Navy pilots report unexplained flying objects

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

26 minutes ago, Minimalists said:

OK, we have established I think that the pilots saw something...Irregardless of what the TTSA has put forth.....Stereologist brought up something I did not know, that TTSA was a for profit organization. 

Ya, like Shermer and West BLOG for the good of humanity LOL  

Go look at the end of the video. Good lord, there has to be 50-60 names in the credits. Does anyone think they all volunteered or should volunteer?
All the reenactments the Navy did... this was a real production! And who picked up the tab..? the United States government.

People lose site of the fact that this was all produced at the bequest of the US government.  Why are they doing this?  Why are they urging americans (et al) to embrace Ufology?

Maybe posters in here that subscribe to sceptics.com or other such blog should ask their favorite sceptic blogger why the US government is producing this information. It might be interesting to see what they whip up.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

I would like this made perfectly clear as to what was said on the video *and* exactly where to find it:

Time 15:35  USS Princeton Radar Officer Kevin Day: " The object that he was intercepting dropped from 28000 feet down to 50 feet above the water in .78 seconds"

Case Closed.

 

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I would like this made perfectly clear as to what was said on the video *and* exactly where to find it:

Time 15:35  USS Princeton Radar Officer Kevin Day: " The object that he was intercepting dropped from 28000 feet down to 50 feet above the water in .78 seconds"

Case Closed.

 

People can say anything they want on a video made by a for profit TTSA. It only serves to illustrate that this is meant to fool the foolish and ignorant and it works so well.

He was mistaken in interpreting his radar as he was learning to use it. That was the purpose of the exercise, not to make such mistakes.

 

[stereologist]

https://badufos.blogspot.com/search?q=fravor

Quote

Fravor spoke at the recent UFO Fest in McMinnville, Oregon (held annually to honor the famous Trent UFO Photos, taken just outside that town). Reporter George Knapp and documentary filmmaker Jeremy Corbell were also on the panel. Fravor  sharply criticized the accounts of certain other people who were involved and have been speaking about the incident. He seemed to be singling out the account of the radar operator, Kevin Day, as being non-factual. He dismissed claims of Air Force personnel coming on board the Nimitz and confiscating evidence as being untrue. Fravor also  referred to Dave Beaty's "Nimitz UFO Encounters" documentary as a "cartoon."  This prompted Knapp to say to Fravor, "I guess you're being diplomatic, but some of the stories and claims that have been made by people, who may have been on those ships, are just bull****."

 

[Timothy]

6 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I would like this made perfectly clear as to what was said on the video *and* exactly where to find it:

Time 15:35  USS Princeton Radar Officer Kevin Day: " The object that he was intercepting dropped from 28000 feet down to 50 feet above the water in .78 seconds"

Case Closed.

 

You hang on to your BS and never admit when you’re wrong. When you’re unequivocally proven wrong (lights which were lens flare which you staunchly stood behind etc.).

Primary/secondary radar pings aren’t able to show .78 seconds FL280 to 50 feet. They just don’t work that way. 

You can’t extrapolate your suggestions from the data of those systems. 

Can you explain how primary/secondary radar works? And how it could make sense in relation to your ongoing BS claims?

[stereologist]

What is  interesting to me is not the claim that two blips are the same object, but that the timing between the blips is given as 0.78 seconds. That is two digits of precision. Such accuracy must be based on a playback system and not based on first hand experience. Many military systems make a complete record of events. We see such a system in the so-called black box of commercial planes. This enables a complete analysis of the events in a retrospective setting. In commercial software this would be an audit trail being examined for discrepancies.

Kevin Day must have used the post mission analysis features of the system to obtain this timing. The disclosure of this timing suggests that this is not a classified piece of information.

[Minimalists]

2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I would like this made perfectly clear as to what was said on the video *and* exactly where to find it:

Time 15:35  USS Princeton Radar Officer Kevin Day: " The object that he was intercepting dropped from 28000 feet down to 50 feet above the water in .78 seconds"

Case Closed.

 

What calculation did he use to determine this? Or does the computer calculate it? Wasn't this one of Elizondo's "five observables" as he calls it?

