Aliens

[BHRxRacer]

Airshow speeds aren't representative, you wouldn't see much of the planes and they wouldn't be around for long if they went full-bananas all the time.

Plus... the silence was your perception. A number of development aircraft blow the exhaust upwards and outwards, with fly-by-wire unmanned aircraft this is much easier to mitigate against with the control surfaces. The description of what you saw doesn't sound normal but than R&D craft aren't.

I've seen supersonic flybys.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Me too, they're cool but they hurt, at least if they're truly supersonic and not just sitting on the cusp.

I've also seen aircraft at just-subsonic speed that I could hear no sound from, do I win $5?

 

[BHRxRacer]

Going from a near stand-still to star wars like speed without a sonic boom?

 

[G.T.Ace]

Once I made a river tour on a ship and we passed a German military area where pilots were doing some maneuvers.
An A-10 was passing us pretty low and you couldn't hear a beep.
These things are usually very loud, so it was kind of a weird thing to witness.
No idea what happened there, could've been a psychological phenomenon too, dunno.

 

[Dotini]

Once I made a river tour on a ship and we passed a German military area where pilots were doing some maneuvers.
An A-10 was passing us pretty low and you couldn't hear a beep.
These things are usually very loud, so it was kind of a weird thing to witness.
No idea what happened there, could've been a psychological phenomenon too, dunno.

An eerily familiar story!

I had a supervisor at Boeing, solid as the rock of Gibralter and a serious, capable man. He swore he observed an F-16 in Arizona, flying so low he could easily read the numerals and lettering on it. He said it was completely silent. He said he knew it was not gliding because it flew low and level from horizon to horizon, and the F-16 is not a glider.

 

[G.T.Ace]

An eerily familiar story!

I had a supervisor at Boeing, solid as the rock of Gibralter and a serious, capable man. He swore he observed an F-16 in Arizona, flying so low he could easily read the numerals and lettering on it. He said it was completely silent. He said he knew it was not gliding because it flew low and level from horizon to horizon, and the F-16 is not a glider.

Yeah, I could also read the lettering and it wasn't too quick.
I've seen and heard a lot of A-10s and that thing is so, damn, loud... so I'm still wondering why I couldn't hear it.
There were also some Tornados, heard all of 'em pretty clearly.

 

[Dotini]

Yeah, I could also read the lettering and it wasn't too quick.
I've seen and heard a lot of A-10s and that thing is so, damn, loud... so I'm still wondering why I couldn't hear it.
There were also some Tornados, heard all of 'em pretty clearly.

There are some hypotheses.
1. A noiseless jet engine or noiseless secret propulsion system was being tested where the public could observe, and maybe public reaction calibrated.
2. It was not an A-10, but some other kind of noiseless "vehicle" being operated by the military or some other, ah, agency, disguised like a chameleon to appear as a mundane aircraft.
3. Your hearing was affected, possibly by an electromagnetic field affecting the auditory circuitry of your brain.

 

[G.T.Ace]

There are some hypotheses.
1. A noiseless jet engine or noiseless secret propulsion was being tested where the public could observe, and maybe public reaction calibrated.
2. It was not an A-10, but some other kind of noiseless "vehicle" being operated by the military some other, ah, agency, disguised like a chameleon to appear as a mundane aircraft.
3. Your hearing was affected, possibly by an electromagnetic field affecting the auditory circuitry of your brain.

 

[FoolKiller]

I've seen supersonic flybys.

See, here is your problem, as I see it. You witnessed a Mach 1, or close, flight. We have retired aircraft (SR-71 Blackbird) capable of Mach 3. Space reentry speeds reach above Mach 10, and above Mach 25 for unwinged craft.

So, we know of Mach 3 atmospheric craft. And that is retired and no longer used. What don't we know about? You have seen what is known to the mass public and applied that logic to unknown, secret aircraft.

You think they wouldn't be testing near you, but at the speeds you are talking it could have started from a good distance away.

Look, have a secret Air Force space plane that gets an awful lot of press coverage to be secretive. We are busy looking at the secret space plane stories, while not looking for other things.

Space planes
Mach 3 flight
Hypersonic reentry vehicles

These we know about, but you seriously think you can doubt something faster than you have seen personally is terrestrial in origin?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Once I made a river tour on a ship and we passed a German military area where pilots were doing some maneuvers.
An A-10 was passing us pretty low and you couldn't hear a beep.
These things are usually very loud, so it was kind of a weird thing to witness.
No idea what happened there, could've been a psychological phenomenon too, dunno.

