Precisely. I think I mentioned this a while back. Its like the Black stealth helicopter thing from back in the 90's early 2000's. Anyone back then who talked about black military stealth helicopters was classed as conspiracy nuts and/or UFO nut. Then that covert technology was publicly shown during the Osama Bin Laden raid where the black stealth helicopters where used. They didn't just appear overnight, the governments had them developed and in use for years.
Pentagon releases UFO footage
- Thread starter Doobedoo
- Start date
The bit your missing is the classified part of the material. That video is reported as continuing on for a further 60 seconds which is reported as showing its not just a bag being hit and a missile that veered off course. Congress are not going with "'trust me bro' they are going you cannot hide behind its classified. Here is a SKIF now show us the full data. The unknown date/time/locations is not being shown to us, but it is in some cases being shown to the investigation teams. According to the reports they do have 1000's of videos and data points, 10,000+ even. That's why they are so sure there is something real to all this.Sure, but the information from this recent video I'm being told about missile / UFO is, "look at this evidence of advanced tech!!" and also "video source: unknown, Date/time: unknown. Location: unknown" and the video shows a bag type object get hit but and cause a missile to veer off course a bit plus crazy parallax moving background.
The video looks really impressive until you ask a simple question: 'Are you sure?'. They of course say yes they are sure, but I'm not sureBeing unsure about something is a sign of strength. If you can't verify something and we're asked 'trust me bro' my default response is no
Show me 1000 videos of a missile hitting a balloon with payload and we can get some data points. Until then that video to me looks a 45kg missile hitting a balloon and veering off course a bit. If they asked me first they could save Congress some times etc.
Last edited:
@Pottsey
How can you not understand that having the same people (George Knapp, Ross Coulthard, Jeremy Corbell, Luiz Elizondo, and so on), involved in each one of these clown shows, is a problem?
How are you able to just brush over that like it’s nothing?
How are you totally ignoring the obvious grift that’s taking place right infront of your eyes?
How can you not understand that having the same people (George Knapp, Ross Coulthard, Jeremy Corbell, Luiz Elizondo, and so on), involved in each one of these clown shows, is a problem?
How are you able to just brush over that like it’s nothing?
How are you totally ignoring the obvious grift that’s taking place right infront of your eyes?
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,706
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
B2 Stealth Bomber in my day.
You are conflating things again, bar one, none of them are involved and the one person who was involved has a valid reason for being there that isn’t related to your deluded theory about selling books.
Not that he was involved at this meeting, out of the names you listed. But even if he was, you never did explain why having a senior Intelligence officer that was recruited to work inside one of the governments UAP task forces and had direct access to the classified files is a problem. Isn’t that precisely the type of person you would want?
That's simple because it is nothing and they are not involved. Its not even about them. You are using their names as an excuse. Excluding George who had a valid reason for being there, the names you listed came up a grand total of zero times as far as I recall.
This was about Jeffrey Nuccatelli, Chief Alexandro Wiggins, Dylan Borland, Joe Spielberger who have zero connections to your usually suspects. So, you’re writing these people off all because of some made up fake narrative of yours about the usually suspects that they have zero connection too? There is another word for what you are doing. Your exhibiting extreme confirmation bias.
Or have you got some explanation for how Jeffrey Nuccatelli, Chief Alexandro Wiggins, Dylan Borland, Joe Spielberger are somehow the usual suspects and a problem? Are they somehow part of this grand UFO book selling conspiracy of yours?
As we are at well past the point where it’s clearly not a grift and obviously has a real element to it. Its more shocking you are completely obvious to this.
You seem to think its all a scam to sell books while being completely obvious to the fact a secrete classified UAP department that was fully funded and staffed was found. A department had nothing to do with selling UFO books. Despite being told, your obvious to the money trail and paper evidence they have been following which again has nothing to do with your usual suspects or selling UFO books. Likewise your seem to be completely obvious to the growing number of whistle-blowers from inside the real departments, who again have no links and nothing to do with your usual suspect selling books.
The people working inside the real government funded UAP related taskforces and SAPs are not related to your selling book scam made up theory. There are too many real whistle-blowers now for your deluded theory about books and usual suspects to work.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 806
- Location
- UK
Everything that you just said is 'trust me bro'. No
The data I have access to shows a bag/balloon AFAIK, based on the number of videos I have seen of such events (1).
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 806
- Location
- UK
Chatgpt:
Say the missile is traveling 100 m/s (about 360 km/h — slow for a real missile, but good for an example).- Mass = 45 kg
- Angle change = 30°
- Speed = 100 m/s
Now, if the ropes/balloon make this happen over, say, 0.5 s:
F=23300.5=4660 NF = \frac{2330}{0.5} = 4660 \,NF=0.52330=4660N
That’s roughly the weight of 470 kg pulling sideways.
If the impact time were only 0.05 s (sudden yank):
F=23300.05=46,600 NF = \frac{2330}{0.05} = 46{,}600 \,NF=0.052330=46,600N
That’s like 4.7 tonnes of force.
do ropes exist that can handle 4.7 tonnes?
ChatGPT said:
Yes — ropes exist that can handle well beyond 4.7 tonnes, though they’re not the sort you’d use for camping gear .
blah blah etc.
It doesn't have to exert a force though does it?
If we're going down the chatgpt route:
-----
A brush with just the balloon fabric: no meaningful damage or path change.
A strike on the tether or payload: possible fin damage or temporary control asymmetry, which could alter the trajectory—usually modest and self-corrected, but in a worst-case (e.g., a jammed/broken fin) it could cause a significant miss or instability.
If we're going down the chatgpt route:
-----
A brush with just the balloon fabric: no meaningful damage or path change.
A strike on the tether or payload: possible fin damage or temporary control asymmetry, which could alter the trajectory—usually modest and self-corrected, but in a worst-case (e.g., a jammed/broken fin) it could cause a significant miss or instability.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,513
- Location
- ST4
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 806
- Location
- UK
I'm sorry I don't follow you. In order for anything to change direction a force would needs to be exerted in some way.
My theory was if someone can take all the frames of the video and stitch them together so it shows one big image, then track this balloon type object - how much does it change direction, but I don't think it would change all that much or even at all. How much does a hot air balloon or one of those weather balloons change direction when you pull on the ropes? It moves, but extremely slowing, mostly due to air drag and inertia of the gas+balloon material (+payload) I guess. So an effectively (but not actually) unstoppable force (balloon+ropes+payload) gets hit by a missile on the ropes and gets tangled for a moment, but due to the forces involved the rope or ropes snap and you end up with the missile with a curve and a balloon, ropes and payroll carries on.
This was how far I got until I read this
:Metabunk https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uap-hearing-new-video-yemen-orb.14427/page-4 has a few theories but recently it sounds more plausible that the missile isn't coming in left to right but from a high angle, away from the camera at very fast missile speed. So the missile is travelling from high up (say 6 miles up) to the object (say 3 miles up) and the change of direction in the missile now seems way more plausible, the missile only had a very minor change of direction (1 or 2 degrees) but because we're viewing the motion of the missile from behind the direction change looks more extreme, like a bullet deflect/ricochet in a video from The Slow Mo Guys.
This came from: https://www.reddit.com/r/AirForce/comments/1ncmuuv/this_video_of_a_mq9_drone_firing_a_hellfire/
- It's a balloon.
- It's not moving very fast, it's a visual parallax effect.
- It doesn't deflect the missile, the missile pierces through and keeps going because the fuse didn't trip
- The missile is actually coming from the direction of the camera and curving, what you're seeing is the back of the missile not the side.
- The balloon isn't still flying, its falling at a rate you'd expect deflated mylar to fall (hint: it's not fast)
Last edited:
Isn’t that a thermal camera with the grayscale showing the temperature of the object? If so and it’s a balloon, why is it the same temperature on the balloon the same as the hot running missile instead of the temperature of a balloon? The temperature profile rules out a balloon, doesn’t it?I'm sorry I don't follow you. In order for anything to change direction a force would needs to be exerted in someway.
My theory was if someone can take all the frames of the video and stitch them together so it shows one big image, then track this balloon type object - how much does it change direction, but I don't think it would change all that much or even at all. How much does a hot air balloon or one of those weather balloons change direction when you pull on the ropes? It moves, but extremely slowing, mostly due to air drag and inertia of the gas+balloon material (+payload) I guess. So an effectively (but not actually) unstoppable force (balloon+ropes+payload) gets hit by a missile on the ropes and gets tangled for a moment, but due to the forces involved the rope or ropes snap and you end up with the missile with a curve and a balloon, ropes and payroll carries on.
This was how far I got until
Metabunk https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uap-hearing-new-video-yemen-orb.14427/page-4 has a few theories but recently it sounds more plausible that the missile isn't coming in left to right but from a high angle, away from the camera at very fast missile speed. So the missile is travelling from high up (say 6 miles up) to the object (say 3 miles up) and the change of direction in the missile now seems way more plausible, the missile only had a very minor change of direction (1 or 2 degrees) but because we're viewing the motion of the missile from behind the direction change looks more extreme, like a bullet deflect/ricochet in a video from The Slow Mo Guys.
This came from: https://www.reddit.com/r/AirForce/comments/1ncmuuv/this_video_of_a_mq9_drone_firing_a_hellfire/
This was the reason why the team gave the video to the internet wasn't it? To come up with some insights into the video they may not have thought of. We only have the data given so far though. The 'Trust Me Bro' content remains behind a paywall or something.
- It's a balloon.
- It's not moving very fast, it's a visual parallax effect.
- It doesn't deflect the missile, the missile pierces through and keeps going because the fuse didn't trip
- The missile is actually coming from the direction of the camera and curving, what you're seeing is the back of the missile not the side.
- The balloon isn't still flying, its falling at a rate you'd expect deflated mylar to fall (hint: it's not fast)
Why does the balloon seem to respond and instantly rotate when the target lock is archive and the laser hits? The instant that happens the object starts rotating like it’s about to change diction to evade. How would a balloon seem to respond to the target lock?
"The balloon isn't still flying, its falling at a rate you'd expect deflated mylar to fall (hint: it's not fast)"
Not seen any evidence the object is falling and Mick West said when the missile hits the object it quickly drops to zero speed. Not slowly falling. How can it both quickly drop to zero speed like its engine has been taken out and at the same time slowly change speeds and slowly drop?
Playing devil advocate. I dont know, one might argue that the classified secrete UFO government departments being shown to be real, fully funded and staffed with the whistle-blowers inside those departments coming forwarded officially might be a little different then 35 years ago. People like Jeffrey Nuccatelli, Chief Alexandro Wiggins, Dylan Borland, Joe Spielberger are real and some of them worked directly as first-hand witness's on this technology.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 806
- Location
- UK
The background looks like the sea and some of that is white/lighter, the same colour as both the missile and the balloon so I don't know how these cameras work but I don't think it's white = hot.
The balloon isn't responding like some tech, it pops from a direct or indirect hit and starts falling. You can't really use the background as marker due to parallax. The tracking camera (moving) is following/panning with the balloons trajectory (moving with wind speed), then popped/damaged the balloon falls out of shot because it's falling and now the previously expected trajectory the camera had been following has to change/zoom out due to this.
After reading more of that Reddit thread, the missile didn't explode because the balloon wasn't enough for the sensors to detect anything was there. The curve was from the confused missile guidance system after it flew past/through it's target.
A lot of people question why the missile appears to move so slow, but it's due to perspective, it's moving away from the camera very quickly, these missiles are fast.
Video showing speed forward as well as rocket manoeuvring ability:
Last edited:
A lot of people are saying it does though. They are saying it responds to the enemy target lock and start rotating to evade in response to the target lock. If you watch it in slow motion, you can see a response to the active target lock. Which looks like a defensive action. Balloons don’t do that.
