me trying to watch at work. I also went ahead and found the raw footage so that I could see more than just those few seconds, particularly the moments after the object passed through the camera's view.

That footage is below:

I know you guys probably think I'm just a jerk that won't believe anything, no matter how definitive the proof. And in general I guess that's fair. So if you'd rather not have a discussion where you know that I am going to doubt anything anyway, I understand.

Let's just assume that somehow we're all in agreement that there exists a craft capable of such speeds and maneuverability, and all the inherent structural integrity that would entail. And of course the propulsion system that such speeds would require. Furthermore, since saying "aliens" is frowned upon here, let's assume that we are all in agreement that it is some sort of secret man-made craft (because if we can't agree upon that, it's aliens, right?).

Ok, let's assume all of that. I'll go ahead and stipulate that somehow our "anti-grav" technology has achieved such capability without being leaked into other government or commercial applications even a tiny, tiny bit. And I'll even stipulate that somehow it negates all the stresses upon the craft itself so that g-forces and structural integrity at 9000 mph (which that video estimated the speed at) aren't a concern. Let's even stipulate further that somehow this guy's calculations are off by a factor of 10, and it is only going 1000 mph.

Now you have to explain to me how not a single leaf or blade of grass, or the drone itself, experiences any turbulence in the wake of the unknown craft, even if it is only going 1000 mph and not 9000 mph. Even if I accept all of the above conditions, am I now supposed to believe that we have also developed the capability to pass through the air at supersonic (or hypersonic if you believe his calculations) speeds without the requisite compression waves that I studied so much in my aeronautics classes oh so many years ago? How would that even begin to be theorized? Short of the craft literally phasing out of reality somehow, even the most aerodynamic shape is going to create a shockwave at those speeds. Even if you surrounded it with some sort of "anti-grav bubble", air is still being displaced. If it was really going 9000 mph no less, the wake behind that thing would be clearly visible all the way back along its path. On top of that, I stipulated the material is somehow capable of it, but realistically, if we've developed something that is capable of withstanding air friction THROUGH MANEUVERS at 9000 mph without glowing bright fucking red, or snapping right off the moment it attempts any sort of course change (anti-grav or not, air resistance is still a thing), you'd think that material might have shown up somewhere else by now, given how gigantically useful (and more importantly, lucrative) it would be in a myriad of applications.

Like I said, I realize I'm far more skeptical than most of you, but even if I allow myself to somehow believe in one thing, I still can't explain another thing, so the whole thing falls apart for me. Maybe there is video explaining it, or maybe one of you can shed some light.

This is a good post. I think most people who participate in this thread just want to keep the conversation going. Unfortunately it would seem hard to address the lack of air displacement seen in this video without intimate knowledge of the technology involved. If we agree on the assumptions you mention, then you kinda have to agree that those assumptions also include the "phasing" or whatever we want to call it.

I vaguely remember one wacky video I saw dealing with electrogravitic propulsion (supposedly the tech we reverse engineered and have used in human UFO type craft... see: "fluxliner" craziness) that tried to explain that the negative mass particles they use allow for removal of inertia, bla bla bla. It goes into crazy really quick and we just do not have any mainstream accepted science that can address any of it. With that said, it's quite justifiable to be 100% skeptic on this whole subject.

The mystery is the fun part, but we have been kept totally in the dark about the techs Skunkworks and other black budget contractors are developing, for obvious reasons. interested to hear MFF's take.

Void · Feb 1, 2019

MusicForFish said:
Already has been verified as not a bug. They have in the video an actual bug flying a few seconds before this zips by for an immediate comparison.

I'm not smart enough by half to refute the guy's "proof", but I don't know that I can say that it has been "verified as not a bug." I can't argue against it, but just because he draws some lines and does some calculations, am I to take it as gospel that he's correct? I'd love to see someone else, not invested in the theory, analyze the same footage to determine if it is a bug or not. I'm not saying he's wrong, but I'm not going to believe anything that only one guy says is true, math or not. Confirmation bias is definitely a thing, even in mathematics, so it is entirely possible that he is simply starting with invalid assumptions or conditions to start with, and I'm just too far removed from my math courses to even know where to start in confirming or disproving his calculations.

But see, that's where my innate skepticism comes in. It is easier for me to believe that it is a bug or bird or even a complete hoax, yet I don't have any proof of those either.

Void I'll try my best to get a post out to answer some of your questions.
Skepticism is always needed bro. Even the best of us still keep that hint of skepticism in the back of our mind at times. I mean, theres still huge portions of the world that belive we havent been to space, let alone the moon, cause they cant experience it themselves, therefore they flat earth, etc.

