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

359 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

SeekTruth
2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I guess we're all supposed to just be Yes Men on every subject now. Yep, UFO's and little green aliens are absolutely real. Evidence, psha, who needs that. 

I guess I'm supposed to just take you seriously when you are objecting to a a position I've never advanced?

Share this post


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

And that, folks, is why I don't respond immediately (and in this case, waste my time trying to find it due to I'mConvinced's incompetence).  I'mConvinced's research skills are truly ... unexplainable.  Note that he also uses the word "opinion", not "analysis".  It's almost certainly just more handwaving and non-specifics, as compared to where I SHOWED the imagery and comparisons and pointed out EXACTLY what was wrongly being claimed.

Again, note that IC has offered NO specific example of where Mick and I were wrong.  Anyone else want to have a go?

Maybe I should ask you for some more facts from the movie The Martian? Which you considered some sort of documentary I guess, seeing as how you were referencing it as fact in another thread.  Simple mistakes such as linking to the wrong section of a video, which I hold my hands up to, and then correcting myself, seems a pale comparison.  Now can we move past the petty insults and just address the evidence? There is a huge disconnect between Mick West and Dave Falch.  One of them is being deceptive, I believe it's Mick West but I am open to hearing his side of it.  When asked on his own Metabunk forums he simply didn't respond.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Ok, here is the original video clip produced by Dave Falch and used by Mick West in his gimbal debun

Mick Takes a very selective shot to illustrate his point however when viewed as an entire clip you can once more see the engine spikes are obvious.  Not to mention the many other differences, even to an untrained eye, in the video and without mentioning that Mick West used an out of focus shot, yet the gimbal video itself shows the clouds are in focus and thus so is the object.

*Edit* Do stop me Chris if any of this is too specific, not specific enough or just overwhelming to deal with.  I'll understand.

Edited by I'mConvinced
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekTruth
3 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Take your complaint up with the hoaxers. They're the one's who ruined the outlook people have on this stuff. Those are the same people who have tainted my view of the paranormal. The fakes, frauds, and down right liars. So why should anyone take this seriously?

baby. bathwater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced

I'm splitting these out into single posts so you can address each point separately and because formatting huge posts on mobile devices sucks the proverbial.  Just to recap:

  1.  Dave Falch explains in his video why derotation does not explain the motion seen in the gimbal video.  The audio suggests the pilot recording the images agrees with Dave Falch's view here.  The audio is of course dismissed as irrelevant by Mick West. 
  2.  Dave Falch disagrees with the afterburner theory based on his own footage and experience in looking at such things.  Engine spikes are clear in all other FLIR1 videos but not so in the gimbal video, which he states is 'far too smooth and even'.
  3.  MIck West will not respond to questions regarding his clear misrepresentation of Dave Falch.  He admits they disagreed, he admits it's his footage, admits they no longer speak but yet he dismissed his conclusions, even though he consulted him as the expert to go to in this field.
  4.  Mick West used an out of focus shot of a jet afterburner to try to explain away the gimbal video.  This failed to take into account that we can clearly see the clouds in the gimbal video are in sharp focus.  Using the image in the way he did was disingenuous at best and a downright con at worst.
  5.  Mick West used a cropped image of a section of video to try and explain that the FLIR1.mov video away as a passenger plane.  When we look at the real footage of a distant passenger plane as provided by Dave Falch we can see the two look nothing alike, this view is shared by Dave Falch.

If you would like I can tear down each of Mick West's videos section by section with specific timings, references and sources for you to explain.  This, as you know, involves much work and I'm not prepared to go through it for you until I see some worthwhile rebuttals to the above.  Once we're done looking at these problems I have a whole raft more we can examine, using actual math.

For example of these addition problems can you please explain how he calculated the speed of the 'passenger plane' from its degrees of leftwards motion without knowing the distance to the target? I'm no math professor so I could be wrong but I'd like to know why if so? How does Mick West explain needing to change his own conclusion in the FLIR1 video when someone pointed out that it did indeed move to the left, contrary to Mick West's claim? He just waves it away and makes a new video with the jet now facing the opposite way, odd.

Anyway, I'm thrilled you'll be back soon with a thorough explanation and in depth analysis as promised Chris.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekTruth
3 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

Dude, just stop.  You look like an idiot with this stuff.  I've never ignored someone before on a forum but you're gonna be the first I feel.

He's already on mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
Just now, SeekTruth said:

He's already on mine.

I try to give people as much leeway as I can, no matter how hard that is sometimes ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekTruth
8 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

I try to give people as much leeway as I can, no matter how hard that is sometimes ;)

I admire your persistence, but I won't give BS like his the time of day. Life is short.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
22 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

Do you mean hard evidence such as meta materials? If so then I've already covered this earlier in this thread. 

If you choose not to believe what you are being told then that's fine. If you dispute my sources then fine, but please provide some evidence to support your position. 

What isn't fine is saying the premise of the thread is false before going on to make a logical fallacy of your own. 

No...I do not mean meta materials.  A space ship  preferably with aliens aboard.  That's hard evidence.  Your premise is false.  I have no need to provide evidence to support my position which is that aliens do not exist.  You are the one making the claim.  The need to provide real evidence is yours.  This isn't a debate.  Show me a ship or a piece of a ship of material such as could not be generated on Earth...or an alien life form with dna found nowhere on our planet.  ....or just keep speculating....

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekTruth
1 minute ago, joc said:

No...I do not mean meta materials.  A space ship  preferably with aliens aboard.  That's hard evidence.  Your premise is false.  I have no need to provide evidence to support my position which is that aliens do not exist.  You are the one making the claim.  The need to provide real evidence is yours.  This isn't a debate.  Show me a ship or a piece of a ship of material such as could not be generated on Earth...or an alien life form with dna found nowhere on our planet.  ....or just keep speculating....

 

 

 

 

Well, you're right about one thing; this is not a debate you are having with IC. You attribute to him the claim that ET is driving UFOs. The problem is, he never made that claim. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
1 minute ago, joc said:

No...I do not mean meta materials.  A space ship  preferably with aliens aboard.  That's hard evidence.  Your premise is false.  I have no need to provide evidence to support my position which is that aliens do not exist.  You are the one making the claim.  The need to provide real evidence is yours.  This isn't a debate.  Show me a ship or a piece of a ship of material such as could not be generated on Earth...or an alien life form with dna found nowhere on our planet.  ....or just keep speculating....

 

 

 

 

You're entitled to that opinion just as I am entitled to my opinion on the Book of Urantia.  We await the results of the CRADA in relation to the meta materials and their origin, the isotopic ratios should tell us much.  So what you are asking for may already exist, but I cannot deliver that to you and if you don't believe its even a possibility then there isn't any discussion to have and no amount of proof would  ever be enough for you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
13 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

You're entitled to that opinion just as I am entitled to my opinion on the Book of Urantia.  We await the results of the CRADA in relation to the meta materials and their origin, the isotopic ratios should tell us much.  So what you are asking for may already exist, but I cannot deliver that to you and if you don't believe its even a possibility then there isn't any discussion to have and no amount of proof would  ever be enough for you.

I do not believe it is even a possiblilty.   So...fair enough.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
17 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

Well, you're right about one thing; this is not a debate you are having with IC. You attribute to him the claim that ET is driving UFOs. The problem is, he never made that claim. 

Oh...okay...what is driving the UFO's then?  Are they drones?   Created by what...rocks?   Get off my case...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
Just now, joc said:

Oh...okay...what is driving the UFO's then?  Are they drones?   Created by what...rocks?   Get off my case...

Well they appear to be something and that's the problem, i'm at a loss to explain exactly what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekTruth
2 minutes ago, joc said:

Oh...okay...what is driving the UFO's then? .

That's a great question that I wish I had the answer to.

Share this post


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

I have been, the engine spikes look completely different to what is seen in the gimbal video.  Ignore it all you want but facts is facts.

HOW SO?  Define this precisely.  And stop trying to change the subject - that was your first chosen topic and you say it's hard evidence.  So COMMIT - in your own words, how, in precise terms, do the engine spikes look 'different'?

And I have to ask, are these engine spikes the ones that you first said WERE NOT in the Gimbal video?  Please admit your errors, it's how we can start you on the brand new path of learning.

 

You don't get to ask me a whole pile of questions when you haven't answered the VERY FIRST one posed to you.  I'll just keep asking until you pony up with explaining the 'difference'.  Also explain why you first said there were no heat spikes in the Gimbal video.  Are 'heat spikes' different to 'engine spikes'?  And what do you think causes them?  Do all videos of this type have them?  If so, why are you having such a problem simply showing an annotated screen grab, and with little arrows pointing EXACTLY at the 'problem'.

You are just avoiding coming to a simple point, because you don't have one.

Again, I invite anyone who 'gets' what I'mConvinced is claiming, please do what he can't, namely show this 'difference and explain what it means.  I'm all ears.  Sadly, I'mConvinced is all mouth, except when it comes to explaining himself.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
17 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

I have provided all the links, videos, articles etc.  If you want to address any particular point then provide a source and your explanation for me to address.  Otherwise talking to you is pointless imo.

You claim to have provided evidence and I called it rubbish.

So please show where anything I called a lie is not a lie. For example, show that the TTSA was responsible for the video leaks. That's baloney. You calling it leaks shows that I was correct that the TTSA has been dishonest. I stated they are dishonest and gave the example of them claiming Elizondo was the head of AATIP when the Pentagon states he was not even a part of that group.

Your efforts to lie about what I have posted show how untrustable you are in any of your posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
17 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

In your deluded opinion, either pony up with facts as requested or just go away, you are adding nothing as per usual and Chris has your bases covered for the rest.

You repeatedly have lied about what I posted. I pointed out specifically where you lied and you did not defend anything you posted making it abundantly clear that they were lies.

That has been your method throughout this thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

There is no hard evidence. There are lots and lots of stories and it took collecting stories from events other than the topic of the thread to make even a small pile of stories.

About all we have for possible actual evidence is some materials that were sold to the TTSA that appear to be nothing more than slag. This would not be the first time that a piece of metallic junk had been claimed to be extraterrestrial in origin.

Here are some of the cases of fake ET materials:

  1. So called implants found in people from one and only one pediatrist named Leir.
  2. Maury island slag
  3. Falcon lake hoax metal pieces
  4. Lazzar's chunk of 115
  5. Colin Andrews' metal
  6. Bob White metal - the best UFO evidence for a quarter century or more

Art's Parts are in good company aren't they?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hazzard
6 hours ago, stereologist said:

There is no hard evidence. There are lots and lots of stories and it took collecting stories from events other than the topic of the thread to make even a small pile of stories.

About all we have for possible actual evidence is some materials that were sold to the TTSA that appear to be nothing more than slag. This would not be the first time that a piece of metallic junk had been claimed to be extraterrestrial in origin.

Here are some of the cases of fake ET materials:

  1. So called implants found in people from one and only one pediatrist named Leir.
  2. Maury island slag
  3. Falcon lake hoax metal pieces
  4. Lazzar's chunk of 115
  5. Colin Andrews' metal
  6. Bob White metal - the best UFO evidence for a quarter century or more

Art's Parts are in good company aren't they?

 

I remember them all, and the glimmer of hope that this time it might be the real deal.... No such luck.

Damb that guy and his UFO curse! :P§

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
28 minutes ago, Hazzard said:

I remember them all, and the glimmer of hope that this time it might be the real deal.... No such luck.

Damb that guy and his UFO curse! :P§

It would be amazing if something were found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
Posted (edited)
On 8/11/2020 at 3:39 PM, ChrLzs said:

...

So COMMIT - in your own words, how, in precise terms, do the engine spikes look 'different'?

And I have to ask, are these engine spikes the ones that you first said WERE NOT in the Gimbal video?  Please admit your errors, it's how we can start you on the brand new path of learning.

You don't get to ask me a whole pile of questions when you haven't answered the VERY FIRST one posed to you.  I'll just keep asking until you pony up with explaining the 'difference'.  Also explain why you first said there were no heat spikes in the Gimbal video.  Are 'heat spikes' different to 'engine spikes'?  And what do you think causes them?  Do all videos of this type have them?  If so, why are you having such a problem simply showing an annotated screen grab, and with little arrows pointing EXACTLY at the 'problem'.

Answer the questions.  No more video links that are just as likely to have the wrong timings, given your last effort...

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
On 8/11/2020 at 7:47 AM, I'mConvinced said:

Apologies, I linked to the later part of the video, the discussion on spiking and Dave Falch's opinion starts around the 10 min mark and is linked at the correct time below:

 

I finally got a little time to get to this.

I would first remind readers that when "I'mConvinced" first posted this link, he embedded the wrong time - he did apologise for that, but I repeat, that sort of lack of attention to detail is why I don't break my back responding...

I would also remind readers that this aspect of the 'heat spikes' is the one that "I'mConvinced" posted as his key issue, his main claim.

It's all downhill from there...

And now that I've looked at the video?  What an incredible waste of time.  Let's go back to "I'mConvinced" original claim, which can be found here, here and here:

Quote

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

Note that IC does not explain what the engine spiking effect is.  Spiking could be referring to flares radiating outwards, or over exposure, but neither IC or Dave Falch ever clarifies that.  As for Dave being an expert - he has admitted he's never used the system in question.... :D  

Quote

Dave Falch is of the opinion that what he sees in the footage is like nothing he has ever seen before

Yep, because he's never used that system before - they all give different appearances and effects, and there are multiple issues that can cause visual anomalies.  AGAIN, neither IC or Dave explain what they mean.  Is it really that difficult to point arrows and explain?  I am managing it....

Quote

The problem as described is that you cannot see any heat spikes in the gimbal video.
.... ple
ase explain the lack of heat spikes .... 

But I pointed to some spikes earlier...
Stupidclaims1.thumb.jpg.76deb961ba8ce1bdc0c755369e11015a.jpg
can anyone explain what IC and dave mean by heat spikes, if those aren't it?  Naturally, no reply from "I'mConvinced".

Previously, I've asked several times for him / Dave Falch to be specific about WHY he doesn't think the 'heat spikes' look 'correct' NO ANSWER..   (Why can't EITHER of these 'experts' manage to simply point an arrow at them and describe the reasoning for their opinion????...).  Without either a specific example OR the reasoning behind it, I reject this utter bull****.

Anyway, I did look at IC's highly recommended video.....  Just look at the image above - note it is low-res, fuzzy as all hell, and that 2.0 in the top left means it is digitally zoomed (hence even more loss of resolution) - that's why it's a largely amorphous blob.

And what does Dave Falch compare that view to?  Here you go:
Stupidclaims3.jpg.cbac26d98d158b26e9376529b50fc503.jpg
- a quite close aircraft, on a completely different system, at much high resolution.  What an utterly ludicrous comparison!  But that's what Dave, self-proclaimed expert, used as his best choice for comparison.  Then, in IR:
Stupidclaims4.jpg.09c9dc0edbd147f39e29f4492b7639ce.jpg
Clearly that system has different optics, was zoomed to a different level, was at a different exposure setting - it also appears to have some sort of optical flare effect that produces that ring around the heat bloom.

You'll notice that I can draw arrows and point out exactly what I am referring to.  So, notwithstanding the COMPLETELY different scenario and system and settings, how does Falch describe the 'wrongness' to which he refers?  He DOESN'T, at least not in the section I listened to.  It's just vague handwavings - if I've missed something, can someone other than I'MConvinced please provide a proper citation, as I'm finished with I'mConvinced's stupid and false postings.

 

I'm not wasting any further time on your ramblings, IC.  And don't expect any replies as you're onto my Ignore list - congrats.  Get one of your many supporters (hysterical laughter) to post any refutations....

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
khol

Thread might be beyond reviving...but lets step outside the box for a minute and assume these naval pilots and other personel have seen exactly what there describing

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-a-believable-explanation-of-those-ufo-videos-released-by-the-navy-2019-10-15

I havent researched any of the claimed science and its from last year so many have possibly read it

But it goes without saying technology like this would be a game changer in so many ways. How would it be presented and what kind of politics involved would be the interesting part

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 hour ago, khol said:

Thread might be beyond reviving...but lets step outside the box for a minute and assume these naval pilots and other personel have seen exactly what there describing

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-a-believable-explanation-of-those-ufo-videos-released-by-the-navy-2019-10-15

I havent researched any of the claimed science and its from last year so many have possibly read it

But it goes without saying technology like this would be a game changer in so many ways. How would it be presented and what kind of politics involved would be the interesting part

 

Look at this false statement in the article.

Quote

Three clips dubbed “FLIR1,” “Gimbal” and “Go Fast” show two encounters between Navy aircraft and UAP. The object was tracked by the aircraft’s Raytheon US:RTN AN/ASQ-228 Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) Pod, and in all three videos, it performed maneuvers that cannot be executed using current aviation technology.

No video sows any such maneuvers. The pilots claimed tey saw amazing maneuvers, but none of the videos show the maneuvers.

That article is nothing more than a joke. It invokes all sort of fantastic ideas based on a gigantic mistake - that the videos show any amazing maneuvers which they do not. There are  more 'what if's in that article than in an episode of ancient aliens.

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.