/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11959598]

Can you debunk this /sci/? I don't want to beleive in ufos, but this is genuine footage of some type of black triangle ufo. Multiple witnesses saw it and this guy filmed it. Object looks like pic but without the central light.
https://youtu.be/eQkaaPOWCOw

[Anonymous No.11959618]

>>11959598
What should I be looking for?
All I can see is stars.

[Anonymous No.11959623]

>>11959598
I've seen real ufos before and I tend not to believe shit online. Unless it resembles what I saw (minimalist and uneventful)

[Anonymous No.11959625]

>>11959598
>i don’t want to believe in ufos, but
cringe pandering to hoi polloi /sci confederacy of dunces. where’s your wonder and imagination fucko?
the propaganda has worked on you

[Anonymous No.11959631]

>>11959618
Clearly not stars. You can see the outline of the craft and the perfect triangular distribution of the lights.

[Anonymous No.11959633]

>>11959631
Can you tell the time? Maybe I missed it.

[Anonymous No.11959634]

>>11959633
From 1:18 onward

[Anonymous No.11959635]

>>11959598
Why can't this retard film properly?

[Anonymous No.11959639]

>>11959634
I see 3 lights, but no outline.

[Anonymous No.11959643]

This may come as a shock but any 3 stars with form a triangle

[Anonymous No.11959647]

>>11959635
Because he's driving at the same time I guess.
>>11959639
Does your monitor suck?

[Anonymous No.11959649]

>>11959598
My god, it's full of stars

[Anonymous No.11959651]

>>11959643
Wow, 3 extremely bright stars in a perfect triangle with equal luminosity...

[Anonymous No.11959652]

>>11959647
>Does your monitor suck?
No. It's a Full HD laptop. I increased the brightness too. I also fullscrened the video.

[Anonymous No.11959653]

>>11959598
That's just my drone. Trolololol.

[Anonymous No.11959654]

>>11959651
In a video covered in light pollution...

[Anonymous No.11959656]

>>11959651
>>11959643
>>11959649

[Anonymous No.11959658]

>>11959651
Yes any 3 points will form a triangle. It's being filmed under extreme light pollution so only couple starts will show up.

[Anonymous No.11959659]

>>11959656
Clearly not stars

[Anonymous No.11959663]

>>11959659

[Anonymous No.11959664]

>>11959658
With equal luminosity. You ever looked at the stars at night? Because they look nothing like the object in the video.

[Anonymous No.11959669]

>>11959652
Same here. Optix MAG241CR monitor, no outline under any settings.

[Anonymous No.11959670]

>>11959664
Their luminosity isn't equal either, not sure why you are pretending to be retarded but I presume this is a troll thread then.
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11959674]

>>11959663
COPE. I thought you could do better than cope with such a bottom of the barrel explanation which is clearly incorrect.

[Anonymous No.11959676]

>>11959659
Thanks. You made me guffaw. I think UFO guys are some of the greatest comedians on earth or possibly even galaxies, no pun intended.

[Anonymous No.11959681]

OP, please take a screenshot of the outline and attach it here.

[Anonymous No.11959683]

>>11959674
kek. He doesn't know.

[Anonymous No.11959685]

Op is fake and gay but there is no way you can debunk this one /sci/. You have to admit it's at the very least unknown.

http://archivosovni2.blogspot.com/2012/04/graphic-analysis-on-videos-regarding.html?m=1

[Anonymous No.11959687]

>>11959685
Video footage.
Full original is available as well. Object was filmed several times over 3 years.
Video has been analysed by academics in Turkey, South America, and Japan. All concluded the footage is genuine and the object is "unknown".
https://youtu.be/vHfTYHagmOQ

[Anonymous No.11959690]

>>11959685
Looks like a B2.

[Anonymous No.11959692]

>>11959690
>>11959685

[Anonymous No.11959699]

>>11959690
>>11959692
If you go on the link, which does a frame by frame analysis, or watch the video, you can see that the "beings" on the object appear to move. UFO stuff is fake and gay but I've never seen anyone debunk this. Some people claimed it was a cruise liner, the people who investigated (it was a huge story in Turkey) checked to see if ships were in that area around that time and there was nothing like that.

[Anonymous No.11959705]

>>11959690
I have never seen a b2 remain stationary for long periods of time or know of any physical property that would allow it to do that.

[Anonymous No.11959710]

>>11959699
If it's on the water it's probably one of these, you use lights to attract fish and squids.

[Anonymous No.11959714]

>>11959710
It wasn't a ship, bud.
This story got state level interest and interest from turkeys major academic institutions. They checked for ships.
Watch the footage and look at the frame analysis. The "occupants" also do not look human.

[Anonymous No.11959716]

>>11959710
>>11959714
"we don’t really get any spatial or geographic reference points to anchor us in reality. This isn’t a creative criticism, but a practical one – a mysterious object against a blank, black background could be hanging anywhere – like in a cupboard. However if the footage is of a genuine high-flying object shot in the dead of night then there is only a black background. Zooming out to give us some ground features would have been helpful, if less dramatic."

[Anonymous No.11959717]

>>11959685
>>11959687
Clearly a fucking spacecraft with aliens on it doing something. Kek. But nobody is willing to beleive it because it's so unbelievable.

[Anonymous No.11959727]

>>11959716
Yes we do. You need to watch the full original or the video I posted. The pic I posted and the frame by frame analysis is from a zoomed in segment, so you don't see the reference points obviously. You should have watched the video I linked, the moon is visible in the night time and dawn footage.
Here is the full length original from all 3 years.
https://youtu.be/wRE6PifUkF0

[Anonymous No.11959736]

>>11959727
I'm talking of the one where purportedly aliens are visible. Not the others.

[Anonymous No.11959741]

OH FUCK A UFO FLEW OVER MY HOUSE

[Anonymous No.11959743]

>>11959716
Here is two different footages of the craft, from different conditions (at one point it has glowing lights on it and it was harder to see details), super imposed each other and the shapes correspond.

[Anonymous No.11959745]

>>11959631
>>11959639
>>11959651
>>11959659


Probably that series of US Navy maritime surveillance satellites that travel in a triangle-shaped constellation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Ocean_Surveillance_System

[Anonymous No.11959747]

>>11959727
>>11959736

Sorry. UI don't think I'm giving you proper context. I'm talking about the snippet of video between 0:07 and 2:57.

[Anonymous No.11959748]

>>11959736
The occupants are visible in two different periods (two together and also just one by itself). We only get that detail when he zooms in, obviously.

[Anonymous No.11959750]

>>11959745
NO NO NO NO. IT'S MAH JEWISH ALIEN FRANDS

[Anonymous No.11959753]

>>11959748
As for the 'occupants', I think it's just a simple case of pareidolia.

[Anonymous No.11959757]

>>11959685
>>11959687
>>11959727
I'm convinced I just saw fucking aliens and it's creeping me the hell out.

[Anonymous No.11959760]

>>11959753
Dude, they are moving around, their heads are actually moving, and only one of them appears in later footage.

[Anonymous No.11959762]

>>11959757
I'm convinced that I just saw Jesus's face on this bread and now I shall build a Church and worship this bread all day.

[Anonymous No.11959767]

What if they aren't aliens but a previously advanced human specie that created some sort of off world civilisation?

[Anonymous No.11959771]

>>11959767
>created some sort of off world civilisation
explain more.

[Anonymous No.11959777]

>>11959685
>>11959687
>>11959727
>>11959743
Reposting the remaster version of the footage in segments for the year of filming. You have to watch all three as you'll see the craft is the same, but the "occupants" change or are not visible.
>2007
https://youtu.be/27Ip7vqqJBE
>2008
Part 1
https://youtu.be/imwqRPr83is
Part 2
https://youtu.be/zVdeM99mkMs
Part 3
https://youtu.be/tysuz2OTO3k
>2009
https://youtu.be/BX3VTg1uQrw

[Anonymous No.11959788]

>>11959762
Sounds like cope...

[Anonymous No.11959791]

>>11959777
Something is wrong with these videos.

[Anonymous No.11959794]

>>11959757
Sounds like cope...

[Anonymous No.11959797]

>>11959598

[Anonymous No.11959799]

>>11959760
This was proven to be the top of a cruise ship. Disappointing for sure.

[Anonymous No.11959802]

>>11959799
sauce?

[Anonymous No.11959804]

>>11959760

[Anonymous No.11959818]

>>11959791
>>11959804
Here is the conclusion by TUBITAK https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_and_Technological_Research_Council_of_Turkey
On the videos.
>"The objects observed on the images have a structure made of a specific material and are definitely not any kind of CGI animation or in any means a type of special effects used for simulation in a studio or for video effects. So the conclusion of this report is that the observations are not a model, marquette, or a fraud" and the last part of the report, "it's concluded that the objects observed have a physical structure and are made of materials that don't belong to any category of (airplanes, helicopters, meteors, Venus, Mars, satellites, artificial lights, Chinese lanterns, etc.) and that it mostly fits in the category of UFO's (Unidentified Flying Objects and of unknown origin)".
Also
>Other analysis was done by video specialist, image edition and special effect companies from Japan, Russia, and Turkey, all ending up with the same conclusions. In Chile, I asked professor José Atenas to technically examine the videos, an expert in graphics and video with more than 30 years of experience on television. In his appreciation, José Atenas also came to the same conclusions that the images are authentic.

[Anonymous No.11959821]

>>11959799
No it wasn't. It was speculated to be the top of a cruiseship and then it got debunked because there were no cruiseships in the area at the time of filming. I have also yet to see a cruiseship that can fly in the sky.

[Anonymous No.11959825]

>>11959799
Also, the material of the object is clearly not that of a cruiseship.

[Anonymous No.11959833]

>>11959821
>>11959825
I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong, and am far from a diehard skeptic, but this is one case where im almost 100% convinced by a simple explanation. It just fits too well honestly in my opinion, but I want to believe.

[Anonymous No.11959834]

>>11959818
>Other analysis was done by video specialist, image edition and special effect companies from Japan, Russia, and Turkey, all ending up with the same conclusions. In Chile, I asked professor José Atenas to technically examine the videos, an expert in graphics and video with more than 30 years of experience on television. In his appreciation, José Atenas also came to the same conclusions that the images are authentic.
sauce?

[Anonymous No.11959836]

>>11959804
That's an extremely low quality and distorted image of the object. I wonder why the person who made this image chose a blurred image of the object to make his transition/comparison. Considering there are so many close up HD quality images. With the image blurred and low quality like that, it almost does look like a cruiseship if you close one eye and squint.

[Anonymous No.11959839]

>>11959818
>fell for the bait

[Anonymous No.11959841]

>>11959836
I've watched that video a lot when it first came out years ago, but in my opinion it's an exact match. Im an avid follower of ufo reports and check nuforc frequently, but I think they were recording the ocean. I've seen a ufo myself, it was a triangle that crossed the entire sky silently in seconds.

[Anonymous No.11959843]

>>11959685
Is this a joke? His analysis is a bunch of time wasting nonsense followed by doodling aliens over blurry shapes.

[Anonymous No.11959851]

>>11959833
I don't think it's a cruiseship personally.
The object is in the sky. The material is distinct and doesn't match a cruiseship. Doesn't make sense that the rest of it or at least its outline isn't visible. Doesn't explain the "occupants", which should be considered because I don't believe they are an optical illusion because 1) they move 2) they aren't always there.
Doesn't make sense that a guy living at and patrolling the holiday resort for years as a security guard would be startled by a cruiseship. He patrolled that beach at night and day for many years.
If the TUBITAK investigation is to be believed, one of the first things they did was to determine if it was a ship.

[Anonymous No.11959855]

>>11959851
>>11959716
>>11959753

[Anonymous No.11959856]

>>11959818
>cruise ships are fake
>you can tell the material doesn't belong to any category from a blurry video
LMAO

[Anonymous No.11959857]

>>11959841
I'm not a UFO fag personally but that video doesn't look like a cruiseship at all.

[Anonymous No.11959861]

>>11959855
I don't think the pareidola argument is convincing. I'm not saying it's aliens but I think there is definitely something there. If you view frame by frame there's clear movement and head rotation. The occupants also move away or are not visible at all from the beginning in some of the footage. Why would that happen if its pareidola? I'm willing to be convinced that it is, but I'm just not following your reasoning.

[Anonymous No.11959863]

>>11959857
See >>11959804

[Anonymous No.11959864]

>>11959821
The time of filming is not known. The video shows the same scene with different timestamps.

>I have also yet to see a cruiseship that can fly in the sky.
Why do you think it's flying?

>>11959825
How do you know the material?

[Anonymous No.11959866]

>>11959861
You assume they're heads because they look like heads even though they are just blurry shapes that don't have enough detail to discern. That's the definition of pareidolia.

[Anonymous No.11959868]

>>11959863
I saw it. It's a stretch. As I said above, whoever made that image cherrypicked it, maybe even edited it, because that still of the object is extremely blurry and distorted. Like the contrast has been fucked with. Whoever made that image was trying his damn hardest to manipulate the image to create a match. Look at a high quality version and it's clear they don't match, the part of cruiseship where it's supposed to match is not made from glass. Where glass should be, there's just a metallic material.

[Anonymous No.11959873]

>>11959866
The detail is obviously low quality given the distance we are dealing with and the stills are zoomed in even further. If you watch the video, where's it's not zoomed in so much, and slow it down you can definitely see figures moving on top, and they vanish later. I don't see how pareidola can explain actual movement like that.

[Anonymous No.11959879]

>>11959863
Also, it makes no sense that there is no light coking from the ship. No flashing, no lights of any kind.

[Anonymous No.11959888]

Whats the conclusion here?

[Anonymous No.11959889]

>>11959879
This. Have you fags never seen a cruiseship before? They don't operate in complete darkness. You can see them from miles away because they have a shit ton of lights on at all times during the night.

[Anonymous No.11959897]

>>11959888
My conclusion is that it's spooky and unknown. Maybe it's an alien ship with Ayyyssss on it, that's what my brain is seeing, but it's too strange for me to accept. True UFO is what I'm going with, an unidentified object.

[Anonymous No.11959919]

CGI?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMrEdmcO6NE

[Anonymous No.11959932]

>>11959919
Looks better than any cgi I've ever seen.

[Anonymous No.11959937]

>>11959598
Dude, there's literally nothing to see here. There's too much light pollution, idk what I'm looking at.

>If it is a black triangle it is most likely one of the sub-scale demonstrator prototypes for the B-21 Raider which are known to exist.

[Anonymous No.11959940]

>>11959897
ALRIGHT. SINCE A CONCLUSION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, LET THE THREAD DIE. NO MORE ALIENS DISCUSSIONS.

[Anonymous No.11959942]

It could also be a B-2 or a drone part of the RQ-170/180 family.

[Anonymous No.11959946]

>>11959942
Stop bumping.

[Anonymous No.11959949]

>>11959942
Do you know how loud B-2s are?

[Anonymous No.11959951]

>>11959802
http://turkeyufocase.blogspot.com/2011/04/turkey-ufo-sightings-were-series-of_16.html?m=1

[Anonymous No.11959953]

>>11959940
>>11959946
Go and stay in your IQ containment thread(s).

[Anonymous No.11959956]

>>11959873
You still don't seem to understand what pareidolia is. It's not explaining movement, it's explaining what you think is moving.

[Anonymous No.11959958]

>>11959953
>>>/x/ on >>>/sci/.
Ok retard.

[Anonymous No.11959962]

>>11959953
There have been 3 threads before this. How many times do you spit out shit from your mouth??

[Anonymous No.11959973]

>>11959804
>>11959833
>>11959841
>>11959855
CRUISESHIP THEORY DEBUNKED
http://turkeyufocase.blogspot.com/2013/02/multiple-reasons-suggest-turkey-ufo-was.html?m=1

>In Conclusion:
>There is no sufficient evidence to support the theory that a distant cruise ship is responsible for the objects captured on film in Turkey between 2007 and 2009.
>1. Triangulation shows the unknown object was too high above the horizon to be a ship or yacht.
>2. Alcione incorrectly labeled the cruise ship marina's location.
>3. AIS ship traffic reports do not list a cruise ship in the area.
>4. No eyewitnesses can confirm seeing a cruise ship in the area at the time of the sightings.
>5. Alcione only compared one frame from May 13, 2009, but 23 different video segments from 2007, 2008, and most of 2009 are not similar to the cruise ship photo.
>6. Cruise ships have a lot of lights at night not seen in the Turkey video.
>7. Some of the UFOs were filmed above land areas.
>8. Instances of light ball phenomenon are too high above the horizon to be cruise ship

[Anonymous No.11959979]

>>11959956
I don't know what's moving, nor do I claim to know. My point is that something is moving and it doesn't look like an inanimate object moved by a force or some device.

[Anonymous No.11959980]

>>11959962
Have there? I didn't know. Why do you care anyway, just hide them if it annoys you that much you weird person.

[Anonymous No.11959984]

>>11959980
Discussing /x/ on /sci/? faggot.

[Anonymous No.11959985]

>>11959973
Your whole argument rests upon the guy being veracious.

[Anonymous No.11959989]

>>11959985
He has sourced everything to support his argument.

[Anonymous No.11959994]

>>11959984
UFOs are not an /x/ topic. They've been regulated to /x/ because of close minded and stigma driven people like you. The subject matter is entirely of scientific interest. It can be measured, calculated, and tested.
Here's a scientific American article, by two proomemt scientists, arguing that UFOs should be seriously studied.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unidentified-aerial-phenomena-better-known-as-ufos-deserve-scientific-investigation/

[Anonymous No.11959999]

>>11959994
>It can be measured, calculated, and tested.
how?

[Anonymous No.11960001]

>>11959985
He does the math to prove that elevation of the object is too high to be a cruiseship.

[Anonymous No.11960008]

>>11959999
By various instruments, such as radar, cameras, and other sensors. Even AI and machine learning. Here's one such endeavor that is getting off the ground.
https://skyhub.org/

[Anonymous No.11960022]

>>11960001
Here's the elevation once the math has been done. Way too high to be a ship.

[Anonymous No.11960026]

>>11959949
>Naval_Ocean_Surveillance_System
>>11959942
>>11959937
>>11959888
>>11959897
It was already answered by the link in >>11959745
There's even a picture that's virtually identical to what we see in the OP video, just during the day

[Anonymous No.11960028]

>>11959985
He also took the AIS data and plotted the ship coordinates at the time of filming. As you can see, there is nothing in the area at that time.

Explanation of AIS
https://www.marineinsight.com/marine-navigation/automatic-identification-system-ais-integrating-and-identifying-marine-communication-channels/amp/

[Anonymous No.11960033]

Why is the illumination on the craft weird?

[Anonymous No.11960036]

>>11960026
>>11959685

[Anonymous No.11960038]

>>11959598
SOME PEOPLE CALL ME THE SPACE COWBOY

[Anonymous No.11960042]

>>11960036
I'm not talking about the cruise ship looking one, you goddamn retard. All the posts I was replying to were talking about OP's black triangle post.

[Anonymous No.11960045]

>>11960042
I know. I'm asking you to explain that.

[Anonymous No.11960048]

>>11959979
There is no way to tell what it is or isn't.

[Anonymous No.11960049]

>>11960042
Cruiseship theory is debunked.

[Anonymous No.11960052]

>>11960048
Well we can for sure ascertain they look more "humanoid" than they look like trees, boxes, lampposts, pigs, aeroplanes, or any other category of object.

[Anonymous No.11960054]

>>11960052
You can't, it's pure pareidolia.

[Anonymous No.11960059]

>>11960054
So you don't thing the objects look more humanoid than they look like a fish or a seagull?

[Anonymous No.11960069]

>>11959685

[Anonymous No.11960072]

>>11960069
Debunked here.
>>11959973
>>11960022
>>11960028

[Anonymous No.11960073]

>>11960059
>So you don't thing the objects look more humanoid than they look like a fish or a seagull?

[Anonymous No.11960083]

>>11960073
Just admit it, you're just a LITTLE bit scared that it is actually two Ayyyyys.

[Anonymous No.11960087]

>>11960033
If you mean the turkey video, the illumination appears to be from the moon.

[Anonymous No.11960089]

>>11959598
Could be navy aircraft performing some exercise. Jacksonville is a big naval base.

[Anonymous No.11960090]

>>11960083
Not him but I sure hope ayys aren't flying around here.

[Anonymous No.11960098]

>>11960083
Do you seriously not understand his reply?

[Anonymous No.11960103]

>>11959598
Seems fake to me.

[Anonymous No.11960104]

>>11960103
>>11959685

[Anonymous No.11960130]

>>11960098
Another video analysing movement taking place on the object.
https://youtu.be/HciJorFh1Jg

[Anonymous No.11960134]

>>11960104
What do you think it is?

[Anonymous No.11960136]

>>11960130
It isn't even the same video you fucking imbecile kiketard.

[Anonymous No.11960138]

>>11960134
I asked for your opinions. I have none.

[Anonymous No.11960139]

>>11960136
You understand the object was filmed 3 different times at different time periods?

[Anonymous No.11960145]

>>11960139
https://youtu.be/imwqRPr83is
It is this video that we're all talking about. You go off tangent and link a blurry video of something else.

[Anonymous No.11960149]

>>11960138
I don't know. It does look like some type of craft to me. I can't be bothered checking, but if the math is correct putting the elevation 12.7 degrees above sea level and the ship locations are correct, then I don't know. It's sure something strange.

[Anonymous No.11960153]

Alright. Are you UFO guys happy that /sci/ has now conceded that these are indeed real ufos and real ayys aboard?

[Anonymous No.11960156]

>>11960045
>>11960049
Well then I'll concede my own retardedness. If you watch the OP video, you'll see the series of three lights that form the alleged black triangle UFO. If you go to the link in >>11959745 , you'll find a description of NOSS naval SIGINT satellites, as well as a daytime photograph of the satellites passing by the moon. This daytime photo of the satellites is very similar to what is seen in the OP video, and provides what is almost certainly the explanation (ie. not experimental aircraft or B-2s, as suggested by some earlier).

[Anonymous No.11960162]

I don't know what it is but the stuff the guy is seeing in his analysis is clearly pareidolia. You can tell just by looking at the resolution and level of digital artifacting that the "details" he is seeing just wouldn't be discernible at that resolution.

It might be aliens but you literally couldn't be seeing what he thinks he's seeing.

[Anonymous No.11960163]

>>11960145
Anon, both of those videos are from the same 2008 footage, but at different times. It is footage of the same object, they look a bit different because the time, and consequently the lighting, are different. The two "beings" are only visible for a portion of the footage. When he is filming the object again at a different time the beings are not there. If you don't believe me, check yourself. Recorder has a time stamp on it.

[Anonymous No.11960172]

>>11960162
Maybe it's pareidolia, but this >>11959760 legit looks like two grey aliens standing on a dock and looking at something, kek. Maybe I'm lacking sleep.

[Anonymous No.11960174]

>>11960156
Retard, I'm telling you to explain this >>11959685

[Anonymous No.11960181]

>>11960174
I'm not commenting on that, nigger. I'm just commenting on the OP. These are two separate sightings of two different alleged spacecraft.

[Anonymous No.11960183]

>>11960181
We know, but he wants you to comment on it that's why he is asking

[Anonymous No.11960188]

>>11960183
Well I have no comment on it, as I have no explanation. That's why I only commented on OP.

[Anonymous No.11960194]

>>11960172
Yeah, I see it too. But it's clear from the resolution that details as fine as the "face" that you see momentarily could not possibly be real, physical details. They could only be digital artifacts.

[Anonymous No.11960207]

>>11960188
>Well I have no comment on it, as I have no explanation
Neither do I. /x/ has managed to deliver for once.

[Anonymous No.11960213]

>>11960207
I'd like to think so, as well. Although I think the cruise ship theory is most probable.

[Anonymous No.11960229]

>>11959685
I bet it's the lighthouse at (go fuck yourself google) 40.5655094,28.861074
>fucking go fuck yourself google

[Anonymous No.11960239]

>>11960229
I bet you're the lighthouse at 40.5655094,28.861074

[Anonymous No.11960246]

Okay, bros, I think I've just understood why the "beings" disappeared. It seems that when the "beings" are visible, the "window" or "sun roof" of the object is open. But later on it gets closed.
First image here, from 2008 with the "sun roof" open.

[Anonymous No.11960247]

>>11959631
>You can see the outline of the craft
Oh really? Where?

[Anonymous No.11960252]

The object again with sunroof closed.
Am I fucking nuts or am I onto something here?

[Anonymous No.11960255]

>>11960207
So do we concede defeat?

[Anonymous No.11960258]

>>11960252
>>11960246
You indeed are definitely onto something. Go ahead and find more. We’ll wait.

[Anonymous No.11960272]

>>11960213
See>>11960022

[Anonymous No.11960274]

>>11959598
my parents saw a black triangle ufo in like 2006. They said there was no noise at all, but they both said they could feel a bass-like low frequency. 3 pinkish lights in each corner - no light in the center. Slowly moving from across the sky from west to east. My mom ran inside the house out of fear and she was crying. I thought she saw a mouse because that's how she typically responds lol. My dad said it suddenly took off to the south southwest faster than a tank round (he was in the army for 7 years). I really fucking wish i saw it too but i was inside watching tv with my siblings

[Anonymous No.11960322]

>>11960272
Yeah I saw that. I don't know enough about how the math was done to get that result (and to be honest, I don't know enough about some of the other claims, to include the video analysis and the data on ship positioning) to be able to confidently say one way or another whether I think it's been debunked. I'm a big UFO nut, and I desperately want these things to be real, but I need to do some research of my own before I accept image macros off of a Lesothan bowling industry technology email chain as the absolute truth. It's not that I outright don't believe you, it's that I don't know enough about the subject to independently verify the accuracy for myself.

[Anonymous No.11960334]

>>11960258
It seems to be the case.

[Anonymous No.11960352]

>>11960322
He did some basic trig to determine the elevation of an object using the moon as a reference point. Since we have data for the angle the moon forms relative to the horizon at any time during the day, at any location on earth, deducing the elevation of the object isn't too hard if you know the moon data.

[Anonymous No.11960371]

>>11960352
Intredasting, thank you for explaining.

[Anonymous No.11960383]

>>11960322
I'm a UFO nut as well, but I'm highly skeptical of everything, even the Navy videos which I think could just be drones or something else. But this object undeniably does look like a spacecraft with Ayyyylmaos on it. Obviously we can't prove it or test it.

[Anonymous No.11960393]

>>11960334
>>11960252
>>11960246
According to those time stamps, the object first arrived with the window open on 6/8/08.
When the window is closed, it's 6/11/08. 11th of June 2008 for Yuros.

[Anonymous No.11960400]

>>11960274
Interesting. Where was this?

[Anonymous No.11960410]

>>11960383
See I'm the opposite, I'm more inclined to accept the Navy footage. Appeal to authority I guess

[Anonymous No.11960432]

Didn't watch the videos on a big screen but a cruise ship would perfectly explain the 'moving figures' because well, cruise ships have a bridge with people moving around.
It could also have been a tanker or any other ship as well. And do you really trust turks on this?

[Anonymous No.11960455]

>>11960432
It's not a ship as the ship data shows no ships in the area, and the elevation is too high.
Despite all that, why would only a tiny portion of the ship be visible by moon light, and no lights from the ship at all? Cruise ships are lighten like a Christmas tree at all times, especially at the highest and lowest decks. There is no source light at all, minus the moon. For me, these 3 things convince me that it's not a ship.

[Anonymous No.11960486]

>>11960455
Maybe all ships aren't tracked all the time by all authorities? I've sailed across the baltic sea a few times in a sail boat and I'm pretty sure nobody ever knew we were there.
Only the top being visible could be because of fog, or waves, or some kind of structure. Or maybe it was a tanker or cargo ship, those don't really have that many lights on at night. A cargo ship could also explain why only the top was illuminated, because the containers could have simply occluded the rest from the cameras view.
I need to watch more to address the elevation argument.

But riddle me this. Why are all those ufo vids always grainy ass, shaky as fuck videos?

[Anonymous No.11960506]

>>11960486
Most people are bad at filming.

[Anonymous No.11960522]

>>11960393
So?

[Anonymous No.11960527]

>>11960486
>Maybe all ships aren't tracked all the time by all authorities?
Big ships are, especially tankers or cruisers.
>Only the top being visible could be because of fog, or waves, or some kind of structure.
Luckily, we have all the data for that day. It wasn't foggy and the sea wasn't particularly wavy. Even then, I would expect some light leakage from the ship or at least movement by the ship, but there isn't anything.
>Or maybe it was a tanker or cargo ship, those don't really have that many lights on at night. A cargo ship could also explain why only the top was illuminated, because the containers could have simply occluded the rest from the cameras view.
It doesn't look anything like that at all, and as I mentioned above a ship like that would have AIS data for safety reasons.
>>11960486
>I need to watch more to address the elevation argument.
You should read this. It addresses all the major points made by the ship theory.
http://turkeyufocase.blogspot.com/2013/02/multiple-reasons-suggest-turkey-ufo-was.html?m=1
>>11960486
>But riddle me this. Why are all those ufo vids always grainy ass, shaky as fuck videos?
I think the simple reason is the average person is a photograper or camera operator, nor does everyone have proper cameras with them. Try filming something as basic as the moon or a bird far away on your phone, and you'll see how difficult it is, especially if you have to zoom to maximum. The further you zoom in, the harder it is to keep the camera stable. For this specific video, I think the footage is of acually quite decent quality given the time period.

[Anonymous No.11960533]

>>11960522
I think the simple reason is the average person is not***

[Anonymous No.11960546]

>>11960486
The ship theory also doesn't account for what this anon pointed out here
>>11960334
The object seems to "open up" in a strange way and then some movement by figures is seen. What cruiseship or ship does that, especially at the highest point of the ship or at containers like you've suggested?

[Anonymous No.11960555]

>>11960153
>Are you UFO guys happy that /sci/ has now conceded that these are indeed real ufos and real ayys aboard?
Is /sci/ conceding it's Ayyyys?

[Anonymous No.11960568]

That is a genuine UFO. No idea what it is.

[Anonymous No.11960582]

Is it just me or can anyone else see a clear darker spot, relative to the night sky, that corresponds with a triangle shape?
This is from the OP video.

[Anonymous No.11960589]

Can nobody else see clearly that there is an obvious triangular object floating in the sky?

[Anonymous No.11960593]

>>11960156
Why would such a thing be hovering in a residential area at what looks like a relatively low altitude?

[Anonymous No.11960594]

>>11960589
I dont see it.

[Anonymous No.11960595]

>>11960239
It looks exactly like a lighthouse would, with two "beams" to the side and the room in the middle, and is far away enough to only be visible at night in special conditions.

[Anonymous No.11960598]

>>11960589
no

[Anonymous No.11960601]

>>11959797
I thought NSA was kept secret before 9/11 . How old is this paper?

[Anonymous No.11960602]

>>11960595
That should be investigated-do we have pics of the lighthouse?

[Anonymous No.11960605]

>pic related

link related as well

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave

[Anonymous No.11960610]

Any ideas on what this might be?
https://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/gallery/Gemini/4/Zeiss%20Ikon%20Contarex%2035%20mm#GT4-37149-039_G04-U
https://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_g/G04/Unidentified/raw/GT4-37149-039_G04-U.tif

[Anonymous No.11960622]

>>11960593
It's not, we're looking at a grainy video a guy shot while driving his car of an unusual looking satellite formation. Nothing in the video suggests the lights are hovering at a low altitude.

[Anonymous No.11960627]

>>11960622
According to him and his an interview he did on a podcast, he could see it, the shape of it, it wasn't anything really high up. The Iphone camara is simply too shity to make a conclusion either way really.

[Anonymous No.11960636]

>>11960594
>>11960598
Do you have a high quality IPS monitor?
I'm looking at this on my 4k IPS monitor and I can see an outline of a triangle for sure.

[Anonymous No.11960644]

>>11960627
That's my point, all we have to go off of is shitty video footage and an interview some guy gave on some podcast. That's not enough to suggest a giant black triangle was hovering over a residential area, but it is enough to suggest some guy with an active imagination thought he saw aliens.

[Anonymous No.11960648]

>>11960644
I don't he thought it was aliens. I think it was likely a black project aircraft.

[Anonymous No.11960658]

>>11960648
Okay, then some guy with an active imagination thought he saw a black project aircraft. My point is that there's no evidence in the video to suggest anything is hovering low over a neighborhood, all we can see is three points of light in the sky that bear a remarkable resemblance to the NOSS.

[Anonymous No.11960663]

Okay, /sci/, try and deny that this is a flying black triangle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I37_Pn-7PNc
And another 1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZbZ2CzxQr0

[Anonymous No.11960667]

>>11960589
>>11960636

There is nothing there. Literally take your meds.

[Anonymous No.11960668]

>>11960663
>>11960658

[Anonymous No.11960684]

>>11960668
>NOSS
Show me NOSS flashing to different colours.

[Anonymous No.11960693]

>>11960334
Anyone have an explanation for this?

[Anonymous No.11960694]

>>11960684
Prove to me that the video wasn't edited to make the NOSS flash different colors.

[Anonymous No.11960710]

Seeing as how this is a dumb meme thread, I might as well post my experience.To this day I still don't know what the fuck I saw. Maybe someone can help me.

>early March, 2020
>around 9:30 p.m., it's already dark outside
>look through bedroom window and see a bright white light in the distance
>figure it's just a helicopter searchlight, but there's something off about it
>it's too bright, like an LED light on steroids
>as it gets closer I lean out of the window expecting to hear a sound, but it's completely silent
>whatever it is, it's quickly approaching my house from the east
>after a minute or so it gets close enough to make out some details
>roughly triangular, with a big white light on the front, two smaller white lights on the back and a pulsing red light between them (vaguely looked like pic related but the front was sort of truncated)
>it then quickly veers off to the north just before my house
>grab a pair of binoculars and go outside in order to have a better view
>I notice some thin, horizontal "light beams" coming off of it, two on the back and at least one on the front
>they are rather faint, bluish-white in color, and seem tapper off after a meter or so
>again, there is no sound even though the thing is as big as a small plane and flying relatively low
>it finally disappears behind the houses and trees

It was definitely not a drone, and military craft are very uncommon where I live, let alone experimental ones. My first thought was that it might have been some kind of glider or delta wing, but it looked nothing of the sort. Any idea?

[Anonymous No.11960712]

>>11960710
>Seeing as how this is a dumb meme thread
This thread is good. We've had a laugh and talked respectfully for the most part and had a good discussion.

[Anonymous No.11960720]

>>11960710
Oops, forgot pic
>a good discussion
Come on now

[Anonymous No.11960726]

>>11960710
Oops, forgot pic
>>11960712
>a good discussion
Come on now

[Anonymous No.11960731]

>>11960726
>Come on now
Nobody talked about IQ or -1/12.

[Anonymous No.11960732]

>>11960610
crearly a cig. shaped UFO distorting its surroundings with a strong induced electromagnetic field

[Anonymous No.11960737]

>>11960726
Is this your pic?

[Anonymous No.11960742]

>>11960610
Definitely some type of camera artifact or something that went wrong during the formation of the photograph. There's other pictures in your link with similar anomalies.

[Anonymous No.11960743]

>>11960726
sauce on this pic? It's yours?

[Anonymous No.11960746]

>>11960742
You are right, image 74 has a similar artifact.

[Anonymous No.11960748]

>>11960737
>>11960743
No. The thing I saw looked vaguely like it.

[Anonymous No.11960750]

>>11960710

[Anonymous No.11960753]

I'll throw in the QRD of my sighting if we're doing this.

>Ball of light appears in the sky
>Grows 10x it's size
>"Unfolds" and recedes revealing a large floating black triangle
>Hovers silently for 12 seconds
>Light reappears and slowly engulfs craft
>Light turns back into a ball and shrinks to original ball size
>Fades to nothing

Clear as day, I was with someone else who saw it, both of us sober.

[Anonymous No.11960761]

>>11960710
>>11960753
I've never seen a UFO before. Thought I did, but it was just the ISS.

[Anonymous No.11960767]

>>11960761

I didn't do anything special, we were just hanging out on my friends porch. I've been scratching my head for over a decade trying to find sane answer but I've eliminated every conventional explanation. Either we have very advanced secret projects or we are being visited by Ayys.

[Anonymous No.11960771]

>>11960684
>>11960648
>>11960627
>>11960593
see >>11959656

[Anonymous No.11960774]

About the Belgian UFO wave from the late 80s...

Could it be top secret test flights with the McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II?
Or some European equivalents?


Cold war was at its height, new military projects everywere, Reagan's Star Wars fantasies, early stealth prototypes in the 80s, early drone flights, the F-117 which smashed all aircraft experts around the world when it was revealed. The B-2 even more.

Or project Lampyridae?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB_Lampyridae

Germans invented everything, even the F-117 stealth theory and technology.

After the USA hear from it, the minds of the Skunk workers were blown out and after a friendly talk between Reagan and Helmut Kohl and US and German Generals the project Lampyridae miraculously was cancelled...

[Anonymous No.11960782]

>>11960774
Nothing man made could completely make a mockery out of F-16s. At least with current tech.

[Anonymous No.11960793]

Up to now the British government denies having allowed any spy flights of the CIA planes U2 and SR-71 from British air bases headed towards Soviet territory.

"We dont't talk about this." is the only comment. Just like Israel doesn't talk about the nukes.

Could the triangles over Belgium have been British V-Bombers on test flights?

To test NATO alert and to confuse air recon of the Warshaw Pact?

[Anonymous No.11960797]

>>11960750
The Belgian Triangle was supposedly gigantic and silent, small jets don't really fit the description. Sightings of near silent triangles with lights in the corners and a red light in the center that can hover and then fly away at high speeds go back to the 50s and 60s. >>11960750

[Anonymous No.11960804]

>>11960334
>>11960246
>>11960252
Literally no1 want to try and explain this?

[Anonymous No.11960810]

>>11960782
"No plane like the F-117 and the B-2 could fly stable and save through the skies", every aircraft expert in the world said after they saw the first photos from these planes with science fiction technology (seen from the 80s knowledge of the civilian aircraft and radar experts).

But they fly pretty fine and do their jobs efficiently.

Just like the Segway roller, which runs on a single axis quite smooth and save over the streets.

All the years before only circus artists could do such a trick.

[Anonymous No.11960811]

>>11960797
>>11960774

[Anonymous No.11960816]

>>11959598
>I don't want to beleive in ufos
Why do you not want to believe that there are unidentified objects in the air? The question is not if there are UFOs, it's what they are.

[Anonymous No.11960828]

>>11960816
I suppose there is a question of whether they are actual objects, or just optical phenomena.

[Anonymous No.11960842]

>>11960605
>UFOs over Belgium

Super top secret project Have Blu over Europe in these years - to test and confuse NATO and Russian air surveillance capabilities.

Still secret because of national security and possible diplomatic irritations**). Mystery solved.

Have Blue was nearly invisible for Western and Russian civilian and military radars of the 80s.

Not supersonic but still super fast for its strange looking body, and super silent with the flat turbine outlets and the computer optimized airframe and wings.


**) some years ago Germany wanted to buy Global Hawk drones. But test flights over Germany were forbidden by courts, because there was no general flight admissin, flight licence for this new kind of autonomous plane over Germany/Europe.

[Anonymous No.11960864]

>>11960797
>The Belgian Triangle was supposedly gigantic and silent

No human eye can reliably estimate the real dimensions of a distant object flying in the skies.


Just like with the alleged monster sightings in the lake Loch Ness.
2 meters? 20 meters? 200 meters big?

[Anonymous No.11960880]

>>11960774
>>11960793
Large triangular hybrid airships would fit the visual descriptions better than jets and are capable of hovering quitely, but can't accelerate to high speeds in an instant.
>>11960864
A small distant craft wouldn't appear to be flying at low altitudes as it was reported.

[Anonymous No.11960926]

The radar observation of a UFO in Belgian airspace beginning on 3/30/90 and continuing into the early morning hours of 3/31/90 was merely one incident in an extensive period of UFO activity over Belgium and neighboring countries during that year. Observations at Eupen, which were made by citizens and public officials (including uniformed police officers), indicated the presence of a large triangular object which was capable of low altitude / slow speed, hovering, high acceleration, and high speed. In this, the observations were similar to those of nearly a decade before in the Westchester County area of New York state (USA).

A case summary of the Wavre events of 3/30/90 through 3/31/90 indicates that several ground-based radars simultaneously obtained radar signals from the same object at the same time, as judged by the radar operators. At 11:56PM local time, the required conditions for an intercept having been met, two F-16 fighter aircraft of the Belgian Air Force departed their base and attempted to engage the unidentified aircraft. One of the F-16s had a video camera operating which recorded the radar readings and the HUD (Heads Up Display) presented to the pilot. Readings from the HUD display based on the frame rate of the video allowed military analysts to extract information on the performance of the unknown target.

Linear accelerations ranged from 0.5G to 21G.
The largest acceleration occurred at the lowest speed; at higher speeds maximum accelerations were only half of that maximum value.
Turn radii of less than a mile are the rule, despite speeds for some turns in excess of 1000 knots.
Centripetal accelerations range from 8 to 35 G. Combined with linear accelerations, total forces on the UFO structure or occupants would be as high as 50G.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080113151125/http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/analysis/belgianradar/index.htm

[Anonymous No.11960943]

>>11960636
Are you mentally impaired or just pretending?

[Anonymous No.11960958]

>>11959973
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX3VTg1uQrw&feature=emb_title
The dog make that one more believable

[Anonymous No.11960962]

If this isn't an UFO from Omicron Persei 8, then I don't know either. Just look at the triangle shaped body.

It must be an alien tech UFO. No primitive earthling could build such stealthy and antigravity alien technology.

[Anonymous No.11960986]

>>11960962
It doesn't fit the observations aside from being triangular.

[Anonymous No.11961002]

UFOs over London, err, I mean Brussels!

[Anonymous No.11961024]

>>11961002
>No reports of loud noises
>Huge radar returns
F-117 is the opposite

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdBRQIcNbPo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23wi2hHc6vo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unVbwg9skdA

[Anonymous No.11961075]

>>11960610
I'm pretty sure that's a photo of an physical object (piece of film or a photo or what ever), the anomaly is an imperfection in the film which is why it looks so funny.

[Anonymous No.11961169]

>>11960486
>Maybe all ships aren't tracked all the time by all authorities?
All larger ships are tracked. It's an international standard.

[Anonymous No.11961172]

>>11959598

[Anonymous No.11961183]

>in the end, it's /sci/ who proves the existence of the Ayyyys and /x/ gets BTFO.

[Anonymous No.11961195]

>>11961183
other way round

[Anonymous No.11961203]

>>11961195
If the ayyys get proved, it will be due to a scientific confirmation. Not due to /x/ tier claims.

[Anonymous No.11961266]

>>11961172
>John St. Clair
lol ok

[Anonymous No.11961290]

>>11960246
>>11960252
>>11960334
So anyone want to speculate on this?

[Anonymous No.11961439]

FLIR expert debunks Mick West and his claims regarding the Gimbal video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzmdSsszf5g&t

[Anonymous No.11961579]

Do you still think it's Pereidolia, /sci/?
Another image of the occupants.

[Anonymous No.11961623]

>>11961579
Give us the timestamp.

[Anonymous No.11961664]

>>11961579
ayylmao

[Anonymous No.11961693]

>>11959687
A UFO on the horizon that exactly follows a Turkish ferry's schedule. Wonder what that might be?

[Anonymous No.11961728]

>>11961693
a UFO riding the ferry you fucking sperg

[Anonymous No.11961737]

>>11961693
Read the thread. The idea that it's a ship had been debunked. Even skeptics are concluding it's unknown.

[Anonymous No.11961786]

I'm not a UFO guy but if the information is true and after seeing the footage that does actually look a spacecraft with beings on it.

[Anonymous No.11961794]

>>11961786
Forgot to add, even then, I'm not willing to believe in space aliens on earth simply from a video. As far as I'm concerned, the video is a UFO and that's that.

[Anonymous No.11961883]

So what do you guys think this Turkey UFO is after all the discussions, data, and footage?

[Anonymous No.11961973]

>>11960842
>mystery solved
lol somebody doesn't know what was report there

[Anonymous No.11962004]

>>11961883
swamp gas

[Anonymous No.11962025]

/sci/ btw

[Anonymous No.11962087]

>>11959598
SR-72 final design being tested by government

[Anonymous No.11962231]

Come on /sci/ you have to debunk the Turkey UFO or /x/ will think they've won.

[Anonymous No.11962544]

>>11959818
>this retarded third world "professor" and "graphics expert" Jose Enchilada says the video is true
oh wow that totally settles it

It's definitively the lighthouse at >>11960239 plus distortion to make it look more like a UFO

[Anonymous No.11962616]

This is just some larp /x/ thread

[Anonymous No.11962734]

>>11959598
>>>/x/ tards go back to your containment board

[Anonymous No.11962751]

>>11960810
So you're saying we have technology that can break the sound barrier silently?

[Anonymous No.11962753]

>>11961579
Okay this is pretty incredible. I revoke my cruise ship hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.11962911]

>>11962231
Yes. They won.

[Anonymous No.11962926]

>>11959598
It's a fucking radio tower.

[Anonymous No.11963454]

>>11962544
A lighthouse with no light? Okay bud.

[Anonymous No.11963538]

>>11959598
I've also seen a black triangle UFO irl. Don't know if it was an alien craft, but it was bang on what other people report, so unless I can't trust my own eyes I fully believe these black triangle UFOs are real.

[Anonymous No.11963631]

>>11961579
Sheeet, it's an ayyyyyy

[Anonymous No.11963638]

>>11961579
AAAHHHHH I'M GOING INSANE

[Anonymous No.11963685]

>>11959598
How dumb do you have to be to not understand triangle UFOs are just people freaking out because of how delta wing prototypes look. They have been making them since the end of ww2 but imagine the first person to accidentally spot a b2

[Anonymous No.11963701]

>>11961439
Falch is not an expert. He doesn't understand infrared radiation is light and doesn't understand how IR glare rotates even though we have videos of it rotating and know how it occurs.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-shape-and-size-of-glare-around-bright-lights.10596/#post-239065

[Anonymous No.11963705]

>>11961579
Just artifacts of an incredibly overprocessed image.

[Anonymous No.11963725]

>>11963701
Falch is more of an expert than Mick West, that's for sure.

[Anonymous No.11963741]

>>11963725
Then why did he deny heat makes glares and deny that glare rotates with the camera when both are demonstrably false?

[Anonymous No.11963760]

>>11963685
Except B 2s are loud as fuck at low altitudes and these are completely silent, and much faster. B-2s dont have lights in the center either. It would be retarded to light a stealth aircraft up.

[Anonymous No.11963764]

>>11962734
This is the response they use when they cant explain what they're seeing. BTFO.

[Anonymous No.11963812]

>>11962544
The lighthouse you posted should be at around 145°.

[Anonymous No.11963815]

>>11959745
satellites are fake

[Anonymous No.11963832]

>>11963815
>LET ME SEE YOUR WARFACE

[Anonymous No.11963916]

>>11963701
So Mick is saying a diamond shaped aperture causes the glare and rotation of the camera and a subsequent derotation of the image causes the glare to rotate in the output image. I might be wrong but it seems to me the camera (32) doesn't rotate with the gimbal head and light gets derotated before it hits the camera.

[Anonymous No.11963945]

>>11963916
The light can be "derotated" but there is no magic optic that can undo glare.

[Anonymous No.11963951]

>>11963945
Is there a diamond shaped aperture in the gimbal head?

[Anonymous No.11964009]

>>11963951
There doesn't need to be.

[Anonymous No.11964067]

>>11964009
What makes no sense about this is that the video was filmed in military airspace, during a training operation. All aircraft up in the sky are accounted for and pilots and anyone else with access to sensors can identify aircraft through senator readings, without accounting for the fact they can also visually identify it. The pilots who are tracking the gimbal object also say "look on the ASA, there's a whole fleet of them". The idea that the gimbal object is one of their own jets makes absolutely no sense unless you want to assume things you can prove. The pilot also says the object is "rotating". Have we established if he says that due to visual observation or because he's looking at his FLIR screen?

[Anonymous No.11964075]

>>11964009
Mick's explanation doesn't make sense if the aperture orientation stays fixed relative to the output image.

[Anonymous No.11964083]

>>11964067
Things you can't prove*

[Anonymous No.11964093]

>>11960605
I'd love to get an explanation on this craft. It's what first got me intrigued in the UFO phenomena, though I've mostly given up trying to research this shit as the people posting UFO videos or analyzing them are schizo tier. Maybe even that's a government conspiracy, to put these imbeciles on youtube posting UFO shit just to erode public trust and make it a laughing matter.

[Anonymous No.11964099]

https://youtu.be/kZyNMqcpFm8
Pilot account from the gimbal/go fast East Coast incidents.

[Anonymous No.11964110]

>>11964093
Well we know the most famous Belgium picture is a hoax, or at least someone come out and claimed he hoaxed it. But that does no debunk the hundreds of eyewitness accounts or radar data from different radar stations. The two f-16 pilots that chased it didn't see it, but they did not lock onto it a few times, but would lose lock and simply could not get to it. They even ended up locking onto each other in the scramble of chasing it.

[Anonymous No.11964111]

>>11964067
What you just did with that post made me loose all respect for you. You are trying so damn hard to make this not a fucking streak on glass. Why is that? This is a plane, It does plane shit like flying in the sky. It doesn't do anything in the video that couldn't be done by a plane. You can even do a fucking aileron roll in a plane they invented that term for planes to use when they do a badass flip with their wings. You trot this video out as proof of muh unexplained phenomenon and then when the video has a natural explanation you backtrack to some fucking fly-boys and what they said. What's the point of the video in the first place? You should stop posting it and instead try to figure out if what those dumbass pilots said was true or not.

[Anonymous No.11964166]

>>11964111
It's some type of flying object. I don't know if it's a plane, a drone, or an alien spacecraft. The fact that the object does not demonstrate something that a plane couldn't do doesn't mean it's a plane. That's downright faulty logic.

The pilots involved don't believe it was a plane and didn't describe it as such. The navy does not let unaccounted for planes fly in its training space. The object was accompanied by a fleet of smaller craft, which one of the pilots or co-pilots mentions on the video. According to the pilots, the object rotates. According to the pilots, they had longer videos. Your explanation only adds further questions which skeptics simply refuse to explain. How did a bunch of pilots confuse smother jet in their own training space for something unidentified? And how did they do it more than once? In fact, how did they do for months?

[Anonymous No.11964181]

>>11963916
>So Mick is saying a diamond shaped aperture causes the glare
He is saying a diamond shaped aperture is one way to cause that shape of glare. He has reproduced it several different ways.

>I might be wrong but it seems to me the camera (32) doesn't rotate with the gimbal head and light gets derotated before it hits the camera.
We've already seen examples of IR glare in the ATFLIR system of an F-8 rotating independent of the object being tracked, so all of this is moot. It appears no one who is not sworn to secrecy actually understands how this works.

[Anonymous No.11964184]

>>11964166
I will lay out some statements tell me if you disagree.
1. Flyboys tell stories.
2. The U.S. government lies.
3. People love drama.
4. These videos show impossible things.

[Anonymous No.11964190]

>>11964181
I have yet to see FLIR footage of a jet that resembles the gimbal object. I've dozens and not one looks remotely like the same object. I'm not saying gimbal is an alien spacecraft, but the available evidence and logic alone simply excludes. I'd personally bet on some type of classified drone.

[Anonymous No.11964193]

>>11964190
>I have yet to see FLIR footage of a jet that resembles the gimbal object.
Pic related.

[Anonymous No.11964213]

>>11964075
You don't need an aperture for glare.

[Anonymous No.11964231]

>>11964184
>1. Flyboys tell stories
They also tell the truth, and in fact, they can go to jail for telling false information. There's no reason to beleive the pilots are lying. We only know about this incident because information was released by Louis Elizondo. Before that, this was an internal Navy thing. You are assuming they are lying without any rational reason. If they're all lying, that amounts to a quite a complicated cojosiescy theory that you cannot substantiate.
>2. The U.S. government lies.
They also tell the truth. What is that they're lying about specifically and can you prove it?
>3. People love drama
Okay?
>4. These videos show impossible things.
That doesn't mean the object is known or conventional.

Sounds like your dismisal rests on a giant conspiracy by both the pilots and the US government, a conspiracy for which there is no rational motives, but simply people "liking drama". I think I now realise why Mick West never addresses these questions, because he knows he'll be exposed as having assumptions like this which trail into the unsubstantiated and into conspiracy theory.

[Anonymous No.11964235]

>>11964193
Yeah, one looks like a jet and the other one does not.

[Anonymous No.11964253]

>>11964231
Conspiracy theory **

[Anonymous No.11964262]

>>11964235
One looks like a jet and the other shows how glare can rotate, don't be pedantic.

[Anonymous No.11964263]

>>11959598
OKay chumps, spilling the beans here.

