Kevin Knuth on physics of UFO's.

[martin-w 3,370]

 

[qqwertz 850]

Hmm. If you read the Wikipedia article about JAL 1628, the conclusions are quite different from what Dr. Knuth reports there.

[dmwalker 614]

5 hours ago, qqwertz said:

Hmm. If you read the Wikipedia article about JAL 1628, the conclusions are quite different from what Dr. Knuth reports there.

To add to the confusion, I found this report but I can't confirm it:

"Details reported by the military controller indicated that the UFOs were traveling thousands of miles per hour as they maneuvered in the airspace around the 747. The military controller had one other surprise finding. Near the end of the incident a United Airlines flight was diverted to observe the JAL flight. By then, Captain Terauchi no longer saw the huge UFO, and the United Pilot did not see it either. Unbeknownst to both of them, the military radar clearly indicated that the UFO had tucked in out of sight behind the United Flight and had begun following it."

Also, apparently, the flight crew had a camera but, when they tried to take photographs, the shutter stuck open.

[martin-w 3,370]

15 hours ago, qqwertz said:

Hmm. If you read the Wikipedia article about JAL 1628, the conclusions are quite different from what Dr. Knuth reports there.

 

This is what raises an eyebrow for me, regarding Knuth. He too readily accepts witness testimony. I mean, did he not read the Wikipedia account regarding this, or any other report that was skeptical? 

He does the same with Day's account, seeming to regard the physics defying decent from altitude as definitive fact, despite the fact its just "what he said" with no evidence like radar tapes to back it up. Of course it might be 100% factual, but then Day did claim that the tic tac UFO barrel rolled around Fravor's F18... but Fravor tells us that didn't happen. 

Then there was the IR video of an object descending into water, splitting in two, and then resurfacing. When I watch the full video of that event, it seems to me that flapping (wings) is apparent at one point, so I see no reason why a sea bird couldn't have dropped into the water, disturbed a second sea bird, and both flew out. I mean, we know that sea birds have red oil in their photoreceptors that enables them to see into water, in the same way humans can with polarized lenses. I'm thinking it probably saw a bid (possibly it's own species) and entered the water to meet it. 

Knuth needs to be a lot more skeptical in my opinion. If he was, he might find that the "physics defying maneuvers" weren't as physics defying as he seem to believe. 

 

Edited February 15 by martin-w

[martin-w 3,370]

9 hours ago, dmwalker said:

To add to the confusion, I found this report but I can't confirm it:

"Details reported by the military controller indicated that the UFOs were traveling thousands of miles per hour as they maneuvered in the airspace around the 747. The military controller had one other surprise finding. Near the end of the incident a United Airlines flight was diverted to observe the JAL flight. By then, Captain Terauchi no longer saw the huge UFO, and the United Pilot did not see it either. Unbeknownst to both of them, the military radar clearly indicated that the UFO had tucked in out of sight behind the United Flight and had begun following it."

Also, apparently, the flight crew had a camera but, when they tried to take photographs, the shutter stuck open.

 

Do you have a link to that report? 🙂

[Lonesome Cowboy Burt 190]

There is a terrible tendency for Knuth and the many others who purport to explain UFO's to present well thought out theories based on assertions that they present as a fact.

It is a technique shared with those of faith when presenting the 'truth' of their chosen religion

[qqwertz 850]

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

This is what raises an eyebrow for me, regarding Knuth. He too readily accepts witness testimony. I mean, did he not read the Wikipedia account regarding this, or any other report that was skeptical? 

That really nails it. I have no issues with anything that he says about being agnostic regarding the possibility of extra-terrestial vehicles, or being open to new engineering or physics. However, if there are other explanations, they need to be taken into account as well. One of the basic principles of science, really.

[Lonesome Cowboy Burt 190]

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

Do you have a link to that report? 🙂

I'd like to see it also, I've tried to find that report with no luck and I'm skeptical of the descriptions of the report that I can find

[dmwalker 614]

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

Do you have a link to that report?

Near the end.

https://www.anchoragepress.com/news/unfriendly-skies-the-extraordinary-flight-of-jal-1628-alaska-s-best-known-ufo-encounter/article_8e2d3270-f9d5-11e9-b9db-7ba9229138ae.html

Edited February 15 by dmwalker

[dmwalker 614]

1 hour ago, Lonesome Cowboy Burt said:

I'd like to see it also, I've tried to find that report with no luck and I'm skeptical of the descriptions of the report that I can find

Maybe this was one of those descriptions.

[Lonesome Cowboy Burt 190]

Are you saying  there is a link to the actual report on that page or is it just saying that the report exists and giving a description?

 

 

Cant access that page (see below)

 

 

451: Unavailable due to legal reasons

We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact circulation@anchoragepress.com or call 907-376-5225.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 15 by Lonesome Cowboy Burt

[martin-w 3,370]

From the article. 

 

Quote

Details reported by the military controller indicated that the UFOs were traveling thousands of miles per hour as they maneuvered in the airspace around the 747. The military controller had one other surprise finding. Near the end of the incident a United Airlines flight was diverted to observe the JAL flight. By then, Captain Terauchi no longer saw the huge UFO, and the United Pilot did not see it either. Unbeknownst to both of them, the military radar clearly indicated that the UFO had tucked in out of sight behind the United Flight and had begun following it.

 

[dmwalker 614]

2 hours ago, Lonesome Cowboy Burt said:

Are you saying  there is a link to the actual report on that page or is it just saying that the report exists and giving a description?

It's a report in the Anchorage Press, by Lawrence D. Weiss Oct 28, 2019 Updated Sep 17, 2022. He appears to be a University of Alaska Anchorage professor emeritus of public health who is now retired and writes newspaper articles.

His source seems to be John Callahan, who was FAA Division Chief of the Accidents and Investigations Branch in Washington, DC. Callahan’s recollections were recorded in this interview: 

 

[martin-w 3,370]

Well he sounds genuine to me, but who knows. 

[mSparks 2,189]

cool, I'll try and watch it, been a while since I did a "UFO" brain dump, he's what I know/think:

Ball lightning: 100% true, you can even make this yourself by putting a lit candle in a microwave (has to be lit), a lot of "weird lights in the sky" reports are very probably this.

->Plasma physics, all very military secrets, mostly because of its use in stealth tech (the other component of stealth tech is materials like Honeycomb Stainless Steel)

Ionic propulsion: 100% true, you can even make them yourself - you just need a very high voltage.

There is definitely "secret" aircraft using this physics, "only" needs a small/lightweight nuclear power station to function, like that used in a lot of satelites.

Gravitic propulsion: This one is very messy, personally I think they have it working, but the implications of having it working are absolutely terrifying.

The best YT for this topic is Simon Holland a retired BBC researcher/reporter

 

Edited February 16 by mSparks