4 ms·

It doesnt say anything about the radar readings recieved, or the pilots reactions. You dont think these navy pilots know what planes look like on their radar an

• blackrock 6y ago
  The radar and thermals are still electronic. It might have registered a glitch, that appeared to look like an unknown object on the displays.
• simonh 6y ago
  >It doesnt say anything about the radar readings recieved, or the pilots reactions. To be fair, for the last video which shows telemetry data on the screen, he does explain what it means and how it shows that the object being tracked is actually stationary or moving very slowly. As for the highly trained professional pilot's reactions, check out this breakdown of that last video, in which the pilots are freaking out. It show from the visual data readouts that it's a small object slightly above ambient temperature that's about 1m across flying very slowly at about 2k altitude. Oh and if you look closely at the object, you can see slow rhythmic oscillations, known in the technical community as 'flapping'. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmb8hO2ilV9vRa8cilis88A https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmb8hO2ilV9vRa8cilis88A
  • lgats 6y ago
    I do not think that was the [youtube] link you intended
  • highlysyntropic 6y ago
    So your idea is, that some YouTuber, who wasn't there, who doesn't have all the data, and who doesn't work with those advanced systems, somehow knows, from a low resolution video, how to correctly identify the objects, when the Pentagon, and the Navy, and the pilots, with all their experience and data, still are okay to call them unidentified? That's a good one. It's almost as if, the possibilities opened by it being unidentified are so scary (why?), you need to distort and pervert the normal faculties of reason and logic and kowtow to faith in a YouTube prophet who's gonna spin a nice story to make it all sound okay. BTW, if you are feeling confident and like you can out-identify your defense forces, at least pick a theory that fits the data, rather than selectively ignoring inconvenient data. I notice that all these prophets/conspiracy theorists, like Ms West and Mr Thunder, ignore that the aviators and radar tech have stated that there were fleets of these objects, coming in for days at a time, dropping from above 80kft to see level. So fleets of weather balloons, space birds, or bird shit storms, that's really where you're going with this? Good luck.
• imtringued 6y ago
  The starting assumption was that the footage is showing things that are physically impossible. You do not actually need to find out the truth to disprove that statement. You just need to find a single counter example and that is exactly what the video is doing.
• lowdose 6y ago
  > Personally, I think it's some black-budget government project that somebody wasn't supposed to reveal. That's exactly what they want their adversaries to think so adversaries are going invest a ridiculous amount of resources in achieving projected but non-existing capabilities. Japan's FOMO reaction is proof this genius form of inception is working. The authority fallacy never fails at scale.
  • krapp 6y ago
    If our adversaries are that gullible and incapable of grasping even basic scientific principles, why should we be worried about them?
    • lowdose 6y ago
      Well they wouldn't be the first nation state to invest an enormous amount of resources in trying to develop science fiction like capabilities. Excluding a range of possibilities with a reasonable amount of certainty is a very expensive exploration quest. After concluding it was all a wild goose chase it is still superior to nudge your adversaries in a direction that doesn't exclude this specific range of opportunities.
      • krapp 6y ago
        I feel like the range of possibilities that appears to break the laws of physics entirely doesn't need resources to exclude, at least in the absence of harder evidence than some grainy video. If you're referring to Star Wars, at least that seemed physically possible.