Navy pilot saw object 'not of this world'

[Truthseeker007]

1 hour ago, Astra. said:

Well lets first get past our human arrogance / and or denial.

How on earth could we think that we are sooo! special in the massive Universe as in being the only teeny-weeny planet aka (blue dot) that has life (intelligent} that compares to many other unknown planets and / or other galaxies that we have not yet explored, or are unknown to us? 

I think all in all, as the 'human species' has developed,  we have done a Stella job as far as technology is concerned (apart from some screw ups by which we learn) or hopefully so......

But to think that some other 'possible' intelligent-civilisation may not be a head of the game (more than ours)....is not only arrogant but very naive. We need to open ourselves up to the many possibilities that we may 'not always be alone' ...

Very well said and great points!

[Stiff]

5 hours ago, XenoFish said:

This is probably a mile off topic, but I often wonder how many of these ufo sightings are really just prototype aircraft being tested? 

Yep, but heavily disguised ones 

 

 

[Astra.]

15 hours ago, Truthseeker007 said:

Very well said and great points!

Aww, well thank you ...

[Truthseeker007]

11 minutes ago, Astra. said:

Aww, well thank you ...

Your welcome! That is a pretty awesome emoji!

[ChrLzs]

On 12/30/2017 at 6:16 PM, preacherman76 said:

Sorry I shouldn’t have lumped you all together. I was thinking of one person in particular in this thread really, 

i never said pilots were infallible. I’m just saying they certainly aren’t stupid, like one poster here claimed they were. 

Perhaps I was a little harsh, but frankly, I have got VERY sick and tired of a video which shows (and dispute me here if you can):

• imagery that is completely compatible with a distant aircraft, including the bloom/flare and rotational-tracking effects that are not only covered in the equipment manuals for that FLIR device, but are even shown on Raytheon's website...
• absolutely NO maneuvers or high speeds that are incompatible with a jet

Yet that footage, and that footage alone, is being bandied around by Elizondo and anyone else who is pushing this disclosure bullmanure, as THE evidence of something not of this world.  You don't find that just a tiny bit ridiculous?

If you do, can you point out the bit of the video that is 'off-planet'?  Or where Mick West's info (and the Raytheon supplied information) is incorrect?

Do you honestly think that pilots are always fully trained with the equipment that gets swapped in and out of their craft, and that they don't need both training and experience?  How do you know that this video wasn't some pilots getting used to their new toy?  Let's face it, it hasn't even been properly dated/located - we don't even know if the footage is correctly being identified.  This reeks of the Cantarell Oilfields UFO debacle - they were supposedly experienced pilots too, but they couldn't even recognise something on the ground...

 

Frankly, this shamozzle is pitiful.

[lost_shaman]

8 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

imagery that is completely compatible with a distant aircraft

Really then why didn't not only one Squadron of FA/18 Super Hornets, but two flights from the U.S.S. Nimitz fail to intercept the objects? 

 

9 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

including the bloom/flare and rotational-tracking effects that are not only covered in the equipment manuals for that FLIR device, but are even shown on Raytheon's website...

I must have missed that. Can you provide the link so we can check this. What I read on Raytheon's site didn't say that on either the ATFLIR page or the FA/18's RADAR write up. 

 

9 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

absolutely NO maneuvers or high speeds that are incompatible with a jet

That thing is doing some strange banking while its trajectory doesn't seem to change. That's not how a Jet would fly. Also we are only seeing a small part of the video from the second set of FA/18' SH's that the Nimitz sent up. We are not seeing anything from the first Squadron of FA/18 SH's that were called off training to intercept these objects. 

Also, neither the Pentagon or DOD are refuting any of this.

9 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Do you honestly think that pilots are always fully trained with the equipment that gets swapped in and out of their craft, and that they don't need both training and experience? 

The Pilot speaking was the Commander of the the first squadon with an 18 year career, this happened in his 15th year as a Pilot and the RADAR nor the ATFLIR Pod were new to the FA/18's. 

[quillius]

On 23/12/2017 at 8:02 AM, bee said:

 

Hey @quillius...... how about this for a trip down Memory Lane ... 

me asking you ....

what do you make of the David Fravor guy speaking on the Tucker Carlson show -
I just had it on full screen looking at the micro expressions -

My first broad impression is that he looks like a rabbit caught in headlights and doesn't look like he is
comfortable or enjoying the sharing experience - which is understandable if you are nervous but I get the
impression he could have been told (ordered?) to get out into the public arena and tell his story...

but to be careful to stick to the bare bones of it --- hence the kind of dead pan delivery..

???

 

hey Bee,

 

happy new year to you.

 

sorry for delay, been resting with the family

will have a look and get back to you,. I did watch briefly and there are no obvious signs of 'lying'...

x

[bee]

8 minutes ago, quillius said:

hey Bee,

 

happy new year to you.

 

sorry for delay, been resting with the family

will have a look and get back to you,. I did watch briefly and there are no obvious signs of 'lying'...

x

 

Happy New Year to you and Yours.... x.....

in your own time -- no hurry --- and only if you want to.... 

 

[preacherman76]

22 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Perhaps I was a little harsh, but frankly, I have got VERY sick and tired of a video which shows (and dispute me here if you can):

• imagery that is completely compatible with a distant aircraft, including the bloom/flare and rotational-tracking effects that are not only covered in the equipment manuals for that FLIR device, but are even shown on Raytheon's website...
• absolutely NO maneuvers or high speeds that are incompatible with a jet

Yet that footage, and that footage alone, is being bandied around by Elizondo and anyone else who is pushing this disclosure bullmanure, as THE evidence of something not of this world.  You don't find that just a tiny bit ridiculous?

If you do, can you point out the bit of the video that is 'off-planet'?  Or where Mick West's info (and the Raytheon supplied information) is incorrect?

Do you honestly think that pilots are always fully trained with the equipment that gets swapped in and out of their craft, and that they don't need both training and experience?  How do you know that this video wasn't some pilots getting used to their new toy?  Let's face it, it hasn't even been properly dated/located - we don't even know if the footage is correctly being identified.  This reeks of the Cantarell Oilfields UFO debacle - they were supposedly experienced pilots too, but they couldn't even recognise something on the ground...

 

Frankly, this shamozzle is pitiful.

Honestly I really don't care about the video that much. As interesting as it is, I really don't know much about how all this works. For me its the testimony. Combined with many other pilots testimonies I've heard over the years. Not only that but its the circumstance of which this fell under, and the radio communication of the pilots during the event. Why they were sent there to begin with.

What I find most interesting is why they were allowed to talk about it at all. I've heard several pilots who had to wait till they retired to tell their stories, claiming they were told their livelihood was at steak.

Anyhow I see nothing about either of these men that would leave me to believe they were dishonest or misinformed during their experience. I can certainly understand not being  completely convinced this was alien life, or whatever. I think to draw the conclusion this is a sham though is just being dismissive. I also find it interesting that the skeptics are going straight for the throat on this case. Like its literally a threat to their very identity.

[stereologist]

Here is an article suggesting that the original NYT article might be a stinker.

https://www.flyingmag.com/five-reasons-to-be-skeptical-about-that-new-york-times-ufo-story

 

[stereologist]

The pilots did call the object a "drone".

[Erno86]

Stereologist -

Read this report for the timeline: "To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science"

https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/nimitz-report/

"FLIR1: Official UAP Footage From the USG for Public Release

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rWOtrke0HY

"So within just 0.5 seconds, the object is able to jump to a speed of 430km/hr (270mph) that requires an acceleration of 240m/s2, or 24g's. That's amazing!"

quote: Guest101 - on another forum

Edited January 2, 2018 by Erno86
link work

[bison]

To give some perspective, military jets can accelerate fast enough to produce g-forces of up to 9.  An object that can accelerate over 2 & 1/2 times as quickly  (24 g s.) can scarcely be a distant jet. 

[ChrLzs]

1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

Honestly I really don't care about the video that much....

Probably just as well.  It doesn't seem to have any relationship to the actual incident, and doesn't show anything of note.  Despite Elizondo and delonge trying to make it look as if it's all one thing.

1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

I also find it interesting that the skeptics are going straight for the throat on this case. Like its literally a threat to their very identity.

Are you not aware of how this differs from an 'ordinary' claim?  That delonge is using it to build up hype in regard to his 'To The Stars" money-making scheme, of which Elizondo is a partner?  That some people here have said they've already donated money to them?

And you think this is a 'threat to my very identity'?    I just get a little sad when people get ripped off by scammers.  As an aside, I don't like seeing images/video 'evidence' being misdescribed / wrongly interpreted / lied about.  Some here might be ok with that, especially if it suits their pro-alienz-on-earth agenda.  I'm not OK with it.

That's why I asked if you wished to dispute the information about what that video shows.  I note that neither you nor anyone who has handwaved away the correct interpretation - ie that it just shows a jet aircraft of unknown origin and shows nothing unusual - has been able to point out where the video shows anything of note.

 

So, once again, we are left with no evidence.  Just cool stories bro.  And my guess that Elizondo was being paid for his story was shown correct..  I wonder if we will find out any more about the pilot's story, or if he can substantiate it in any way... 

 

(Oh, ok, I admit it - I do not wonder about that at all..)

[pallidin]

I found this interesting. 3 former President's asked about "ET"

 

Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama.

Edited January 2, 2018 by pallidin

[Area201]

So this pro UFO channel called "UFO seekers" strangely tried to explain the Pentagon UAP released video (whoever the **** released it) of unknown object, as being another plane. 

UFO Proof shows why this argument is silly and debunks the debunk.

 

 

[ChrLzs]

Area201, in case you hadn't noticed (or couldn't give a ****), we don't go much here on 'Youtube arguments'.

It's a DISCUSSION forum.  Please explain exactly how the debunkers got this wrong, in your very own grownup words.

We have already covered this in some detail, and if anything is wrong in that information, please point it out.  Posting youtube videos as if they are reference documents is lazy and gives a good indication of your expertise....

[Fila]

On 03/01/2018 at 0:36 PM, Area201 said:

So this pro UFO channel called "UFO seekers" strangely tried to explain the Pentagon UAP released video (whoever the **** released it) of unknown object, as being another plane. 

UFO Proof shows why this argument is silly and debunks the debunk.

I was wondering the same thing. Where are the exhausts?

Edited January 3, 2018 by Fila

[lost_shaman]

6 minutes ago, Fila said:

I was wondering the same thing. Where are the exhausts?

 

Well in the video we are all talking about there are no obvious exhaust plumes. I was holding back on discussing this issue but since it's out there now... Let's see how this is dismissed as it must be to the never UAP'ers! 

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by lost_shaman

[stereologist]

17 hours ago, Erno86 said:

Stereologist -

Read this report for the timeline: "To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science"

https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/nimitz-report/

"FLIR1: Official UAP Footage From the USG for Public Release

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rWOtrke0HY

"So within just 0.5 seconds, the object is able to jump to a speed of 430km/hr (270mph) that requires an acceleration of 240m/s2, or 24g's. That's amazing!"

quote: Guest101 - on another forum

Where is the comment from? Where are the calculations?

[stereologist]

I followed a link at Metabunk to a video in Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWjpnCKcj8M&feature=youtu.be&t=132

If you go to the section of the video at 2:17 you will see a section of the video in which the jets look very similar to the black blob in the TTS video. The IR signal is hiding the shape of the plane.

 

 

[bison]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Where is the comment from? Where are the calculations?

I would like to see those calculations, and how they were derived, as well. In the mean time, we have the testimony of Commander Fravor, a highly experienced Navy pilot. He reported that the object moved miles away from him, in one seconds's time.

