doesnt make them behave like one and planes only go like 600mph? hardly going to lose a fighter jet
Pentagon releases UFO footage
- Thread starter Doobedoo
- Start date
With the newly formed NSAS breakthrough propulsion physics program the situation has changed and the area has moved away from conjecture. I would rather believe the NSAS scientists over an unknown forum poster. Even if I am wrong on the type of propulsion system. Is an unmanned craft using an experimental propulsion system really that unrealistic an explanation for these UFO’s? If its not a Gravity Drive then it might be a Plasma Drive as that’s far further along in research terms and that one is not a waste of time. Or some other drive, the point being an unmanned craft testing out a new drive seems to be a more likely option then Aliens.
There are 3 videos from as I understand it 3 fighter jets. The object is clearly not a plane because the way it moves is impossible for a jet engine plane. There is no known plane that can accelerate and move in the way that object did in those 3 videos. Plus there are no jet plumes which there would have to be if it was a plane. Being a plane seems to have been ruled out as a possible explanation. The G Force that object pulls off it beyond any known ability for current jet engine planes. The way the object descended from 80 thousand feet down to near sea level is impossible in a jet engine plane. When the F/A-18 Super Hornetes went to intercept the object it accelerated beyond the specification of any known plane and outran them. At the time F/A-18 Super Hornets where pretty much unmatched in the sky and what ever this thing was it was running rings around them.
EDIT: The other problem is Jet Fighters can only stay airborne approx 1 hour 30mins without refuelling depending on the type of flight they are doing. These objects have a sustained flight time beyond the ability of known military planes. In the first video the military officer talks on how the first 2 fighters landed and different refuelled planes took off.
Last edited:
Not sure what this has to do with anything. Unless there has been some development I have missed, planes took down the towers.side quest: Where do you all fall on the events of 9/11 out of interest? Do you believe it was planes that took down the towers?
Associate
I think you want me to comment on the "theres a whole fleet of them" part.
I had to google what a fleet means in aviation. It means group. Naval fleets are different meanings and amounts.
There was a group of those things flying together. How many are in a group? The video doesn't say.
That's all that video tells me.
Did I miss something?
The pilots and rear crew said 5 targets for that event.
Associate
3 as in what are referring to as gofast, flir and gimbal? Honestly I thought they were completely different times and occasions until now. I'm not up on my mystery objects people see videos. Or are there 3 videos for gimbal? I've only seen one gimbal video.
I think the gofast was debunked. It's like when the helicopter filming Legolas LOTR on top of a mountain, the distant background appears to move very fast, but Legolas is only moving about the speed of a balloon.
Associate
What's the equivalent of the Red Arrows in America?
It doesn't help that different people are stitching together different clips and sometimes posting them together on youtube. Some of them are different times and occasions. The gimbal event happened after the Cmdr. David Fravor event. The Cmdr. David Fravor is the one that had active radar jamming, fleet of navy ships at sea and multiple fighter jets involved and is the main one I have been talking about. I am don't follow UFOest so I am not sure what names they use. The events and videos are very similar and easy to confuse for each other.
As far as I am aware https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPrYVmYkL5w this hasn't been debunked either. All of the events have the same pattern and same types of data. Was that 8 ships involved, multiple radar systems cross referenced and just like the other events the object entered the water.
That's something I had to look up, Thunderbirds is the Red Arrow equivalent.
wouldnt that be a formation or squad
Soldato
Well I've just watched the gimbal analysis videos and it does seem from the evidence actually released (the video) the gimbal rotation precisely matches the glare rotation. The glare and any diffraction spikes would have been around a real object, I don't th9nk anyone denies that, and the best match9ng 'solution' for the objects flightpath is so boring and mundane that whilst it's still a UAP I can see why there is no interest..
The fact the pilots are looking at their instruments, the 'it's rotating'must have been and even the 'there is a fleet of them , look at the SA' is all coming from their instruments means the only real ‘evidence’ once more boils down to Fravors eye witness and obvious embellished nonsense.
Just to be clear, in the Joe Rogan interview at 38mins it shows clearly how they’ve take a very simple phenomena of the gimbal and how IR flare behaves and peddled this idea that these UAPs have this amazing propulsion system that has two modes etc, and the rotation of the flare/diffraction spikes is proof of the craft changing to a high speed mode. Looking at the explanation videos showing how it’s a very obvious artefact of the gimbal camera system makes them looks so dishonest.