[Minimalists]

2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Ya, like Shermer and West BLOG for the good of humanity LOL  

Go look at the end of the video. Good lord, there has to be 50-60 names in the credits. Does anyone think they all volunteered or should volunteer?
All the reenactments the Navy did... this was a real production! And who picked up the tab..? the United States government.

People lose site of the fact that this was all produced at the bequest of the US government.  Why are they doing this?  Why are they urging americans (et al) to embrace Ufology?

Maybe posters in here that subscribe to sceptics.com or other such blog should ask their favorite sceptic blogger why the US government is producing this information. It might be interesting to see what they whip up.

Quote

People lose site of the fact that this was all produced at the bequest of the US government. 

Where does it say that? I did not know TTSA was some sort of external government entity.

Quote

All the reenactments the Navy did... this was a real production! And who picked up the tab..? the United States government.

Find this hard to believe..You got anything to support this?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

People can say anything they want on a video made by a for profit TTSA. It only serves to illustrate that this is meant to fool the foolish and ignorant and it works so well.

He was mistaken in interpreting his radar as he was learning to use it. That was the purpose of the exercise, not to make such mistakes.

 

I'd debate it with you but you lost your credibility already. You said I was wrong - that such a statement did not exist on the video. Now that I proved you wrong, it's "TTSA this and TTSA that" - pffftttttttt.

A lot of fake news coming from you and I'll be damned if I'll get into a debate with a bull slinger.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

50 minutes ago, Minimalists said:

What calculation did he use to determine this? Or does the computer calculate it? Wasn't this one of Elizondo's "five observables" as he calls it?

Well, I am sure if you google it or look it up in wiki, you'll get nothing pertinent on the design and operation of Aegis Spy-1 radar. that is highly classified, I am sure. Like I say, they could employ a continuous pulse system, for all I know. But I'll be damned if I'll call Kevin Day a liar simply because his version of the facts makes some people very sad.   And I'll be further damned if I take the word of some ubiquitous voice on the web that Day is wrong LOL.  And there they are lined up to say they know more about the aegis spy-1 radar than the radar officers themselves. Suuuuuuuuuuuuuurrre. But people NEED this alternate story to exist so, there ya go.

Yes, of course their report has far reaching implications and ForeverNeverUFOers get very anxious when they hear evidences like this. It makes them think "Alien". Ouch.

As far as Elizondo is concerned.... I could care less about Dancing With The Stars - or whatever they are. It amazes me how enthralled people become with Hollywood personalities but to me, they are just front men. The meat and potatoes of this video is all once-classified data released by the military for the people to see.

If people want to say the military is lying, go for it!  I'm not going to argue it.  I've called the government liars once or twice myself. But I refuse to accept that they make the statements they do because the officers are ignorant as to how to read their own data. THAT is what some desperate people in here believe.

[Minimalists]

Here's a good pdf on Aegis radar for anyone interested:

https://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/views/pdfs/V02_N4_1981/V2_N4_1981_Phillips_Radar.pdf

And before anyone says anything I will be the first to admit I got no damn idea how this stuff works.

Edited June 19, 2019 by Minimalists

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 hour ago, Minimalists said:

Where does it say that? I did not know TTSA was some sort of external government entity.

Ya know... just listen to that video.  There comes a point when the Hawkeye (AWACS) returns to the ship and they guys are shaken from what they saw. Immediately, they were ordered to sign non-disclosure forms and told "what you saw to day never happened".   You are military, so you should know was well as anyone what it takes to declassify that information. And they did, but that's only half the battle. Now, they have to PROMOTE It.  And they did with putting Fravor on BBC and FOX, complete with technical aids to help the studios, and then of course, TV shows and videos. And the reenactments that this video was made with. That's all pretty expensive! Go look at the list of names in the credits just of this video. There must be 50-60 names!!  How much you think that cost?

 

1 hour ago, Minimalists said:

Find this hard to believe..You got anything to support this?

It's just common sense. This is not just information that "leaked" into the hands of TTSA. Look at the cooperation from the Navy with those reenactments on the Nimitz just to make this video. It's being *promoted*. 

And nobody in here wants to discuss WHY. 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

19 minutes ago, Minimalists said:

Here's a good pdf on Aegis radar for anyone interested:

https://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/views/pdfs/V02_N4_1981/V2_N4_1981_Phillips_Radar.pdf

Oh oh.....  here's an interesting tidbit  

The radiation from the radar can be controlled selectively to point in different directions - many times each second and thus the radar can replace many individual track radars.

"MANY TIMES EACH SECOND".... 

[the13bats]

seems in there somewhere was the suggestion the USA government is gearing citizens up for a disclosure, cant be about UFOs most people agree there are unidentified things in the sky,  so i will assume they are trying to suggest the USA government is going to disclose indusputible proof UFOs are identifed and are alien craft,

sounds great as a plot for a low budget straight to redbox cheesy sci fi flick but its full of holes and epic flaws,

if USA government had proof of aliens then so would other countries and many private hobbyists, there would be no "gearing up" getting people ready for the news the proof would have been spilled monments after it was acquired, too many people are aching fir the proof to spill, they are tired they have zero.

i guess some need the whole conspiracy theory thing, they want so badly to feel, to be special, and to say they know something someone else doesnt know fits the bill, but no, if aliens were really here we would already have the proof.

 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Here's the third of the series by TTSA:  USS Roosevelt declassified video

Not much to go on so instead of opening a new thread I might as well put it in here.

 

[ChrLzs]

Earl, when you finish with your Poisoning the Well attempts, will you address the facts at any time?

It was your claim that incredible G-forces were involved.  The only thing I could see to back that up were:

1. Claims by a radar operator (term used loosely) about blips that reappeared between radar sweeps.

We don't see the screens.  We don't see the data readouts.  We don't see the maths.  We don't see, nor does the operator explain, how he verified that the blips were in fact from the same object.  Proper analysis of radar returns involves addressing all those points.

2. A very silly and obviously wrong claim by ELIZONDO (which is why his name came up...) about high levels of acceleration of an object, based on a clearly incorrect analysis by Bruce Maccabee.  Both Maccabee and Elizondo don't notice that, as you can see clearly in the video I posted and also in the videos YOU posted, changes from 1x to 2x at the exact moment of the 'acceleration'. That acceleration is not real, it is solely and provably a result of the change in camera zoom.  This is REALLY basic stuff.

Thing is, Earl, you can attack the credibility of debunkers all you like, but if the errors in your claims are this blatantly obvious, and if the analysis is presented and shown to be 100% correct, and you simply refuse to acknowledge you/they got it wrong - then you simply show that you are either out of your depth, or are deliberately misrepresenting the information, or both.

Given you have repeatedly posted an image supposedly about the Washington 1952 incident, that was in fact taken much later and shows easily explainable internal lens reflections, and refused to withdraw your claim or acknowledge that 'error', I think it's rather obvious that this behavior is not because you don't understand...

Edited June 19, 2019 by ChrLzs

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Earl, when you finish with your Poisoning the Well attempts, will you address the facts at any time?

It was your claim that incredible G-forces were involved.  The only thing I could see to back that up were:

1. Claims by a radar operator (term used loosely) about blips that reappeared between radar sweeps.

Here we go again. How do you know there was a sweep involved with the radar? I proposed it was possible to have a continuous pulse system. We don't know but Minimalist posted up on the Aegis Spy-1 radar (4 posts up) and I culled this bit out of it: "The radiation from the radar can be controlled selectively to point in different directions - many times each second and thus the radar can replace many individual track radars."

Notice it says the radiation occurred many times each second. So maybe my guess was Ok but I'll tell you what, the true operation of the Aegis spy-1 radar network is classified information so neither of us can claim to know how it operates for sure and until you do know, I'd quit chirping off about it while I was ahead.

Figures? How about going from 0 to 24,000 mph in 0.39 seconds. Do the math.

Quote

We don't see the screens.  We don't see the data readouts.  We don't see the maths.  We don't see, nor does the operator explain, how he verified that the blips were in fact from the same object.  Proper analysis of radar returns involves addressing all those points.

2. A very silly and obviously wrong claim by ELIZONDO (which is why his name came up...) about high levels of acceleration of an object, based on a clearly incorrect analysis by Bruce Maccabee.  Both Maccabee and Elizondo don't notice that, as you can see clearly in the video I posted and also in the videos YOU posted, changes from 1x to 2x at the exact moment of the 'acceleration'. That acceleration is not real, it is solely and provably a result of the change in camera zoom.  This is REALLY basic stuff.

I know nothing about Elizondo and I don't want to.   But I see you think you "debunked" the whole damn thing again LOL!   You don't believe Fravor had a bogie in his FLIR footage, you don't believe the Princeton saw "well over 100 groups of UFOs", you don't believe a Nimitz jet pilot engaged a tic tac,  You don't believe anything! So..? No skin off my nose. go b'yotch to the USN. I'm sure Naval intel would love to see your cogent analysis that would help the Navy get out of their ignorant funk! You go, boy!

Quote

Thing is, Earl, you can attack the credibility of debunkers all you like, but if the errors in your claims are this blatantly obvious, and if the analysis is presented and shown to be 100% correct, and you simply refuse to acknowledge you/they got it wrong - then you simply show that you are either out of your depth, or are deliberately misrepresenting the information, or both.

Given you have repeatedly posted an image supposedly about the Washington 1952 incident, that was in fact taken much later and shows easily explainable internal lens reflections, and refused to withdraw your claim or acknowledge that 'error', I think it's rather obvious that this behavior is not because you don't understand...

*snip*

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Daughter of the Nine Moons

[the13bats]

perhaps this helps some...

 

so im curious didnt Bruce Maccabee loose most all his credibility saying well known hoaxes like carp ca, gulf breeze fl, McMinnville Or, and many others where likely alien craft, not long back ihe read something like he said his wife photographed a cloaked predator alien while she was hog hunting,

 

[stereologist]

16 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Oh oh.....  here's an interesting tidbit  

The radiation from the radar can be controlled selectively to point in different directions - many times each second and thus the radar can replace many individual track radars.

"MANY TIMES EACH SECOND".... 

Notice it says selectively, not automatically. There is zero evidence that anyone did that. Please provide any evidence at all that this was done that day or at any time during this exercise.

[stereologist]

10 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Here we go again. How do you know there was a sweep involved with the radar? I proposed it was possible to have a continuous pulse system. We don't know but Minimalist posted up on the Aegis Spy-1 radar (4 posts up) and I culled this bit out of it: "The radiation from the radar can be controlled selectively to point in different directions - many times each second and thus the radar can replace many individual track radars."

Notice it says the radiation occurred many times each second. So maybe my guess was Ok but I'll tell you what, the true operation of the Aegis spy-1 radar network is classified information so neither of us can claim to know how it operates for sure and until you do know, I'd quit chirping off about it while I was ahead.

Figures? How about going from 0 to 24,000 mph in 0.39 seconds. Do the math.

I know nothing about Elizondo and I don't want to.   But I see you think you "debunked" the whole damn thing again LOL!   You don't believe Fravor had a bogie in his FLIR footage, you don't believe the Princeton saw "well over 100 groups of UFOs", you don't believe a Nimitz jet pilot engaged a tic tac,  You don't believe anything! So..? No skin off my nose. go b'yotch to the USN. I'm sure Naval intel would love to see your cogent analysis that would help the Navy get out of their ignorant funk! You go, boy!

*snip*

 

The grand assumption is that two separate blips are the same object.

Another big assumption is that the radar was tracking which in the movies is called "locked on".

This 0 to 24K claim is based on huge assumptions and more than likely what Fravor suggests are gross mistakes on the part of the radar operator.

Here you suggest "Fravor had a bogie in his FLIR footage" yet don't believe him when he says the radar operator is dead wrong.

Fallacy: "You don't believe anything!"

No. ll of us believe in evidence and that is horribly lacking here.

Fallacy: "No skin off my nose. go b'yotch to the USN."

None of this comes from the USN. It comes from individuals. The Navy has no part in this and is not the source of these blunders.

[stereologist]

It's funny when people think that labeling someone a debunker that it is a pejorative that matters.

It is simply the manner in which someone with no ability to consider or understand the evidence to avoid the facts  of the case.

All that the supporters of this being something special have are unsupported dubious numbers. I see the same sort of mindless cheerleader chanting from creationists and flat earthers. They make up big important sounding numbers that are based on absurd conjectures.

Let's look at the 0 to 24,000 claim. Does the radar show anything at that speed? No. Does the system have doppler capability?  Yes. Why doesn't it show this speed? Why is the speed calculated? If the radar showed such a speed then surely that would have been mentioned. This dubious value comes from a calculation based on the assumption of two independent blips being the same object. That's the sort of asinine mistake made by creationists and flat earthers and the rest of their ilk.

[stereologist]

17 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Ya know... just listen to that video.  There comes a point when the Hawkeye (AWACS) returns to the ship and they guys are shaken from what they saw. Immediately, they were ordered to sign non-disclosure forms and told "what you saw to day never happened".   You are military, so you should know was well as anyone what it takes to declassify that information. And they did, but that's only half the battle. it takes to declassify that information. And they did  And they did with putting Fravor on BBC and FOX, complete with technical aids to help the studios, and then of course, TV shows and videos. And the reenactments that this video was made with. That's all pretty expensive! Go look at the list of names in the credits just of this video. There must be 50-60 names!!  How much you think that cost?

 

It's just common sense. This is not just information that "leaked" into the hands of TTSA. Look at the cooperation from the Navy with those reenactments on the Nimitz just to make this video. It's being *promoted*. 

And nobody in here wants to discuss WHY. 

Fallacy: "and they guys are shaken from what they saw"

That is not true.

Fallacy: "Immediately, they were ordered to sign non-disclosure forms and told "what you saw to day never happened". "

That appears to be false as well since they are talking about it. An NDA would mean you never heard about it. The military does not use NDAs.

Fallacy: "it takes to declassify that information. And they did"

There is no evidence that this was declassified. That is a problem for the TTSA. They appeared to have lied about the origin of the videos.

They put Fravor on who says he didn't see anything in the air.  So he learns that what the radar shows as an object might not be an object.

So a for profit group spent some money to make a show and wants to make a profit. You understand that it took an invest to fool the gullible, and now they want the uneducated and foolish to pay for their entertainment video. Better than getting money from those with a brain. LOL

The promotion of this event is from the TTSA and has nothing at all to do with the Navy. The TTSA is in the money making industry, not the Navy.

Fallacy: "And nobody in here wants to discuss WHY. "

I've been pointing out from the start that the TTSA is in it for the money.

[Minimalists]

"Sudden and instantaneous acceleration...." One of Elizondo's five observables as he calls them...They note no vapor trail or breaking the sound barrier. If, and I say if these were actual alien craft they would not need air for lift as our current aircraft do...But all that aside how are they calculating the speed of these things just on sight and radar alone? Does the radar have the ability to calculate the speed? The F/A 18 has a top speed of 1200 mph, 1.6 mach and they are saying these things were moving at 3600 mph how do they know that?

There is a great discussion on this going on over at UFO Casebook if anyone is interested?

Edited June 20, 2019 by Minimalists
Added something.

[Timothy]

@Earl.Of.Trumps, just checking if you now have me I’m on ignore? Since you’ve never been able to answer the pertinent questions...

[lost_shaman]

On 6/17/2019 at 12:27 AM, ChrLzs said:

Mick West shows you what Elizondo didn't see,

Wait. He wasn't talking about that guy he was saying some retired Professor made a Graph but failed to catch the change in Zoom. Yet when he corrects for the change in Zoom he says it is a constant motion. Then concludes that there is  "no massive G-forces required". 

But hold on. Before this Professors Graph... Before Mick notices the Zoom change and rebuts the Professors Graph... we saw this FLIR footage many times and it was only said that this 'object' moved off at high speed. Well if that happened at a "constant rate" we have a problem with some G-Forces don't we Mick?

Mick just proves the "high Strangeness" by showing the thing already at "a constant speed" as soon as it moves well before it is even out of frame and with the FLIR appearing to track it. Nice Job actually. 

The Null Hypothesis would maybe be the FLIR system failed. So UFO footage looks more UFO-like due to FLIR system failure. Of course Pilots/Co-Pilots would be able to see Aircraft Maintenance Logs in the U.S. Navy.