/sci/ - Science & Math

lol he was on the DMT podcast

>>11056854
Your point being?

>>11056840
Either aliens, or experimental aircraft.
I'd rather it be aliens, as that would make the universe even more interesting.

>>11056859
Whatever it was, it showed not only intelligence but also aerial dominance, because Fravor said it actually jammed his radar equipment, which was according to him an act of war.

>>11056863
Did he fire on it?

>>11056867
He didn't engage in a fight, he was just trying to chase it and until it vanished.

>>11056874
I suppose that's good, but it would've been interesting to see what ballistic defense system(s) it had.

>How do you actually refute this lad?
by saying that his expertise is in flying, not in observation

i'm not saying he observed nothing. i'm saying that there is ALWAYS a gap between human observation and human explanation. most of the time it's trivial to explain what a person observed, but when it comes to phenomena that are truly novel to us, our own senses tell us things we're not equipped to explain

he saw SOMETHING. what he saw? we literally cannot trust any explanation.

>>11056882
His observations were confirmed by radar and video, so I don't get your point. He is not naming what he observed, he is just making descriptions that are pertinent and related to his profession, a fighter pilot.

By the way, fighter pilots NEED near perfect sight, because that's a matter of life and dead.

>>11056867
He had nothing to fire, apparently they stopped giving pilots live ordnance for training flights because of a bunch of incidents where pilots accidentally the wrong button.

>>11056840
make me keep this conversation civil faggot.
>>11056888
radar can experience errors, video cam experience errors, meatbags can experience errors.

>>11056840
>>In 2004 he chased an actual anomalous flying object that had maneuvering capabilities way beyond anything in existence, up to this day.
Proof?

>>11056888
nothing about what i said suggested that imperfect sight was a cause. additionally, radar and video observations confirm that SOMETHING happened, they do not confirm that any one particular explanation occurred.

for instance, look at the infrared video imagery from the venezuela sighting. if you just look at the infrared video without knowing how things tend to look at video, you'd think something unexplainable happened. however, that incident was just regular jet exhaust.

>>11056901
Yeah, radars and multiple human observers experiencing the same anomaly at the same time is the best possible explanation. Case closed.
>>11056904
The pentagon released those videos a while ago.

>>11056863
But that's win bfg according to the guy who was actually operating the radar:

"The radar was in a standard search mode (RWS/ 80NM/ 4bar/ intr) and the FLIR was in L+S slave (the FLIR would point in direction of a radar L+S track). There was no radio or communication interference and they had entry into the Link-16 network, Initial awareness of an object came via the radar. According to the radar display, the initial tracks were at approximately 30-40 nm to the south of the aircraft. Lt._____was controlling the radar and FLIR and attempted multiple times to transition the radar to Single Target Track (STT) mode on the object. The radar could not take a lock, the b-sweep would raster around the hit, build an initial aspect vector (which never stabilized) and then would drop and continue normal RWS b-sweep. When asked, LT.______ stated that there were no jamming cues (strobe, champagne bubbles, “any normal EA indications”). It “just appeared as if the radar couldn’t hack it.” The radar couldn’t receive enough information to create a single target track file. The FLIR, in L+S slave, pointed in direction of the initial track flies as the radar attempted lock. The FLIR showed an object at 0 ATA and approximately -5deg elevation (Figure 2). According to LT.______ “the target was best guess co- altitude or a few thousand feet below,” estimating the object to be between 15-20 thousand feet. The object, according to the FLIR, appeared stationary (Figure 3). There was no discernable movement from the object with the only closure being a result of the aircraft’s movement. As LT._____ watched the object it began to move out of FLIR field of view to the left. LT._____ made no attempt to slew the FUR and subsequently lost situational awareness to the object. The Flight continued with training mission with no further contact with object."

>b-b-but muh Commander Fravor can't make mistakes, cuz otherwise muh aliums don't real!!!
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>11056840
>beyond anything in existence
Clearly not.

>>11056840
that's crazy, man. have you ever tried dmt?

>>11056888
>His observations were confirmed by radar and video
Wrong, there is no commonality between the radar, testimony, and video. They all show/ are claimed to have shown different things and Fravor specifically says his radar couldn't find what he was seeing. Stop making shit up.

>>11056907
We are not talking about the venezuela sightning here. We are talking about an event that was confirmed by the US Navy.

By the way Fravor didn't give ANY explanation to what happened, he just described things the best way he could with all the information available at that time.

DUDE ANECDOTES
DUDE HEARSAY
DUDE BLURRY PIXELS

>>11056909
>The pentagon released those videos a while ago.
Which video shows Fravor chasing anything? Hint: none.

>>11056917
I was talking in the sense of something that is under a known country military control.

>>11056927
Piss off.

>>11056930
And your proof of that is?

>>11056931
i know we're not talking about the venezuela sighting. that's why i brought it up as an example, and said "for example"

>he just described things the best way he could
that's my whole point! describing something is at least partially based on what you might expect to see in that situation. you cannot separate human observations from human preconceptions.

>>11056939
His description is aligned with one of the videos and also radar readings that will never be released for public access for reasons that are beyond the scope of this conversation.

If we just assume the contrary position it means this: the videos are manufactured, Fravor is lying and the entire News broadcasting infrastructure of the United States is aligned with the US Pentagon interests.

Which one sounds more like a conspiracy theory?

>>11056965
>and also radar readings that will never be released for public access for reasons that are beyond the scope of this conversation.
then none of us can say anything either way about them

and no, i'm not saying the videos are manufactured. i'm saying that even real videos can be misinterpreted, and that even the best observers can misinterpret their observations when the situation is unusual

>its another "i wanna believe in aliens" episode

>>11056937
>And your proof of that is?
The burden of proof is on you.

And see >>11056915 for Fravor getting the radar wrong.

>>11056965
>His description is aligned with one of the videos and also radar readings
How are they "aligned"?

>If we just assume the contrary position it means this: the videos are manufactured, Fravor is lying and the entire News broadcasting infrastructure of the United States is aligned with the US Pentagon interests.
Nice false dichotomy. The videos don't show anything interesting, Fravor doesn't know what he saw, and there is no connection between them.

>>11057031
Aligned, related, etc.

If you don't find the videos interesting I can only assume you are not even close to have a scientific mindset. Fravor never said he knew what he saw, and the connection his story and the videos is a little institution called the US Navy.

>>11056840
The US government messed up. They didn't make him sign nda for it. So, they are left with 2 choices.
1) Force him into one now (confirming the sighting) or
2) Let him speak, people are going to discredit or whatever. Nothing changes. And they don't confirm anything.

It's not the first time classified info was leaked by accident.
The way these are handled are by slowing removing the info... Files and documents get lost over time (they are still stored on the classified side).

So, it's legit. But this changes nothing in our everyday tax cow lives

>>11056859
Why does everyone assume aliens.

Given vast distances of our universe, wouldn't interdimensional entities seem more plausible?

>>11057049
>Aligned, related, etc.
Yeah, what is the same between them?

>If you don't find the videos interesting I can only assume you are not even close to have a scientific mindset.
Please tell me what the videos show that's interesting.

>inb4 muh 9000 Gs
Except none of the videos show anything accelerating.

>Fravor never said he knew what he saw
He claims it's a craft without evidence, and he claimed it was jamming radar when the radar operator says there were no signs of jamming. He makes claims outside of his knowledge to get attention from the media.

>and the connection his story and the videos is a little institution called the US Navy.
So when you said his "description is aligned with one of the videos and also radar readings" you are just saying they are from the Navy? Because it sounds like you were saying they confirm his description and now you're backing off that claim.

>>11057130
Fuck off Jaques.

>>11056840
Can't really argue about this guy's experience.

He's former military pilot, so he has tons of credibility. He's clearly not insane/schizoprhenic and on top of that, his fellow pilots also saw the exact same thing.

I believe he's telling the truth. There could be alien bases deep in the ocean and the "tic tac UFO" was evidence of this. David along with his fellow pilots just happened to be at the right place at the right time.

>>11056882
Are you trying to say that what David saw wasn't real or that he mistook the UFO as something else?

Considering that he wasn't the only person that witnessed it, and has 20/20 perfect vision as one of the requirements of being a pilot I find it dubious.

>>11056882
It was recorded on the planes radar video. You can go watch it

>>11056840
>All these replies and no videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1THwiaXZfzA
CNN report

>>11056840
Alien conspiracists
>You can't trust the government. The military are hiding the truth about aliens.
Also, alien conspiracists
>This military pilot saw aliens. This is irrefutable proof there are aliens. He's a decorated veteran, we can trust him.

>>11056840
high altitudes call hallucinations due to low perfusion

>>11057130
Maybe they have vast time on their hands.

>>11056915
Fravor did not sound enthusiastic about the idea that it jammed the radar anyways, it was the obnoxious ancient aliens guy he had on with him in the podcast.

>>11056876

people like you are the reason no sensible alien civilization will ever make contact

>lol, yeah we shot you with a missile
>but we only wanted to see how you would defend yourself, no hard feelings

the absolute state of the human mind

>>11057544
Joe Rogan Interview
https://youtu.be/Eco2s3-0zsQ

it just sucks today found out you really can't trust anyone really not even family. I found out today that my brother under the cover of working for me help set up I don't know what you would even call it they have my phone sending data to my laptop every time I get near it all hidden like know 1 would believe but doesn't end there the laptop sends it to the desktop where they have a CD ROM that records it then emails it to them then erases it off CD WOW maybe on the wrong forum but cool story.

>>11057696
Why on earth is the CD ROM involved?

>>11057671
The sad thing is, you probably thought you are smart for writing this.

Maybe just maybe, the military is composed of thousands of people who have different security clearances.

Fucking retard.

>>11056840
It isn't refutable. What's refutable is that it is of extraterrestrial origin

>>11057683
He's the one who brought it up, then said it was an act of war. Wow so spicy.

>>11057688
Maybe if aliens weren't such big babies and stopped taking everything personal.

>>11056894
Wouldn't that be a good incentive for them to improve their "trigger discipline"?

>>11057130
Wouldn't they still be "aliens", just not extraterrestrial?

Commander David Fravor on Joe Rogan about his TicTac-Encounter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ&t


Forensic Analysis of the 2004 Nimtz Encounter:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WgURI1Fzrkij3utVvcPISGTyEUNX4Z0J/view


Presentation of the Forensic Analysis conducted by SCU.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYHZnRfI8uA


Further Witness Testimonies of involved military personell:

Gary Voorhis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YhlvUg2yk4&t

Jason Turner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnvA5WZ1QV4

Patrick Hughes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kycZgGc-Yec

Sean Cahill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv6fFvxH_bU

Kevin Day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2zRabdvKnw


The ATFLIR-System explained in context to the UAP-Footage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbQdksSakE0


A overall view on the 2004 Nimitz Encounters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9NoKp8EnE&t

>>11058909

no replies, surprise surprise

>>11058909
The SCU paper is a joke. Please tell me how these calculations can be trusted when the authors ignore basic things like the camera zooming in? Are they simply incompetent or are they just trying to reach the conclusion they want?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIl4peYb59E

>>11056867
No, aircraft on training exercises in U.S. airspace rarely have armed weaponry. It's too dangerous.

>>11056882
He wasn't the only person to see it visually (the other super hornet saw it too, visually and on radar, that's 4 people). The same radar signatures (radar tracked 5 - 10 UFO's at a time) had been tracked for 2 weeks prior to Fravor and the other jet intercepting the UFO craft.

>>11058435
They can sell test "trigger discipline" without live ordinance

>>11058909
Had never seen the videos with the seamen before. What the fuck.

>>11059342
Not as amusingly.

>>11059302

You should listen to Kevin Day.

He was the radar operator at that time and he reviewed the aquired data from the incident.

The objects dropped from 28.000ft to sea level in 0.78 seconds.

You do the math.

>>11059428
Common sense suggests there is something wrong with this firgure

>>11059435

Yeah he and all the others involved must all be lying. Or the equipment is faulty alltogether even after reboot. Everything is fake because it has to be.

Right?

>>11059435
Retarded tier response

It is statistically not unreasonable to conclude that there will be at least one event in which a combination of factors will occur that make it appear like impossible things are happening to trustworthy people. what WOULD be convincing evidence is if these things could be replicated

>>11059447
That is more likely than the alternative. Btw, stop acting as if there are hundreds of witnesses to this when there is a handful.

>>11059457
>>11059435
These type of people are literally worse than the 'ayy lmao' people, and do not belong on a science board.

>>11059457
>It's more likely to roll a 1-5 than to roll a 6, therefore, it cannot be a 6.

>>11059471
Why? What even is your claim?

>>11059457

>That is more likely than the alternative. Btw, stop acting as if there are hundreds of witnesses to this when there is a handful.

Occams Razor. Ever heard of it?

It´s been 24.475 mph btw.

>>11059428
At first Kevin Day said it dropped from 80,000 feet in 0.78 seconds, then he started saying 28,000. But that would produce a sonic boom that one observed. And no one has ever explained why they think it's the same object and not multiple objects or just a glitch.

>>11059476
>there is explanation A and explanation B to event X
>A implies that all physics we know is wrong and there are far reaching conspiracies involving hundreds of thousands of people
>B implies some instruments malfunctions and/or people love attention on DMT podcasts

>>11059493
NOOOOOOOOO NOTHING CAN EVER SUFFER FROM ERRORS OR BE MISINTERPRETED IN A HUNDRED THOUSAND SOME FLIGHTS BY AN AIR FORCE

>>11059493
>some instruments malfunctions and/or people love attention on DMT podcasts

Nicely scientific and pretty fair way to boil this thing down. Nothing to see here folks!

>>11059502
My claim is that there was no object that plummeted from 25k feet to the ocean in less than a second. What is yours?

>>11056840
So, let's say aliens do exist. How do you show that? You need material evidence. A body. A craft. Something that people can see and feel.

Believing in UFOs is like believing in God, because aliens and angels are equally dependable to show up for human examination. Even if UFOs are real, we have to treat them as fake until either we contact them or they make themselves at home.

>>11059507
See
>>11059509

>>11059493
>6-pips spotted by advanced dice observing technology
>6 can't possibly be rolled as 1-5 more likely.
>dice-tech reset multiple times to make sure and corroborated from various teams on floating dice tracker
>Its still a 6
>Better send someone to look up really closely at the dice, perhaps its a 1 and a 5 blurring together somehow?
>We now have visual confirmation of six pip's on the die from multiple dice inspectors
>This can't be correct, 1-5 is more likely.
>Conclusion, everyone is still wrong, its obviously 2 bugs sitting on a 4 adding to 6

>>11059509

>My claim is that there was no object that plummeted from 25k feet to the ocean in less than a second. What is yours?

That´s basically a claim by a nobody somewhere on the internet with nothing but "common sense" to support it against claims from highly trained pilots, radar operators and other seamen who risk their reputation while doing it.

I have no claim to make by myself. I just believe these men that this happened and that the breadcrums of video footage is actually showing what they saw.

>>11059531
>nothing but "common sense" to support it
My support is that objects do not shoot into the ocean at ~20000 miles per hour without more than a handful of people noticing.
>I have no claim
Then why did the OP ask to "refute this"?

>>11059523
>some autistic bullshit about dice
What is your claim?

>>11059544
>My support is that objects do not shoot into the ocean at ~20000 miles per hour without more than a handful of people noticing.

So your support is the commonly accepted frame of physics into which the described events do not fit and thus must be false.

Thats like someone in the 17th century saying that electric cars are impossible and a laughable concept because there is no physical basis for them.

I bet you don´t even grasp the stupidity of this kind of thinking.

>>11059560
My support is physics that have been experimentally verified a million times over within the past four hundred years.
Are you claiming physics is wrong?

>>11059570
No, he's claiming radar cannot be misinterpreted or malfunction and physics is wrong.

>>11059570
>Are you claiming physics is wrong?

No. I am claiming that physics has obviously not reached it´s final form.

>>11059575

Staying on narrative really well.

>>11059579
where is the radar data analysis?

>>11059579
From one guy who misremembered basic details of his story and has no data or explanation for how he knows anything descended. OK, retard.

>>11059570
That is such a weak argument. Physics will NEVER be a complete discipline, that's not how science works. Do yourself a favor and read Karl Popper.

>>11059579
What are you basing this on? Do you have any education in physics whatsoever?
If an object can experience 20000 m/s^2 without making a ridiculously loud boom, exploding in a giant ball of flames and ripping apart, this suggests much, much more than physics being incomplete.

>>11059594
I did't claim it was complete, retard. To the contrary. It is mostly complete. We have a very good grasp on the consequences of an object traveling at 20000 mph through through our atmosphere. Do YOURSELF a favor abd the Relativity of Wrong by Asimov.

>>11059600
Ok, I'm done wasting my time with you little buddy. Go back to your room, make your bed and after that do your homework.

>>11059604
>REEEEEEE no one is believing my baseless claims
See you in the next thread, retard.

>>11059597
>What are you basing this on? Do you have any education in physics whatsoever?

The basic, publicly accepted frame, yes.

>If an object can experience 20000 m/s^2 without making a ridiculously loud boom, exploding in a giant ball of flames and ripping apart, this suggests much, much more than physics being incomplete.

Yes it does and that's ehy it should be taken seriously and be investigated rather than ridiculed.

>>11059610
Sorry, I don't like interacting with mentally challenged people.

>>11059613
>Yes it does and that's ehy it should be taken seriously and be investigated rather than ridiculed.
Listening to a handful of people change there stories and go on a DMT podcast is not investigation.
Let seriously investigate it. Step 1:
We need the actual radar analysis. Falling back on what people claim they saw is not sufficient.

>>11059600

Well, since you are like a jungle inhabitant, claiming that nothing other than birds can fly in the sky, this conversation is pretty meaningless.

Some people just love the box they are thinking in and fight anyone who doesn't comply.

I think we will soon find out about the how and why something can travel through any medium with hypersonic speeds without causing sonic booms or leaving any signature.

Just relax and stay tuned.

>>11059621
Didn't you just say you were done? Run along and don't forget to take your ball.

>>11059630
>Just relax and stay tuned
Okay. Try not to make 1000 threads a week about it then. Ill wait patiently for nothing to happen.

>>11059630
>I think
No one cares what you think.

>>11059624

>We need the actual radar analysis. Falling back on what people claim they saw is not sufficient.

Guess what what sacked First after the events. If you don't accept the word of credible people then the case is closed for you and that's okay with me.

>>11059642
Is this the same person who called me unscientific? Lmao

Okay let's stop arguing and try and look through this logically
>in early November 2004, the Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser USS Princeton, part of Carrier Strike Group 11, had been tracking mysterious aircraft intermittently for two weeks
Could be Russians/Chinese/black aircraft at this point. Or their radar was malfunctioning.
>slow speed of 100 knots (190 km/h; 120 mph)
Sounds like a drone
>The objects were also faintly detected by an E-2C Hawkeye plane
Would mean radar malfunction is less likely (but still possible) however i dont know what they mean by "faintly" not enough evidence that this was a solid trace.
>A radio operator on Princeton, however, asked the pilots if they were carrying operational weapons, to which the pilots replied that they were not
if they sent them without weapons then they didn't think it was serious at the time. This implies that the radar traces weren't obvious aircraft. Malfunction theory still looking plausible
>On Princeton's radar however, it was noticed that the object had now dropped from 28,000 feet to near sea level in less than a second
Okay the radar trace is now seen visually so the radar wasn't malfunctioning. Could be that there were two drones and one cloaked up as the other emerged from the sea giving the illusion of instant altitude change
>As the pilots looked down at the sea, they noticed a turbulent oval area of churning water with foam and frothy waves "the size of a Boeing 737 airplane
>A few seconds later, they noticed an unusual object hovering with erratic movements about 50 feet (15 m) above the churning water.
The big object in the water sounds like a submarine and the tic tac was attached to it by a pole and sticking out of the water making it look like it was hovering
>with no windshield nor porthole, no wing nor empennage, and no visible engine nor exhaust plume
Can't make out these things from a distance especially on a small drone.
(cont)

>the UFO accelerated and went out of sight in less than two seconds
Sub launched the tic-tac which was a missile/drone fo some sort
>a physical object would have had to move greater than 2,400 miles per hour (3,900 km/h) to cover that distance in the reported time
Nothing human technology can't achieve. This speed would imply a missile not a drone however

Conclusion: the UFO was likely real but it seems explainable as somebody testing drones and sea launched missiles out there. Who and why is the question.

>>11059697
>Who and why is the question.
No, that's definitely not the question you fucking retard.

