Pentagon officially releases UFO footage

[Tw1sted Consciousness]

2 hours ago, Dejarma said:

well so far the only contribution you've made to this thread is moaning about other people's approach to this= amateurish you call it.... So why don't you give us all a more <professional> approach.. & let us all see what you've got= I'm all ears mate

If overstretching a fact beyond evidence was a contribution, then you're the greatest artist to what only you consider art. Drop the belligerence, ever learn to hold a debate with dignity while keeping a light heart? Seeker of truth, at least try and be factually smart? Or you think twisting my replies to find yourself a righteous position to take a jab at me was actually smart? You just dropped lower than what I knew about you right from the start. 

Repeating myself again man, this time I'll put it in your lingo, personal xd. You in your little roleplay imaginary game of debunking sherlock for whatever pleasure you get out of it, is an utter waste of time and energy, the way you take it with so much negativity. 

Your "contributions" are only as valuable, if not less, than any of the other "contributions" made by others.

The contribution I'm making is pointing to the painful absence of sanity, logic and even a real objective in an egotistical rant. And guess who's making my contribution more and more relevant as we continue? 

*drops mic*

[Festina]

On 4/28/2020 at 1:32 PM, jpeniel333 said:

Kinda makes you wonder if the Government is telling the truth after all.  I mean, to say that there are no such thing as UFOs is to say "We know exactly what they are".

Never Trust One’s Government.  EVER. 

Liars, murderers and thieves. 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Festina

[I'mConvinced]

On 5/1/2020 at 3:21 AM, Dejarma said:

so you haven't watched the video in question?

Comprehension. I don't know what the object in the video is, of course I watched it. 

[I'mConvinced]

23 hours ago, stereologist said:

Thanks for your expert testimony.

Apparently you are not well acquainted with the FLIR system which can do quite a bit of image processing. I've read more than one expert's discussion of the contents of the video.

What have you read or are you a FLIR expert?

Am I not entitled to an opinion? Are you an expert? 

[I'mConvinced]

On 5/1/2020 at 5:07 AM, ChrLzs said:

Did you actually watch it?  It was a summary, and it cited a website where you can see specific debunkings of each video, debated in great detail.  Seriously, pick another hobby, because if that lame post was your 'research', you are in the wrong game. 

I particularly liked the completely worthless handwave about it not being afterburners...  A person with a clue would explain in detail why they made that claim.

 

I trust, dear reader, that you are noting that NOT ONE person has elected to nominate a particular segment of any of the videos for actual discussion, and to reveal just how much they know.  I suspect that is because they are not at all confident in their knowledge.  Rightly.

Or they haven't bothered to even watch the videos, just like I'mconvinced ...

 

Yes of course I watched the videos. Its still an awful debunk and any amount of your passive aggressive posting won't change that it was both lazy of you to post it and hypocritical as you call others out for doing the same. 

I least I bothered to watch yours. 

[TrumanB]

 

UFO Jesus hits back!

[Dejarma]

8 hours ago, Tw1sted Consciousness said:

If overstretching a fact beyond evidence was a contribution, then you're the greatest artist to what only you consider art. Drop the belligerence, ever learn to hold a debate with dignity while keeping a light heart? Seeker of truth, at least try and be factually smart? Or you think twisting my replies to find yourself a righteous position to take a jab at me was actually smart? You just dropped lower than what I knew about you right from the start. 

Repeating myself again man, this time I'll put it in your lingo, personal xd. You in your little roleplay imaginary game of debunking sherlock for whatever pleasure you get out of it, is an utter waste of time and energy, the way you take it with so much negativity. 

Your "contributions" are only as valuable, if not less, than any of the other "contributions" made by others.

The contribution I'm making is pointing to the painful absence of sanity, logic and even a real objective in an egotistical rant. And guess who's making my contribution more and more relevant as we continue? 

*drops mic*

well I suppose technically you have contributed because you've typed something

[TrumanB]

4 hours ago, Scudbuster said:

Both senators interviewed admitted they were in classified briefings relative to some aspect of this phenomena, and their answers observed these boundaries.

Not sure that I understand your point of view...

[TrumanB]

1 hour ago, Scudbuster said:

They observed those boundaries -  and, to the reporters/interested onlookers etc, did not reveal anything they had been exposed to.....

Do you mean to say that there is more that guys like Mick West don't know?

