Pentagon releases UFO footage

Screeeech said:
Well the people who don't agree, should have spent more time in maths and less time watching ancient aliens and smoking weed.

It's not even up for debate - the data you need to compute the speed of the object is on the screen, the person from NASA's UAP team (Joshua Semeter) on the panel who said it's moving at 40mph, who even provided a slide which I linked above, showing the ******* workings out....

How in the blue mother of lord, do you "remove parallax effect" from a video of a moving object :confused::confused: that's literally impossible, you can't stop the background from moving fast if you're subject is in front of it and the angle of view is creating that motion effect because you're in a fighter jet moving at 1000mph, you're talking nonsense.
Click to expand...
It very much is up for debate as the data shows Joshua got it wrong. Even NASA don't agree with you as they put out a statement saying they don't have access to the raw data, did not speak to the pilot and parallax is not there official stance. Plus there was a disagreement with Joshua explanation as Kirk explained what Joshua got wrong as Joshua was not aware of the Gimble or that the background had been stabilized frame to frame in processing. Kirk was the one that explained how parallax is reduce and removed and I trust him more then you who has made up fake explanation after fake explanation.

Then there are all the people that looked at Joshua's math and pointed out the major flaws in his math like not taking into account wind direction. Didn’t account for wind speed or the impact it has on the F-18 trajectory or the speed/direction at Fl250 which affects the results of the analyses. There is a bunch of other stuff which we don’t need to go into. Basically Joshuas debunk was itself debunked via math and facts.

Lastly explaining away 1 frame of 1 video doesn't explain away the rest of the video and doesn't explain away the other two video which you keep saying are debunked yet have not show any evidence for.
 
Last edited:
Pottsey said:
Basically Joshuas debunk was itself debunked via math and facts.
Click to expand...

Yeah you're just trolling now,

There's no way you can be this ignorant, you're just blatantly trolling.

SexyGreyFox said:
EXCUSE ME
I've watched every episode of Ancient Aliens and never taken illegal drugs but I'm on your side :)
Click to expand...

I'm gonna have to start injecting copium if I continue this discussion with @Pottsey fml..
 
Pottsey said:
It very much is up for debate as the data shows Joshua got it wrong. Even NASA don't agree with you as they put out a statement saying they don't have access to the raw data, did not speak to the pilot and parallax is not there official stance. Plus there was a disagreement with Joshua explanation as Kirk explained what Joshua got wrong as Joshua was not aware of the Gimble or that the background had been stabilized frame to frame in processing. Kirk was the one that explained how parallax is reduce and removed and I trust him more then you who has made up fake explanation after fake explanation.

Then there are all the people that looked at Joshua's math and pointed out the major flaws in his math like not taking into account wind direction. Didn’t account for wind speed or the impact it has on the F-18 trajectory or the speed/direction at Fl250 which affects the results of the analyses. There is a bunch of other stuff which we don’t need to go into. Basically Joshuas debunk was itself debunked via math and facts.

Lastly explaining away 1 frame of 1 video doesn't explain away the rest of the video and doesn't explain away the other two video which you keep saying are debunked yet have not show any evidence for.
Click to expand...
I mean at least screeeeeeeeeeeseech is providing links or conjecture to back up his stance. You can’t just keep saying “NASA disagrees with you” as if 1) you speak for NASA, or 2) we’re expecting to believe that they don’t just because…. You wrote it.

You’re just writing long paragraphs of “no it isn’t”s
 
MoNkeE said:
I mean at least screeeeeeeeeeeseech is providing links or conjecture to back up his stance. You can’t just keep saying “NASA disagrees with you” as if 1) you speak for NASA, or 2) we’re expecting to believe that they don’t just because…. You wrote it.

You’re just writing long paragraphs of “no it isn’t”s
Click to expand...
You seem to be confused as its Screeech who is the one who keeps writing "no its isnt" without any valid explanation. I have been providing links and quotes thought-out this thread unlike Screeech who has not provided any evidence I ask for. Its Screeech who has been caught out time and time again making up fake explanations to dismiss everything he doesn't like, like when he created the fake Crypto debunk narrative. Or dismissed the 3 videos based on nothing. Where is the evidence of the duck he said it was? Then when one of his silly ideas is proven wrong he resorts to calling us names like above which is very telling in itself.

Not one shred of evidence for the other 2 videos which he insist are debunked. Where is his evidence? As for the Gofast video last week I gave the links and quotes to prove what was said in the NASA presentation about the parallax not being valid.

