Navy pilots report unexplained flying objects

[lost_shaman]

5 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I don't accept people claiming superhuman powers.

Do Sprites and Jets "show" their "superhuman powers" too in your opinion? 

Those sneaky things. 

[the13bats]

31 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

No I don't. You simply don't accept what I've said.

what have you said? you have only trolled me i gave you a chance and you trolled more so i gave up, but if you have super powers please do explain.

[lost_shaman]

1 minute ago, the13bats said:

what have you said? you have only trolled me i gave you a chance and you trolled more so i gave up, but if you have super powers please do explain.

If you think I've trolled report me. 

I've not trolled anyone. I had a close encounter in 2002, I've been here talking about it on UM since 2006. 

[the13bats]

6 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

If you think I've trolled report me. 

I've not trolled anyone. I had a close encounter in 2002, I've been here talking about it on UM since 2006. 

why report you, trolling is your problem not mine.

and for a second and finale time i will ask you to describe your alleged close encounter, anything else, derailing, smoke and mirrors etc i will view as you admitting you have nothing and i will move on.

[lost_shaman]

2 minutes ago, the13bats said:

why report you, trolling is your problem not mine.

 

Don't accuse me of something untoward like "Trolling" if you won't report it.

[Minimalists]

12 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

If you think I've trolled report me. 

I've not trolled anyone. I had a close encounter in 2002, I've been here talking about it on UM since 2006. 

Do you have a thread here on that encounter...Would like to read it if you do...Just curious is all.

[lost_shaman]

Just now, Minimalists said:

Do you have a thread here on that encounter...Would like to read it if you do...Just curious is all.

I've talked about it many times but you'd have to search. 

[the13bats]

19 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Don't accuse me of something untoward like "Trolling" if you won't report it.

thanks for completly proving yourself, done.

[lost_shaman]

1 minute ago, the13bats said:

thanks for completly proving yourself, done.

Whatever. Later.

[the13bats]

7 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Whatever. Later.

typical reply of someone with nothing.

Edited June 22, 2019 by the13bats

[lost_shaman]

1 minute ago, the13bats said:

typical reply of someone with nothing.

No. You said you were done so fine. Move along.

[the13bats]

11 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

No. You said you were done so fine. Move along.

oh so you also have some control freak type thing kicking but ill move as i feel like not as you dictate, if you dont like my posts asking for your alleged stories of close encounters and your super human powers by all means feel free to put me on ignore.

[lost_shaman]

I don't do ignores. You don't bother me. Go and drone on about how something you've never seen cannot exist. It's mildly entertaining.

[the13bats]

16 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

I don't do ignores. You don't bother me. Go and drone on about how something you've never seen cannot exist. It's mildly entertaining.

true, i noticed you cant ignore in fact you obsess over what i think and post...why you would is a great unexplained mystery.

[Sakari]

On 5/27/2019 at 7:52 AM, Piney said:

Good to see you around! 

Once every 4 months

Sent you a message.

 

[stereologist]

On 6/22/2019 at 7:39 AM, lost_shaman said:

Do Sprites and Jets "show" their "superhuman powers" too in your opinion? 

Those sneaky things. 

The only super human claims here come from you. And you make up stories that include superhuman powers.

[lost_shaman]

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

The only super human claims here come from you. And you make up stories that include superhuman powers.

Nah. Just witnessed something few people have ever seen. Not sure why that terrifies you so extremely but it occasionally entertaining.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

Nah. Just witnessed something few people have ever seen. Not sure why that terrifies you so extremely but it occasionally entertaining.

The only surprising thing is you pretending to be superhuman with a whimsical event you garnish with superhuman laughable behavior.

Please continue and make me laugh even harder harder.

[ChrLzs]

On 21/06/2019 at 2:52 PM, lost_shaman said:

Ok enough. If anyone of you guys bothered other than Earl here and read about the AEGIS combat system (nice link in post # 87 BTW) you'd at least get a verbal explanation of how the RADAR is configured and operates. I said "ENOUGH" because you guys are ALL WAY OFF BASE!!! 

This type of "multi-phased array" RADAR doesn't move. That is ENOUGH to let you all know you are completely wrong about all you've said about this system.

Just post the link to the actual data in question, then I'll be happy to ask a radar expert to take a look.

Or is this just another LS handwave?

That was a rhetorical question, of course it IS a handwave.  This is how LS operates.  For anyone not familiar with the tactic, let me explain...  The link in post 87 (LS conveniently, wisely, refrained from giving the actual link - read on for why he did that...) is just a general information link about the radar. IT CONTAINS NONE OF THE DATA/SCREENSHOTS/REPORT EXTRACTS for any of the events being referred to here.

What's more, the person who posted it said:

Quote

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

If you read my post, one of those being misrepresented here by the master of misrepresentation, Lost Shaman.. you will note it is a plea for the actual reported data or whatever else is available to back up the claims of outlandish acceleration, so we can examnine whether these blips are actually just one object and not some sort of error or anomaly.

That post also refers to an error laden (admittedly preliminary) analysis by Bruce Maccabee.  The error in not noticing the zoom level is frankly, a corker, and was very clearly shown in the Youtube video that I presented and explained.  I also offered to explain in more detail and asked anyone who wished to have further information to just ask..

