'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours

[allcanadian]

@picowatt

What you describe witnessing does not seem to rule out the possibility that what
you saw were conventional aircraft and associated landing/navigation
lights. 

To my knowledge convential aircraft cannot climb from low altitude to a very very high altitude near vertically in 1.25 seconds in complete silence... unless of course you know otherwise?. There is no possibility these were conventional aircraft because of the velocity and altitude involved, no sound, no jet plume and no vapor trail.

Note that you easily use the word "craft" to describe what you saw, when,
apparently, all you can say for certain is that you saw "lights".

Yes I did make the assumption that the lights were attached to something...wouldn't you as well?. I mean they were hovering in place then another accelerated to high altittude in a sweeping arc so yes I assumed the lights were attached to a "craft" of some sort.

Did you actually see any "craft"?  It is very easy for the mind to fill in
the blanks with facts not in evidence.

Again, lights do not generally just hover in place or fly around at high velocity, make sweeping arcs upward to high altitude all on their own. I have never seen a 100w lightbulb or flare do this and I don't expect I ever will unless of course you know different?. So yes I assumed the lights were attached to a "craft" which I could not see because it was night. I should note the four white lights were intense and brilliant like a star while the dull orange craft was not like a light. The dull orange craft was perfectly spherical more like an object which was glowing orange rather than a light bulb type of illumination.

What did the three observed white lights do?  Did you watch until they were gone
and if so, how/when did they leave/disappear?

The four very intense white lights came on in an instant then hovered in place for a few minutes making no sound what so ever. As well just before the smaller dull orange craft left from the right side of the white lights they became super intense and seemed to light up the whole sky. The white lights then returned to there normal intensity as the smaller orange craft hovered in place. The smaller dull orange craft then started accelerating like a bat out of hell horizontally to the west, made a sweeping or arcing turn upwards vertically and continued accelerating upward until it left our sight at very high altitude. The four white lights continued to hover in position making no sound for maybe another 30 seconds and then they simply went out. They did not fade out and they went out as abruptly as they first came on and the show was over.

The fact remains that lights do not just fly about on there own accord not attached to anything and conventional aircraft cannot accelerate from low altitude to very high altitude near vertically in about one second... no sound, no plume, no vapor trail.... you tell me because I would love to hear a reasonable explanation.


AC

[picowatt]

AC,

Even in your latest post, there is nothing there that definitely rules out conventional aircraft and lighting.

The apparently unusual high rate of speed of the less bright orange light is only based on your assumptions of perceived distance.

Like you, I look up quite a lot.  I too have seen some rather strange things, but I have also seen normal aircraft putting on some quite unusual light shows.

Case in point.  One night at around 3AM I observed a very large white light towards due south about 10 to 15 degrees off the horizon.  No apparent motion, no twinkling, no hint of nav lights, just hovering in place.  I thought airplane landing lights first thing, but after 15 minutes of apparently hovering motionless in the sky, I began to wonder.  It looked to be very large in diameter, and just guessing, I would have said that it appeared to be 50 to 200 feet in diameter and 10 miles or so distant.  I considered waking a witness, just in case it really was something odd, but instead decided to just go inside and fetch binoculars.  Upon returning outside, the object was still there.  Through the binocs I could see a hint of twinkling, but still it appeared as only a very large roundish white light.  After observing for over 30 minutes or so, the light took on a bit of colored blinking, and thru the binocs it began to look as if the object was modulating its size and shape, becoming a wider oval with colored edges and then a perfectly circular and narrower solid white light.  It was so strange at this point, my heart began pounding a bit, as I hoped this would turn out to be a really cool sighting.  After another 15 minutes, it was becoming quite obvious that this was just a very low flying airplane with landing lights on.  Ten minutes later the small twin engine biz jet flew directly overhead at I would guess to be well under 5000 feet or so, which was quite an unusually low altitude for such around here.

At the speeds a small biz class jet flies, consider how far away that plane was when first sighted almost an hour away.  It was a cool and clear night, and being at low altitude, atmospheric optical effects came into play.  Had I not stayed for the whole duration of the event, with subsequent flyover, I would have considered my observation to be of something other than normal.  Also, I would never have estimated the original sighting to be anywhere near as far as it must have been based on typical biz jet speeds and the time it took to arrive overhead.  I would have guessed that the object was only 10 to 20 miles away at most, when in reality, it was likely more than 180-250 miles away, with atmospheric effects allowing me to see "over the horizon" and magnifying its apparent size.

I have indeed seen some rather strange and unexplained things as well, but it is a constant battle to not allow one's mind to fill in any blanks with facts not actually in evidence.  For example, I would never state that I saw a "craft" unless I actually saw some physical form that made using that word appropriate.

PW   
           

[MarkE]

@Mark E
...
 
I have seen hundreds upon hundreds of airplanes flying at night at various altitudes and in fact is very easy to judge the relative distance and velocity. So long as it is clear and the stars are visible in the background we use this as a reference just as we use a known background such as land behind a moving car. It is very easy and I have absolutely no issue with it , you have seen airplanes fly over on a clear night have you not?. I would hope you would be able to tell if it was at 1000 feet or 30,000 and whether it was moving at 100 mph or 600 mph because I have no issues with it what so ever.

AC

This I dispute based on the science of vision.  Absent a good reference, and a clear night sky offers virtually none, there is no good way to judge distance.  A common illusion makes people think things are much closer than they are.  See for example the Ponzo illusion.

[allcanadian]

@picowatt

I have indeed seen some rather strange and unexplained things as well, but it
is a constant battle to not allow one's mind to fill in any blanks with facts
not actually in evidence.  For example, I would never state that I saw a "craft"
unless I actually saw some physical form that made using that word
appropriate.

I would agree the four white lights in formation could have been many things including aircraft because as you say I only observed the lights. The dull orange glowing object however accelerated at great velocity horizontally then made a sweeping turn upward and continued accelerating vertically upward until it left our sight. As such we can assume it would fall under the definition of a craft under some means of control. There is no natural phenomena or aircraft I know of that can make a coordinated turn upward acting against the force of gravity to that altitude at that speed. So while your experience is similar it has no application with respect to the glowing orange craft I witnessed.

@Mark E

This I dispute based on the science of vision.  Absent a good reference, and a
clear night sky offers virtually none, there is no good way to judge distance. 
A common illusion makes people think things are much closer than they are.  See
for example the Ponzo illusion.

I would say that near or far is irrelevant with respect to the fact one craft made a controlled turn at extremely high speed then accelerated near vertically until it was out of sight. Near of far it accelerated from horizontal to vertical like a bat out of hell with no sound, no plume and no vapor trail. In any case millions of people have observed similar things and many are trained observers like policemen, the military and aviators of unquestionable credibility. I would think a trained observer seeing an object at relatively close range would have the ultimate in credibility versus someone who has never actually observed anything, wouldn't you agree?.
I understand your point I really do however I know what I saw and many others have seen very similar things as well and to say it is impossible is to presume hundreds of thousands of people are somehow misguided. I dispute that anyone would think so many professional people who are trained observers are mistaken in what they saw based on others opinions who have never observed anything. You cannot argue facts when you have none, the fact is I saw it for myself first hand and there is no mistaking it was not conventional in any sense of the word.
Saying what I saw cannot be real just because you have never seen it is not a valid argument because that would mean everything you have never seen cannot be real either. You are highly illogical.

AC

[allcanadian]

@All


On reading my last post I now understand how pointless it was because the fact remains that the odds of anyone proving to me that I did not actually observe what I know I did as a fact is basically zero. It is absurd and pointless and it is what it is , you cannot convince someone to un-observe what they have already observed as a known fact. However if 80% of the population believes a bearded man in a white dress created the universe in six days and maybe 40% believe in wormholes, warping space-time and virtual particles popping in and out of existence from multiple parallel universes then maybe just maybe my believing I saw an unknown craft/object doing some strange shit in the sky I don't fully understand doesn't seem like a big deal in comparison.


As well the hypocrisy is mind boggling because many people who would believe a supposed god created the universe in six days routinely judge other people who claim to have seen an unidentified(unknown)flying(it's relative) object(again it's relative) as crazy or misguided. I find this hard to fathom and it just seems so utterly ridiculous that it defies the imagination, apparently god doesn't believe in other intelligent life or UFO's either... go figure. Then we have that other kind of religion based on supposed science that never actually was and people say they require proof to believe but don't actually have any...  again go figure. The common thread here is people who judge others as crazy for believing without proof despite the fact they don't actually have any real proof either way about much of anything.


It is without a doubt in my mind the most messed up scenario of logic I could possibly image and I'm just not feeling the vulcan type deep logic I expected here. It is a superficial quagmire of the truly illogical where people try to disprove a concept by challenging the credibility of the individual despite the fact they claim the concept must stand on it's own. In effect we have turned science into a pissing contest and while I'm not against such things I still believe it must have it's place in the proper context.


At which point we are left with the question as to why nobody would touch my simple question concerning Inertia with a ten foot pole. That is what is inertia specifically, fundamentally?, I know you want to run and avoid it like the plague and you have no idea where to even start however in this respect I may be able to help. So let's go there, to that place you fear most... I'm sure Mark thinks he is up to it however thinking and believing rarely resemble the true facts of any matter, time will tell. Let's get in on... Brother.


From the Urban Dictionary
Brother: a person whom you are related to. sometimes a role model. sometimes an ass. sometimes a friend. a person who you are stuck being related to until the day you die through good or bad


AC