ugh, more and more each day I hate the fact that Obama undid the last of the legal impediments to domestically targeted military counter-intelligence operations. It is no coincidence that there is a massive gap in military related UFO sightings that matches up perfectly with when it was illegal for the government to spread paranoid delusion in the interest of national security. How anyone could think that an advanced spacefaring species could spend over 50 years reconnoitering the planet - but primarily in restricted airspace used for bleeding edge military flight tests and over a whole lot of empty ocean... its depressing.
Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
341–350 of 401 posts
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#342Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with your comment is you just lumped together a string of un-credible events and then summarise you're not convinced. To be frank Roswell and psyops (whatever that is) would not be enough to utterly convince me too. What I do find very interesting though is credible recent eye witness testimonies coming from US Navy pilots and the work at Harvard University for the Galileo Project, along with the other ma…
I'm surprised you're more convinced by eye witness testimonies. People are notoriously unreliable. If anything, this glare is better proof of green men than just talk.
where did I say I was convinced? I said I was not unconvinced. I am curious and not out-ruling anything, especially now that we have credible academic research starting on the matter.
Why are you convinced by a hobbyist with no academic background? He is a retired video game programmer.
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have a grainy infrared video, and claims of other infrared, radar and visual observations. Claims are easy to make and hard to analyze. Video is all we can analyze, and the video is unconvincing. Why then should we believe the claims?
We have incredibly strong claims that lead to congressional hearings and classified reports to Congress. The public videos are heavily redacted and lower quality than the classified ones. So is your claim that they’re all lying? Is Congress in on it?
No, my claim is that a few are lying and/or exaggerating the truth, and most others are unwilling or unable to point out the lies. Just like what happened with Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction", which were a much more consequential lie, I hope you'd agree.
It's definitely an easier explanation than supernatural alien craft.
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#345I don't get it :))
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is china building carriers then? Hypersonic weapons still need to know where to go. Theres a reason an ICBM which flies upwards of mach 20 is ineffective against carriers
They are good at projecting power against lesser foes in a sub-nuclear confrontation. I think if we went to all out war against Russia and/or China our carriers would be some of the first casualties.
Hypersonic missiles apart from df-zf only exist in a lab. They are one of the biggest hype out there along with killer robots. When you hear about tests, it is mostly about work done at a university, which means the tech is still 5 to 10 years away.
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#347- David Fravor and his colleagues, are highly credible witnesses of something they observed visually. - This is certainly a very interesting interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIUBjvY4PnQ - There are visual observations, and what are, ( by military standards), flimsy short images/video. - This analysis partially explains one part of it, without excluding the presence of an object. - There is also Radar data,…
The sightings are military classified aircraft, explaining why they appear during trainings. The govt would rather have you believe they are UFOs than the public suspecting where tax dollars are being funneled, and enemies being weary.
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#348- David Fravor and his colleagues, are highly credible witnesses of something they observed visually. - This is certainly a very interesting interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIUBjvY4PnQ - There are visual observations, and what are, ( by military standards), flimsy short images/video. - This analysis partially explains one part of it, without excluding the presence of an object. - There is also Radar data,…
> "These Aliens" Why do you say aliens? It seems more likely they are experimental human developed aircraft.
Because some of the reported changes of speed are not within any technology conceivable for the next 100 years. Like physically doing Mach 200 with no noise or sonic boom and show up 80 Miles ( the way point of the interview...) after a few seconds. ( And how did they know where the way point was?)
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should a peaceful demonstration of technical superiority terrify anyone? It's clear whomever, or whatever, possesses this superior technology could fly circles around and/or obliterate us on a whim, but has expressly decided not to, and instead simply announced: "Hey, I have this." If they/it perceived us as a threat, we'd surely be gone already. That leaves only our hopefully sane response, to influence what hap…
If you look into Lue Elizondo's, former head of AATIP, comments on this, you will come to find that he believes these things are testing are doing reconnaissance to test our military capabilities - which is scary to me. The technology they are displaying is awesome, but it is something we should be very wary of.
Assuming this is an advanced civilisation, this seems highly unlikely.
Our capabilities can be well enough assessed from the comfortable safety of billions of kilometres away simply from watching our relentless broadcasting of them in all directions for decades if not centuries now.
We even sent out devices at the limits of our sphere of physical influence, introducing ourselves and with instructions on how to understand what we say.
Certainly, by simple initial analysis of even our most basic technology they could then monitor our own satellite networks on a whim and see all of the same things about ourselves that we do, in realtime and in totality.
Ingesting our transmissions and emissions and assessing our capabilities would be something they could do far more thoroughly than we can ourselves. They'd likely also be able to project what we'll have ten or twenty years from now in detail.
Sending a craft in can only reasonably be interpreted as "hi" given a context of technological dominance, which by necessity is founded on informational dominance.
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a 60 Minutes piece discussing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBtMbBPzqHY Here's a 4 hour interview with the pilot, David Fravor, on Lex Fridman's show where he goes into much more detail than you'll probably read elsewhere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E This wasn't just a single radar. It was an AEGIS system compromised of multiple ships with state of the art radars, multiple plane radars, a…
I think part of the problem here is that there are multiple incidents being conflated. For instance, people are saying that the pilots visually confirmed the incident with their own eyes, but (according to the article) that would not have been possible given the distance between the plane and the object. Is there a source to indicate that in the specific incident being covered by this article, that there is any evide…
There are actually lots of different UAP incidents. In some there are supposedly objects that get really close to carriers, which are tracked by many different radar systems etc. The gimbal video one wasn't one of those, IIUC, it was just what you see in the video.