Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
I'mConvinced

Now that we have hard evidence of UFO's

326 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

I'mConvinced

Dear UM,

I will try and break this post into sections that are more easily digestible as it covers a huge amount of information.  These will be as follows:

1. Facts pertaining to the incident that proves we are dealing with something unknown.

2. The skeptical view and the counter argument- The debunking videos produced by Mick West and Thunderf00t and the rebuttals to their rebuttals will be posted here.  This section is key to understanding why this case remains unexplained.

3. A list of other sources, articles and interviews that corroborate any statements I might make in this thread. 

I will attempt to stick only to the facts as the case is presented.  This information is not new, I have already posted most of it in other threads, but i feel it was lost amongst the noise and hope that this post clears things up for everyone. 

 

1. The Nimitz Carrier Strike Group 

This was an incident that took place off the coast of mexico in 2004.  It involved an entire strike group which was out on a training exercise.  Pilots and Radar Operators alike, including some of the most experienced personnel available at the time, were involved in an engagement with a UFO and a USO.  The following video is an excellent summary of the case and its background, if you only know part of this story I highly recommend you watch this as a refresher:

 

1.1 The Official Announcement 

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2165713/statement-by-the-department-of-defense-on-the-release-of-historical-navy-videos/

 

"After a thorough review, the department has determined that the authorised release of these unclassified videos does not reveal any sensitive capabilities or systems, and does not impinge on any subsequent investigations of military air space incursions by unidentified aerial phenomena. "DOD [Department of Defense] is releasing the videos in order to clear up any misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage that has been circulating was real, or whether or not there is more to the videos. The aerial phenomena observed in the videos remain characterized as 'unidentified'."

1.2 The Videos

https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/documents

To clear up any confusion regarding who recorded these videos,and when, it is as follows:

FLIR.mp4 - This was recorded in 2004 by pilots sent to investigate the unexplained radar returns seen by the USS Princeton, part of the Nimitz Strike Carrier group.  The object was first confirmed visually and then recorded optically by the FLIR camera of an F-18 sent out on a second intercept mission after the return of the eyewitness's who had engaged with the object initially.  

GOFAST and GIMBAL - These were recorded in 2014 and 2015 respectively by pilots flying out from the USS Theodore Roosevelt during training exercises.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The skeptical view and the counter argument:

Since the release of these videos there have been a number of attempts to explain what is shown in them by independent scientific investigation of the available data.  This is to be applauded as it is a vital role in discovering any potential hoax or miss-identification before classifying these as truly unknown objects.  This is where Mick West, and to a lesser extent Thunderf00t, enter the stage with an attempt to explain what is being recorded in these videos.  I highly recommend watching these but I must also issue a word of caution.  Following these videos there will be a rebuttal of them by Dave Falch, a FLIR expert consulted by Mick West in order to make his video.  Please listen to both sides before you make your conclusions:

2.1 The Mick West:explanation

 

2.2 Thunderf00t:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfhAC2YiYHs

Mick West appears to make a solid argument, however upon digging a little deeper we find that all is not as it seems.  The first and most obvious of the problems with Mick West's theory on the GIMBAL video is that he consulted a FLIR expert named Dave Falch in order to get his expert opinion of his afterburner theory, but unfortunately for Mick West, Dave Falch did not agree with his findings.  Dave Falch produced video footage, recorded by himself, of an F-18 afterburner as seen through a FLIR camera in order to show Mick West that they are not a match.  Dave Falch went further by explaining in detail why this cannot be the case in this video but this was ignored by Mick West, who took that footage and misrepresented it in the debunk video as actual proof of his theory. This resulted in a breakdown of the friendship between them, after months of work, and a public rebuttal being issued by Dave Falch.  For more information regarding other flaws in both Mick West's and Thunderf00t's debunking efforts I highly recommend watching the following:

For the full interview and explanation by Dave Falch, including a large amount of FLIR footage for yourselves to make comparisons against please watch:

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. A list of other sources, articles and interviews

The following videos contain interviews with the actual personnel who were involved in these incidents.  I will start with the Nimitz Encounter.