@BHRxRacer it's a matter of physics, judgement and perception, you're very sure of what you believe you see but it ain't always so

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

See, here is your problem, as I see it. You witnessed a Mach 1, or close, flight. We have retired aircraft (SR-71 Blackbird) capable of Mach 3. Space reentry speeds reach above Mach 10, and above Mach 25 for unwigned craft.

So, we know of Mach 3 atmospheric craft. And that is retired and no longer used. What don't we know about? You have seen what is known to the mass public and applied that logic to unknown, secret aircraft.

You think they wouldn't be testing near you, but at the speeds you are talking it could have started from a good distance away.

Look, have a secret Air Force space plane that gets an awful lot of press coverage to be secretive. We are busy looking at the secret space plane stories, while not looking for other things.

Space planes
Mach 3 flight
Hypersonic reentry vehicles

These we know about, but you seriously think you can doubt something faster than you have seen personally is terrestrial in origin?

Exactly, if I could put tons of likes on this and @TenEightyOne I would because you guys are actually explaining the R&D side of how reality works. Also I'd like to just make it clear to those who read my post on what I saw with the 97 Phx lights, if you study the path it took across Arizona you'll see the Aircraft started being reported out of Nevada around Area 51 and then end up between Tuscon and Yuma before it stops and then supposedly circle back toward the direction it started and then no more sightings.

My thoughts and the shape to me says that the aircraft was R&D out of Groom Lake most likely but who knows in the end. To me it's much more plausible that most of these things we see are just military or space tested aircraft. There are only a handful of sightings that are far more questionable than what I've seen most report here.

 

[BHRxRacer]

See, here is your problem, as I see it. You witnessed a Mach 1, or close, flight. We have retired aircraft (SR-71 Blackbird) capable of Mach 3. Space reentry speeds reach above Mach 10, and above Mach 25 for unwigned craft.

So, we know of Mach 3 atmospheric craft. And that is retired and no longer used. What don't we know about? You have seen what is known to the mass public and applied that logic to unknown, secret aircraft.

You think they wouldn't be testing near you, but at the speeds you are talking it could have started from a good distance away.

Look, have a secret Air Force space plane that gets an awful lot of press coverage to be secretive. We are busy looking at the secret space plane stories, while not looking for other things.

Space planes
Mach 3 flight
Hypersonic reentry vehicles

These we know about, but you seriously think you can doubt something faster than you have seen personally is terrestrial in origin?

This isn't the point. I'm a firm believer that project Aurora exist(ed). I know what they're testing now could be out of science fiction. I don't think I made what I saw clear. It was a big, insanely bright object at a low altitude. It went from a near stand still, like a helicopter, to the end of the horizon in a flash. Twice, same place, 10 years apart. Second time, my friend saw it too so I know I'm not crazy. Was it terrestrial? Maybe, but I personally doubt it.

edit

@TenEightyOne if you saw what I saw, I'm giving you $50 and an invitation to the tin foil club.

 

[Dotini]

This isn't the point. I'm a firm believer that project Aurora exist(ed). I know what they're testing now could be out of science fiction. I don't think I made what I saw clear. It was a big, insanely bright object at a low altitude. It went from a near stand still, like a helicopter, to the end of the horizon in a flash. Twice, same place, 10 years apart. Second time, my friend saw it too so I know I'm not crazy. Was it terrestrial? Maybe, but I personally doubt it.

Great story! But how could you tell it (they?) was at low altitude? Please tell your story from start to finish, but as briefly as possible.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This isn't the point. I'm a firm believer that project Aurora exist(ed).

Me too! And the former head of Lockheed's Skunk Works! (Citation #6)

Bad news on the tin foil, dude, that theory was overturned a very long time ago :\

This isn't meant to be an antagonistic question but I'm not sure how else to phrase it; do you fact-check anything before you say it or do you just hope that we all believe the inside-of-your-head as much as you do? There's a pattern developing, imo.

Answer @Dotini's question first though, it's a good'un

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Me too! And the former head of Lockheed's Skunk Works! (Citation #6)

Bad news on the tin foil, dude, that theory was overturned a very long time ago :\

This isn't meant to be an antagonistic question but I'm not sure how else to phrase it; do you fact-check anything before you say it or do you just hope that we all believe the inside-of-your-head as much as you do? There's a pattern developing, imo.