Thanks. I'm not asking you to cater to me specifically though, I'm just pointing out why I think there is far more to prove before I can get on board with it being an actual man-made craft of some sort. However, I know that my standard of proof is not the same as everyone else's, and they aren't necessarily wrong because of it.

Moogalak · Feb 1, 2019

Kharzette said:
There's also no shadow. Looked like a bug near the camera to me.

Did you watch the videos he linked? Looks very much like the object is obstructed by the treeline
in the background pretty clearly. Not saying we have proof youre wrong, but this the kind of post that deserves a parachute reaction.

Chukzombi · Feb 1, 2019

Void said:
I watched the first one, since it apparently only has words typed on the screen, which is perfect for me trying to watch at work. I also went ahead and found the raw footage so that I could see more than just those few seconds, particularly the moments after the object passed through the camera's view.

That footage is below:

I know you guys probably think I'm just a jerk that won't believe anything, no matter how definitive the proof. And in general I guess that's fair. So if you'd rather not have a discussion where you know that I am going to doubt anything anyway, I understand.

Let's just assume that somehow we're all in agreement that there exists a craft capable of such speeds and maneuverability, and all the inherent structural integrity that would entail. And of course the propulsion system that such speeds would require. Furthermore, since saying "aliens" is frowned upon here, let's assume that we are all in agreement that it is some sort of secret man-made craft (because if we can't agree upon that, it's aliens, right?).

Ok, let's assume all of that. I'll go ahead and stipulate that somehow our "anti-grav" technology has achieved such capability without being leaked into other government or commercial applications even a tiny, tiny bit. And I'll even stipulate that somehow it negates all the stresses upon the craft itself so that g-forces and structural integrity at 9000 mph (which that video estimated the speed at) aren't a concern. Let's even stipulate further that somehow this guy's calculations are off by a factor of 10, and it is only going 1000 mph.

Now you have to explain to me how not a single leaf or blade of grass, or the drone itself, experiences any turbulence in the wake of the unknown craft, even if it is only going 1000 mph and not 9000 mph. Even if I accept all of the above conditions, am I now supposed to believe that we have also developed the capability to pass through the air at supersonic (or hypersonic if you believe his calculations) speeds without the requisite compression waves that I studied so much in my aeronautics classes oh so many years ago? How would that even begin to be theorized? Short of the craft literally phasing out of reality somehow, even the most aerodynamic shape is going to create a shockwave at those speeds. Even if you surrounded it with some sort of "anti-grav bubble", air is still being displaced. If it was really going 9000 mph no less, the wake behind that thing would be clearly visible all the way back along its path. On top of that, I stipulated the material is somehow capable of it, but realistically, if we've developed something that is capable of withstanding air friction THROUGH MANEUVERS at 9000 mph without glowing bright fucking red, or snapping right off the moment it attempts any sort of course change (anti-grav or not, air resistance is still a thing), you'd think that material might have shown up somewhere else by now, given how gigantically useful (and more importantly, lucrative) it would be in a myriad of applications.

Like I said, I realize I'm far more skeptical than most of you, but even if I allow myself to somehow believe in one thing, I still can't explain another thing, so the whole thing falls apart for me. Maybe there is video explaining it, or maybe one of you can shed some light.

9000 MPH i would expect this.

MusicForFish · Feb 1, 2019

Void said:
I'm not smart enough by half to refute the guy's "proof", but I don't know that I can say that it has been "verified as not a bug." I can't argue against it, but just because he draws some lines and does some calculations, am I to take it as gospel that he's correct? I'd love to see someone else, not invested in the theory, analyze the same footage to determine if it is a bug or not. I'm not saying he's wrong, but I'm not going to believe anything that only one guy says is true, math or not. Confirmation bias is definitely a thing, even in mathematics, so it is entirely possible that he is simply starting with invalid assumptions or conditions to start with, and I'm just too far removed from my math courses to even know where to start in confirming or disproving his calculations.

But see, that's where my innate skepticism comes in. It is easier for me to believe that it is a bug or bird or even a complete hoax, yet I don't have any proof of those either.

The first video I posted, at around the 425 mark goes into the bug part. Around 450ish he rolls the video back displaying the bug captured earlier. You can always google videos of bugs flying around. The flight pattern alone debunks the bug theory. I'm home in a few hours, cant wait to make a fool of myself

Void · Feb 1, 2019

MusicForFish said:
The first video I posted, at around the 425 mark goes into the bug part. Around 450ish he rolls the video back displaying the bug captured earlier. You can always google videos of bugs flying around. The flight pattern alone debunks the bug theory. I'm home in a few hours, cant wait to make a fool of myself

Yeah, that's the video I watched fully, and was referring to. I can't say definitively that he has verified that it is not a bug, although his arguments sound legit. Which is why I said I'd like to see someone with no skin in the game, and a fuller knowledge of mathematics and angles than my decades old memory of theoretical calculus and shit, take a look at proving or disproving it.

