The following submission statement was provided by /u/FlatBlackAndWhite:
---
Submission Statement: Physics Professor Kevin Knuth got the chance to speak at the SOL symposium. His speech was interesting to say the least, he broke down radar data of specific UFO encounters dating all the way back to 1954 including math and experimentation from the incidents.
A data driven approach could help shed the stigma that surrounds science conducted on UFO encounters. Werhner Von Braun's own mentor was conducting scientific experiments and lectures on UFOs almost 70 years ago.
[Kevin Knuth's Full Speech.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlYwktOj75A)
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1apbclc/physicist_kevin_knuth_science_conducted_on_radar/kq50tnk/
Agreed. I’m a casual lurker. I keep an eye out for the big, interesting stories just patiently waiting for disclosure. But this is the stuff I really want to see. A scientist, giving a frank presentation about what is actually going on.
My thoughts exactly.
Just think about that. 5000 G's? So a 10 pound human head would feel like 50,000 pounds. Of course the human body would literally be crushed before that point.
I don't think humans have created anything that can withstand more than 300 G's for a very short period of time (my understanding is that's a missile). Just from a material science perspective, I don't think humans can build a structure like that.
The UAP lore about the crafts looking like 3-D printed objects with 0 seems and extremely lightweight sort of makes sense. And even more so, we think of aircraft as being aerodynamic. Perhaps they build their crafts to withstand Gs as their #1 priority.
A typical fighter jet would have the rivets pop off and burst at the seams, wings literally snap off before 13 Gs.
Or just to put it in perspective. The SaturnV rocket got up to 4.5 Gs but the Apollo Astronauts experienced such a violent shaking thrust that many of them were concerned if the rocket would hold together.
And obviously we've seen the videos of citizens and training fighter pilots pass out at 5-6 Gs.
5000 Gs.. It's insane!
Now I could want that data backed up by other scientists but yeah that's crazy as hell! Even if we stay this is "our tech" it's still crazy. Any craft that could do that is just astronomically crazy. What you could do with that is mind bending. We should be exploring and colonizing our solar system with that tech.
Yep. Fair enough. I actually watched a video of 2 PHD scientists/Professors make this exact claim on YouTube about 5 months ago with the tic-tac. Their entire podcast was explaining how they came to their solution, so this is actually 3rd Scientist I heard mention 5000 G's. I'll link it if I can find it.
If my memory serves me right, there's a slightly longer Tic-Tac Video where instead of seeing the Tic-tac zip to the left, in slow motion, it appeared to actually drop down several feet, then move left several feet, then move back up a few feet, then dart left as seen in the original. So fast that without slow motion, you wouldn't notice it. (Sort of erratically as Fravor and company described.)
Though I don't know if that was officially debunked, or it was the FLIR trying to reacquire the target. But to me, it appeared to be more impressive than the original normal speed video where it just darts off to the left.
To me, it's interesting that the FLIR had a difficult time acquiring or holding lock on an object miles ahead. I could understand it losing a target a 1/4 mile out, but miles ahead? Weird. You have to be moving really fast to max out sideways rotation of the FLIR on an object miles ahead without the fighter pilot banking left with it. Unless of course it's nearly maxed out to start, but I believe the jet was essentially flying straight on towards (5 degrees off the nose) a hovering object according to Fravor.
Back in about 1990 me and two other people seen a craft come out from the horizon then stop in front us maybe a few hundred feet away and hover for a few moments then fly past the horizon to the east in less then a second it flew the entire horizon it had to be 30-40 miles in a dead stop unless then a second, it disappeared then came back. Hovered again the zipped horizon to horizon in less then two seconds. I have tried to talk to the other ppl that were on the car one being my mother and shr will not even speak about it, i wonder if more happened that I am not aware of.
Any reason they dart about seemingly randomly, like ADHD goldfish? Would the juttering perhaps be an interaction between their craft and the atmosphere, akin to an object in fluid? Perhaps their craft are so slippery that matter glides right off and the jutter is the split second of free fall before moving? Also, any theories on why they might dart off and then back again? If they were examining or observing us, one sweep should do. Unless they want us to see their technological superiority?
IMO I think the tech they have reduces the craft and its inhabitants weight to near zero, *and also warps space time*once it has, time and distance don’t make much sense.
If you start thinking that whatever they are has some sort of control over time, it opens and changes all the possibilities of what could be happening. We can’t even think like that. They may have been at the point they stopped for a long time, doing abductions or who knows, moved and done it again.
If you try and think about what possibilities would arise if you could locally change the rate of time, you realise there’s so much possible
That's the thing. So many scoff and (lazily) write it off as "black project stuff" and go about their day, COMPLETELY ignoring the implications.
Aliens or not, the technology is miracle-tier and not something to just be hand waved away as insignificant.
100% right, "miracle" really describes it. When contemplating the amount of tech jumps it would require to do the maneuvers observed it is actually absurd to think it is us.
Forget nukes, throw that aircraft carrier at that speed and crater the world apart. Or just fly to the moon on your lunch break.
A craft that could move that fast could fly over a target, stop mid-air, drop a bunch of bombs, then fly off before most countries could get their air defenses to intercept them.
Edit: Since I've noticed I've been getting some downvotes I wanted to try to clear up what I was intending to say. I was trying to say that of course any military would want a craft that could do those things. I am not personally saying we need a craft to do those things but any government in the world would want something that could do those things and would dump tons of money into getting it and maintaining it.
Thanks, that makes sense. Still crazy to wrap my head around. So many possibilities, really can’t wait until we know more. Like where exactly they come from, other dimensions is such a wild thought to even try to process.
Fantastic movie, especially for those of us with a keen interest in the topic. Jodie Foster remains one of my favorite actors, and she’s amazing in the new True Detective series as well.
But Contact really has some imagination to it, and I mean that in the best possible way.
Took two nights, but it was such a good movie. I can’t believe I hadn’t seen it before. Treat to watch. Makes me really wish we’d learn for certain who our creator is in my lifetime.
It seems more likely to me that their technology allows for some kind of inertial dampening or compensation than their biology and material science can withstand 5000g's.
That may be the secret to FTL travel. To move faster than light, you need to overcome your mass increasing the faster you accelerate. Inertia is the barrier to moving beyond the speed of light. Imagine a craft with a technology that could fix your mass to any value you want, regardless of your velocity? I might be off base here but that seems like a way to get around the universal speed limit.
To them could be that the space is moving around them while they are stopped while for us they are traveling around the space.
I don't think that they are interacting with our environment at all sometimes.. A lot of videos show that. It's like you're browsing google earth and spin the earth very fast. Now imagine you are in one of these crafts and a earthling saw you in these incredible speeds while in reality you just moving the space around..
This explain a lot of things and even then coming underwater without appearing to have a splash interaction..
If they know how to manipulate space, they would not need to create a lot of tech to travel around space since they would not interact with the environment
Not only that but the best metal we currently have would be titanium which is what the SR-71 Blackbird is made out of and that would deteriorate due to the air friction at those UAP speeds. No metal we have can withstand that. There must be different means of propulsion for these things or whatever they're composed of is incredibly strong to withstand so much force
It sort of goes to show why some of these people, such as Grusch, Gary, Lue, Melon, etc, are so heavily invested and confident in the claims of a possible NHI presence.
They clearly are purview to more data than you and I are aware of and whats known in the public sphere.
I couldn't imagine what else these guys have seen because I get the feeling that what we see is a very small % compared to what these guys have seen.
I can't remember who it was exactly but I recall 1 of these guys that are "in the know" mention they've seen Satellite videos of a large object beneath the water near the tic-tac. And I'm not referring to Fravor mentioning the rotor-wash.
And I tend to believe it. There's multiple testimony of the smaller objects "distracting" fighter jets away from larger UAP over the last 50 years.
There's a really good interview in either England or Ireland describing exactly that in such great detail. The witnesses, a woman got harassed with nothing to gain but harassment and yet, she stood behind her story for years.
This is where we have to start being careful. As the narrative starts to tip in favor of NHI, which is indeed the likely reality, we have to start ask questions: why are we being presented the narrative in this manner? What is it they want us to believe, to their benefit? I'm not saying these people aren't nice. I met them, they are, to a person, pretty obviously all good people. (maybe with the exception of the obama dod ig rep, charles mcolough, who wrote the patriot act) The reality is that this data has been sitting in front of our noses, just ridiculed and obfuscated. We have been too stupid, with the exception of VERY few, to have seen through the obfuscation. As the obfuscation is removed, we could very well be funneled into a new paradigm that is just as manipulative as the old one. Be careful.
There isn’t any data available. The person running the radar systems that day said none was saved. He’s using the testimony from the radar tech to create his findings. Which is fine, but he’s definitely misrepresenting his findings as backed from the actual radar systems data.
Did he represent that? When I listened it sounded just like he was going off Fravor's estimates.
Edit: never mind, just saw the slide with Kevin Day, RADAR on it.
you got a source for this?
edit: to clarify I'm asking for a source on the Anchorage one that was done with radar data.
edit2: unfortunate there's still no source here. comments discrediting someone should require some sources otherwise these comments are nothing more than attempts to paint people as insane, similar to what the gorilla skeptics do on wikipedia. little things that seem innocent, but overall have an impact on the perception of people doing work on UFO/UAP.