Commander David Fravor - Head of the Black Ace 1 Squadron and one of four eyewitnesses to the initial call to investigate:

3.1 Short clip confirming the video is of the same object he encountered

Full Interview:

The video above is an interview with one of the pilots and the following is an interview with a consultant to the AATIP program:

3.2 Further reading:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/politics/ufo-sightings-navy-pilots.html

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28231/multiple-f-a-18-pilots-disclose-recent-ufos-encounters-new-radar-tech-key-in-detection

https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org/features/mystery-of-the-damn-things/

And so my question to you, Dear UM, is, what possible explanations are there? Any answer should fit all of the available data without omission.  

Please be precise if you wish to dispute the facts related in any of the above, namaste!

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
2 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

All I can say is, that every UFO, that has ever been identified, has not been of extraterrestrial origin.

Neither will any of the above cases turn out to be - I bet. So there's really nothing new on the subject.

Then what, in your opinion, are we seeing in the videos and what is it the pilots are reporting seeing? I'm happy with a terrestrial explanation but an explanation needs to be found.  If you are aware of all of the above information and have thoroughly researched the topic then I might agree there isn't much new.  Yet given all of this information it is hard to deny something very strange occurred back in 2004.

If you truly are a sci-nerd then surely you're as intrigued by anomalous incursions into US air space by unidentifiable vehicles as I am? I'm happy to bet you're probably right and they are not extraterrestrial but that means someone terrestrial has access to a gravity based propulsion system so far in advance of what we have now the world is about to change forever...

Or its a jet or something but show how and why instead of just saying 'nah can't be'.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
12 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

Then what, in your opinion, are we seeing in the videos and what is it the pilots are reporting seeing?

I hate to say it, but there's not enough hard evidence to draw any conclusion.

And when it comes to my personal opinion, I have no need to share it. I've shared it enough. Had exhausting discussions. Done with it for now.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
1 hour ago, I'mConvinced said:

I will try and break this post into sections that are more easily digestible as it covers a huge amount of information.  These will be as follows:

My bold.

Yes a huge amount of information already discussed over multiple threads. 

None of it able to stand up to skeptical scrutiny. 

Yes UFO, but no ET. 

You might be convinced, but most aren’t. 

81A72B19-8204-4C74-B98A-C85C6D1F6BA3.jpeg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
2 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

All I can say is, that every UFO, that has ever been identified, has not been of extraterrestrial origin.

What does the 'U' stand for in UFO?

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

What does the 'U' stand for in UFO?

Really? Aren't you smarter than that?
Not all UFO's remain unidentified. In fact, most of them become identified.
So, they start as UFO's, and end up not being it.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
2 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Really? Aren't you smarter than that?
Not all UFO's remain unidentified. In fact, most of them become identified.
So, they start as UFO's, and end up not being it.

My point is most UFOs just stay UFOs.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Repeating myself from another thread...

Here's what the navy is saying about what they have identified about the objects, and whether they are performing any non-terrestrial / unexplainable maneuvers.

  Quote

{nothing}

So, I'm not panicking at this stage...  Laughing, perhaps...

And again, copied from another equally worthless thread:

Let's say that the UFO phenomena started in the 20th century, say in the 1940's..?.. just as a starting point..  Would you agree that since then, 80 years back, our overall surveillance of the sky has improved by many, many magnitudes, both in quality / resolution of equipment AND in the staggering amount of coverage ?  - after all, every person and their pet duck has a camera on them...

Can you explain then, why we STILL don't have decent footage of ANY UFO that is either of obviously non-earthly design, or performs non-earthly maneuvers?

 

I can explain it... :D 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazzard
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Repeating myself from another thread...

 

Ill just do the same then... :D

 

I might say, however, that as an investigator of pseudoscientific topics for over twenty years my experience has taught me that the first things to suspect and look for are fraud, forgery, deception, misrepresentation, sophistry, and specious reasoning, and if these are not in evidence, I then look for illogical reasoning, self-deception, misreading, inadvertently fudged data, and willful misunderstanding, and if these are not in evidence, I then look for ignorance, innocent mistakes, misinterpretations, equipment errors, out-of-date references, overlooked results or causes, etc.... Unfortunately, ALL of these items MUST be examined FIRST when investigating any pseudoscientific topic, BEFORE one begins looking for presumed new or unusual natural phenomena.--Steven Schafersman.

