3 ms·

You put that so wonderfully. The DoD and other scientists should absolutely stop investing things that are hovering over their naval ships and nuclear silos jus

You put that so wonderfully. The DoD and other scientists should absolutely stop investing things that are hovering over their naval ships and nuclear silos just because a man on hacker news would rather see other people investigating them. Your credentials having read a bit of physics are so, so helpful. Please, help the rest of the feeble planet with your intellect because you are truly the one person who knows what is worth investigating and what isn't. > And if it's UFO which has exactly the same amount of confirmed evidence as leprechauns That is absolutely false. The 3 navy videos have enough evidence behind them to show UAP are real and exhibiting interesting flight characteristics. You are denying hard evidence - for what reason I don't know.

scotty79 4y ago
Those 3 videos? https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/weird-news/2020/04/28/pentagon-declassifies-3-navy-videos-appearing-to-show-ufos-what-we-know/ https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/weird-news/2020/04/28/pe... Third one is a goose: https://youtu.be/mfhAC2YiYHs https://youtu.be/mfhAC2YiYHs Super solid evidence, no doubt. Yeah, let's investigate. Tens of millions of dollars won't spend themselves. And we certainly wouldn't want to spend it on boring actual astronomy and astrophysics. Btw the other video is just of loosing tracking of a plane: https://youtu.be/3viYcYPRdu4 https://youtu.be/3viYcYPRdu4
- likeabbas 4y ago
  You are refusing to look at the counter-evidence I provide with regards to people trying to de-bunk the 3 navy videos. GOFAST: The "goose" would need to be flying 100 knots to account for the wind speed https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1603518927891357696 https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1603518927891357696 GIMBAL: If the DoD would confirm the range of the object was 6-8 nautical miles (which has been confirmed by the pilots on the mission) than this object performed a "vertical u-turn" where the rotation directly correlates with the change in direction https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1620220980839993345?s=20&t=uoeYActKAAFr0qgdyIpX9g https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1620220980839993345?s=... FLIR1: Hasn't been debunked has a plane. https://twitter.com/MvonRen/status/1599796010506924033 https://twitter.com/MvonRen/status/1599796010506924033 All of the attempts to debunk the videos require very specific assumptions that are not proven. The GIMBAL object was not 30 nautical miles away as Mick west says. The GOFAST object is going against 120 knots of wind, West is assuming there is no wind at all. The Tic-Tac is exhibiting instantaneous acceleration and no plane today can do this. Nothing about these videos has been debunked. The DoD could put this to rest by releasing the additional sensor data, but they won't because the sensors are highly classified.
  - scotty79 4y ago
    GOFAST: The plane traveled at half a speed of sound, speed of wind or a goose is insignificant in comparison. This guy claims he found exact trajectory of a goose from a handful of pixels and numbers on the screen that don't have required precission. Did you notice his 'analysis' doesn't have error bars? That's because they would be very large. It's basically a guy who measures one thing to be 3, other to be 7. Divides those values and draws conclusions from the digit at 6th decimal place. So he really has no idea how fast goose traveled. His second objection is that the object was cold in IR (compared to water in the background) which is perfecly consistent with a bird travelling at 2.5 km which is well insulated to be able to fly so high because it's obviously colder up there than at sea level. FLIR: I see no specific objection and no explanation for why this object looks exactly like other IR recordings of planes from behind where hot exahaust washes out the image and why would speeding off at the end should be rather explained by object violating laws of physics than camera loosing tracking. GIMBAL: No explanation why the object should show any rotation in sync with camera rotation which proves its shape and angle is optical artifact. Again objections are to details which cannot be accurately established. With complete disregard of the main argument. What people say that DoD says or doesn't say about it is just heresay. Videos are the data. The only actual data we have. Goose, plane from behind, and posssibly a debris field of space junk are currently best actually scientific explanations of the data that consists of those 3 videos. I'm not refusing to address anything, but I'm beginning to think I started a discussion about ufos with avid ufologist. So I don't guarantee I'll still find it worthwhile to respond to your next message if it comes.
    - likeabbas 4y ago
      > The plane traveled at half a speed of sound, speed of wind or a goose is insignificant in comparison Are you insane? going 100 knots against 30-50 knots of wind requires far more force than a fucking Goose can provide with its wings. Not to mention the object is at 13,000 feet above sea level which would be insanely high for a goose to travel. You're also discounting the pilot testimony about the GOFAST video. GOFAST and GIMBAL were taken on the same day by the same pilots. There's a longer classified video that shows the object in GOFAST increasing its altitude to meet up with 4 other objects that appear to be of the same kind. Then the GIMBAL object comes into the page which is where the targeting pod locks onto. The 5 objects are in front of the gimbal object, they begin to turn around and that's when the GIMBAL object performs a vertical u-turn as shown on the ASA. Now, I don't disregard that the rotation may have been caused by the camera, but the trajectory of the object itself is interesting in that we don't have a plant that can perform the same kind of vertical u-turn at such slow speeds. They're going less than 1 mach, the object slows to a stop and then turns around going vertically. Any mechanical plane would stop and fall to the Earth, but this thing didn't. > I see no specific objection and no explanation for why this object looks exactly like other IR recordings of planes from behind where hot exahaust washes I dare you to ask any military pilot their opinion on what the object in the screen is. According to the pilot, Chad Underwood, who took the video, he was closing in 10-15 miles of the object and at that distance should be able to make out the the wings, the exhaust plumes, the type of aircraft even with the glare from the exhaust. Here's the pilot saying this himself https://youtu.be/7O1SE0IR13o?t=1231 https://youtu.be/7O1SE0IR13o?t=1231 Let's not forget, the Tic-Tac was active jamming (which is an act of war) and the object in the video matches the description of Cmdr Dave Fravor's description of what he saw with his own eyes. Again, the DoD could shut you up by providing the additional classified data from the mission. For future reference, you should stay completely out of this conversation because you are not a true scientist. You are an avid skeptic who will one day be ashamed of himself.