And again, to me, the flight pattern doesn't debunk anything. Plenty of bugs fly straight and zip past a point just like that. Plenty don't, like the one he used as an example. That doesn't debunk anything for me. I've had a dragonfly literally hit me in the cheek so hard it left a fucking welt (and killed it, no joke), and I bet video of it from the perspective of someone standing next to me would have looked relatively similar.

I will say that the "behind the ridgeline" thing appears to have some legs to stand on, but it also suffers from the "granularity" of the pixels. (I just had to use granularity, sorry!) Sometimes when you zoom in it can cause one pixel to appear to overshadow the other, even when it shouldn't have. Again, I'm not saying it *didn't* go behind the ridge, it very well could have. I just can't 100% say that it did, and until I'm asymptotically approaching 100%, I prefer to err on the side of caution.

See, this is where we differ. I'm not trying to be condescending or an asshole or even say you are wrong. But you say it is verified not a bug, I say it very well might not be a bug, but I'm not convinced. You say the flight pattern debunks it, I say it doesn't. Someone else says it went behind the ridge, I say I can't confirm 100%, but it kind of looks like it did. I also say that I can't reconcile the fact that there is zero air disturbance shown in the video. So I remain skeptical, and despite it not being any more proven than the secret anti-grav craft theory, if forced to make a judgment (which you're not asking me to do, but just saying), I would say that it must be a bug or a bird or even a fake. Because to me that is slightly less implausible than the mysterious craft theory. Again, I've got nothing to prove mine either, but I, myself, simply find it more likely. Perhaps it is a difference in how we view the world, or I'm just a pessimist, who knows?

Void · Feb 1, 2019

Also, it gives us something to do on a slow Friday at work!

In case it doesn't come across in my dismissive comments, I do still respect and like most of you nutballs! Chuk and I have had a few differences years ago about TV or movies, although I couldn't name one for the life of me, but overall I get where he is coming from, and I am certain we'd get along IRL. We're also near the same age (I think I might be a little older), so we're nearing grumpy old men status. MusicForFish reached out to me in PMs, and I can tell I'd really like him as well. We might call each other names or something, but it would be in jest I feel. Others of you that at least have a back and forth, I appreciate that as well. Hell, I know I started off in this thread saying I was never going to believe anything, so why would any of you even dream of discussing things with me? So I'm not trying to come off as a prick in (most of) my comments. This is genuinely how I feel, and I literally get bombarded with it daily at work from anywhere from 1-5 other people that believe things that might even make some of you shake your head, so I realize that I might get a little short or snippy and it isn't your fault. So, sorry if I come across that way too often.

MusicForFish · Feb 1, 2019

Void said:
Also, it gives us something to do on a slow Friday at work!

In case it doesn't come across in my dismissive comments, I do still respect and like most of you nutballs! Chuk and I have had a few differences years ago about TV or movies, although I couldn't name one for the life of me, but overall I get where he is coming from, and I am certain we'd get along IRL. We're also near the same age (I think I might be a little older), so we're nearing grumpy old men status. MusicForFish reached out to me in PMs, and I can tell I'd really like him as well. We might call each other names or something, but it would be in jest I feel. Others of you that at least have a back and forth, I appreciate that as well. Hell, I know I started off in this thread saying I was never going to believe anything, so why would any of you even dream of discussing things with me? So I'm not trying to come off as a prick in (most of) my comments. This is genuinely how I feel, and I literally get bombarded with it daily at work from anywhere from 1-5 other people that believe things that might even make some of you shake your head, so I realize that I might get a little short or snippy and it isn't your fault. So, sorry if I come across that way too often.

Fucking dork, go eat a snickers. Your clearly hangry.

Chukzombi · Feb 1, 2019

Chukzombi · Feb 1, 2019

Void said:
Also, it gives us something to do on a slow Friday at work!

In case it doesn't come across in my dismissive comments, I do still respect and like most of you nutballs! Chuk and I have had a few differences years ago about TV or movies, although I couldn't name one for the life of me, but overall I get where he is coming from, and I am certain we'd get along IRL. We're also near the same age (I think I might be a little older), so we're nearing grumpy old men status. MusicForFish reached out to me in PMs, and I can tell I'd really like him as well. We might call each other names or something, but it would be in jest I feel. Others of you that at least have a back and forth, I appreciate that as well. Hell, I know I started off in this thread saying I was never going to believe anything, so why would any of you even dream of discussing things with me? So I'm not trying to come off as a prick in (most of) my comments. This is genuinely how I feel, and I literally get bombarded with it daily at work from anywhere from 1-5 other people that believe things that might even make some of you shake your head, so I realize that I might get a little short or snippy and it isn't your fault. So, sorry if I come across that way too often.

i took the most heat for not liking Iron Man and not liking The Force Awakens. i still dont like either one (i did like Im3). i know thats not a popular opinion, but i try to keep things 100% honest here and it sometimes causes riffs on this board. nothing personal or anything. you sound like a cool dude. MFF does too. i like to tease him about the UFO stuff because im very cynical due to years of being fed hopium about bigfoot, nessie and little green men that never panned out.

