AARO publishes new analysis of famous 'Go Fast' US Navy UFO video

[UM-Bot]

The controversial footage, which has been widely circulated for years, shows an object moving over the ocean.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/384429/aaro-publishes-new-analysis-of-famous-go-fast-us-navy-ufo-video

[Hazzard]

12 minutes ago, UM-Bot said:

The controversial footage, which has been widely circulated for years, shows an object moving over the ocean.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/384429/aaro-publishes-new-analysis-of-famous-go-fast-us-navy-ufo-video

 

The believers whining about this one wont help!

They even put the math explaining it all on their site, so anyone can go check it out.

Math dont lie.

Edited February 12 by Hazzard

[Dan Homestead]

@Hazzard

But you need mathematicians to know if the math is correct. Until an independant mathematician reviews it and agrees, the view of AARO is not proven.

And it was travelling between 5mph and 92mph?

Haha, there;s 87 mph between those numbers, what is it then?
Walking speede or high speed car speed?

And by looking at the video, it's going fast. No paralax as the camera was in parallel with the object, and flying along with it.

[Hazzard]

28 minutes ago, Dan Homestead said:

@Hazzard

But you need mathematicians to know if the math is correct. Until an independant mathematician reviews it and agrees, the view of AARO is not proven.

And it was travelling between 5mph and 92mph?

Haha, there;s 87 mph between those numbers, what is it then?
Walking speede or high speed car speed?

And by looking at the video, it's going fast. No paralax as the camera was in parallel with the object, and flying along with it.

Its the claim that some of these UFOs are breaking the laws of physics that is debunked here. The claim that the gofast UFO is going REALLY fast.

It is now proven that its not.

Do you understand paralax?

Im guessing that you didnt check out their website?

Edited February 12 by Hazzard

[Trelane]

1 hour ago, Dan Homestead said:

@Hazzard

But you need mathematicians to know if the math is correct. Until an independant mathematician reviews it and agrees, the view of AARO is not proven.

And it was travelling between 5mph and 92mph?

Haha, there;s 87 mph between those numbers, what is it then?
Walking speede or high speed car speed?

And by looking at the video, it's going fast. No paralax as the camera was in parallel with the object, and flying along with it.

Dan, welcome curious traveler.

How do you know that it was not reviewed for mathematical validity prior to publication?

How are you able to make that determination? What sources are you using to support this claim. Thanks.

[Trelane]

1 hour ago, Hazzard said:

Its the claim that some of these UFOs are breaking the laws of physics that is debunked here. The claim that the gofast UFO is going REALLY fast.

It is now proven that its not.

Do you understand paralax?

Im guessing that you didnt check out their website?

Sweet jeebus, I'm not sure if this is a new adventurer or not. 🧐

[Dejarma]

Quote

"The object's apparent high speed is attributable to motion parallax, an optical effect that induces an observer to perceive that a stationary or slow-moving object is moving much faster than its actual speed when viewed from a moving frame of reference."

from article^^ ... no s--t really!?!?

Edited February 12 by Dejarma

[Hazzard]

30 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Dan, welcome curious traveler.

Our enlightened padre has a sockpuppet.  😁

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, Dan Homestead said:

@Hazzard

But you need mathematicians to know if the math is correct. Until an independant mathematician reviews it and agrees, the view of AARO is not proven.

And it was travelling between 5mph and 92mph?

Haha, there;s 87 mph between those numbers, what is it then?
Walking speede or high speed car speed?

And by looking at the video, it's going fast. No paralax as the camera was in parallel with the object, and flying along with it.

Did you ask a mathematician? 

[Djehuty]

Regardless of how fast the object really was. I don't find this dot in the picture convincing. To convince me that this object is from an alien civilization, you need more than just a strange moving dot. Some people just want it to be real, so they even accept a video like this as proof. A little more skepticism would do such people good. That's not to say that it's impossible that an alien spaceship could visit this planet, but you shouldn't just accept every strange video that's presented as proof.

 

[Hazzard]

6 hours ago, Dan Homestead said:

And by looking at the video, it's going fast.

No paralax as the camera was in parallel with the object, and flying along with it.

Really?? 🙂

I think you need to take a look at this!  

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/pentagon-cracks-case-of-famous-ufo-captured-by-navy-jet/ar-AA1urS1h 

 

[Amorlind]

And one more time the mountain gave birth to a mouse...

Well that was predictable since the beginning...i have always considered those videos as BS and the people involved in those "revelations" (Elizondo, the pilots, Reid and cie) as world class bull****ters who manipulated journalists and medias...there is a famous Chinese proverb for this..."When the wise man points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger"

[Hazzard]

I think that we will find that the other Navy videos are as mundane as this one.  All it takes is to explain them is better information. 

