Pentagon releases UFO footage

[sityeuropa]

IIRC our device transmissions only travel out about 100 or 100 million light years.

Whoa, that is outrageously incorrect.

Try about say 1920s? So 100 light years worth.

Intelligent life within 100 light years? The early stuff the signals are probably too weak as well to even detect anything.

 

[RxR]

Whoa, that is outrageously incorrect.

Try about say 1920s? So 100 light years worth.

Intelligent life within 100 light years? The early stuff the signals are probably too weak as well to even detect anything.

I am drawing on the knowledge of a leading British astrophysicist in my above post. She stated that beyond one of the two distances I mentioned (can't recall which one she said exactly) none of the signals generated by folk on earth still exist / survive.

 

[sityeuropa]

I am drawing on the knowledge of a leading British astrophysicist in my above post. She stated that beyond one of the two distances I mentioned (can't recall which one she said exactly) none of the signals generated by folk on earth still exist / survive.

Sorry I got mixed up. I thought you were on about how far signals had already travelled.

So yeh if the strength of them fizzle out that is another obstacle to get over for making contact.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

There's a long chain of unlikely circumstances that led to us

Pretty sure Carl Sagan said it was something like getting 100s of ingredients, throwing them up in the air and they all land in the bowl in exactly the right order in exactly the right amounts at exactly the right heat.
In other words the chances of it happening again is like an infinite number of apes in an infinite amount of time writing the Lords Prayer.

 

[RxR]

As I thought, there was one case in the science news of something travelling faster than the speed of light (1.07 billion km per hr).

 

[Roar87]

Pretty sure Carl Sagan said it was something like getting 100s of ingredients, throwing them up in the air and they all land in the bowl in exactly the right order in exactly the right amounts at exactly the right heat.
In other words the chances of it happening again is like an infinite number of apes in an infinite amount of time writing the Lords Prayer.

So guaranteed to happen an infinite number of times then

 

[Demon]

Is it a bird, is it a plane or is it a mk10 jet? That is the real question.

So once we get away from the stigma of the little green men it’s surprising and also interesting the level of dialogue/ideas or theories that can be shared without fear of ridicule.

Keep it up.

At least one of those is a bird:

I couldn't actually find this linked earlier in the thread (apologies if it is)

 

[Angilion]

IIRC our device transmissions only travel out about 100 or 100 million light years.

Well that's precise 100 light years maybe (radio existed then). 100 million light years, no. That would require something on Earth ~100 million years ago emitting something detectable 100 million light years away that was caused by a form of life. Dinosaurs weren't known for such advanced technology.

(EDIT: Maybe 100 light-years is roughly how far emissions from human tech could have travelled now and 100 million light-years is roughly how far away current emissions from human tech could theoretically be detected if they existed that far out, which they don't and won't for about 100 million years. That would explain the two wildly varying figures.)

Pretty sure Carl Sagan said it was something like getting 100s of ingredients, throwing them up in the air and they all land in the bowl in exactly the right order in exactly the right amounts at exactly the right heat.

He didn't know the chances any more than anyone else does. For either of those two things. That statement would just be a memorable soundbite for a TV program.

In other words the chances of it happening again is like an infinite number of apes in an infinite amount of time writing the Lords Prayer.

That would happen an infinite amount of times. Unless we're into the realms of some infinities being infinitely more infinite than other infinities, which doesn't make sense to me.

As I thought, there was one case in the science news of something travelling faster than the speed of light (1.07 billion km per hr).

Not in this universe.

From the rather sparse information in your post I'm guessing what you probably read was a reference to something that appears to have travelled at superluminal speeds relative to Earth due to the expansion of the universe. It's a great attention-grabber and interesting, but it's not FTL travel in this universe. The expansion of the universe is something different.

The other possibility that comes to mind is that you might have read something about the superluminal neutrinos at CERN. Which got a lot of theoretical physicists cautiously excited because it would have meant that a lot of physics was somehow right while being based on something wrong and that would have meant lots of fascinating work trying to find new explanations of how things work. But only cautiously excited because they knew it was more likely that the results were wrong. Which turned out to be the case. There was a tiny flaw in the timing of their custom made collection of equipment. Since their measurement of the speed of the neutrinos relied on extremely precise timing, the tiniest of tiny flaws was enough to bump the measured (but not actual) speed of the fastest neutrinos from just under the speed of light (which was their actual speed) to just over the speed of light.

 

[Doobedoo]

At least one of those is a bird:

I couldn't actually find this linked earlier in the thread (apologies if it is)

Strange if the pentagon can’t identify a bird. Perhaps it’s a new species

 

[Felon]

At least one of those is a bird:


I couldn't actually find this linked earlier in the thread (apologies if it is)

Actually it's a pretty good explanation, and it does make sense, if you know anything about cameras and lenses.