Can anyone honestly say he examined and eliminated all the above items before he convinced himself that some of these UFOs are ET visitors?

Edited by Hazzard
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
4 hours ago, Hazzard said:

Ill just do the same then... :D

 

I might say, however, that as an investigator of pseudoscientific topics for over twenty years my experience has taught me that the first things to suspect and look for are fraud, forgery, deception, misrepresentation, sophistry, and specious reasoning, and if these are not in evidence, I then look for illogical reasoning, self-deception, misreading, inadvertently fudged data, and willful misunderstanding, and if these are not in evidence, I then look for ignorance, innocent mistakes, misinterpretations, equipment errors, out-of-date references, overlooked results or causes, etc.... Unfortunately, ALL of these items MUST be examined FIRST when investigating any pseudoscientific topic, BEFORE one begins looking for presumed new or unusual natural phenomena.--Steven Schafersman.

Can anyone honestly say he examined and eliminated all the above items before he convinced himself that some of these UFOs are ET visitors?

Can you honestly say you have done the same in your debunking efforts? Or did you just listen to Mick West, yawn, and get on with your life? 

People here are so full of opinion but so short on facts.  If you think Mick West is correct then say so and explain him having to change his mind when presented with further evidence? What 'facts' are you guys using to determine what these things are? I haven't said they are ET, I have even stated I think that is the least likely explanation.  

Facts people conveniently ignore:

1. The US Navy has confirmed that there have been frequent incursions into protected US airspace by aircraft it cannot identify.  

2. We have the 8 FOIA documents from the pilots that reported these incidents.  These confirm the above statement.

3. We have high ranking military personnel confirming that they did indeed see these unidentified aircraft.

4. The current attempts to explain these videos all contain serious flaws.

 

So you'll excuse me for believing the US military, the investigative journalists who have worked with the military, the eye witnesses, the FLIR expert and the available data over some hand waving on the UM forums.  Either pony up with hard facts that cannot be disputed that show these are terrestrial, everyday objects, that the military couldn't identify or, like most professionals out there, admit you haven't got a decent explanation and leave it at that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Repeating myself from another thread...

Here's what the navy is saying about what they have identified about the objects, and whether they are performing any non-terrestrial / unexplainable maneuvers.

  Quote

{nothing}

So, I'm not panicking at this stage...  Laughing, perhaps...

And again, copied from another equally worthless thread:

Let's say that the UFO phenomena started in the 20th century, say in the 1940's..?.. just as a starting point..  Would you agree that since then, 80 years back, our overall surveillance of the sky has improved by many, many magnitudes, both in quality / resolution of equipment AND in the staggering amount of coverage ?  - after all, every person and their pet duck has a camera on them...

Can you explain then, why we STILL don't have decent footage of ANY UFO that is either of obviously non-earthly design, or performs non-earthly maneuvers?

 

I can explain it... :D 

Yet you can't address the problems with the Mick West video you so lovingly cherish and pass on at every opportunity as proof you're right?

I thought you were all about facts? All I've seen from you is scorn and ridicule which are indicative of you possessing a lack of facts with which to argue your position.  How about addressing the information provided to you instead?

  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Would you agree that since then, 80 years back, our overall surveillance of the sky has improved by many, many magnitudes, both in quality / resolution of equipment AND in the staggering amount of coverage ? 

I'll address this point directly as its just another example of your lack of knowledge in this area. 

2 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

Can you explain then, why we STILL don't have decent footage of ANY UFO that is either of obviously non-earthly design, or performs non-earthly maneuvers?

