lol did you even read the report???
It's also nice to be proven right:
And to finish:
Whole thing was a total non-event, blown out of all proportions.
Pentagon releases UFO footage
- Thread starter Doobedoo
- Start date
lol did you even read the report???
It's also nice to be proven right:
And to finish:
Whole thing was a total non-event, blown out of all proportions.
This is the normal Pottsey MO going back years in this thread. A very worrying inability to actually read these reports objectively and “conclude” the exact opposite of what they actually conclude.
Links a report stating “Mick West debunk debunked, and AARO rule out this being a balloon or bird… here’s the proof”.
Read report and…
The UAP was moving slowly and in the general direction of the wind.
Was less than a metre in size - comparable to a drone or bird.
Was flying at an altitude of about 13,000ft
AARO has high confidence that the
UAP did not exhibit anomalous or even exceptional behaviour.
So in fact the report Pottsey kindly linked for us, proves Mick West was correct that this was most likely “nothing special”.
For reference Mick West’s conclusion was ‘it was an ordinary craft and made no sudden moves’.
Links a report stating “Mick West debunk debunked, and AARO rule out this being a balloon or bird… here’s the proof”.
Read report and…
The UAP was moving slowly and in the general direction of the wind.
Was less than a metre in size - comparable to a drone or bird.
Was flying at an altitude of about 13,000ft
AARO has high confidence that the
UAP did not exhibit anomalous or even exceptional behaviour.
So in fact the report Pottsey kindly linked for us, proves Mick West was correct that this was most likely “nothing special”.
For reference Mick West’s conclusion was ‘it was an ordinary craft and made no sudden moves’.
Last edited:
Yes I did and it showed its comparable to a bird or drone but not a bird as its moving too fast, with too high level of acceleration moving off centre from the wind.
There is no bird I am aware off that fly’s that high at that speed that can accelerate that fast at cruising flight. So in typical Felon fashion you LOL at me all because you read something wrong yet again.
As per usual ingoing the bits that you got wrong. You called it a balloon drifting in the wind and just a bird going as far to call it a duck. Both of which are ruled out from the data. You also called it slow saying it only looks fast due to the Parallax Effect. But even taking into account the Parallax Effect it went from 72mph and accelerated fast to 161mph proving you wrong on calling it a duck or balloon drifting. Its neither slow or a bird. In fact its looking to be what I said was all along. A militry class drones which all the data is pointing towards that.
I always said my believe are these UAPs are mostly militry class drones and not birds or balloons.
Lets look at the facts you seem to say I have an inability to read.
- The object acceleration from 72mph to 161mph in a time frame that is impossible for a bird at cruise flight but is possible for a militry grade drone.
- The object hit speeds of 161MPh off centre from the wind at 13,000 feet which is both too high and to fast for a bird but is reasonable for a drone militry grade drone.
- The object is round/spherical which is a common feature on drones.
- The object is going off centre from the wind at 92mph faster than the wind with high levels of acceleration just like a drone. The object is clearly self propelled and not just drifting in the wind.
All the data is pointing to it being precisely what I said it was all along. Based on the current data those of you that went against my posts are the ones that got it wrong. This is just a repeat of last time where you got all muddled up and falsely accused me of " further and further down the rabbit hole this past few years." yet I wasnt going down any rabbit hole and in fact turned out to be right.
I don’t care what you claimed it was all along. I’m dealing with your post linking the report.
You claimed it proved Mick West’s debunk was false. It proves no such thing.
From the report “Case Essentials” right on the first page.
Object Speed (reported): Appeared to move at high speeds
Object Speed (assessed): 5 mph - 92 mph
Yet here you are claiming the report concluded the object accelerated from 72 to 161mph. Yet the report concludes no such thing and in fact stated the object was moving at speeds no more than 92mph (accounting for wind speed) and exhibited no evidence of extraordinary behaviour.
Report Summary of Findings: High confidence the object did not demonstrate anomalous performance characteristics.
I’m not getting into a wall of text war with you while you dig even bigger holes for yourself. Your inability to actually objectively read your own linked report is laughable.
You claimed it proved Mick West’s debunk was false. It proves no such thing.
From the report “Case Essentials” right on the first page.
Object Speed (reported): Appeared to move at high speeds
Object Speed (assessed): 5 mph - 92 mph
Yet here you are claiming the report concluded the object accelerated from 72 to 161mph. Yet the report concludes no such thing and in fact stated the object was moving at speeds no more than 92mph (accounting for wind speed) and exhibited no evidence of extraordinary behaviour.
Report Summary of Findings: High confidence the object did not demonstrate anomalous performance characteristics.
I’m not getting into a wall of text war with you while you dig even bigger holes for yourself. Your inability to actually objectively read your own linked report is laughable.
Last edited:
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Exactly. It reeks of Dunning Kruger at best and outright confirmation bias at worst. Suffice to say all I see is someone woefully incapable of understanding their own linked data.
Last edited: