Pentagon releases UFO footage

[Felon]

So its time to stop pretending there is nothing to this and everything is just balloons or other low tech explanations. Is says there right on the screen. "behaviour consistent with other "Metallic Orb" observations in the region". There is a pattern where these Orbs make up the bulk of the reports, are flying too fast for balloons and many of them are doing apparent manoeuvres at altitudes you don't typically find balloons.

You realise that an "orb" just means a spherical object right? It could be a balloon, it could be just about anything - all it has to be is round, to be an orb. If the light is reflecting a certain way and the contrast is very high - it may appear metallic, but the fact it's an "orb" doesn't really mean much...

Something is happening.

I think what's happening is, you've pre-supposed that there's some fantastical, secret, technologically advanced cover up, or *thing* going on, to the point where you're literally making things up. EG: You're claiming that one of the panelists ruled out parrallax and angle of view illusions, which could account for the way the thing was apparently moving, when he said no such things - he basically said "we don't know what it is"

And there's no evidence it's alien, that's important to add, so they basically think they're either natural phenomena we don't know about or they're manmade

Well - there aren't that many options, it's either natural or it is manmade, if it's alien I'd still class it as natural, as aliens would be a product of nature like us... However, if it was a ghost or a witch flying on a broomstick, at which point it would become supernatural..

~35 knots is still fairly quick on water, even if it isn't 'out of this world' type speeds.

Interestingly most waterfowl and migratory birds fly suprisingly fast, your average mallard flies at between 40-60mph, Geese can go as fast at 70mph on a tailwind... Some Geese even fly as high as 20k feet!

Would have been interesting to hear about the object (allegedly) dipping into the ocean/water though and the explanation for that - supposedly the ARRO are releasing data at some point.

I listened to the whole thing earlier and he did actually say that they've investigated this report, and the explanation was down to a sensor error - I can't remember whether he said it's an artifact or some sort of software glitch, but they have explained it as being a problem with the image rendering.. (I can't remember where in the video, but it is there)

Which is funny, because at one point people were going crazy over "Transmedium propulsion" off of the back of those pentagon videos ie; the ability to just teleport through water/air/concrete/whatever like it's not even there, and it just turns out to be a sensor error

 

[MoNkeE]

Thought a Harrier can only hover for 90 seconds? Always thought the stories of “…. Turned out to be a Harrier” are bizarre, as with a 90 second burn time surely it’s a blink-and-you-miss-it affair, not “watch for enough time to get concerned, everyone pile out of their houses, call the cops” affair…

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Thought a Harrier can only hover for 90 seconds? Always thought the stories of “…. Turned out to be a Harrier” are bizarre, as with a 90 second burn time surely it’s a blink-and-you-miss-it affair, not “watch for enough time to get concerned, everyone pile out of their houses, call the cops” affair…

Yes you are right , it wasn't hovering in the sky for 5 minutes, we had been watching it flying around, stopping and hovering several times.
I had no idea they could do this, however if on the other hand you say they can't do this then I saw a UFO so win win.

 

[Pottsey]

“I think what's happening is, you've pre-supposed that there's some fantastical, secret, technologically advanced cover up, or *thing* going on, to the point where you're literally making things up. EG: You're claiming that one of the panelists ruled out parrallax and angle of view illusions, which could account for the way the thing was apparently moving, when he said no such things - he basically said "we don't know what it is" “

I have not literally made anything up nor am I on about any fantastical magic technology. It feels like you watched 10 seconds or one tiny section then skipping the rest. They clearly talked about sensors artifacts, data processing artifacts, in relation to the Orb despite you insisting they did not.

We know they have a very, very good understanding of lens and the sensor used in this MQ9 footage. We know they have a sensor/lens specialist team analyse the video frame by frame. That team has extra information we don’t have like the drone’s flight speed, height. Yet they didn’t report on any signs of visual panning / parallax which they have been happy to report on when they found that on other UFO videos to rule out those videos.
Even the footage when watched doesn’t match your visual panning / parallax idea. So unless you think everyone in the specialist team made a massive mistake I don’t see how you can say its visual panning / parallax. There is no evidence for visual panning / parallax at the moment.

