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 -

Excellent Lou Elizondo interview


Phantom309

Recommended Posts

On 11/28/2021 at 5:23 PM, bison said:

The response of the governments of the world, if they were aware of an extraterrestrial presence at Earth? I surmise it would be one of denial, as long as they believed that such a stance could be credibly maintained.

To admit such a presence would be to reveal their own inability to control  the actions of a technically superior civilization. The military, in particular, would be loathe to admit that extraterrestrials and/or their automated machines, could come and go as they please, on and around the Earth.

The recent change in attitude, has been one of a shift from denial to an admission that the UAP phenomenon is very real, and worthy of careful and intensive study. This suggests that something has changed in the situation. What that could be, I couldn't say.  It would presumably bear on the problem of no longer being able to maintain the former policy of denial.      

I would like to point out that the U.S. stance never has mentioned extra terrestrial origin, just that it is unknown activity, mostly aerial phenomena, rather than physical craft.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/30/2021 at 3:18 AM, bison said:

Please find a link, below, to a paper describing a scientific, and mathematical study of the extraordinary flight characteristics of UFOs/UAPs.

It's neither scientific or mathematical...  I had time for a quick closer look (I knew I remembered this one from another much older online discussion - I'll try to find it..)

On 11/30/2021 at 3:18 AM, bison said:

This includes the 'Nimitz' incidents.

BUT, the very first case study in the paper (always start with your best..) is not a Nimitz one, it actually dates back to 1951.  (Search "1951 UFO Bethune")

And what do I find?  None of this was verified, it's all claims.  Gimme a break.  This undocumented (in terms of verification) case has been widely discussed on various forums.  From here is Tim Printy's take:

http://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/MoonUFO.htm   (scroll down..)

Quote

"It is interesting that one of the witnesses of this event has come forward with Stephen Greer's "disclosure project" as a "reliable" witness. Lt. Graham Bethune has stepped forward with the typical conspiracy claims of government censorship and how the full story was not told that evening.  He has now amended his original description of the event with some rather interesting statements that never appeared before:

  1. The object did not really reverse course but seemed to show motion to the right many degrees before approaching and receding away.
  2. Bethune indicated he was not passive and violently evaded the collision.
  3. Passengers in the plane thought a collision was imminent and all ducked to the point they all fell onto the floor of the plane.
  4. An unknown doctor, who was aboard but never made any statement, declared it was a “flying saucer” that he saw.
  5. Bethune also alluded that the DEW line radar at Goose Bay Labrador was able to track the UFO.

These statements about violent maneuvers appear to be more exaggerations than fact.  Perhaps Bethune has decided to embellish his role in a "Walter Mitty" type fashion to portray himself as a hero that night.  One can not say for sure but these claims are in disagreement with the other observers and their written reports."

Sigh... the passengers were thrown around ... but none mentioned that before?  Why am I wasting my time on dreck like this, in a 'scientific' report?  Save me.

This sort of stuff is why we need to see the data...  and THAT was Knuth's best case?  It all goes downhill from there.  For this sort of stuff, you need to dig down to find the truth.  And that truth often is that people's memories change.  Or .. well, I'm being polite..

 

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Manwon Lender are you coming back?

I think I answered your questions, but I'll re-summarise here:

Quote

Manwon: But do you honestly Believe that if something like this was Picked On FLIR that any US Admiral Responsible for a Battle Group of Navel Vessels would not use every form of Sensor and Imaging device at his disposal to investigate a violation of the Air space around his Battle Group?

Not if s/he knew that they were testing experimental drone configurations, which could be just surveillance, but could also be attack/stealth/active-radar-jamming systems, possibly even launched from subs. San Clemente Island almost certainly houses a drone-testing facility, and these were mostly during large training / testing events...   hmmmm

Quote

Manwon: Next do you know what types of imaging devices they had at their disposal?

Not 100%, but happy to learn!  But all such devices have limits (and issues that must be understood, as well-demonstrated by the FLIR imagery).  When it picks something up at/near those limits, you are very likely not going to be able to get positive IDs.  Also, given the limitations of most out-of-sight/long range radar/FLIR/camera systems, when something 'vanishes' then reappears, you have to be very, very careful about making an assumption that it is the same thing you are now looking at.  Don't forget the concept of a drone can include fleets of identical devices and even spoofing/jamming capabilities.