As for Joshuas faulty maths. Loads of people have pointed out the flaws in his math like https://twitter.com/aboss/status/1663958530863382528 or https://www.metabunk.org/threads/go-fast-balloon-theory.12781/#post-285232 ( I think concluding GoFast is a balloon does not fit the data/status of analyses at the moment.) all backed up by math and data. Joshuas clearly got the math wrong, didn't factor in wind direction or speed or any of the other areas which have been pointing out which makes his conclusion on speed and results invalid.

Parallax is not NASA's official stance on Gofast. NASA said that not me. Basically just like last time and the time before its all a load of made up nonsense by Screeech.
 
Doesn’t the second page, penultimate post on that thread kind of massively change tone, saying that actual fact his initial simulation is wrong, but he adds a woolly caveat that “it still doesn’t quite match the reported wind speeds”?
 
Also could you link to NASA’s official stance on “GoFast”, alongside their rejection or parallax? Sorry this thread is hard to search.
 
MoNkeE said:
Also could you link to NASA’s official stance on “GoFast”, alongside their rejection or parallax? Sorry this thread is hard to search.
Click to expand...

I think the funniest thing is that it's the NASA officials themselves which have actually confirmed that the thing was moving at 40mph - they essentially confirmed it, after everyone else who knows basic trigonometry already did the analysis 2 years ago, I'm just providing a link and evidence to that claim because that's what they said the other day.

The most likely and simple explanation, is that it's a Duck, Goose - or some other species of bird, as most of those birds fly at between 40-70mph, and fly between 7k and 25k feet (which is amazing in itself)

It could be a balloon or some other floating piece of junk, but my gut feeling is it's a bird, whatever it is (due to angle of view) is no bigger than around 1 meter.
 
Malevolence said:
Was just about to post this myself.
Click to expand...
I only just finished it as got distracted by other things today. It was a fantastic interview, as is always the case with Avi. There are a lot of takeaways from it, but the key ones for me are that he is onboard with David's claim of the government hiding non-human technologies or artefacts for a long time. Avi also predicts that in 2024 we will most likely have confirmed existence of non-human technologies, and he says this based on the current projects he is working on whereby the results will be published next year.

I also liked his ant on a pinhead analogy when referring to Musk's statements about not seeing any evidence of life out there, absolutely the perfect way to describe Musk right now.

Personally for me this interview gave me a lot to consider that I had only considered in isolation before, but it does seem that a bigger picture is forming here every other month. All of the theories scientists talk about could all be correct and that we potentially are the amalgamation of all of them in one way or other.

The von Neumann probe theory is one that I really like, the timeline that Avi ran through of Earth's history of life and contrasting that against Mars, which once was like Earth today, and how NASA's approach to find life on Mars so far has been done in the wrong kind of way, like no missions done or planned to explore lava tubes and caves on Mars where past life evidence would exist, since the entire surface of Mars has been vaporised from the time it lost its atmosphere.

The von Neumann probe scenario could explain a lot of things, if our universe is a seeded creation, which then is left to nature's randomness and as millions and billions of years pass, the probes gently spread seeds of life throughout that universe, which after billions more years spawns an evolutionary tree of advanced multicelled life which gains intelligence to leave its home planet and repeat the seeding process to continue the whole process... Could we be a small part of that process and we are just in that infancy and in for that ride?

Also I totally forgot about the fact that it was discovered that around the time Mars lost its atmosphere, the then Earth suddenly saw a dramatic spike in Oxygen production, there is still no accepted explanation for what kick started that process, we know how, but not the why, something obviously started it - von Neumann probes? Without that process happening, we would not be here today. It could be a coincidence of course and owing the luck to the randomness of nature, but it's a pretty massive coincidence that as one planet's atmosphere gets wiped away, planet next door is suddenly overwhelmed by Oxygen that then leads to complex cell evolution.

I think the reality may well be that we have been and are still being watched, just like how Mars once was, but the disaster on Mars meant that things had to be started again on Earth, which still had an atmosphere and the right conditions.
 
Last edited:
I think scientists like Loeb need to be careful not to get too close to people like Grusch. If he's lying (like I think he is) liars have a habit of getting found out (which I think he will at some point) and then the scientists will look very silly for having been associated with him.

Loeb did this in the past already, by getting involved with Elizondo - who turned out to be absolutely full of **** so I think he needs to be careful with who he's involved with, if he wants to continue being taken seriously by his peers, and not just the media (who lap up anything to do with aliens).
 
mrk said:
I only just finished it as got distracted by other things today. It was a fantastic interview, as is always the case with Avi. There are a lot of takeaways from it, but the key ones for me are that he is onboard with David's claim of the government hiding non-human technologies or artefacts for a long time. Avi also predicts that in 2024 we will most likely have confirmed existence of non-human technologies, and he says this based on the current projects he is working on whereby the results will be published next year.
Click to expand...
And yet (almost) nobody will be surprised if 2025 rolls around, and this proof was never forthcoming, or amounted to little more than blurry photos of clouds.

We've been promised aliens for longer than I've been alive, and yet... nada.
 
Last edited:
FoxEye said:
And yet (almost) nobody will be surprised if 2025 rolls around, and this proof was never forthcoming, or amounted to little more than blurry photos of clouds.

We've been promised aliens for longer than I've been alive, and yet... nada.
Click to expand...
I like Avi Loeb precisely because he wants to believe, but only if it can stand up to scientific scrutiny.. He is a bit too optimistic and clearly some feed from that a bit too much, but I’d rather he keep his optimism, as most people truly would love to discover we are not alone, but I agree, there is nothing he is doing or saying that seems definitive and I too will not be surprised in the slightest if absolutely nothing is found and 2025 rolls by…

To be fair though, he is trying, his sentiment should be taken that he feels confident that with the instrumentation we have today, and the methods they are using, if there is life within a reasonable distance to us, we should be able to spot something obvious..

I like that he is correctly cynical enough about this leak in asking the obvious questions and having several hypothesis that it could be fake or most likely a recovery program for any object that comes down, space junk, spy stuff, meteorites, etc..

Lets see how it unfolds, but my 50p (maximum bet allowed in work ;) ) is sadly nada will come of it of interest..
 
Pottsey said:
You seem to be confused as its Screeech who is the one who keeps writing "no its isnt" without any valid explanation. I have been providing links and quotes thought-out this thread unlike Screeech who has not provided any evidence I ask for. Its Screeech who has been caught out time and time again making up fake explanations to dismiss everything he doesn't like, like when he created the fake Crypto debunk narrative. Or dismissed the 3 videos based on nothing. Where is the evidence of the duck he said it was? Then when one of his silly ideas is proven wrong he resorts to calling us names like above which is very telling in itself.

Not one shred of evidence for the other 2 videos which he insist are debunked. Where is his evidence? As for the Gofast video last week I gave the links and quotes to prove what was said in the NASA presentation about the parallax not being valid.

As for Joshuas faulty maths. Loads of people have pointed out the flaws in his math like https://twitter.com/aboss/status/1663958530863382528 or https://www.metabunk.org/threads/go-fast-balloon-theory.12781/#post-285232 ( I think concluding GoFast is a balloon does not fit the data/status of analyses at the moment.) all backed up by math and data. Joshuas clearly got the math wrong, didn't factor in wind direction or speed or any of the other areas which have been pointing out which makes his conclusion on speed and results invalid.

Parallax is not NASA's official stance on Gofast. NASA said that not me. Basically just like last time and the time before its all a load of made up nonsense by Screeech.
Click to expand...

So 'not taking windspeed in to account' is a debunk? I mean, where do you get accurate measured data of the windspeed at the height of the target? The plane can measure windspeed at it's altitude but considering the disparity in height, how do we know?

It's fine to throw question over ultimate accuracy, but to throw the maths out completely is disingenuous.. but I'm open to more evidence if you have it.

[edit] The last post on 1st June from Mick West in the metabunk thread pretty much nails that this is absolutely still most likely a bird.. there are inaccuracies, but you need to put those in perspective, even if you assume (falsely) that the wind is at the same speed at all heights etc, you still only come up with a very fast bird (at 120kts) rather than an impossibly fast alien craft.. It's like someone has found a small inaccuracy that can't easily be quantified and therefore because the model isn't 'perfect' it must therefore be Aliens..
 
Last edited:
keyser van someone said:
Isn't Avi Loeb the one that claimed the comet from outside our solar system was definitely aliens until all other scientists said no it isn't?
Click to expand...

Yeah, he did, or he suggested it quite strongly - but later it turned out to be false, it's a comet.

Loeb might be an intelligent person and a distinguished scientist, but I'd question just how smart he is here, for getting involved with this flying-saucer craze - as there's a big difference between intelligence and being smart.

A smart person with a reputation, would likely look at this - and keep their mouth shut until something actually definitive and trustworthy comes out of it. Because if it turns out to all be a load of lies - he's going to look like an idiot if he gets too close to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom