The plane although close doesn't even match the profile of MH370. There is no way that is MH370 even without the fake CGI effects.
Pentagon releases UFO footage
- Thread starter Doobedoo
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 759
- Location
- UK
Apparently ufologists want to be taken seriously. Then they make a poor quality cgi fake video and submit it is as if it were a fact.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 759
- Location
- UK
The first problem is there is zero empirical evidence for Mick theory. His theory is entirely based on conjectured. The 2nd problem is the pilot that Mick interviewed directly contracts Micks theory. Mick made a fundamental mistake in thinking the pod drops behind the target to limit rotation. The pilot said this is wrong the pods go ahead of the target which is directly at odds with Micks theory. Since the pilot fly's the planes and knows them better I am going to go with the pilot is correct here. This is in the previous link you posted.
The 3rd problem is Mick doesn't take in all available evidence then claims cases are debunked even though his debunk doesn't fit the rest of the data that he ignored. This is a problem with many of his debunks. On Twitter loads of people have posted videos of jet glare that disagrees with Micks theory and show that Mick is wrong.
Unfortunately I have a really busy week tomorrow going into next week and I don't have time to dig out the videos links.
Last edited:
The Parker Solar Probe is not travelling in Earth's atmosphere at sea level. If the sun was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level we'd be having a few problems.
I'm a bit surprised that it's necessary to point that out.
Speak to Jigger he was the one that said its impossible to do Mach 70 even out in space. The only reason I brought up that human made craft was to show its not impossible outside Earths orbit.
No, they didn't. You just made that up. Here's what Jigger actually wrote about the Mach 70 thing:
Very clearly referring to Mach 70 in the atmosphere at sea level. The words are right there. The only thing they didn't explicitly state was that the planet they were referring to is Earth, but that should be obvious. Unless stated otherwise, it's not going to be another planet.
No I didn't make it up see the quote below. I was pointing out that not only is it possible outside Earth's orbit, its already been done by a human craft. I don't have time to go over this Mach 70 nonsense again. Its already been proven Jigger was wrong and the craft in question talked about at Congress was moving at Mach 2. Jigger got the math very wrong.
Bad wording on my part, but that’s still atmospheric flight. My point is, even if you give every possible advantage to these claims and forget about huge issues involved we still have zero chance of reaching these speeds in the craft that’s being described.
60 miles in 4 seconds is Mach 70. Even if we take Fravor’s ‘seconds’ statement, as 59 seconds, thats Mach 5 at sea level, but this still doesn’t explain the craft disappearing and reappearing, and even less at Mach 2. We know the Mach 70 claims are impossible. A craft able to operate at 80,000ft+ and sea level as described are just nonsense. That is unless we inject alien tech and pilots or other supernatural elements.
Goggle combined cycle scramjet engines and maybe also CCSJ and CCRJ engines. You should then understand the limitations assuming you’re capable of connecting a dots. You might also need to add liquid fuels those searches.
Search space shuttle re entry speed and atmospheric effects followed by space shuttle production and operational costs then multiply that number by a few hundreds. That might produce a testable prototype with a few of the abilities claimed.
Occam’s razor. These craft are not man made or aliens, but false claims.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,680
It's completely ruined a decent subreddit with so many idiots taking the video at face value without even the simplest of googling, for instance the satellite for one of the videos would have been travelling too fast to capture anything more than a single frame, yet they believe it captured an entire video, when it was proven the satellite couldn't have taken the footage, they now make up the excuse that it was 2 other satellites that monitor for ICBM launching via IR sensors, again not capable of capturing video due to the sensors and the satellite ID in the video was acting as host for the other satellites and they peddle this nonsense as gospel and then they wonder why nobody wants to take ufology seriously
Wasnt there something about stereoscopic filming from the satellite and then people where trying to turn it into 3D as though that would add detail or some such rubbish. Why would a satellite even want to film in 3D and could you even do that from a satellite at such range given you need two camera lens apart from each other.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,305
- Location
- 2
You can get stereoscopy from a satellite with a single camera. One pic every 1/famerate and a time-delayed pair of spatially-separated images. Then, as usual, disparity domain matching and a single 3d image at the output. Works for things that don't move significantly between frames, relative to the focal length. Another object, moving in a smaller orbit (ie. MH370), seems unlikely to be accurately captured. The backgrounds can be matched, but not the foreground.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,680
That and the satellite was moving too fast, the area in question would be in frame for a matter of seconds due to its orbit, but then redditors clutching at their straws because they want it to be real start making things up, saying that some other satellites never mentioned captured the footage because why not make up things up if it suits your belief, religion been doing it for centuries lol
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,371
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
I forgot about this video but it just popped up on my YT again
Last edited:
you were just a wee bit too quick to jump in and try and kick poor old pottsey with that one weren't you?
Conveniently ignores the fact that Grusch said both in the interview and again under oath that the evidence leans towards the craft being interdimensional, not extraterrestrial travelling light years to get here. Also he didn't say they all crashed, as the story goes some were recovered completely intact.
Extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence, but at least argue over the correct details...
Last edited:
Grusch has actually presented evidence under oath now?
Oof, Pottsey will not be happy to see Major Grusch insulted like this. How dare he question a decorated veteran. Grusch might have run a covert typing pool in Afghanistan for months, even one without air conditioning!
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2022
- Posts
- 759
- Location
- UK
YT recommendations. I like the Dad who thought it was a good idea to prep his young kids for potential alien encounter! Might save his life one day.