If I haven't answered satisfactorily, let me know.  And now my questions in return are...(and I welcome anyone's input)

Can you point to any actual data / analysis / reports / papers / or indeed anything at all that is NOT anecdotal and shows maneuvers beyond reasonable known terrestrial capabilities?  How about video (FLIR or otherwise) that shows something that cannot be an aircraft or drone (either US or foreign origin) or a weather or targeting balloon, or a large seabird?  In other words, is there any hard evidence that we can look at and analyse?  I ask that obviously because when I follow these claims to their source, I come to ridiculous dead ends like the Knuth example above, or those silly FLIR videos that do NOT show anything particularly interesting.

And that issue, ie no real evidence that is noteworthy, is exactly what the DoD report says.  Sure they might be hiding something (apparently the aliens only hang around the USA, or other countries are locked up tight and keeping perfect secrets (forgive my mirth at the thought of that..).  But let's assume they are hiding something.. until they release it or someone bleats it out or produces some documents or captures some decent video.. there isn't much point getting one's knickers in a twist..

Earlier you also asked:

Quote

why would the US Government intentionally perpetuate a hoax and why if they are not trying to create a hoax are they in the past 10 years doing a 180 degree shift from the UFO phenomenon is BS to what they are doing today.

Can you cite why you think they are perpetuating a hoax?  Because I'm just not seeing it.  I'm sure they are delighted with the silly Area 51 stories, and perhaps they are equally happy with the Nimitz claims also being suggestive of alienz, so it will help to keep their latest drone/aircraft tech and capabilities under wraps.

And let's clarify - UFO's do exist, by the dictionary definition.  UAP's also exist, but as the DoD says, to date they show no unexplainable characteristics.  And importantly, no apparent threat - you'll note that through all of this, they have never asked the pilots to fire on the UAP's or abort their missions for fear of attack.  The reason for that would seem to be obvious....

So can you clarify for me what they are saying that leads you to think it's a hoax or coverup or even a 180 shift?  It's the media reporting and drongoes like Elizondo that seem to be doing all that...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

@Manwon Lender are you coming back?

I think I answered your questions, but I'll re-summarise here:

Not if s/he knew that they were testing experimental drone configurations, which could be just surveillance, but could also be attack/stealth/active-radar-jamming systems, possibly even launched from subs. San Clemente Island almost certainly houses a drone-testing facility, and these were mostly during large training / testing events...   hmmmm

Not 100%, but happy to learn!  But all such devices have limits (and issues that must be understood, as well-demonstrated by the FLIR imagery).  When it picks something up at/near those limits, you are very likely not going to be able to get positive IDs.  Also, given the limitations of most out-of-sight/long range radar/FLIR/camera systems, when something 'vanishes' then reappears, you have to be very, very careful about making an assumption that it is the same thing you are now looking at.  Don't forget the concept of a drone can include fleets of identical devices and even spoofing/jamming capabilities.

If I haven't answered satisfactorily, let me know.  And now my questions in return are...(and I welcome anyone's input)

Can you point to any actual data / analysis / reports / papers / or indeed anything at all that is NOT anecdotal and shows maneuvers beyond reasonable known terrestrial capabilities?  How about video (FLIR or otherwise) that shows something that cannot be an aircraft or drone (either US or foreign origin) or a weather or targeting balloon, or a large seabird?  In other words, is there any hard evidence that we can look at and analyse?  I ask that obviously because when I follow these claims to their source, I come to ridiculous dead ends like the Knuth example above, or those silly FLIR videos that do NOT show anything particularly interesting.

And that issue, ie no real evidence that is noteworthy, is exactly what the DoD report says.  Sure they might be hiding something (apparently the aliens only hang around the USA, or other countries are locked up tight and keeping perfect secrets (forgive my mirth at the thought of that..).  But let's assume they are hiding something.. until they release it or someone bleats it out or produces some documents or captures some decent video.. there isn't much point getting one's knickers in a twist..

Earlier you also asked:

Can you cite why you think they are perpetuating a hoax?  Because I'm just not seeing it.  I'm sure they are delighted with the silly Area 51 stories, and perhaps they are equally happy with the Nimitz claims also being suggestive of alienz, so it will help to keep their latest drone/aircraft tech and capabilities under wraps.

