> Evidence Suggests Famous Navy UFO Video Was Camera Glare
Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
21–30 of 401 posts
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#22So 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!
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 and rotational behavior are now explained.
What remains is still an unidentified flying object, but one whose behavior is reasonably mundane and doesn't require advanced technology to explain.
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#23Mick 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!
That's a given (see all the ships crashing into other ships in the South Pacific a couple of years ago -- and not noticing for hours!)
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm quite confident that most people here are going to find a calm, measured, and thorough explanation of the observed phenomenon more credible than a snarky and instinctive dismissal that doesn't even bother to address a single one of the clearly demonstrated points in the analysis.
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#25So 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.
> the carrier group tracked Naive question: If a carrier group cannot, in essentially real-time, document three dimensional trajectories at this point (four if you include speed), what possible defense can they claim to have against evasive incoming missiles, etc.
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...
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#26Mick 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!
That is possible, but I think strains credibility. The GOFAST video is egregious, I find it hard to believe nobody in the US Navy was able to calculate the actual [mundane, very... balloon-like] speed of that object using basic trigonometry. I think it's more likely the Navy knew there was nothing actually exotic in that video.
The Defense Department described the subject of GOFAST, Gimble and FLIR videos as "UAV, Balloons, and other UAS". 'Balloons'; they know what it is. They're not even lying, they're being coy or misleading.
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#27I honestly don’t know what to make of these observations other than I’m utterly convinced they’re not alien, super high tech or break the laws of physics (eg inertia). There was no alien crash in Roswell. I also file believe any government is competent enough for the claimed cover up and associated psyops.
What I do find interesting is the overlap between people who buy into various conspiracy theories and people who are religious, were religious or would otherwise be likely to be religious.
There’s some fascinating psychology here and I think it boils down to a combination of wishful thinking and the comfort derived from there being a Grand Plan rather than just a collection of random stuff that just happens.
“Can’t be explained” is typically “hasn’t been explained yet”. Lack of an explanation is nothing more than that. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I approach this from the other direction. Given the huge benefits of a Dyson Swarm and the fact that it seems to require no exotic materials and no more physics it looks increasingly likely that we are very alone in the Milky Way and even if we aren’t it requires an awful lot of hubris to suggest a species would spend the considerable effort and tens of thousands of years to come here and hide.
Like this is Main Character Syndrome at its finest.
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#28Isn't he only debunking the image that appeared on the video as being glare as opposed to the actual object? So the object is real, but what appeared in the video is glare, not an actual representation of the object? West contends that what is being seen in the video is actually infrared glare that hides a hot object behind it and only rotates in the way it does because the camera rotates when tracking the target fro…
Yes, that is correct. There was still an unidentified flying object, but the remaining aspects of its behavior do not require invoking advanced unknown technology to explain.
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#29Recently Jim Lacatski confirmed that Colm Kelleher ran the daily operations of AAWSAP/AATIP. Colm was also the deputy administrator of NIDS which started in 1995.
This along with the fact that Lue Elizondo used remote viewing to “save soldiers” in Afghanistan are pretty shocking revelations.
AASWAP produced no results and shut down. Yet Elizondo talks often about a 23-minute close video of a craft. And has allegedly shown videos on his phone to people.
Only recently have people claimed the government has high quality evidence, yet the evidence seems to be unclassified (but not public).
If such evidence exists, it’s almost hard to believe it’s only recently been discovered and it hasn’t somehow leaked out. The whole ordeal is highly suspicious.
Re: Famous Navy UFO video was camera glare, evidence suggests
#30I suppose the radar signature was camera "glare" too, smh. This is pretty weak.