These "triangle UFOS" are not actually objects, they are 3 different objects.

These aliens use "lightballs" /foofighters or whatever they are to explore the universe and observe etc. Like remotecontrolled little drones.

They can connect with eachother and fly in formations, often triangle formations.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-cQwMLU9-g

[Anonymous No.11964322]

>>11964262
I'm not being pedantic. Go look at more images of jets through FLIR. You can tell everytime that it's a jet. Gimbal does not look like a jet. There is no indication that is it a jet. Even if I posit that the glare is rotating and not the object itself. Though I still beleive that is highly debatable and not as cut and paste as Mick is trying to say.

[Anonymous No.11964373]

>>11964231
My post was a trick and you failed.
4. is fucking false and you admitted it earlier.

[Anonymous No.11964384]

If the gimbal object is a jet, you're left with the following questions.

How did pilots fail to recognize a jet and how did their sensors fail to recognize a jet.
How did an unaccounted jet fly around in restricted miltiary air space?
How did the Pentagon and the Navy, who did internal investigations, fail to identify one of their own jets or the jet of a foreign adversary in restricted us military air space?

The dubunking of debunkers only raises more and more questions.

[Anonymous No.11964409]

>>11964322
>You can tell everytime that it's a jet.
Please explain how you know the image on the left is a jet.

[Anonymous No.11964420]

>>11964373
What's false about it? I have not once claimed that the navy videos are showing extraordinary performance. My position is simply that they are unidentified, or UAP. That does NOT mean aliens.
And yes, you have most definitely failed to address the criticisms I have raised about your position. And I understand, because there is no way for you address them, even though they are the main assumptions your debunking rests on.

[Anonymous No.11964440]

>>11964193
What is the source for the first video on the left?

[Anonymous No.11964456]

>>11964384
>How did pilots fail to recognize a jet and how did their sensors fail to recognize a jet.
Because it was very far away.

>How did an unaccounted jet fly around in restricted miltiary air space?
How do you know it was?

>How did the Pentagon and the Navy, who did internal investigations, fail to identify one of their own jets or the jet of a foreign adversary in restricted us military air space?
Why do you think it was in military air space?

[Anonymous No.11964490]

>>11964384
>How did pilots fail to recognize a jet and how did their sensors fail to recognize a jet.
AWACS identifies the jets for the allied fighters to paint. They were flying without AWACS and with no weapons on board. A targeting pod such as the one they were carrying can only designate targets.

>How did an unaccounted jet fly around in restricted miltiary air space?
Could have been a smuggler or a civilian plane.
Or any other myriad of explanations not involving ayyys.

>How did the Pentagon and the Navy, who did internal investigations, fail to identify one of their own jets or the jet of a foreign adversary in restricted us military air space?
How do you think drug smugglers operate?

[Anonymous No.11964501]

>>11964420
Read the fucking post again. You aren't paying attention to what you are replying to.

[Anonymous No.11964538]

>>11964456
>Because it was very far away.
Was it? Do you know exactly how far?
Do you know the distance where it becomes impossible for trained military pilots to recognize aircraft?
What about sensor equipment. Do you know the range of the systems? Clearly they were in range as they saw it on the ASA.
>How do you know it was?
The Navy, Pentagon, and the pilots involved all failed to designate it as a jet.
>Why do you think it was in military air space?
I don't think so, I know so. We know where the Roosevelt videos were filmed, and it was off the east coast in an area specifically designated for the US navy. Any air vehicles entering this space are contacted/designated by air traffic control for safety reasons.

[Anonymous No.11964572]

>>11964490
They confused UAPs for several months to other jets, planes, or drug smugglers. Really? Sounds like an insane thing to believe without any evidence.

[Anonymous No.11964579]

>>11964501
How about you reply to what has been said instead of being a passive aggressive sausage boy.

[Anonymous No.11964589]

>>11964572
A drug smuggling plane that isn't identified, doesn't follow a scheduled route and doesn't respond to attempts to contact is by definition a UAP.

[Anonymous No.11964613]

>>11964213
Dirt on the mirrors and window of the gimbal head?

[Anonymous No.11964717]

>>11964589
So, these hypothetical drug smugglers of yours are both incompetent and profoundly competent at the same time. They travel restricted Navy training spaces for months, you'd think if they were smart, going into a Navy training space which is actively filled with an entire fleet of ships, including an aircraft carrier, would be the last thing they would want to do. Them making the mistake once or twice I could understand, but repeating for months? Gee, not very smart. But actually, they're so smart and sophisticated that the Pentagon, Navy, and Navy personal fail to identify them. Astounding, really.

[Anonymous No.11964834]

One thing about Gimbal and Gofast is that they were recorded on the same mission, it'd be rather concerning if several pilots chased around drug planes, birds and balloons thinking they were somehow correlated.

[Anonymous No.11964836]

I think armchair debunkers really do not comprehend the type of people who become fighter jet pilots, or the level of training they do. High IQ, most with engineering or physics backgrounds, while at the same time having low neuroticism. If there was anyone that was a reliable witness for an event, especially an aerial event, it's a fighter pilot or a group of them.
Most of you fat boy debunkers would get crushed by 9gs and spill your guts out.

[Anonymous No.11965338]

>>11964717
You are the only one claiming this repeated for months. All I see are three isolated incidents, one from 2004, and two from 2017, one in the Gulf of Mexico and two in the Middle East.

[Anonymous No.11965448]

>>11964836
I think UFOtards really do not comprehend the amount of data astrophysicists and astronomers gather about the universe every single day, and the great efforts that have been made to find other intelligent life since the 1970s. If there was any serious presence of ayyys on our planet, especially aerial events, we should be able to spot them through satellite imagery, detect evidence of their communication, technology, radiation leakages or other technosignatures from FTL travel.

Most of you UFOtards would get sick by the microgravity experienced by astronauts and spill your guts out.

[Anonymous No.11965535]

>>11965338
>You are the only one claiming this repeated for months.
No, I am not. The pilots involved are claiming this. Not me. And in fact, their claim that it went on for monhs is corroborated by the two Roosevelt videos which are spaced out by about 4 weeks. There is no rational reason to assume the pilots are lying, unless, of course, you're a debunker and you want to dismiss this inconvenience to make your debunking nice and tight.

[Anonymous No.11965555]

>>11965448
Some of the best UFO sightings are actually from astronauts. The Condon report actually featured 3 detailed UFO accounts by astronauts, and the Condon report could not debunk them.

[Anonymous No.11965604]

>>11963705
That's what the Ayyyys want you to believe.

[Anonymous No.11965627]

>>11965555
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_sightings_in_outer_space

>During the Gemini 4 mission, pilot Jim McDivitt spotted an object that he described as a "white cylindrical shape with a white pole sticking out of one corner of it." He took two pictures of it. McDivitt maintains that it was some unknown but man-made piece of debris, while James Oberg argues that it was most likely the Titan II second stage of the craft.

>In a transcript of Gemini 7 mission, the astronauts mention a "bogey" which ufologists have claimed was a reference to a UFO. Oberg, based on his trajectory analysis of the mission, describes the astronauts' comments about a "bogey" as referring to booster-associated debris, and not a reference to some sort of UFO. The astronaut who made the comments, Frank Borman, later confirmed that what he saw was not a UFO, and that when he offered to go on the television show Unsolved Mysteries to clarify, the producers told him, "Well, I'm not sure we want you on the program."

>Within the UFO community, stories have spread that Neil Armstrong was reported to have witnessed multiple UFOs during Apollo 11. An explanation was that the sightings could have been attributed to jettisoned components. Additional stories were accredited to a hoax spread by science fiction writer Otto Binder. Buzz Aldrin says his words were taken out of context.

>During a 2005 spacewalk outside the International Space Station, astronaut Leroy Chiao reported seeing lights in a formation he described as "in a line" and "almost like an upside-down check mark". Chiao later identified the lights as being from fishing boats "hundreds of miles below".

>In August 2013, according to NASA TV, astronaut Christopher Cassidy saw a UFO float past the International Space Station near its Progress 52 cargo ship. It was soon identified by Russian flight controllers as an antenna cover from the Zvezda service module.

tl;dr - It's fucking nothing. Nice try though.

[Anonymous No.11965633]

>>11960246
>>11960252
>>11960334
This is fucking weird man

[Anonymous No.11965655]

>>11965627
Why are you cherrypicking events, especially when I haven't said specifically which events I was referring to. But thank you for admitting that all you do is go into google and type "astronaut UFO reports debunked" and then regurgitate what is said on the first search result, usually wikipedia. Kek.

[Anonymous No.11965656]

>>11965535
There were three concrete incidents that aren't conclusive evidence of ayyys. There were other unexpected radar detections which could have been from anything. Stop spinning.

[Anonymous No.11965675]

>>11965656
>There were three concrete incidents that aren't conclusive evidence of ayyys
According to who?
Not according the pilots from the Roosevelt that have come forward. There are only two available videos from the Roosevelt, but there were more than two events.
This has nothing to do with the Nimitz.