And let's clarify - UFO's do exist, by the dictionary definition.  UAP's also exist, but as the DoD says, to date they show no unexplainable characteristics.  And importantly, no apparent threat - you'll note that through all of this, they have never asked the pilots to fire on the UAP's or abort their missions for fear of attack.  The reason for that would seem to be obvious....

So can you clarify for me what they are saying that leads you to think it's a hoax or coverup or even a 180 shift?  It's the media reporting and drongoes like Elizondo that seem to be doing all that...

Hello ChrLzs , I am sorry that I left you hanging, but I have been in and out Hospital all day. Here in here in Korea it is currently 9:26 PM and I am in no shape to get into this tonight. I will get into this first thing in the Morning, and post some replies.

Take care man!:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Manwon, no hurry, take all the time you need - best wishes to you and hope you're ok..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Not if s/he knew that they were testing experimental drone configurations, which could be just surveillance, but could also be attack/stealth/active-radar-jamming systems, possibly even launched from subs. San Clemente Island almost certainly houses a drone-testing facility, and these were mostly during large training / testing events... 

I would like to pipe up with this piece.   If they were testing experimental drone configurations you bet they WOULD be using every kind of sensing equipment they have to get as much data as possible.   One of the goals of using drones is to be undetected so they would need to be using all their sensing equipment.  That is just common sense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I would like to pipe up with this piece.   If they were testing experimental drone configurations you bet they WOULD be using every kind of sensing equipment they have to get as much data as possible.   One of the goals of using drones is to be undetected so they would need to be using all their sensing equipment.  That is just common sense.

You are certainly right, they would certainly use every they had.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

 

 

8 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

And let's clarify - UFO's do exist, by the dictionary definition.  UAP's also exist, but as the DoD says, to date they show no unexplainable characteristics. 

 
 
In this Fox interview, looks like former Director of Naval Intelligence John Ratcliffe has a far, far, different opinion:
 
"Actions that are difficult to explain"
 
"Movements that are hard to replicate that we do not have the technology for"
 
"Speeds that exceed the sound barrier without a sonic boom"
 
"We have multiple sensors that are picking up these things"
 
 
UFO.jpg
Former US Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe made some intriguing claims about the federal government's tracking of UFOs.
futurism.com
Edited by Phantom309
additional info
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Phantom309 said:
In this Fox interview, looks like former Director of Naval Intelligence John Ratcliffe has a far, far, different opinion:
 
"Actions that are difficult to explain"
 
"Movements that are hard to replicate that we do not have the technology for"
 
"Speeds that exceed the sound barrier without a sonic boom"
 
"We have multiple sensors that are picking up these things"

just wondering if John Ratcliffe has actually seen one with his own eyes

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Phantom309 said:

"We have multiple sensors that are picking up these things"

Hi @Phantom309, the problem is that these are claims with no supporting evidence.

Have you seen a single piece of footage or sensor data to support this claim?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Timothy said:

Hi @Phantom309, the problem is that these are claims with no supporting evidence.

Have you seen a single piece of footage or sensor data to support this claim?

 Ratcliffe has.. or has he? or has he just heard about them? who knows== sounds good though:rolleyes:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

just wondering if John Ratcliffe has actually seen one with his own eyes

He’s probably just been hanging out with Fravor… 

Apparently upstanding military personnel who are happy to leak things to the public that they consider are matters of national and international security threats.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Timothy said:

He’s probably just been hanging out with Fravor… 

Apparently upstanding military personnel who are happy to leak things to the public that they consider are matters of national and international security threats.

well, saved me saying it... cheers:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

If they were testing experimental drone configurations you bet they WOULD be using every kind of sensing equipment they have to get as much data as possible.

But there is ALWAYS the problem I have already mentioned several times.  It doesn't matter how sophisticated your equipment is, it will ALWAYS have limitations and in particular a limit to the detection range.  So, there will ALWAYS be situations where an object or return is right on the limits, and thus cannot be positively identified, or the data is not stable or reliable enough to be used to verify non-terrestrial-ness...

So, that argument does not affect the point being made, it just means the wonky 'anomalies' are just from a little further away.