As for Orb being a spherical object that’s part of the pattern that appears to be forming. The data is showing these independent DOD reports having the same style of object, with the same discerption doing the same consistent behaviour which suggests there is a link. It’s way, way too early to jump to conclusions but it suggests there is more to these objects which you seem to want to refuse is even a possibility. The entire point of this is to gather the data and look for patterns and there does appear to be a pattern forming although its very early days. Perhaps it will turn out to be nothing which is find if a scientific approach is used. The worst thing we can do is take your apparent attitude of its impossible to be anything lets go in with the viewpoint everything is ruled out beforehand. We shouldn't be going into the data with the assumption its nothing which is how you come across to me. Likewise neither should we go into the data with the assumption it is something of interest. A full scientific approach is what we need and I glad to see the government have started a proper scientific approach to UFO's.


“he basically said "we don't know what it is"
He basically said its consistent with all the other Metallic Orbs in the region and some of them are doing interesting things. He said metallic you don't get metallic balloons flying at speeds up to Mach 2 and at time going against the wind.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-65769172

So the experts have determined that the original “gofast” video, was indeed an illusion caused by parallax.. And not something moving fast at all..
After all that….

This is why I don’t like the BBC they are so poor at reporting. That is very misleading as the video BBC has posted has nothing to do with the parallax comments. The footage used is nothing to do with the object being talked about doing 40MPH. Also Kirkpatrick seems to have a disagreement about some of the conclusions.

 

[Felon]

Even the footage when watched doesn’t match your visual panning / parallax idea. So unless you think everyone in the specialist team made a massive mistake I don’t see how you can say its visual panning / parallax. There is no evidence for visual panning / parallax at the moment.

I don't think anyone has made a mistake, because they haven't said anything about it really other than that it's a real object (which I agree it is)

And regarding parrallax, it's not that difficult to understand - I did a drawing to help you understand how this effect can occur:

 

[Prototype321]

I don't think anyone has made a mistake, because they haven't said anything about it really other than that it's a real object (which I agree it is)

And regarding parrallax, it's not that difficult to understand - I did a drawing to help you understand how this effect can occur:

That is a pretty good drawing, although I was to focused on the passive smoke high clouds to actually take in what you were illustrating

 

[Minusorange]

I don't think anyone has made a mistake, because they haven't said anything about it really other than that it's a real object (which I agree it is)

And regarding parrallax, it's not that difficult to understand - I did a drawing to help you understand how this effect can occur:

I thought they figured out the speed of the object by using some simple trigonometry which I thought was amazing that it took a group of the worlds smartest minds to be the first ones to do this calculation, you would think the DoD would have some people who know math who could do this simple trig calculation

 

[Pottsey]

I don't think anyone has made a mistake, because they haven't said anything about it really other than that it's a real object (which I agree it is)

And regarding parrallax, it's not that difficult to understand - I did a drawing to help you understand how this effect can occur:

The problem is you are using too many assumptions or made-up data points based on nothing so that your idea works.

• You assume the object is really close to the drone without any evidence. What if its far away from the drone then the panning idea doesn’t work.
• You assume the object is stationary, what if it really is moving?
• You assume the drone is at a high attitude at a high speed, what if it’s on the lower end of its speed and altitude then again the panning idea doesn’t work.
• You assume there are no secondary data sources which is a big assumption when they said most of their data is DOD made from muti sensory data points. What if they have more data points, they might not just be using only the MQ9 video footage?
• They said the Metallic Orbs is consistent with the other Metallic Orbs. Given the Metallic Orbs are known to move how are you so sure this one is not moving? Which wouldn’t be consistent with the other Metallic Orbs.

The sensor experts who analyse the data frame by frame and specialise in visual panning / parallax didn’t report any signs of parallax like they normally do. So for you idea to be right they would have to have somehow missed it or not reported it which would be really, really odd. Don't you think if it was visual panning / parallax they would have said this is an example of a apparently moving object that is really stationary like they did when explaining away other sensor anomalies. Perhaps they didn’t report any visual panning / parallax as they know there isn't any to report. There just isn't enough evidence to prove visual panning / parallax at the moment and so we cannot use visual panning / parallax to write the video of as nothing just a bit junk floating past the camera.

 

[Pottsey]

I thought they figured out the speed of the object by using some simple trigonometry which I thought was amazing that it took a group of the worlds smartest minds to be the first ones to do this calculation, you would think the DoD would have some people who know math who could do this simple trig calculation

I might be misunderstanding your post. The 40MPH object they worked out the speed for by trigonometry is not the same object that the BBC falsely put videos up for or the same object we are talking about with the Metallic Orbs flying across the battlefield. Those are 3 different events.

