The 1994 Nellis AFB UFO video

[Bill Morris]

The raw video was supposedly taken at the S30 tracking station, using radar to aim and zoom the camera, and smuggled out then later sold to Sightings and Hard Copy (both then produced by Paramount). The object is supposed to be about 6.5 miles away, and there's a horiztonal animated strip about two-thirds of the way down from the top of the screen that supposedly indicates radar data.

So what is this thing? Helicoptor, wind-blown trash, military disinformation, hoax, ET recording the latest episode of DS9, Nazi prototype, swamp gas, a bunch of balloons and other stuff tangled up together and carried off by the wind, . . .? If it were some Skunk Works black project, the tracking systems should have been turned off.

Raw:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L4CBIeNFY0[/yt]

Sightings:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldm7Px3HELA

Hard Copy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XtUyzZxOYo

Enhancement study:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWNsmqrCF2o

Comments from The UFO Skeptic (second headline [The UFO Skeptic] down):
http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/ISUNY/Journal/vol1_3.html

Some Web page about it:
http://www.anomalies.net/object/s30.html

A more comprehensive and recently updated site:
http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Nellis_Main.html

The Lockheed Martin P-791 looks something like that but doesn't zip around:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUkCyXCqUx8

 

[Dac]

That Lockheed P-791 im fairly sure didnt come into existence until the mid/late 2000's, and even if it was around back in '94 I highly doubt it would have been more than a concept sketch, and as you said an airship doesn't usually zip around that fast (especially if it was 6 miles away and managed to traverse that distance in about a minute).

It could very well be a helicopter with some camera blinding IR floodlights equipped, or a black ops thing, but it certainly looks like an Unidentified Flying Object alright.

 

[sojourner]

^Being unidentified and all.

 

[Dac]

^Being unidentified and all.

Yeah, but I said that more to bring the true meaning of UFO home. UFO doesn't necessarily = flying alien spaceship.

 

[KJbushway]

I can't tell what it is. Could be a small airplane. could be balloons put together and lost.

But for those who think its aliens, I have this to say.

If aliens wanted Civilians of the world to know about their existence, they would show us. Since they haven't its probably safe to say that we wouldn't be able to detect them using to them what is considered Primitive technology. We have airplanes today that can trick radar.

 

[JustAFriend]

balloon floating on the wind.
did not exhibit any motion that screamed otherwise.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

We have airplanes today that can trick radar.

Yeah, and have they been used on another planetary body or in space?

Just because we have the technology to do something doesn't mean that we can use it somewhere outside of our world. And if aliens do travel between stars, they are unlikely to come with a starship equipped with every possible technology that they have, only with those that would be useful for their trip.

For them it's 1) unlikely to find a civilization where they go, 2) the civilization won't be advanced enough to take notice of them or 3) the civilization would be too advanced to miss them regardless of their technology for tricking radar. It's like bringing a radar detector to a boat trip... to hide from the whales.

I'd rather not make any assumptions about what aliens might want to, and just assume that anything is possible. They might not make difference between civilians and government, so if they are here, the governments might be as unaware as we are. If they are trying to hide, it's possible (even probable) that they won't be very good at it, and someone will see them. It's also very likely that the technology on their spaceship is weaker than the technology we have on Earth (due to weight constraints).

 

[scotthm]

I'd rather not make any assumptions about what aliens might want

I'd go even further, and say that I don't assume that there are "aliens".

It's also very likely that the technology on their spaceship is weaker than the technology we have on Earth (due to weight constraints).

What I think is most likely is that we have no clue what technology hypothetical alien visitors might have at their disposal.

---------------

 

[Bill Morris]

One of the videos selectable after watching the embedded video (which I labeled Raw), is titled Google Earth--REAL UFO proof, which shows and gives the coordinates for something that looks like a flying saucer of substantial size in midair and casting a shadow on the ground at Area 51. It could be a disc-shaped balloon placed there by the military if the whole UFO cover-up is just a scam to make people think there might be aliens watching, as unlikely as that seems in light of things like the well-documented Alaska JAL visual and multiple radar case of 1986, which involved one craft the size of two aircraft carriers in addition to accompanying shuttle-sized craft. The 2006 O'Hare case seems like a hard one to fake, even at great cost, unless one assumes that all the witnesses got together beforehand and agreed to perpetrate a hoax. The hovering could be faked with a helicoptor and a mockup, but shooting straight up and punching a hole is the overcast would be tough.

As for the Nellis video, I would think that one could, with the right video-editing equipment available in 1994 and some photos of the area taken from nearby mountains, produce video simulating the background scenery then overlay a puppet show for the UFO then write a computer program to output the radar indicator and numeric readouts (appropriatedly distorted) to overlay on the final video.

Stanton Friedman often points out that at the beginning of every lecture he gives he lists several good studies on UFOs that he believes taken together build a very convincing case for the existence of extraterrestrial visitors then asks for a show of hands for how many had read all that, resulting in 1-2% positive response.

Anyway, if there are vistors up there, some people know for sure. If not, some people who say they know for sure know they're lying but can't be 100% sure about everybody else who claims to know. Even so, I would find it hard to cast doubt on things like photos released by the Belgian government or footage of objects things zipping around near a volcano in Ecuador on live TV (one station shows the eruptions live), not to mention the various live webcam pictures.

Another point that this video brings up is the idea that a group of people, say living near the Cape, could agree to keep watch in shifts and notify everyone else the moment they spot something so that mulitple parties could try to take quality zoomed footage. CUFOS has a setup something like that but automated, with stills taken every second or so that are analyzed by software looking for anything not normally in the picture. But that system just flags relevant shots after the fact and doesn't zoom or notify people while something is happening, and it isn't done with radar. And the output is just stills.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I liked the comment on YouTube regarding the P-791 footage: "And now an airship with three buttocks."

 

[YellowSubmarine]

I'd go even further, and say that I don't assume that there are "aliens".

Well, that too, but it wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption given the data we have. By data I mean the number of stars, an estimate on the number of planets, an estimate on the number of Earth-like ones and not-completely-wild guesses on the probability that life starts on one (based on our understanding of what the process should look like). I think that at least is a safe guess.

But assuming the existence of aliens that can visit us isn't one.

But my point was: There are some guesses that we could make, but most of them aren't good enough to make us say "these couldn't be aliens, because aliens would do X". And I find them even more unconvincing when I think that the aliens are much more likely to NOT do X (now, I could always be wrong about which is more likely, but completely dismissing my choice as impossible? I'm getting emotional )

The reasons that aliens visits are implausible are not based on the alien psychology and the alien technology. Well... apart from the fact that they are unlikely to have FTL drives and perpetuum mobile engines...

 

[Glitch]

You're all thinking and saying exactly what they want you to think and say. Just remember, "To Serve Man" is a COOKBOOK!

 

[YellowSubmarine]

You're all thinking and saying exactly what they want you to think and say. Just remember, "To Serve Man" is a COOKBOOK!

You're too easy to exclude the possibility that some of them have posted in this thread.

 

[Dac]

Look, im one of those guys who believes 99.9% of sightings are explainable/hoaxs/mistaken identities.

But that still leaves the 0.1% which truly are unexplainable, and all it takes is one little grey being to prove to the world we are not alone in this universe.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Not sure if that's supposed to be a joke, but I didn't laugh, so:

Unexplainable means unexplainable. If it was the aliens, that's still an explanation, so that makes the sighting explainable. The chain of logic "It's unexplainable, so it must be the aliens" is almost equivalent to "It's unexplainable, therefore it is explainable". If something is unexplainable that means that you don't have an explanation for it, not that the one of your liking suddenly becomes the right one and with certainty.

Also, if 99.9% of the sightings are irrelevant, then it would mean that whether we are visited by aliens or not, we would still observe the same sightings, and there would be nothing to use as evidence. Unless you separate those 0.1% sightings that are relevant from the 99.9% that mean nothing (and prove their relevance), they also mean nothing.

 

[Bill Morris]

Well... apart from the fact that they are unlikely to have FTL drives and perpetuum mobile engines...

But something has to be causing the speed limit on a spaceship propelled by pushing, pulling, or rocketry. And that would be the medium through which it travels (the existence of which is confirmed by the inability to freeze helium and also by the Casimir effect). These days it is often called ZPR (zero-point radiation). If you could steal some ZPR in front of your spaceship and use it as fuel, creating a little ZPR vacuum in your direction of travel, then you should be able to get around that lightspeed constraint, pulling a "Kirk vs. Kobayashi Maru" on Special Relativity.

To illustrate that, imagine operating a submarine in a sea of gasoline. The liquid severely limits how fast you can travel using preloaded onboard fuel, but if you steal that medium as needed and use it for power to create a vacuum in front of your craft, the rest of the medium will push you forward and can do so at whatever rate you choose, even speeds far in excess of what would be possible through liquid only with any preloaded supply to power a rocket or propeller.

Even though comtempory physicists tend to sort of ignore the notion of ether (ZPR) when dealing with relativity, here's what Einstein had to say about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH9vAIdMqng

He also qualified that a bit, calling it "new ether." There is a view that he was just trying to tread lightly and not upset certain people, but he sounds sincere to me, and we still don't seem to have a satisfactory unified field theory.