Phantom,

Quote

In this Fox interview, looks like former Director of Naval Intelligence John Ratcliffe has a far, far, different opinion:

It doesn't matter who the hell makes claims, if they can't or don't support them, they are worthless.  Gee, Phantom, can you think of any possible reason why a DoD employee might want to exaggerate perceived threats?  Here, let me give you a little hint - funding.

Quote

"Actions that are difficult to explain"

WHICH actions are those?  Did you forget to quote that bit, or it not in the video?

Quote

"Movements that are hard to replicate that we do not have the technology for"

Again, WHICH actions are those?  They're not in the FLIR videos, so did he also leave that bit uncited as well?  Are you noticing a trend here?  Are you not aware that it is, very obviously, the American way to make ludicrous claims and expect people to buy them simply because you occupy a high position?  Ferkrist sake, it's a national sport over there.  Were you asleep for Trump?

Quote

"Speeds that exceed the sound barrier without a sonic boom"

AGAIN, WHICH EVENT was that?  In the last 'citation', that claim was actually made about an unsupported incident from 1951, where the witness stories vary dramatically, and the actual 'verification' was simply that a ground radar also saw something at about the right time.  That radar station did NOT measure or verify the speed claim, but the words were deliberately twisted and 'full verification' has now been falsely added to the legend.  This is how these people work - they lie their asses off, and rely on people NOT to check.

SORRY, I CHECK.

Quote

"We have multiple sensors that are picking up these things"

Again, no citation, Phantom?  Yes, there are some where there is apparent radar corroboration, BUT that corroboration does NOT include verifying hypersonics or instantaneous acceleration.  Dispute that?  Then post a dam link to the data.

Honestly, what do we have to do to get the point through?

Read the DoD summary report AGAIN...  Let me repeat what they say, for the last time (my emphasis):

Quote

The limited amount of high-quality reporting on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP)
hampers our ability to draw firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP.
The
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) considered a range of information on UAP
described in U.S. military and IC (Intelligence Community) reporting, but because the reporting
lacked sufficient specificity, ultimately recognized that a unique, tailored reporting process was
required to provide sufficient data for analysis of UAP events.

...

In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight
characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or
observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis.

...

Our analysis of the data supports the construct that if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved they will
fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric
phenomena, USG or U.S. industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a
catchall “other” bin.
...

UAP would also represent a national security challenge if they are foreign adversary
collection platforms or provide evidence a potential adversary has developed either a
breakthrough or disruptive technology.

 

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2021 at 7:01 AM, Desertrat56 said:

I would like to pipe up with this piece.   If they were testing experimental drone configurations you bet they WOULD be using every kind of sensing equipment they have to get as much data as possible.   One of the goals of using drones is to be undetected so they would need to be using all their sensing equipment.  That is just common sense.

Well, that's not entirely accurate. It is dependent on the size and purpose of the drone which will define what the mission goals and capabilities would be. For example, the RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV is pretty damn big and not intended to be stealthy at all. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2021 at 5:33 AM, ChrLzs said:

But there is ALWAYS the problem I have already mentioned several times.  It doesn't matter how sophisticated your equipment is, it will ALWAYS have limitations and in particular a limit to the detection range.  So, there will ALWAYS be situations where an object or return is right on the limits, and thus cannot be positively identified, or the data is not stable or reliable enough to be used to verify non-terrestrial-ness...

So, that argument does not affect the point being made, it just means the wonky 'anomalies' are just from a little further away.

Phantom,

It doesn't matter who the hell makes claims, if they can't or don't support them, they are worthless.  Gee, Phantom, can you think of any possible reason why a DoD employee might want to exaggerate perceived threats?  Here, let me give you a little hint - funding.

WHICH actions are those?  Did you forget to quote that bit, or it not in the video?

Again, WHICH actions are those?  They're not in the FLIR videos, so did he also leave that bit uncited as well?  Are you noticing a trend here?  Are you not aware that it is, very obviously, the American way to make ludicrous claims and expect people to buy them simply because you occupy a high position?  Ferkrist sake, it's a national sport over there.  Were you asleep for Trump?

AGAIN, WHICH EVENT was that?  In the last 'citation', that claim was actually made about an unsupported incident from 1951, where the witness stories vary dramatically, and the actual 'verification' was simply that a ground radar also saw something at about the right time.  That radar station did NOT measure or verify the speed claim, but the words were deliberately twisted and 'full verification' has now been falsely added to the legend.  This is how these people work - they lie their asses off, and rely on people NOT to check.

SORRY, I CHECK.

Again, no citation, Phantom?  Yes, there are some where there is apparent radar corroboration, BUT that corroboration does NOT include verifying hypersonics or instantaneous acceleration.  Dispute that?  Then post a dam link to the data.

Honestly, what do we have to do to get the point through?

Read the DoD summary report AGAIN...  Let me repeat what they say, for the last time (my emphasis):

 

Wow, what pompous, ego inflated, grandiose responses. Histrionics must be a heavy component of your DNA.  So, it looks like we have someone here who knows more than John Ratcliffe - and apparently other members of U.S. intelligence. We should be oh-so-fortunate. Funding you say, well - duh - everyone wants that. Higher quality data? I guess you have been asleep at the wheel - or conveniently overlook the obvious - numerous times people like Chris Mellon, Marco Rubio, Lou Elizondo, Ratcliffe etc have indicated much higher quality evidence does exist, but has not been declassified as of yet. Why? Simply because you do not want to compromise any of the electronic and optical gathering systems currently being employed. Plus, why reveal to your adversaries what you really have capabilities wise - and what you really know? That's a massive verboten no-no. Where's the citations you say, no verified speed claims, yada, yada? Thats laughable - you think I - or anyone else outside of the NRO, ONI, CIA, etc - has access to such information? Of course not. What a rhetorical question. And please...the DOD report......give me a break. You think they were going to reveal much of what is real truth and definitively known? That's about as naive a position as anyone could ever adopt. The DOD response was a classic example of minimalist compliance. Trump? OMG, don't bring that clown into the conversation. Well, enough of that. So, let's delve into your posture. Looks like you are in deep denial, desperately trying to hang on to some outdated and myopic world view. You come across as some rather adolescent individual, unable to accept, cope, and discuss the reality of what we are dealing with. These advanced technologies currently being observed have the potential for vast, game changing effects on societies and cultures everywhere. There is much at stake, and our governments and military forces are not about to reveal their poker hands soon to anyone, so no matter how much you jump up and down like an insolent pre-teen on Christmas morning, wailing because you didn't get exactly what you wanted - don't count on realizing any major revelations anytime soon. If these craft are Chinese or Russian, we have a real big problem on our hands, but that remains unlikely, in all likelihood they would have used it against us already in some capacity. I doubt we have drone technology on such a level, although Dr Salvatore Pais's patents and work looks highly promising. Thus, it probably is extraterrestrial, but what do they want....? I have not the slightest idea, and it has to be the big open Q in Washington and elsewhere. And one thing you can count on, the Joint Chiefs have got a decent handle on what's up there, no doubt they demanded and got a full estimate of the situation years ago from the best technical minds available. Do they currently have everything knowledge wise? Of course not. In the meantime, I'll continue to listen to what the Ratcliffe's, etc of the world have to say, and probably ignore what emanates from your keyboard.....to date on this topic your contribution seems to balance out as something far less than optimum. Thats unfortunate, as I sense you could provide some worthwhile perspective. So, I hope you improve on your defiant and arrogant themed stances, start listening to others, and adopt a more accommodative dialog with less of the aforementioned histrionics. If not, I'll explore whether this site has an ignore function......and you can forever reside in my La La Land of Irrelevance.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Phantom309 said:

