3 ms·

I pulled most of my info from these two posts: http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2019/07/aatip-tic-tacs-and-more-reality-check.html http://parabunk.blogspot.com/201

by jml7c5 7y ago

I pulled most of my info from these two posts: http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2019/07/aatip-tic-tacs-and-more-reality-check.html http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2019/07/aatip-tic-tacs-and-more... http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo.html http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-2004-uss-nimitz-tic... >Do you have a source for this? It seems the source used is more suspect than I'd like. It's the "executive report" from the To The Stars Academy which I am loathe to put any trust in. The quote in question is "LT ______ was clear in that he couldn't confirm that it was the same object as described by the FASTEAGLE flight. He never had visual, only seeing the object via the FLIR." --- >a jamming signal would manifest as intolerable noise throughout the image What sort of jamming signal are you referring to? The video doesn't involve radar, and I was under the impression that the only effective way to disable FLIR is to shine a laser at it. >And he doesn't even attempt to describe the extremely precise relative orientations that would be required of two distant objects to keep the "glare" in the exact center of the lens while the fighter is moving about and recording the video. I'm not sure what you mean with two objects. Can you elaborate? As I understand it, the theory is that there is a single hot object (or perhaps a two-engine jet) in the distance. The glare in the FLIR image is produced in the same fashion as the glare in a regular camera pointed at a bright object; nothing needs to be precisely positioned. You mentioned restricted airspace, but AFAIK there's no info on the GIMBAL video apart from that it was taken somewhere on the East Coast.

lend000 7y ago
> You mentioned restricted airspace etc, but AFAIK there's no info on the GIMBAL video apart from that it was taken somewhere on the East Coast. Correct, there is significantly less background here than on the Nimitz video, to which I was referring. I've seen all of Mick West's videos in this playlist now, and his explanation for the Nimitz footage is even weaker than for Gimbal. He skips the difficult points such as accounting for movement of the object and the momentary loss of target lock for FLIR-1. He fixates on the rotation of the targeting pod, which may be valid, but doesn't seem as interesting to me as the fact that there are no heat plumes coming from this "jet" in Gimbal. It seems like his whole gimmick is to find one nitpick and claim victory, not to try to piece together the full, most accurate story of what was witnessed given all the information. Not to mention, neither of you seem to appreciate how catastrophic of a design failure it would be to have distant glares generating opaque images and target locks. If there is one area where defense contractors innovate, it is in meeting specs and testing. If the specs are not met, you end up in F-35 hell, not in production. Take a look at Fravor describing the video step by step which may clear up some of your questions -- my link skips right to where he walks through the videos, but the whole interview is fascinating, minus Corbell [0]. >just that the glare makes it look like something more fantastical than it is Perhaps I misunderstand the way you were ascribing it to glare? The image is pretty much the same in TV mode and I believe the pod can even hold a target lock while flying directly into the sun. This is partially because of the radar component providing ranging, which Fravor describes is being jammed in the FLIR1 video, interestingly. Nothing else will be close to the same intensity as the sun, nor will it stay on the center of the target, if you are suggesting there are two objects overlaid. If you are instead saying the whole video is of one glare and the pod had a catastrophic system failure by allowing that, that seems like a huge logical jump. > I was under the impression that the only effective way to disable FLIR is to shine a laser at it. That is more or less my point. I encourage you and Mick to keep challenging these videos, but don't be satisfied unless someone is able to replicate it (not a part of it, the whole thing). If it isn't exotic, it can be replicated, so the burden of proof has finally shifted now that we have reasonably solid evidence and credible witness testimony all together in a content treasure trove. An aside: every legal system in existence is built around witness testimony -- even in the digital age. Do you believe Bill Cosby is innocent? (I don't) Because there is far more evidence of exotic phenomena than of Bill's criminality, and yet only one is socially acceptable (although that is slowly changing), and most people follow the herd. Another thought experiment: if you lived in Galileo's time with your same personality - ask yourself honestly: who would you side with? The Catholic Church, or the heretic who believes in planets orbiting the Sun? If you ever decide there is indeed "a phenomenon" occurring, and you want to learn more about it, there are far more interesting and weirder cases than the ones we've discussed, although I know of no single incident with the same volume of highly credible data as this 2017 release. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ&feature=youtu.be&t=1450 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ&feature=youtu.be...

by jml7c5 7y ago

lend000 7y ago

> You mentioned restricted airspace etc, but AFAIK there's no info on the GIMBAL video apart from that it was taken somewhere on the East Coast. Correct, there is significantly less background here than on the Nimitz video, to which I was referring. I've seen all of Mick West's videos in this playlist now, and his explanation for the Nimitz footage is even weaker than for Gimbal. He skips the difficult points such as accounting for movement of the object and the momentary loss of target lock for FLIR-1. He fixates on the rotation of the targeting pod, which may be valid, but doesn't seem as interesting to me as the fact that there are no heat plumes coming from this "jet" in Gimbal. It seems like his whole gimmick is to find one nitpick and claim victory, not to try to piece together the full, most accurate story of what was witnessed given all the information. Not to mention, neither of you seem to appreciate how catastrophic of a design failure it would be to have distant glares generating opaque images and target locks. If there is one area where defense contractors innovate, it is in meeting specs and testing. If the specs are not met, you end up in F-35 hell, not in production. Take a look at Fravor describing the video step by step which may clear up some of your questions -- my link skips right to where he walks through the videos, but the whole interview is fascinating, minus Corbell [0]. >just that the glare makes it look like something more fantastical than it is Perhaps I misunderstand the way you were ascribing it to glare? The image is pretty much the same in TV mode and I believe the pod can even hold a target lock while flying directly into the sun. This is partially because of the radar component providing ranging, which Fravor describes is being jammed in the FLIR1 video, interestingly. Nothing else will be close to the same intensity as the sun, nor will it stay on the center of the target, if you are suggesting there are two objects overlaid. If you are instead saying the whole video is of one glare and the pod had a catastrophic system failure by allowing that, that seems like a huge logical jump. > I was under the impression that the only effective way to disable FLIR is to shine a laser at it. That is more or less my point. I encourage you and Mick to keep challenging these videos, but don't be satisfied unless someone is able to replicate it (not a part of it, the whole thing). If it isn't exotic, it can be replicated, so the burden of proof has finally shifted now that we have reasonably solid evidence and credible witness testimony all together in a content treasure trove. An aside: every legal system in existence is built around witness testimony -- even in the digital age. Do you believe Bill Cosby is innocent? (I don't) Because there is far more evidence of exotic phenomena than of Bill's criminality, and yet only one is socially acceptable (although that is slowly changing), and most people follow the herd. Another thought experiment: if you lived in Galileo's time with your same personality - ask yourself honestly: who would you side with? The Catholic Church, or the heretic who believes in planets orbiting the Sun? If you ever decide there is indeed "a phenomenon" occurring, and you want to learn more about it, there are far more interesting and weirder cases than the ones we've discussed, although I know of no single incident with the same volume of highly credible data as this 2017 release. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ&feature=youtu.be&t=1450 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ&feature=youtu.be...