[ChrLzs]

9 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

Yes of course I watched the videos. Its still an awful debunk and any amount of your passive aggressive posting won't change that it was both lazy of you to post it and hypocritical as you call others out for doing the same. 

I least I bothered to watch yours. 

And I watched the original videos too, and was involved in analyses here (you can check that by looking at the threads - does anyone need links?) and also looking at the metabunk stuff in great detail.  There were a few wrong guesses at metabunk (and here) initially, but they were all corrected over time, and the coverage is excellent and complete.  Note that both here and at metabunk, there are folks who are/were familiar with and had actually used these systems, so they corrected all the errors being made by the scamming morons at the laughable "To The Stars" rip-off organisation.  They didn't understand or misinterpreted screen display info and had no idea how to do the basic photogrammetry required to analyse stuff like relative velocities.  (I'll guarantee that despite his protestations otherwise, when I'mConvinced sees "relative velocities" he won't know why that was significant (until he now furiously googles it).

{sarcasm} So, you've just seen how I'mConvinced is just full of specifics, and we can see all the work he's put into his analysis and how he rebuffed the points made, and how he referred to specific videos/timings to argue his case. {/sarcasm}

No, wait, YET AGAIN, he did NONE of that, just handwaved.  Yeah, that's the ticket to tinfoil....

For those who are genuinely interested, can you do what I'mConvinced will not, and be specific in what you would like explained.  It's already been covered in threads here and at metabunk, but if you have a particular issue, feel free.

[TrumanB]

1 hour ago, Scudbuster said:

Oh yea, of course. He's not in any of these congressional briefings.

A couple of years ago I exchanged emails with him regarding so-called chemtrails that I saw over my head and he responded me promptly. Made a positive impression on me.

Edited May 3, 2020 by TrumanB

[ChrLzs]

I've also had discussions with Mick, and seen most of his postings, and yes, he's a good egg..   But strongly disliked by those who wish to push conspiracies or desperately want evidence for alienz visiting earth (whether that evidence be real or fabricated)..

Mick uses his extensive aeronautics expertise and applies careful and comprehensive analysis techniques.  He listens, admits mistakes when he occasionally makes them, and is very patient even when crazy ideas are presented.  He will painstakingly explain the details and calculations and logic, even when quite complex.  His videos showing the gymballing and 'rotation' issues are particularly good...

Again, I'd invite anyone who doesn't get something in these videos, to pony up and just ask.  For lurkers and those on the fence who can't be bothered, ask yourself why those who whine the loudest, like I'mConvinced, will NEVER be specific.

I'll tell you - it's quite simple, they have nowhere near the knowledge required to understand how these systems work, and what you have to take into account, and that lack of knowledge will be revealed if they start an in depth conversation. 

Edited May 3, 2020 by ChrLzs

[Dejarma]

if the objects really are highly classified black ops, one would think the likes of the navy/ pentagon etc would know of them.
If they are sooo top secret that no one is told then how the hell were they filmed in the first place?

I'd have to assume that those in charge of these black ops tests would at least have the sense to find out navy activity in the area before testing.. I would, & I'm just an idiot

[I'mConvinced]

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

And I watched the original videos too, and was involved in analyses here (you can check that by looking at the threads - does anyone need links?) and also looking at the metabunk stuff in great detail.  There were a few wrong guesses at metabunk (and here) initially, but they were all corrected over time, and the coverage is excellent and complete.  Note that both here and at metabunk, there are folks who are/were familiar with and had actually used these systems, so they corrected all the errors being made by the scamming morons at the laughable "To The Stars" rip-off organisation.  They didn't understand or misinterpreted screen display info and had no idea how to do the basic photogrammetry required to analyse stuff like relative velocities.  (I'll guarantee that despite his protestations otherwise, when I'mConvinced sees "relative velocities" he won't know why that was significant (until he now furiously googles it).

{sarcasm} So, you've just seen how I'mConvinced is just full of specifics, and we can see all the work he's put into his analysis and how he rebuffed the points made, and how he referred to specific videos/timings to argue his case. {/sarcasm}

No, wait, YET AGAIN, he did NONE of that, just handwaved.  Yeah, that's the ticket to tinfoil....

For those who are genuinely interested, can you do what I'mConvinced will not, and be specific in what you would like explained.  It's already been covered in threads here and at metabunk, but if you have a particular issue, feel free.