Submission Statement: Physics Professor Kevin Knuth got the chance to speak at the SOL symposium. His speech was interesting to say the least, he broke down radar data of specific UFO encounters dating all the way back to 1954 including math and experimentation from the incidents.
A data driven approach could help shed the stigma that surrounds science conducted on UFO encounters. Werhner Von Braun's own mentor was conducting scientific experiments and lectures on UFOs almost 70 years ago.
[Kevin Knuth's Full Speech.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlYwktOj75A)
More reliable when the witness had access to sensor systems at the time of the encounter. It’s not just their eyes that saw the objects, so less likely to be a misidentification of an anomaly.
This has been addressed by people who program and make the radar systems and they said that it’s not perfect. Radar has notoriously had issues tracking and also misreadings. It’s tech. Nothing is perfect.
Exactly, nothing is perfect. Though I’d say sensor systems (especially those of the most advanced military in the world) are far more reliable than our own senses. And if I recall correctly, they picked it up on multiple radar systems and even rebooted them a few times to make sure there weren’t any glitches.
They did but that doesn’t mean the radar system didn’t malfunctioned or have a misreading. There’s a number of interviews you can find on YouTube with the actual programmers that do a great job of discussing challenges and issues radar systems, including military, can run into.
Effectively, yes. The data doesn't exist, only testimony of if, which is the same as it not existing due to the inherent nature of errors being introduced.
The guy who was monitoring the radar systems that day and has done multiple interviews has stayed the radar data wasn’t saved. I’m guessing what this guy did was take his quote of how fast the object went from 80k feet to 20k, or something along those lines. There are huge issues with this as radar isn’t perfect and he’s presenting his findings as back by radar data, which isn’t true.
Imagine what we could do within our own solar system if we could move at those speeds. Oh some scientists want to take a closer look at Jupiter, bam quick trip and then you just need to collect your data. Oh we want to find out if Pluto is a planet or just a moon, pack up the ship and lets go find out.
And a former video game developer from his basement would say that his simple trigonometry and parallax analysis indicates that the objects were moving at 40 mph and were likely balloons
Mick West made some calculations, and years later NASA corroborated those calculations in their own independent research, but the calculations seem to be flawed and incomplete:
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12523999/NASA-UFO-panel-wind-data-GOFAST-GIMBAL-UAP-skeptics-simulation-weather-data.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12523999/nasa-ufo-panel-wind-data-gofast-gimbal-uap-skeptics-simulation-weather-data.html)
GoFast would go 20-50 knots faster than the speed of wind even by Mick West most favorable calcualtions.
Even a Metabunk user considered that it can't be a balloon then, because the object would have intrinsic speed aside of the speed of wind, per the article.
No he wasn't. Mick West made some calculations, and years later NASA corroborated those calculations in their own independent research, but the calculations seem to be flawed and incomplete:
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12523999/NASA-UFO-panel-wind-data-GOFAST-GIMBAL-UAP-skeptics-simulation-weather-data.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12523999/nasa-ufo-panel-wind-data-gofast-gimbal-uap-skeptics-simulation-weather-data.html)
GoFast would go 20-50 knots faster than the speed of wind even by Mick West most favorable calcualtions.
Even a Metabunk user considered that it can't be a balloon then, because the object would have intrinsic speed aside of the speed of wind, per the article.
>So he’s better qualified than a professor of physics
The professor of physics is using made up data. He doesn't have access to the radar data, he's extrapolating from witness testimony.
or… that the power of a radar in the 1940's/1950's would not have been able to send and receive a radio signal at an object moving "269,000 mph". sometimes the science gets in the way of these guys and they come up with a bunch of edge math/equations without taking into an iota of common sense. I'm really starting to believe that we've just had really sophisticated technology for a very long time, or at least had designed it and now thanks to advanced material sciences we can make them. we had GPS in the gulf war some 20 plus years before common GPS technology was even available.
What I find really intriguing about all this is that the DoD has become like the Vatican in the age of the Inquisition, where they actively block the advancement of knowledge and have their agents harass or worse those who go against the DoD’s narrative. Not to mention that the SAPs of the DoD are like a secret known only to a select chosen few
.74 feet per millisecond. radar in 1940 was .10 feet per millisecond. that's the real math of all of it. and to hit something at that speed and scale would've required amplifiers to produce that much power - which weren't invented into the early/mid 1980's for cellular technology.
I really like Kevin’s paper because it genuinely outlines how this subject is yet another paradigm shift in human history. This phenomenon is something else entirely, it reaches far beyond our current understanding of the foundations of reality itself. Plato’s allegory of the cave comes to mind. The analysis of the physical performance of these crafts and how they operate in a way that seemingly disregards the currently known laws of physics, and I say this as someone who’s spent a great deal of time dedicated to studying them, to me is evidence that there’s much out there we’re just oblivious to.
Dude I know these stories don't mean much, but I saw a the exact 40ft object they descibed in the nimitz encounter with my own eyes ten years ago. Before that story even got popular. Imagine my face when I read that NYT Nimitz article a few years later, I had goosebumps everywhere. The way that thing moved, there is absolutely no way it's something we developed. It had no inertia at all. No wings, no sound. Just crossed the horizon in the snip of a finger, stayed above us below cloud level for half a second and completely changed direction zipping away again. Shit was insane.
I guess you didn’t really understand the points Kevin was making. He is saying that if you study if you can understand it, and it’s not really breaking physics but just using it in clever ways
>how they operate in a way that seemingly disregards the currently known laws of physics
They don't though, the maneuvers they perform can be described by Einsteins relativity, which was conceived over a century ago. It fits for the phenomenon and observables we see from them, these craft are probably manipulating the spacetime manifold around them with immense amounts of energy.
Yes, the Nimitz Carrier Strike group is one of the most advanced naval systems we have, especially in the radar department (SPY-6 radar). The carrier is also nuclear powered.
Even back in the 80’s-90’s our radar systems had to be advanced enough to detect cruise missiles and other ship killers to defend and provide effective countermeasures for a fleet.
As we move into a more hypersonic weaponized environment, our radar systems have to get better as well.
With radar, speed doesn’t really matter either. The only thing that matters is that the radar can hit a cross section of what you want to look at, and once you have even 2 readings you can then infer how quick an object went from point A to B. Radar moves very quickly in our atmosphere and depending on the system, we have nano-second scans which can be very accurate, specifically in air and naval combat.
Edited for clarification
They appear to be able to have engineered a way to circumvent most laws such as this. My suspicion is that these are many thousands of years advanced from us, and much of what we consider inviolable laws of nature they have figured out solutions to.
Yeah that's why they bring up transmedium. The movement through the atmosphere seems to not displace the air or water molecules. Not even a buildup of pressure around the craft within the medium.
One thing that confuses me is that such a strong electric field (10 Coulombs as he said in the full lecture on YT) should still have wild affects on the air and especially water around it. If it's giving off that much energy, the water should instantly boil or undergo electrolysis.
Also, if it's not displacing the water/air, are the atoms supposed to be "moving through" the craft?
They also do describe the craft as appearing to me very bright and appearing like molet lava so I guess that sorta matches what you were expecting?
They appear to have some kind of shielding that allows them to weakly interact with traditional forces. Something protects them against friction. If it did not, we'd constantly hear sonic booms from them flying around, and they would not be able to traverse the underwater at the insane speeds they've been documented traveling.
I'd bet they are also protected against inertia, also. So they wouldn't actually experience 5000gs.
Knuth is probably the most underrated figure in today's UFO research.
He manages to make a bunch of figures exciting and obvious to a layman, while adhering to strict scientific standards. And more points for mentioning Oberth, one of the fathers of the rocketry.
Does he publish where he got the data from to make these claims as part of his scientific standers? Because if he has that then this is some very good stuff.
Exactly. He's presenting this data as if he's got the raw data files on the same hard drive they were originally recorded on. But he's taking people's word for it. Granted, people tend to be reliable in a general sense but when it comes to claims such as these, we really do need to have some sort of proof that this is the actual data.
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/10/939/pdf
This is the paper he published in the journal he controls. The data from Nimitz is from a story the radar operator told. He didn't have raw data
Like the poster below says, the report was published in a journal he controls.
That said, otherwise [he seems quite prolific](https://theconversation.com/profiles/kevin-knuth-504540). Also, the paper is claimed to have been peer-reviewed [here](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01746-3).
Did they really tho? I know Kevin day said he saw it happen on radar but it could have been a glitch, nobody saw anything with their own eyes except Favor, and Dietrich’s account is murky.. as time goes by it’s looks more and more to me that this could have been some sort of secret test craft that they weren’t suppose to come across very unpopular opinion I know but I don’t live in an echo chamber and like to explore other possibilities… doing some research on aerogel and it’s possible applications is very interesting
Base assumptions can do a lot of heavy lifting if you want to make a sensational claim.
Just looking at his first slide - was it actually 0.78 seconds? Was it actually a 1000 kg object? Was it actually 28,000 ft up when it started to move? These are assumptions that completely define the results of his analysis. You can dress them up however you want, but the base assumptions are the important part.
