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
 Share

Recommended Posts

Stupid editor.....  please ignore.

 

Edited by ChrLzs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let's begin by addressing the text above @Phantom309's claim.

Quote

Instantaneous acceleration - this has been reported by numerous sources.

Yes, it's been picked up and repeated by media around the world.  That means absolutely nothing - there are NOT other sources for this claim, which I presume is what you wished to imply - ie misinformation.

But even then, the claim does NOT suggest 'instantaneous' acceleration, even if we could verify the numbers (a lot more on that later)...  so there's more misinformation.

Quote

Here's just one - Senior Chief Petty Officer Kevin Day, radar operator on the USS Princeton.

So, let's be clear, this is strictly a claim based on Day's interpretation of what he says he saw on his radar screen on the Princeton.  This was in 2004, Day was not a pilot, but according to him, he was hearing radio transmissions coming from David Fravor, who claimed he was observing an object.

Quote

He discusses acceleration from about the 11-minute mark to 17 minutes.

{of the Youtube video}

Quote

His equipment indicated these objects dropped from 28 thousand feet to 50 feet above the water in .78/second.

Hmm.  OK, but bearing in mind that this was an object in 3D space, how did Day get the actual distance traveled?  Was that just vertical distance, and if so, how accurately does the radar detect items at 50,000 feet?  How about 50 feet?  Sounds very impressive.  More importantly where did that 0.78 seconds come from - interval between sweeps?  If it was 'sweeping', how did Day or the radar verify that the second return was in fact the same thing as the first, and not a new return (eg a different drone)?  I've bolded that bit for a very good reason..............  more later.

We'll look at this in lots more detail later - for now I'm just interested to see Phantom's (and Freez's) responses to these rather basic first principles...

Quote

That is something in excess of 20,000MPH.

Oh?  Can someone check my work here?  Thanks - I'm tired and will prolly make a mistake... The maths for calculating speed/velocity is Speed=Distance / Time.  Agreed?  For now let's forget error ranges and other excessive stuff... :D 

We want a figure of miles per hour, so..

50,000 feet, divided by 5,280 feet in a mile = 9.46 miles.

0.78 seconds, divided by 3600 seconds in an hour = 0.000217 hours.

So, Speed = 9.46 miles / 0.000217 (hours)

Speed = 43,600 mph

Oh dear.  That's not 20,000 mph, it's far faster.  Did I make an error?  Can someone help me out here? :D :D 

Now, of course if the 'thing' also traversed horizontal ground it would be even faster.  So ... if I'm right why did Day use a different figure?  And where is any of this actually documented, so we can do the REAL maths? 

 

Do you see where I'm heading? :)   Believe me it gets way worse....  For now, I'd like to pause and hear some responses and other opinions - dissenting is fine, or if you can add to Day's claims (especially his ORIGINAL claims....), please do.

BTW, an earlier post by Bison may come back to haunt us..... :D   That 'scientific' report is absolutely hilarious.

 

BUT First can someone please check my little calculation above..?  Thanks.

 

bbl8R

 

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

7 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

So let's begin by addressing the text above @Phantom309's claim.

Yes, it's been picked up and repeated by media around the world.  That means absolutely nothing - there are NOT other sources for this claim, which I presume is what you wished to imply - ie misinformation.

But even then, the claim does NOT suggest 'instantaneous' acceleration, even if we could verify the numbers (a lot more on that later)...  so there's more misinformation.

So, let's be clear, this is strictly a claim based on Day's interpretation of what he says he saw on his radar screen on the Princeton.  This was in 2004, Day was not a pilot, but according to him, he was hearing radio transmissions coming from David Fravor, who claimed he was observing an object.

{of the Youtube video}

Hmm.  OK, but bearing in mind that this was an object in 3D space, how did Day get the actual distance traveled?  Was that just vertical distance, and if so, how accurately does the radar detect items at 50,000 feet?  How about 50 feet?  Sounds very impressive.  More importantly where did that 0.78 seconds come from - interval between sweeps?  If it was 'sweeping', how did Day or the radar verify that the second return was in fact the same thing as the first, and not a new return (eg a different drone)?  I've bolded that bit for a very good reason..............  more later.

We'll look at this in lots more detail later - for now I'm just interested to see Phantom's (and Freez's) responses to these rather basic first principles...

Oh?  Can someone check my work here?  Thanks - I'm tired and will prolly make a mistake... The maths for calculating speed/velocity is Speed=Distance / Time.  Agreed?  For now let's forget error ranges and other excessive stuff... :D 

We want a figure of miles per hour, so..

50,000 feet, divided by 5,280 feet in a mile = 9.46 miles.

0.78 seconds, divided by 3600 seconds in an hour = 0.000217 hours.

So, Speed = 9.46 miles / 0.000217 (hours)

Speed = 43,600 mph

Oh dear.  That's not 20,000 mph, it's far faster.  Did I make an error?  Can someone help me out here? :D :D 

Now, of course if the 'thing' also traversed horizontal ground it would be even faster.  So ... if I'm right why did Day use a different figure?  And where is any of this actually documented, so we can do the REAL maths? 

 

Do you see where I'm heading? :)   Believe me it gets way worse....  For now, I'd like to pause and hear some responses and other opinions - dissenting is fine, or if you can add to Day's claims (especially his ORIGINAL claims....), please do.

BTW, an earlier post by Bison may come back to haunt us..... :D   That 'scientific' report is absolutely hilarious.

 

BUT First can someone please check my little calculation above..?  Thanks.

 

bbl8R

 

The system was a phased array RADAR IIRC.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

The system was a phased array RADAR IIRC.

Correct.  And phased array radars *can* under some conditions do tracking...

I'm kinda deliberately not going into full detail just yet... but have a wild guess whether Day's radar WAS in tracking mode...?  :D 

I {forlornly?} hope that @Phantom309 or @Freez1 might come back and bravely help with unveiling The Truth... or have they lost interest now they can see where it is probably heading?

 

And again, if anyone has any issues or wishes to dispute anything I am stating, do feel free, and prepare to be deluged with citations, video interviews, 'official' reports, etc, mostly from the horses' mouths....

 

I'll give it a few days before continuing without them if necessary, it being the holiday season and all - people can get busy...

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, there is a 'sort-of' error in my work above.  I used the wrong figure for the alleged height of the alleged radar return's alleged upper altitude.

However, after you see some stuff that I will be citing later, you'll see why I got confused!  Let's just say that the upper altitude measurement is very much in doubt.  We can pretty much pick any of several numbers.................

I'll redo the calculation later, including error ranges and assumptions - but I can tell you now, it is an utterly worthless calculation given there is no accurate source for the numbers.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2021 at 6:45 AM, ChrLzs said:

Correct.  And phased array radars *can* under some conditions do tracking...

I'm kinda deliberately not going into full detail just yet... but have a wild guess whether Day's radar WAS in tracking mode...?  :D 

I {forlornly?} hope that @Phantom309 or @Freez1 might come back and bravely help with unveiling The Truth... or have they lost interest now they can see where it is probably heading?

 

And again, if anyone has any issues or wishes to dispute anything I am stating, do feel free, and prepare to be deluged with citations, video interviews, 'official' reports, etc, mostly from the horses' mouths....

 

I'll give it a few days before continuing without them if necessary, it being the holiday season and all - people can get busy...

 

Hi Chrlzs,

Old buddy, how are you?

Just one comment and then a completely unrelated question.

Phased Array Radars are exceptionally good at tracking as their sweeping is facilitated by electronics and not mechanically by swerving the antenna. Of course it all depends on the signal processing software, it’s actual purpose and the RADAR itself.

Unrelated question: given your experience in photography, do you know anything about the actual lens optical train? 
 

Cheers!

Badeskov

PS: belated Merry Christmas to all!

 

Edited by badeskov
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Merry Christmas all (it's over now here in Oz..)

1 hour ago, badeskov said:

Hi Chrlzs,

Old buddy, how are you?

Baaade!!!  Mate, it's great that you turned up, I was kinda hoping you would!!  I'm good - my dicky old heart seems to have got back into rhythm, and I had a wonderful christmas day - hope you did/do too.

1 hour ago, badeskov said:

Just one comment and then a completely unrelated question.

Awesome, and I'll throw a couple back at you when you have time..

1 hour ago, badeskov said:

Phased Array Radars are exceptionally good at tracking as their sweeping is facilitated by electronics and not mechanically by swerving the antenna. Of course it all depends on the signal processing software, it’s actual purpose and the RADAR itself.

Correct.  But .... :D my aim here is to get back to source information and references to find the sources for the claims and numbers.  Also what type of radar, how it was being operated, comments from supervisors and experts...  One of those sources is here (a word of caution - this doesn't use very professional wording and uses odd Capitalisation.. :) ) ... and I'll quote the relevant parts with my emphasis and comments in {curly brackets}:

Quote

The USS Princeton was part of the Nimitz Carrier Battle Group, during the period of approximately 10-16 November 2004 while completing Tailored Ships Training Availability (TSTA) in preparation for their deployment to the Arabian Sea.
...{remember these people were being trained on relatively new equipment and systems..}

According to Senior Chief ____{redacted}, the AAV's {Anomalous Aerial Vehicles} would descend from a very high altitude into the scan volume of the AN/SPY-1 at a high velocity.
...
The AAV's would descend "very rapidly" from approximately 60,000 feet down to approximately 50 feet in a matter of seconds.
...{"very rapidly" is NOT instantaneously.. "approximately" means that the number is not to be trusted, "a matter of seconds" is NOT 0.78 seconds as was claimed}

Senior Chief ____{redacted} added that based on his experience, which is 17 years as a fire control {sic} on Aegis cruisers, the AAV exhibited Ballistic Missile Characteristics in reference to its appearance, velocity, and indications on the radar.
... {so they are NOT claiming 'impossible' maneuvers at all!!}

Since the radar was in the mode to handle Air Intercept of conventional aircraft it never obtained an accurate track of the AAVs and was quickly "dropped" by the radar meaning it was eliminated by the computer to reduce the amount of clutter on the radar, as any other false target is handled.
... {so the radar was NOT tracking them, even though it could if set up properly and the return was strong and long-enough lasting - but the radar computer rejected the returns and deleted them as false!!!}


The Tactical Air Officer onboard the Princeton could not identify the radar contact...
... {any questions..:D 

Bade, I'd love to hear your further comments on the above...  And to those quoting different numbers - CITE YOUR SOURCES.
 

1 hour ago, badeskov said:

Unrelated question: given your experience in photography, do you know anything about the actual lens optical train?

Nope!  Ok, to be more fullsome, I know a bit (it's a Raytheon brand system, but I don't know if they do the optics or outsource..), but what is it you are after?  I can probably help, as it's pretty well referenced online - it's not super secret.  At the moment I'll pass on trying to answer the question as I have some errands to do, but if you can be specific about what you are interested in, I'll dig up appropriate references or discussions

1 hour ago, badeskov said:

Cheers!

Badeskov

PS: belated Merry Christmas to all!

 

Ditto.

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

21 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Merry Christmas all (it's over now here in Oz..)

Well, it was in CA too, but as usual hectic with work. 

21 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Baaade!!!  Mate, it's great that you turned up, I was kinda hoping you would!!  I'm good - my dicky old heart seems to have got back into rhythm, and I had a wonderful christmas day - hope you did/do too.

I did indeed, thanks. Besides family times, I managed to do some of my absolutely non-work related pastimes, cooking (Christmas cooking is an all day thing) and building in the garden. The local hardware store is very familiar with me. 

21 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Awesome, and I'll throw a couple back at you when you have time..

As always, very much appreciated. 

21 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Correct.  But .... :D my aim here is to get back to source information and references to find the sources for the claims and numbers.  Also what type of radar, how it was being operated, comments from supervisors and experts...  One of those sources is here (a word of caution - this doesn't use very professional wording and uses odd Capitalisation.. :) ) ... and I'll quote the relevant parts with my emphasis and comments in {curly brackets}:

Bade, I'd love to hear your further comments on the above...  And to those quoting different numbers - CITE YOUR SOURCES.

I need to do some further study, but it is already clear to me that the AN/SPY-1 had neither the capability nor was it ever supposed to generate such numbers  

At a scanning rate as low as 1 scan per min horizontally it had no chance of such tracking. This is my preliminary assessment, but I am still reading through the more detailed data sheets. 

21 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Nope!  Ok, to be more fullsome, I know a bit (it's a Raytheon brand system, but I don't know if they do the optics or outsource..), but what is it you are after?  I can probably help, as it's pretty well referenced online - it's not super secret.  At the moment I'll pass on trying to answer the question as I have some errands to do, but if you can be specific about what you are interested in, I'll dig up appropriate references or discussions

Uhm, I should have clarified. I am rebuilding my telescope and am just angling for hints, ahem. 
 

Cheers,

Badeskov

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

*** Offtopic.... :D 

6 hours ago, badeskov said:

The local hardware store is very familiar with me.

Haha, me too!  I just topped off my tool collection with xmas vouchers, so I now have a heat gun and a 'rotary tool' (a clone of a Dremmel, if that clarifies..)  The heat gun is for some odd jobs in the car restoration I'm doing, and the rotary tool is for some work I'm doing to restore a Technics SL-D30 turntable.  The D30 is only a 'medium' quality device from the 70's, but it has an excellent reputation for sound quality and it has very clever automatic functions - it fights well above its weight.  I'm upgrading the cartridge and also replacing a broken tone arm support/clip.  Note that I'm a vinyl 'enthusiast', but not a militant one - 99% of vinyl records simply aren't as good as the CD equivalents.  But I like the feel of a good old LP - it takes me back to the 80's, when I still had good hearing and absolutely loved hi-fi...

Aaah, I digress...... it must be the holiday spirit...   

******

6 hours ago, badeskov said:

I need to do some further study, but it is already clear to me that the AN/SPY-1 had neither the capability nor was it ever supposed to generate such numbers

Interestingly, the numbers vary from retelling to retelling, and NONE of those retellings includes anything like evidence - as far as I can tell the devices were not recording or being recorded, so all we have is tall tales..  And the 50/60,000 feet claim is obviously just the quoted ceiling limit of the radar's capability....  sigh..

6 hours ago, badeskov said:

At a scanning rate as low as 1 scan per min horizontally it had no chance of such tracking. This is my preliminary assessment, but I am still reading through the more detailed data sheets.

Do keep us posted if you get any further than I have.  I think you might be surprised at how many folks here appreciate your experience and input.

6 hours ago, badeskov said:

Uhm, I should have clarified. I am rebuilding my telescope and am just angling for hints, ahem. 

Interesting.  but you can't leave us hanging like that!!  Some details please..  I've never really owned (let alone tried to build) a good scope, unless you count a little computerised Meade ETX.  But that was about 20 years ago - at the moment I don't have anything but Olympus 10x50 binocs..  I'd have to say I haven't really looked deeply into the optics of these ATFLIR systems - frankly, I don't think high-resolution was amongst their design criteria!  They rarely are used in optical mode, and both the IR and optical images are at best... well, low res and fuzzy.  They look out of focus even when they are in focus...  Sure, they are operating towards their range limit in most of the footage being thrown about, but even so... 

 

Anyway, thank you for your input.

 

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

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

*** Offtopic.... :D 

Haha, me too!  I just topped off my tool collection with xmas vouchers, so I now have a heat gun and a 'rotary tool' (a clone of a Dremmel, if that clarifies..)  The heat gun is for some odd jobs in the car restoration I'm doing, and the rotary tool is for some work I'm doing to restore a Technics SL-D30 turntable.  The D30 is only a 'medium' quality device from the 70's, but it has an excellent reputation for sound quality and it has very clever automatic functions - it fights well above its weight.  I'm upgrading the cartridge and also replacing a broken tone arm support/clip.  Note that I'm a vinyl 'enthusiast', but not a militant one - 99% of vinyl records simply aren't as good as the CD equivalents.  But I like the feel of a good old LP - it takes me back to the 80's, when I still had good hearing and absolutely loved hi-fi...

Aaah, I digress...... it must be the holiday spirit...   

******

Nothing wrong with the holiday spirit! :D I like your hobbies. And I am glad you clarified the rotary tool as a Dremmel (have a Dremmel myself), as I think of a rotary tool in wood works, i.e. a sander or a router.