scotty79 4y ago

Those 3 videos? https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/weird-news/2020/04/28/pentagon-declassifies-3-navy-videos-appearing-to-show-ufos-what-we-know/ https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/weird-news/2020/04/28/pe... Third one is a goose: https://youtu.be/mfhAC2YiYHs https://youtu.be/mfhAC2YiYHs Super solid evidence, no doubt. Yeah, let's investigate. Tens of millions of dollars won't spend themselves. And we certainly wouldn't want to spend it on boring actual astronomy and astrophysics. Btw the other video is just of loosing tracking of a plane: https://youtu.be/3viYcYPRdu4 https://youtu.be/3viYcYPRdu4

likeabbas 4y ago
You are refusing to look at the counter-evidence I provide with regards to people trying to de-bunk the 3 navy videos. GOFAST: The "goose" would need to be flying 100 knots to account for the wind speed https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1603518927891357696 https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1603518927891357696 GIMBAL: If the DoD would confirm the range of the object was 6-8 nautical miles (which has been confirmed by the pilots on the mission) than this object performed a "vertical u-turn" where the rotation directly correlates with the change in direction https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1620220980839993345?s=20&t=uoeYActKAAFr0qgdyIpX9g https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1620220980839993345?s=... FLIR1: Hasn't been debunked has a plane. https://twitter.com/MvonRen/status/1599796010506924033 https://twitter.com/MvonRen/status/1599796010506924033 All of the attempts to debunk the videos require very specific assumptions that are not proven. The GIMBAL object was not 30 nautical miles away as Mick west says. The GOFAST object is going against 120 knots of wind, West is assuming there is no wind at all. The Tic-Tac is exhibiting instantaneous acceleration and no plane today can do this. Nothing about these videos has been debunked. The DoD could put this to rest by releasing the additional sensor data, but they won't because the sensors are highly classified.
- scotty79 4y ago
  GOFAST: The plane traveled at half a speed of sound, speed of wind or a goose is insignificant in comparison. This guy claims he found exact trajectory of a goose from a handful of pixels and numbers on the screen that don't have required precission. Did you notice his 'analysis' doesn't have error bars? That's because they would be very large. It's basically a guy who measures one thing to be 3, other to be 7. Divides those values and draws conclusions from the digit at 6th decimal place. So he really has no idea how fast goose traveled. His second objection is that the object was cold in IR (compared to water in the background) which is perfecly consistent with a bird travelling at 2.5 km which is well insulated to be able to fly so high because it's obviously colder up there than at sea level. FLIR: I see no specific objection and no explanation for why this object looks exactly like other IR recordings of planes from behind where hot exahaust washes out the image and why would speeding off at the end should be rather explained by object violating laws of physics than camera loosing tracking. GIMBAL: No explanation why the object should show any rotation in sync with camera rotation which proves its shape and angle is optical artifact. Again objections are to details which cannot be accurately established. With complete disregard of the main argument. What people say that DoD says or doesn't say about it is just heresay. Videos are the data. The only actual data we have. Goose, plane from behind, and posssibly a debris field of space junk are currently best actually scientific explanations of the data that consists of those 3 videos. I'm not refusing to address anything, but I'm beginning to think I started a discussion about ufos with avid ufologist. So I don't guarantee I'll still find it worthwhile to respond to your next message if it comes.
  - likeabbas 4y ago
    > The plane traveled at half a speed of sound, speed of wind or a goose is insignificant in comparison Are you insane? going 100 knots against 30-50 knots of wind requires far more force than a fucking Goose can provide with its wings. Not to mention the object is at 13,000 feet above sea level which would be insanely high for a goose to travel. You're also discounting the pilot testimony about the GOFAST video. GOFAST and GIMBAL were taken on the same day by the same pilots. There's a longer classified video that shows the object in GOFAST increasing its altitude to meet up with 4 other objects that appear to be of the same kind. Then the GIMBAL object comes into the page which is where the targeting pod locks onto. The 5 objects are in front of the gimbal object, they begin to turn around and that's when the GIMBAL object performs a vertical u-turn as shown on the ASA. Now, I don't disregard that the rotation may have been caused by the camera, but the trajectory of the object itself is interesting in that we don't have a plant that can perform the same kind of vertical u-turn at such slow speeds. They're going less than 1 mach, the object slows to a stop and then turns around going vertically. Any mechanical plane would stop and fall to the Earth, but this thing didn't. > I see no specific objection and no explanation for why this object looks exactly like other IR recordings of planes from behind where hot exahaust washes I dare you to ask any military pilot their opinion on what the object in the screen is. According to the pilot, Chad Underwood, who took the video, he was closing in 10-15 miles of the object and at that distance should be able to make out the the wings, the exhaust plumes, the type of aircraft even with the glare from the exhaust. Here's the pilot saying this himself https://youtu.be/7O1SE0IR13o?t=1231 https://youtu.be/7O1SE0IR13o?t=1231 Let's not forget, the Tic-Tac was active jamming (which is an act of war) and the object in the video matches the description of Cmdr Dave Fravor's description of what he saw with his own eyes. Again, the DoD could shut you up by providing the additional classified data from the mission. For future reference, you should stay completely out of this conversation because you are not a true scientist. You are an avid skeptic who will one day be ashamed of himself.