7 ms·

This is a great reminder that I need to bookmark metabunk.org, where Mick West and others go into enormous detail about the UAP evidence, including simulations

by ttpphd 4y ago

This is a great reminder that I need to bookmark metabunk.org, where Mick West and others go into enormous detail about the UAP evidence, including simulations and reconstructions.

likeabbas 4y ago
Mick and others do a great job. But they often leave key details out or selectively choose facts. For example, with the GIMBAL video, the pilots are on record saying the object is 6-8 nautical miles (NM) away as they saw on their Situation Awareness (SA) Screen. Mick’s attempt to debunk the GIMBAL rotation asserts that the object was 30 NM away, and he refuses to look at other evidence that contradicts the statement. Other scientists have done extensive efforts to show that the rotation of the gimbal object directly correlates with the flight path, which shows to be a vertical u-turn exactly as described by the pilots who had access to the SA https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1504855791060148224?s=20&t=6CQVRL3j_NB6IrfBdLwDQg https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1504855791060148224?s=... Metabunk have debunked a lot of things very well. But they have not debunked the 3 navy videos. I can provide more evidence to the analysis on the other two videos to show that these objects are exhibiting foight characteristics that are unique and defy the laws of physics.
- dharmab 4y ago
  The SA page on the MPCD is very small and cluttered. Is it possible that the pilots made a mistake?
  - likeabbas 4y ago
    According to one of the pilots, there is a longer, classified video of the incident that shows the SA page and has the distance listed there. People make mistakes, but data doesn’t. And according to these pilots and the former head of the DoD UAP program, the data shows that there are craft moving in our airspace with impunity.
    - noizejoy 4y ago
      > People make mistakes, but data doesn’t. But data collection, storage, retrieval and/or interpretation may contain errors.
      - likeabbas 4y ago
        That’s why it’s important to look at all the reported cases to get a probabilistic measure. The 3 videos represent 2 cases that occurred. The DoD has over 300 unidentified cases currently. At least 18 exhibit flight characteristics that don’t seem possible.
    - cma 4y ago
      Wouldn't that be revealing classified info? Probably no punishment if the "classified info" is made up as a prank so he can freely claim it if it isn't real but would be risking punishment if it was.
      - likeabbas 4y ago
        The sensors are classified but saying the sensors can see 6-8 nm's away is not because that would not be telling our adversaries anything - that technology has been available for decades. Giving away a capability that our adversaries don't know we have would be bad. For example, navy personnel have been saying that submarines go far faster than what the public knows they can (but obviously they cannot say exactly how fast subs go)
  - stevenhuang 4y ago
    It's not an isolated incident. There has been many sightings and direct action (e.g. fighter jets sent to pursue) by members of US military as well as those in other countries. The Navy incident got the traction it did because the original footage leaked years ago and only now acknowledged. If you're interested, see here for a documentary on the Colares, Brazil UFO incident that occurred in 1977 https://youtu.be/Mr1NrnsdY5I https://youtu.be/Mr1NrnsdY5I
- ttpphd 4y ago
  >and he refuses to look at other evidence that contradicts the statement. Hmm I'm doubtful about this. It would be very unlike him. I found his explanation quite illuminating, and the pilot he had a back and forth with was interesting. It's been a few months since I checked but last I did, I was satisfied that Mick made a good case for why the others are wrong about the distance.
  - likeabbas 4y ago
    There’s nothing to doubt. It’s all on Twitter. TheCholla has done a fantastic job showing here what f18s look like at different distances on FLIR https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1598090777950793729?s=20&t=q1MwVO9NIEr9RxuDodgV1A https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1598090777950793729?s=... Mick refuses to accept the fact the distance is 6-8nm as the pilots stated it was shown on their SAs. Ryan Graves asked Mick to present his analysis at a coalition of former military pilots for them to debate him, but he said he was “too busy”. Again, mick does a great job debunking things that should be debunked. But you can’t debunk something by claiming the distance of the object was farther than it actually was
    - scotty79 4y ago
      > But you can’t debunk something by claiming the distance of the object was farther than it actually was ... farther than instruments indicated ... Which still beats "it's aliens" by a long shot.
      - likeabbas 4y ago
        Multiple of the most sophisticated instruments for this purpose on the planet are capturing this data. If the US was flying F18s that misconstrued the range of a foreign adversary by over 20 nautical miles, that would be a huge story in of itself.
        scotty79 4y ago
        You trust the tech way too much to the point of not being able to confidently reject the impossible. This woderful US military tech tracked a guy in Afghanistan for a day and bombed him thinking that water he was carrying home to his children is explosive and he's a terrorist. It's not aliens.

