Search results

How do they deal with Newton's Third Law?

This was at night (22.30) and he saw it (and not just the light) with his naked eyes? More likely with the 'eye of faith'.

I yield to no-one in my suspicion of Putin's Russia, but do the new 'revelations' show anything specific about Russian use of directed energy weapons against US embassies, etc? If I understand it correctly, Russian intelligence agents have been identified in the vicinity of various US and...

Re rudders: I thought I read somewhere that rudders (or equivalent devices such as steering oars) don't work at all if a boat is just drifting with the current. They need water to be flowing over them. But I guess if the power cuts out on a large moving vessel it would take a long time before...

I noticed a few people mentioning the following on Twitter/X. A video of the disaster aftermath appears to show two birds (not seagulls!) flying in front of the wrecked bridge but simply disappearing in mid air. Note that the whole bodies of both birds disappear simultaneously, so it's not...

Things may have changed since I was in the UK civil service, but in those days security classifications, going upwards from 'Restricted' to 'Top Secret', were supposed to be based on consideration of the national interest , not (e.g.) commercial harm to businesses or embarrassment to...

'huge public interest' is an ambiguous phrase. It may mean something that is of great importance to the public, but not necessarily that many people know or care about (say, the details of corporate law), or it may mean something that a lot of people find very interesting (say, Taylor Swift's...

There is a longish (3/4 page) report in yesterday's (UK) Times ( paywalled). Fairly straightforward account of the report, plus some quotes from Sean Kirkpatrick and Tim Phillips, the new (acting) director of AARO. I'm not sure if Phillips's comments are taken straight from a press release or...

Sorry - I made a double error. Your post said I entered the 105.3 meters altitude into the calculator (which gives refracted horizon of 39.56 km) but somehow I had a 'senior moment' and put 53 m for the altitude in my post. You are right also to point out that take off point is not the same...

Just to point out that if the altitude of the camera is 53 meters above ground, the horizon would be about 40 km away. It doesn't look to me like there is 45 km of dry land in view, so anything beyond it has to be water. But I'm not experienced in this kind of thing, and I don't know what a...

I think this issue has come up before, in some context or other. It's a tricky point. The perceived brightness of a point source of light (whether reflected or radiated) does diminish with the square of the distance from the observer, which is why astronomers can estimate the distance of some...

Well, it wasn't exactly an elephant, but I recall there was some similar trickery at Troy!

The people's heads, presumably uncovered, are also darker than the bodies.

In isolation, that 'letter g' looks to me more like the number 9 (or 6). We do after all call them Arabic numerals! The number might be part of a birthday balloon assembly. Though I must say I don't see the symbol as clearly as Deirdre does.

They are not moving through the air, they are moving with the air. The same misunderstanding or misrepresentation recurs several times in your posts. Please stop it.

You must have some exciting parties. Two meters would be a big bunch. Three or more would be huge, especially if all dimensions are in proportion.

Good point about the distance. It seems flatly inconsistent with the version in the Executive Summary, where Fravor said the disturbance on the water was localised underneath the object (i.e. the tic-tac). Dare I even say it - could there have been two objects?? Maybe one of them Kurth's F-18...

I think I found it. The relevant text is here: There are probably many sources for this, but I used this one: http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/Media/uap-vfa-41-fast-eagle-log-14nov2004.tx I'm pretty sure someone here on MB originally posted the link! The source isn't clear, but it has...

You might be thinking of the so-called Executive Summary, where Fravor describes the object as appearing to recognise them, turning to face them, then ascending quickly before it 'pulled lift vector on and aft of them at supersonic speed' - whatever all that means. Note what it doesn't say: it...

Thanks. That settles it. (Assuming that the 71M figure on the screen relates to the elevation of the ground under the object.)