Void · Feb 1, 2019

Chukzombi said:

I'm sure it doesn't sound like it, because I often sound retarded, but I do have a degree in aeronautical engineering! That was almost 30 fucking years ago though

Fuck me, where does the time go?

Also, I'm certain we didn't argue about Iron Man or TFA. It was probably something even dumber than that. I'm also fairly sure it was before FoH imploded under the weight of Requiem's autism (which could have been IM I guess, but wasn't), so long enough ago that it doesn't matter anyway.

Nola · Feb 1, 2019

MusicForFish said:
The first video I posted, at around the 425 mark goes into the bug part. Around 450ish he rolls the video back displaying the bug captured earlier. You can always google videos of bugs flying around. The flight pattern alone debunks the bug theory. I'm home in a few hours, cant wait to make a fool of myself

I'm from Louisiana and I seen so many bugs fly and I never see one fly that way. Insects usually fly in an irregular pattern. This is just from my observation.....

Call me crazy, tin foil hat, nutcase or whatever but I'm a believer. Not blindly but I do believe we are not alone and we're not the most intelligent, high civilized lifeforms out here.

Kiroy · Feb 1, 2019

If I had to bet i'd go with it being a set up and the OP drone is going much slower and the 'fast' object is another drone going relatively fast, and then they sped up the video.

If I had to switch my bet, i'd bet it wasn't a setup but was still two different drones and zoom, lens distortion, processing ect made distances and speed look wonkey in the field of view

Kiroy · Feb 1, 2019

Chukzombi said:
he said they were all igneous and contained silica. its pretty interesting these guys used stone tools, but supposedly knew how to scientifically melt rocks. i think people are overthinking it a tad to make the narrative fit the timeline. oh howd they get these 100 ton melted rocks on that mountain cliff? oh well they invented the wheel and then invented a semi truck to haul it up there.

I could see a people like that, fucking around and watching the funky looking mining runoff carve through rock ect figure out how to harness it, I still have a couple problems though

It seems impossible to get the 'melting' to happen uhhh, at an equal rate across the surface area (pretty sure there is one word for this?), which is explained by some of the walls being perfectly connected on the front, but OP admitted that there are a lot of walls that are perfectly connected all the way through on all sides. I don't see that happening with a more volatile chemical process the way he says it happened

Chukzombi · Feb 1, 2019

Kiroy said:
I could see a people like that, fucking around and watching the funky looking mining runoff carve through rock ect figure out how to harness it, I still have a couple problems though

It seems impossible to get the 'melting' to happen uhhh, at an equal rate across the surface area (pretty sure there is one word for this?), which is explained by some of the walls being perfectly connected on the front, but OP admitted that there are a lot of walls that are perfectly connected all the way through on all sides. I don't see that happening with a more volatile chemical process the way he says it happened

keep in mind there are hundreds of thousands of these "melted" stones in place. just how much magic pyrite goo did they have on hand? how much to melt just one? the more i think about this theory, the more holes i see in it. the AA guy should have slept on this one and thought out all the angles before proclaiming it the smoking gun.

Kiroy · Feb 1, 2019

Chukzombi said:
keep in mind there are hundreds of thousands of these "melted" stones in place. just how much magic pyrite goo did they have on hand? how much to melt just one? the more i think about this theory, the more holes i see in it. the AA guy should have slept on this one and thought out all the angles before proclaiming it the smoking gun.

Even assuming it was known worldwide and they could create enough 'mud', I still have problems with the theory vs final product. That said, it's the best serious attempt at a reasonable explanation i've seen so far and i'd be perfectly fine having my problems with the theory argued away.

Search

The Paranormal, UFO's, and Mysteries of the Unknown

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member

Void

BAU BAU

Kharzette

Watcher of Overs

MusicForFish

Ultra Maga Instinct

Moogalak

Void

BAU BAU

Moogalak

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member

MusicForFish

Ultra Maga Instinct

Void

BAU BAU

Void

BAU BAU

MusicForFish

Ultra Maga Instinct

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member

Void

BAU BAU

Nola

Trakanon Raider

Kiroy

Marine Biologist

Kiroy

Marine Biologist

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member

Kiroy

Marine Biologist