Answer @Dotini's question first though, it's a good'un

You already know the answer to that question due to evidence from various threads

 

[BHRxRacer]

Me too! And the former head of Lockheed's Skunk Works! (Citation #6)

Bad news on the tin foil, dude, that theory was overturned a very long time ago :\

This isn't meant to be an antagonistic question but I'm not sure how else to phrase it; do you fact-check anything before you say it or do you just hope that we all believe the inside-of-your-head as much as you do? There's a pattern developing, imo.

Answer @Dotini's question first though, it's a good'un

Please tell me the tin foil thing is a joke.

As far fact checking, yes. I'll see if I can find the link from 2012 that made me re-think what I thought I knew about Aurora.

Great story! But how could you tell it (they?) was at low altitude? Please tell your story from start to finish, but as briefly as possible.

I already have. First time I was walking to a supermarket, the second time I was a passenger in my friend's car in the same area, when I noticed an object bright up, staying still, then suddenly move to the end of the horizon in a flash. I'd say it was a giant meteorite, but those are constantly moving. They don't stand still in the middle of the sky.

RE Altitude: Wouldn't have seen it if it was at a high altitude, unless it was the size of 50 A380s stuck together.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Please tell me the tin foil thing is a joke.

As far fact checking, yes. I'll see if I can find the link from 2012 that made me re-think what I thought I knew about Aurora.

Okay, provide the link. And where's the tin foil joke? The physics was already obvious, that's why only conspiracy nuts still claim protection from it, because they're nutters.

You said you thought Aurora didn't exist, I showed you that the head of the project said it did, I'm not sure how your further thinking informs that? Unless it deletes all the B2s in the world at the same time...

 

[Dotini]

Please tell me the tin foil thing is a joke.

As far fact checking, yes. I'll see if I can find the link from 2012 that made me re-think what I thought I knew about Aurora.

Anybody telling a ghost story or a UFO sighting needs to develop a thick skin. There is no need to be defensive. Please remain calm and simply tell your story. 👍

 

[BHRxRacer]

Okay, provide the link. And where's the tin foil joke? The physics was already obvious, that's why only conspiracy nuts still claim protection from it, because they're nutters.

You said you thought Aurora didn't exist, I showed you that the head of the project said it did, I'm not sure how your further thinking informs that? Unless it deletes all the B2s in the world at the same time...

What I meant was, do you think my invitation to a tin foil hat was serious?

Anybody telling a ghost story or a UFO sighting needs to develop a thick skin. There is no need to be defensive. Please remain calm and simply tell your story. 👍

Funny.

Edit: Edited my other post.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What I meant was, do you think my invitation to a tin foil hat was serious?

Hard to say, only the other day you told me that when kids see gay couples it sexualises them. Anything could come from you

First time I was walking to a supermarket,

Picturesque but lacking some detail...

the second time I was a passenger in my friend's car in the same area, when I noticed an object bright up, staying still, then suddenly move to the end of the horizon in a flash. I'd say it was a giant meteorite, but those are constantly moving. They don't stand still in the middle of the sky.

RE Altitude: Wouldn't have seen it if it was at a high altitude, unless it was the size of 50 A380s stuck together.

How do you know it wasn't moving towards you with a light on from a long way off? Sounds to me like it flew towards you and then changed direction...

 

[BHRxRacer]

Hard to say, only the other day you told me that when kids see gay couples it sexualises them. Anything could come from you

I didn't. I said sex acts, gay or straight COULD prompt them to ask questions. If you keep misquoting me I'll stop replying.

Picturesque but lacking some detail...

What detail? Wtf? The second time was in 2012, the first time was in the early 2000s. Where I used to live, I used to walk to that supermarket regularly. I thought nothing big of it, I thought I had imagined things. I don't remember the exact year.

What details do you want?

How do you know it wasn't moving towards you with a light on from a long way off? Sounds to me like it flew towards you and then changed direction...

If it was moving towards me at that speed I wouldn't have seen it. A 90 degree turn at that speed, is even more ridiculous.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I didn't. I said sex acts, gay or straight COULD prompt them to ask questions. If you keep misquoting me I'll stop replying.

Different thread and there's a full reply there for you. And that wasn't what you said initially so review your own posts so that you can reply to yourself in future.

What detail? Wtf? The second time was in 2012, the first time was in the early 2000s. Where I used to live, I used to walk to that supermarket regularly. I thought nothing big of it, I thought I had imagined things. I don't remember the exact year.

What details do you want?