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Interestingly, the numbers vary from retelling to retelling, and NONE of those retellings includes anything like evidence - as far as I can tell the devices were not recording or being recorded, so all we have is tall tales..  And the 50/60,000 feet claim is obviously just the quoted ceiling limit of the radar's capability....  sigh..

Yeah Mate, I can tell no solid numbers/data is available. Sadly, as usual. By the way, I read through that one PDF you linked to and that is one strange read. I don't know if it is on purpose, but it is to made look like an old document, with the holes from a ring binder on the left, old font and redactions, yet all the footnotes are from Wiki :wacko: 

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Do keep us posted if you get any further than I have.

I'll keep reading. The problem with this is a lot of the capabilities are not only classified, but also signal processing dependent and determined by the signal processing hardware horsepower and the actual software/firmware. 

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

I think you might be surprised at how many folks here appreciate your experience and input.

:blush:

Thanks Buddy, you just made me feel incredibly humble!

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Interesting.  but you can't leave us hanging like that!!  Some details please..  I've never really owned (let alone tried to build) a good scope, unless you count a little computerised Meade ETX.  But that was about 20 years ago - at the moment I don't have anything but Olympus 10x50 binocs..  I'd have to say I haven't really looked deeply into the optics of these ATFLIR systems - frankly, I don't think high-resolution was amongst their design criteria!  They rarely are used in optical mode, and both the IR and optical images are at best... well, low res and fuzzy.  They look out of focus even when they are in focus...  Sure, they are operating towards their range limit in most of the footage being thrown about, but even so... 

I had a project years ago that I also briefly explained to Psyche, which was that I had gotten my hands on a high end CCD and put it into an aluminum cylinder that had a nitrogen vent, so I could replace the air inside the tube with nitrogen. The CCD was mounted on a piece of aluminum on top of a Peltier element stack (3), so I could effectively cool the assembly down to about -50C to minimize thermal and electrical shot noise in the semiconductors. However, I was never really able to get a good interface between my telescope and the optical train in my lens assembly, and then it got stowed (too many other things to do). But I recently, by sheer chance, got my hands on a huge lens kit that was about the tossed out and I figured now was the time to revamp my little project.

And since I have almost finished my workshop (so I do no longer need to use the patio/dining room table to the chagrin of my wife), I was planning on making a much more solid mount for it also (of course, electronically controlled).  Link.

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Anyway, thank you for your input.

Always a pleasure, when I feel that I can contribute.

Cheers!

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi ChrLzs,

Just to quickly comment on this, with the caveat that I am still trying to find some more specific information on the RADAR system in question, so my comments will be more general. But please feel free to pick at my comments B)

On 12/25/2021 at 1:56 PM, ChrLzs said:

The USS Princeton was part of the Nimitz Carrier Battle Group, during the period of approximately 10-16 November 2004 while completing Tailored Ships Training Availability (TSTA) in preparation for their deployment to the Arabian Sea.
...{remember these people were being trained on relatively new equipment and systems..}

Actually, the equipment was not new if specifically looking at the AN/SPY-1 in 2004. It was introduced in 1981 and the AN/SPY-1B, as is in question here, was first deployed in 1982. However, the system was most likely new to the personnel being trained on it (thus, the need for training).

Quote

According to Senior Chief ____{redacted}, the AAV's {Anomalous Aerial Vehicles} would descend from a very high altitude into the scan volume of the AN/SPY-1 at a high velocity.
...
The AAV's would descend "very rapidly" from approximately 60,000 feet down to approximately 50 feet in a matter of seconds.
...{"very rapidly" is NOT instantaneously.. "approximately" means that the number is not to be trusted, "a matter of seconds" is NOT 0.78 seconds as was claimed}

No, that number cannot be trusted at all. All RADARs employ CFAR (Constant False Alarm Rate), which as an adaptive means of reducing clutter and make sure that the RADAR in question is not drowning out the targets that it is supposed to track in background noise. In this specific case, the AN/SPY-1B's target identification envelope was missiles (including ballistic) and aircraft. For detection and preliminary trajection estimates they have algorithms that can identify those, and once intercept action has been decided upon, other, faster tracking and intercept guidance systems take over.

Essentially, the RADAR will will switch to shorter range to allow for faster RADAR pulse emission rates and a smaller scan area to allow for higher accuracy.

Quote

Senior Chief ____{redacted} added that based on his experience, which is 17 years as a fire control {sic} on Aegis cruisers, the AAV exhibited Ballistic Missile Characteristics in reference to its appearance, velocity, and indications on the radar.
... {so they are NOT claiming 'impossible' maneuvers at all!!}

So Mr. Senior Chief Redacted (^_^) thought it looked like ballistic missile characteristics. If he indeed had 17 years of experience on Aegis cruisers as alleged, I would believe that. Given that the RADAR system in question was first deployed in 1982, he could have had plenty of experience with that system and given it's maturity in 2004, it sounds plausible. So, apparently not claiming impossible maneuvers at all. It sounds from his statement that the RADAR track fell well within what the system was supposed to identify and track.

Quote

Since the radar was in the mode to handle Air Intercept of conventional aircraft it never obtained an accurate track of the AAVs and was quickly "dropped" by the radar meaning it was eliminated by the computer to reduce the amount of clutter on the radar, as any other false target is handled.
... {so the radar was NOT tracking them, even though it could if set up properly and the return was strong and long-enough lasting - but the radar computer rejected the returns and deleted them as false!!!}

Again, I refer to CFAR. You are correct, it was not tracking, but eliminated the "target" as clutter.

Quote

The Tactical Air Officer onboard the Princeton could not identify the radar contact...
... {any questions..:D 

Well, of course he could not ^_^ Nor would he ever be able to. 

My guess is that the RADAR picked up a false target up high and then one at 50 feet (could easily be a reflection from the ocean) and then discounted both as stray, false targets. They probably just happened to be in the same direction and then some UFO buffs without the technical background to properly analyze the data ran with it.

Just my two cents.

Cheers!

Badeskov

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

3 hours ago, badeskov said:

Just my two cents.

Nah, I think that was worth at least $50.  :D 

That was awesome, Bade.  Thanks for putting in the time and adding your experience - it is greatly appreciated.  I've got a few things to do today, but will be back later to elaborate.  It's interesting to note that since my offer from many weeks ago, none of the promoters of the claims of "impossible" (let alone impressive..) maneuvers have decided to actually engage in the discussion.......

I think that speaks volumes.  @Phantom309,  @Freez1 any comments?

If anyone cares, I'd also like to go back to that link bison offered up.  If nothing else, I think it would give Badeskov a good laugh if he sees the "analysis methodology" that was used.  Or I should say ABused - I've never seen statistics and bell curves used before (with NO supporting dataset), in determining velocities...  The whole document is one of the best examples I've ever seen of absolute bull****e being presented as 'science'.

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

BTW.....  I just discovered where the numbers, like 0.78 seconds, seem to have originated...  No, not Day or Fravor, not even Elizondo...  Let's just say I smiled when I found it.

https://explorerlab.org/?p=930  (some is in French, but Google's translate works...)

Kevin Knuth apparently is quite a promoter, and of course he's also the guy who 'peer-reviewed' and published his own 'scientific' report...

On Kevin's behalf, I apologise in advance for the powerpoint slide problems... :D 

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

Hi ChrLzs,

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Nah, I think that was worth at least $50.  :D 

Haha, not really, but I appreciate the sentiment :D

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

That was awesome, Bade.  Thanks for putting in the time and adding your experience - it is greatly appreciated.  I've got a few things to do today, but will be back later to elaborate. 

Well, not really awesome, but happy to share from my experience. We all come from different backgrounds and educations, and we should use that - like your vast experience in photography, in which I am an ignoramus in comparison.

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

It's interesting to note that since my offer from many weeks ago, none of the promoters of the claims of "impossible" (let alone impressive..) maneuvers have decided to actually engage in the discussion.......

Uhm, I don't think we need to elaborate on that ^_^

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

I think that speaks volumes.  @Phantom309,  @Freez1 any comments?

Waiting....

