Pentagon releases UFO footage
- Thread starter Doobedoo
- Start date
Under the right weather conditions military illumination flares can appear to be static in the same spot for periods of time and stay in formation.
Given that the lights are static and do not follow any of the usual UFO flight patterns and that they match military illumination flares perfectly. There is a high change military flares is what these lights are both this time and for the phoenix lights. Also in both cases the lights only stayed visible the same amount of time military illumination flares last. So unless there is further evidence I have not seen its highly likely these are just military illumination flares. EDIT the number of lights is also the same as expected from a volley of battlefield illumination flares from a plane.
Last edited:
For those that want to approach this subject from a more scientific point of view which is what I believe we need more off. NASA has what looks to be an interesting talk on the 31st May.
Going by the agenda timetable this could be an interesting one to watch. Personal I am interested in Relevant Observations beyond Earth Atmosphere as those cannot be Drones or Balloons.
Going by the agenda timetable this could be an interesting one to watch. Personal I am interested in Relevant Observations beyond Earth Atmosphere as those cannot be Drones or Balloons.
Straight away your post is ringing alarm bells. Do you mean the naysayers can’t dismiss the evidence as easily?
Reading your posts you seem to be leaning towards “it’s aliens, prove me wrong”. You should be taking a far more scientific and rational approach and that means “there’s usually a rational explanation”.
Reading your posts you seem to be leaning towards “it’s aliens, prove me wrong”. You should be taking a far more scientific and rational approach and that means “there’s usually a rational explanation”.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,311
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Pottsey is exactly the opposite of that but obviously believes in UFOs/UAPs until they are recognised.
He's even just made a post about what the Phoenix Lights and the new lights probably were.
Not a problem. I might not have been clear, what I was trying to say is there are certain people not just in this thread. That when someone posts about UFOs/UAPs they instantly dismiss everything and jump to its just a drone/balloon as a debunk without really looking at the evidence. Personally, I find that just as bad as instantly jumping to its aliens prove me wrong.
Anything NASA might have picked up outside of the atmosphere will be interesting as the usual debunks those people default to wont work. I don’t expect NASA are going to show any evidence off aliens but I do suspect there will be some sort of unknown anomalies they cannot explain. Anomalies can have other explanation's other then aliens.
Last edited:
The problem is it is not a simple binary credibility scale. When you have extraordinary claims you need extraordinary evidence. You cannot equate someone who instantly debunks claims with a credible assessment of “drone/balloon/frozen astronaut pee” and someone who claims it’s an alien spacecraft.
They don’t start with equal credibility, no matter how much anyone tries to claim they do.
They don’t start with equal credibility, no matter how much anyone tries to claim they do.
Also for me, with regard to the claim being made - there's a a scale of credibility which can be determined by the person(s) making the claim and their previous form and association with these sorts of things.
This is easy to determine because there's usually a massive conflict of interest which seems to surround these things. If you look at most of the claims made in this thread - many of them are propagated by the same circle of people each time, and most of those people are deeply involved with companies, investments and other financial interests, which involve UFO/UAP topics.
Of course, it doesn't disprove the thing outright - it just makes it much harder to believe and in my opinion, far less likely to be true, or representitive of the facts.
Agreed, like the frootloop conspiracy theorist at work who thinks there is merit to the chemtrails claims. Or that the moon landings are hoax “cus there’s no stars in the photos”. Then wonders why nobody believes them when they say they have seen credible evidence the coronavirus vaccines are injecting us with microchips.
Those videos of the ships being tracked by the slow moving UFOs for example. “We can’t be sure but it looks very like drones” is far more credible than, “we can’t be sure ergo alien spacecraft is a possibility”. One explanation is credible and the other is far FAR less credible. If you instantly thought the UFO theory was more credible, please refer to my first paragraph.
Those videos of the ships being tracked by the slow moving UFOs for example. “We can’t be sure but it looks very like drones” is far more credible than, “we can’t be sure ergo alien spacecraft is a possibility”. One explanation is credible and the other is far FAR less credible. If you instantly thought the UFO theory was more credible, please refer to my first paragraph.
Last edited:
That's true to a point but at this stage we know UFO/UAP (*) are real and so instantly dismissing them and writing them off with made up debunks is as bad as someone who claims its an alien spacecraft. Just look at how many military pilots have come forward to say they have had near miss's and almost crashed into UFOs not just the US military but other governments as well. There is something like 600 similar incidents just from the US navy alone and more if you include the other government militaries that acknowledge UFOs are real. There have been so many near miss's with fighter jets and such wide spread reports the navy now take UFO's seriously and have an official policy on UFOs/UAPs. The US military even released the footage of the Silver Orb flying across the battlefield tracked by there drone which appears to have no exhaust. Then we have all the testimony from navy pilots backed up by video footage.
At some point there shear volume of cross referenced reports from reliable professionals often cross refenced with the fighter jets pilots, radar and ground crew must make a person stop and think. Hang on I shouldn't be instantly dismissing UFO reports as made up by conspiracy theorists, nut jobs, fake or people out to make money.
We are well past the point of UFO's being make believe and in the minds of conspiracy theorist. Its very clear from the data there is something to UFO's and they are in many cases real physical objects of some sort. Hence why so many government organisations now take UFO seriously and not something to just joke about and write off. UFO's have gone from being in the minds of nutjobs and conspiracy theorists to being something real that needs to be taken seriously and investigated properly.
