I am only trying to correct false information and I don't care for those guys either which is why I am praising the AARO and NASA scientific approach. As they are not in it to get famous or make loads of money. A Scientific Approach is what we need not a bunch of YouTubers trying to get more clicks and likes.
Pentagon releases UFO footage
- Thread starter Doobedoo
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,660
I think we can all agree on saying **** TTSA
Correcting false information?
You literally just wrote a bunch of posts, blatantly making up stuff about what one of the panelists said, which he didn't say at all, to the point where @visibleman and others have pulled you up on it multiple times.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Dec 2021
- Posts
- 67
- Location
- North Lincolnshire
Yes, that's one giant spliff, it's as long as that building.
Which I explained at last 3 times how I didn't blatantly make anything up and came to that conclusion. I used the comments from the last briefing that went into detail how the teams are setup and how they analyse the data including video frame by frame. Combined with the comment from the new briefing where in regards to the MQ9 and Orb it was asked if there was any look at sensor artefacts, data processing artefact, how was the data collected which would cover looking at parallax. It was clear they looked at sensor artefacts, data processing artefact which covers parallax style effects and that they understand the MQ9 very well.Correcting false information?
You literally just wrote a bunch of posts, blatantly making up stuff about what one of the panelists said, which he didn't say at all, to the point where @visibleman and others have pulled you up on it multiple times.
That's why you idea is not impossible but very implausible.
Furthermore later on Kirkpatrick seems to have a partial disagreement about parallax. He explained when the sensor is locked on the target it is stabilised by the gimbals which damp out the motion of the platform and with that motion dampened parallax is removed or reduced. He also said "once it’s collected, sometimes in processing, the background has stabilized frame to frame just like some of those tick tock videos you see. Right. Same idea."
So if the Orb background has been stabilised in processing after collection to remove parallax then you idea doesn't work.
You twisted what he said, to fit what you want it to be.
Which is what you've done throughout the entire thread, you did it with the chinese quadcopter drones which were harassing the US navy ship, everything you see - you twist it to fit a narrative.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 3,279
- Location
- The South
I must have - to clear everything up, can you please post the correct timestamp/link to timestamp of the session where they specifically talk about the MQ-9 orb event and rule out motion parallax for that event? Thanks
Just in case, link to the panel/session - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBKM9r43Ix0
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 757
- Location
- UK
Every video needs it's own ID number like 'gofast' so we know what we're talking about.
I approve of MS Paint camels.
I approve of MS Paint camels.
Last edited:
I watched it live and didn't record the timestamps and don't have time to rewatch it at the moment. The question, have they looked into artefacts in relation to the Orb where I took his response to mean they have and understand it very well. Was after Kirkpatricks presentation, well before lunch break and before the rubbish FAA section.I must have - to clear everything up, can you please post the correct timestamp/link to timestamp of the session where they specifically talk about the MQ-9 orb event and rule out motion parallax for that event? Thanks
Just in case, link to the panel/session - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBKM9r43Ix0
The long section on parallax was well after lunch break around 2 hours 50min ish I think, it might have started before this point, around then. If you got to the Bart Simpson balloon bit you have gone a tiny bit to far although that bit is interesting as well.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,254
- Location
- North Sea
Doesn’t the 1 hump make it a Dromedary, or something like that?
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 757
- Location
- UK
This thread needs some Mick West urine.
Last edited:
In the case of AARO they are using classified DOD data which often includes multiple data points on top of what the witness say they have seen. Sensor platforms with more then 1 type of sensor or from more then 1 location as an example. Which is how they know there the size and shape of these Metallic Orbs that seems to be flying around world wide and are not balloons going by the intresting way they move which was talked about. There was a lot of talk in the NASA prestation on how witness by them self or mobile phones cameras are rather useless.
Interestingly I was listening to the Event Horizon interview with Harvard's Amir Siraj whilst circling the M25 yesterday and it really gave a different perspective into this.
In relation to the confirmed Chinese spy balloon that was shot down. The three UAPs shot down after that incident in following weeks have yet to be identified and the military have been sketchy about recovery because what is now known is that tracking trajectory forecasts to origin, they originated from China too.
The problem here is exactly as Amir and John talk about in the interview, that balloon technology may be "old fashioned" but they are a superior means of discreetly spying on nations with extreme precision. The payload onboard can be highly modern cameras and recording equipment, or comms equipment for operatives on the ground in that nation. The more scary notion is that these balloons could also contain explosive or chemical munitions that activate if they are ever captured, and this is why recovery has been sketchy. Balloons offer a much better and much cheaper method of spying than satellites, and they can be be deployed in masses in different shapes and sizes that evade standard radar until all the "noise" filters are removed at which point all the noisy clutter is also shown which just adds time to singling out the actual spy balloons for counter-intelligence systems.
NORAD has lowered their filtering since these UAPs have been shot down and have discovered many more small objects in the skies as a result. It's now going to be down to ML and AI to re-filter those and isolate only those which match the training models of what is a spy balloon and what is just crap in the air. The real issue now is that knowing these balloons originated from China, what does this exactly mean? Are we on the brink of intelligence warfare using these or something more as national tensions rise generally...
The interview:
Where Did the Downed UFOs Come From? with Harvard's Amir Siraj
John Michael Godier's Event Horizon · Episode
open.spotify.com
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 757
- Location
- UK
Pretty sure it is a violation of treaties to blinding let balloons go and then randomly get blown across the border, knowing full well that's what will happen.Interestingly I was listening to the Event Horizon interview with Harvard's Amir Siraj whilst circling the M25 yesterday and it really gave a different perspective into this.
In relation to the confirmed Chinese spy balloon that was shot down. The three UAPs shot down after that incident in following weeks have yet to be identified and the military have been sketchy about recovery because what is now known is that tracking trajectory forecasts to origin, they originated from China too.
The problem here is exactly as Amir and John talk about in the interview, that balloon technology may be "old fashioned" but they are a superior means of discreetly spying on nations with extreme precision. The payload onboard can be highly modern cameras and recording equipment, or comms equipment for operatives on the ground in that nation. The more scary notion is that these balloons could also contain explosive or chemical munitions that activate if they are ever captured, and this is why recovery has been sketchy. Balloons offer a much better and much cheaper method of spying than satellites, and they can be be deployed in masses in different shapes and sizes that evade standard radar until all the "noise" filters are removed at which point all the noisy clutter is also shown which just adds time to singling out the actual spy balloons for counter-intelligence systems.
NORAD has lowered their filtering since these UAPs have been shot down and have discovered many more small objects in the skies as a result. It's now going to be down to ML and AI to re-filter those and isolate only those which match the training models of what is a spy balloon and what is just crap in the air. The real issue now is that knowing these balloons originated from China, what does this exactly mean? Are we on the bring of intelligence warfare using these or something more as national tensions rise generally...
The interview:
Where Did the Downed UFOs Come From? with Harvard's Amir Siraj
John Michael Godier's Event Horizon · Episode
But yes, way cheaper than sending something into space. I doubt they have explosives or anything else onboard, that would be a whole other level of escalation.
Didn't that Senator say the others where not balloons but UAPs. Sure he said something along the lines of they know what a balloon is and while the balloon incident is what led to the filters being revised it was the revising of the filters that found all these other UAPs that don't match balloons. The Metallic Orbs things what ever they are, appear to have been in the data that was filtered out due to there small size of 1 to 4 meters.Interestingly I was listening to the Event Horizon interview with Harvard's Amir Siraj whilst circling the M25 yesterday and it really gave a different perspective into this.
In relation to the confirmed Chinese spy balloon that was shot down. The three UAPs shot down after that incident in following weeks have yet to be identified and the military have been sketchy about recovery because what is now known is that tracking trajectory forecasts to origin, they originated from China too.
The problem here is exactly as Amir and John talk about in the interview, that balloon technology may be "old fashioned" but they are a superior means of discreetly spying on nations with extreme precision. The payload onboard can be highly modern cameras and recording equipment, or comms equipment for operatives on the ground in that nation. The more scary notion is that these balloons could also contain explosive or chemical munitions that activate if they are ever captured, and this is why recovery has been sketchy. Balloons offer a much better and much cheaper method of spying than satellites, and they can be be deployed in masses in different shapes and sizes that evade standard radar until all the "noise" filters are removed at which point all the noisy clutter is also shown which just adds time to singling out the actual spy balloons for counter-intelligence systems.
NORAD has lowered their filtering since these UAPs have been shot down and have discovered many more small objects in the skies as a result. It's now going to be down to ML and AI to re-filter those and isolate only those which match the training models of what is a spy balloon and what is just crap in the air. The real issue now is that knowing these balloons originated from China, what does this exactly mean? Are we on the brink of intelligence warfare using these or something more as national tensions rise generally...
The interview:
Where Did the Downed UFOs Come From? with Harvard's Amir Siraj
John Michael Godier's Event Horizon · Episode
I don't think we are on the brink of intelligence warfare with Balloons. Now the blind spot has been fixed balloons are now longer able to sneak though. Did the balloons even manage to gather any useful data and even if they did. Now they are tracked and actively being searched for balloons are not likely to be viable as a means of gathering data.
Not sure I agree with that line balloons are a better method then satellites. You have no real control over balloons movements and are unable to get it to record data over a target location. Its more point it in that general location and hope for the best, your lucky to be within 100miles of where you want it. Plus balloons are now easy to spot and easy to shoot down. Satellites on the other hand have longevity you can reuse them, the target doesn't know you are pointing at them, you have fine control over the area you want to focus on bar the initial cost Satellites seem superior in every way.
I'd sooner trust the words of an expert in the field doing the trajectory tracing or involved in it than a senator tbh 
Balloons are better than satellites for a number of reasons, all of which are outlined in the interview by Amir. We know this is a fact because China is or has been doing exactly that.
Balloons are:
- Cheaper, can be deployed any time anywhere and nobody would ever know until one is spotted floating in the sky days/weeks later
-Can have much more detailed payloads
-Communicate discreetly with operatives on the ground below them and not be detected/intercepted
-Stealth to regular radar because of their size, but visible when filters are removed but then are amongst the clutter of noise so may still be missed as the agencies sift through the noise now
It's the Occam's razor approach to spying, the simplest solution is the most effective. Nobody knows what these 4 balloons shot down captured because the US shot them down with missiles, only the first balloon had obvious solar panels so was clearly storing power and likely sending/receiving comms, but as it was blown to smithereens, nobody will know what it had onboard other than the photos captured of it before it got shot.
Balloons are better than satellites for a number of reasons, all of which are outlined in the interview by Amir. We know this is a fact because China is or has been doing exactly that.
Balloons are:
- Cheaper, can be deployed any time anywhere and nobody would ever know until one is spotted floating in the sky days/weeks later
-Can have much more detailed payloads
-Communicate discreetly with operatives on the ground below them and not be detected/intercepted
-Stealth to regular radar because of their size, but visible when filters are removed but then are amongst the clutter of noise so may still be missed as the agencies sift through the noise now
It's the Occam's razor approach to spying, the simplest solution is the most effective. Nobody knows what these 4 balloons shot down captured because the US shot them down with missiles, only the first balloon had obvious solar panels so was clearly storing power and likely sending/receiving comms, but as it was blown to smithereens, nobody will know what it had onboard other than the photos captured of it before it got shot.
Not sure that's 100% right anymore. Balloons no longer have stealth and are no longer lost in the clutter. The new sensors are programmed to spot them. The only reason they worked before was with the old sensors that didn't pick them up which is no longer the case. Furthermore you don't have control over balloons so they are hardly going to get useful data. What use is a balloon when its drifted 100miles off the intended target. As for Payloads typically the payloads in balloons are far less advanced and less detailed. Not only do you have a weight limit but any equipment on the balloons is very likely not going to make its way home and at high risk of ending up in enemy hands and will have a limited energy source. So your not going be putting expensive high tech on them or classified high end equipment far more likely cheap low tech disposable equipment.I'd sooner trust the words of an expert in the field doing the trajectory tracing or involved in it than a senator tbh
Balloons are better than satellites for a number of reasons, all of which are outlined in the interview by Amir. We know this is a fact because China is or has been doing exactly that.
Balloons are:
- Cheaper, can be deployed any time anywhere and nobody would ever know until one is spotted floating in the sky days/weeks later
-Can have much more detailed payloads
-Communicate discreetly with operatives on the ground below them and not be detected/intercepted
-Stealth to regular radar because of their size, but visible when filters are removed but then are amongst the clutter of noise so may still be missed as the agencies sift through the noise now
It's the Occam's razor approach to spying, the simplest solution is the most effective. Nobody knows what these 4 balloons shot down captured because the US shot them down with missiles, only the first balloon had obvious solar panels so was clearly storing power and likely sending/receiving comms, but as it was blown to smithereens, nobody will know what it had onboard other than the photos captured of it before it got shot.
From what I can tell the balloons where was one those things that works until the other side realise what you are doing then it becomes useless.
As interesting as this is, we are going a little off topic.
Last edited:
Launch 100 of them, staggered over weeks. Still cheaper and more discreet than a spy satellite
Last edited:
Surly that's less discreet. There is no way to tell what the spy satellite is doing or even if its a spy satellite. While 100 spy balloons would light up the sky being picked up on the new sensors. All it would take is for 1 to be spotted and everyone would be on high alert and all the rest would be taken out in short notice. Its not like we are talking party balloons the spy balloons are rather large and noticeable. Easy to find if you are looking for them.