.jpg) |
| A Reaper in flight, note "chin" sensor turret & underwing missiles |
That clip, as released, has blacked out text on circumstances of the video; which was taken by a Reaper drone orbiting over Jordan and monitoring part of south-western Syria. However, such text is commonly available and is of little consequence. Further, this clip confirms the more complete version discussed in the video following, which dates it to 2021 and sets it alongside an article with details from the operator dating to 2022. So, in key part, this release validates the evidential credibility of those earlier reports.
The key discussion begins, first at 17:32 where context is set, and then more directly from 24:33, and with the full clip from 29:52 on:
The key issue is, " 'instantaneous' acceleration," when the object suddenly zips to the right [East], having already broken targeting lock. This reflects several of the UAP characteristics:
- sudden and instantaneous acceleration [violates Newton's laws of motion]
- positive lift without visible means of propulsion [and no obvious lift devices like wings etc],
- hypersonic velocity without signatures [esp. no sonic booms]
- trans-medium travel (moving between air and water), and
- low observability ["cloaking"]
This object shows the first two, and the "zip" may be at least supersonic. Let's put up a sequence of annotated screen-shots -- though, of course, we should watch the video, and the US Government release has slowed versions that help:
Where, the anomaly also seems to be able to detect that the Reaper Drone's observation turret is locked to it from some number of miles away. It breaks lock then zips away. Contrast the background features, this is not simply an over-rapid pan and zoom.
 |
| A report on the observer at 28:05 in the video |
While, some will fuss that only sensors controlled by duly accredited Scientists count as giving valid observations or demand to inspect machines, parts and bodies rumoured to be in possession of the US Government, it is clear that such an objection would be little more than the "gold standard evidence" dismissive fallacy. The video released by the US Government clearly confirms the validity of the earlier unredacted release, we have statements by the operator, the material is -- in Simon Greenleaf's terms in his treatise on Evidence -- is fair on the face and now clearly comes from a responsible source and repository. (Thus, it meets the Ancient Documents Rule standard, and it now is those who object to credibility who face the burden to show otherwise.)
This case, then, is decisive.
Repeat, DECISIVE.
So, yes, there are phenomena on fair record, with reasonable supportive testimony, that establish observations of the five UAP phenomena. These are beyond our global technology base, and in some cases -- sudden/instant acceleration (change in speed and/or direction) suggest something beyond our current knowledge of Physics. It also corroborates that previously released or leaked documents, video files etc were sound, increasing credibility of a core of earlier reported observations. Obviously, that does not warrant all claims, reports, documents, video etc, or speculations as to causes (or on the nature of extra-terrestrials, if there are any), but it does shift credibility and therefore burden of proof.
Evidence of higher propulsion and flight technology is already impressive, especially as we are not seeing signs of heat engines using visible propellers or jets (which would not work underwater). Likewise, we are not seeing wings, whether fixed or rotary (yes, the whirling blades of helicopters are actually rotating wings).
But it is the onward question of sudden/instant acceleration that is transformational. The questions of momentum do not allow such sudden velocity shifts. That implies something is happening that gets around components of Newton's Second Law, force is the rate of change of momentum,
F = dP/dt = d/dt[(m*v)] = m*a, where m is constant.
. . . where m is mass and velocity, v, is the rate of change of displacement, x. (And yes, the effects we see are well within the range where newtonian dynamics are relevant, v under ~ c/10, and notice, relativistic effects speak to influences of velocity-tied mass shift, and/or to the analytical equivalence of acceleration and gravity.)
So, we are potentially looking at alterations of mass and/or space, raising issues of manipulation of gravity or space or both.
That points to what science fiction terms "gravitics," and/or to "interdimensional"/ spacetime warp effects. Given, that there are significant UFO reports going back 80 or so years, that may be why modern Sci Fi uses such ideas.
As a crude illustration, suppose there is a higher order dimension, so that -- and this is a classical Sci Fi story (c 1884!) -- a sphere passing through the plane of two-dimensional, XY-plane Flatland starts as a point, becomes a growing then shrinking circle and disappears.
To the flatlanders that would look like a violation of the scientific law of matter conservation, sudden appearance, inexplicable growth and shrinkage, then sudden disappearance. Skeptical Flatlanders, doubtless, would deride and dismiss reports from "dubious" sources, and officials would be tempted to suppress and debunk such claims. Where, obviously, the revelation of a higher dimension, z (not just x,y) "up/down" would be a worldviews challenge that could easily be utterly disruptive. Save, perhaps to imaginative mathematicians who could construct a space, with z algebraically, and assess the logic of its properties and of objects in that higher space, e.g. a sphere.
Thus, we see the domain we need to open up to as analytical tool, Mathematics, the disciplined study of the logic of structure and quantity; with its ability to identify (with associated Ontology -- study of being) possible worlds and construct what we could call abstract, logic-model worlds, with key "necessary" entities, properties and principles that are trans-world. No wonder we are seeing discussions of "transdimensional" entities.
 |
| The Flatland toy model for interdimensionality |
Let's play with Flatland a bit; identify a sloped line that is in W' = (x, y, z) that is moving along the z-axis, which would then look like a point moving in the W = (x, y) plane. If the line is curved or moves in a way reflecting a shallow angle in Z relative to XY, then we could see an apparent very high speed, and/or acceleration without "visible means of support." Especially, if the line L in Z is curved we could see fairly sudden shifts in v, from low to high, and if kinked somehow, apparently instant. Where, a small delta-z change, with a sufficiently shallow slope, would give a large delta-W, i.e. small changes in z give surprisingly large changes in (xy) -- indeed, with a pair of scissors, the speed of motion of the point of intersection of the blades can greatly exceed that of the blades themselves.
That is a special case of the line moving through Flatland, but one we could more readily visualise and perhaps experiment with (taking due safety measures for sharp, pointy objects!):
Similarly, if the object pops up to the Z then comes back down to XY, it will seem to vanish and reappear -- without, visible means of support. (And, rapid popping up then returning would create an illusion of moving in XY when all the actual motion is away from the plane. That's how moving pictures work, by showing us successive stills at closely spaced times, leading us to perceive motion.)
Then, shift to two time axes and higher order space, as time is a key variable here. suppose an object actually moving in t2 is moving slowly in that higher time, but with a shallow slope, would appear to be moving rapidly in our timeline, t1. Again, without visible means of support.
So, it makes sense to think onward in terms of inter- or trans- dimensional behaviour, opening up to a wider reality.
Of course, this does not prove interdimensionality, it just helps us open up our thinking by providing ideas-space to move beyond our common experience. And yes, that ability to think more broadly, is valuable. Just in case, let me prompt, on . . .
Further, we are not here addressing moral reality or the roots of reality, that will await the point where "teachings" come up more explicitly. We already have pointed to new age, neo pagan claims in the prior post, and to how we should respond to "First Contact." END