I have no idea what the focal length of a fighter jet's targeting pod actually is, but I assume it's somewhere in the region of 1000-2000mm ?. Which would mean, if it can track anything small like a bird, the depth of field is going to be so shallow - it'll give the impression that whatever it is, is moving really fast, whilst generating no heat or exhaust plume. Depending on the angle, aspect and altitude of the aircraft relative to the target and the direction is was flying in, I can see this being a possible explanation.

I mean, it's pretty embarrassing if it really was a bird, but people are fooled by basic illusions and make mistakes all the time, so it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Shac]

At 3.9 miles range that would have to be a damn big bird.
And i highly suspect not visually detectable if it was a bird.

 

[enkoda]

At least one of those is a bird:

I couldn't actually find this linked earlier in the thread (apologies if it is)

Good find (and watching the other parts now).

So those "highly trained pilots with years of experience and incredible vision" CAN possibly be mistaken or misinterpret data?

Who'd have thought that....

 

[Angilion]

At 3.9 miles range that would have to be a damn big bird.
And i highly suspect not visually detectable if it was a bird.

Which part of the size calculation in the video do you disagree with? They get a size consistent with a moderately large bird. Also, that video isn't about what someone saw so whether or not it's visually detectable is irrelevant.

 

[Demon]

Good find (and watching the other parts now).

So those "highly trained pilots with years of experience and incredible vision" CAN possibly be mistaken or misinterpret data?

Who'd have thought that....

I actually like the hypothesis that In this first video the pilots may well have known it was a bird and where just impressed the computer could track it, with that thought in mind it completely changes how you interpret the pilots amazement...

it’s a bit conspiracy theorist, but you do wonder if either;
A. This is a bit of a troll exercise, just releasing very careful snippets to try to push the context of a ufo.
B. The more mundane that if the pilot doesn’t immediately ID the object, it gets categorised as a UFO, that does not mean to say later analysis shows it’s plausibly something fairly normal but with unless direct visual confirmation was available it stays classified as a UFO. This means it’s still a bit of a troll by the pentagon, you know, don’t want to give out any useful information, just some useless rubbish they can frame as interesting, knowing people will not do any proper analysis and jump to the wrong conclusion.

 

[enkoda]

I actually like the hypothesis that In this first video the pilots may well have known it was a bird and where just impressed the computer could track it, with that thought in mind it completely changes how you interpret the pilots amazement...

it’s a bit conspiracy theorist, but you do wonder if either;
A. This is a bit of a troll exercise, just releasing very careful snippets to try to push the context of a ufo.
B. The more mundane that if the pilot doesn’t immediately ID the object, it gets categorised as a UFO, that does not mean to say later analysis shows it’s plausibly something fairly normal but with unless direct visual confirmation was available it stays classified as a UFO. This means it’s still a bit of a troll by the pentagon, you know, don’t want to give out any useful information, just some useless rubbish they can frame as interesting, knowing people will not do any proper analysis and jump to the wrong conclusion.

Here's the thing: Fravor (and others) claim to have seen this tic-tac object with their eyes. And I really don't care who he is/they are, what credentials he has/they have, etc - unless there is something more substantial than personal testimony I have no good reason to believe him/them. It's no different to someone claiming they've caught a ghost on camera, when in actuality all they've recorded is something that can, usually, be explained without having to resort to the supernatural.

The second video demonstrates that the object he was tracking is, in all likelihood, an aircraft and without compelling evidence to back up his assessment that this ufo is "from another world" I'm left believing that Fravor is the victim of his own imagination.

Let's see what the third video comes up with next week.

 

[Shac]

The video shows a range of 3.9 miles to the tracked object.
You show me someone who can visually see a bird flying from 3.9 miles away.

I am not saying what the target is or may have been just that at 3.9 miles range if it was a bird I doubt you would be able to see it in the first place let alone track it.
Who knows maybe your eyes are a lot better than mine.
It would be interesting if anyone could work out the target speed but probably not possible as it was over water and width of waves etc is unknown.

Then we get to the FOX "report" i mean does anyone take everything FOX reports seriously?
Well apart from Trump that is and all those that believed covid 19 is just the flu.

It was not an objective report in any way the tone was obvious as they played duck quacks all the way through.

Personally I choose to give professionally trained aviators some credibility and accept it as presented as unidentified flying objects nothing more.

 

[Angilion]

The video shows a range of 3.9 miles to the tracked object.
You show me someone who can visually see a bird flying from 3.9 miles away. [..]

Who is claiming anyone visually saw a bird flying 3.9 miles away? I'm certainly not. The video certainly isn't. Neither the original video of the incident or the video arguing that it was a bird.

It would be interesting if anyone could work out the target speed but probably not possible as it was over water and width of waves etc is unknown.

It might be possible because the original video shows something on the surface of the sea that enters and leaves the frame as the plane is flying overhead. With that and the details of the movement of the plane and the camera on the plane, it might be possible.

It was not an objective report in any way the tone was obvious as they played duck quacks all the way through.

It did, however, provide evidence and reasoning. And it didn't provide a claim that anyone visually saw a bird from 3.9 miles away. Or any other distance.

Your counter-argument is based on disbelieving a claim nobody made and not liking duck quacks in a video. That doesn't convince me. As an aside, the bird in question would be rather big for a duck. More likely a goose. I guess a duck noise was more recognisable to more people.


Although your question is completely irrelevant to this topic, I think Veronica Seider might be able to visually see a large bird from 3.9 miles away, at least when she was younger. She's ~70 now, so her eyesight is probably less good than it was. Although it's not completely clear-cut because although her eyesight was tested by the opthamology department in a medically orientated university (i.e. a reliable source), she declined publicity and further testing so the results weren't repeated by other sources. She was, apparently, able to recognise people from a distance of just over a mile and found TV (~1970) unpleasant to watch because at a normal viewing distance she could see individual pixels. She'd have needed either a bigger room or a higher resolution TV. But while that might be interesting it's also irrelevant because nobody is claiming anyone visually saw anything in that video other than a screen showing a feed from a camera.

Have I mentioned that nobody is claiming anyone visually saw a bird at 3.9 miles in the incident in question? I think I did.

 

[Shac]

Lol stop trying so hard to convince.
My point was surely they had to visually see it first before they could get a lock with the targetting system.
Otherwise how would they even know it was there.

Have i mentioned that I never claimed that Veronica Seider could or could not identify a person at just over a mile ?
It is still a big difference to identfying anything the size of a bird at 3.9 miles. However I agree that is damn good eyesight.

Personally I think that if they can ID a birds body at 3.9 miles surely there would be some indication of flapping wings after all the surface area of the wings is far greater than the body.

And before you get your panties in a knot I am still not calling it a UFO with little green men it is just an unidentified flying object.
I am just sceptical of the bird scenario and trying to be objective so I apologise if my thoughts do not align with your interpretation.

 

[Angilion]

Lol stop trying so hard to convince.

Oh well, why didn't you say that before? Now I'm totally convinced by your argument.

My point was surely they had to visually see it first before they could get a lock with the targetting system.
Otherwise how would they even know it was there. [..]

Because they pay attention to the information from their equipment. It's an important thing for any pilot, but particularly for a fighter pilot.

Have i mentioned that I never claimed that Veronica Seider could or could not identify a person at just over a mile ?

You asked for an example of a person who could see something the size of a large bird 3.9 miles away. So I gave you an example of a person who I think might be able to.

It is still a big difference to identfying anything the size of a bird at 3.9 miles. However I agree that is damn good eyesight.

It's not a big difference at all. It requires seeing fine detail to be able to identify a person from their face. A lot finer detail than being able to see that something a meter in size is there without being able to see what it is.

Personally I think that if they can ID a birds body at 3.9 miles surely there would be some indication of flapping wings after all the surface area of the wings is far greater than the body.

Not in very low resolution infrared at a distance so far away that it's just a blurry blob. IR is not visible light. A low res blurry blob on a screen is not seeing something clearly.

It might have been an artificial object the size of a large bird flying at a height many large birds fly at, at the speed of a large bird and with the heat signature of a large bird. Or it might have been a large bird.

And before you get your panties in a knot I am still not calling it a UFO with little green men it is just an unidentified flying object.

My panties are unknotted. You seem to be having some trouble with yours. LOL, etc.

Yes, it's unidentified. But it's probably a bird, since that's a plausible explanation that fits the evidence.

I am just sceptical of the bird scenario and trying to be objective so I apologise if my thoughts do not align with your interpretation.

That's because you're thinking about things that didn't happen and claims nobody made. Do you have any arguments against any of the evidence and interpretation in the videos?

 

[enkoda]

The video shows a range of 3.9 miles to the tracked object.
You show me someone who can visually see a bird flying from 3.9 miles away.

I am not saying what the target is or may have been just that at 3.9 miles range if it was a bird I doubt you would be able to see it in the first place let alone track it.
Who knows maybe your eyes are a lot better than mine.
It would be interesting if anyone could work out the target speed but probably not possible as it was over water and width of waves etc is unknown.

Then we get to the FOX "report" i mean does anyone take everything FOX reports seriously?
Well apart from Trump that is and all those that believed covid 19 is just the flu.

It was not an objective report in any way the tone was obvious as they played duck quacks all the way through.

Personally I choose to give professionally trained aviators some credibility and accept it as presented as unidentified flying objects nothing more.

If you're referring to the first video (GoFast) nobody is claiming to have visually spotted anything, it was all on infra red.