/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11056840
y'all ignoring the most damning piece of counter-evidence that the pilot even himself said on the podcast:

IT IS NOTORIOUSLY DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE, INCLUDING TRAINED VETERAN FIGHTER PILOTS, TO JUDGE ALTITUDES, DISTANCES AND VELOCITIES OF OBJECTS AGAINST A FEATURELESS BACKGROUND SUCH AS THE OCEAN OR THE SKY.

here is the timestamp of he himself saying it:

https://youtu.be/Eco2s3-0zsQ?t=680

>"we get to about the 12 o'clock position I'm just in a nice easy descent,
>you know, because I've been asked a lot "can you go more aggressive?" you can,
>but when you're out over water the water looks the same at 20,000 feet as it does at 2,000 feet,
>you don't, you know, yeah so you can easily put yourself in a non recoverable position if you're not paying attention and you go into the water"

look at the image and try to guess the distance to or the altitude of any object, especially a featureless one.
even if you know your precise altitude and object size it is hopeless beyond saying it is below or above you.

all these claims about interdimensional travel, gravity-drives and other beyond-current-tech nonsense base on the single judgment of a single pair of eyes that tried to pin down this object, whatever it was, against the sea.
even with heavy wind and wave activities is extremely difficult to judge vectors over the sea, that is why airtraffic is so heavily regulated, more so over sea where minimum seperations are far larger than over land.
and earlier in the interview he states that the weather was extremely clear with no clouds, which would have been at least a tiny crutch to lean on.

later in the interview he also admits that they didn't believe the object to be extraordinary even when the entire ship was teasing them with E.T. jokes.
a guy with his career and clearance is probably used to top secret tech being tested in that area all the time,
Edwards and more importantly Groom Lake both are within a flight-hour of the incident area.

[cont]