Yes.  The fact these things have been discovered at all is being explained by the upgrades made to the radar equipment.  The following explains in more detail and if you wish to question the source then please provide supporting evidence for doing so: 

https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org/features/mystery-of-the-damn-things/

Bold my emphasis. Quote:

Could the sightings result from a persistent sensor or computing malfunction of some kind or a unique vulnerability to spoofing? Supporting this theory is the fact that, as far as we could learn, only Navy pilots have had such encounters and all involved the Super Hornet version of the F/A-18. Consider the encounters by Graves and his colleagues in VFA-11, a strike fighter squadron based out of Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia. The squadron flies F/A-18Fs, the version of the Super Hornet with a pilot and weapons systems officer. The squadron’s first sightings came in mid-2014, not long after its aircraft were upgraded with Raytheon’s APG-79 radar, a flat panel of transmitters and receivers shrouded inside the nose of the plane to electronically scan the sky.

Graves, who left the Navy in June, and his fellow flyers initially thought the detections must have been a “malfunction of some sort” with their new radars, given that the symbols were maneuvering with agility they had never seen. The APG-79 can track multiple targets dozens of kilometers ahead, but it cannot image a radar reflection or identify what is producing it. So, the pilots closed in until the targets were in range of their video pods, called the Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared or ATFLIR (pronounced A-T-FLIR) system consisting of an electro-optical camera that senses visible wavelengths and an infrared camera to sense heat. A pilot or weapons systems officer in the two-seat version of the Super Hornet can cycle between EO and IR views from the ATFLIR nestled next to the plane’s left engine intake. These are the pods referenced by the Raytheon executive.

Once the ATFLIRs locked on, “that kind of took away some of the uncertainty for us,” Graves says. “We’re getting them on radar and then picking them up on the FLIR.” What appeared on the cockpit display was not the distinct outlines of an aircraft that one would normally see; typically, says Graves, “you can almost see the rivets.” One of Graves’ colleagues, pilot Danny Accoin, said in a History Channel documentary this year that each “had no distinct wings, no distinct tail, no distinct exhaust plume.” The objects seemed to have an aura, prompting speculation by outside observers that perhaps a bright infrared emission was obscuring the shape. Graves doesn’t think this is so, based on his experience with the cameras. “Perhaps I would get a bit of loss of resolution staring at a streetlight on a road from 25K feet above,” he says, “but at relatively close ranges in A/A [air-to-air] mode, I would expect to see individual ripples of fire coming out of the back of an exhaust can,” he says, using pilot slang for an engine nozzle.

In fact, the lack of exhaust has flabbergasted Graves and his fellow pilots.

Could the lack of exhaust indicate that the phenomena are not in fact tangible objects? A lot would have to go wrong for that to be true. Radars and multiple ATFLIR cameras would have to lock onto a mirage or some other phenomena. Also, the pilots had a situational awareness or SA page on their cockpit displays that fuses offboard radar and FLIR detections with those of their own aircraft. Some of the encounters were corroborated this way, which is why, in the leaked “Gimbal” video of a Jan. 21, 2015, encounter off the East Coast, the pilot talks about a fleet of these things on the SA page. That video was publicized in 2017 by the California research organization To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science together with one of the 2004 incident that had been leaked years earlier. The nickname “Gimbal,” in some tellings, refers to how the object seems to rotate similar to how a video camera rotates on its gimbal.

Whatever they were, the sightings became commonplace. Graves recalls a VFA-11 pilot walking into the squadron ready-room and exclaiming, “I almost hit one of those damn things!”

 

Now, to answer your question on why we don't have 'decent' footage'.  This is just your opinion.  There are many examples but as you will simply scoff, dismiss them as hoaxes, CGI or give some other lazy explanation without having the actual facts to support such a position I don't see the point in showing you.  We could actually have 'decent' footage here and it has required advances in radar coupled with engagement by F-18's just to capture what we have.  Do you honestly think that any visiting alien life would just plop down in front of the White house and say hi? Have you considered the Zoo Hypothesis? 

Didn't you say to me in another thread that you believed aliens could arrive here in the far, far, far distant future? Why can't you see the obvious flaw in your logic? It's not rocket surgery.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazzard
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, I'mConvinced said:

Can you honestly say you have done the same in your debunking efforts? Or did you just listen to Mick West, yawn, and get on with your life? 