OK I'll bite. 

If what is displayed in the Gimbal video are afterburners from a jet, which Mick himself says is only a possibility not an actuality, then how did the pilots fail to identify this at the time? 

How did they fail to identify this while reviewing the footage? 

In which direction is the plane flying relative to the gimbal camera and what speed is it travelling? 

I fully understand the post processing that is involved in the rotation of the object with regards to the horizon so that can be safely ignored. 

Why does the audio not match the description of a plane, something those pilots must have been used to seeing on FLIR footage? 

Saying it was a ESA radar system bug showing that there were more than one object is just a lazy way of saying radars can give false readings. In which case I suppose you are a fan of the temperature inversion theory when multiple UFOs were seen over Washington in the 50's?

The video that could be a distant plane could indeed be a distant plane. However, why does it not have the tail or wing shapes that are clearly seen in the comparison from another video? 

Perhaps you should ask for these forums to be changed to Explained Mysteries, as you apparently have the answer to every strange occurrence that has ever been. 

[I'mConvinced]

5 hours ago, Dejarma said:

if the objects really are highly classified black ops, one would think the likes of the navy/ pentagon etc would know of them.
If they are sooo top secret that no one is told then how the hell were they filmed in the first place?

I'd have to assume that those in charge of these black ops tests would at least have the sense to find out navy activity in the area before testing.. I would, & I'm just an idiot

Maybe because mistakes are made all the time? 

[ChrLzs]

2 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

OK I'll bite. 

If what is displayed in the Gimbal video are afterburners from a jet, which Mick himself says is only a possibility not an actuality, then how did the pilots fail to identify this at the time?

Before I answer that, let me elaborate a bit on why I think you are not debating in good faith.  This very first issue you raise is a perfect example of your ludicrous approach - this sort of sort of scattergun thinking is very unprofessional and shallow...

And here's why, in detail - your question is loaded and has no clear point - you need to clarify and tell us exactly what you are disputing and on what basis.

So are you saying that the imagery cannot possibly be afterburners?  If that's your claim, tell us why - what characteristics are you referring to, and how do those characteristics eliminate afterburners (what aircraft and what afterburner settings..?)?  Have you looked at a range of other images taken on similar equipment with the same sort of settings, that verifiably do show afterburners?  Hint, have you seen the Raytheon training videos? (I hope they are still up)..
And do you mean that they look more like normal jet exhaust (in which case, you have no point whatsoever?)  If not that, what DO they look like to you and why?

Then you ask what appears to be a silly and irrelevant question namely "how did the pilots fail to identify this".

WHAT???  First you are saying that Mick was unsure of his suggestion, then you change that and assume he was correct, then you ask why the pilots didn't mention it?  That's ridiculous and illogical.

So your question is based on supposition - and then you ask for an opinion why something wasn't said?  Well, geepers, maybe, LIKE Mick they weren't entirely sure.  How the f would we know what they were thinking and how experienced they were with the equipment and the appearance of an afterburner versus normal exhaust, and what significance that might have.

Certainly it's obvious you haven't a clue what significance there was, as you didn't explain that.

So THAT sort of bullmanure issue (which you chose as your first point....) is why we dismiss you as a pretender with no expertise and no point to make other than nitpicking about trivia.

May I remind readers that issue was I'mConvinced's first chosen point...  does it in any way show anything non-terrestrial or maneuvers that were unexplainable? 

No, of course not, he just wants to nitpick something that has no point.

 

If you do have a point, I'mConvinced, then dam well explain yourself and stop wasting my, and the forum's, time.  If you object to all my questions, then WTH didn't you make your very first point clear and to the point, rather than waffling uselessly about what the pilots were thinking. or even worse, whether some distant plane had afterburners fired up or not..  Seriously?

I won't address the rest of your lame Gish Gallop - if you can't properly explain the significance of your most important issue, then I ain't wasting any time explaining complex stuff to someone completely out of their depth.

ANSWER ALL THE ISSUES I RAISED ABOVE, and then I'll spend more time on addressing your point.  If you can actually make one, for a change......

 

BTW, I did glance at one of the following questions, and saw this corker:

 

2 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

In which direction is the plane flying relative to the gimbal camera and what speed is it travelling?

I won't elaborate just yet, but I think some other folks will see why I laughed out loud when I read that 'request' and the way it was 'specified'.  What an excellent and well thought out question, I'mConvinced...  You clearly understand photogrammetry, geometry, vectors and how to definitively specify the important relative relationships...     

 

[I'mConvinced]

13 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Before I answer that, let me elaborate a bit on why I think you are not debating in good faith.  This very first issue you raise is a perfect example of your ludicrous approach - this sort of sort of scattergun thinking is very unprofessional and shallow...

And here's why, in detail - your question is loaded and has no clear point - you need to clarify and tell us exactly what you are disputing and on what basis.

So are you saying that the imagery cannot possibly be afterburners?  If that's your claim, tell us why - what characteristics are you referring to, and how do those characteristics eliminate afterburners (what aircraft and what afterburner settings..?)?  Have you looked at a range of other images taken on similar equipment with the same sort of settings, that verifiably do show afterburners?  Hint, have you seen the Raytheon training videos? (I hope they are still up)..
And do you mean that they look more like normal jet exhaust (in which case, you have no point whatsoever?)  If not that, what DO they look like to you and why?

Then you ask what appears to be a silly and irrelevant question namely "how did the pilots fail to identify this".

WHAT???  First you are saying that Mick was unsure of his suggestion, then you change that and assume he was correct, then you ask why the pilots didn't mention it?  That's ridiculous and illogical.

So your question is based on supposition - and then you ask for an opinion why something wasn't said?  Well, geepers, maybe, LIKE Mick they weren't entirely sure.  How the f would we know what they were thinking and how experienced they were with the equipment and the appearance of an afterburner versus normal exhaust, and what significance that might have.

Certainly it's obvious you haven't a clue what significance there was, as you didn't explain that.

So THAT sort of bullmanure issue (which you chose as your first point....) is why we dismiss you as a pretender with no expertise and no point to make other than nitpicking about trivia.

May I remind readers that issue was I'mConvinced's first chosen point...  does it in any way show anything non-terrestrial or maneuvers that were unexplainable? 

No, of course not, he just wants to nitpick something that has no point.

 

If you do have a point, I'mConvinced, then dam well explain yourself and stop wasting my, and the forum's, time.  If you object to all my questions, then WTH didn't you make your very first point clear and to the point, rather than waffling uselessly about what the pilots were thinking. or even worse, whether some distant plane had afterburners fired up or not..  Seriously?

I won't address the rest of your lame Gish Gallop - if you can't properly explain the significance of your most important issue, then I ain't wasting any time explaining complex stuff to someone completely out of their depth.

ANSWER ALL THE ISSUES I RAISED ABOVE, and then I'll spend more time on addressing your point.  If you can actually make one, for a change......

 

BTW, I did glance at one of the following questions, and saw this corker:

 

I won't elaborate just yet, but I think some other folks will see why I laughed out loud when I read that 'request' and the way it was 'specified'.  What an excellent and well thought out question, I'mConvinced...  You clearly understand photogrammetry, geometry, vectors and how to definitively specify the important relative relationships...     

 

What are you drivelling on about? So you ask for specific questions, get given them and then don't bother to answer? How is that my problem exactly? 

I get why you are laughing at the gimbal camera question and yet post processing and rotation mean the question cannot be answered, as far as I can tell. That's my point, you claim to know these are afterburners but that is just as much of a supposition as any other claim. 

No I don't know how to do all of those things but then I guess you wouldn't understand routing protocols or how to correctly configure them on a cisco router would you? The point being we all rely on expert analysis but I did not see anything in Mick's debunk that proved these to be afterburners. 

So you want my position on what exactly? These videos? Alien life? Secret military projects? My favourite food? BE SPECIFIC. 

Seriously it's like debating with the world's most jaded, sycophantic and angry old man. I'm sure you think yourself the smartest person on the planet, sneering and laughing at things others may or may not know in some sad effort to make yourself feel superior. Grow up. 

[Hankenhunter]

What I find amazing and funny at the same time is that everyone is assuming, or believes the vids released were the only ones. I'd bet dollars to donuts that they have much better ones that aren't going to be released. Plus, how much of that footage was edited out? If Vietnam was any example, a lot. Here's another ponderable. What kind of reaction would a full alien disclosure have on organized religion? I submit that would be the primary reason to not have full disclosure. 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Hankenhunter

[ChrLzs]

'I'mConvinced', I posed a series of questions about your claim of (not?) afterburners, as I did not and still do not understand your rationale - what is the point of the question about the pilots not commenting either way?  How the hell are we supposed to know what they were thinking and why is it important?

That was your FIRST choice of issue, thus you obviously think it is of prime importance, yet you cannot give a rationale, you didn't answer any of my questions...  Would me giving another opinion that they were (or were not) afterburners be relevant to anything?  If so, HOW?

These aren't difficult or offtopic or unjustified questions - if you honestly don't know the answers, why don't you just say so instead of flinging more handwaves and insults?

You still haven't explained what you are driving at.  Does anyone else understand what he's trying to push here?

Take a hint, I'm Convinced, by seeing if anyone else takes up (or even understands your afterburner issue.  And if this thread now dies away - and that's my guess - then ask yourself why.... and check your mirror.

Edited May 4, 2020 by ChrLzs

[Dejarma]

4 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

What I find amazing and funny at the same time is that everyone is assuming, or believes the vids released were the only ones.

what I find amazing and funny is why you're assuming this!?

4 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

Plus, how much of that footage was edited out?

Tons of it has been edited out I've no doubt...  & 'we' 'everyone' don't need you to point out the bleeding obvious, Sherlock!

It's more than likely the stuff we're not seeing is where they finally work out what it really is= something normal..

Someone (who's anonymous of course, probably a ufo nut) managed to get hold of test footage, edited out the normal boring stuff & voila- an amazing ufo vid is born.

 David Fravor tells everyone he's shy/ doesn't like the limelight etc... 
sitting on the back of a limousine driving past adoring fans doing the good ol' Volcan <live long & prosper sign> is not the action of someone who wants no attention!

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out David Fravor is in cohorts with this anonymous individual, or indeed he IS the anonymous individual? The whole thing is probably a loada contrived BS IMHO. Nothings impossible, is it

[quillius]

6 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

what I find amazing and funny is why you're assuming this!?

Tons of it has been edited out I've no doubt...  & 'we' 'everyone' don't need you to point out the bleeding obvious, Sherlock!

It's more than likely the stuff we're not seeing is where they finally work out what it really is= something normal..

Someone (who's anonymous of course, probably a ufo nut) managed to get hold of test footage, edited out the normal boring stuff & voila- an amazing ufo vid is born.

 David Fravor tells everyone he's shy/ doesn't like the limelight etc... 
sitting on the back of a limousine driving past adoring fans doing the good ol' Volcan <live long & prosper sign> is not the action of someone who wants no attention!

It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out David Fravor is in cohorts with this anonymous individual, or indeed he IS the anonymous individual? The whole thing is probably a loada contrived BS IMHO. Nothings impossible, is it

apologies if going over old ground (I have tried to keep up ..honest) anyhow I thought this footage was released by the pentagon? or is it some random person?

 

 

[Dejarma]

1 minute ago, quillius said:

or is it some random person?

yep, it's <leaked>... eventually put out by a private company, apparently? who really knows

all i'm sure of is:

if this is really footage we the public shouldn't be seeing because it's sooo top secret, eyes only then we wouldn't be seeing it!

leaked!? what BS!!

Sorry, i should add= IN_MY_OPINION

[spartan max2]

11 minutes ago, quillius said:

apologies if going over old ground (I have tried to keep up ..honest) anyhow I thought this footage was released by the pentagon? or is it some random person?

 

 

It was leaked by some unknown person (or group or whatever). Then after a while the Pentagon officially released the videos and confirmed they are real. To clear up speculation.

Edited May 4, 2020 by spartan max2

[quillius]

5 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

yep, it's <leaked>... eventually put out by a private company, apparently? who really knows

all i'm sure of is:

if this is really footage we the public shouldn't be seeing because it's sooo top secret, eyes only then we wouldn't be seeing it!

leaked!? what BS!!

Sorry, i should add= IN_MY_OPINION

ah ok, so you are saying it isn't the pentagon releasing this....guess i misunderstood somewhere along the way

[quillius]

1 minute ago, spartan max2 said:

It was leaked by some unknown person. Then after a while the Pentagon officially released the videos and confirmed they are real. To clear up speculation.

ah ok thanks. well that puts a different spin on it as far as the speculation about it being edited...or the part about it becoming a 'known' being edited out to keep the mystery up.....