UFOs and Aliens

Hensmon

Admin
TranceFix Crew
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,202
Thanked
779
Location
UK
@Gagi, It was just a passing example, I never said the Harvard physicists claims were proof. Dmgtz was asking why no respectable physicist was saying these things or releasing papers, so I wanted to show that isn't the case. I've never read his paper, I don't have a concrete opinion on if he's right or wrong about it being an alien craft. Still its interesting due to his credentials. I would assume he took into consideration the things your brought up.

In that original post I actually make the point that academic professors were not in a great place or position to make claims, as they don't have equipment needed to study the random aerial phenomena in our atmosphere.
 
Last edited:

Gagi

Archon
TranceFix Crew
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,717
Thanked
995
Location
Serbia
Fair enough. I just think that we need to exhaust all possible (simpler, more probable) theories before we arrive at the most extraordinary one and say it's the aliens. And it can't be lazy, there needs to be tons of research before that can happen.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Hensmon and dmgtz96

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
486
Thanked
352
Right, whilst my PC is rendering lets delve into the counter counter counter counter argument. because why no.

I’ve already, in relation to the 1-8 “facts” you reference, made the case that all of those are depended on what the pentagon filtered before release. For which you or any Ufologist cannot rule out 1 external or interal manipulation, or 2 straight made-up for (political) agenda’s such as funding for research or military development… which is still far more likely than physics breaking down.

The podcast link is a reference to the Nimitz encounters in 2004 which is also cited as a case in the paper. So I’ll go in deeper in on that case later, concerning the pilots story itself: Testimonial evidence is just too weak evidence when extraordinary/physics breaking evidence is required, its just not good enough sorry.

as for the paper itself:

quick side note on MDPI’s Entropy, the journal its published in: Entropy is, to be charitable, a questionable tier science Journal with a whopping IF of 2.4, not exactly what you would call stellar.. and who’ve been on previous occasions critized for pseudo-science and quote “doing anything for money” with articles making the claim that a “spiritual environment” affects the development of cancer cells…right…sufficed to say they don't publish high profile quality research papers like the one’s you see in Nature or Science. So we’re already not off to a brilliant start. Personally I think (but that’s my opinion) that they hitch a ride on the popularity of open access journals..but hey..then again at least they don’t do Noetic science articles as far as I can find in 5 min google.

Its essentially a backwards physics calculation of case studies that for the majority depend on said testimonial evidence, and in some cases radar or visual data, aswell as the assumption that they are in fact objects/vehicles exhibiting those features, with uncertainties being assigned to the data and/or pilot witness error by the authors. (and youtube links as sources in some cases..lol) .

But that’s not even all, Non of the case studies in the article actually are empirically researched on whether or not it actually IS a UFO/Alien object, its just the base assumption so as to run the calculations. Which is fine in itself, happens in science papers all the time, nice example being the paper by Michael Alcubierre, but make no mistake, this is not an evidence of Alien UFO’s paper. It’s a, what would the physics be it if we assumme thats the case, paper. And as such...fine.

Concerning the Nimitz encounter case study specifically (as I’m not going to go through all the case studies and it being the most “credible” and recent), there are far more mundane and non-pseudoscientific explanations available other the aliens including things like Parallax. Sub-Reconnaissance drones being interpreted by radar, Camera glare in the footage etc. On top of inconsistencies in the stories of the (newbie) pilots (How can someone see what a forty-foot object was doing from forty miles away whilst flying in a mach 0.8 jet?)

or from an article by J Nickel:

“we suggest that several things were going on during what was, after all, a training mission of the USS Nimitz carrier strike group. We believe the churning water Fravor first saw was caused by a submerging sub; that the sightings of a UFO above the water (variously reported)—which hovered, then came toward one pilot—could have been those of a reconnaissance drone; that there may have been confusion (then and later) over the object or objects caused by the admixture of visual sightings with infrared video viewing; and, finally, that one video image showing an object suddenly zooming off screen was likely caused by the plane’s banking while the camera was stopped at the end of its sweep. Apparently not only had the incident not been considered serious enough to have warranted a debriefing of Fravor—let alone of the several other pilots and radar operator—but most of the carrier group’s personnel at the time regarded Fravor’s response as laughable. Major McGaha and I regard the entire incident not as evidence of an extraterrestrial encounter but as a comedy of errors involving the pilots.“

Due to 1,2,3,4 and 5 we can then say without doubt these are real encountered objects, and not geographical phenomena, human illusion or hallucination. So that theory can be ruled out. Each is captured on radar and across multiple instances, these are multiples events, sometimes multiple craft in a single event. Therefore we are left with two options; either everyone is telling the truth and these wingless objects are in fact moving at G-forces far beyond human possibility, with maneuvers that defy physics, OR the individuals and organizations involved are lying about what they’ve witnessed and the collected data too.

Wrong, we can doubt that, reasonably and in fact very much. Its highly unlikely that these are (mass) object behaving the way they do. Even if the institute providing the claim isn’t perse lying on the data sets. Why aren’t you for instance not accounting for say, as of yet unmapped quantum phenomena? Please explain to us why that’s less likely than “therefor magic alien spacecraft”? so no, that theory can’t be ruled out. Neither can things like Black swann mass instrument malfunction, coïnciding with mass hallucination... Which are both however unlikely, still a magnitude more likely than magic Alien spacecrafts breaking physics, .


However it's said that without the ‘lying’ variable in your argument you guys would be forced to concede that these craft are indeed Alien
No thats a fallacy. we wouldn't..and might I note that you're somewhat engaging in religious fundamentalists reductionist reasoning when they say: “well if it can’t be explained by science then you MUST concede that its God!"

We would at best concede nofkyo, your assumption however, that its extraterrestrials visiting us and breaking reality in the manner that you propose...is something that needs to be proven with more then "testimonials" and radar blips... since its all the way up the latter of unlikelyhood, I would argue that the chances of us living a computer simulation and those phenomena being part of program glitches or the admin checking in, are statistically more likely.


unless you think it possible that humans have invented craft that can move at 1000’s of Gs?

No, i don't think thats possible, Why do you think aliens as opposed to that somehow CAN do it though? what makes them so special that they don't have to follow the physical laws that govern this universe? and if they somehow could invent it. then why is that possibility excluded for humans precisely?

That’s why I keep bring it up. A debate against alien visitation must first work with ‘they are lying’ as the primary hypothesis. Either the multiple data sets are correct or they are not.
Correct.. and multible data sets being wrong or altered for whatever reason at least doesn’t break reality in the manner that an non air displacing 1000 G mass object does and is such more likely then all of physics out the window.

I know some of you touched on it already, but I would like to know in (somewhat) detail what kind of theory you would put forward to explain specifically why they would collectively lie about all of this, and then what evidence you could find to support it. That’s a genuine ask, not an attempt be me to be facetious (I think a plausible theory could possibly be made).

...you need a theory written for you as to why powerfull governmental and militairy bodies might lie?..

well.. ok then.

1 Humans lie. I don’t think that’s disputable.
2 Humans are hierarchical creatures by nature who, form tribes, institutions, governments etc.
3 within said hierarchies (and the power they try hold or gather in opposition to their peers) lies are usefull tools for among which but not limited to, political or financial gain. (like funding for a new research or military program)
4 Evidence to support that:
1971 pentagon papers,
“we have found weapons of mass destruction in Irak”
Guantanamo bay torturtes that allegedly never happened,
and more recently Flynn.

there, now please hand me my nobel price for the "why governments might lie" theory please :LOL:

Regarding the astronauts Mitchell and Cooper. Attributing there cases to hallucinations/brain farts/visual tricks is not relevant with Mitchel and very unlikely with Cooper.

Yup, I agree, its unlikely. But its still more likely than thermodynamics out the window.

The fact that the man is very very sure, and absolutely claims it and has no doubt. And some other pilots maybe saw something too doesn't on top of that eve rule out visual tricks, memory reconsolidation, hallucination under stress etc. especially not in favor of alien objects breaking physics.

you really believe him ok. I don’t..since the chances of him being factually correct and physics being broken is less than the alternative.
 