 

[visibleman]

I thought they figured out the speed of the object by using some simple trigonometry which I thought was amazing that it took a group of the worlds smartest minds to be the first ones to do this calculation, you would think the DoD would have some people who know math who could do this simple trig calculation

Spoiler

I think @Screeeech is referring to the 'orb' UAP/event -

The sensor experts who analyse the data frame by frame and specialise in visual panning / parallax didn’t report any signs of parallax like they normally do.

Unless i missed it, nothing was mentioned of the MQ-9 'orb' event and motion parallax and unfortunately, you can't conjure up a fact based on what wasn't said, as that's not how science works.

 

[Minusorange]

I might be misunderstanding your post. The 40MPH object they worked out the speed for by trigonometry is not the same object that the BBC falsely put videos up for or the same object we are talking about with the Metallic Orbs flying across the battlefield. Those are 3 different events.

I think @Screeeech is referring to the 'orb' UAP/event -

Unless i missed it, nothing was mentioned of the MQ-9 'orb' event and motion parallax and unfortunately, you can't conjure up a fact based on what wasn't said, as that's not how science works.

Fair enough different instance but can't they use the same trig to at least work out the speed ?

 

[Felon]

The problem is you are using too many assumptions or made-up data points based on nothing so that your idea works.

Not really - I'm just providing a simple and likely explanation, in the absence of anything which points to a more complicated and unliklely explanation, that's all.

Furthermore, I'm explaining - how such an illusion would result in this effect, and because it's not been disproven - it still stands.

Fair enough different instance but can't they use the same trig to at least work out the speed ?

You can, but you need to know the data such as the altitude of the drone, distance to target and speed etc, and all of that data is greyed out.

I think what has probably happened, is that because this footage was taken from an MQ9's MTS ball (which is cutting edge tech), the sensors on that system are very sensitive - so all of the data has been greyed out. This is probably because when the DOD handed the footage over the NASA, they sanitised it of anything would could be used to reveal the platform's capabilities.

 

[Roar87]

This is probably because when the DOD handed the footage over the NASA, they sanitised it of anything would could be used to reveal the platform's capabilities.

I'm pretty sure there's a lot of people working at NASA with the highest levels of security clearance, they launch military satellite's and work with cutting edge military technology

 

[Minusorange]

You can, but you need to know the data such as the altitude of the drone, distance to target and speed etc, and all of that data is greyed out.

I think what has probably happened, is that because this footage was taken from an MQ9's MTS ball (which is cutting edge tech), the sensors on that system are very sensitive - so all of the data has been greyed out. This is probably because when the DOD handed the footage over the NASA, they sanitised it of anything would could be used to reveal the platform's capabilities.

And nobody at the DOD can do the math and just give it to NASA ? Like I said I find it interesting despite the leaks and then the Pentagon admitting the leaks were real that nobody bothered to come out and say "yeah these are only travelling at 40mph, pretty much at wind speed" and the math was only calculated when the NASA group did it ? I wouldn't be surprised if somebody at the DoD knows exactly what they are and they're intentionally playing dumb

 

[wolfie138]

I don't think anyone has made a mistake, because they haven't said anything about it really other than that it's a real object (which I agree it is)

And regarding parrallax, it's not that difficult to understand - I did a drawing to help you understand how this effect can occur:

is that to scale?

 

[Pottsey]

“Not really - I'm just providing a simple and likely explanation, in the absence of anything which points to a more complicated and unliklely explanation, that's all.

I don’t see your idea as a simple or a likely explanation as it only works in an extremely narrow set of circumstances and requires everything by fluke to be in an absolutely tiny corridor of placement with no evidence what so ever that is what is happening. It also requires multiple elements with nothing out of place. Not only does it require something like a 1 in a million placement if not worse odds but it also requires that the experts who have been analysing the video somehow forgot to mention the object is stationery and it only appears to be moving which in itself is extremely unlikely. Lastly it requires the assumption they have no secondary source of data which we know they do like the drone flight records.

“Furthermore, I'm explaining - how such an illusion would result in this effect, and because it's not been disproven - it still stands.”

That’s not how it works. You cannot post an idea that is very unlikely, not proven with no evidence and go because it’s not disproven the video is resolved and write it off as nothing. You can put your idea on the table as a possibility but that’s all it is. A possibility not a proven explanation that explains the video. If more data comes out and agrees with your idea that’s fair enough but at the moment we don’t have any evidence to back up your idea. I am not writing your idea off as impossible but at the same time it’s nowhere remotely solid enough at the moment to write the video off as explained.

“Unless i missed it, nothing was mentioned of the MQ-9 'orb' event and motion parallax and unfortunately, you can't conjure up a fact based on what wasn't said, as that's not how science works.”