I don’t doubt there could have been 5 objects, that’s not in question, but when people can show that the only 1 of that group we have a video of has one solution that is a boring straight line trajectory, or even a more fanciful but still relatively boring path then so could the others be… 300+ knots is small plane territory.. probably why they flippantly throw out the drug plane comment, or any other plane with its transponder off
The fact the pilots are looking at their instruments, the 'it's rotating'must have been and even the 'there is a fleet of them , look at the SA' is all coming from their instruments means the only real ‘evidence’ once more boils down to Fravors eye witness and obvious embellished nonsense.
Just to be clear, in the Joe Rogan interview at 38mins it shows clearly how they’ve take a very simple phenomena of the gimbal and how IR flare behaves and peddled this idea that these UAPs have this amazing propulsion system that has two modes etc, and the rotation of the flare/diffraction spikes is proof of the craft changing to a high speed mode. Looking at the explanation videos showing how it’s a very obvious artefact of the gimbal camera system makes them looks so dishonest.
I don’t doubt there could have been 5 objects, that’s not in question, but when people can show that the only 1 of that group we have a video of has one solution that is a boring straight line trajectory, or even a more fanciful but still relatively boring path then so could the others be… 300+ knots is small plane territory.. probably why they flippantly throw out the drug plane comment, or any other plane with its transponder off
Last edited:
And Blue Angels.
I think you’ll find that actual NASA scientists know full well that anti-gravity engines are complete nonsense.
I believe NASA has funded some fringe projects in the past like the emdrive (which failed all its testing because magnets don’t work like that). Probably just on a wild bet that would be an incredible payout in the 0.0000001% chance it might even work a little bit.
Regarding plasma drives, things like plasma and ion engines have been in use since the 1970s in space, those are nothing new they’re just highly inefficient in an atmosphere.
In any case one of the biggest problems with going fast in an atmosphere is drag and friction. Even if you designed a physics-defying engine with unlimited thrust, you’d only be able to go at around 10k mph or something, before you exploded.
There are literally no materials known, that could withstand those levels of heat, pressure and stress.
Soldato
Only complete nonsense with our current scientific understanding, much like powered flight or the jet engine was complete nonsense in the late 1800s. Just because we can’t do something now doesn’t mean it’s impossible or complete nonsense in the future.
And as I said earlier, our scientific understanding can and will change, but it almost certainly won’t change enough to the point where we can have anti gravity. Simply because literally everything we know would need to be wrong, in order for it to be possible - which is fine. However the more we learn and advance, the more it appears that a lot of what we know is actually correct and will probably remain correct, or simply be updated as we advance.
Jet engines and powered flight are not even comparable in the slightest.
Soldato
In the context of the "Gimbal" video (Jan 2015, FA-18 off Florida) only (and not "FLIR1"/"Tic Tac" or "Go-Fast"), which is what is referenced in Mick West's analyst video, has glare been debunked?
As West's analyst, which is on what was captured by the IR camera and not the object tracked, does appear to be pretty compelling and glare does fit seem to fit what we're actually seeing on the video.
What it doesn't explain is that the ATFLIR pod was tracking something but what that something was isn't apparent - although he believes the video is "consistent with what could be expected if you filmed a fighter jet flying away from the camera" (https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2021-05-29/navy-ufo-videos-skeptics) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Most of these tracking pods use laser tracking, which is what i believe the Raytheon ATFLIR does. What is captured by the camera is secondary to that. So the camera could capture glare but the pod is actually tracking an object.
Soldato
An ICBM at its terminal phase (re-entry) into the atmosphere is doing mach 23 which I believe is 7km a second - so your wrong about the heat, pressure and stress etc. Not only that, during the midcourse phase, ICBMs can travel around 24,000 kilometers per hour (15,000 miles per hour) which is still in excess of the amounts you stated.
Last edited:
Its not that glare has been debunked as in there is no glare. Its that glare has been debunked as an explanation for there being no objects as glare is not an explanation as there are objects behind the glare. Perhaps if you take a small clip part it is consistent with fighter jets. If you look at the entire clip then its not consistent with fighter jets. The way the object descended from 80,000 feet to near sea level is not possible for a fighter jet.
Soldato
For sure - the glare has to be coming from somewhere and the pod is tracking something.
Is there a longer version of the "Gimbal" video (the one West did analyst on)?
As i had always assumed the three videos released, "FLIR1"/"Tic Tac" from 2004 involving the USS Nimitz off San Diego and, "Gimbal" and "Go-Fast" 2015 with the USS Theodore Roosevelt off Florida, were all separate occasions?
This is in reference to the 2004 Nimitz "FLIR1"/"Tic Tac" video isn't it (https://www.history.com/news/uss-nimitz-2004-tic-tac-ufo-encounter), one where Fravor is involved in, rather than the "Gimbal" video?