It's notable that somehow, Lost Shaman didn't notice all that stuff...  Rather than acknowledge an actual error, rather than look at actual claims, rather than debate analysis he, as usual, prefers to throw ad hominems and handwave about his fantasy claims.

 

I did NOT and do NOT claim to have special knowledge of the radar... but I do know how radar works, and the tricks and traps involved in interpreting what *any* radar shows..

I also know how real investigation works, and it doesn't work on gullibility and "take my word for it" claims.  LS, however, doesn't engage in any debate whatsoever when the facts don't fit his desired outcome..

Edited June 23, 2019 by ChrLzs

[ChrLzs]

I see, LS did make a token effort, so I half apologise.  But really, what follows counts as debate?

On 21/06/2019 at 2:16 PM, lost_shaman said:

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". 

I don't understand your point - are you saying the figures DO show massive G-forces?  Quote those numbers...

And where did 'that guy' (Elizondo) get his claim about excess G-forces *from*, if not this case?  If it's from somewhere else, then POST THE CITES.  I made an effort and showed an example of where the 'massive' g-forces were NOT shown.  If you say that's wrong, show me the numbers.  If you say it came from somewhere else, point out where.

Otherwise, all you are doing is wasting the forum's time with distractions.  Unsupported distractions.  As usual.

Quote

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?

Again, NUMBERS.  Show us your calculations of the problematic g-forces.  Or stop wasting our time.

Quote

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. 

Constant speed?  So .... where did the G-forces come from, LS..?  Do you understand that an acceleration is required for G-forces in this scenario?

Quote

The Null Hypothesis would maybe be the FLIR system failed.

WHAT???  That doesn't follow in any way whatsoever. The radar shows what could be an aircraft, or a bird/balloon/drone, depending on which footage.  And that's NOT a 'NULL hypothesis', for heaven's sake.

Quote

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.

Which Elizondo/deLonge claimed they had - all provenance for the claims...  We've seen none of that, and one of the videos is being falsely aligned to a different claim altogether.

 

 

But all this is good enough for some.......

 

Edited June 23, 2019 by ChrLzs

[lost_shaman]

3 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Or stop wasting our time.

You are wasting my time. I explained what I mean when I said it.

[ChrLzs]

Well, I'm so glad I asked all those questions above.  Thanks for ignoring them, Lost - but I think I can see what the reason is...

So, is there ANYONE who can justify, in a reasonable way, Elizondo's claim about G-Forces?

If that one is now put to bed (and it is OVER if no-one can show the source data and the calculations - Lost Shaman has now conceded he can't),... we could move onto the other false claims...

Indeed, does ANYONE have ANY particularly compelling actual EVIDENCE / SOURCE DATA that relates to these complete wastes of time 'cases'?  After all, these are supposedly high tech aircraft, supposedly flown by experienced and trained pilots, supposedly fitted with sophisticated recording/ tracking devices, supposedly being operated by experienced and trained operators...

And what do we see?  Two FLIR videos that show NOTHING, I repeat ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that is out of the ordinary and explained easily by other aircraft, seabirds, drones or even passing balloons....  What's worse is that one has a later-added voiceover, and both contain clues that the operators (or perhaps just those who are pushing this bulldung) haven't a clue about how they work in terms of:

• panning and rotating effects from the camera/lens mounting gymbal
• zooming effects
• appearance of typical aircraft profiles, and the bloom/halo effects caused by IR imaging
• ...etc

All I can say is ...  God Bless America and it's Defence (chortle) Forces (cough).  And a special hello to the scammers, Elizondo and DeLonge.

[stereologist]

The video clearly shows that this is a training mission in the case of the little white blob that is likely a weather balloon. The operator of the FLIR is surprised at the finding. That does not mean that the operator is unable to identify the object, but is surprised and detection and tracking.

This is all about learning and that is what exercises are all about.

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

The video clearly shows that this is a training mission in the case of the little white blob that is likely a weather balloon. The operator of the FLIR is surprised at the finding. That does not mean that the operator is unable to identify the object, but is surprised and detection and tracking.

This is all about learning and that is what exercises are all about.

Likely...lol 

[ChrLzs]

So what, exactly, are you confused about in my post above, Cap'n?

It seems the difference between 'omigod it's alienz' folks, and those who look at the actual evidence and research it properly, is... well ... we look at the evidence and research it properly.  That's how we tell, for example, that Elizondo and Delonge are incompetent (or deliberately misleading) when they don't notice a zoom setting changed and make a false claim based on 'calculations' based on a blindingly obvious error.  Not only does the screen display SAY the zoom changed, for anyone familiar with this type of equipment, the jump in position and the quality of the picture *tells* us that it digitally zoomed.

 

Cap'n, you're just not going to get better at this stuff by posting silly claims, one liners, and confused emoticons.

So why don't you toughen up, be brave, and explain what is confusing you.  Then, folks like me will try to explain in simple terms.  We can't do that if you don't give the slightest clue about what it is you don't get.  (Hmm, could it be that you don't want to learn?)

And try to keep it on topic, OK?

Edited June 26, 2019 by ChrLzs