At the previous meeting they went into great detail on how the teams are setup and how the differing teams are analysing the video and other data separately. The teams submit the results before seeing each other results. Along with how one team has sensors, lens experts. Then in this meeting they talked about the MQ9, processing artefacts, sensor artefacts in relation to the Orb and MQ9 you might have missed is as they jump to a different topic then go back to the MQ9 later on.

 

[Felon]

And nobody at the DOD can do the math and just give it to NASA ? Like I said I find it interesting despite the leaks and then the Pentagon admitting the leaks were real that nobody bothered to come out and say "yeah these are only travelling at 40mph, pretty much at wind speed" and the math was only calculated when the NASA group did it ? I wouldn't be surprised if somebody at the DoD knows exactly what they are and they're intentionally playing dumb

You'd have to ask the DOD/NASA why they didn't publish the details on the speed the object was travelling, however it can't have been that fast because you can see it as the drone's camera flies towards it, and it's not really doing anything at all.

Regarding the Pentagon leaked videos - they weren't actually leaked, Elizondo got official clearance for public media publication from the Pentagon. They then claimed they were leaked in order to create a massive fanfare so both him and Tom Delonge from (blink 182) could make a load of money by getting people to invest in their company "to the stars academy"

I just think it's important to know the background to this, as there are a lot of motives to make money and if you do your research - you'll find it's the same bunch of people involved at every point.

Spoiler: Spoiler

I don’t see your idea as a simple or a likely explanation as it only works in an extremely narrow set of circumstances and requires everything by fluke to be in an absolutely tiny corridor of placement with no evidence what so ever that is what is happening.

Well there is evidence.

For a start the drone is flying towards the building it's surveying - you can see this by watching the video. Secondly, the object moved downward in the frame - which would be exactly what would happen in the drone was flying towards it or over the top of it. Lastly - the object is not on the ground, it's clearly airbourne, so it's somewhere between the ground and drone's camera - so the illusion would absolutely occur.

Again - look at the drawing I did for you.

You cannot post an idea that is very unlikely, not proven with no evidence and go because it’s not disproven the video is resolved and write it off as nothing.

It's the most likely explanation, given the circumstances and what has been presented - it's simple, easy to understand and happens all the time, just like it did with the navy gofast video.

If the DOD turn up and say it was travelling at 3000mph, then fine - but I don't think it was, and I don't think they will.

 

[Felon]

I'm pretty sure there's a lot of people working at NASA with the highest levels of security clearance, they launch military satellite's and work with cutting edge military technology

You say you're "pretty sure" but that's a very wooly, meaningless statement to make - unless you know the in's and out's of the US political and military system, which I absolutely don't...

However, the DOD and NASA are two completely different organisations, NASA is primarily a science oriented, open, public organisation concerned with scientific discovery.

The DOD is the military.

They're two completely different organisations, they collaborate in some areas, but not in others, so assuming they just freely share everything between each other is probably wrong, even NASA probably has to go through a million hoops to get data on military systems and operations, to publish openly.

 

[Pottsey]

Regarding the Pentagon leaked videos - they weren't actually leaked, Elizondo got official clearance for public media publication from the Pentagon. They then claimed they were leaked in order to create a massive fanfare so both him and Tom Delonge from (blink 182) could make a load of money by getting people to invest in their company "to the stars academy"

I just think it's important to know the background to this, as there are a lot of motives to make money and if you do your research - you'll find it's the same bunch of people involved at every point.

We have been over this before you was proven wrong last time as it turned out they where actually leaked. How does some half complete form that was written with an unknown name years after the first video leak prove the videos was not leaked? To quote myself from last time.

“The first video was leaked years before that form at the time it was leaked he worked for the AATIP and had access to the footage. Given that he has access to the footage via his job, the first footage was leaked before the dates on that form and the DOD statement confirms the footage was unauthorised leaked, I am going to go with you are wrong here. Everything points to him being the person that leaked the original video before the official published version came out.” Even the DOD said the original video was an unauthorised leak, you where given link to the official DOD statement last time we went over this.

 

[Felon]

We have been over this before you was proven wrong last time as it turned out they where actually leaked. How does some half complete form that was written with an unknown name years after the first video leak prove the videos was not leaked? To quote myself from last time.

To be honest, I don't really care.

And - if you think it's a coincidence, that the same people are all couped up together, involved with the same companies, same business interests - and they're doing it all because they're trying to reveal some sort of "truth" about flying saucers, or whatever - and it's nothing to do with making a load of money, then you're gullible as hell.