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:
Perhaps you could read the report objectively. They subtracted wind speed so that 92mph is 92mph over windspeed. Total speed 162mph, wind speed 69mph or 70mph from the west. The object was moving off-centre from the wind and faster then the wind so logically has its own propulsion. You say the report says no such things. Here is the direct quote. "The object’s speed ranged from about 32 m/s (72 mph) to 72 m/s (161 mph)" They then go on to say they subtracted wind speed from the total speed to show its speed over the wind. See quote "The object moved 41.3 m/s (92 mph) faster than the wind, heading 12.3° off-wind." So its clear that 92mph is the objects speed over the wind not the objects total speed which was 161mph at peak.
The Mick West Debunk video I watched had Mick saying it’s a balloon tracked by a camera and given unnatural speed by parallax drifting in the wind. See
A: Mick was wrong about the artefact glare on the gimbal system which he mentions at the start of this video
B: Mick was wrong about GoFast being slow like a balloon at wind speed.
If you watch the video Mick conclusion was around 20mph to 40mph at wind speed with mention of balloons at wind speed. The experts clearly say 162mph at peak and 92mph over wind speed ruling out balloons or birds.
So as far as I can see despite you saying otherwise all my points are correct.
Ever looked into a mirror for self reflection? Go back and look at your past few posts objectively. From my point of view you and Felon are the ones suffering from Dunning Kruger. You two are the ones showing as incapable of understanding the data and an inability to actually objectively read. I presented facts and so far you failed to point out one single valid mistake while at the sometime making a bunch of mistakes yourself. (That goes to both of you).
What a weak response. The facts and evidence speak for themselves. If you want to play mental gymnastics to coverup you that you got it wrong go ahead. It makes no difference to me. As far as I am concerned its not about beating the other person. I only care about the facts and evidence and those are clear for everyone to see.
Last edited:
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,730
- Location
- Auckland
Q: can this thread get even worse?
A: seven hundred paragraphs in each post ignoring the six hundred paragraphs in the previous post
You fellas* are starting to make the on-the-fence crowd a little uncomfortable.
* also ladies.
A: seven hundred paragraphs in each post ignoring the six hundred paragraphs in the previous post
You fellas* are starting to make the on-the-fence crowd a little uncomfortable.
* also ladies.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 432
LOL the entire UAP community is built on arguing over click bait YouTube videos, the whole thing was then boosted by the Grusch hearing.
Until someone provides actual hard evidence, this is all the community will amount to. Most rationale contributors gave up long ago.
Until someone provides actual hard evidence, this is all the community will amount to. Most rationale contributors gave up long ago.
You linked a comprehensive report that totally demolished everything you said.
I don’t even need to respond, you’re arguing against yourself!
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,373
- Location
- Bucks
Its almost like its all made up nonsense and always has been.
Lets go see if there is actual life in our solar system before we start jumping the gun on aliens somehow having the technology to find and reach us from another system and then seemingly doing nothing but zooming around in their spaceships. Its almost comical when you think about, intelligent beings just would not behave like that.
I'm sure intelligent life exists somewhere out there, but unless our understanding of physics and the universe is completely incorrect, we are never going to see them.
Your right, you don’t need to respond. Everyone can read the report and see how delusional you are acting. As this point it doesn't matter what you say as the evidence and facts speak for themselves.
There isn’t a single thing in that report that demolishes any of my core ideas of the past few years, but there are a ton of facts and evidence that tear apart your previously posted ideas about balloons drifting in the wind and ducks.
So keep up those mental gymnastics where you pretend the opposite is happening. Makes no difference to me.
I wouldn’t be so sure TBH, WiFi9 is looking pretty impressive.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 432
What really happened in Calvine? The mystery behind the best UFO picture ever seen
In August 1990, two hikers sent photos of a strange diamond-shaped aircraft to the press – but the story never appeared. Was it a prank, a hoax, an optical illusion or something else entirely?
www.theguardian.com
Very interesting article, I wonder what happened to the photographers? I would take the men in black bit with a pinch of salt.
Last edited:
Are you aware of how stupid you look?
You bumped the thread with a post about how Mick West was apparently wrong again, (after you’ve called him a scammer, liar, fraud and god knows what else)
You then link a report that basically backs up 99% of what Mick West himself was saying!
You then start arguing with others who’ve also pointed this out, wtf
Last edited:
yea for example
"I am a self replicating probe, I was launched from earth on February 11th 2025I can travel at the speed of light and replicate a new probe once per day, those new probes also replicate once per day.how many earth years would it take to map the whole universe?"
people don't realise how big the universe is. the odds of encountering another species even if we live a billion years if probably slim to none.
the closest possibly earth like planet is only 4.24 -15 billion light years away..... and they would have to exist at the same time as us which is probably slim to no chance.
The odds of us surviving long enough and being able to leave this planet before it dies probably isn't great either.
chatgpt isn't even that convinced we will survive after the earth is no longer habitable.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 432
My own view is these aren't alien craft, but craft from a different time period. Or at least using downed tech from other time periods.
I only look stupid to someone who doesn't understand the facts and evidence.Are you aware of how stupid you look?
You bumped the thread with a post about how Mick West was apparently wrong again, (after you’ve called him a scammer, liar, fraud and god knows what else)
You then link a report that basically backs up 99% of what Mick West himself was saying!
You then start arguing with others who’ve also pointed this out, wtf
Since you seem to need a breakdown of events.
- Mick West posted a debunk about it being a balloon drifting in the wind at sub 40mph
- You, Felon said it’s a balloon and another time a duck at low speed.
- I said its more likely a militry grade drone or similar.
Yet somehow you think I am the stupid one and somehow you twisted the report into the opposite to what it says and instead think this report demolished everything I said and backs you up.
Go on explain to me this magical species of Duck of yours that fly’s at 13,000 feet at speeds of 162mph which is 92mph above windspeed and off direction from the wind and moves like a militry grade drone while also having the same shape as a drone. Explain to me how this report demolished everything I said about the object possibly being a militry grade drone.
Explain to me how Mick West can say it’s a balloon at 40mph drifting in the wind. But somehow this report showing the object moving at a peak of 162mph off direction from the wind doesn’t debunk Micks Balloon idea. A balloon would be in the direction of the wind not off direction and for sure not 92mph faster then the wind.
Last edited:
Y’know, you could just say…
“Sorry guys, I was wrong all along”
I’m sure we’d all be willing to bury the hatchet