by ttpphd 4y ago

This is a great reminder that I need to bookmark metabunk.org, where Mick West and others go into enormous detail about the UAP evidence, including simulations and reconstructions.

likeabbas 4y ago

Mick and others do a great job. But they often leave key details out or selectively choose facts. For example, with the GIMBAL video, the pilots are on record saying the object is 6-8 nautical miles (NM) away as they saw on their Situation Awareness (SA) Screen. Mick’s attempt to debunk the GIMBAL rotation asserts that the object was 30 NM away, and he refuses to look at other evidence that contradicts the statement. Other scientists have done extensive efforts to show that the rotation of the gimbal object directly correlates with the flight path, which shows to be a vertical u-turn exactly as described by the pilots who had access to the SA https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1504855791060148224?s=20&t=6CQVRL3j_NB6IrfBdLwDQg https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1504855791060148224?s=... Metabunk have debunked a lot of things very well. But they have not debunked the 3 navy videos. I can provide more evidence to the analysis on the other two videos to show that these objects are exhibiting foight characteristics that are unique and defy the laws of physics.

dharmab 4y ago
The SA page on the MPCD is very small and cluttered. Is it possible that the pilots made a mistake?
- likeabbas 4y ago
  According to one of the pilots, there is a longer, classified video of the incident that shows the SA page and has the distance listed there. People make mistakes, but data doesn’t. And according to these pilots and the former head of the DoD UAP program, the data shows that there are craft moving in our airspace with impunity.
  - noizejoy 4y ago
    > People make mistakes, but data doesn’t. But data collection, storage, retrieval and/or interpretation may contain errors.
    - likeabbas 4y ago
      That’s why it’s important to look at all the reported cases to get a probabilistic measure. The 3 videos represent 2 cases that occurred. The DoD has over 300 unidentified cases currently. At least 18 exhibit flight characteristics that don’t seem possible.
  - cma 4y ago
    Wouldn't that be revealing classified info? Probably no punishment if the "classified info" is made up as a prank so he can freely claim it if it isn't real but would be risking punishment if it was.
    - likeabbas 4y ago
      The sensors are classified but saying the sensors can see 6-8 nm's away is not because that would not be telling our adversaries anything - that technology has been available for decades. Giving away a capability that our adversaries don't know we have would be bad. For example, navy personnel have been saying that submarines go far faster than what the public knows they can (but obviously they cannot say exactly how fast subs go)
- stevenhuang 4y ago
  It's not an isolated incident. There has been many sightings and direct action (e.g. fighter jets sent to pursue) by members of US military as well as those in other countries. The Navy incident got the traction it did because the original footage leaked years ago and only now acknowledged. If you're interested, see here for a documentary on the Colares, Brazil UFO incident that occurred in 1977 https://youtu.be/Mr1NrnsdY5I https://youtu.be/Mr1NrnsdY5I
ttpphd 4y ago
>and he refuses to look at other evidence that contradicts the statement. Hmm I'm doubtful about this. It would be very unlike him. I found his explanation quite illuminating, and the pilot he had a back and forth with was interesting. It's been a few months since I checked but last I did, I was satisfied that Mick made a good case for why the others are wrong about the distance.
- likeabbas 4y ago
  There’s nothing to doubt. It’s all on Twitter. TheCholla has done a fantastic job showing here what f18s look like at different distances on FLIR https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1598090777950793729?s=20&t=q1MwVO9NIEr9RxuDodgV1A https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1598090777950793729?s=... Mick refuses to accept the fact the distance is 6-8nm as the pilots stated it was shown on their SAs. Ryan Graves asked Mick to present his analysis at a coalition of former military pilots for them to debate him, but he said he was “too busy”. Again, mick does a great job debunking things that should be debunked. But you can’t debunk something by claiming the distance of the object was farther than it actually was
  - scotty79 4y ago
    > But you can’t debunk something by claiming the distance of the object was farther than it actually was ... farther than instruments indicated ... Which still beats "it's aliens" by a long shot.
    - likeabbas 4y ago
      Multiple of the most sophisticated instruments for this purpose on the planet are capturing this data. If the US was flying F18s that misconstrued the range of a foreign adversary by over 20 nautical miles, that would be a huge story in of itself.
      - scotty79 4y ago
        You trust the tech way too much to the point of not being able to confidently reject the impossible. This woderful US military tech tracked a guy in Afghanistan for a day and bombed him thinking that water he was carrying home to his children is explosive and he's a terrorist. It's not aliens.