331–340 of 401 posts
Earlier 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!
The object might of existed for a millisecond. Test of a new stealth tech - quick directional laser burst to temporarily damage/blind IR camera. After that Jet was flying in circles trying to track its own camera glitch.
- 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,…
So 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensor_fusion
Even with fusion, the fewer the sensors the less accurate the tracking will be. In these videos there may only be one or two sensors actually tracking the object.
Hitting a target with a missile is a somewhat different problem, you just have to get the missile there based on whatever data you have (which might be from the carriers sensor data, the missiles own sensors, or both). For example an IR missile doesn't know the location of its target, it just knows how far off center the IR light from the target is from the missiles current flight path and it can correct course based on that simple angular offset to eventually hit the target (with some additional math since the missile has to go to where the target will be when it gets there.) Similarly stopping an evasive incoming missile does not require that you know its exact location. Also as a defensive missile gets closer to the incoming missile it may be able to get better data on where its target actually is and how it is moving. Missiles move very fast so on the final approach there is not much ability to change direction at all, it would require too many g's to turn the missile, so you can model the final approach as a straight line. When it's close your own tracking systems probably work better as well because the targets cross section takes up more of the sky.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 Ali…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know much about this whole story (I'm not a UFO person) and am learning most of what I know about it from this video and this thread, but: the people saying that this video depicts an actual object rotating in the sky appear to be making the extraordinary claim here: the connection between the rotation and the camera system seems compelling. The horizon is moving as the camera/plane moves; the object is not m…
> The shape we're looking at is, in part, an artifact of the camera, unless the aliens are somehow reprogramming the camera to fuck with us. It's possible the IR glare is an intentional countermeasure produced by the craft. It might sound far-fetched, but the military can already jam some cameras already, and they apparently license this technology too: https://techlinkcenter.org/technologies/selective-camera-jam...…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a former member of USMC Aviation, it's valid to point out that skilled navy pilots can have some of the same range of differences in belief, action and motivation that the general populace does. I flew with a pilot on a transport helicopter that was blasting Eye of the Tiger and taking every turn at maximum bank, constantly looking for AA to get to fire at us so he could call in F-18s and watch the fireworks. Some…
What's "AA to get to fire at us" mean? BTW that like sounds like the crazy pilot guy from A-team
Always find "UFO are aliens" belief so non-logical. Like a FTL civilization would even be curious about earth, having such advanced sensor technology to avoid dust at beyond light speed that they actually need to cruise around in the atmosphere? Or that their ship would be so small? There's no penalty for mass in space, why not make it the size of a city? Certainly a FTL civilization has no construction limitations.…
- 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,…
Why do you say aliens? It seems more likely they are experimental human developed aircraft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Camera glare my friend, case closed
> Camera glare my friend, case closed I came here to say this. There will be no further discussion.
This just seems to be a way that the government can point to an “expert” and say it was nothing, thereby alleviating the need for the government to comment on the “nothing”.
I’m guessing the classified file on this is very interesting.
FYI, Mick West is not an "expert". He has no experience with military hardware. Everyone involved in the incident, or has background knowledge of the classified details, says there are multiple sensors confirming the footage, including direct visual by the pilots. This can not possibly be explained by "lens flair". People say trust the experts. Well, in this case, the experts are the ones who know the military hardwa…
> West contends that what is being seen in the video is actually infrared glare that hides a hot object behind it
So, he's not debunking the existence of what the pilot saw. He's just saying that what we see in the video is not what the pilots saw.
That would be a fascinating countermeasure if the craft was able to rotate to reflect the sun at a tracking pod on a potentially hostile aircraft, or perhaps the craft itself emitted the IR "glare" to prevent it from being accurately photographed.