Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
1–10 of 401 posts
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#2So the anomaly that the carrier group tracked, then scrambled fighter jets for. The object that four different pilots saw visually, and was confirmed on multiple different sensors. That was camera glare?
The video is only one piece of the evidence. The pilots are trained, and other sensor systems confirmed what the camera was showing. This analysis is pretty flimsy.
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#3Mick West debunked these to my satisfaction ages ago. The only question I have left is whether the whole thing was a US Navy psyop or whether the navy was just looking the other way and playing coy when those pilots were creating a retirement career in UFOlogy.
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#4I like Mick West, and even though camera glare isn't usually picked up on radar by the navy, it's sufficient to fulfill Occam's razor.
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#5I find the “bump” aspect persuasive.
I’d like to see similar analysis of the East Coast cruise missile ufo video.
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#6So the anomaly that the carrier group tracked, then scrambled fighter jets for. The object that four different pilots saw visually, and was confirmed on multiple different sensors. That was camera glare? The video is only one piece of the evidence. The pilots are trained, and other sensor systems confirmed what the camera was showing. This analysis is pretty flimsy.
Camera glare my friend, case closed
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#7So the anomaly that the carrier group tracked, then scrambled fighter jets for. The object that four different pilots saw visually, and was confirmed on multiple different sensors. That was camera glare? The video is only one piece of the evidence. The pilots are trained, and other sensor systems confirmed what the camera was showing. This analysis is pretty flimsy.
This analysis even admits that there’s an object required for the “glare” to exist.
This analysis doesn’t reject an actual object being tracked: it confirms it and describes it as one that causes IR glare!
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#8So the anomaly that the carrier group tracked, then scrambled fighter jets for. The object that four different pilots saw visually, and was confirmed on multiple different sensors. That was camera glare? The video is only one piece of the evidence. The pilots are trained, and other sensor systems confirmed what the camera was showing. This analysis is pretty flimsy.
Camera glare my friend, case closed
> Camera glare my friend, case closed
I came here to say this.
There will be no further discussion.
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#9Mick West debunked these to my satisfaction ages ago. The only question I have left is whether the whole thing was a US Navy psyop or whether the navy was just looking the other way and playing coy when those pilots were creating a retirement career in UFOlogy.
Or if you follow Hanlon's razor, if the Navy is incredibly (scarily) incompetent!
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#10So the anomaly that the carrier group tracked, then scrambled fighter jets for. The object that four different pilots saw visually, and was confirmed on multiple different sensors. That was camera glare? The video is only one piece of the evidence. The pilots are trained, and other sensor systems confirmed what the camera was showing. This analysis is pretty flimsy.
This analysis even admits that there’s an object required for the “glare” to exist. This analysis doesn’t reject an actual object being tracked: it confirms it and describes it as one that causes IR glare!
So the claim is...these highly trained pilots and the other sensor systems didn't realize that objects cause IR glare, but this guy did. Case closed.