And, as covered in another thread here, it has recently been claimed, although nearly impossible to verify by experimentation, that the speed of gravity is 20 billion or more times the speed of light, perhaps suggesting that it's accomplshed by a surrounding medium using the affected mass to fill a partial vacuum in the medium caused by a partial shielding effect of another mass (not the view of conventional physics). But that also might suggest that ZPR is not static. One assumption that led to decline of ether theory in the first place was that it would be static. That's convenient (one fewer thing to worry about when considering complex issues), but probably not the case. Tiny packets of energy shouldn't be assumed to sit still.

It gets even weirder if one considers that ZPR, already deemed to be nearly infinitely small and nearly infinitely numerous packets of energy, may have much greater energy density than ponderable matter. What does that notion do to current theory and the ether-dragging argument that led to it?

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Zero-point energy has nothing to do with the concept of ether. But it's a quantum phenomena, so I can comment much on it. But it goes without saying that harvesting it to propel your craft would at least violate the second law of thermodynamics, so you'd first need to create your perpetuum mobile engine anyway. And it won't help you go FTL.

You can't travel with FTL velocity, you need an infinite amount of energy due to relativity. There's no way to get around this by finding cheap tricks to propel yourself and trying to do something with ether which doesn't exist.

If you want to travel FTL, you'd need a completely different approach. Like warp drive which allows you to travel without moving at any velocity because space itself moves. But the energy required to bend space enough is so incredibly enormous that you'd have to break the second and the first law of thermodynamics before attempting it. Your second approach would be wormholes, wormholes are cool.

Even then, FTL travel is quite possibly impossible regardless of your approach, and it's a safe bet to assume it's impossible because of the complexities involved and the paradoxes that it would create.

 

[Dac]

Not sure if that's supposed to be a joke, but I didn't laugh, so:

Unexplainable means unexplainable. If it was the aliens, that's still an explanation, so that makes the sighting explainable. The chain of logic "It's unexplainable, so it must be the aliens" is almost equivalent to "It's unexplainable, therefore it is explainable". If something is unexplainable that means that you don't have an explanation for it, not that the one of your liking suddenly becomes the right one and with certainty.

Also, if 99.9% of the sightings are irrelevant, then it would mean that whether we are visited by aliens or not, we would still observe the same sightings, and there would be nothing to use as evidence. Unless you separate those 0.1% sightings that are relevant from the 99.9% that mean nothing (and prove their relevance), they also mean nothing.

I was just making a point about how out of all the supposed alien spacecraft sightings in the world all it takes is for 1 to be a truly alien ship to prove the existence of life elsewhere.

 

[Bill Morris]

Zero-point energy has anothing to do with the concept of ether. But it's a quantum phenomena, so I can comment much on it. But it goes without saying that harvesting it to propel your craft would at least violate the second law of thermodynamics, so you'd first need to create your perpetuum mobile engine anyway. And it won't help you go FTL.

You can't travel with FTL velocity, you need an infinite amount of energy due to relativity. There's no way to get around this by finding cheap tricks to propel yourself and trying to do something with ether which doesn't exist.

If you want to travel FTL, you'd need a completely different approach. Like warp drive which allows you to travel without moving at any velocity because space itself moves. But the energy required to bend space enough is so incredibly enormous that you'd have to break the second and the first law of thermodynamics before attempting it. Your second approach would be wormholes, wormholes are cool.

Even then, FTL travel is quite possibly impossible regardless of your approach, and it's a safe bet to assume it's impossible because of the complexities involved and the paradoxes that it would create.

Well, have a look at what Ben Rich, CEO of Lockheed Skunk Works said about it before he died. Included on this page are comments from two others at Skunk Works along the same lines. (Although, despite his impressive credentials, I have trouble believing anything Boyd Bushman says, and Ben Rich's words might set off alarms on a tricorder, as well. Maybe it's all part of a disinformation scheme.)

http://www.ufo-blogger.com/2010/08/ufo-are-real-ben-rich-lockheed-skunk.html

Regardless, new knowledge often shows that previous knowledge was wrong. And when we're wrong about something, we don't usually know it at the time. But sometimes old theory becomes a viable subset of new theory, a much more dignified result. But physicists don't even claim that current mainstream theory is complete.

I don't know. But some future discoveries would likely seem crazy in the context of today's line of thinking.

And whether or not zero-point energy has to do with the concept of ether depends on which concept of ether. If it's purely the 19th century concept, okay, no.

 

[scotthm]

all it takes is one little grey being to prove to the world we are not alone in this universe.

There are 7 billion people on this planet and people are worried about "being alone".

Considering the vastness of space we're "alone" even if we're not alone.

---------------