Of course there will be believers that have a hard time letting their favorite UFO back in the water... but for us out there looking for reality and fact, we follow the evidence where ever it goes. 

Not even Graves seemed to have been convinced of the speed...

I would argue that [...] specifically the 'Go Fast' video itself was never really interesting because it was 'going fast,'' Lt Graves said.

Edited February 13 by Hazzard

[Essan]

15 hours ago, Djehuty said:

Regardless of how fast the object really was. I don't find this dot in the picture convincing. To convince me that this object is from an alien civilization, you need more than just a strange moving dot. Some people just want it to be real, so they even accept a video like this as proof. A little more skepticism would do such people good. That's not to say that it's impossible that an alien spaceship could visit this planet, but you shouldn't just accept every strange video that's presented as proof.

 

Indeed!    There's as much evidence in that video that what was filmed was an alien spacecraft as there is evidence in that same video that the Empire State Building is only 3 feet tall and made entirely out of cheese.

Unidentified does not = alien spacecraft.   And never has done.   But that's the belief system that truth seekers are up against.  

[GazS]

Try explaining this to the pilots that witnessed the event, along with people on board ship. 

[Dan Homestead]

@Hazzard

'However, climate scientists, meteorological data, veteran Navy witnesses and even a computer simulation continue to cast doubt on the validity of the government's 'parallax' theory.

So I'm not alone in this. AARO is known for trying to make every incident not look like an UAP event.

And maybe I'm ignorant, but my logic tells me that when an object is flying higher with respect to the surface, the object seems to go slower
than when it's close to the surface. And the direct witnesses experiencing it first hand, the pilots, know when thing are off and if things are
extraordinary.

And what does wind have to do with anything? Speed is speed.

I'm not saying this thing was flying faster than human craft can fly, especially since the plain is flying at the same speed,
but this thing is abnormal. Cannot be debunked as not a UAP.

[Hazzard]

2 hours ago, GazS said:

Try explaining this to the pilots that witnessed the event, along with people on board ship. 

The Navy videos have been disected and explained in great details on many occasions. We have the original statements from everyone involved in this incident 

You obviously know nothing about this case, except for the clickbait headlines and the snowballed UFOlogy version. 

Edited February 13 by Hazzard

[Mike G]

Doesn’t the object in this clip appear to go underwater at one point? How does that occur given a proposed distance of several thousand feet. I wonder, does, and if so, how, does the report address this?

[Trelane]

6 hours ago, Dan Homestead said:

@Hazzard

'However, climate scientists, meteorological data, veteran Navy witnesses and even a computer simulation continue to cast doubt on the validity of the government's 'parallax' theory.

So I'm not alone in this. AARO is known for trying to make every incident not look like an UAP event.

And maybe I'm ignorant, but my logic tells me that when an object is flying higher with respect to the surface, the object seems to go slower
than when it's close to the surface. And the direct witnesses experiencing it first hand, the pilots, know when thing are off and if things are
extraordinary.

And what does wind have to do with anything? Speed is speed.

I'm not saying this thing was flying faster than human craft can fly, especially since the plain is flying at the same speed,
but this thing is abnormal. Cannot be debunked as not a UAP.

Please provide links to these statements. 

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, Trelane said:

Please provide links to these statements. 

Yeah, don't hold your breath.  Ol' mate's confused by angular velocity. 

[Amorlind]

Maybe little explanations could be interesting (as they were for me) :

- angular velocity : its the same as the translation velocity, but for rotation movements

- parallax : impact of the changement of position of the observer during the observation of an object. Its also a web technique where the backgrounds elements are moving slower than the elements on the foreground

meaning that we could have the illusion of an object going much faster than in reality (the referential is of course the key)

[godnodog]

Here is my questions.

- If the object was travelling between 5mph to 92pmh, how was the plane able to keep up for so long? Doesnt the plane have to have a minimum speed to maintain flight capacity?

- If the object was changing speed between 5mph and 92mph, how is it that in the video, apparently to me and based on what I have seen, the camera has not changed zoom at any point? I do not recall any comment about the plane going in "circles" to film the object.

Edited February 15 by godnodog
add a small observation

[Hazzard]

1 hour ago, godnodog said:

Here is my questions.

- If the object was travelling between 5mph to 92pmh, how was the plane able to keep up for so long? Doesnt the plane have to have a minimum speed to maintain flight capacity?

- If the object was changing speed between 5mph and 92mph, how is it that in the video, apparently to me and based on what I have seen, the camera has not changed zoom at any point? I do not recall any comment about the plane going in "circles" to film the object.