People here are so full of opinion but so short on facts.  If you think Mick West is correct then say so and explain him having to change his mind when presented with further evidence? What 'facts' are you guys using to determine what these things are? I haven't said they are ET, I have even stated I think that is the least likely explanation.  

Facts people conveniently ignore:

1. The US Navy has confirmed that there have been frequent incursions into protected US airspace by aircraft it cannot identify.  

2. We have the 8 FOIA documents from the pilots that reported these incidents.  These confirm the above statement.

3. We have high ranking military personnel confirming that they did indeed see these unidentified aircraft.

4. The current attempts to explain these videos all contain serious flaws.

 

So you'll excuse me for believing the US military, the investigative journalists who have worked with the military, the eye witnesses, the FLIR expert and the available data over some hand waving on the UM forums.  Either pony up with hard facts that cannot be disputed that show these are terrestrial, everyday objects, that the military couldn't identify or, like most professionals out there, admit you haven't got a decent explanation and leave it at that.

I will take that as a no. Not even to mention that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Im simply saying that if you haven't followed the steps in my last post you are doing this wrong. Cherrypicking is getting you nowhere.

Edited by Hazzard
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
20 hours ago, sci-nerd said:

So, they start as UFO's, and end up not being it.

more often than not they are Identified Floating Objects

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
23 hours ago, Hazzard said:

I will take that as a no. Not even to mention that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Im simply saying that if you haven't followed the steps in my last post you are doing this wrong. Cherrypicking is getting you nowhere.

I have gone through a process of examining the evidence and I have shared the information gleaned with you, if you have an issue with the facts then be very specific in pointing them out please.  There is no burden of proof on me, the US Navy confirmed that these remain unidentified and that is also my stance.  If you believe these things are as Mick West describes then the burden of proof is on you.  I have refuted his video and shown why his explanations cannot be correct.

Instead of hand waving why aren't people addressing the facts here? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
Posted (edited)

I will share with you one further piece of this puzzle and perhaps someone can explain what is going on:

https://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tech/2019/10/army-partners-ufo-researchers-study-active-camouflage-and-other-sci-fi-tech/160787/

Army Partners with UFO Researchers to Study Active Camouflage and Other Sci-Fi Tech

Quote:

“To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science is a company with materiel and technology innovations that offer capability advancements for Army ground vehicles,” officials wrote in the agreement, a copy of which was provided to Nextgov. “The [Academy] will share their innovations with the government, who will use its laboratories and resources to characterize the technologies and determine if they have appropriate applications on ground vehicles.”

Specifically, the Army wants to explore a handful of futuristic materials and technologies the group has either studied or has in its possession, including inertial mass reduction, quantum communications, beamed energy propulsion, active camouflage and directed photon projection. The Army also plans to study the “mechanical and [electromagnetic] sensitive” metamaterials—a type of synthetic material that can manipulate light and other waves—the group collected “as part of its field operations.”

In the short-term, Army researchers are particularly interested in studying how those metamaterials could improve “camouflage, concealment, deception and obscuration” capabilities of their ground vehicles, Doug Halleaux, a spokesperson for the Combat Capabilities Development Command, told Nextgov. By manipulating the light waves around a particular object, it’s possible for metamaterials to render it virtually invisible.

Link to official agreement - https://www.nextgov.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/ng_ttsa_crada.pdf

---------------------

TTSA 'claims' to have metamaterials that came from a crashed vehicle of ET origin.  This sample was sent to the head of material sciences at MIT who failed to identify any known process by which the material could be manufactured using technology of the time.  So the question is; if this is a hoax then why are the US military signing contracts to investigate its properties? 

Leading on from this are the patents filed by the US Navy.  We are either being completely mislead as part of some disinformation campaign or this is real science backed by major players.  

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31798/the-secretive-inventor-of-the-navys-bizarre-ufo-patents-finally-talks

Quote: 

Dr. Pais recently published a new academic paper in the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science journal detailing his work on his Plasma Compression Fusion Device. That device, the patent for which The War Zone has previously reported on, is a compact fusion reactor claimed to be capable of creating a net energy gain, a breakthrough that would revolutionize energy production if truly feasible. 

