Pentagon releases UFO footage

Pottsey said:
That's news to me about the leak but not a surprise as this subject always has a lot of false information going around.

As for the psuedoscince I don't think it is. What I am talking about are the high levels of research done by the military and NASA backed up by official patents and science. I am not on about the Egyptian anti-gravity nonsense based around magnets and crystals. According to NASA with breakthroughs from the Propulsion Physics program it is no longer just conjecture. That's on there website. Along with patents like https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/de/4c/43/62c585ccc936cc/US10144532.pdf

EDIT: I still think the most likely explanation is some sort of unmanned prototype propulsion system on a drone based craft. That seems far more likely then Aliens.
Click to expand...
have you even read that patent?
Its all theorectical speculation based on unproven physics and an experiment that could not be replicated and therefore deemed a false result.

Patents are not peer reviewed like scientific papers - you can put any old crap in them.
 
wolfie138 said:
it's puzzles me why some people argue against UFOs/aliens like it's a personal insult.
Click to expand...
Well I'm with Carl Sagan on that one. Show me the evidence. If blurry video and hearsay is all there is I'm not convinced. That's science stance and mine.

Pottsey claims videos. I asked what video, he can't be bothered to show me the video. lol ok then. I'm not convinced.
 
The whole idea of skeptics just slamming things down because it doesn't fit into a neat box or has a theory that's been rubber stamped by 100 scientists does my head in.

Sure, like 99% of the UFO community so called proof is just ******** and deserves to be called out for what it is.

But we have things such as this video which is pretty interesting (doesn't mean aliens).

And people saying it's just glare so lazily...
 
keyser van someone said:
Well science doesn't even register this as a thing to investigate. That's your evidence? ok thanks leave it by the bin on your way out.

Some bloke on the internet came up with a plausible explanation as to the whyness that I'm satisfied with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEjV8DdSbs
Click to expand...

You did watch the part where he said he isn't going to address the part about there being a whole fleet of them, right? He's specifically addressing the object looking like it's rotating. Why do you keep ignoring this? Is this the high level critical thinking again? Did you watch the whole 21mins of the video? It's called "UFO Analysis" for a reason by the way.

I'll add his actual commentary for you:

"WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS A ROTATING GLARE THAT HIDES THE ACTUAL OBJECT"

I bolded the part you seem to ignore.
 
Roar87 said:
You did watch the part where he said he isn't going to address the part about there being a whole fleet of them, right? He's specifically addressing the object looking like it's rotating. Why do you keep ignoring this? Is this the high level critical thinking again? Did you watch the whole 21mins of the video? It's called "UFO Analysis" for a reason by the way.

I'll add his actual commentary for you:

"WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS A ROTATING GLARE THAT HIDES THE ACTUAL OBJECT"

I bolded the part you seem to ignore.
Click to expand...
I think he's referring to the camera pixel exposure is blown therefore you won't be able to see the object. The object is a plane. In the same way a tank on fire can cause the IR camera to have big glare / diffraction spikes. The problem is you are dealing for a handful of pixels therefore the evidence put forth isn't very strong. I would need a high res image to make a call as to what is it I'm looking at, but that's why its endless debated coz you claim its x but its actually y.

I think the fleet of them part is just hearsay. I've not seen any actual evidence of a fleet.
 
keyser van someone said:
Well science doesn't even register this as a thing to investigate. That's your evidence? ok thanks leave it by the bin on your way out.

Some bloke on the internet came up with a plausible explanation as to the whyness that I'm satisfied with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEjV8DdSbs
Click to expand...
How many times does it need to be pointed out that gimbaling diffraction spikes glare explanation has been debunked and doesn’t explain away what has been seen. That explanation you keep using only works if you ignore 99% of the other facts. Once you factor in the rest of the evidence your glare idea completely falls apart.

Even the video you link to says the glare is only covering up the object. Not that there is no object behind the glare.

Your glare idea is not a plausible explanation and it doesn’t explain away what has been seen. For example, if it’s a glare then why is it showing up on radar as a physical object? A physical object means it’s not a glare. If it’s a glare then how come there are 5 independently moving objects. It’s not possible to have 5 glares like that at the same time. How come they can see the object with the naked eye? How come other fighters can see it? A glare in the equipment would show in 1 fighter only. But we have 3 videos from 3 fighters.

"Pottsey claims videos. I asked what video, he can't be bothered to show me the video. lol ok then. I'm not convinced."
You do realise don't you, that I have posted links to the videos multiple times about the object using active jamming to block one of the fighters radar. Take a look back, I have posted the link multiple times. Are you even aware there are 3 videos from 3 fighters? How does your glare idea work when the object is filmed from multiple fighters?

You have watched the links before right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABDoSYvMrEI&t=4s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ&t=2s

How are you explaining away the object using active jamming which is a form of technology to jam one of the fighters radar? How does a glare do that?
 
keyser van someone said:
I think he's referring to the camera pixel exposure is blown therefore you won't be able to see the object. The object is a plane. In the same way a tank on fire can cause the IR camera to have big glare / diffraction spikes. The problem is you are dealing for a handful of pixels therefore the evidence put forth isn't very strong. I would need a high res image to make a call as to what is it I'm looking at, but that's why its endless debated coz you claim its x but its actually y.

I think the fleet of them part is just hearsay. I've not seen any actual evidence of a fleet.
Click to expand...

I think anyone trying to convince you, or people like you of almost anything would have a tedious and boring time which could be better spent doing literally anything else. You aren't the barometer of whether objects were visible, I'll listen to the testimony of Navy fighter pilots and you can sit here and can skip through a few Youtube debunk videos without really paying any attention to them or looking at the scenario as a whole.
 
Pottsey said:
Your glare idea is not a plausible explanation and it doesn’t explain away what has been seen. For example, if it’s a glare then why is it showing up on radar as a physical object? A physical object means it’s not a glare. If it’s a glare then how come there are 5 independently moving objects. It’s not possible to have 5 glares like that at the same time. How come they can see the object with the naked eye? How come other fighters can see it? A glare in the equipment would show in 1 fighter only. But we have 3 videos from 3 fighters.
Click to expand...
It's a physical object, like a plane for example, they frequent the skies. The glare is coming from the way the camera works.

What other videos?
 
Roar87 said:
I think anyone trying to convince you, or people like you of almost anything would have a tedious and boring time which could be better spent doing literally anything else. You aren't the barometer of whether objects were visible, I'll listen to the testimony of Navy fighter pilots and you can sit here and can skip through a few Youtube debunk videos without really paying any attention to them or looking at the scenario as a whole.
Click to expand...
I'd love it to be some cool tech we've not seen before! Is it that? If you have such a hard time convincing people maybe the evidence isn't that great.
 
Roar87 said:
Do you have any of your own opinions and views? Maybe you should get someone from Youtube to post for you
Click to expand...
I'm busy right now but I'll get back to you soon xx also I've got to listen to what the pilots said coz I can't remember, sorta washed over me as I didn't really think it was real. But my initial thoughts are they are reacting to what they see on their screen as the planes are 12 miles away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom