The physics behind true UFOs?

[Joza]

The physics behind "true" UFOs?

UFOs, SIMPLY means unidentified flying object. NOTHING to do with aliens from outer space. The alien hypothesis is often used to explain many UFO sightings, but UFO does not mean alien spacecraft . Now that that is cleared up...


It is reasonable to say that many UFOs are physical objects. I am excluding electromagnetic phenomena and misidentified earthly objects. The actual identity of these objects is not that important, but we can assume that they are "flying machines", if you will. (My own personal opinion is that some are top secret experimental craft, and some may be extraterrestrial craft.)


How do these objects fly? What is the physics behind them? What are your thoughts on it?



This is a link to a compilation of UFO video footage. It is quite long, but you can load it and then browse through it. Some of the objects clearly show flight characteristics that really ask, what is it and how does it do that.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-161154636796558877

 

[russ_watters]

When you pile half a dozen "ifs" on top of each other, you are left with an inability to draw any conclusions at all. On an individual basis, if you can conclude that a "ufo" is a powered craft, it is no longer a "ufo". On a collective basis, since these objects are "unknown", you cannot conclude/attribute group properties to them.

For example, yes, it is reasonable to say that many UFOs are physical objects. Many UFOs are eventually proven to be conventional aircraft, meteors, planets, and balloons. We cannot apply any set of overall flight characteristics to this group (some don't even really fly...).

I watched about half a dozen of the ones on the video. The quality is so poor, that it is impossible to tell anything useful about them and certainly not possible to attribute group properties to them.

However, the easy answer to your question is that many fly like normal aircraft and follow normal aircraft physics. That is, of course, because many are normal aircraft.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree completely. And there are so many sources of UFO reports that is impossible to treat them all as one class of phenemona. We also know that 90-95% of all UFO reports can be explained without the need for any new ideas.

The most extreme ideas aside, I strongly suspect that in cases like the Belgium UFO wave of 91-92, some events might be explained by avionics. It seems to me that we or others might be playing games, and the UFO chased by the Belgian AF was a false RADAR image created by design. What better way to test a new technology? Give your buddies a good drill and disguise the entire episode as more UFO nonsense.

This is a natural extension of the advantage of Stealth, and it was later made public that we did this in Gulf War I - by some means we caused the Iraqies to shoot where there were no aircraft. This was used in addition to our RADAR invisibility.

The actual identity of these objects is not that important, but we can assume that they are "flying machines", if you will. (My own personal opinion is that some are top secret experimental craft, and some may be extraterrestrial craft.)

How do these objects fly? What is the physics behind them? What are your thoughts on it?

Please note that your question is a direct violation of the posting guidelines:

We will not consider questions that assume an unproven premise. For example, it is true that many people see UFOs - unidentified objects, lights, or fireballs of one sort or another - so we can consider the evidence for any particular alleged UFO event, however it is an unproven claim that any UFOs are crafts flown by aliens, so we will not consider questions such as: “What are ET's motives? Or, “what information about ET is the government hiding?” If proven that ET is here, then we can consider what we might know about it, or what ET’s motives might be.

We may consider any particular event or group of events, consider the evidence, and try to explain what happened, but you are calling for theories based on an assumed premise. Can't do that.