Last edited:

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
1,263
Thanked
622
as for the paper itself:

quick side note on MDPI’s Entropy, the journal its published in: Entropy is, to be charitable, a questionable tier science Journal with a whopping IF of 2.4, not exactly what you would call stellar.. and who’ve been on previous occasions critized for pseudo-science and quote “doing anything for money” with articles making the claim that a “spiritual environment” affects the development of cancer cells…right…sufficed to say they don't publish high profile quality research papers like the one’s you see in Nature or Science. So we’re already not off to a brilliant start. Personally I think (but that’s my opinion) that they hitch a ride on the popularity of open access journals..but hey..then again at least they don’t do Noetic science articles as far as I can find in 5 min google.
Just a heads up, but the paper from Abi Loeb (Harvard professor) was published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, which has an IF of 8.198. You can read the paper here or on arxiv. The paper you are referencing is from a different academic (iirc State University of New York?). I'll be honest, it's a bit strange to see someone referencing the Pythagorean theorem in a scientific paper, and it felt more like a homework/final exam problem instead of a rigorous scientific analysis. I'll give him credit in that he accounted for possible errors in the eye-witness reports, which is why he gave us upper bound and lower bounds for the results.
At one point, Entropy did have a reputation as a predatory journal. That went away in 2015, but its impact factor is still not good.


Back to the Entropy paper: in the discussion section, the author states
That being said, it should be strongly emphasized that proving that something is extraterrestrial is extremely difficult, even if one had a craft in hand. One might imagine that the presence of unidentifiable, or incomprehensible, technology would constitute potential evidence. However, it would not rule out the fact that it could have been created by someone on Earth. The purpose of this paper is not to prove the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis, but instead to focus on the flight kinematics of these UAVs with the aim of building up a body of scientific evidence that will allow for a more precise understanding of their nature and origin

In conclusion,
It is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions at this point regarding the nature and origin of these UAVs other than the fact that we have shown that these objects cannot be of any known aircraft or missiles using current technology. We have characterized the accelerations of several UAVs and have demonstrated that if they are craft then they are indeed anomalous, displaying technical capabilities far exceeding those of our fastest aircraft and spacecraft. It is not clear that these objects are extraterrestrial in origin, but it is extremely difficult to imagine that anyone on Earth with such technology would not put it to use.

Ultimately, the whole purpose of the paper was to:
  • Calculate upper and lower bounds for the acceleration of the aircraft based on several assumptions and considering human eyewitness/estimation error
  • Encourage more serious scientific research with respect to unidentified aerial vehicles
In my opinion, the author never sought to "prove that aliens exist," and I would say the paper accomplishes what it set out to do, even if it was published on a somewhat sketchy open access journal.
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: Gagi and jetflag

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
486
Thanked
352
yeah I agree. which is why I concluded with
It’s a, what would the physics be it if we assume thats the case, paper. And as such...fine.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmgtz96

Hensmon

Admin
TranceFix Crew
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,202
Thanked
779
Location
UK
OK nice post @jetflag, will attempt to simplify your points.

The pilot testimonials could be explained by one the following;

A. Lies that are part of a larger or personal conspiracy
B. They all saw a reconnaissance drone (or other unknown tech)
C. They all witnessed a unknown phenomena or visual phenomena
D. They all mass hallucinated or were ticked visually at the same time
E. An actual vehicle is moving in the way the data and testimonials describes

The multiple data sets either;

A. Lies that are part of a larger conspiracy
B. Mass malfunctions
C. From rare phenomena or potentially unmapped quantum phenomena
D. An actual vehicle moving in the way the data and testimonials describes

Did I get everything? I stacked them in order of what I assumed you would order by the likely hood. Would you agree with that ordering?



Regarding the paper - Once again I never said the paper alone is proof. Papers have been asked for a few times so I’m providing it here. The author has a PHD in Physics and published many papers, he seemed worthy enough to share. It outlines the cases well, accounts for pilot errors and outlines various data points. IF (please see the ‘IF’) the data is NOT fabricated for a conspiracy, it becomes a good piece of evidence to towards understanding if the mass malfunction theory might be true, and if not giving us insight into what would be a rare or new quantum phenomena.

You are right at @dmgtz96 the paper sets out to calculate acceleration of the objects, (it also corroborates parts of the pilots testimonials using the data), and it puts those calculations as beyond human capacity, hence why the authors conclusions point to the alien hypothesis (like COMETA and Avi Leob). Of course they don’t claim their paper alone is outright proof, just that its the most likely conclusion for them based on the data they have. Of course this a moot point if the data is indeed fabricated, from mass malfunction or the analysis of a unknown phenomena.

