I looks like the plane is making a left turn, and yet the object is dead center in the screen with barely any shake. And it's definitely not stabilized, because all the lines on the display are still. So maybe the pilot has some crazy ability to track a flying object perfectly while turning, but try doing it in any game and I think you will fail.
The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
121–130 of 287 posts
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so?
I don't know, the clouds don't look real to me. I also wonder why resolution mist always be this low, my cell phone ($250) can shoot 4K and a plane that costs millions can't shoot video that is detailed enough to investigate the phenomenon.
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#123The one guy featured in this article, Luis Elizondo, is apart of Tom Delonge's (guy from the rock band Blink 182) wacky new company To The Stars Academy https://tothestarsacademy.com . So yeah, I'm not sure he can be taken very seriously. Just listen to Tom Delong on Joe Rogan's podcast and see how wacky this all is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n_3mnJfHzY
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#124There's no doubt there's a kind of aura of ridicule around the subject of UFOs and I'm sure credible people don't want to be associated with it. That being said, I think it's something worthy of exploration. My interest in the subject really began when I listen to people around me who saw and experienced things. It's one thing to read books or watch documentaries about UFOs, but it's another when normal "everyday peo…
What’s worth exploring is space. Better telescopes, more monitoring, etc will actually tell us something about tye possibilities or existence of alien life. Chasing down misidentified flying objects and hoaxes will not. The idea that numerous spaceships, each with more potential kinetic energy than mankind has created in its entire history, are just flying around our atmosphere without leaving massive and easily reco…
Identifying, understanding and explaining/eliminating exceptions is how science progresses. I know it causes discomfort to see something that defies expectations right in front of you. That does not mean we do not examine it. We should.
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#125IMO, the fishy part of the article is the cronyism involved in this program: "The shadowy program — parts of it remain classified — began in 2007, and initially it was largely funded at the request of Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who was the Senate majority leader at the time and who has long had an interest in space phenomena. Most of the money went to an aerospace research company run by a billionaire entreprene…
Say that you are interested in investigating puzzling phenomena, and you have the money. What more logical step is there than to approach your senate majority leader friend? Such oddball connections are probably the only the way such a program would ever get funded. Edit: well, obviously he didn't have the money. Misspoke. I meant the means (a company with the required infrastructure).
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I first read the program or its funding had ended, I, like you, also concluded that this was an indication that the Pentagon saw no reason to take it further. But then I jumped into the deep end: who knows the program('s funding) has been discontinued? It could live on in more secrecy, with the discontinuation of its more public form as a decoy. Am I being tinfoil hatted here? It's what I would probably do if I…
Or more likely, if alien UFO visitation is real (a huuuuge IF ), it’s more likely that programs like this have existed since the 1950s, and are now deeply entrenched within the government as “black programs” with unlimited “black budgets”, and likely some connection to the pentagon etc. The countless stories and admissions of former military and intelligence officers blowing the whistle on deep shadow governments alw…
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s totally anecdotal, and I’m just some guy on the internet, but I’ve seen these, or at least something similar, twice - once above Bath, UK, in 2012 - the first hint something was up was a pair of sonic booms as two typhoons hurtled into the airspace over the city. Needless to say, ran out of the office to gawp, and the fighters were circling a thing hovering at about 20,000 feet - bulky ovular object with greeble…
Doesn't sound the same as yours, but I saw the "triangles in the sky" in the late 90s in Australia. I came home from work at about 1am, and noticed three lights up in the sky moving at the same slow speed in a triangle-ish formation (For a while I thought they were connected, but then seemed to move independently, and just looked... odd). I watched them for a couple of minutes go across the sky, then had to go and wa…
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#128Interesting read that expands further on the Navy pilot encounter: https://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-edition/ Worth noting that the object was observed by a total of 3 F-18s, an E-2 Hawkeye, and a cruiser on the surface.
It’s totally anecdotal, and I’m just some guy on the internet, but I’ve seen these, or at least something similar, twice - once above Bath, UK, in 2012 - the first hint something was up was a pair of sonic booms as two typhoons hurtled into the airspace over the city. Needless to say, ran out of the office to gawp, and the fighters were circling a thing hovering at about 20,000 feet - bulky ovular object with greeble…
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#129Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
But come on, if US intelligence agencies recovered metallurgy from Russian hypersonic missiles or something like that, why would they use UFO for cover? And why would they store it outside of AFRL? I think it's just a way to funnel taxpayer money, there is nothing real being investigated. Not extraterrestrial tech, not foreign tech, not even domestic tech.
>I think it's just a way to funnel taxpayer money They only spent $22 million on the whole program. Accounting errors in the Pentagon literally amount to trillions of dollars. $22 million is about 20% of the cost of a single F-35. They have much better ways to funnel taxpayer money - $22 million isn't even pocket change for the Pentagon.