[Anonymous No.11965691]

>>11965655
I'm not cherrypicking, I googled for your claim (since you don't provide a source) and found nothing like what you are claiming.

Provide a source for those "3 detailed UFO accounts by astronauts" or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.11965695]

>>11965338
>You are the only one claiming this repeated for months.
>two from 2017
>two in the Middle East
Lieutenant Graves and four other Navy pilots, who said in interviews with The New York Times that they saw the objects in 2014 and 2015 in training maneuvers from Virginia to Florida off the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/politics/ufo-sightings-navy-pilots.html

>Gulf of Mexico
near San Francisco

[Anonymous No.11965757]

Skeptical fighter pilot debunks Mick West and his little group debunker cucks.
His conclusion: it's unidentified.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9NhOKy2K80&t

[Anonymous No.11965800]

>>11965691
I told you the name of the report, which was a scientific report led by Dr Condon to debunk UFOs, the Condon report. It's available on the internet for free, but be sure to get the full version as most of the versions actually cut out the astronaut part.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5BImnbe1C0

[Anonymous No.11965826]

>>11965691
Section III Chapter 6
https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/ntis/CondonReport-Complete.pdf

[Anonymous No.11965832]

>>11961024

When the pilot activates the top secret counter-phased anti-noise sound generators hidden in the exhaust slots, the flight noise will by reduced by more than 98%. Of course this is only done in secret test flights and combat missions. Not at public airshow demonstrations. The Soviets can't know too much about Have Blue and F-117.

Counter noise headphones are nowadays availible even for civilians, and active counter noise technology can be fount in super expensive luxury cars now.

But in the 80s it was scifi tech.

[Anonymous No.11965978]

>>11965832
>When the pilot activates the top secret counter-phased anti-noise sound generators hidden in the exhaust slots, the flight noise will by reduced by more than 98%.
Source?

[Anonymous No.11966007]

>>11965978
He's trolling.

[Anonymous No.11966044]

>>11965757
The guy in that video literally says it's not an alien.
It's "unidentified", "could be an anomaly, a secret project or another country".

[Anonymous No.11966051]

>>11965832
>When the pilot activates the top secret counter-phased anti-noise sound generators hidden in the exhaust slots
Either trolling or retard. Any material in the exhaust slots would be burned up or lead to a catastrophe. You should actually look at a diagram of a jet turbine and learn some basic fluid mechanics/thermodynamics.

[Anonymous No.11966077]

>>11966044
Anon, I am not arguing it's an alien. I'm arguing it's a UAP. I take issues with debunkers who claim they know exactly what it is.

[Anonymous No.11966154]

Good thread overall, /sci/. Well done.

[Anonymous No.11966180]

>>11966077
Well most of the anons making these threads are generally jumping to the conclusion it's an alien. I don't think anybody here is arguing that these aren't UAPs, there's a baseline agreement that these are, unidentified, since that's what the navy itself is claiming.

[Anonymous No.11966245]

>>11965826
>https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/ntis/CondonReport-Complete.pdf
Ctrl + F = "astronaut"

[Anonymous No.11966323]

>>11966245
Read the next sentence.

[Anonymous No.11966350]

https://youtu.be/TbnszPdFCfc

Aliens are here

[Anonymous No.11966389]

>>11966323
I did. "Unidentified" =/= Ayyys
It's deliberately saying it's not ayyys.

[Anonymous No.11966416]

>>11966389
Is what >>11965555 said wrong? He didn't say Ayyys either, just "UFO"

[Anonymous No.11966494]

>>11966416
Yes, it's wrong because there was nothing to debunk. My post (>>11965448) explains the unlikelyhood of ayyys being undetected on Earth. He replied with a non-sequitur about astronauts seeing UFOs. Condon report deliberately said they weren't ayyys. They couldn't explain them, yes, so? How is that related to my post?

[Anonymous No.11966503]

NEW
>>11966427
>>11966427
>>11966427

[Anonymous No.11966515]

>>11966494
Your debunking rests on idle speculation, so to play devils advocate and idly speculate in return, Perhaps an Ayyylmao civilization is so advanced that it can avoid most detections. Primitive people living in jungles can't detect us either.

[Anonymous No.11966520]

>>11966494
How was your post about Ayyy technosignatures related to his original post?

[Anonymous No.11966559]

>>11966515
Primitive people living in jungles see aircraft all the time. Even uncontacted tribes know there are other people out there, they just think we use magic or confuse us with Gods.

>>11966520
You are right in that it wasn't directly related.
A non-sequitur followed by another non-sequitur, then.

[Anonymous No.11966573]

>>11966559
>Primitive people living in jungles see aircraft all the time. Even uncontacted tribes know there are other people out there, they just think we use magic or confuse us with Gods.
Only when we directly fly over them, which is when most UFO sightings occur too. Primitive people have no other means of detecting us other than visual sight.

[Anonymous No.11966592]

>>11966573
>Primitive people have no other means of detecting us other than visual sight.
Well we are not primitive people.
I expect better proof than a grainy video if aliens are visiting Earth and coming and going as they please. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and so on and so forth.

Unless you believe all our scientific knowledge is basically worthless, in which case alien tech becomes basically magic to us, and thus this thread does not belong here because your claims become unfalsifiable.

[Anonymous No.11966602]

>>11966592
What we know now is basically magic to other humans, from about 1900 and before, heck maybe even 1950. What makes you think tech 100 or 500 years ahead of ours wouldn't be like magic in comparison?

[Anonymous No.11966629]

>>11966602
Then we might as well debate the existence of unicorns and wizards. No point discussing the unfalsifiable on a science board.

[Anonymous No.11966659]

>>11960986
>It doesn't fit the observations aside from being triangular.

Human mind and memories about observations are the most unreliable thing in the world. Scientifically proven.

Only Adrian Monk and Shawn Spencer have the capabilities for exact memory of seen things.

[Anonymous No.11966696]

>>11966629
What scientific basis would there be for unicorns of wizards? A civilization ahead of ours is entirely plausible. Wizards and unicorns, not really.

[Anonymous No.11966755]

>>11966696
>A civilization ahead of ours is entirely plausible
There's a difference between believing in an advanced civilization vastly ahead of ours (astronomers are actively looking for those since the 1970s), and your idea that aliens can enter and leave Earth without a trace, undetected by all of the Earth's satellites, space telescopes, radiotelescopes, etc... which is akin to magic.

If you deliberately make your claim unfalsifiable then don't wonder why we don't want to debate it on a science board.

[Anonymous No.11966768]

>>11966755
>There's a difference between believing in an advanced civilization vastly ahead of ours (astronomers are actively looking for those since the 1970s)
We have many problems regarding the basic assumptions of our methods to do this.
We are mostly using radiowaves and we are in many cases, due to the speed of light, not seeing what is right now. Our assumptions are flawed really. Not to mention 50 years is absolutely nothing, 50 years is basically zero time since the big bang.

[Anonymous No.11966786]

>>11966768
That is surely a sound argument that could explain why we can't detect a civilization more than 100 light years away.

It doesn't explain why we wouldn't detect UFOs entering and leaving Earth.

[Anonymous No.11966907]

>>11966786
>It doesn't explain why we wouldn't detect UFOs entering and leaving Earth.
I am speculating here, so I want to be clear.
Given the rumours and evidence available, it's probably that many "detections" are classified or/and that any potential Ayyylmaos have knowledge of material science that is beyond the level of our methods of detection. We are simply throwing waves at stuff.

[Anonymous No.11966912]

>>11966907
speculating and playing devils advocate***
To be clear, I do not believe that there is scientific evidence that Ayyyys are here. I am simply speculating and arguing.

[Anonymous No.11966953]

>>11966912
>>11966907
An alien advanced enough so as to be undetectable is equivalent to a God. We might as well discuss if there are angels visiting us if you want to take the debate on that direction.

Unfalsifiable = Not /sci/

[Anonymous No.11966971]

>>11966953
Angels are not a scientific category, though.

[Anonymous No.11967022]

>>11959777
looks like standard Skunkworks wizardry

[Anonymous No.11967038]

>>11964440
I believe it's a video of a jet from David Falch.

>>11964538
>Was it? Do you know exactly how far?
Based on the movement of the clouds it was about 15 miles away.

>Do you know the distance where it becomes impossible for trained military pilots to recognize aircraft?
Whatever distance provides minimal information.

>What about sensor equipment.
What about it?

>The Navy, Pentagon, and the pilots involved all failed to designate it as a jet.
LOL, did not identify it =/= failed to designate it a jet. By the way, do you think the video being named GIMBAL means anything?

>We know where the Roosevelt videos were filmed, and it was off the east coast in an area specifically designated for the US navy.
If you don't even know how far away the object was, how can you say it was in that area?

[Anonymous No.11967229]

>>11959745
The og videoer alludes that he can see the actual body of the craft. It isn't a satellite constellation ffs

Theres a LONG history of triangular craft just like in this video going back probably before ww2. There are researchers who have dedicated themselves to just this one type of ufo.

I'm not saying its aliens but its aliens!

[Anonymous No.11967647]