>>11059710
I just watched this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRgoisHRmUE
I've updated my conclusion to the UFO was likely real but I don't know what the fuck it was. There's still zero proof it's aliens though.

>>11059772
>>>/x/

>>11059782
OP is right, this isn't /x/ there is a radar trace and the US navy confirmed it. What is /x/ is proclaiming it to be definitely aliens.

>>11059772
>>11058909
My question is, how come Fravor makes a very clear point on the JRE podcast that other people claiming a '10 minute video' or that there were 'men in black' to collect tapes is bullshit?

>>11056859
Couldn't it have just been concurrent hardware malfunctions, a rare meteorological phenomenon, or a hoax perpetrated by people within the government? Jumping straight to aliens seems pretty extreme of a position to me.

>>11059802
>there is a radar trace
There are anecdotes of something on radar.

>and the US navy confirmed it
Did the US navy confirm it? What did they confirm exactly?

>>11059894
>There are anecdotes of something on radar.
True. Until they release the radar tapes which they will never do nothing more can be said on the issue.
>Did the US navy confirm it? What did they confirm exactly?
That the FLIR videos were authentic.
>>11059863
Yeah that sounds fishy, Seems like a UFO was detected and people are embellishing the story as always happens.

>>11059984
>That the FLIR videos were authentic.
So nothing about the content of the videos? Just that they are indeed FLIR videos from a navy plane.

Human error: Unlikely
Technology error: Unlikely
Advanced foreign power: Unlikely
Advanced domestic power: Unlikely
Natural phenomena: Unlikely
Extraterrestrial origin: Unlikely.

At this stage looking for an explanation seems more like investigating an alternative which no one has considered.

>>11060019
>Human error: Unlikely
>Technology error: Unlikely
Have you ever met another human or used a system designed by one? Humans are garbage fires and the things they make are even worse.

>>11056840
>>Retired navy commander David Fravor

Correct, that's who that is.

>>Had every qualification in existence to fly airplanes at that time.

Not sure if that is literally true, but he was certainly a highly qualified pilot.

>>In 2004 he chased an actual anomalous flying object that had maneuvering capabilities way beyond anything in existence, up to this day.

Or, he didn't. Hard to tell. He reported an encounter. I do not think he was lying, I think he is reporting what he believed had happened during the incident. His story is consistent with several interpretations: He saw an Ayy or he saw some /x/-level tech being tested over a military test range or e lost situational awareness and what he experienced is not consistent with what actually happened. That last happens: highly trained military pilots make mistakes pretty frequently, though less frequently than if they were less highly trained. But they are human. And eyewitness reports by humans are pretty fucking likely to be in error on one or more points.

>>Confirmed by radar readings

Is this true? I am aware that he has continued making statements and interviews since I stopped paying much attention to him, but at that time this was not being reported. Unless you are confusing the Flir1 incident with Fravor's sighting?

>>11056888
>His observations were confirmed by radar and video

There is no video of the Fravor sighting. I know of no confirmation of the claim that there was radar contact during the Fravor sighting, but if I am wrong I'd like a link.

>>11056894
A good example of why conflating "trained military pilot" should not be taken to mean "incapable of error," innit?

>>11056909
>Yeah, radars and multiple human observers experiencing the same anomaly at the same time is the best possible explanation. Case closed.

This does not seem to be what happened, though.

Fravor experienced a sighting that he could not explain. Later, another flight tracked an object and recorded the brief video clip known as "Flir1," sometimes "Nimitz" or (incorrectly) "TicTac." This vid shows a distant jet exhaust in IR, switching to visual and changing zooms intermittently. The tracked aircraft makes no noticeable maneuvers during the video. It does not seem to be related to Fravor's sighting, with some reasons to believe it is not related. -- for example, Fravor reported a white object, but when the "Flir1" vid switches to visual the object appears to be dark. At the end of the video, the ATFLIR system loses its lock on the target, and the camera moves off the distant aircraft. A change in zoom level as this happens has been misinterpreted by many as the object suddenly accelerating at incredible speeds.

This does not corroborate Fravor's report (nor does it refute it -- it is unrelated.) Whatever Fravor saw, it was not this particular distant jet aircraft videoed later the same day.

>>11060014
They said it's a UFO.

>>11060122
Why when switched to visual only the exhaust was still seen and not the jet itself? Has anyone analyzed the sudden movment in relation to the clouds to see if it really was just a change of zoom?

>>11056931
>We are talking about an event that was confirmed by the US Navy.

WHich is a LONG way from "The Navy confirmed flying sucers are real."

In passing, note that the Venezuelan military released a report that THAT object could not be identified. Subsequently, it was identified.

No idea why they did that, nor why the Navy would call the "Flir1" vid (or "Go Fast" and "Gimbal" vids, ofr that matter) "unidentified. But I think everyone will agree that military organizations often obfuscate the truth to conceal capabilities and procedures.

There is nothing unusual in any of the three Navy videos, nor the Venezuelan ones. Fravor's sighting defies easy explanation, but at the end of the day it's just another eyewitness sighting, worth about what other eyewitness sightings are worth -- not much. He saw something(s), but it is impossible to know what.

>>11057049
>If you don't find the videos interesting I can only assume you are not even close to have a scientific mindset.

Or you have read more than the Tru Believer sites about the vids, and have come to understand they are not particularly mysterious, and are being wildly misinterpreted by UFO fans.

>Fravor never said he knew what he saw,

But of course WE all know it was Ayys because reasons.

>and the connection his story and the videos is a little institution called the US Navy.

The Navy has, to my knowledge, made no such claim. They confirm the Flir1 vid is real. They have not, to my knowledge, made any claim that it is at all connected with Fravor, because other than being shot the same day it is not related.

>>11057130
>wouldn't interdimensional entities seem more plausible?

Not unless you first establish that other dimensions exist. We know other worlds exist, so for the moment that remains more likely.

Even more likely explanations exist, of course, depending on the sighting.

>>11060130
That means literally nothing other than that they aren't identifying the object in the video.

>>11057136
>Yeah, what is the same between them?

Almost nothing, other than UFO promoters seizing on them, and Flir1 being the same day as the Fravor sighting.

>>11057400
>his fellow pilots also saw the exact same thing.

Sauce? Back when I paid attention to this case, no other pilot was reporting seeing anything other than Fravor's plane maneuvering. But it is certainly possible that more guys have come forward since I lost interest.

>>11056840
One thing is certain, that was not me.
I don't even have an aircraft license, why would anyone think that.

>>11056988
cute cunny

>>11060178
Other dimensions do exist dummy, and have been proven.

>>11060215
Prove it.

>>11057517
There was no vid of Fravor's sighting. The massive confusion created around the three Navy vids, and how the relate to each other and to Fravor, is one of the more suspicious parts of this story. It certainly feels intentional, and if so seems designed to make it appear that there is video corroboration of Fravor's story when in fact there is not.

Here is a very rough disambiguation:

Fravor on a training flight off the coast of California, experiences sightings that he is unable to identify. This is the "Tic Tac" sighting. There is no video. Fravor testifies that he was unable to achieve lock on anything during the incident. He reports a white oval object with to L shaped projections underneath.

Later the same day, a plane is sent to attempt to ID a radar target. It achieves an ATFLIR lock on a distant target. The object shows as very hot on IR, on Visual it appears dark, though this may be due to contrast with a bright sky behind it. The object does not maneuver during the short clip of the video that has been released, though a change in zoom level at the end is seen as the object accelerating by many people looking at the vid.
---> This video is known as "Flir1" or "Nimitz," sometimes confusingly known as "Tic Tac," though it was not taken during the Tic Tac sighting.

Continues below

>>11060236
The following year, over the Atlantic, two more vids were shot that have been released to the public. Both are short clips, and seem to be from the same training flight.

The first shows a cold object, light colored in visual, beneath the aircraft. It gives the appearance of moving vary fast, low over the water. Doing trigonometry based on the info on the ATFLIR display, however, establishes that the object is at 13,000 feet and is moving at 40-100 knots This speed is generally consistent with wind speed at that altitude. The object does not maneuver while being tracked.
---> This video is known as "Go Fast."

The final video shows a distant hot object consistent with the IR flare of jet engines. The target does not maneuver during the clip. The flare rotates (along with several other observable optical artifacts) as the camera rotates passing through gimbal lock. This rotation has been mistaken for the object rotating by some observers. The target does not display any unusual features during the shirt vid.
---> This video is named "Gimbal," presumably because whoever named and saved it recognized what was causing the rotation.

The three vids and Fravor's account were later released by a UFO investigation/promotion organization. For whatever reason, massive confusion has filled media accounts of the vids, adding to the usual level of confusion expected on the Internet.

>>11060230
the fourth dimension is time, which governs the properties of all known matter at any given point. Along with the three other dimensions, knowing an objects position in time is essential to plotting its position in the universe. The other dimensions are where the deeper possibilities come into play, and explaining their interaction with the others is where things get particularly tricky for physicists.

According to Superstring Theory, the fifth and sixth dimensions are where the notion of possible worlds arises. If we could see on through to the fifth dimension, we would see a world slightly different from our own that would give us a means of measuring the similarity and differences between our world and other possible ones.

In the sixth, we would see a plane of possible worlds, where we could compare and position all the possible universes that start with the same initial conditions as this one (i.e. the Big Bang). In theory, if you could master the fifth and sixth dimensions, you could travel back in time or go to different futures.

In the seventh dimension, you have access to the possible worlds that start with different initial conditions. Whereas in the fifth and sixth, the initial conditions were the same and subsequent actions were different, here, everything is different from the very beginning of time. The eighth dimension again gives us a plane of such possible universe histories, each of which begins with different initial conditions and branches out infinitely (hence why they are called infinities).

In the ninth dimension, we can compare all the possible universe histories, starting with all the different possible laws of physics and initial conditions. In the tenth and final dimension, we arrive at the point in which everything possible and imaginable is covered. Beyond this, nothing can be imagined by us lowly mortals, which makes it the natural limitation of what we can conceive in terms of dimensions.

Refute what?

>>11060230
uh, you already are aware of 4 of them.

>>11057683
Fravor's interviews make me very sympathetic to him.

In one, the interviewer put on the "Gimbal" video, and asked Fravor to narrate it as it went through what he saw during his sighting. When he tried to explain that this vid was not from his sighting, the interviewer overrode him and would not let him explain.

Whatever Fravor saw and experienced, that sort of shit must drive him mad.

>>11060253
So when I said prove it I didn't mean copy paste some science fiction. >>>/qst/

>>11058909
For some balance, I recommend the MetaBunk threads on these vids and the Tic Tac. You may not agree with their conclusions, but they analyze pretty painstakingly, and at the least if you think they are wrong, you might like to know what conclusions are reached, how they are reached, etc. That way you can refute them with more authority.

>>11059302
>Are they simply incompetent or are they just trying to reach the conclusion they want?

Why not both?

>>11060151
Who is talking about flying saucers here?

>>11060175
1) I'm not a UFO fan
2) To my knowledge nobody is talking about ayss in here except you and maybe a couple more wackos here and there.
3) I don't think Fravor would jeopardize his veteran pension status by going public in the name of the US navy unless his mental state had been declining since the incident.

>>11060262
You wouldn't be able to conceive them anyway brainlet.

>>11060262
At the level of quantum field theory, Kaluza–Klein theory unifies gravity with gauge interactions, based on the realization that gravity propagating in small, compact extra dimensions is equivalent to gauge interactions at long distances. In particular when the geometry of the extra dimensions is trivial, it reproduces electromagnetism. However at sufficiently high energies or short distances, this setup still suffers from the same pathologies that famously obstruct direct attempts to describe quantum gravity. Therefore, these models still require a UV completion, of the kind that string theory is intended to provide. In particular, superstring theory requires six compact dimensions forming a Calabi–Yau manifold. Thus Kaluza-Klein theory may be considered either as an incomplete description on its own, or as a subset of string theory model building.

Most notably, superstring theory requires 10 spacetime dimensions, and originates from a more fundamental 11-dimensional theory tentatively called M-theory which subsumes five previously distinct superstring theories
Your turn faggot.

>>11056840
Piece of metal stuck in a wind stream

>>11059428
I make that as 19,000 mph, more or less. Speed of sound is roughly 760 mph. So roughly 0 to 25 times the speed of sound there in under a second, inside the atmosphere.

Disregarding issues with whether a sufficiently advanced technology could build a craft that could do that, because different folks will have different opinions on that and none of have data about what Ayys could do, do you understand what that would do the the atmosphere around the craft?

The glowing incandescent plasma trail and sonic boom would be pretty fucking spectacular -- I am surprised nobody noticed them.

On the other hand, false readings on radar are not hugely uncommon.

Everybody can make up their own mind which seems more likely.

>>11060286
Super string theory exists because it says so in this other theory. So is this some sort of holy trinity? Are super strings the holy spirit or the ghost?

>>11059531
>that the breadcrums of video footage is actually showing what they saw.

If you refer to the three Navy vids, they do not support (nor disprove) anything as none of the three show anything unusual, and nothng that connects them to Fravor's sighting nor weird radar returns.

>>11060302
>this exists because another scientific theory says it does.

Yeah, welcome to science, seether.

>>11060319
So what experimentation could a scientists do to prove or disprove Super strings?

>>11060014
And that they are listed as whatever the new Navy euphemism for UFO is.

Which means the Navy either has not identified them, or claims not to have, at least.

I do not know if it has been established what the Navy considers as "identified." For example, the Flir1 vid is pretty obviously a distant jet aircraft. (Or, to be strictly fair, that there is nothing about the video that suggests it is anything else. Presumably Ayys/Secet X-craft could fake being a standard jet if they wanted to.)

But is "it is consistent with a jet aircraft" sufficient for the Navy to call it "identified?" Or would they need to know what sort of aircraft, operated by who, etc? If the later, it may be that all it means is that nobody at the time figured out which specific United Airlines flight it was.

It is also possible that the Navy is not being strictly hnest about the status of these vids as "unidentified." Military lies sometimes, for a variety of reasons.

Finally, it is possible that nobody at the Navy who looked at the vid could identify it as a jet aircraft. That is possible, but suggest a level of incompetence at the Navy that I hope is not the case.

>>11060019
There is no basis at all for assigning "unlikely" to the first two, only slightly more for the second two, and not really much for the final two.

>>11060329
Discover anything that disproves the math.

>>11060341
There's also another option which is that it's just boring shit and UFOlogists love a good larp.

>>11060344
So there is no way to prove it but there is a way to disprove it. Sounds like god to me.

This all sounds like a foreign superpower testing out military technology.

Think about it, if they can turn the radar detection on and off and there are multiple drones, then the radar is just picking up multiple opjects and thinking it's one, so whent they randomly appear all over the radar it presents misleading velocity.

This sounds like psychological warfare by secret Russian/Chinese stealth drone technology what they saw in the ocean was a submarine doing something. With the submarine being the base of operations for the drones.

>>11060145
>>>11060122 (You)
>Why when switched to visual only the exhaust was still seen and not the jet itself?

This is in error. What is seen in visual is a dark object. That is not the jet exhaust.

>Has anyone analyzed the sudden movment in relation to the clouds to see if it really was just a change of zoom?

Yeah, it's in the MetaBunk thread on Tic Tac/FLir1/Nimitz. Regardless of what you think of MetaBunk or their conclusions, they can do things like that as well as anybody.

I have a GIF of it, but it is much more clear on the vid they have.

>>11060353
it was proven through math bro, just like how they think there is another gravitational entity outside of pluto because of how our gravitational orbits are patterned.

Seriously though, learn scientific theory and read a book nigger.

>>11060257
Yeah, but those are not OTHER dimensions, those are THESE dimensions, where we live.

>>11060360
Shit, wrong image...

And now I apparently have typoed the name of the gif I saved, and can't find it. Sorry. I'll try tomorrow, me for bed.

>>11056988
>little babby thinks ayylmaos arent real

>>11060364
>it was proven through math bro
Not how science works bro.
>just like how they think there is another gravitational entity outside of pluto because of how our gravitational orbits are patterned
No, what is proof is when you find the entity not when you have a mathematical theory that indicates the possibility of an entity.

>>11060399
Again, learn scientific theory, braindead nigger.

>>11060416
Why is it that when confronted with something you can't handle you resort to using racial slurs?

>>11060422
Because I'm not in the business to giving you free lessons, especially if you don't know the basic fundamentals. Quit wasting everyone's time you fucking chimp.

>>11059471
It's the
>the science is settled
"""""people"""""

>>11060399
>Not how science works bro.
As if it matters hell psycology is a "science"

>>11060428
You sound like a reasonable calm educated person who has deep knowledge on the subject.

>>11060462
At least psychology has physical phenomena to observe.

>>11060474
And you don't know what the scientific theory is. Do that first then comeback lad.

>>11060480
I know what a scientific theory is and super string is not a scientific theory.

>>11060495
no shit, it was used to come up with string theory.

>>11060502
So super string came before string? Weird flex.

This thread has escalated.

>>11060693
The thread certainly hasn't elevated.

>>11060696

True. Quite disappointing.

I just want jews to tell the truth

>>11060703

back to /pol/

>>11060703
I know the feeling.
I want to have sex with Gardevoir.

>>11060796
retard

>>11056840
let's assume this guy and the other accounts he discussed in dudedmt are not bullshit.

why are they fucking about in the water? the one report he mentions was a torpedo test recovery and it "sucked" the torp down. the other radar reports say they went below the water.

is this to hide, meet with underwater units, or harvest h2o?

to me, I gotta think if you're fucking off around space, and life works elsewhere like it does here, you need water. earth therefore seems like a great place for a pitstop to get more.

>>11060286
>At the level of quantum field theory, Kaluza–Klein theory unifies gravity with gauge interactions, based on the realization that gravity propagating in small, compact extra dimensions is equivalent to gauge interactions at long distances. In particular when the geometry of the extra dimensions is trivial, it reproduces electromagnetism. However at sufficiently high energies or short distances, this setup still suffers from the same pathologies that famously obstruct direct attempts to describe quantum gravity. Therefore, these models still require a UV completion, of the kind that string theory is intended to provide. In particular, superstring theory requires six compact dimensions forming a Calabi–Yau manifold. Thus Kaluza-Klein theory may be considered either as an incomplete description on its own, or as a subset of string theory model building.
>Most notably, superstring theory requires 10 spacetime dimensions, and originates from a more fundamental 11-dimensional theory tentatively called M-theory which subsumes five previously distinct superstring theories
>Your turn faggot.

None of this works though. It all fails.

>>11056863
>jammed his radar equipment, which was according to him an act of war
Since when is that the case?

>>11056840
Daily reminder that the deniers are really religious nutjobs who cannot accept the fact of aliens because it would debunk their whole made in the image of god mental illness. What he's describing is beyond our tech, not by decades but by centuries. The US military won't be wasting trillions on an f-35 if they had the tech those pilots saw that day.

>>11061169

>>11060295

Assuming the craft did indeed move that fast, it would require him to accelerate and then decelerate at incredible speeds. Why do you think that such craft would have a propulsion system that would work in the same way and have the same effect on its surrounding as ours? If the guy is telling the truth, the tech is definitely way beyond our understanding of physics and might be some form of teleportation for all we know, but you expect that tech to produce a sonic boom or heat up it's surrounding based on assumptions that are made with our understanding of physics and tech we have on earth. This logic is obviously flawed. You don't know how the craft works nor how it interacts with it's environment. It would be similar to saying something like light cannot travel through the atmosphere at such great speeds without creating a sonic boom or leaving a plasma trail. Light obviously has different properties than a fighter jet and similarly, the UFO operates on a completely different level than what we have right now.

>>11061193
>It's just a radar, camera, eyesx4, earsx4 malfunction
>>>/x/

>>11061039
Since the tard claimed jamming is an act of war, which it isn't. The russians, chinese and iranians jam american radars, drones, satellites and other coms on a daily basis.

>>11061206
There is no commonality between what was reported on radar, what was seen on camera, and what was reported visually, so not all of them have to be wrong at the same time.

>>11061204
So the "craft" can avoid basic physics but still shows up on radar. No one has explained how it's known that the radar showed movement of an object and not just two objects going in and out of radar, or a glitch. The notion that this was a movement is just an assumption made for attention.

>>11061224
>So the "craft" can avoid basic physics
You're assuming that the craft breaks the laws of physics, but a better way of looking at it is the craft making use of laws that we have yet to discover.
>two objects going in and out of radar
If you listened to the interview with the pilot, he said thatt the object which he was looking at "jumped" and popped up at another location on the radar miles away and when the pilots wet there, they saw the same object they were following earlier. The point is, the pilot saw the object flying on the cameras, saw it on the radar, saw the object accelerate really fast and jumped to another position on the radar, and when they got there, they saw the object hovering of floating above the water. Regardless of whether the radar was faulty or not, the video filmed and the witnesses all say the same thing, the object was nothing that we currently have.

>>11061235
>You're assuming that the craft breaks the laws of physics
Where did I say that?

>If you listened to the interview with the pilot, he said thatt the object which he was looking at "jumped" and popped up at another location on the radar miles away and when the pilots wet there, they saw the same object they were following earlier.
You're conflating several different things. You're talking about the radar operator on the ship, not a pilot. The pilots didn't go to two places and see the same UFO. But let's assume they did: how do they know it's the same exact object that traveled from one place to the other and not just two similar objects? It's an assumption on top of a misrepresented story.

>>11061254
>Where did I say that?
You said that the craft can avoid basic physic. They don't avoid physics, they just have properties which we have yet to understand that follows the physics of the universe. You can be pedantic all you want, but at the end of the day, you claimed the object avoided or broke physical laws, when you cannot possibly know that

>You're conflating several different things. You're talking about the radar operator on the ship, not a pilot.
It doesn't matter. The onboard radars and the ship radar are both following the UFO, the onboard radar locks onto the UFO and tracks it with the IR/TV cameras while it's flying, then it falls off of it, the ship then detect a similar object miles away, and when they get there, the UFO is there hovering over the water. If it isn't the same object, then you're left with not a UFO that can almost instantly travel between two points but one that can completely disappear within seconds, and more than one of them, which reduces the chances of being misidentified even further. I have to stress this once again, such an object is impossible to manufacture with the current technology we have.

And you're still stuck on an irrelevant point, the most important one is not the radar data but the pilots who followed the UFO filmed it and watched it perform maneuvers that are physically impossible for any terrestrial aircraft. Whether there was 1 or 20 of them, whether the objects that were found miles apart were the same or not, whether the radar was glitching or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the object itself was not terrestrial, or at the very least not human made and we know that for a fact because it was flying without any heat trail, made impossible turns, accelerating almost instantly off of the camera and more.

>>11056863
>which was according to him an act of war.
kek, laff at this beta male

>in the past few million years some ayy civilization mapped the nearby star systems
>Sol system looked interesting as there is 3 planets in the habitable zone or because they like the colour blue or for some totally mysterious reasons
>they sent self repairing and self replicating probes/drones

I don't say this is what happened or that there are no more likely explanations. However an event like this would not be scientifically impossible at all.

>>11059597
It would have to imply that it's phasing through matter/space-time or that it has a way to bounce waves off of fields.

Does that about cover it?

>>11056840
David Fravor is one of the big guns they have for alien distraction psy ops. He was put on Joe Rogan's podcast to distract from all the corrupt shit Joe Biden is going to get nailed with. Deep state is shitting their pants. Fravor was nervous as fuck and literally shaking while on Joe's podcast. It's all CGI.

https://youtu.be/Eco2s3-0zsQ?t=3294
Also his story about the test torpedo's getting sucked under water was bullshit. He gets nervous and realizes Joe was seeing through his fake story. He comes off as grandiose or pretentious. His eyes are constantly shifting left and right as he tries to come up with a story on the fly. A good question to ask is what happened in 2004 when his story and videos originally came out. Was some shady government shit happening that they were trying to cover up?

>>11061693
Sauce on gif?

>>11061213
Now imagine it’s a F35 in US airspace and a Chinese jet is flying in erratic patterns is jamming his comm.

>>11060356
Most plausible explanation here

>>11062089
whats up with biden now?

>>11062204
Except for the pilot intercepting said "drone" and watched it doing things that no jet or drone is capable of doing like instantaneously changing direction and having no exhaust heat.

>>11060399
>No, what is proof is when you find the entity not when you have a mathematical theory that indicates the possibility of an entity.

This.

Google the history of the inter-Mercurial planet, usually called "Vulcan."

The idea was that the orbit of Mercury had an odd precession that was not accountable under Newtonian gravitational theory. Shortly after Neptune was discovered (by actually being spotted where the math said to look for it) based on similar problems with the orbit of Uranus, the obvious thing to do was to look for a new planet between Mercury and the Sun.

It was claimed to have been spotted on several occasions, but never definitively and eventually astronomers pretty much ruled it out. The problems with Mercury's orbit were marked as "LOL, idunno" and things were left like that for a time.

Then Einstein happened, and the math for how we work with gravity changed a bit. One of the early bits of evidence that Einstein was onto something was when his equations not only explained the orbit of Mercury without recourse to a new planet, but showed that there could not be such a planet given Mercury's known orbital parameters.

>>11061213
>Since the tard claimed jamming is an act of war, which it isn't. The russians, chinese and iranians jam american radars, drones, satellites and other coms on a daily basis.

Of course you know, this means war...

>>11061693
That is the best gif ever.

>>11062113
The Sea

>>11062204
No, I don;t think so. The middle of a US military test range is not really a great place to experiment with your new Super X-Device. If for no other reason than, if it fucks up and crashes, you have just handed your fancy new system to the other side.

>>11062240
He's just Biden his time.

>>11056840
I love how much this subject triggers /sci/, to the point a supposedly scientific board turns into religious skeptics, despite the mountains of evidence.
There are some type of craft out there with capabilities far beyond our level of understanding, whether it's ayylmaos is an entirely different question, but /sci/tards keep deflecting and strawmanning it into ayyylmaos.

>>11060180
No shit.

>>11056930
Wromg. There is commonilaity between radar and testimony, but the video is only seconds long, while the entire chain of events is 2 weeks.

>>11062335
When the mutant alien came to my house over the summer to see if I would engage in homosexual cuddling with him while in the hypnogogic state of impeded cognition which he had put upon me somehow, and which he should be put to death for putting on me even without reference to his likely myriad other crimes, he said, "Man! I am Carlos."

It wasn't the one that looks like Carlos.jpg.

>>11060356
Nobody surpasses the u.s. in military technology.
p.s.
There is only 1 superpower, the U.S.

>>11060241
>The flare rotates (along with several other observable optical artifacts) as the camera rotates passing through gimbal lock. This rotation has been mistaken for the object rotating by some observers
why does the clouds not rotate with it?

>>11060241
Yeah bro, the entire group of fighter pilots mistook another jet (flying in restricted airspace) for a UFO, despite radar data, from several different locations. Mick "It's a Bird!" West is a retard and so are you.

>>11062251
The only actual proof ot the UFO, the radar data doesn't discount this >>11060356 theory
>>11062331
Maybe it wasn't a test, maybe they were using it to spy for real.
>but /sci/tards keep deflecting and strawmanning it into ayyylmaos.
If it's real and it ain't russians/chinese then it has to be aliens.

>>11060241
Never mind I found the explanation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka_bX9Hx1H0
Pack up and go home kids there are no aliens.
DEBUNKED.

>>11056915
>LT._____ made no attempt to slew the FUR and subsequently lost situational awareness to the object.

Think about how many Navy pilots are up there on some stressful reconnaissance mission while back home their wives are getting banged by the Fitness Instructor.

They are trained to focus on things that really matter like altitude, airspeed, and keeping from vomiting. They miss obvious things, just because they can't focus on them. There is no training on how to intercept strange objects.

There is no general allowance to break mission and go look at something. And whenever it happens, the pilots never find anything because it always flies away! How convenient.

Basically, if they are flying on mission, they shouldn't be deviating to go look at weird shit. But sometimes they do. And when they find they have to come up with some explanation, they lie about it. They lie saying, I saw some fucked up shit- and then they gaslight themselves because they can't back out of it without losing rank. The alternative might be something like, I blacked out, I had a brain fart, hallucinated, etc., bringing a swift end to their flying career.

These social phenomena aren't new. Lower ranking officers, peers, they are all subtly motivated to support whatever the official explanation is.

>>11062478
>Think about how many Navy pilots are up there on some stressful reconnaissance mission while back home their wives are getting banged by the Fitness Instructor.

That's exactly how you start a solid, well thought, rational argument, like a discount Dr.House monologue.

>Basically, if they are flying on mission, they shouldn't be deviating to go look at weird shit

Of course you get to decide that, Commanding General.

>And when they find they have to come up with some explanation, they lie about it

LMAO please stop Dr. house, you are killing me.


>These social phenomena aren't new

Sooo, your field of expertise is internet psychology. Well of course it is. Now, I wonder what the fuck does that pseudoscience has to do with science and math though.

>>11056882

Wrong. They're expert observers trained to identify any known flying objects.

In addition to that, there are multiple eye witnesses and hard returns on naval radars.

>>11062452
>why does the clouds not rotate with it?
Because clouds are not a visual artifact caused by the glass lens.

>>11062714
>They're expert observers trained to identify any known flying objects.
False.

>there are multiple eye witnesses
False.

>and hard returns on naval radars.
False.

>>11059863
>My question is, how come Fravor makes a very clear point on the JRE podcast that other people claiming a '10 minute video' or that there were 'men in black' to collect tapes is bullshit?

I suspect the mythology around the original story is growing because of human nature and people trying to inject themselves for 5 seconds of fame or notoriety.

>>11062456
>Yeah bro, the entire group of fighter pilots mistook another jet (flying in restricted airspace) for a UFO, despite radar data, from several different locations
Except none of that applies to the "Gimbal" video you fucking retard.

>Piece of sheet metal flying around in wind

Solved

>>11062741

All of those are true however.

>>11062778
Except that you have no proof that any of those things are true.

>>11062785

Pilots are trained observers. Fact. This is built into the layers of training they receive.

There are multiple eye witnesses to Fravor's first encounter FACT, since there was a flight of 2 Hornets, both of them 2-seaters for a total of 4 visual witnesses.

Finally, Fravor's flight had been directed to the area due to persistent radar bogeys appearing in those areas. They were vectored to the area based on EM signature from the craft.

Don't waste my time glownigger.

>>11061354
>You said that the craft can avoid basic physic. They don't avoid physics, they just have properties which we have yet to understand that follows the physics of the universe. You can be pedantic all you want
The only one being pedantic is you. You're ignoring the plain meaning of what I said in order to avoid responding to it. And nothing shows advanced capabilities if you don't make unscientific assumptions.

>You can be pedantic all you want, but at the end of the day, you claimed the object avoided or broke physical laws
No I said, the object avoided basic physics, not laws. There is no "law" that says a sonic boom must occur. Why are you so afraid of responding to what I said instead of your own misinterpretation?

>The onboard radars and the ship radar are both following the UFO
How do you know they're following the same thing when there is no commonality between them? It's also pretty funny that you ignore that it was reported that multiple objects were visible on ship radar, which puts into question the logic of assuming that everything was tracking the same object and that two radar readings must be one object moving and not multiple objects.

>>11061354
> the onboard radar locks onto the UFO and tracks it with the IR/TV cameras while it's flying, then it falls off of it, the ship then detect a similar object miles away, and when they get there, the UFO is there hovering over the water.
That's not what happened. Fravor and his wingman were dispatched to where the UFO was spotted on ship radar, supposedly at 28,000 feet, a figure which kept being revised by Kevin Day. When they got to that point they saw nothing visually or on radar. Then ship radar reported that it was no longer at 28,000 feet but saw something at sea level. So there is no evidence of a "drop." It's just an assumption that the two readings are the same object, without evidence. Only then did Fravor and his wingman see the object, and churning water. Then after some maneuvers they lost visual and headed to the CAP point. Ship radar reported another reading at the CAP point (again it's only assumed that this was the same object) and two more fighters were dispatched but no visual was made. So again, pilots never saw the same UFO in two different places.

>And you're still stuck on an irrelevant point, the most important one is not the radar data but the pilots who followed the UFO filmed it and watched it perform maneuvers that are physically impossible for any terrestrial aircraft.
So where are the videos? The only ones we've seen, the ones the UFOtards are going crazy over, show no maneuvering, not even acceleration. All you have left is vague eyewitness testimony, not reliable evidence.

>What's relevant is that the object itself was not terrestrial
Repeating this over and over again without evidence doesn't make it true.

It's telling how much UFOtards rely on muddling and exaggerating the details of the story in order to get anywhere. Get off the science board if that's how you operate.

>>11062793
>Pilots are god's gift to humanity
whatever

>There are multiple eye witnesses
Do we have their accounts? Especially accounts not tainted by Fravor?

>persistent radar bogeys
If by persistent you mean fleeting and inconsistent.

>>11062442
>here is commonilaity between radar and testimony
Like what?

>>11060360
>>11060376

Still can't find the GIF, but here is a direct link to the zoom-corrected vid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=76&v=eUcJLtlH4oQ

>>11062850
This is definitive proof that Bigfoot was flying the unknown craft.

>>11062452
see
>>11062735

The camera rotates as it passes gimbal lock. The visual display system compensates for what is displayed on the screen -- you don't want the screen to display a sudden rotation that is just the camera, rather than the plane.

So the display image keeps the horizon normal to whatever it would be in relation to the plane.

However, the camera does in fact rotate. When it does, camera artifacts will rotate with it, staying in the same alignment within the camera system but, along with the camera, rotating in relation to the horizon. This would include. but not be limited to, the "IR flare" effect around the hot jet engine.

You can see some of this in this gif, from the moment of rotation in "Gimbal." You can see light and dark patches that resemble "rays," most visible above and above left of the target. Contrast was apparently boosted a bit by whoever made the gif, to make the artifacts stand out more. Once you see them in this gif, you can look for them in the original vid, and they are there.

>>11062430
There may be. The videos under discussion here, though, do not establish that, as they do not show any craft or object doing anything even remotely "beyond our understanding."

Fravor's eyewitness testimony, taken at face value, would seem to suggest such a thing. But eyewitness evidence is impossible to evaluate meaningfully, because sometimes people make faulty observations, stories change over time memories are inexact, and sometimes people lie or embellish. None of that is to say that any of this is necessarily the case with Fravor -- but it MIGHT be.

Fravor's report and other witness accounts from the "Nimitz" incidents are interesting, but do not come with measurable, evaluatable data.

The videos "Flir1," taken the same day as Fravor's sighting, as well as "Gimbal" and "Go Fast," DO come with data that can be analyzed. This includes what is shown in the video image of the three targets, as well as the numerical overlay of things like range, camera angle, aircraft speed, zoom level, etc. This data, when analyzed, does not demonstrate anything unusual happening.

Whether not not it is significant that the reports of extraordinary maneuvers, speeds etc. in these cases ALL come from eyewitness reports for which we have no documentation, and the events for which we have documentation ALL show nothing unusual happening -- well I guess we can all make our own judgements on that.

Gonna ask again, since tictac niggers can't seem to answer the question.
What exactly am I trying to refute?

>>11062456
Don't be upset, we're discussing shit here, we're having an interesting discussion here.

>>11062714
>Wrong. They're expert observers trained to identify any known flying objects.

No, they are pilots trainned to fly their planes.

>In addition to that, there are multiple eye witnesses

Source? As I mentioned earlier, I have stopped following Fravor's statements closely, being less interested in eyewitness statements than in physical evidence. Last I was paying attention, nobody else saw what Fravor saw, though his "wingman" had reportedly observed Fravor's maneuvers. If there are additional witnesses, I'd appreciate a link to them.

>and hard returns on naval radars.

For which we have no evidence other than eyewitness reports, made well after the fact, and about which conflicting information has been stated.

>>11062768
This is plausible, but not provable.

Discussion of Men in Black are REAL!!!! probably belong on /x/ - not really science or math, but /x/ loves a good conspiracy theory. Their threads on "Nimitz," "TicTac" and all have actually been pretty decent, if you skip the more obvious schizoposting.

>>11062793
>Pilots are trained observers. Fact. This is built into the layers of training they receive.

They are not trained to evaluate Ayys, inter-dimensional beings, ghosts, or whatever else people might want the "TicTac" to be. They DO make mistakes, misinterpret things, etc. SOme of them lie. Some of them tell tall tales for a turn on the TC or some cash. They remain human. Their eyewitness testimony is interesting, but can't really prove much. At best, they can support and amplify what physical evidence shows. But there is no physical evidence from Fravor's sighting. None. Zip. Zero. Swabo.

>There are multiple eye witnesses to Fravor's first encounter FACT, since there was a flight of 2 Hornets, both of them 2-seaters for a total of 4 visual witnesses.

Can you link to their reports on whatthey observed? One of them was, early on in this and, iirc, anonymously, quoted as saying he observed Fravor's maneuvers but did not observe the target. That may have changed. If so, please share a link, if you have it.

>Finally, Fravor's flight had been directed to the area due to persistent radar bogeys appearing in those areas. They were vectored to the area based on EM signature from the craft.

According to witness testimony. We have no physical evidence to back up any of that, as far as I know. Again, if you know of such evidence, I'd like to see it.

>Don't waste my time glownigger.

This is not /pol/ or /x/, this is /sci/. Act like a grown up.

>>11062832
>So where are the videos? The only ones we've seen, the ones the UFOtards are going crazy over, show no maneuvering, not even acceleration.

Add, of another target, shot elsewhere later that day. There is no video of Fravor's incident.

None of the brief ATFLIR snips we have show any unusual maneuvers or speeds.

>>11062832
>It's telling how much UFOtards

I am generally in agreement with what you post. However, grade-school taunts like that seem out of place on /sci/.

>>11062878
No, sadly, because that would be fuckin' awesome.

It is, however, pretty convincing proof that the purported sudden acceleration as lock is broken is jut the zoom changing. The video shows no sudden acceleration by the target.

>>11062918
Hate to try and read OP's mind, because OP is always a fag and I don't want to catch the gay, but...

I guess he means, specifically, refute what Fravor claims to have witnessed (difficult without evidence to work with) and, more generally, to refute claims made by To The Stars Acadamy about Fravor's sighting, and tangentially-related ATFLIR vids TTSA is pushing as proof that UFOs are real, whatever that means.

Sort of what has been going on in this thread, you know.

Also, why the racism?

>>11062965
You haven't been on /sci/ long then.

>>11062840
>whatever

Not even an argument. Which part of the military or civil flight training regimen do you object to?

>Do we have their accounts?

Fraver is the only one to go public, but his subordinates wished to remain unnamed. His word > your word.

>If by persistent you mean fleeting and inconsistent.

No, we mean days and up to a week of anomolous radar returns forcing calibration of all equipment, only to experience the same and finally send interceptors up there who then visually confirmed UAVs.

Fucking weak. Stop wasting my time.

>>11062953
>They are not trained to evaluate Ayys,

They are trained to identify all known flying objects. They were not able to identify these objects.

>Can you link to their reports on whatthey observed?

Fraver's testimony is sufficient, he is one of the top 20 senior personnel in the entire battle group of 6,000 people.

His word > your depraved, shit-smeared rants. Have you washed your penis lately?

>According to witness testimony.

Expert witness in senior command position. Superlative credentials compared to a shit-smeared Mongoloid who has festering wounds on his phallus due to chronic masturbation.

>Act like a grown up.

Go sit in your corner, put some ointment on that thing, GODDAMN.

>>11056840
>maneuvering capabilities way beyond anything in existence
>Confirmed by radar readings
It is has been confirmed by radar readings are these readings publicly available? I can do basic trig and would like to have a go at calculating rate of change myself.
I honestly think for an unmanned BFM drone ~30g is a pretty conservative guess at a "clean" G limit. If you went all out with composites I think ~50g would be viable before keeping a jet engines rotors off the walls would be the major limiting factor.

>>11063041
>They are trained to identify all known flying objects. They were not able to identify these objects.
This is idiotic reasoning. The ability to identify something is dependent on how much information you are able to get, not your training. Entire well trained militaries have been fooled by UFOs that turned out to be bugs.

>>11063062
ur mum an bug

>>11056840
what if it was a drone, thatd explain maneuvering. reflective coatings could jam radar as they warp

>>11063062
>Entire well trained militaries have been fooled by UFOs that turned out to be bugs.
Who are you to downplay the insectoid menace.

imagine how fucked we would be against someone who can move like the claims. that's the sort of fucked you have to pool world militarys together to even hope to fuck with.

fake ayys or not, a perceived external threat like that is the textbook world unification catalyst dorks have used for scifi for the longest.
it must not be that big of a threat to not see more defensive action taking place

>>11057544
I am laffin at the hag who thinks ‘targeting ufos’ isn’t a legitimate national security priority. Where do they get these talking heads.

>>11059509
My claim is: it did do so

>>11059682
Not a bad argument particularly about mistaking two for one craft but isn’t 40 ft a bit big for a drone and also you could see wings and shit on that. Also the drone landing on a pole being deployed from a sub makes little sense. And also how fucking fast can drones fly in 2004 you would think that we would have this Middle East situation handled nice and tidy by now.

>>11056915
the ufo was only 30 nanometers away?? wtf!!!

>>11060063
Yeah but fighter pilots are more akin to robots than humans so

>>11060253
So basically the rinnegan.

>>11062465
Why the fuck would a country with the ability to make a supersonic 40 ft wingless heatless drone want to watch war games played with comparably Stone Age tech

>>11062850
The craft moves from traveling straight to immediately sideways at the same speed. Shit is weird can drones do this at that speed?

>>11064299
>The craft moves from traveling straight to immediately sideways at the same speed. Shit is weird can drones do this at that speed?

No they can´t. Imagine the G-forces occuring when something is travelling at hypersonic speeds and then abruptly is performing a 90° turn.

Anything humans built to this date would just instantly disintegrate. Pilots would be quite literally liquified.

>>11064378
Ok and the posters are going on about how it’s not aliens... why? Clearly aliens like shit isn’t even up for debate. 250 posts and we gotta debate with spooks.

>>11064477
>Ok and the posters are going on about how it’s not aliens... why? Clearly aliens like shit isn’t even up for debate. 250 posts and we gotta debate with spooks.

Well there is just a glimpse of the mentioned acceleration shown in the FLIR1 video. That combined with observations from pilots is obviously not enough for the sceptics. They outright dismiss the testimonies of all pilots, radar operators and other seamen as some kind of hallucination and the rest is just equipment malfunctions.

Although they realize that the burden of proof is shifting towards them because the nimitz encounters are just the literal tip of the iceberg. It´s the smoking gun basically and they know it.

>>11064250
Nautical Miles.

>>11064288
>supersonic
>heatless

>>11064299
>The craft moves from traveling straight to immediately sideways at the same speed.

>>11064378
>hypersonic

Why do UFOtards constantly make shit up?

>>11062953
Two seater hornets?
Are you certain about that fact?

>>11064510
>Well there is just a glimpse of the mentioned acceleration shown in the FLIR1 video.
There's no acceleration, the camera zooms in at the end creating the illusion of acceleration.

>>11063041
>They are trained to identify all known flying objects.

That is untrue. They are trained to operate an aircraft. They are not supposed to get distracted from that "identifying" UFOs. That sort of shit leads to planes crashing.

>Fraver's testimony is sufficient, he is one of the top 20 senior personnel in the entire battle group of 6,000 people.

Nobody's testimony is sufficient, by itself. Humans make mistakes. Some of them lie. Memories change and deteriorate.

Fravor could be absolutely accurate and correct in describing what happened during his siting. We don't know that. I was not there, you were not there. We don't and can't know how accurate his testimony is.

>His word > your depraved, shit-smeared rants. Have you washed your penis lately?

You seem upset that somebody disagrees with you.

>>11064299
>The craft moves from traveling straight to immediately sideways at the same speed.

No, the camera transitions from tracking with the target to no longer tracking.

Object moving in relation to plane, camera tracks to follow, obect stays centered in field of view of the camera.

Camera stops tracking, object continues to move exactly as before, object moves out of field of view of the camera.

>>11056882
>Chad usn pilots btfos decades of 'skeptic' garbage
>retreat into 'we cant even guess, forget abt it!!'
Lol @ u skeplet

>>11064378
>something is travelling at hypersonic speeds and then abruptly is performing a 90° turn.

Can you explain how you are getting "hypersonic speeds" and "90 degree turn" out of this? I assume you are talking about Flir1 vid -- if not, then I misunderstood you but would still like to know how you are getting that.

>>11064510
>Well there is just a glimpse of the mentioned acceleration shown in the FLIR1 video.

But there isn't, when you adjust for the zoom change as lock is broken. Nor is there any reason to equate the movement of the target off of the display as anything to do with any change in velocity of the object -- what has changed is that the camera has stopped tracking.

>>11056909
Have any of the other 3 pilots in the mission said anything about his claims?

>>11064510
>It´s the smoking gun basically and they know it
Yes its endgame for skeplets lmao
Suicides when

I think you've posted your thread on the wrong board.
You have have intended to post this on /x/, 4chans board for discussion of the supernatural.

>>11064903

What actually happened is that just in the moment were the co-pilot switched from IR to visible, the craft accelerated out of the frame.

>>11064911

His female wingman confirmed (anonymously).

https://vimeo.com/339738815

>>11065335
>You have have intended to post this on /x/, 4chans board for discussion of the supernatural.

How is something experienced by pilots, radar operators and even regular ship personell and that was even recorded supernatural?

Do you really wanna try the "ayy lmao wear your tinfoil-hats" approach on this one?

>>11064894
>>They are trained to identify all known flying objects.
>That is untrue. They are trained to operate an aircraft. They are not supposed to get distracted from that "identifying" UFOs. That sort of shit leads to planes crashing.

Maybe you should shut the fuck up about things you know nothing about.

How do you imagine a military pilot giving a report about something he saw - say an enemy aircraft?
>lol, looked like a plane I guess, I'm not trained in identifying this shit - according to some idiot on the internet

I think it may be significant that Fravor has spoken up in an interview, "confessing" that he instigated fake UFO reports in the past. That seems pretty fucking damaging to his credibility on this topic.

>>11065727
Fravor: ...I have a sick sense of humor at times. ... we used to fly night-vision goggles low altitude in Hornets, all right? So when you put on night-vision goggles they amplify light like a lot.

So you can see a campfire like 50 miles away. So we used to do it, the good spots were down in like, El Centro California there's a range that, there's some bombing ranges. But people go camping in the Superstition Mountains which is a kind of north and west of Imperial by, I forget what it is, the springs, it's real pretty, in a desert it'll come to me in a minute.

So we even go out at night flying around on goggles and you'd see a campfire and you go: "oh UFO time" and then you get the airplane going about 600 knots and then you pull the power back to idle so you can't hear it and you get zinging towards the fire. Well you turn the lights are all down because we're in restricted area so we can do that and there's lights on it that you can only see if you're on night-vision goggles.

So the other airplanes can see us but no one else can see us. Then you go zinging at it and then right when you get to the campfire you pull the airplane into the vertical yes stroke the afterburners, you let them light off, you count to three to pull them off ,and then you just go away. Instant UFO reporting.

[Mimics camper giving a report] "I'm sitting out in the desert it's all quiet and all of a sudden there's a roar there's lights in the sky and they go away and it's gone."

Rogan: You would do that just to fuck with campers

Fravor: yes
...
Fravor: Yes, yes I did. But I'm not the only one who did it but. Like I said we have a sick sense of humor. So some things are explainable because I guarantee there were phone calls made on some of the stuff that we did.

... I've got stuff like that and I go yeah I used to create stuff like that just not tell them

>>11065386
It didn't switch, did you even watch the video?

>>11065405
>How is something experienced by pilots, radar operators and even regular ship personell and that was even recorded supernatural?
It's not, your idiotic fairy tale version of it is.

>>11062914
>eyewitness testimony is invalid
>video evidence is invalid
>even when officially confirmes by the military
>trust me, I analyzed the data

>>11065739
>>11065727
>damages his credibility
How? Do you think the tictac/gimbal/etc. videos are just long-running practical jokes?

>>11066147
No, but they have nothing to do with Fravor's sighting. There is no video from Fravor's sighting. All we have from that is his word.

And now we know he has enjoyed generating fake UFO reports in the past.

>>11066095
There is a lot of confusion about these vids, some of it coming from really crappy media coverage.

Flir1 switches from IR to visual and back several times. I give >>11065386 a little grace on this one.

You are correct, though, it does not switch between visual and IR at the end, when target lock is lost -- the change there is in the zoom. When you correct for the zoom change, there is no "acceleration" of the target leaving the frame.

>>11066131
>>Trust me, I analyzed the data

>Trust me, I didn't analyze the data but just think it looks spoopy.

I know which position I'd rather defend.

>>11060230
I was there last Thursday. banged ur mom.

Antigravity tech able to create reactionless vehicules is pretty fucking terrifying.
RKV have always been conceptually easy, and with that shit they'd pop up all over the place.

I'm making myself a deep space crib and staying away from all gravity wells as soon as possible.

>>11066324
>terrifying
If they were hostile they would have vaporized you already. It's frustrating, though, to know this tech is out there and we can't use it. Like, what's the point of all this cutting edge tech of ours, if the guy nextdoor has got something 100x better?

>>11066344
I'm talking about humans getting the tech here.
The intention of ayy lmaos or whatever the fuck they are i don't know and i don't care, as you said they won't do shit and if they'll do i can't do shit.

>>11066156
Yeah as the ufo

>>11066344

If i were ayylmao with superior tech i wouldn't allow some apelike species constantly engaging in warfare have it no matter what.

I would send them back to the stone age everytime they are close to achieving antigravity/FTL-tech.

Humans are too retarded to not become a threat to others.

>Aliens have been here for a long time.

>people are too stupid to put the pieces together

Agencies are starting to realise that with the advent of space tourism it will be impossible to censor the truth anymore. Prepare yourselves mentally for the times ahead lest you go insane when the time finally arrives.

>>11066586
that's why agencies don't let people have flying cars

believe it or not, there are some highly intelligent and logical humans that wouldn't annihilate the planet on a whim

>>11063058
But, that "drone" has no visible wings, nor exhaust (if it had one, it would've glown in the FLIR pod like a Christmas tree). Was it a high tech Zeppelin?

>>11066621
>that's why agencies don't let people have flying cars

Well maybe the whole climate change thing will be good for something after all. I think the whole soft disclosure spectacle with TTSA is set up to release the tech just in time to get it under control.

>believe it or not, there are some highly intelligent and logical humans that wouldn't annihilate the planet on a whim

Of course there are. Otherwise we would already be dead.

>>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]

>>11066967
the FLIR was slaved to follow the object and with only the rate of change of the angle to the jet available, since the radar was either not picking it up (could drone stealth coating) or being actively jammed (tech available for decades), we cannot confirm or refute any claims about involved heights, speeds and acceleration.
the shape of the object being a blob could very well just be a thermal sensory issue, one can assume a modern stealth drone has the coating and shape to counter modern FLIR to a degree, or who knows maybe the angle of sunlight reflection was just unlucky.
the sudden jolt at the end of the FLIR video can just as well be the FLIR computer losing the track, or the seeker head reaching the end of its available angle.