Let's be very conservative and say it  moved away by just one mile, in one second.  Accelerating  fast enough to cover 32 feet in that one second confers a force of  one g.  Moving a mile in that same second  would confer a force of 165 gs.,  for 5280 feet, (a mile) is 165 times 32.

Military jets can accelerate fast enough to confer forces of up to 9 gs.  If an object accelerated rapidly enough to confer a force of 165 gs, it can not be a distant jet. 

[stereologist]

Just now, bison said:

I would like to see those calculations, and how they were derived, as well. In the mean time, we have the testimony of Commander Fravor, a highly experienced Navy pilot. He reported that the object moved miles away from him, in one seconds's time.

Let's be very conservative and say it  moved away by just one mile, in one second.  Accelerating  fast enough to cover 32 feet in that one second confers a force of  one g.  Moving a mile in that same second  would confer a force of 165 gs.,  for 5280 feet, (a mile) is 165 times 32.

Military jets can accelerate fast enough to confer forces of up to 9 gs.  If an object accelerated rapidly enough to confer a force of 165 gs, it can not be a distant jet. 

We can be conservative and state that Fravor's estimates of distance were off. Covering 32 feet in 1 second is velocity,  not acceleration. Accelerating smoothly from a standstill to 16 feet in 1 second is an acceleration of 1g.

The calculations are rumored to have come from an  unnamed person online that missed the fact that the zoom changed. I did not find the source and am waiting for the person reporting it to reveal where this came from other than the online rumor mill.

[bison]

It seems likely that a military pilot should and would be able judge distances in the air with reasonable accuracy, especially one with 16 years of experience, at the time of the incident. In addition, he had already seen the object at varying close ranges, allowing him to reasonably judge its size.  

Commander Fravor stated that the object accelerated away from him, starting from a comparatively low speed, which would have a small effect on this calculation. An object starting to fall to Earth will travel 32 feet in the first second, because it is subject to Earth's gravity. (1 g. )  I'm not a mathematician, but it appears to me that  an object covering 165 times that distance ( 1 mile ) from a standing start, in the same second, is subject to 165 times the force of gravity, hence 165 g s.

If the objection is that the object was not stationary up to the point it began accelerating, but keeping pace with the jet, let's knock a reasonable 360 mph off the increase in speed. That reduces the speed increase during one second's acceleration by 10 percent.  This would, it appears, result in a g force of about 149. Still over 16 times the acceleration reported possible with military jets.   

Edited January 3, 2018 by bison
added information, corrected erroneous text

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, bison said:

It seems likely that a military pilot should and would be able judge distances in the air with reasonable accuracy, especially one with 16 years of experience, at the time of the incident. In addition, he had already seen the object at varying close ranges, allowing him to reasonably judge its size.  

Commander Fravor stated that the object accelerated away from him, starting from a comparatively low speed, which would have a small effect on this calculation. An object starting to fall to Earth will travel 32 feet in the first second, because it is subject to Earth's gravity. (1 g. )  I'm not a mathematician, but it appears to me that  an object covering 165 times that distance ( 1 mile ) from a standing start, in the same second, is subject to 165 times the force of gravity, hence 165 g s.

If the objection is that the object was not stationary up to the point it began accelerating, but keeping pace with the jet, let's knock a reasonable 360 mph off the increase in speed. That reduces the speed increase during one second's acceleration by 10 percent.  This would, it appears, result in a g force of about 149. Still over 16 times the acceleration reported possible with military jets.   

No your math is incorrect. An object falls 16 feet in the first second, not 32. It appears that you are confusing acceleration with velocity. Covering a distance in a period of time is velocity. Acceleration is the change in velocity. Forces are due to acceleration. Remember F=ma

The problem is that there is an assumption that the pilot's estimates are correct. Is there corroboration from the instruments, the other person on board the plane, and the other plane? There are ways to double check what the pilot asserts is the case.