* real does not automatically mean alien. By real I mean there is something physical and real rather then being fake or made up.
Last edited:
That "Silver Orb" "Flying across the battlefield" is hilarious, it's not even moving - it's just a hovering piece of junk or balloon or whatever, and the MQ9 Reaper drone (which flies at between 300-500Kph) is creating the visual effect which makes it appear as though it's moving, when it's not - it's a small stationary object, it's the drone moving which creates the illusion.
I could create this exact same effect if I placed a hovering balloon at say 10k feet, and I flew a drone over the top of it at say, 20k feet at 300-500Kph.
If you looked down at it with the targeting pod, it would look IDENTICAL, to the video the US military posted, absolutely identical in every way, it's not hard to create that effect.
And it's even funnier, because the US military haven't said anything about it at all, other than "it's benign and isn't doing anything, and is no threat, we don't know what it is"
Everybody on the internet is just spewing hyperbole and conjecture over it, because they don't know what they're looking at.
I could create this exact same effect if I placed a hovering balloon at say 10k feet, and I flew a drone over the top of it at say, 20k feet at 300-500Kph.
If you looked down at it with the targeting pod, it would look IDENTICAL, to the video the US military posted, absolutely identical in every way, it's not hard to create that effect.
And it's even funnier, because the US military haven't said anything about it at all, other than "it's benign and isn't doing anything, and is no threat, we don't know what it is"
Everybody on the internet is just spewing hyperbole and conjecture over it, because they don't know what they're looking at.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,311
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Exactly like reading some historical archaeology document and then seeing Graham Hancock wrote it
He could actually be correct this time but he's dived too many times.
Snipping the rest as I only want to address this point. At no stage did I say UFOs or UAPs were not real. My premise is that they are real but are usually far more likely to be rationally explained than any of the less credible options.
Optical illusion or trick of light/sensor error trumps alien spacecraft every single time for me. That’s not me having a closed mind, that’s me being a rational person who will never be swayed by blurry crap media I have seen posted so far in this thread. Or anywhere else.
Last edited:
From what I can see none of the experts who analysed the video and are trained to look out for that have ruled it as a stationary object and that is only a parallax effect. From what I can see its just something you made up like all the other times you made up fake explanations to debunk objects you couldn’t explained like you did with the object that flaw past the plane and you pretended it was a crypto fake twitter post when it had nothing to do with crypto or twitter. Yet you still insist that one is debunked because you posted a fake debunk.
The drone camera wasn’t even moving for the first 12 seconds. The camera didn't start to move until 12 second into the footage and the object flew though the area being recorded then 12 seconds into the footage the camera moves to track the object. The speed of the object relative to the ground doesn't appear to change between the first 12 seconds and the rest of the footage when the camera is moving which seems to rule out your parallax idea and rule out that the silver orb object was stationary. There isn’t even any evidence the drone is moving in the first place at the start of the video for all you now the drone is stationary, you are just making an assumption its moving as it fits your idea. Based on the current data I don't buy into your parallax effect idea as it doesn't look like a parallax effect to me.
You don't know what you're looking at.
The camera is moving at 300-500kph, because it's attached to the plane (call it a drone if you like, but it's actually a gigantic remote control plane), and that's how fast the plane flies.
The object didn't fly through the area being recorded, the field of view of the camera intersected with the object as the camera moved through the air (remember, the camera is constantly moving at hundreds of kilometers per hour)
When the drone operator adjusts the camera's mechanism to track the object beneath them, he's basically panning the camera as the plane flies right over the top of it, hence the illusion that the object is flying beneath them, it's actually the opposite - the plane is flying over the top of an either static, or very slow moving balloon (which is what it looks like to me).
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 756
- Location
- UK
Without more information, NASA and science's stance is "this is interesting, but we need more information".
NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Aeronautics bit deals with the stuff in the air, the bit before we get to space.
Without radar data, something that *appears* to be moving taken from something that is *could be* parallax effect.
Without more data: we don't know.
NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Aeronautics bit deals with the stuff in the air, the bit before we get to space.
Without radar data, something that *appears* to be moving taken from something that is *could be* parallax effect.
Without more data: we don't know.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 3,278
- Location
- The South
Given the amount of (background) panning that occurs, after the initial ~5 secs of the FOV being stationary, wouldn't the object have to be incredibly close to the platform for (that amount of) motion parallax to occur? If that's the case and if the platform was operating anywhere near its ceiling, then i would have thought that would make the list of objects it could be relatively small - i mean, it certainly wouldn't be a kids 'snoopy' balloon at that altitude.
Yup, not enough information to accurately determine one way or another and that data won't get released for obvious reasons unfortunately so the object will remain a UAP and the footage merely interesting.
Last edited:
Yeah I think whatever it is, is very small but unless you know the altitude of the drone, the distance to the object - you can't know, because all of the sensor data is greyed out.
What I would say, is that the lens on the MTS ball of the drone, is a mirror lens with a focal length of between 2500-3000mm, so the FOV of the lens is absolutely tiny, so even the smallest amount of movement of the ball would result in a lot of visual panning..
I'd also say that due to the light, constrast and image degradation due to the air and heat haze - that the object itself is pretty poorly rendered, so trying to make a determination either way is difficult, but I think it probably is a balloon.. (but that's not a hill I'm willing to die on
)
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,660
A live stream for the public meeting
Summary - no evidence of aliens
Last edited: