Now that we have hard evidence of UFO's

[Timothy]

13 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

Yet you haven't shown a mundane explanation nor answered the issues presented with the debunk attempts. What you believe is about as factual as your claim these are explained by mundane means. They may well be but let's see some hypothesise that fit the evidence. 

Yes I have:

Go fast: Could be a sea bird or something similar flying slowly above water, parallax from faster moving higher altitude F/A-18 makes it look like it’s moving fast if interpreted incorrectly. 

FLIR & Gimbal: Could just be passenger jets or similar. Again the footage is often misinterpreted with people confusing the footage which is simply showing the rotation of the gimbal, or the gimbal reaching maximum rotation, as evidence of an impossible maneuver. 
From this footage they could just be aircraft in stable flight. 

The above do not rely on issues with debunking attempts, which is why I haven’t responded to that previously.

[SeekTruth]

On 7/19/2020 at 12:44 PM, Trelane said:

Your disrespect as a response is not a good look and underlines the limitations of your arguments. Have a great day. Ignore button engage.

When you do it it's ok, but when someone responds in kind it is disrespect?

[stereologist]

You can count on the scoffer I'mConvinced to simply pretend that no mundane explanations have been given. That's what scoffers do.

[Trelane]

3 hours ago, SeekTruth said:

When you do it it's ok, but when someone responds in kind it is disrespect?

If you would, please show me where I have disrespected anyone.

[SeekTruth]

1 hour ago, Trelane said:

If you would, please show me where I have disrespected anyone.

I didn't accuse you of being disrespectful. You accused IAmConvinced of being disrespectful, and I merely noted that he was responding in kind to you. 

https://www.federalpay.org/military/navy/ranks

As you know, "Commander" is one of the higher rankings in the Navy. It is not inaccurate to describe it as a high rank. It really is a trivial objection on your part. So where do you demarcate the line between high and low ranks in the Navy?

[Trelane]

Commander is a field grade officer (Lieutenant Colonel equivalent). Mid level for officer ranks. They do not hold appointed positions and are not flag officers. Those are the high ranking officers. So for the Navy, the title should have Admiral as part of the rank to be classified as high ranking.

[SeekTruth]

43 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Commander is a field grade officer (Lieutenant Colonel equivalent). Mid level for officer ranks. They do not hold appointed positions and are not flag officers. Those are the high ranking officers. So for the Navy, the title should have Admiral as part of the rank to be classified as high ranking.

OK, so you consider O7-O9 as high ranking, but nothing below that. Fair enough. Yet I note that IAmConvinced was not using the term "high ranking" incorrectly; he simply wasn't using it in as specific a manner as you are. All things considered, Commander ranks as 7th highest out of 26 ranks. That's pretty high on the scale.

[toast]

EyewitnessesblahblahtrustworthyblahblahpoliceofficerblahzigzagtrajectoryblahblahblahseventimesthespeedofsoundblahcommanderblahblahformerNASAemployeeblahbahcoverupblahblahorangelightblahblahblahblahclassifiedreportsblahCIAblahblahIwaswalkingthedogandallofasuddenburbNAVYblaharea51blahhundredsofobserversblahhiddenreportsblahblahthetruthisoutthereblahMoonbasecoverupblah

Edited July 22, 2020 by toast

[Timothy]

30 minutes ago, toast said:

EyewitnessesblahblahtrustworthyblahblahpoliceofficerblahzigzagtrajectoryblahblahblahseventimesthespeedofsoundblahcommanderblahblahformerNASAemployeeblahbahcoverupblahblahorangelightblahblahblahblahclassifiedreportsblahCIAblahblahIwaswalkingthedogandallofasuddenburbNAVYblaharea51blahhundredsofobserversblahhiddenreportsblahblahthetruthisoutthereblahMoonbasecoverupblah

Honestly curious at what you had to edit in this post? 

[toast]

1 hour ago, Timothy said:

Honestly curious at what you had to edit in this post? 

Line break

[I'mConvinced]

On 7/21/2020 at 8:06 PM, stereologist said:

You can count on the scoffer I'mConvinced to simply pretend that no mundane explanations have been given. That's what scoffers do.

Still here? Have you caught up on which people did what yet? I see you abandoned our previous discussion when you were proved flat out wrong and showed your ignorance of this topic. 

But then I guess you have your bias and you're welcome to cling desperately to it. 

[I'mConvinced]

On 7/20/2020 at 8:18 AM, Timothy said:

Yes I have:

Go fast: Could be a sea bird or something similar flying slowly above water, parallax from faster moving higher altitude F/A-18 makes it look like it’s moving fast if interpreted incorrectly. 

FLIR & Gimbal: Could just be passenger jets or similar. Again the footage is often misinterpreted with people confusing the footage which is simply showing the rotation of the gimbal, or the gimbal reaching maximum rotation, as evidence of an impossible maneuver. 
From this footage they could just be aircraft in stable flight. 

The above do not rely on issues with debunking attempts, which is why I haven’t responded to that previously.

You fail to address the FLIR expert Dave Falch and his take on why what you say can't be true. 

These aren't jet engines as you would see the engine spiking in IR. They don't look like jets to an expert who's job is to look at FLIR footage all day. A

Are you a FLIR expert? Have you clearly refuted Dave Falch? If the answer is no then what you have posted is simply ignorant of the facts. 

[I'mConvinced]

On 7/19/2020 at 6:20 PM, stereologist said:

Once again you are confused here. There is no footage of Fravor's flight.

I never said there was, I said of the four pilots who engaged the TicTac. There were 4 pilots in the second flight, composed of 2 F18's both of which had WSO's, which did record the footage. 

Honestly Stereologist, if you can't understand the basic facts of this case, as shown on multiple occasions I will quote for you if required, then I see little point in responding further to your petty insults. 

[I'mConvinced]

On 7/22/2020 at 8:11 AM, toast said:

EyewitnessesblahblahtrustworthyblahblahpoliceofficerblahzigzagtrajectoryblahblahblahseventimesthespeedofsoundblahcommanderblahblahformerNASAemployeeblahbahcoverupblahblahorangelightblahblahblahblahclassifiedreportsblahCIAblahblahIwaswalkingthedogandallofasuddenburbNAVYblaharea51blahhundredsofobserversblahhiddenreportsblahblahthetruthisoutthereblahMoonbasecoverupblah

Funny but typical of someone unable to argue the facts.The things about facts however, is that they remain facts regardless of your ridicule or choice to ignore them. 

I've presented the case as clearly as I can and I haven't seen a single worthy response that disputes it. 

 

[Trelane]

1 hour ago, I'mConvinced said:

Funny but typical of someone unable to argue the facts.The things about facts however, is that they remain facts regardless of your ridicule or choice to ignore them. 

I've presented the case as clearly as I can and I haven't seen a single worthy response that disputes it. 

 

I think you mean you don't consider or think any contrasting opinions or information is worthy. There has been plenty presented in multiple threads that refutes third party claims(as you cite) and your assertations.

[Timothy]

14 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

You fail to address the FLIR expert Dave Falch and his take on why what you say can't be true. 

These aren't jet engines as you would see the engine spiking in IR. They don't look like jets to an expert who's job is to look at FLIR footage all day. A

Are you a FLIR expert? Have you clearly refuted Dave Falch? If the answer is no then what you have posted is simply ignorant of the facts. 

Welcome back.

You’ve again failed to accept that mundane explanations are possible.  

What’s his take on it? Dave Falch?

Also; you never replied to my messages asking if Fravor was the only source suggesting jamming. So please address that claim. 

[I'mConvinced]

14 hours ago, Trelane said:

I think you mean you don't consider or think any contrasting opinions or information is worthy. There has been plenty presented in multiple threads that refutes third party claims(as you cite) and your assertations.

No there hasn't and I have addressed those points. I think all evidence is worthy of examination and scrutiny, no matter the outcome, but the evidence and following explanation must fit the known facts of the case. I have seen no evidence at all that does this. 

Be specific, give me evidence that you think proves that these objects are jets or whatever you think they are and I will answer it. 

What you have posted smacks of someone with an opinion not based on fact. 

[I'mConvinced]

2 hours ago, Timothy said:

Welcome back.

You’ve again failed to accept that mundane explanations are possible.  

What’s his take on it? Dave Falch?

Also; you never replied to my messages asking if Fravor was the only source suggesting jamming. So please address that claim. 

I have said mundane explanations could be possible multiple times now. I have asked for the evidence that proves this is so, and yet it doesn't appear. 

Mick West cannot be trusted on this topic, as I have shown, and what else is there? 

Dave Falch is of the opinion that what he sees in the footage is like nothing he has ever seen before. I posted the entire interview with him in the OP and he goes into detail on exactly why we can't be looking at jets.

So can you address his beef with Mick West misrepresenting his position and explain why the military and the FLIR expert consulted by the debunking crowd disagrees with the mundane explanation given? 

I have actually addressed the Fravor comments about jamming previously. No one else uses the term 'active jamming', however both Chad Underwood and the unknown female WSO both reported being unable to maintain a lock on the object.

It does make me wonder about that aspect but in the end it's actually a fairly small detail and the WSO may not receive the same type of warning as the pilot. I would need to see how that works in an F18 Superhornet. 

Thanks for at least asking me to address a specific point. That's all I'm asking for from people. If you disagree with a source etc then let me know why and I'll investigate it. 

[Dejarma]

17 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

Funny but typical of someone unable to argue the facts.

what facts are you referring to? 

[I'mConvinced]

3 hours ago, Dejarma said:

what facts are you referring to? 

You will find them in the OP. If you wish to question something then be specific please and I will answer.

Unless you are trying to say I haven't presented a single fact in the thread.?This is a frankly ridiculous position and would show you up as nothing more than a troll. Surely not. 

If you were trying to be funny/sarcastic then try harder. 

[Dejarma]

32 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

You will find them in the OP. If you wish to question something then be specific please and I will answer.

Unless you are trying to say I haven't presented a single fact in the thread.?This is a frankly ridiculous position and would show you up as nothing more than a troll. Surely not. 

If you were trying to be funny/sarcastic then try harder. 

what are you classing as fact? give me an example with regards to the OP

[SeekTruth]

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

what are you classing as fact? give me an example with regards to the OP

[Dejarma]

what are you believers classing as facts here?
^ It's a simple question^- well, to me it is..

'actual fact' & 'I believe it to be fact' are 2 completely different things..

It baffles me how grown adults in 2020 can't differentiate between the 2.. it's like being back in the dark ages- fascinating 

Edited July 31, 2020 by Dejarma

[SeekTruth]

53 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

what are you believers classing as facts here?
^ It's a simple question^- well, to me it is..

'actual fact' & 'I believe it to be fact' are 2 completely different things..

It baffles me how grown adults in 2020 can't differentiate between the 2.. it's like being back in the dark ages- fascinating 

Agreed, but are you telling me you've read the OP and can't discern what is being presented as matter-of-fact? I can.

Edited July 31, 2020 by SeekTruth

[Dejarma]

7 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

Agreed, but are you telling me you've read the OP and can't discern what is being presented as matter-of-fact? I can.

no i can't!! class me as an idiot if you like:

do me the honour of pointing out what you feel is a fact here- can you do that for me? i'd appreciate it= i'm not being funny or sarcastic here- a serious question, just out of interest