Wow, what pompous, ego inflated, grandiose responses. Histrionics must be a heavy component of your DNA.  So, it looks like we have someone here who knows more than John Ratcliffe - and apparently other members of U.S. intelligence. We should be oh-so-fortunate. Funding you say, well - duh - everyone wants that. Higher quality data? I guess you have been asleep at the wheel - or conveniently overlook the obvious - numerous times people like Chris Mellon, Marco Rubio, Lou Elizondo, Ratcliffe etc have indicated much higher quality evidence does exist, but has not been declassified as of yet. Why? Simply because you do not want to compromise any of the electronic and optical gathering systems currently being employed. Plus, why reveal to your adversaries what you really have capabilities wise - and what you really know? That's a massive verboten no-no. Where's the citations you say, no verified speed claims, yada, yada? Thats laughable - you think I - or anyone else outside of the NRO, ONI, CIA, etc - has access to such information? Of course not. What a rhetorical question. And please...the DOD report......give me a break. You think they were going to reveal much of what is real truth and definitively known? That's about as naive a position as anyone could ever adopt. The DOD response was a classic example of minimalist compliance. Trump? OMG, don't bring that clown into the conversation. Well, enough of that. So, let's delve into your posture. Looks like you are in deep denial, desperately trying to hang on to some outdated and myopic world view. You come across as some rather adolescent individual, unable to accept, cope, and discuss the reality of what we are dealing with. These advanced technologies currently being observed have the potential for vast, game changing effects on societies and cultures everywhere. There is much at stake, and our governments and military forces are not about to reveal their poker hands soon to anyone, so no matter how much you jump up and down like an insolent pre-teen on Christmas morning, wailing because you didn't get exactly what you wanted - don't count on realizing any major revelations anytime soon. If these craft are Chinese or Russian, we have a real big problem on our hands, but that remains unlikely, in all likelihood they would have used it against us already in some capacity. I doubt we have drone technology on such a level, although Dr Salvatore Pais's patents and work looks highly promising. Thus, it probably is extraterrestrial, but what do they want....? I have not the slightest idea, and it has to be the big open Q in Washington and elsewhere. And one thing you can count on, the Joint Chiefs have got a decent handle on what's up there, no doubt they demanded and got a full estimate of the situation years ago from the best technical minds available. Do they currently have everything knowledge wise? Of course not. In the meantime, I'll continue to listen to what the Ratcliffe's, etc of the world have to say, and probably ignore what emanates from your keyboard.....to date on this topic your contribution seems to balance out as something far less than optimum. Thats unfortunate, as I sense you could provide some worthwhile perspective. So, I hope you improve on your defiant and arrogant themed stances, start listening to others, and adopt a more accommodative dialog with less of the aforementioned histrionics. If not, I'll explore whether this site has an ignore function......and you can forever reside in my La La Land of Irrelevance.

So you've got nothing to add other than ad hominems,  projection, and rationalising that your ignorance leaves ET as the only possible explanation.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phantom309 said:

*snip*

hJyXxoT.png?1

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Phantom309 said:

Wow, what pompous, ego inflated, grandiose responses...

Strange then, that you didn't actually dispute what I said and thus tear me down and show your superior knowledge...

As my main point was that all detection equipment has limitations and a limited range, you clearly believe that some devices have unlimited range and no limitations.

That's patently wrong and purely idiotic.  So I won't waste my time further on you.  Pick another hobby, dear.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

 

As my main point was that all detection equipment has limitations and a limited range, you clearly believe that some devices have unlimited range and no limitations.

 

 

 

No, I agree with you, that equipment has its limitations - range, resolution, etc. What those limits are, I have no idea, but the Navy certainly does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lou Elizondo claims that he has been director of AATIP but there is no confirmation of that. I think they would have selected people carefully for that program, people who are not likely to leak information. Especially the director would have been selected carefully I think. It would have been a bit more credible if Lou Elizondo had claimed that he had been a low-ranking person within the program I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2021 at 10:28 PM, Phantom309 said:

No, I agree with you, that equipment has its limitations - range, resolution, etc. What those limits are, I have no idea, but the Navy certainly does.

As for all the FLIR footage, we DO know what the range and resolution is.  There are those of us who DO understand how the equipment works and what its limitations are, eg how the gimbal mount may reach its limits when tracking and has to lose lock and quickly re-orient itself (rather like an alt-az mount on a telescope).  This results in a false impression of very high velocities. Also we know how changing the zoom level can do the same (something which Elizondo's crack team of idiots hadn't noticed and made false claims about...).  All the info on those issues and much more is available and verifiable.

That's why we can say, correctly and verifiably, that the FLIR imagery presented to date does not show any 'instantaneous acceleration' or similarly unexplainable maneuvering.  These objects may not have been definitively identified, but they showed nothing of special interest and are almost certainly aircraft, drones, met or target balloons, windblown garbage or seabirds. 

Nor does the footage show any shapes that are not typical of the heat signatures of those potential objects listed above, that are towards the limits of the equipment's range.

 

So we are left with the only 'interesting' claims being some anecdotal stuff from one or two pilots, and also some undocumented claims that radar had 'verified' either the object or its speed.  We have not ever seen the radar data, nor even radar screenshots that infer same.