Edited by I'mConvinced
added 'of'
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
On 6/29/2020 at 11:35 PM, Timothy said:

None of it able to stand up to skeptical scrutiny. 

Absolutely untrue.  Please provide the sources of 'skeptical scrutiny' that you believe have resolved this issue satisfactorily.  Funny pictures are great and all but if you're going to make statements as above then you need to back them up with facts, otherwise what you have stated is mere opinion disguised as a statement of truth.

Please do consider that Mick West has had to produce a follow up video in which he changes his hypothesis to try and fit the facts available.  Unfortunately this falls flat on it's face as he now has his 'passenger jet' flying backwards (he changed the tail from the left to the right to account for the movement he completely missed in his first video). He still cannot address the audio, the eyewitnesses, the FLIR experts or the lack of engine 'spiking' seen in all other FLIR footage of afterburners. Worse than this he is still omitting the fact that the 'passenger plane' or 'large aircraft' is using active jamming against the F-18.  This can be seen in the range finder which reverts to 99.9 range when distance to target cannot be obtained.  How does Mick West manage to calculate the angular velocity without distance to target? 

This is a video explaining the calculation you need to use.  Please note that (as far as I can see and do please correct me if wrong, I don't have a Phd in Mathematics) you are required to know the length of the axis in order to calculate the velocity of an object from its degrees of movement:

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-physics-1/ap-centripetal-force-and-gravitation/introduction-to-uniform-circular-motion-ap/v/angular-velocity-and-speed 

Here is the new(er) video from Mick West.  Note that he has changed his position from the original video but does not actually mention this in the new one.  Once again, keep an eye on the range finder:

Commander David Fravor confirmed that this is active jamming.  He also stated that the entire cockpit lights up with alarms etc when you are being actively jammed in this way and it is impossible to mistake. So if Mick is correct about this being just a normal plane then its a normal plane the Navy couldn't identify, communicate with and that was actively jamming F-18 interceptors which is considered an act of war.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
33 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

Absolutely untrue.  Please provide the sources of 'skeptical scrutiny' that you believe have resolved this issue satisfactorily.  Funny pictures are great and all but if you're going to make statements as above then you need to back them up with facts, otherwise what you have stated is mere opinion disguised as a statement of truth.

Please do consider that Mick West has had to produce a follow up video in which he changes his hypothesis to try and fit the facts available.  Unfortunately this falls flat on it's face as he now has his 'passenger jet' flying backwards (he changed the tail from the left to the right to account for the movement he completely missed in his first video). He still cannot address the audio, the eyewitnesses, the FLIR experts or the lack of engine 'spiking' seen in all other FLIR footage of afterburners. Worse than this he is still omitting the fact that the 'passenger plane' or 'large aircraft' is using active jamming against the F-18.  This can be seen in the range finder which reverts to 99.9 range when distance to target cannot be obtained.  How does Mick West manage to calculate the angular velocity without distance to target? 

This is a video explaining the calculation you need to use.  Please note that (as far as I can see and do please correct me if wrong, I don't have a Phd in Mathematics) you are required to know the length of the axis in order to calculate the velocity of an object from its degrees of movement:

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-physics-1/ap-centripetal-force-and-gravitation/introduction-to-uniform-circular-motion-ap/v/angular-velocity-and-speed 

Here is the new(er) video from Mick West.  Note that he has changed his position from the original video but does not actually mention this in the new one.  Once again, keep an eye on the range finder:

Commander David Fravor confirmed that this is active jamming.  He also stated that the entire cockpit lights up with alarms etc when you are being actively jammed in this way and it is impossible to mistake. So if Mick is correct about this being just a normal plane then its a normal plane the Navy couldn't identify, communicate with and that was actively jamming F-18 interceptors which is considered an act of war.

And you trust Fravor? I do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazzard
2 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

I have gone through a process of examining the evidence and I have shared the information gleaned with you, if you have an issue with the facts then be very specific in pointing them out please.  There is no burden of proof on me, the US Navy confirmed that these remain unidentified and that is also my stance.  If you believe these things are as Mick West describes then the burden of proof is on you.  I have refuted his video and shown why his explanations cannot be correct.

