USS Nimitz UFOs Were Always There

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

If I inadvertently ruffled feathers in here using the Star, I apologize and I surely won't use that source again. It's a Brit tabloid I am not familiar with. 

Now, this Kevin Day, he has been on radio too. C2C (Coast to Coast) with George Nory. His sightings of course were not visual, they were radar. And Day came up with a statement that really threw me back a bit. I'll paraphrase: "At one point, the sky rained UFOs".  Phew! Holy Molee

If I recall correctly the UFOs went from 80,000 feet (essentially, space) to 20,000 feet in 0.78 seconds. Incredible. G forces that would kill people.

[the13bats]

46 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

If I inadvertently ruffled feathers in here using the Star, I

LOL, no, my feathers are just fine, you did get me though, good one,

i was thinking we all know any cases credibilty, interigrity is only as good as its source and here you go using a brit tabloid about as reliable as the one that posted stories like "I hit bigfoot with my truck and hauled it home for dinner" and "the ghost of Elvis does my dishes" as your source, then it dawned on me you were being ironically humorously, placing that nimitzs case right it with a source fitting for it.

Well played...

 

[Grey Area]

7 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

LOL, I'm now seeing that the Star is not trusted. I get it!  

the problem is, there is audio ion there of Day speaking and basically saying what is in text. If the Star falsified that, they could get sued.

I wish I had another source. Oh, well.  Next time I'll avoid the Star.

It’s ok, with headlines like ‘I put 19 watsits (British cheesy puffs) up my bottom’, the star can be very entertaining.

But it does tend to detract from the credibility of any serious news they attempt to report.

Anyway, my question stands, do unknown radar contacts constitute sightings?

[stereologist]

Day has been telling stories about this great change in altitude and that is what Fravor who is the sole witness to the UFO is stating quite clearly is malarkey.

 

There is no reason to trust Day. He jumped on the UFO bandwagon after leaving the Navy. He is clearly and unequivocally disputed by Fravor, the sole witness to the UFO.

 

Fravor makes it clear that Day's comments are not true.

[toast]

On 10/10/2019 at 1:32 AM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 80,000 feet (essentially, space)

80kft isnt space.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

On 10/10/2019 at 5:21 PM, ChrLzs said:

CITE.  NOW.  I'm utterly sick to death of you making these stupid, repeated (and false) claims.

Either withdraw this bulldung or back it up.

..^..

[Rlyeh]

On 10/10/2019 at 2:25 AM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Natural phenomena that defies physics?

What physics were defied?

 

On 10/10/2019 at 2:25 AM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

What is "off the top of your head" is hilarious actually LOL.  And Aliens should not be an option? Any reason why not?

According to you anything you can't comprehend is proof of aliens.

[Rlyeh]

On 10/10/2019 at 10:02 AM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

If I recall correctly the UFOs went from 80,000 feet (essentially, space) to 20,000 feet in 0.78 seconds. Incredible. G forces that would kill people.

So 24km up is space, so does that make the SR-71 a spacecraft?

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

Keep it civil please folks - enough with the derogatory personal remarks.

[ChrLzs]

On 10/10/2019 at 9:32 AM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

If I recall correctly the UFOs went from 80,000 feet (essentially, space) to 20,000 feet in 0.78 seconds. Incredible. G forces that would kill people.

EoT - CITE the 80,000 feet figure.  Bring back the correct figures and who made those claims and in what context.  Or shall I do it?

EoT - CITE the assumptions and calculations that led to the "impossible speeds / G-forces" claim.  Or shall I do it?

[ChrLzs]

On 10/15/2019 at 8:37 AM, ChrLzs said:

EoT - CITE the 80,000 feet figure.  Bring back the correct figures and who made those claims and in what context.  Or shall I do it?

EoT - CITE the assumptions and calculations that led to the "impossible speeds / G-forces" claim.  Or shall I do it?

Waiting.....

[TrumanB]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=QawDa0-UlnA&feature=emb_logo

 

Here is one more interview.

[stereologist]

32 minutes ago, TrumanB said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=QawDa0-UlnA&feature=emb_logo

 

Here is one more interview.

What is in the interview that has anything to do with this thread. Please let us know and point out what particulars in the interview you think are of interest.

[TrumanB]

Will have to listen to it fully first...

[ocpaul20]

Undersea UFOs or USOs were seen at different times by the Navy too so they were not on the new radar system until they got into the air - right? The upgrade probably did not affect the sonar system as well. I cannot imagine both systems being unreliable due to inexperienced operators at the same time.

[stereologist]

9 hours ago, ocpaul20 said:

Undersea UFOs or USOs were seen at different times by the Navy too so they were not on the new radar system until they got into the air - right? The upgrade probably did not affect the sonar system as well. I cannot imagine both systems being unreliable due to inexperienced operators at the same time.

The systems are reliable. The crew are reliable. The issue is the crew understanding the new systems and using them effectively.

Your suggestion of "unreliable" sounds like you are misunderstanding the situation. The notion of "inexperienced" is inexperience with the new system.

Sonar and radar systems are independent. Your reasoning for "The upgrade probably did not affect the sonar system as well." is based on flawed thinking.

[ocpaul20]

21 hours ago, stereologist said:

Sonar and radar systems are independent. Your reasoning for "The upgrade probably did not affect the sonar system as well." is based on flawed thinking.

As I understand it, sonar is an underwater detection system, which would be used to detect underwater targets.

As I said, I believe there were also underwater targets detected as well as above water (airborne) targets. That means the ship would be using both sonar and radar to detect both these. I was saying it is unlikely the navy would have 2 new systems at the same time, so the sonar operators would know their system and know how to use it. There would be no chance of unfamiliarity with new equipment being the problem with detection of underwater craft.

 

[stereologist]

13 minutes ago, ocpaul20 said:

As I understand it, sonar is an underwater detection system, which would be used to detect underwater targets.

As I said, I believe there were also underwater targets detected as well as above water (airborne) targets. That means the ship would be using both sonar and radar to detect both these. I was saying it is unlikely the navy would have 2 new systems at the same time, so the sonar operators would know their system and know how to use it. There would be no chance of unfamiliarity with new equipment being the problem with detection of underwater craft.

 

Your suggestion that "it is unlikely the navy would have 2 new systems at the same time" is flawed logic. The fleet was upgraded. These systems are independent.

This conclusion: "There would be no chance of unfamiliarity with new equipment being the problem with detection of underwater craft." is based on your illogical constructs.

If you used false premises then the conclusions are wrong. That is what you have done here.

Show that sonar detected anything. Show that anything detected was within range of sonar.