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

If anyone cares, I'd also like to go back to that link bison offered up.  If nothing else, I think it would give Badeskov a good laugh if he sees the "analysis methodology" that was used.  Or I should say ABused - I've never seen statistics and bell curves used before (with NO supporting dataset), in determining velocities...  The whole document is one of the best examples I've ever seen of absolute bull****e being presented as 'science'.

I read it and didn't know whether to laugh or cry, to be honest. I have never seen such abuse of probability density functions in science ever, and I used to be a reviewer on some pretty high end journals in the field of optical communications and semiconductor devices. That was, well, a disaster as presented in that "paper". Good grief.

Cheers,

Badeskov

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

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

BTW.....  I just discovered where the numbers, like 0.78 seconds, seem to have originated...  No, not Day or Fravor, not even Elizondo...  Let's just say I smiled when I found it.

https://explorerlab.org/?p=930  (some is in French, but Google's translate works...)

Kevin Knuth apparently is quite a promoter, and of course he's also the guy who 'peer-reviewed' and published his own 'scientific' report...

On Kevin's behalf, I apologise in advance for the powerpoint slide problems... :D 

Oh, good Heavens. Just looked through that....no, I have nothing further to add, as it would probably inflict damage to the profanity filters here at UM :P

Cheers,

Badeskov 

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

37 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Anyone remember the name of the ex Navy RIO?

Admittedly, can't say that I do.

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Anyone remember the name of the ex Navy RIO?

Hi Golden Duck

I have never heard of that but got this off a quick wiki search.

https://topgun.fandom.com/wiki/Radar_Intercept_Officer

Radar Intercept Officer

EDIT
 

Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) is a Naval Flight Officer who occupies the rear seat of such aircraft as the F-4 Phantom II and the F-14 Tomcat . Five characters in Top Gun were RIOs:

The modern-day equivalent of the RIO is the weapon systems officer, who is the backseater in the U.S. Marine Corps' F/A-18D Hornet and the U.S. Navy's F/A-18F Super Hornet. WSOs are depicted in Top Gun: Maverick.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Golden Duck

I have never heard of that but got this off a quick wiki search.

https://topgun.fandom.com/wiki/Radar_Intercept_Officer

Radar Intercept Officer

EDIT
 

Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) is a Naval Flight Officer who occupies the rear seat of such aircraft as the F-4 Phantom II and the F-14 Tomcat . Five characters in Top Gun were RIOs:

The modern-day equivalent of the RIO is the weapon systems officer, who is the backseater in the U.S. Marine Corps' F/A-18D Hornet and the U.S. Navy's F/A-18F Super Hornet. WSOs are depicted in Top Gun: Maverick.

Hi jmccr8,

I think Golden Duck was thinking of a specific RIO :)

Cheers,

Badeskov

 

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

6 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Thanks @badeskov and @jmccr8.

I'm sure you'd know him.  He had a Boardwalk Empire avatar.

Argh, Golden Duck, I had to do a Google image search on Boardwalk Empire, but I know who you are talking about albeit right now the name eludes me.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Thanks @badeskov and @jmccr8.

I'm sure you'd know him.  He had a Boardwalk Empire avatar.

b***** me, I know exactly who you are talking about. Not exactly the same (but some cropping would suffice - Steve Buscemi). Now you have led me on a chase going through old posts, you..you...:P  

image.jpeg.418ca12e7726deae2b43fbc711565ebe.jpeg

Cheers,

Badeskov

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

30 minutes ago, badeskov said:

b***** me, I know exactly who you are talking about. Not exactly the same (but some cropping would suffice - Steve Buscemi). Now you have led me on a chase going through old posts, you..you...:P  

image.jpeg.418ca12e7726deae2b43fbc711565ebe.jpeg

Cheers,

Badeskov

Good luck.  I've searched for my post on chemtrails where I explained the terrible chemical DHMO is is also added to our drinking water.  You revealed how you counter that by diluting yours with Scotch. Harte has a thread where that should've been preserved.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, badeskov said:

b***** me, I know exactly who you are talking about. Not exactly the same (but some cropping would suffice - Steve Buscemi). Now you have led me on a chase going through old posts, you..you...:P  

image.jpeg.418ca12e7726deae2b43fbc711565ebe.jpeg

Cheers,

Badeskov

@Merc14

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/profile/113168-merc14/

  • Like 3
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.