"I was walking to a supermarket" isn't a very good description of an alien encounter, needs more I think.

If it was moving towards me at that speed I wouldn't have seen it. A 90 degree turn at that speed, is even more ridiculous.

Huh? You can see a bullet in flight and they're tiny... unless your MkI Eyeball operates differently from anyone else's then you're not in full cognisance of your faculty.

And a 90 degree turn at that speed isn't ridiculous, what makes you say it is? Presumably you have some special physics too.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Different thread and there's a full reply there for you. And that wasn't what you said initially so review your own posts so that you can reply to yourself in future.

So you admit that you have preconceptions about the members before reading their opinion. Okay

"I was walking to a supermarket" isn't a very good description of an alien encounter, needs more I think.

Alien encounter

What details do you want? It all happened too quickly.

And a 90 degree turn at that speed isn't ridiculous, what makes you say it is? Presumably you have some special physics too

If you think a 90 degree turn at Mach9000 isn't ridiculous, I'm out.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If you think a 90 degree turn at Mach9000 isn't ridiculous, I'm out.

Citation required, where did I say that?

At least you've finally recalled some detail. How did you perceive that the aircraft was travelling at 5.9 million miles per hour? Let's start there...

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I think he finds the concept of Mach 9000 in terrestrial air ridiculous

EDIT: And he does as the post above shows. Tree'd?

 

[BHRxRacer]

Citation required, where did I say that?

At least you've finally recalled some detail. How did you perceive that the aircraft was travelling at 5.9 million miles per hour? Let's start there...

A little grey man flew down from it and told me it was 5.9 million miles per hour.

Seriously, which part of horizon to horizon in a flash don't you get? And how can you say it can pull an instant 90 degree turn at that speed?

 

[TenEightyOne]

So you admit that you have preconceptions about the members before reading their opinion. Okay

You definitely need to provide a quote for that, please, I said no such thing. I've answered your rambling points as you've made them.

Citation required.

Horizon-horizon tells us nothing, just as it tells you nothing. How far away was the object, what size was it? Have you ever studied any maths or science?

Ah, now we have the "instant" bit. Still, given that you don't know the spatial placings/sizes that's still your perception call. Eyewitness reports of aerial behaviour notably differ wildly, look at any air crash investigation with a large number of witnesses (TWA800 is a good start point).

You believe what you saw, I have no doubt, but I don't believe you saw what you thunk. And your data blows

 

[FoolKiller]

in the same area, when I noticed an object bright up, staying still, then suddenly move to the end of the horizon in a flash. I'd say it was a giant meteorite, but those are constantly moving. They don't stand still in the middle of the sky.

Actually, that sounds a lot like something entering in the atmosphere, heading toward you (think of how jets at a distance look to be barely moving), and then flying past. Sudden turn could be explained by a heated air pocket exploding and changing trajectory.

RE Altitude: Wouldn't have seen it if it was at a high altitude, unless it was the size of 50 A380s stuck together.

Do you realize how high meteorites are when we see the light from their burning up? I used to start work at 5:30 AM, 40 miles from home, and I saw fireballs pass overhead during my drive on three different occasions, lighting up the sky for less than a second. They were not low enough to impact before burning up.

 

[BHRxRacer]

You definitely need to provide a quote for that, please, I said no such thing. I've answered your rambling points as you've made them.

Citation required.

Here

Hard to say, only the other day you told me that when kids see gay couples it sexualises them. Anything could come from you

......

Ah, now we have the "instant" bit

It was you who said it was coming towards me (why it appeared to be still) and then changed direction. The "instant" bit was always there, you brought it up.

Horizon-horizon tells us nothing, just as it tells you nothing. How far away was the object, what size was it?
. Still, given that you don't know the spatial placings/sizes that's still your perception call. Eyewitness reports of aerial behaviour notably differ wildly, look at any air crash investigation with a large number of witnesses (TWA800 is a good start point).

My bad. I'll install a portable radar on my car just in case it happens again.

Have you ever studied any maths or science?

 

[TenEightyOne]

So you admit that you have preconceptions about the members before reading their opinion. Okay

You definitely need to provide a quote for that, please, I said no such thing.

Here

Hard to say, only the other day you told me that when kids see gay couples it sexualises them. Anything could come from you

Ah, of course, I must speak a completely differing kind of English. Retract your claim or really find where I said that because that quote doesn't cut it.

The "instant" bit was always there, you brought it up

???

I give up.