[cont]

>>11066974
so here is my counter-theory to this being an object of sub-oceanic ayyliums:

the DoD and/or alphabet-agencies were interested if and how well their 3rd gen ship and jet crews can pick up their 4th gen stealth drones, and planned this encounter to coincide within the training area and time.

memes aside nobody on the planet other than the bleeding edge units of the US are on the level of 4th gen stealth technology, so if our 3rd gen tech and crews can't target or intercept the drone, no other nation can, which clears the drone for real-world ops and all kinds of alphabet-boy usage.

think how outlandish and Sci-Fi-esque the B-2, F-117, Blackbird, U2, spy-sat tape-recovery, F-22 and other spook stuff used to be until they got declassified decades later.

thanks for coming to my TED talk.

>>11066967

There we're actually four pairs of eyes in the Initial contact (2 F/A18s with two people per jet) and after that came the jets that actually made the video with the ATFLIR. So at least 8 pairs of eyes.

I'm not dismissing your point entirely, that the craft could be man-made somewhere in the deepest black budget project ever but the general properties of the thing being able to hover without lift and accelerate to hypersonic speed without visible propulsion is a quasi fact.

Too many people saw it performing directly, via footage and on radar for it being something just next-generation tech.

The general behaviour of the crafts also does not speak for a test. They went 100 knots south in 28k feet and everytime they got intercepted, they dropped down to sealevel (in 0,78 seconds) to avoid exposure and went up again as soon as the airspace was clear again.

https://vimeo.com/341138123

>>11066978
>think how outlandish and Sci-Fi-esque

Heres your unbelievable tech B-2 but a few decades older
None of that stuff is remotely as high tech or impressive as whats in the video footage

>>11067036
>So at least 8 pairs of eyes.
you are either confusing things or are stating some source other than the man himself in the podcast, in which case please do link it.

nobody actually saw the Tic-Tac with their own eyes, just one jet with one FLIR computer.

what the Cmdr. saw with his own eyes was some thing under the water surface which he never saw rise or dip below the waves, for all we know it could be the same or an entirely different object related or unrelated to the flying one.

>on radar for it being something just next-generation tech.

we got 2 radars in this incident, one on the Hornet that took the FLIR footage and one on the ship that was seeing the object for 2 weeks.

the Hornet radar was either unable to see it on the radar band, or actively jammed, which the Cmdr. did not say himself, Beardy McGravity claimed that, so we can't say for sure.

the ship radar, by the own words of the Cmdr., was at such great distance that it was unable to distinguish the Hornet from the object, so any movements, sudden popping in and out of radar view cannot be proof of movement even if you could assume that.

it could have been several drones that are capable of being entirely invisible to the radars at the distances and powers involved using what is called Fresnel lenses to decrease and increase their RCS to test detection rates.

again, nothing is certain here other than something(s) was in the sky in those 2 weeks, everything beyond that is speculation and sensationalism.

>>11067053
>high tech or impressive as whats in the video footage
are we looking at the same footage?
all I can see in the one I have is a hotter-than-background blob at unknown distance, it isn't even clear if the thing is hovering or moving.

>>11067066
>nobody actually saw the Tic-Tac with their own eyes, just one jet with one FLIR computer.

???

Did you listen to Fravor and his wing(wo)man? Their two machines were twin seaters as were the jets that made the footage. And how do you zoom in on a object with the ATFLIR that actively jams your on-board-radar when you don´t have an actual visual on target first?

Yeah makes no sense.

>the ship radar, by the own words of the Cmdr., was at such great distance that it was unable to distinguish the Hornet from the object, so any movements, sudden popping in and out of radar view cannot be proof of movement even if you could assume that.

You might want to listen to Kevin Day first before you come to assumptions yourself. He was the radar operator and he clearly stated that the objects were actually tracked from A to B.

>it could have been several drones that are capable of being entirely invisible to the radars at the distances and powers involved using what is called Fresnel lenses to decrease and increase their RCS to test detection rates.

Thats what a lot of people assume to avoid acknowledgement of the fact that these craft did indeed instantanously accelerated to hypersonic speeds and came to a dead stop at their destination. It´s not plausible since radar data supports the observations of the pilots.

>again, nothing is certain here other than something(s) was in the sky in those 2 weeks, everything beyond that is speculation and sensationalism.

Not really. Maybe read and watch yourself through what is out there becore you shill for something unplausible. Though i understand why you might feel the need to do so.

Refute what?

>>11067097

>Refute what?

That there are things in our atmosphere, that havy science-fiction tier capabilities

>>11067094
>Their two machines were twin seaters as were the jets that made the footage
two sets of eyes looking at the thing from what is basically the same point of origin, same angles, same everything.

>And how do you zoom in on a object with the ATFLIR that actively jams your on-board-radar when you don´t have an actual visual on target first?
active and passive jamming doesnt make you invisible or untrackable, quite the contrary.
especially active- as in the jammer is EMITTING- jamming SCREAMS your bearing.
what the jammer does is make it hard or impossible for your doppler to get a distance reading and therefor ability to plot an navigational or weapons intercept track.

also the sky is cold, the ocean is cold, the blob, as shapeless as it is, is easy to be found on a zoomed-out FLIR view, from where you can zoom in and let the computer take over the visual tracking.

>You might want to listen to Kevin Day first before you come to assumptions yourself. He was the radar operator and he clearly stated that the objects were actually tracked from A to B.

IIRC, and you can correct me on this, he said the object popped out of existance at A and popped back into existance at point B.
at no point was an active radar blip moving at hypervelocity on a straight line.

I mean sure you can claim it is some kind of dimension-slip engine or whatever.

>these craft did indeed instantanously accelerated to hypersonic speeds and came to a dead stop at their destination. It´s not plausible since radar data supports the observations of the pilots.

again feel free to point me to the source that says they had a hypersonic radar blip.
they had it disappear at one point and reappear at another.

the actual radar data, which is still classified and not released since why would they spill the beans on their spy drone's RCS values.

if you are talking about the sudden jolt at the end of the FLIR footage, I already gave a possible simple explanation.

[cont]

>>11067094
>>11067094

>Not really. Maybe read and watch yourself through what is out there becore you shill for something unplausible. Though i understand why you might feel the need to do so.

I am freely admitting that this is the most compelling UFO incident ever, but it all can be explained and assumed to be very terrestrial without the need to conjure alien technology.

and at the end of the day it is a radar blip we don't have the raw data on and an IR blob we do have a couple seconds of.

if anthing you are shilling your bias, I am very much open to any possibility including it being E.T. doing some leasure cruise playing pranks on us, but nothing points to that other than wishful thinking.

the universe is statistically-speaking too large for us to be alone, and damn I wish we would make first contact in our lifetime, but that doesn't mean every smudge on the window is ayylmaos trolling us.

>>11067124
>and at the end of the day it is a radar blip we don't have the raw data on and an IR blob we do have a couple seconds of.

>over a hundred contacts
>several direct eyewitnesses
>several radar observers
>dozens of people who watched the footage on the ships.

Yeah meh. It´s almost nothing.

>I am very much open to any possibility including it being E.T. doing some leasure cruise playing pranks on us, but nothing points to that other than wishful thinking.

>instantanous acceleration
>ability to operate for days
>active radar jamming
>hypersonic speeds
>trans-medium travel
>extreme high G maneuvers

Yeah you are right those are pretty regular capabilities, completely ordinairy. Just some next-gen-tech or something.

Ayyyy Lmao

>>11067139
k, repeating the same points over and over without responding to counterpoints.
alright you are not interested in discourse, I get it, enjoy your LARP and have a nice day.

>>11056840
Schizo

>>11067146

>k, repeating the same points over and over without responding to counterpoints.

You literally made no counterpoint. You presented a theory that only works when one leaves half of the data out of the equation. Retard-tier shilling for the lazy folks who need a quick rundown on everything.

>>11067112
Okay. These proposed objects violate all knowledge of physics, so they most likely dont exist.

>>11067200

>Okay. These proposed objects violate all knowledge of physics, so they most likely dont exist.

Finally you made your point. You suffer from cognitive dissonance because these things can´t be real in the realm of your physical understanding but yet they are.

Hilarious.

>>11056840
DUDE DMT
DUDE WEED
DUDE GYM

>>11067233
Not the Anons you are sperging out with but that word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
>>11067200
>>11067233
>>11067244
Sequential dubs checked.

>>11067233
>yet they are.
Prove it. Burden is on you.

>>11067252
>Not the Anons you are sperging out with but that word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Cognitive dissonance occurs when two contrary ideas are true at the same time so i guess i pretty well know what it means and that it fits the mental state of sceptics on this one.

>>11067304
>Prove it. Burden is on you.

Why prove something to you, you already admitted to be real? You just can´t cope with the the observed and documented capabilities of these crafts so you blend out half of the data to get them to fit into a concept you can explain.

And by the way: The burden of proof in general has shifted because the realness of the phenomenon is not disputed anymore. Neither are the observed capabilities which give folks like you the headaches.

>>11062832
>That's not what happened. Fravor and his wingman were...
The ship caught it on radar, the pilots were sent to intercept, and the onboard radar locked onto the ship and tracked it with the cameras. Just listen to the fucking podcast for fuck's sake.
>Then ship radar reported that it was no longer at 28,000 feet but saw something at sea level
The pilot says it was tracking the craft when it suddently dropped out of the field of vision and off their radars. That's when the ship told them that the object popped back up at sea level, but please do ignore that important fact. You make it seem as if it's a glitch when in fact, the pilot who was looking at it lost visual,
>The only ones we've seen, the ones the UFOtards are going crazy over, show no maneuvering, not even acceleration
>disregards the craft rotating on itself while in flight
>disregards the lack of heat trails on the IR camera
Maybe if you got your head out of your ass, you'll finally see it
>Repeating this over and over again without evidence doesn't make it true.
Except eye witnesses and video footage is evidence and you can ignore it all you want, it won't go away. Now kill yourself

Either way I'm done. No point in arguing with morons who actively deny witness tesimony and video footage while at the same time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60ZJQ4I7_3M
>Just look at the fucking footage of the jet locking onto the craft and look at the thing rotate in mid air. At this point you're just in denial.

>>11060253
There is only one possible world. Ours. These "oh so slightly different parallel universes" are fucking sci fi escapist garbage for redditors to pretend to have "thought experiments"