Instead of hand waving why aren't people addressing the facts here? 

My take on everything UFO to this date is that ... If someone wants to claim that they have anything to do with ETI,  I say that we are missing the most important part... Credible hard scientific evidence. I need better evidence. 

Until that day comes, if ever, I will remain skeptical.

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane

What high ranking officer has confirmed they saw an unidentified aircraft? I don't mean some random field grade officer. When you say high ranking, it normally means Colonel or higher to those of us who serve.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

Absolutely untrue.  Please provide the sources of 'skeptical scrutiny' that you believe have resolved this issue satisfactorily.

This forum.

Like I’ve said before, a lot of bad evidence does not add up to good evidence. And all we have here and all you keep posting is a lot of bad evidence over and over.

You are without a doubt flogging a dead horse with this one. 

Yes people see things, yes they might be unexplained, but no, none of the evidence so far is ‘hard evidence’ of something unknown or impossible. 

If you can’t get that through your head, you’ll not get why what you’re posting simply does not live up to skeptical scrutiny.

If you don’t like silly pictures, I can give you a profound quote which is very appropriate:

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.’ - Carl Sagan

Edit: I hadn’t heard a thing about jamming, you’d think that would have been reported more widely. Or was it just Fravor commenting? I’ll have to look into that. And if the clip etc. suggests there was jamming.

Edited by Timothy
Edit.
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
15 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

Please do consider that Mick West has had to produce a follow up video in which he changes his hypothesis to try and fit the facts available. 

I don't know why you keep banging on about 'Mick West'. You picked the initial video to use to support your own argument. A skeptic didn't post it to support theirs.

And I also don't know why you keep banging on about afterburner engine spikes in IR video. No one here has claimed the object filmed is an FA-18 with afterburners. And last time I checked, most commercial aircraft don't have afterburners. So it's completely irrelevant to the argument.

Also I couldn't find anything about the jamming and if 99.9 RNG 99 is evidence of jamming. I couldn't find anything either about the pilot Chad Underwood mentioning any jamming. Got any links to support that besides Fravor? Or links to show that 99.9 RNG 99 is evidence of jamming?
I don't think there's audio for the FLIR video, so we can't hear if there are alarms in the cockpit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
8 hours ago, Timothy said:

I don't know why you keep banging on about 'Mick West'. You picked the initial video to use to support your own argument. A skeptic didn't post it to support theirs.

And I also don't know why you keep banging on about afterburner engine spikes in IR video. No one here has claimed the object filmed is an FA-18 with afterburners. And last time I checked, most commercial aircraft don't have afterburners. So it's completely irrelevant to the argument.

Also I couldn't find anything about the jamming and if 99.9 RNG 99 is evidence of jamming. I couldn't find anything either about the pilot Chad Underwood mentioning any jamming. Got any links to support that besides Fravor? Or links to show that 99.9 RNG 99 is evidence of jamming?
I don't think there's audio for the FLIR video, so we can't hear if there are alarms in the cockpit.

To address the first point the video was initially posted by Chris in another thread.  I was re-posting the provided information here and my first post regarding the video was to say it was 'awful'. I then provided reasoning for this.

The reason people keep banging on about afterburners is that this is the explanation given by Mick West, in the only debunk video even worth mentioning, regarding the Gimbal video. The point is that it can't be that which the debunkers say it is, or there would be engine spikes visible as in the footage recorded by Dave Falch.  If the object in the Gimbal video is not the afterburners of a jet, rotating and thus causing glare, then it does appear to be performing maneuvers which we cannot explain.

You say 'no one here has claimed' and by here I assume you mean this thread? Correct, however in another thread on the same page multiple forum members claim this to be the explanation for the object in the video.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
8 hours ago, Timothy said:

Also I couldn't find anything about the jamming and if 99.9 RNG 99 is evidence of jamming. I couldn't find anything either about the pilot Chad Underwood mentioning any jamming. Got any links to support that besides Fravor?

Can you explain why Commander David Fravor is not a reliable source? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.