And that is all consistent with the DoD report quoted above.  There's currently nothing of any substance to explain.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

As for all the FLIR footage, we DO know what the range and resolution is.  There are those of us who DO understand how the equipment works and what its limitations are, eg how the gimbal mount may reach its limits when tracking and has to lose lock and quickly re-orient itself (rather like an alt-az mount on a telescope).  This results in a false impression of very high velocities. Also we know how changing the zoom level can do the same (something which Elizondo's crack team of idiots hadn't noticed and made false claims about...).  All the info on those issues and much more is available and verifiable.

That's why we can say, correctly and verifiably, that the FLIR imagery presented to date does not show any 'instantaneous acceleration' or similarly unexplainable maneuvering.  These objects may not have been definitively identified, but they showed nothing of special interest and are almost certainly aircraft, drones, met or target balloons, windblown garbage or seabirds. 

Nor does the footage show any shapes that are not typical of the heat signatures of those potential objects listed above, that are towards the limits of the equipment's range.

 

So we are left with the only 'interesting' claims being some anecdotal stuff from one or two pilots, and also some undocumented claims that radar had 'verified' either the object or its speed.  We have not ever seen the radar data, nor even radar screenshots that infer same.

And that is all consistent with the DoD report quoted above.  There's currently nothing of any substance to explain.

I could find nothing from anyone to discount the FLIR footage. From all indications it was operating normally. I'll include this link from an ex-fighter jock who evaluated the videos. He makes no conclusions on what the objects were nor does he indicate there are malfunctions of any type. And again, we are not going to see the actual radar data anytime soon, that stuff they keep close to their vests, you want to provide nothing any adversary can draw conclusions from. 

 

Interview with ex Navy Chief Sean Cahill and former Defense asst. Secretary Chris Mellon. Cahill mentions this technology is not within our arsenal of any human tech and is probably 100 to 1000 years in advance of our current abilities. Mellon underscores that with his comments.  And by the way, I would not be so quick to characterize or disparage any of our military personnel as "idiots", be they from the U.S. or from Australia, where I see you are located at. The ones I have known personally over the years who were involved in similar capacities have all been very, very, competent, truthful, and trustworthy. 

 

Instantaneous acceleration - this has been reported by numerous sources. Here's just one - Senior Chief Petty Officer Kevin Day, radar operator on the USS Princeton. He discusses acceleration from about the 11-minute mark to 17 minutes. His equipment indicated these objects dropped from 28 thousand feet to 50 feet above the water in .78/second. That is something in excess of 20,000MPH. Incredible, seemingly instantaneous movements of these objects have been reported by numerous military people since this topic jumped into the mainstream about 3-4 years ago. Never once have I seen any person involved, civilian or military, disprove this claim the objects are not acting in this manner. He also conforms the FLIR systems were operating as normal, about the 29-minute mark on that issue.
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go, back to the old tactics...

5 hours ago, Phantom309 said:

I could find nothing from anyone to discount the FLIR footage.

First up, you clearly only looked for stuff supporting these claims.

Second, we are grown ups here and well familiar with the tactics used by those who love to avoid proper discussion.  So, do NOT use the Gish Gallop method of posting lots of videos as if quantity creates quality.  You do NOT get to be taken seriously here by posting several videos and then handwaving like a maniac, without actually properly referencing and looking at, in detail, what was claimed.

Interestingly I saw some very precise numbers in your post... but no error ranges, no assumptions or description of exactly how the 'measurements' and calculations were made....  Did that not ring alarm bells with you?

 

SO....  PICK ONE.  If you are not willing to do that, and would prefer to just throw up more examples of the utter crap you can find on the Interwebz, you'll get ignored, because I for one am NOT going to bother with every piece of drivel you post as 'evidence'..  But if you can get brave and actually nominate the BEST evidence you can muster, then I'll be happy to go through it in detail.

 

I can't be fairer than that - NOMINATE ONE VIDEO and the claims that are associated with that video.  (And bear this in mind, I'm very familiar with these claims and the lack of real evidence for them.)  If your best example, the one that you chose, doesn't contain any real evidence, and is nothing but an unverifiable anecdote or story, then your entire position is untenable.  So choose carefully. I look forward to your contribution and ongoing debate. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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.