4 ms·

> What, then do we do with the eyewitness accounts? Not only eyewitness accounts, but also recorded military footage (e.g. onboard cameras, FLIR sensors mentio

> What, then do we do with the eyewitness accounts? Not only eyewitness accounts, but also recorded military footage (e.g. onboard cameras, FLIR sensors mentioned in the hearing). Are you suggesting that numerous high-ranking former military officials are lying under oath? And that the expensive, high-tech equipment recording the objects also failed in a way that showed something that wasn't actually there? That sounds much more frightening to me than the alternative explanation.

shawabawa3 3y ago
When you say there is recorded military footage, is it publicly available? Or are there just witnesses that say it exists?
- TinyRick 3y ago
  Non publicly available that I am aware of, aside from what the Navy released years ago. From what I understand, a big reason for not releasing footage is sensor data that is embedded in the images/videos that if released, would significantly help non-friendly nations to better understand some of our military capabilities.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
    Well, after the current hearing those non-friendly nations will understand a lot more about the nation's intellectual capabilities and breathe a huge sigh of relief.
  - yowzadave 3y ago
    Every time they release actual footage (like the gofast/tictac videos from a few years ago), it is not very convincing, with plausible explanations (parallax, etc) for what we are seeing. We are often told that the good videos are still classified. Why is it that only the bad videos are the ones that are released? The shtick is wearing thin.
    - TinyRick 3y ago
      Uh, did you read my comment? The "good" videos aren't released because they contain sensitive national security information. Doesn't mean they don't exist. Remember the Russian jet that launched flares at a US drone a few months back, and the crystal clear footage that came from that? Footage like that exists for these UAPs too.
Eji1700 3y ago
> Not only eyewitness accounts, but also recorded military footage (e.g. onboard cameras, FLIR sensors mentioned in the hearing). Are you suggesting that numerous high-ranking former military officials are lying under oath? And that the expensive, high-tech equipment recording the objects also failed in a way that showed something that wasn't actually there? That sounds much more frightening to me than the alternative explanation. Yes. And those that aren't lying are severely mistaken. Expensive high tech equipment can fail or show weird readings ALL THE TIME. You get small piece of debris on a camera moving at mach 1 and it's going to look like something is moving at mach 1 with you, and somehow magically keeping up in strange ways before "zooming off" when it falls off the camera. Pilots are NOT techs. Their jobs is to fly the plane and shoot shit down. They need a working understanding of the tools in front of them and do their best with the information presented. If my car says that my engine oil pressure is at 0, but somehow the car is still running, I don't assume magic. I assume ignorance and take it to a mechanic. MANY of these supposed UFO sightings boil down to such situations, and techs have verified that multiple times, but that gets ignored.
- TinyRick 3y ago
  > You get small piece of debris on a camera moving at mach 1 and it's going to look like something is moving at mach 1 with you, and somehow magically keeping up in strange ways before "zooming off" when it falls off the camera. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the testimonies provided under oath today do not match your description of a piece of debris on a camera/sensor. If you have not already watched the hearing I would recommend it. > MANY of these supposed UFO sightings boil down to such situations, and techs have verified that multiple times, but that gets ignored. Source(s)? I would love to read more about techs who have talked about these events.
pjc50 3y ago
> Are you suggesting that numerous high-ranking former military officials are lying under oath? Yes? It's not like that hasn't happened before, and there's no real way to contradict them. And if they did they wouldn't be prosecuted. And if they were prosecuted they would be pardoned. We can't see the footage, so that's not admissible as evidence in the court of public opinion.

shawabawa3 3y ago

When you say there is recorded military footage, is it publicly available? Or are there just witnesses that say it exists?

TinyRick 3y ago
Non publicly available that I am aware of, aside from what the Navy released years ago. From what I understand, a big reason for not releasing footage is sensor data that is embedded in the images/videos that if released, would significantly help non-friendly nations to better understand some of our military capabilities.
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
  Well, after the current hearing those non-friendly nations will understand a lot more about the nation's intellectual capabilities and breathe a huge sigh of relief.
- yowzadave 3y ago
  Every time they release actual footage (like the gofast/tictac videos from a few years ago), it is not very convincing, with plausible explanations (parallax, etc) for what we are seeing. We are often told that the good videos are still classified. Why is it that only the bad videos are the ones that are released? The shtick is wearing thin.
  - TinyRick 3y ago
    Uh, did you read my comment? The "good" videos aren't released because they contain sensitive national security information. Doesn't mean they don't exist. Remember the Russian jet that launched flares at a US drone a few months back, and the crystal clear footage that came from that? Footage like that exists for these UAPs too.

Eji1700 3y ago

> Not only eyewitness accounts, but also recorded military footage (e.g. onboard cameras, FLIR sensors mentioned in the hearing). Are you suggesting that numerous high-ranking former military officials are lying under oath? And that the expensive, high-tech equipment recording the objects also failed in a way that showed something that wasn't actually there? That sounds much more frightening to me than the alternative explanation. Yes. And those that aren't lying are severely mistaken. Expensive high tech equipment can fail or show weird readings ALL THE TIME. You get small piece of debris on a camera moving at mach 1 and it's going to look like something is moving at mach 1 with you, and somehow magically keeping up in strange ways before "zooming off" when it falls off the camera. Pilots are NOT techs. Their jobs is to fly the plane and shoot shit down. They need a working understanding of the tools in front of them and do their best with the information presented. If my car says that my engine oil pressure is at 0, but somehow the car is still running, I don't assume magic. I assume ignorance and take it to a mechanic. MANY of these supposed UFO sightings boil down to such situations, and techs have verified that multiple times, but that gets ignored.

TinyRick 3y ago
> You get small piece of debris on a camera moving at mach 1 and it's going to look like something is moving at mach 1 with you, and somehow magically keeping up in strange ways before "zooming off" when it falls off the camera. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the testimonies provided under oath today do not match your description of a piece of debris on a camera/sensor. If you have not already watched the hearing I would recommend it. > MANY of these supposed UFO sightings boil down to such situations, and techs have verified that multiple times, but that gets ignored. Source(s)? I would love to read more about techs who have talked about these events.

pjc50 3y ago

> Are you suggesting that numerous high-ranking former military officials are lying under oath? Yes? It's not like that hasn't happened before, and there's no real way to contradict them. And if they did they wouldn't be prosecuted. And if they were prosecuted they would be pardoned. We can't see the footage, so that's not admissible as evidence in the court of public opinion.