Again, people are saying it’s not falling, it continues to fly and curve upwards changing direction after it stabilises from the hit. There is no evidence its falling. Also the change of speed doesn’t match a balloon is what the other side are saying.
No they are not anywhere near the same colour. The temperature of the missile and object is massively different to the background temperature or the expected temperature of a balloon. You can see from the temperature that the object is running as hot as the missile and much hotter than background or balloon temperatures.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,706
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
55 years for me
Zero connections, are you sure?
Here’s a video from 5 months ago, of Jeffrey Nuccatelli appearing on Jeremy Corbells YouTube channel being interviewed by both Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp:
They’re all interlinked in this silly grifting web of BS
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 806
- Location
- UK
Good missile/orb video this one with ex-army munitions guy where opinion is it's parallax effect, balloon and normal missile behaviour, likely a missile test. And he's seen some weird UFO! so something for everyone
I hadn't noticed until now it's mentioned that the heading of the drone with camera is shown at the top and as the drone is changing direction, which seems to match with the change of direction with the apparent movement of the orb. That's parallax.
I hadn't noticed until now it's mentioned that the heading of the drone with camera is shown at the top and as the drone is changing direction, which seems to match with the change of direction with the apparent movement of the orb. That's parallax.
Last edited:
So basically, yet again it’s just your extreme confirmation bias playing up. So, in reality there is no connection for 4 of them and the only minor connection you can find for the 5th one is a perfectly reasonable one that has nothing to do with your grifting nonsense idea.
George isn’t a grifter he is a well renowned investigative journalist who has won awards. George doesn’t deal in belief but prefers facts, evidence and paper trails. The fact he interviewed someone as part of his real-life job is not a red flag that you’re trying to make it out as. George is well known for preferring hard evidence, paper trails, doing proper background checks and confirming facts where possible. So just what is the problem? If you do want to write off Jeffrey for some made up reason. That still leaves Chief Alexandro Wiggins, Dylan Borland, Joe Spielberger and all the others.
There are major flaws with this idea of yours that you keep refusing to answer. If you cannot answer them properly, then your idea doesn't work.
- If it's all a grift by the so-called usual suspects. Then how do you explain that the Government UAP departments turned out to be real?
- If it’s all a grift by the so-called usual suspects. Then how come the investigative journalists found the real-life money tails directly linked to the real UAP departments?
- If it’s all a grift by the so-called usual suspects. Then how come some of these people backgrounds check out and they really did work inside these UAP departments?
- If it’s all a grift by the so-called usual suspects. How do you explain the growing number of real whistle-blowers who have been vetted as real?
- If it’s all a grift by the so-called usual suspects, How do you explain the first-hand witness’s that have been found and turned out to have worked directly inside the legacy programs?
- If it’s all a grift why have the Intelligence Community Inspector General not said so and instead said its credible and valid after an investigation? Wouldn’t they be the first to say its not credible and just a grift?
- If it’s all a grift why did the people who hold the SKIF meetings and have access to the evidence not come out and say this is nonsense? Instead, they came out shaken and saying its credible and valid? Again wouldn't they just say its a grift?
- If it’s all a grift, how do you explain that people who worked directly inside the legacy programs have come forward?
This idea of yours that’s its all a grift to sell UFO books doesn’t work anymore. How do you explain the major problems with your theory? How do you explain that independent investigations from the ICIG and SKIF's directly contradict your idea?
Not got time to watch that video. So does he explain away the problem with the heat signature and how it doesn't match a balloon? Does he explain how the object appears to react and start to take evasive actions against the active target lock? The object appears to react straight after the target lock. We can see the target lock engage then the object react right after.Good missile/orb video this one with ex-army munitions guy where opinion is it's parallax effect, balloon and normal missile behaviour, likely a missile test. And he's seen some weird UFO! so something for everyone
I hadn't noticed until now it's mentioned that the heading of the drone with camera is shown at the top and as the drone is changing direction, wouldn't you know if that exactly lines up with the apparent movement of the orb, that's parallax.