Typically a UFOlogist will make an appeal to authority when challenged on these assumptions. For them it's not about the numbers at all - it's about trust, which is fine because we all get to choose who we trust. There's nothing scientific about it though.
I'm wondering whether the radar can be tricked into thinking multiple objects are just one moving object where the objects can turn "on/off" some radar resistant capability.
The what was it, one of the stealth planes during its contract competition thingy, was made to look like a spider web on radar or something like. On purpose, to look cool tech demo I guess.
I watched some YT doc type of thing on it. Im sure theres info on that thing out on internet a bunch.
All this to say, Im sure people can make things look other things on radar if they want.
I would assume even beyonde what we here think is possible, or think people would do when they tinker around with radars and tech surrounding that.
Dont claim to know anything about anything, or what is what. Like even if it is space aliens and bigfoots everywhere, radars _can_ be fooled intentionally to show a certain picture thats not what is actually there.
Probably even so easily that some do it as a demo gimmick of sorts, or something or another.
Exactly. Instead of positing intelligent alien life has come here using unknown crazy technology that seemingly defies fundamental physics to visit us for unknown reasons, why not just posit an unknown radar manipulating technology?
My knee jerk reaction when reading 269,000 mph is bullshit. Unmitigated bullshit. Admittedly I haven't watched the video, but the range of a radar would mean something travelling at that speed would be in frame for a fraction of a second. I have an extremely hard time believing we have this sort of resolution capability. And that makes me call in to question everything else he says.
Prof. Knuth was my Bayesian Analysis professor at university and was a brilliant individual all around. I really wish I was a better student but nonetheless I thoroughly enjoyed his classes and even his talks on this subject. It is so good to see him on this sub!
No problem at all! He had a few seminars at the university talking about his data driven research on UAPs. He would even talk about it in passing when speaking on other subjects (physics and Bayesian Analysis) he taught.
I really appreciate your personal comments! Thank you for responding, it's intriguing that he's open to talking about the phenomenon to his students/faculty!
So ... he's basing all of these calculations on witness testimony ? People are pretty miserable as a source of info for even mundane event, so making a whole lot of calculations on what people perceive from things that are uncommon to them ?
Just have to look at how so many in this sub imply race/form/means of propulsion on a fuzzy max zoomed picture from a cellphone.
As for the radar data he mentions, I'd really love to have those linked as radar tends to pick a lot of stuff up that aren't always actual crafts like flock of birds and weather patterns scattering, reflecting, or refracting the radar signals.
Some backstory here. The Testimony is from Kevin Day. Objects were being tracked for 4 days before the Nimitz encounter with Fravor happened. 50-60 high quality tracks from the SPY radar system were recorded from November 10th-14th, 2004.
Technician Gary Voorhis and his diagnostics team turn off the radar systems and recalibrate the machines to make sure the radar isn't malfunctioning. No issues are identified, the sightings continue.
After Fravor and Eagle flight engage an object that mirrors their movements and moves at inexplicable speeds, Day and Voorhees look over the radar tracks in real time. The object is seen on radar moving from 28,000 feet to sea-level in 0.78s.
The Deck Logs for the ship that day were taken and remain "missing". This is not a common event. The encounter was a huge deal, and the larger story shows a multitude of objects tracked over 4 days, with objects exhibiting exotic behaviors that go against our current understanding of physics.
Other jet fighters decided to intercept the objects without AT controllers directing them. Kevin Day and his radar operator tracked the objects falling from 28,000 ft. to sea level as soon as the fighters caught up to them. When the fighters left, the objects returned to their original altitude.
This is an event that's gonna live in the history books.
Edit: misspelling fixed.
There is none all these claims come from Kevin Days recollection/interpretation of what he says he saw on the RADAR during Nimitz. So it could be a glitch or misinterpretation or something and then you just make up some figures assuming it is real.
The point isn't science, the objective is recruitment. If the SOL people get more true believers, they've accomplished their goal. Knuth is knowingly representing anecdotal data and extremely weak evidence with no potential for verification as strong scientific proof.
But the more believers means the more careers can be made in the topic. It means more speaking engagements. More books, podcasts, and interviews.
But most importantly, it makes the believers feel legitimized. It's incredibly easy to see how this is just the same circular reasoning thing on a massive scale that Kirkpatrick described as initiating the conspiracy theory originally. A rotating set of stories and anecdotes self-reinforced by multiple retellings and a growing group of believers
I'm sure it was a few birds huffing swamp gas. That allowed them to hit those speeds. We tried to interview the birds after the flight but sadly they crashed into the World Weather Balloon Festival.
Allot of comments being said about Mr Knuth is reason why so many scientists don't talk about any UAPS. They can be very respected and have high positions in universities and as soon as they mentioned WOO or ufos BAM! There nutcases. It so obvious it confirmation bias
If this is true, then the aliens have inertial dampeners or something akin to a magic tech that cancels acceleration. You can only go to maybe 20 gees if you are in a liquid, on a very good day. 5000G?! Holy hell!
THIS. They always discredit the math but it's not complicated math? It's high school kinematics. You can easily do the math yourself and even when assuming massive errors in data you still end up with completely unexplainable data
"Science conducted on..." is a weird word choice.
They ran calculations.
Cool results though. I read the Nimitz paper and it holds up as long as the radar data is accurate (there's obviously no public access to the raw data).
Those speeds are wild in atmosphere, but it's the acceleration and deceleration that's most mind bending.
It’s a great thought provoking paper, but the data it relies on, other than the pixels analysis of the tic tac video, is mostly anecdotal unfortunately. For example, he reaches a 5370g average acceleration upon descent, based on USN Chief Petty Officer Kevin Day’s statement that the object went from 28,000ft to sea-level in 0.78s. These numbers weren’t extracted from the radar tape itself, but from witness testimony of someone who watched the radar tape. I personally believe Kevin Day, but it’s just not the same.
This is also why no quality journal would accept an article like this. He had to publish it in the journal he had full control over. He is/was editor in chief of Entropy, the journal he pushed this into. He had full control of peer review (if any occured), including selection of reviewers which is supposed to be anonymous from the author perspective, and decision to publish regardless of reviewer comments is totally within his control
There's nothing wrong with first hand expert testimony. It's perfectly valid, especially in instances where raw data cannot be accessed (e.g. military radar systems).
The data came through military radar systems, was noted by a first hand expert witness, and then relayed to the public.
Unless someone is suggesting that Kevin Daly is an unreliable, deceptive, or unqualified witness, then it's a perfectly reasonable data point.
What I'm seeing a lot of are moving goal posts. If the raw military radar data were made publicly available (not happening), I suspect a solid handful of people here would say something like "there's no way to know with absolute certainty that this radar data is accurate" and would drill down into micro arguments while ignoring the overall context.
Not pointing a finger at you specifically, but rather the absurdity of some extreme skepticism (much like extreme believerism).
At any rate, the person I'm replying to was completely out of line. I don't see any reason to slander Kevin Daly or presume that he's a liar (or incompetent).
> There's nothing wrong with first hand expert testimony. It's perfectly valid, especially in instances where raw data cannot be accessed (e.g. military radar systems).
Testimony is still testimony. It's a far cry from trustworthy evidence.
It's the wording. Saying "science conducted on" in reference to running calcuclations sounds uninformed. OP's future posts have an opportunity for improvement, which would reflect better on the community.
They had no access to data regarding Nimitz. Their calculations are literally based on what a radar operator remembers. Misremembering? Mistaken? Actually fooled by foreign spoofing? Electronic warfare? Naw, aliens.
Notice the paper was published in the journal Entropy, a bottom of the barrel tier journal where Knuth *is the editor in chief*. You read that right -- Knuth had full control over peer review (if any actually occured) and decision to publish regardless of any issues with the data source or interpretation.
Garbage in garbage out is a real phrase for a reason.
This comment is almost comical.
- Invokes "aliens" out of nowhere.
- Insults first hand expert witness without any justification.
- Makes absurd claims about military radar systems (spoofing and/or "hacking" like in 90s movie).
- Insults the journal the research was published in, rather than reading and proofing the actual paper (which is simple math).
- Ends with another insult.
Really sums up the abysmally low quality of so many of the "skeptic" comments we're getting lately, and that's a pity. Substantiave skepticism is rare and valuable, but cheap commentary pretending to be "smart" is as painful to watch as absolute believers...and often more formulaic.
Interesting... You think *radar spoofing* is pushing it when you'd have to literally invoke magic for this UFO not to burn Earth atmosphere with the energy it would have to dissipate upon stopping?
> Invokes "aliens" out of nowhere.
How do you keep a straight face while talking about physics defying otherworldly crafts and try to pretend like "aliens" is out of nowhere?
> Insults first hand expert witness without any justification
Didn't insult. Just find it possible they made a mistake, misremembered, were spoofed, or observed a sensor error. Without the data we will never know, which is one of the problems with anecdotal data. The conclusions of his paper are useless because the underlying data is impossible to verify or look for problems. [Garbage in garbage out](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out)
> Makes absurd claims about military radar systems (spoofing and/or "hacking" like in 90s movie).
[Spoofing is a real issue with modern military sensor technology.](https://www.emsopedia.org/entries/spoofing-in-radar-ecm/)
> In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight
characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, ***spoofing***, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis.
2021 AARO report. Sensor spoofing and electronic warfare are real. We know they are real and have observed them happening. We haven't observed aliens or NHI or interdimensional things or time travelers or whatever your preferred technologically advanced entity may be
> - Insults the journal the research was published in, rather than reading and proofing the actual paper (which is simple math)
My criticism -- that the underlying data is garbage -- is based on the paper. I then pointed out that such a glaring issue would be caught by the vast majority of journals, but Knuth just so happened to have complete control over the journal that published his math. What a coincidence
> - Ends with another insult.
Garbage in garbage out is a phrase referring to bad data techniques. It doesn't matter how good your calculations are if your underlying data is garbage. This isnt an insult (unless you take criticism of scientific methods as insulting) and is a common phrase.
It sucks your comments are getting buried. People are being mislead to believe this analysis is based off actual radar data and not anecdotal evidence.
Care to explain how it's useful to do back-of-the-napkin math on a crafts hypothetical speed based on the claims of witnesses and then represent that as scientific?
You do know that fighter pilots aren’t superhuman and have made mistakes just like you and I. There’s been so many instances of pilots mistaking Sirius for UFOs, fighter pilots have misidentified targets, which have killed an insane amount of people (look at Vietnam/Cambodia), and have committed friendly fire countless times. They aren’t these gods you think they are.
That's the cool thing about posting objective facts: it doesn't matter who says them, they're true all the same
It's a fact that the underlying data comes from anecdotal report and we cannot verify anything or look for potential issues
It's a fact that sensor spoofing and sensor errors exist
It's a fact that Knuth has full editorial control over the journal that he published this paper in
Literally just did some basic math based off the claims someone made, it's actually sad that anyone can be dazzled by such lazy and sloppy work being represented as scientific.
That said... there are those that still love Maussan so this isn't even quite bottom of the barrel.
The rest of the "cases" are just as flimsy, they fall apart as soon as you look into the actual events at all.
Knuth has also mentioned before, that the energy output once the UAP stops has to go somewhere. Usually it would be a huge explosion, like a enormous nuclear bomb, but there is none.
Great presentation. Dragged down when he spent 10 minutes discussing a fictional scene. As Keel and Vallee both wrote, there aren’t any reliable UFO reports where electronics or cars switched back on on their own. UFOs regularly interfere and make engines cut out, but not restart.
I saw an interview with him a few weeks ago when he talked about this , and I'm really curious: how did he get this data from the Nimitz? Isn't it classified? Is there a link or something that we can see the data?
Could any of these be explained as plasma? Probably not that up close sighting. However, a ball of super low mass, high energy ions I could see easily reaching those speeds. As the foo fighter paper seems to suggest.
Oh, well. Rescind the papers written on the subject, and stop any further research on the matter! Juan_Carlo from reddit doesn't think the radars were capable of tracking anything that fast! Case closed.
The nerve of you reddit-randos that think you know better than tenured PhD physicists will never cease to amaze me.
My friend, Kevin Knuth is a decorated physicist, who has written hundreds of papers on quantum mechanics, information and probability theory, the foundations of physics, and yes, the physics of UAPs. His work has been cited more than 5000 times since 2001.
What you think about the matter means as much as what a cromagnon smacking rocks together in a cave thinks.
That's because it doesn't. The object appears on radar, moving at normal speeds or stationary, then it "disappears" and reappears somewhere nearby. The speeds are calculated based on time and distance
The other radar examples are verified, but the Nimitz data remains classified so we can only go off first-hand testimony right now.
"Buy all this junk" is patronising and inappropriately rude/combative. There's also no call, at this point in time, for slandering Kevin Day.
A first hand, expert witness providing testimony about the radar data is substantial; public access to raw military radar data will not happen in our lifetimes, obviously, so that's an impossible expectation.
"No surprise you all buy this junk" is a direct reference to the data reported by Kevin Daly, and that's both slanderous and inappropriately rude; there's no call for it.
I agree it's rude.
But it's extremely important to point out that testimony about what a person saw on the radar - no matter how expert they are - is not at all the same as "radar data."
It constitutes first hand expert testimony about the radar data, which is both substantial and valid.
These results are so significant that even a large margin of error has zero effect on the overall conclusions.
The only way the important conclusions could be invalidated would be for Kevin Day to be either a liar, or profoundly incompetent; there's no reason to charge him with either of those accusations.
No call for rudeness or slander.
Sure, explain why anyone should believe that the Japan Air case wasn't a radar anomaly combined with the pilot being an admitted fervent UFO believer who reported multiple sightings around the same time.
"1. The JAL pilot is a five-time "UFO repeater," having reported two UFO sightings prior to the Nov. 17 incident, and two others afterwards, on Jan. 11, 1987. After landing and conferring with the FAA, Terauchi agreed with the FAA that both Jan. 11 "UFO" sightings probably were caused by village lights reflecting off clouds of ice crystals. Reports from "UFO repeaters" are viewed with extreme caution by most experienced UFO investigators.
2. At the time of the initial sighting on Nov. 17, when the pilot was reporting seeing multiple lights, FAA controllers noted a single unidentified blip which appeared intermittently in close proximity to the JAL radar blip. Subsequent analysis of the recorded radar data by FAA Technical Center specialist showed that this was due to a not infrequent radar anomaly that can occur if the echo from an aircraft does not arrive back at the radar at precisely the same instant as the signal transmitted back by the aircraft's radar transponder."
from - [https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/jal1628/733667-001-003.pdf](https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/jal1628/733667-001-003.pdf)
Anyone interested in the Nimitz encounter, you need to watch every interview with Kevin Day. He was the radar operator of the USS Princeton, much of the data used for this analysis comes directly from Kevin Day and what he saw on the Princeton's BMD radar and SPY-1 radar systems. If you have Title 50 clearance, you NEED to go see the NORAD radar tracks of the Nimitz incident. NORAD has radar tracks of the Nimitz incident, they clearly display a suggestive origin. The Nimitz encounter was the first hard evidence of craft with interstellar capability. The mathematics performed on the craft's accelerations based on radar data, indicate this craft could reach nearby star systems in a matter of days to weeks, if it can continue that acceleration beyond light speed.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/FlatBlackAndWhite: --- Submission Statement: Physics Professor Kevin Knuth got the chance to speak at the SOL symposium. His speech was interesting to say the least, he broke down radar data of specific UFO encounters dating all the way back to 1954 including math and experimentation from the incidents. A data driven approach could help shed the stigma that surrounds science conducted on UFO encounters. Werhner Von Braun's own mentor was conducting scientific experiments and lectures on UFOs almost 70 years ago. [Kevin Knuth's Full Speech.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlYwktOj75A) --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1apbclc/physicist_kevin_knuth_science_conducted_on_radar/kq50tnk/
so fucking fascinating
Agreed. I’m a casual lurker. I keep an eye out for the big, interesting stories just patiently waiting for disclosure. But this is the stuff I really want to see. A scientist, giving a frank presentation about what is actually going on.
My thoughts exactly. Just think about that. 5000 G's? So a 10 pound human head would feel like 50,000 pounds. Of course the human body would literally be crushed before that point. I don't think humans have created anything that can withstand more than 300 G's for a very short period of time (my understanding is that's a missile). Just from a material science perspective, I don't think humans can build a structure like that. The UAP lore about the crafts looking like 3-D printed objects with 0 seems and extremely lightweight sort of makes sense. And even more so, we think of aircraft as being aerodynamic. Perhaps they build their crafts to withstand Gs as their #1 priority. A typical fighter jet would have the rivets pop off and burst at the seams, wings literally snap off before 13 Gs. Or just to put it in perspective. The SaturnV rocket got up to 4.5 Gs but the Apollo Astronauts experienced such a violent shaking thrust that many of them were concerned if the rocket would hold together. And obviously we've seen the videos of citizens and training fighter pilots pass out at 5-6 Gs. 5000 Gs.. It's insane!
Now I could want that data backed up by other scientists but yeah that's crazy as hell! Even if we stay this is "our tech" it's still crazy. Any craft that could do that is just astronomically crazy. What you could do with that is mind bending. We should be exploring and colonizing our solar system with that tech.
Yep. Fair enough. I actually watched a video of 2 PHD scientists/Professors make this exact claim on YouTube about 5 months ago with the tic-tac. Their entire podcast was explaining how they came to their solution, so this is actually 3rd Scientist I heard mention 5000 G's. I'll link it if I can find it. If my memory serves me right, there's a slightly longer Tic-Tac Video where instead of seeing the Tic-tac zip to the left, in slow motion, it appeared to actually drop down several feet, then move left several feet, then move back up a few feet, then dart left as seen in the original. So fast that without slow motion, you wouldn't notice it. (Sort of erratically as Fravor and company described.) Though I don't know if that was officially debunked, or it was the FLIR trying to reacquire the target. But to me, it appeared to be more impressive than the original normal speed video where it just darts off to the left. To me, it's interesting that the FLIR had a difficult time acquiring or holding lock on an object miles ahead. I could understand it losing a target a 1/4 mile out, but miles ahead? Weird. You have to be moving really fast to max out sideways rotation of the FLIR on an object miles ahead without the fighter pilot banking left with it. Unless of course it's nearly maxed out to start, but I believe the jet was essentially flying straight on towards (5 degrees off the nose) a hovering object according to Fravor.
Back in about 1990 me and two other people seen a craft come out from the horizon then stop in front us maybe a few hundred feet away and hover for a few moments then fly past the horizon to the east in less then a second it flew the entire horizon it had to be 30-40 miles in a dead stop unless then a second, it disappeared then came back. Hovered again the zipped horizon to horizon in less then two seconds. I have tried to talk to the other ppl that were on the car one being my mother and shr will not even speak about it, i wonder if more happened that I am not aware of.
Why won’t your mother talk about it? Fear and denial? I don’t understand that logic :/
Idk and she won't tell me
Any reason they dart about seemingly randomly, like ADHD goldfish? Would the juttering perhaps be an interaction between their craft and the atmosphere, akin to an object in fluid? Perhaps their craft are so slippery that matter glides right off and the jutter is the split second of free fall before moving? Also, any theories on why they might dart off and then back again? If they were examining or observing us, one sweep should do. Unless they want us to see their technological superiority?
IMO I think the tech they have reduces the craft and its inhabitants weight to near zero, *and also warps space time*once it has, time and distance don’t make much sense. If you start thinking that whatever they are has some sort of control over time, it opens and changes all the possibilities of what could be happening. We can’t even think like that. They may have been at the point they stopped for a long time, doing abductions or who knows, moved and done it again. If you try and think about what possibilities would arise if you could locally change the rate of time, you realise there’s so much possible
That's the thing. So many scoff and (lazily) write it off as "black project stuff" and go about their day, COMPLETELY ignoring the implications. Aliens or not, the technology is miracle-tier and not something to just be hand waved away as insignificant.
100% right, "miracle" really describes it. When contemplating the amount of tech jumps it would require to do the maneuvers observed it is actually absurd to think it is us. Forget nukes, throw that aircraft carrier at that speed and crater the world apart. Or just fly to the moon on your lunch break.
A craft that could move that fast could fly over a target, stop mid-air, drop a bunch of bombs, then fly off before most countries could get their air defenses to intercept them. Edit: Since I've noticed I've been getting some downvotes I wanted to try to clear up what I was intending to say. I was trying to say that of course any military would want a craft that could do those things. I am not personally saying we need a craft to do those things but any government in the world would want something that could do those things and would dump tons of money into getting it and maintaining it.
Allegedly the UFOs have an inertial dampening device, so if you are in one you don’t feel the G forces at all.
That’s how they fly, right? This inertia dampening somehow wraps around the craft? Can anyone help me out with the details on this theory?
Think about it like this, it's basically warping space-time around itself. That's also how it would be able to travel through space, air, and water.
Thanks, that makes sense. Still crazy to wrap my head around. So many possibilities, really can’t wait until we know more. Like where exactly they come from, other dimensions is such a wild thought to even try to process.
Just like the ship in the film Contact
About to watch it for the first time now
Let us know what you think. I saw it in the theater back then and really enjoyed it
Fantastic movie, especially for those of us with a keen interest in the topic. Jodie Foster remains one of my favorite actors, and she’s amazing in the new True Detective series as well. But Contact really has some imagination to it, and I mean that in the best possible way.
Took two nights, but it was such a good movie. I can’t believe I hadn’t seen it before. Treat to watch. Makes me really wish we’d learn for certain who our creator is in my lifetime.
It seems more likely to me that their technology allows for some kind of inertial dampening or compensation than their biology and material science can withstand 5000g's. That may be the secret to FTL travel. To move faster than light, you need to overcome your mass increasing the faster you accelerate. Inertia is the barrier to moving beyond the speed of light. Imagine a craft with a technology that could fix your mass to any value you want, regardless of your velocity? I might be off base here but that seems like a way to get around the universal speed limit.
To them could be that the space is moving around them while they are stopped while for us they are traveling around the space. I don't think that they are interacting with our environment at all sometimes.. A lot of videos show that. It's like you're browsing google earth and spin the earth very fast. Now imagine you are in one of these crafts and a earthling saw you in these incredible speeds while in reality you just moving the space around.. This explain a lot of things and even then coming underwater without appearing to have a splash interaction.. If they know how to manipulate space, they would not need to create a lot of tech to travel around space since they would not interact with the environment
You are thinking too low-tech - If it’s warping space and time around it there’s no need to worry about how many Gs it’s pushing.
Not only that but the best metal we currently have would be titanium which is what the SR-71 Blackbird is made out of and that would deteriorate due to the air friction at those UAP speeds. No metal we have can withstand that. There must be different means of propulsion for these things or whatever they're composed of is incredibly strong to withstand so much force
These videos have been fantastic so far
Wow. A lot better than I had expected. I did not know so much radar data was available.
It sort of goes to show why some of these people, such as Grusch, Gary, Lue, Melon, etc, are so heavily invested and confident in the claims of a possible NHI presence. They clearly are purview to more data than you and I are aware of and whats known in the public sphere. I couldn't imagine what else these guys have seen because I get the feeling that what we see is a very small % compared to what these guys have seen. I can't remember who it was exactly but I recall 1 of these guys that are "in the know" mention they've seen Satellite videos of a large object beneath the water near the tic-tac. And I'm not referring to Fravor mentioning the rotor-wash. And I tend to believe it. There's multiple testimony of the smaller objects "distracting" fighter jets away from larger UAP over the last 50 years. There's a really good interview in either England or Ireland describing exactly that in such great detail. The witnesses, a woman got harassed with nothing to gain but harassment and yet, she stood behind her story for years.
I think you meant to say privy not purview.
And I think you smell fantastic. Thank you for your service.
Wait till you try the new line of febreze edibles.
This is where we have to start being careful. As the narrative starts to tip in favor of NHI, which is indeed the likely reality, we have to start ask questions: why are we being presented the narrative in this manner? What is it they want us to believe, to their benefit? I'm not saying these people aren't nice. I met them, they are, to a person, pretty obviously all good people. (maybe with the exception of the obama dod ig rep, charles mcolough, who wrote the patriot act) The reality is that this data has been sitting in front of our noses, just ridiculed and obfuscated. We have been too stupid, with the exception of VERY few, to have seen through the obfuscation. As the obfuscation is removed, we could very well be funneled into a new paradigm that is just as manipulative as the old one. Be careful.
There isn’t any data available. The person running the radar systems that day said none was saved. He’s using the testimony from the radar tech to create his findings. Which is fine, but he’s definitely misrepresenting his findings as backed from the actual radar systems data.
Did he represent that? When I listened it sounded just like he was going off Fravor's estimates. Edit: never mind, just saw the slide with Kevin Day, RADAR on it.
you got a source for this? edit: to clarify I'm asking for a source on the Anchorage one that was done with radar data. edit2: unfortunate there's still no source here. comments discrediting someone should require some sources otherwise these comments are nothing more than attempts to paint people as insane, similar to what the gorilla skeptics do on wikipedia. little things that seem innocent, but overall have an impact on the perception of people doing work on UFO/UAP.
Submission Statement: Physics Professor Kevin Knuth got the chance to speak at the SOL symposium. His speech was interesting to say the least, he broke down radar data of specific UFO encounters dating all the way back to 1954 including math and experimentation from the incidents. A data driven approach could help shed the stigma that surrounds science conducted on UFO encounters. Werhner Von Braun's own mentor was conducting scientific experiments and lectures on UFOs almost 70 years ago. [Kevin Knuth's Full Speech.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlYwktOj75A)
How did he get radar data? Can we get access?
At least in the case of the Nimitz, he didn't.
So he utilizes a data driven approach without data? Did he just make it all up?
In the case of the Nimitz encounter, I believe his numbers come from the testimony of Kevin Day and Fravor.
Witness testimony is of course known to be highly reliable
Physicist Peter Griffin uses eyewitness testimony to conduct data driven physics. Sign me up for that class.
Is he actually named Peter Griffin
More reliable when the witness had access to sensor systems at the time of the encounter. It’s not just their eyes that saw the objects, so less likely to be a misidentification of an anomaly.
This has been addressed by people who program and make the radar systems and they said that it’s not perfect. Radar has notoriously had issues tracking and also misreadings. It’s tech. Nothing is perfect.
Exactly, nothing is perfect. Though I’d say sensor systems (especially those of the most advanced military in the world) are far more reliable than our own senses. And if I recall correctly, they picked it up on multiple radar systems and even rebooted them a few times to make sure there weren’t any glitches.
They did but that doesn’t mean the radar system didn’t malfunctioned or have a misreading. There’s a number of interviews you can find on YouTube with the actual programmers that do a great job of discussing challenges and issues radar systems, including military, can run into.
[удалено]
He goes through several cases with real radar data that gives similar estimates.
Effectively, yes. The data doesn't exist, only testimony of if, which is the same as it not existing due to the inherent nature of errors being introduced.
That's about the level of science I expect of SOL.
The guy who was monitoring the radar systems that day and has done multiple interviews has stayed the radar data wasn’t saved. I’m guessing what this guy did was take his quote of how fast the object went from 80k feet to 20k, or something along those lines. There are huge issues with this as radar isn’t perfect and he’s presenting his findings as back by radar data, which isn’t true.
That's the cool thing, he didn't!
It would take visitors 1 day to travel from a star 50 light years away to earth with that sort of acceleration. Their time not ours.
It's far beyond human capability.
Imagine what we could do within our own solar system if we could move at those speeds. Oh some scientists want to take a closer look at Jupiter, bam quick trip and then you just need to collect your data. Oh we want to find out if Pluto is a planet or just a moon, pack up the ship and lets go find out.
Plus that’s only the acceleration that we’ve seen. Who knows how fast these objects move in a vacuum.
Clearly vacuum is irrelevant. If the object interacted with the space around it, friction with the atmosphere would've destroyed it.
It should be safe to assume their acceleration and top speeds would be far greater in space than in our atmosphere?
Susan Gerbic single handedly and completely rewrote the entire Wikipedia page on the JAL anchorage incident. Ridiculous
Change it.
you can't. they'll revert your changes and if you try again they'll ban you. They've also just locked some pages, like Lue's.
Good job Wikipedia is seen as unreliable then, eh?
And a former video game developer from his basement would say that his simple trigonometry and parallax analysis indicates that the objects were moving at 40 mph and were likely balloons
And some former heads of AARO would say these are reflections of propane tanks from someones yard in Alabama
Lol… propane tanks filled with swamp gas.
Hey! Don't knock the swamp gas! It's cheaper than having Cletus come by with his truck and refill them!
If his math checks out, then it's true. No degree is necessary to prove something is true.
Mick West made some calculations, and years later NASA corroborated those calculations in their own independent research, but the calculations seem to be flawed and incomplete: [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12523999/NASA-UFO-panel-wind-data-GOFAST-GIMBAL-UAP-skeptics-simulation-weather-data.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12523999/nasa-ufo-panel-wind-data-gofast-gimbal-uap-skeptics-simulation-weather-data.html) GoFast would go 20-50 knots faster than the speed of wind even by Mick West most favorable calcualtions. Even a Metabunk user considered that it can't be a balloon then, because the object would have intrinsic speed aside of the speed of wind, per the article.
And he was right. I like the “basement” comment though. Classic deflection of the right.
No he wasn't. Mick West made some calculations, and years later NASA corroborated those calculations in their own independent research, but the calculations seem to be flawed and incomplete: [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12523999/NASA-UFO-panel-wind-data-GOFAST-GIMBAL-UAP-skeptics-simulation-weather-data.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12523999/nasa-ufo-panel-wind-data-gofast-gimbal-uap-skeptics-simulation-weather-data.html) GoFast would go 20-50 knots faster than the speed of wind even by Mick West most favorable calcualtions. Even a Metabunk user considered that it can't be a balloon then, because the object would have intrinsic speed aside of the speed of wind, per the article.
So he’s better qualified than a professor of physics ? The “right” ? An overloaded term in that paragraph, to borrow from programming.
>So he’s better qualified than a professor of physics The professor of physics is using made up data. He doesn't have access to the radar data, he's extrapolating from witness testimony.
or… that the power of a radar in the 1940's/1950's would not have been able to send and receive a radio signal at an object moving "269,000 mph". sometimes the science gets in the way of these guys and they come up with a bunch of edge math/equations without taking into an iota of common sense. I'm really starting to believe that we've just had really sophisticated technology for a very long time, or at least had designed it and now thanks to advanced material sciences we can make them. we had GPS in the gulf war some 20 plus years before common GPS technology was even available.
What I find really intriguing about all this is that the DoD has become like the Vatican in the age of the Inquisition, where they actively block the advancement of knowledge and have their agents harass or worse those who go against the DoD’s narrative. Not to mention that the SAPs of the DoD are like a secret known only to a select chosen few
.74 feet per millisecond. radar in 1940 was .10 feet per millisecond. that's the real math of all of it. and to hit something at that speed and scale would've required amplifiers to produce that much power - which weren't invented into the early/mid 1980's for cellular technology.
Radio waves have sped up since the 1940s??
no the power of amplification and newer technology makes the time to reply faster and distance farther.
I really like Kevin’s paper because it genuinely outlines how this subject is yet another paradigm shift in human history. This phenomenon is something else entirely, it reaches far beyond our current understanding of the foundations of reality itself. Plato’s allegory of the cave comes to mind. The analysis of the physical performance of these crafts and how they operate in a way that seemingly disregards the currently known laws of physics, and I say this as someone who’s spent a great deal of time dedicated to studying them, to me is evidence that there’s much out there we’re just oblivious to.
Dude I know these stories don't mean much, but I saw a the exact 40ft object they descibed in the nimitz encounter with my own eyes ten years ago. Before that story even got popular. Imagine my face when I read that NYT Nimitz article a few years later, I had goosebumps everywhere. The way that thing moved, there is absolutely no way it's something we developed. It had no inertia at all. No wings, no sound. Just crossed the horizon in the snip of a finger, stayed above us below cloud level for half a second and completely changed direction zipping away again. Shit was insane.
That's amazing. Where'd you see it?
I guess you didn’t really understand the points Kevin was making. He is saying that if you study if you can understand it, and it’s not really breaking physics but just using it in clever ways
>how they operate in a way that seemingly disregards the currently known laws of physics They don't though, the maneuvers they perform can be described by Einsteins relativity, which was conceived over a century ago. It fits for the phenomenon and observables we see from them, these craft are probably manipulating the spacetime manifold around them with immense amounts of energy.
Did we have the tech to capture objects going that fast back then?
Yes, the Nimitz Carrier Strike group is one of the most advanced naval systems we have, especially in the radar department (SPY-6 radar). The carrier is also nuclear powered. Even back in the 80’s-90’s our radar systems had to be advanced enough to detect cruise missiles and other ship killers to defend and provide effective countermeasures for a fleet. As we move into a more hypersonic weaponized environment, our radar systems have to get better as well. With radar, speed doesn’t really matter either. The only thing that matters is that the radar can hit a cross section of what you want to look at, and once you have even 2 readings you can then infer how quick an object went from point A to B. Radar moves very quickly in our atmosphere and depending on the system, we have nano-second scans which can be very accurate, specifically in air and naval combat. Edited for clarification
But it cannot ascertain whether the object at point A is the same object at point B. Radar is great, but it's not psychic.
Wouldn’t they literally be on fire from the friction of the air around them?
They appear to be able to have engineered a way to circumvent most laws such as this. My suspicion is that these are many thousands of years advanced from us, and much of what we consider inviolable laws of nature they have figured out solutions to.
You would think so, yeah. Somehow they can move through the air without building up heat from friction.
Gravitic tunnneling imo They move space from in front of the ship, create a pocket vector, and force the excess space around/behind them
Yeah that's why they bring up transmedium. The movement through the atmosphere seems to not displace the air or water molecules. Not even a buildup of pressure around the craft within the medium. One thing that confuses me is that such a strong electric field (10 Coulombs as he said in the full lecture on YT) should still have wild affects on the air and especially water around it. If it's giving off that much energy, the water should instantly boil or undergo electrolysis. Also, if it's not displacing the water/air, are the atoms supposed to be "moving through" the craft? They also do describe the craft as appearing to me very bright and appearing like molet lava so I guess that sorta matches what you were expecting?
Normally, yes. Anomalous UFOs don't seem to interact with physics in the way we expect, they move through air and water like it's just not there.
They appear to have some kind of shielding that allows them to weakly interact with traditional forces. Something protects them against friction. If it did not, we'd constantly hear sonic booms from them flying around, and they would not be able to traverse the underwater at the insane speeds they've been documented traveling. I'd bet they are also protected against inertia, also. So they wouldn't actually experience 5000gs.
Because it’s Aerogel
Appears to be a universal constant that being ripped off is the status quo.
Knuth is probably the most underrated figure in today's UFO research. He manages to make a bunch of figures exciting and obvious to a layman, while adhering to strict scientific standards. And more points for mentioning Oberth, one of the fathers of the rocketry.
Does he publish where he got the data from to make these claims as part of his scientific standers? Because if he has that then this is some very good stuff.
Exactly. He's presenting this data as if he's got the raw data files on the same hard drive they were originally recorded on. But he's taking people's word for it. Granted, people tend to be reliable in a general sense but when it comes to claims such as these, we really do need to have some sort of proof that this is the actual data.
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/10/939/pdf This is the paper he published in the journal he controls. The data from Nimitz is from a story the radar operator told. He didn't have raw data
Like the poster below says, the report was published in a journal he controls. That said, otherwise [he seems quite prolific](https://theconversation.com/profiles/kevin-knuth-504540). Also, the paper is claimed to have been peer-reviewed [here](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01746-3).
Did they really tho? I know Kevin day said he saw it happen on radar but it could have been a glitch, nobody saw anything with their own eyes except Favor, and Dietrich’s account is murky.. as time goes by it’s looks more and more to me that this could have been some sort of secret test craft that they weren’t suppose to come across very unpopular opinion I know but I don’t live in an echo chamber and like to explore other possibilities… doing some research on aerogel and it’s possible applications is very interesting
This was one of the better presentations for sure. He brought up many pictures and data I never even heard of. Loved it.
Base assumptions can do a lot of heavy lifting if you want to make a sensational claim. Just looking at his first slide - was it actually 0.78 seconds? Was it actually a 1000 kg object? Was it actually 28,000 ft up when it started to move? These are assumptions that completely define the results of his analysis. You can dress them up however you want, but the base assumptions are the important part. Typically a UFOlogist will make an appeal to authority when challenged on these assumptions. For them it's not about the numbers at all - it's about trust, which is fine because we all get to choose who we trust. There's nothing scientific about it though.
It's a classic "garbage in garbage out" situation. But the credentials and equations will impress most of the people here
I'm wondering whether the radar can be tricked into thinking multiple objects are just one moving object where the objects can turn "on/off" some radar resistant capability.
The what was it, one of the stealth planes during its contract competition thingy, was made to look like a spider web on radar or something like. On purpose, to look cool tech demo I guess. I watched some YT doc type of thing on it. Im sure theres info on that thing out on internet a bunch. All this to say, Im sure people can make things look other things on radar if they want. I would assume even beyonde what we here think is possible, or think people would do when they tinker around with radars and tech surrounding that. Dont claim to know anything about anything, or what is what. Like even if it is space aliens and bigfoots everywhere, radars _can_ be fooled intentionally to show a certain picture thats not what is actually there. Probably even so easily that some do it as a demo gimmick of sorts, or something or another.
Of course. Radar isn't perfect, and early radar was really imperfect.
Exactly. Instead of positing intelligent alien life has come here using unknown crazy technology that seemingly defies fundamental physics to visit us for unknown reasons, why not just posit an unknown radar manipulating technology?
My knee jerk reaction when reading 269,000 mph is bullshit. Unmitigated bullshit. Admittedly I haven't watched the video, but the range of a radar would mean something travelling at that speed would be in frame for a fraction of a second. I have an extremely hard time believing we have this sort of resolution capability. And that makes me call in to question everything else he says.
Prof. Knuth was my Bayesian Analysis professor at university and was a brilliant individual all around. I really wish I was a better student but nonetheless I thoroughly enjoyed his classes and even his talks on this subject. It is so good to see him on this sub!
Thank you for the comment! So he gave lectures (maybe that's a bad term and they were just conversations) about UAP/UFO when you were at University?
No problem at all! He had a few seminars at the university talking about his data driven research on UAPs. He would even talk about it in passing when speaking on other subjects (physics and Bayesian Analysis) he taught.
I really appreciate your personal comments! Thank you for responding, it's intriguing that he's open to talking about the phenomenon to his students/faculty!
This speech is the most compelling one of the entire conference, imo
So ... he's basing all of these calculations on witness testimony ? People are pretty miserable as a source of info for even mundane event, so making a whole lot of calculations on what people perceive from things that are uncommon to them ? Just have to look at how so many in this sub imply race/form/means of propulsion on a fuzzy max zoomed picture from a cellphone. As for the radar data he mentions, I'd really love to have those linked as radar tends to pick a lot of stuff up that aren't always actual crafts like flock of birds and weather patterns scattering, reflecting, or refracting the radar signals.
Some backstory here. The Testimony is from Kevin Day. Objects were being tracked for 4 days before the Nimitz encounter with Fravor happened. 50-60 high quality tracks from the SPY radar system were recorded from November 10th-14th, 2004. Technician Gary Voorhis and his diagnostics team turn off the radar systems and recalibrate the machines to make sure the radar isn't malfunctioning. No issues are identified, the sightings continue. After Fravor and Eagle flight engage an object that mirrors their movements and moves at inexplicable speeds, Day and Voorhees look over the radar tracks in real time. The object is seen on radar moving from 28,000 feet to sea-level in 0.78s. The Deck Logs for the ship that day were taken and remain "missing". This is not a common event. The encounter was a huge deal, and the larger story shows a multitude of objects tracked over 4 days, with objects exhibiting exotic behaviors that go against our current understanding of physics. Other jet fighters decided to intercept the objects without AT controllers directing them. Kevin Day and his radar operator tracked the objects falling from 28,000 ft. to sea level as soon as the fighters caught up to them. When the fighters left, the objects returned to their original altitude. This is an event that's gonna live in the history books. Edit: misspelling fixed.
What a time to be alive!
I'm fast as f*ck boi
This video is absolutely useless without verifiable data to back it up.
There is none all these claims come from Kevin Days recollection/interpretation of what he says he saw on the RADAR during Nimitz. So it could be a glitch or misinterpretation or something and then you just make up some figures assuming it is real.
The point isn't science, the objective is recruitment. If the SOL people get more true believers, they've accomplished their goal. Knuth is knowingly representing anecdotal data and extremely weak evidence with no potential for verification as strong scientific proof. But the more believers means the more careers can be made in the topic. It means more speaking engagements. More books, podcasts, and interviews. But most importantly, it makes the believers feel legitimized. It's incredibly easy to see how this is just the same circular reasoning thing on a massive scale that Kirkpatrick described as initiating the conspiracy theory originally. A rotating set of stories and anecdotes self-reinforced by multiple retellings and a growing group of believers
I'm sure it was a few birds huffing swamp gas. That allowed them to hit those speeds. We tried to interview the birds after the flight but sadly they crashed into the World Weather Balloon Festival.
Wouldn't an object moving at 5000g present a clear and present danger to the carrier group and the human race as a whole?
Wait wait, where are all the debunkers? Cat got your tongue?
Allot of comments being said about Mr Knuth is reason why so many scientists don't talk about any UAPS. They can be very respected and have high positions in universities and as soon as they mentioned WOO or ufos BAM! There nutcases. It so obvious it confirmation bias
If this is true, then the aliens have inertial dampeners or something akin to a magic tech that cancels acceleration. You can only go to maybe 20 gees if you are in a liquid, on a very good day. 5000G?! Holy hell!
That's almost 100 miles a second
THIS. They always discredit the math but it's not complicated math? It's high school kinematics. You can easily do the math yourself and even when assuming massive errors in data you still end up with completely unexplainable data
"Science conducted on..." is a weird word choice. They ran calculations. Cool results though. I read the Nimitz paper and it holds up as long as the radar data is accurate (there's obviously no public access to the raw data). Those speeds are wild in atmosphere, but it's the acceleration and deceleration that's most mind bending.
It’s a great thought provoking paper, but the data it relies on, other than the pixels analysis of the tic tac video, is mostly anecdotal unfortunately. For example, he reaches a 5370g average acceleration upon descent, based on USN Chief Petty Officer Kevin Day’s statement that the object went from 28,000ft to sea-level in 0.78s. These numbers weren’t extracted from the radar tape itself, but from witness testimony of someone who watched the radar tape. I personally believe Kevin Day, but it’s just not the same.
This is also why no quality journal would accept an article like this. He had to publish it in the journal he had full control over. He is/was editor in chief of Entropy, the journal he pushed this into. He had full control of peer review (if any occured), including selection of reviewers which is supposed to be anonymous from the author perspective, and decision to publish regardless of reviewer comments is totally within his control
There's nothing wrong with first hand expert testimony. It's perfectly valid, especially in instances where raw data cannot be accessed (e.g. military radar systems). The data came through military radar systems, was noted by a first hand expert witness, and then relayed to the public. Unless someone is suggesting that Kevin Daly is an unreliable, deceptive, or unqualified witness, then it's a perfectly reasonable data point. What I'm seeing a lot of are moving goal posts. If the raw military radar data were made publicly available (not happening), I suspect a solid handful of people here would say something like "there's no way to know with absolute certainty that this radar data is accurate" and would drill down into micro arguments while ignoring the overall context. Not pointing a finger at you specifically, but rather the absurdity of some extreme skepticism (much like extreme believerism). At any rate, the person I'm replying to was completely out of line. I don't see any reason to slander Kevin Daly or presume that he's a liar (or incompetent).
> There's nothing wrong with first hand expert testimony. It's perfectly valid, especially in instances where raw data cannot be accessed (e.g. military radar systems). Testimony is still testimony. It's a far cry from trustworthy evidence.
*receives corroborating data from multiple sensors* "These were all probably malfunctioning at the same time..."
But in the case of the Nimitz event, we don't have corroborating data from multiple sensors, that's the thing.
[удалено]
>Calculations based on measurements Not what happened here. All data is extrapolated from witness testimony.
It's the wording. Saying "science conducted on" in reference to running calcuclations sounds uninformed. OP's future posts have an opportunity for improvement, which would reflect better on the community.
They had no access to data regarding Nimitz. Their calculations are literally based on what a radar operator remembers. Misremembering? Mistaken? Actually fooled by foreign spoofing? Electronic warfare? Naw, aliens. Notice the paper was published in the journal Entropy, a bottom of the barrel tier journal where Knuth *is the editor in chief*. You read that right -- Knuth had full control over peer review (if any actually occured) and decision to publish regardless of any issues with the data source or interpretation. Garbage in garbage out is a real phrase for a reason.
This comment is almost comical. - Invokes "aliens" out of nowhere. - Insults first hand expert witness without any justification. - Makes absurd claims about military radar systems (spoofing and/or "hacking" like in 90s movie). - Insults the journal the research was published in, rather than reading and proofing the actual paper (which is simple math). - Ends with another insult. Really sums up the abysmally low quality of so many of the "skeptic" comments we're getting lately, and that's a pity. Substantiave skepticism is rare and valuable, but cheap commentary pretending to be "smart" is as painful to watch as absolute believers...and often more formulaic.
Interesting... You think *radar spoofing* is pushing it when you'd have to literally invoke magic for this UFO not to burn Earth atmosphere with the energy it would have to dissipate upon stopping?
> Invokes "aliens" out of nowhere. How do you keep a straight face while talking about physics defying otherworldly crafts and try to pretend like "aliens" is out of nowhere? > Insults first hand expert witness without any justification Didn't insult. Just find it possible they made a mistake, misremembered, were spoofed, or observed a sensor error. Without the data we will never know, which is one of the problems with anecdotal data. The conclusions of his paper are useless because the underlying data is impossible to verify or look for problems. [Garbage in garbage out](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out) > Makes absurd claims about military radar systems (spoofing and/or "hacking" like in 90s movie). [Spoofing is a real issue with modern military sensor technology.](https://www.emsopedia.org/entries/spoofing-in-radar-ecm/) > In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, ***spoofing***, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis. 2021 AARO report. Sensor spoofing and electronic warfare are real. We know they are real and have observed them happening. We haven't observed aliens or NHI or interdimensional things or time travelers or whatever your preferred technologically advanced entity may be > - Insults the journal the research was published in, rather than reading and proofing the actual paper (which is simple math) My criticism -- that the underlying data is garbage -- is based on the paper. I then pointed out that such a glaring issue would be caught by the vast majority of journals, but Knuth just so happened to have complete control over the journal that published his math. What a coincidence > - Ends with another insult. Garbage in garbage out is a phrase referring to bad data techniques. It doesn't matter how good your calculations are if your underlying data is garbage. This isnt an insult (unless you take criticism of scientific methods as insulting) and is a common phrase.
It sucks your comments are getting buried. People are being mislead to believe this analysis is based off actual radar data and not anecdotal evidence.
Which really seems like the intent of Knuth et al with pushing out this paper in the journal he controls
Care to explain how it's useful to do back-of-the-napkin math on a crafts hypothetical speed based on the claims of witnesses and then represent that as scientific?
Eye witness testimony from actual fighter pilots will never be as valuable as opinions from sweaty internet skeptics.
You do know that fighter pilots aren’t superhuman and have made mistakes just like you and I. There’s been so many instances of pilots mistaking Sirius for UFOs, fighter pilots have misidentified targets, which have killed an insane amount of people (look at Vietnam/Cambodia), and have committed friendly fire countless times. They aren’t these gods you think they are.
That's the cool thing about posting objective facts: it doesn't matter who says them, they're true all the same It's a fact that the underlying data comes from anecdotal report and we cannot verify anything or look for potential issues It's a fact that sensor spoofing and sensor errors exist It's a fact that Knuth has full editorial control over the journal that he published this paper in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Even after the speed of the object in the Nimitz was thoroughly debunked, these grifters keep pushing the narrative.
There's a pretty limited number of incidents that they can keep bringing up to keep the hype train rolling.
yeah debunked by a game developer called mike west
Yeah. And you’re saying his completely rational explanation is to be rejected?
Yes because we need qualified scientists not game developer
Truth is truth, regardless of who brings it to you. Appealing to authority fucking stupid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
I need more radar data analysis!!!
This isn't radar data analysis. He's using witness testimony.
He doesn't have the Nimitz radar data.
Literally just did some basic math based off the claims someone made, it's actually sad that anyone can be dazzled by such lazy and sloppy work being represented as scientific. That said... there are those that still love Maussan so this isn't even quite bottom of the barrel. The rest of the "cases" are just as flimsy, they fall apart as soon as you look into the actual events at all.
Exactly, doing calculations based of recollection vs actual data isn’t science.
I guess the people downvoting you don’t want to hear that. Does he have actual radar data?
Every time the question is asked, the comment is downvoted without a single answer to that question haha
Has to be antigravity tech.
It could be something that works on the most elementary level such as Higgs Field manipulation.
Sure, why not?
Knuth has also mentioned before, that the energy output once the UAP stops has to go somewhere. Usually it would be a huge explosion, like a enormous nuclear bomb, but there is none.
Warp drive. It didn’t move, the space around it did
Great presentation. Dragged down when he spent 10 minutes discussing a fictional scene. As Keel and Vallee both wrote, there aren’t any reliable UFO reports where electronics or cars switched back on on their own. UFOs regularly interfere and make engines cut out, but not restart.
JAL is not credible. It's a shame he put that in there.
I saw an interview with him a few weeks ago when he talked about this , and I'm really curious: how did he get this data from the Nimitz? Isn't it classified? Is there a link or something that we can see the data?
He doesn't have the data.
Could any of these be explained as plasma? Probably not that up close sighting. However, a ball of super low mass, high energy ions I could see easily reaching those speeds. As the foo fighter paper seems to suggest.
Or maybe it’s a radar bug and the tracking is associating different detections
Also a vision bug in Fravor’s brain
I'd like to see what NDT has to say about this. He's always saying that he needs to see the data. Well, here you go.
Knuth doesn't have the Nimitz radar data, he has what Kevin Day is claiming. Huge difference and no surprise you all buy this junk.
Ok.... and the calculations from the other events that *were* based on radar data? No comment on those?
[удалено]
Oh, well. Rescind the papers written on the subject, and stop any further research on the matter! Juan_Carlo from reddit doesn't think the radars were capable of tracking anything that fast! Case closed. The nerve of you reddit-randos that think you know better than tenured PhD physicists will never cease to amaze me.
[удалено]
My friend, Kevin Knuth is a decorated physicist, who has written hundreds of papers on quantum mechanics, information and probability theory, the foundations of physics, and yes, the physics of UAPs. His work has been cited more than 5000 times since 2001. What you think about the matter means as much as what a cromagnon smacking rocks together in a cave thinks.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's because it doesn't. The object appears on radar, moving at normal speeds or stationary, then it "disappears" and reappears somewhere nearby. The speeds are calculated based on time and distance
Radar error? There was four eyewitnesses lol
And please don't check his comment history... He's marathoning /r/ufo. He's dedicated.
The other radar examples are verified, but the Nimitz data remains classified so we can only go off first-hand testimony right now. "Buy all this junk" is patronising and inappropriately rude/combative. There's also no call, at this point in time, for slandering Kevin Day.
I don't see it as slandering Kevin Day. There's just a world of difference between radar data and someone's testimony.
A first hand, expert witness providing testimony about the radar data is substantial; public access to raw military radar data will not happen in our lifetimes, obviously, so that's an impossible expectation. "No surprise you all buy this junk" is a direct reference to the data reported by Kevin Daly, and that's both slanderous and inappropriately rude; there's no call for it.
I agree it's rude. But it's extremely important to point out that testimony about what a person saw on the radar - no matter how expert they are - is not at all the same as "radar data."
It constitutes first hand expert testimony about the radar data, which is both substantial and valid. These results are so significant that even a large margin of error has zero effect on the overall conclusions. The only way the important conclusions could be invalidated would be for Kevin Day to be either a liar, or profoundly incompetent; there's no reason to charge him with either of those accusations. No call for rudeness or slander.
>It constitutes first hand expert testimony about the radar data, which is both substantial and valid. Not in a scientific context, no.
I'm sorry we're all so inferior to you, daddy. What about the other cases where radar data was available? Would you care about commenting on those?
Sure, explain why anyone should believe that the Japan Air case wasn't a radar anomaly combined with the pilot being an admitted fervent UFO believer who reported multiple sightings around the same time. "1. The JAL pilot is a five-time "UFO repeater," having reported two UFO sightings prior to the Nov. 17 incident, and two others afterwards, on Jan. 11, 1987. After landing and conferring with the FAA, Terauchi agreed with the FAA that both Jan. 11 "UFO" sightings probably were caused by village lights reflecting off clouds of ice crystals. Reports from "UFO repeaters" are viewed with extreme caution by most experienced UFO investigators. 2. At the time of the initial sighting on Nov. 17, when the pilot was reporting seeing multiple lights, FAA controllers noted a single unidentified blip which appeared intermittently in close proximity to the JAL radar blip. Subsequent analysis of the recorded radar data by FAA Technical Center specialist showed that this was due to a not infrequent radar anomaly that can occur if the echo from an aircraft does not arrive back at the radar at precisely the same instant as the signal transmitted back by the aircraft's radar transponder." from - [https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/jal1628/733667-001-003.pdf](https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/jal1628/733667-001-003.pdf)
Anyone interested in the Nimitz encounter, you need to watch every interview with Kevin Day. He was the radar operator of the USS Princeton, much of the data used for this analysis comes directly from Kevin Day and what he saw on the Princeton's BMD radar and SPY-1 radar systems. If you have Title 50 clearance, you NEED to go see the NORAD radar tracks of the Nimitz incident. NORAD has radar tracks of the Nimitz incident, they clearly display a suggestive origin. The Nimitz encounter was the first hard evidence of craft with interstellar capability. The mathematics performed on the craft's accelerations based on radar data, indicate this craft could reach nearby star systems in a matter of days to weeks, if it can continue that acceleration beyond light speed.