The title of this article sucks. Real bad.
Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
151–160 of 401 posts
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#152Mick 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.
Mick West utterly failed to “debunk” these videos, and actual fighter pilots have debunked his “debunk”. https://youtu.be/ro29w4ESw44
are you kidding now? that pilot does not even know how cameras work at all and your using him ???
this American pilot does not know how depth of field works... can't even notice in his own video recordings, this beyond funny. He thinks you can't have objects at different distances in focus at the same time ahahaha, does not get how parallax works... gave up after those dumb errors and smug attitude as he was saying such dumb things, i bet he made even more mistakes.
is he really a "fighter pilot" or they just not trained to understand their gear?
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#153So 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.
That "four different pilots" stuff has not been confirmed as far as I know. All people involved in these stories are hustlers, including that one ex-pilot who peddles the story. You must look at every statement they make separately. They give one fact that can be verified and then they tie lies or unverified stuff on that. btw. Luis Elizondo is has not been charge of any UFO stuff. https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01…
> btw. Luis Elizondo is has not been charge of any UFO stuff
I have no conviction on the UFO phenomenon other than it would be cool if aliens exist, and even cooler if they were already on Earth. Still, I can't get enough of it – I especially love thinking about the most epistemically offensive conspiracy theories, like "the moon is a spaceship" or "Antarctica is an alien base." I sometimes fall asleep to Ancient Aliens.
But, fact is, the only government agents with any "authority" in this "movement" – which became especially fervent around the dissolution of Q-Anon, btw – are people who worked for DIA in Information Operations. That is, their specialty is in manipulating the public, not alien technology.
The "Lue anon" moniker about sums it up. My theory is the recent reinvigoration of the UFO movement is an attempt by US intel agencies to pre-emptively herd the most impressionable people with their own controlled conspiracy, rather than allow a hostile actor to manipulate them during the next election.
Also, I predicted this 10 months ago, the last time "disclosure" was imminent, in a comment [0] that I think has aged well so far.
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mick West utterly failed to “debunk” these videos, and actual fighter pilots have debunked his “debunk”. https://youtu.be/ro29w4ESw44
Do you happen to have a copy of this supposed debunking debunking that isn't given by Alvin the Chimpmunk? Wtf dude.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyw4JA00AMc
Here is the video on the actual fighter pilot's channel
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
Carriers are most likely partly obsoleted by hypersonic missiles that travel and maneuver at mach 20 (which Russia and China have), in addition to 100 megaton nuclear torpedoes that travel at 120mph (which Russia has). https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/03/russias-new-pos... https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/10/14/will-ground-bas...
Its a common assumption made by layman that the existence of a weapon that can kill a system means its now obsolete. That is incorrect. Systems do not become obsolete because they can be killed. They become obsolete when they no longer serve utility. Either something else does the job better, more efficiently or effectively or the nature of war has changed to the degree that its now irrelevant. This mistake is most o…
I hope you'll excuse some pushback from another layperson--isn't the situation with Aircraft Carriers categorically different? In the examples you provided above (Cavalry, Tanks, and Battleships), there has never been a push-button solution to eliminating every single unit in the service of the enemy. Given the technology mentioned by GP, the small number of Carriers in service and the utter impossibility of hiding them, it would appear that such a solution does exist for Carriers.
So while it seems to be true that Aircraft Carriers are not obsolete in peacetime or in a conflict with minor powers, aren't they obsolete in the context for which they were created--namely, war with another great power?
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Zero of the GPs objections are inconsistent with this explanation. The carrier group tracked an unknown object and scrambled fighters to investigate. The pilots may have visually observed the object, but it would have been too far away to really ascertain any visual detail. Instead they relied on infrared sensors which… suffered from glare, and so rendered incorrect visuals for the object. Its strange shape…
We also need to be really honest about what we want this to be, and how that desire influences what we believe about it. I personally want this to be an alien spacecraft, because that's super interesting and exciting. I think the same is true of lots of other people. Unfortunately, there are much more mundane explanations which fit the evidence much better.
Why do you want it to be alien spacecraft? Are you some sort of glutton for punishment?
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#157Mick 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!
i think they are, there is a video of a "fighter pilot" who does not understand basics of a cameras... he thinks you can't focus on objects at different distances at the same time.... how did he ever get to fly a jet? or parallax i mean he should know how that works
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#158Interesting how so many are willing to accept "camera flare" as a concrete explanation. One thing that bothers me about this explanation is we know those pilots had a lot of experience with those systems so I'd expect they'd know "camera flare" when they saw it on those displays. But it's clear from the audio they did not recognize it as that. And there was more than one pilot seeing it, and from different angles. I'…
The US Air force and Navy have a pretty bad track record of incompetent pilots. They have a history of losing numerous planes in training excercises, for example.
And Mick West is a VFX artist who has a hobby of making debunking videos for youtube.
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#159Interesting how so many are willing to accept "camera flare" as a concrete explanation. One thing that bothers me about this explanation is we know those pilots had a lot of experience with those systems so I'd expect they'd know "camera flare" when they saw it on those displays. But it's clear from the audio they did not recognize it as that. And there was more than one pilot seeing it, and from different angles. I'…
https://youtu.be/ro29w4ESw44 Has an actual fighter pilot’s reaction.
Actual video from the pilot
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#160Interesting how so many are willing to accept "camera flare" as a concrete explanation. One thing that bothers me about this explanation is we know those pilots had a lot of experience with those systems so I'd expect they'd know "camera flare" when they saw it on those displays. But it's clear from the audio they did not recognize it as that. And there was more than one pilot seeing it, and from different angles. I'…
you say that but there is a fighter pilot on youtube trying to debunk these videos but lacks any basic knowledge on how cameras work, while saying things like you can't focus on objects at different distances at the same time... he demonstrates this by having a camera very close to a object ahaha but never noticed he is in focus and so is his background.... :( dose not know what focal length is.. or how parallax works.