UFO Caught On Tape Over Santiago Air Base

[Astra.Xtreme]

Considering we have already broken the speed of light barrier in communication, I am doubtful about your assumption that the speed of light can't be broken and I am not refering to the neutrinos experiments.

You need to brush up your physics because that's not at all how it works. There's a lot more to how c is determined than I believe you realize. You can do that research on your own.

[ILikeTobacco]

its just a weather balloon deflecting light off of swamp gasses.

littleneutrino.... you can't post in this thread, you have been proven a liar by science with your faster than light hoax! Astra.Xtreme said so! :rofl: :shifty:

You need to brush up your physics because that's not at all how it works. There's a lot more to how c is determined than I believe you realize. You can do that research on your own.

I did. Quantum mechanics experiments have already proven that entanglement works exactly in this way. We just don't have to scientific know how and technology to use it at the moment. Don't tell someone to do their research if your aren't willing to do a quick Google search that lists a very large amount of experiments that have already proven this.

[Astra.Xtreme]

I am refering to the actual craft operated by other intelligent beings, who have gotten here, from there.

There are many witnesses to this fact.

Please don't quote this planet's primative Science.

Just because 'we' don't know how to do something, does not mean other intelligent beings in our galaxy do not.

Just remember, things like this are false until proven otherwise.

Is it possible? Yep. Has it been proven true? Nope.

I wouldn't be so quick to abandon hundreds of years of physics due to a few blurry videos of an unexplained video. That's pretty silly actually.

I did. Quantum mechanics experiments have already proven that entanglement works exactly in this way. We just don't have to scientific know how and technology to use it at the moment. Don't tell someone to do their research if your aren't willing to do a quick Google search that lists a very large amount of experiments that have already proven this.

:Facepalm:

No it does not work that way...

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=612

There are a million other bits of information that will also tell you otherwise.

[ILikeTobacco]

Just remember, things like this are false until proven otherwise.

Is it possible? Yep. Has it been proven true? Nope.

I wouldn't be so quick to abandon hundreds of years of physics due to a few blurry videos of an unexplained video. That's pretty silly actually.

Actually, science works the exact opposite way. We assume something is true until it is proven false because under science, it is not possible to prove something true. It takes 1 test result to prove something false. It takes an infinite amount of test results to prove something absolutely true. That is basic science.

[quick]

I want it to be a UFO, but IMO its just bugs flying past the camera... why do you think there is so many of them. Also if a small bug flies past the camera from a very close distance it will look like its going super fast relative to something way off in the distance like the jets...

Also agree that if it truly an ET craft of some kind you aren't going to get any sonic booms... the tech they would be using would be completely different then the tech used in our conventional aircraft.

[Hum]

Just remember, things like this are false until proven otherwise.

Is it possible? Yep. Has it been proven true? Nope.

I wouldn't be so quick to abandon hundreds of years of physics due to a few blurry videos of an unexplained video. That's pretty silly actually.

You clearly have much research to do. :rolleyes: Or do you enjoy living blind ...

[zeta_immersion]

this got me thinking .. something that I rarely do *think

Why is it that we always assume UFO = live tissue ? ... robots people .. robots

life on earth has evolved for about whatever 1bil years give or take a few ... absolutely nothing special about it ... look at the Geth or Stargate --> will make you a believer

[ILikeTobacco]

I want it to be a UFO, but IMO its just bugs flying past the camera... why do you think there is so many of them. Also if a small bug flies past the camera from a very close distance it will look like its going super fast relative to something way off in the distance like the jets...

So you think 7 different cameras caught bugs on tape that were all in the same position relative to the jets in all three passes of the UFO? If it wasn't for that, I could buy the bug theory but you have to consider that this would have been taken into account by the people analyzing this stuff.

[Astra.Xtreme]

Actually, science works the exact opposite way. We assume something is true until it is proven false because under science, it is not possible to prove something true. It takes 1 test result to prove something false. It takes an infinite amount of test results to prove something absolutely true. That is basic science.

That's half how it works. But with your logic, something unexplained like this is automatically deemed true until we have discrete answers. That's definitely not the case with science.

[Hum]

this got me thinking .. something that I rarely do *think

I must congratulate you ;)

[Astra.Xtreme]

You clearly have much research to do. :rolleyes: Or do you enjoy living blind ...

No offense, but you've added nothing to the conversation except make blind accusations towards me.

I showed all the proof you need, so if you can prove otherwise, then be my guest...

I have a background in physics and engineering, so I'm not just blurting out a bunch of crap that I think is true...

[ILikeTobacco]

That's half how it works. But with your logic, something unexplained like this is automatically deemed true until we have discrete answers. That's definitely not the case with science.

It really is. The only truths we ever have are the when something is proven untrue. Until we can disprove something, we consider it truth. Even the laws of physics. All it takes is one part of the law of physics to be proven untrue and the rest come crashing down with it. That is why the search for the Higgs boson is deemed so important. They still don't know if it is there. The only thing they do know is that if it isn't, the rest of the laws are no longer laws.

I have a background in physics and engineering, so I'm not just blurting out a bunch of crap that I think is true...

If that were the case, you would know that there have been plenty of experiments proving that entanglement is a means to achieve FTL communication. But you are choosing to ignore those.

[SYBINX]

FAKE

[Astra.Xtreme]

If that were the case, you would know that there have been plenty of experiments proving that entanglement is a means to achieve FTL communication. But you are choosing to ignore those.

And has FTL communication been achieved? Nooo....

Again, learn how entanglement works. The link I provided clearly spells it out for you.

Also an FYI, for something to be scientifically deemed true, it has to have some proof. A random blurry video isn't proof. Your views on how laws and theories are created is too one-sided. There are bits and pieces you are missing regarding proof of being right and proof of being wrong.

[Lamp0]

I am refering to the actual craft operated by other intelligent beings, who have gotten here, from there.

There are many witnesses to this fact.

Please don't quote this planet's primative Science.

Just because 'we' don't know how to do something, does not mean other intelligent beings in our galaxy do not.

You clearly have much research to do. :rolleyes: Or do you enjoy living blind ...

Don't be so patronizing.

If you want to believe in all that then fine, but don't get all superior because alot of others see it, with good reason, as typical cultish drivel pandered about by obsessives.

[abysal]

No offense, but you've added nothing to the conversation except make blind accusations towards me.

I showed all the proof you need, so if you can prove otherwise, then be my guest...

I have a background in physics and engineering, so I'm not just blurting out a bunch of crap that I think is true...

Maybe once we have a unified theory of everything; including gravity, understand the quantum world (not just guess and make assumptions on statistics), explain certian properties of the universe (why is it expanding? why are galaxies accelerating away from each other, what force is driving that?), maybe then we'll be in a better position to say what is and isn't possible, and trully be a step closer to understanding physics and the universe. Your coming accross as a 'know it all", I think thats why alot of folks have responded a certian way towards your comments. Sorry if I offended you.

As per topic, if the videos are real, it's more likely to be our own experimental air craft then an extraterrestrial UFO.

[ILikeTobacco]

And has FTL communication been achieved? Nooo....

Again, learn how entanglement works. The link I provided clearly spells it out for you.

Also an FYI, for something to be scientifically deemed true, it has to have some proof. A random blurry video isn't proof. Your views on how laws and theories are created is too one-sided. There are bits and pieces you are missing regarding proof of being right and proof of being wrong.

For someone with all this background, how can you confused the difference between true and probably true. Every science lecture that teachers the scientific method starts with, nothing can ever been proven true. It can only be said to be probably true. There is a huge difference and for someone claiming to be so educated in science, making the claim that something can be proven true points to you actually lying about your educational background/experience.

[Astra.Xtreme]

Maybe once we have a unified theory of everything; including gravity, understand the quantum world (not just guess and make assumptions on statistics), explain certian properties of the universe (why is it expanding? why are galaxies accelerating away from each other, what force is driving that?), maybe then we'll be in a better position to say what is and isn't possible, and trully be a step closer to understanding physics and the universe. Your coming accross as a 'know it all", I think thats why alot of folks have responded a certian way towards your comments. Sorry if I offended you.

As per topic, if the videos are real, it's more likely to be our own experimental air craft then an extraterrestrial UFO.

I shouldn't be coming off as a "know-it-all" because all I'm doing is correcting people that are saying things that are wrong.

If they're wrong, they're wrong. No reason to get all sour about it and backtalk to the one correcting them.

[Twiddle]

-UFO Caught on Tape Over Santiago Air Base

-UFO Caught Over Santiago Air Base

-UFO Over Santiago Air Base

-UFO Over Air Base

-UFO : Air Base-

:rolleyes:

[ILikeTobacco]

As per topic, if the videos are real, it's more likely to be our own experimental air craft then an extraterrestrial UFO.

Which still makes it a UFO because it hasnt been identified. :p I would say that anyone who claims UFO's don't exist is a nut case because I can prove that they do with a simple action. Throw large glowing object in the air in the middle of the night. Have your friends watch from far away but close enough to see the light. They can't know what the object is before you throw it. If they can't tell what it is, it is a UFO. Somebody/something knows what it is in this video. As long as we don't know what it is, it is a UFO. Anyone that says UFO's don't exist is saying this video does exist.

I shouldn't be coming off as a "know-it-all" because all I'm doing is correcting people that are saying things that are wrong.

If they're wrong, they're wrong. No reason to get all sour about it and backtalk to the one correcting them.

You are trying to rewrite how the scientific process works.

You are claiming an article by astronomers disproves proven experiments by physicists on a topic that is about quantum mechanics.

You are doing a terrible job of correcting anybody because your corrections are false.

[Astra.Xtreme]

For someone with all this background, how can you confused the difference between true and probably true. Every science lecture that teachers the scientific method starts with, nothing can ever been proven true. It can only be said to be probably true. There is a huge difference and for someone claiming to be so educated in science, making the claim that something can be proven true points to you actually lying about your educational background/experience.

What are you talking about? No kidding that everything proven in science is "probably" true. That's why a law in science isn't technically a "law". I'm sorry if it was too far above your head, but all I said was that this video isn't proof. It needs concrete evidence... I really don't understand what you are getting confused about.

Oh yeah, I'm lying about my education... Would you like to call the university I attended, Harley-Davidson, NASA, and my current employer to verify I am what I say I am? That's what I thought...

[zeta_immersion]

I must congratulate you ;)

well .. of course man .... everyone is an expert so I though i would give it a try ... clearly my sources are irrefutable (Stargate, ME, Battlestar)

it is curious that we use the term UFO when clearly it is not unidentified anymore ... it has a shape, form, direction, is visual, at time if you are high enough is palatable so is not UFO ... it is more of a WTF is that flying object ... or for short WTFITFO or T.I.T.S. --> that identifiable troublesome object

[Astra.Xtreme]

You are trying to rewrite how the scientific process works.

You are claiming an article by astronomers disproves proven experiments by physicists on a topic that is about quantum mechanics.

You are doing a terrible job of correcting anybody because your corrections are false.

No to all of the above. All I did was explain to you how you oversimplified how the process works.

Care to, for once, provide some proof of all these claims you have been making?

All you've done so far is run your mouth back at me and fail to back up any of it.

Guess what an astronomer is? A master of astrophysics... Who are you to say that what she says is less credible than any other physicist? Given her background at Cornell and Harvard, I would tend to say she knows a hell of a lot more than you do.

The ball is in your court. If you know so much about this, prove it...

[ILikeTobacco]

No to all of the above. All I did was explain to you how you oversimplified how the process works.

Care to, for once, provide some proof of all these claims you have been making?

All you've done so far is run your mouth back at me and fail to back up any of it.

The ball is in your court. If you know so much about this, prove it...

I already did and you ignored it, not disprove it. Google entanglement and the proof is right there page after page of experiments that have been done over and over. You gave me one article written by astronomers as your proof. Clearly, your source is better.

You then make a claim that everything in science is false until proven true when even 6th grade kids know that is the exact opposite of how the scientific method works. Everything is assumed true until proven false because nothing can every be proven true, only proven false. The final step in the scientific process is to try and find something that makes your findings false. If you can't, your findings are considered probably true, but not absolutely true. Just because we can't find a way to do it now doesn't mean we can't find a way to travel FTL in the future because we have yet to prove we can't.

We assume that the current laws of physics are true because we haven't proven them false yet. At the same time, we assume faster than light communication is possible because we have experiments that show it is possible, and none that prove it isn't. You are sitting here claiming it isn't possible, period. Funny thing is that science is now saying that there are probably multiple universes, all with different laws of physics or slight differences. That alone means that faster than light travel is possible. You are saying absolutes exist in a field that clearly states in every step of the way that absolutes don't exist. The only person who isn't grasping a concept here is you. You are so closed minded and arrogant that you think the only truth in existence is what you claim it is, regardless when all the facts around you say otherwise and you are talking down to anyone here that claims otherwise. Get over yourself man. Stop trying to rewrite the very things that you yourself claim are true. Learn the basics of the scientific method before trying to lecture us about how something is not possible without even having prove that it isn't.

According to you, there is no truth in science because it is a well know fact that nothing can be proven true. That means that even your assumption that FTL travel is impossible is false because you can't prove it true.

[abysal]

I shouldn't be coming off as a "know-it-all" because all I'm doing is correcting people that are saying things that are wrong.

If they're wrong, they're wrong. No reason to get all sour about it and backtalk to the one correcting them.

I don't know it looks different from my perspective :whistle:

On topic:

"This extraordinary machine was flying at velocities too high to be man-made. Scientists have estimated the speed, depending on the size of the object, to be at least 4000 - 6000 mph." Obviously, I mean 200 years ago if those people came into contact with RF technology, they would have assumed it's magic or extra-planar? So this must be ET, it couldn't possibly be man-made.