Log in

No account? Create an account
17 November 2007 @ 10:09 pm
What moves like this?  

What moves like this? Anyone?
Current Mood: curiousintrigued
Current Music: "It Don't Mean a Thing" by Ernie Wilkins
postrophe on November 18th, 2007 07:04 am (UTC)
What did they say it was, and where was it taken, and how long ago, and has anyone analysed it more, and who....

(Was it just posted as is, with none of that info? Suspicious...)
Fritters: TT SF Blushing by Frittersfritters on November 18th, 2007 08:57 am (UTC)
lironesslironess on November 18th, 2007 08:02 am (UTC)
Looks shopped to me. It is too convenient that it follows the viewers site line as to the shape of the mountain. It follows the edge exactly. If it had really been over by the mountain, I think the flight would have appeared more random.
Fritters: Ed Thinking by Frittersfritters on November 18th, 2007 09:00 am (UTC)
I don't get that off it... And why would it be more random? I've never seen a flight plan that looked random.
lironesslironess on November 18th, 2007 09:55 pm (UTC)
I have never seen a flight plan that says, ok, go over to that mountain. See those guys over there with the camera? Pull into the frame of their filming, then go over to the mountain. Follow the edge of the mountain from their frame of reference, ok, now go behind the mountain and hide for a moment, Slowly, slowly pull back up and stop and appear to be looking at them....

It is so from their frame of reference and if it was a UFO, why would they notice off in the distance a couple of guys with a camera and try to display for them maneuvers that only the guys could see from that certain spot.

Seems really odd. I wonder if it is a reflection on the lens of the camera....

Matthew B. Tepperasimovberlioz on November 18th, 2007 06:03 pm (UTC)
Byronzenin4711 on November 18th, 2007 10:55 pm (UTC)
CGI, cheesy at that.

What I find interesting about many UFO films is the attempt to use "un-earthly" flight patterns, in particular dead stops, razer sharp directional changes, and/or instant acceleration (really, instant velocity changes in all these cases) to make them appear "other worldly".

While there are logical reasons why such ability would be useful to have, it wouldn't be for casual flights over mountain tops or corn fields. The stresses on the craft and crew from such extreme velocity changes would be enormous as well as the energy required to do it at all. It's something a UFO might do in active combat or an intergalactic air show, but there's no logical reason they'd do so on their Hawaiian vacation. Why push such wear and tear on the ship and crew just because?

When/if we do get visited by real extraterrestrials, their ships are going to follow very boring very earth-like flight patterns.

If they use ships at all.
postrophe on November 19th, 2007 05:27 am (UTC)
But arguments like that can't help but remind me of how early ideas for railroads were derided for how much fuel, raw materials, craftmanship and sheer violation of assumed natural law it would take. "...for a man cannot live at such a speed" and that kind of reasoning. (They were talking about 30 mph.)
One of the benefits of hypothetical inertialess drives is they in fact offer ways around Einstein's speed limit, and thus would give the Green Dudes a way to get here in the first place. Using a different system to get around locally would be as silly as a speedboat yanking out the old oars just because they're in the marina. In the pattern of a good technology becoming transparent and unnoticed, if they had it, they'd use it without thinking, the way we use automobiles and telephones.
Given Clarke's law, how could we have any conception of what 'they' would find easy or hard?
Byronzenin4711 on November 19th, 2007 06:42 pm (UTC)
One of the benefits of hypothetical inertialess drives is they in fact offer ways around Einstein's speed limit, and thus would give the Green Dudes a way to get here in the first place

True. But then (in the current example), why switch back to the space oars at times? Why would some parts of the flight pattern be familiar with our tech, while others completely contrast it? And if you've gotten around Einstein's speed limit, why have a ship as we know it at all? Such a craft would travel so fast and stop instantly, the result of which to us would appear as if it simply teleported or otherwise materialized out of thin air. Why "fly" at all?

Which if we're getting into whys, why bring a bulky ship over if you're not planning on stopping buy and staying for Thanksgiving dinner? The first alien visitors are much more likely to be recon drones of some *tiny* form, tiny as in the size of small insects at most. Our own technology is at that point now, at least electro-mechanically. It'd be much easier to send a small payload of insect sized recon drones then a large ship with actual aliens. If actual aliens were to come...they'd need a reason for the expense, like sitting down for dinner. Perhaps they are really an alien version of our sport scuba divers; Just vacationers flying around the stellar coral reef that is the Earth to watch the strange creatures scurry about. Honestly that makes more sense of these types of UFO sightings then any real alien exploration; We aren't advanced enough to be much more then a curiosity.

Back to drones, the drones don't need to be electro-mechanical, they could just as easily be biological in nature. We're able to control cockroaches now like an RC car, we're decoding DNA and now able to make our own patterns from scratch. Give us 30-60 years and there's no reason to think we won't have biological "robots" of our own. If we found such an alien "device" here, we'd just categorize it as another species of insect....or bacteria.
postrophe on November 20th, 2007 05:12 am (UTC)
The owls are not what they seem.
(Okay, old reference...)
Byronzenin4711 on November 20th, 2007 12:59 am (UTC)
BTW, this was a far more interesting UFO fake:


Too bad they didn't opt for buying more palm tree model variations or they might have made the joke last longer.
Fritters: TT Oooo - looking by shamanic_nurikofritters on November 20th, 2007 01:14 am (UTC)
That one IS pretty damn awesome.
Lady Pixelladypixel on November 19th, 2007 01:37 am (UTC)
There is one plausible excuse... that it wasn't anywhere /near/ the mountain. A reflective insect, perhaps.

But other than that, I'd say it's been photoshopped.
postrophe on November 19th, 2007 05:30 am (UTC)
'Nother idea: This Is a volcanic eruption after all... it could be 'ball lightning' or some similar electrical thing from the ash clouds.