Maybe a little unfair to use the IF score as a criteria in the debate? Avi Leobs paper IF score would put it in the top 5% of papers, but didn’t seem to mean much, at least to dmtg and Gagi. If this one was a perfect score I think it would be the same response.
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: jetflag and dmgtz96

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
1,263
Thanked
622
Maybe a little unfair to use the IF score as a criteria in the debate? Avi Leobs paper IF score would put it in the top 5% of papers, but didn’t seem to mean much, at least to dmtg and Gagi. If this one was a perfect score I think it would be the same response.
I never implied that the Avi Loebs paper "didn't mean much." We actually haven't discussed the Oumuamua paper at all, though I did look at it before reading his interview.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Hensmon

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
486
Thanked
352
OK nice post @jetflag, will attempt to simplify your points.

The pilot testimonials could be explained by one the following;

A. Lies that are part of a larger or personal conspiracy
B. They all saw a reconnaissance drone (or other unknown tech)
C. They all witnessed a unknown phenomena or visual phenomena
D. They all mass hallucinated or were ticked visually at the same time
E. An actual vehicle is moving in the way the data and testimonials describes

The multiple data sets either;

A. Lies that are part of a larger conspiracy
B. Mass malfunctions
C. From rare phenomena or potentially unmapped quantum phenomena
D. An actual vehicle moving in the way the data and testimonials describes

Did I get everything? I stacked them in order of what I assumed you would order by the likely hood. Would you agree with that ordering?
Slight adjustment:

A. They saw a reconnaissance drone (or other existing tech) which was misinterpreted
B. They witnessed known phenomena which was misinterpreted. (sort of on equal footing with A)
C. They (mass) hallucinated or were ticked visually at the same time
D Lies that are part of a larger or personal conspiracy

At this point I would also from a narrative perspective find a combination of two or more of the above possible, it doesn't have to be a single point.

E. They all witnessed an actual unknown/ unmapped phenomena or visual phenomena
F. We live in a simulation and those are the glitches in the matrix
G. An actual Alien vehicle is moving in the way the data and testimonials describes.
H. God dundiddit.

The multiple data sets either;

A. Known tech/equipment which was misinterpreted
B. Known phenomena which was misinterpreted (sort of on equal footing with A)
C. (mass) malfunctions/Ghost in the machine (including external interference)
D. Lies that are part of a larger conspiracy

At this point I would also from a narrative perspective find a combination of two or more of the above possible, it doesn't have to be a single point.

E. rare phenomena or potentially unmapped quantum phenomena
F. We live in a simulation and those are the glitches in the matrix
G. An actual vehicle moving in the way the data and testimonials describes
H. God dundiddit.


Regarding the paper - Once again I never said the paper alone is proof. Papers have been asked for a few times so I’m providing it here.

Maybe a little unfair to use the IF score as a criteria in the debate? Avi Leobs paper IF score would put it in the top 5% of papers, but didn’t seem to mean much, at least to dmtg and Gagi. If this one was a perfect score I think it would be the same response.

Thats a My bad on my part then, I assumed you did.. (and thanks for sharing anyways, it was a good read)
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Hensmon and dmgtz96

Hensmon

Admin
TranceFix Crew
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,202
Thanked
779
Location
UK
@jetflag I am surprised as drone being your most likely, either way I will address that first.

So this object, pulling right angle maneuvers at 100’s of G-force, confirmed by multiple radars, is actually moving normally, but tricking or interfering with the different systems to make it believe that’s the case? How then can we explain the multiple pilot accounts corroborating exactly what that data is indeed telling us happened. The drone is also giving off no engine plumes, heat signature or air disturbances from its movements... that's impossible?

A reminder of one of the quotes from US intelligence on this case

“That case [Nimitz] was phenomenal because there were multiple witness' and so many different censor systems, that were verifying independently the visual reporting. There were multiple radars, infrared systems, perfect viewing conditions, multiple aircraft and all of the data agrees that these craft are doing things we thought weren’t possible”
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: jetflag

Juna

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2020
Messages
125
Thanked
69
How can be drone tech when it is the size of an aircraft carrier? The one in Pheonix is on the radar across different places in the state with thousands reports across the places saying 'big big big motherfucker'. It move silently and fly great speeds but with no sounds coming out. So why they fly super tech over major civ American city like Pheonix? I don't think the Americans can make drone ship this size in 1997. And then in 2004 they decide to make it look like a small white pill, and sometimes like a metal flying classic UFO disc, also like a triangle with glowing lights? How many these secret drone tech they got, why so many shapes o_O
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: jetflag and Hensmon

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
486
Thanked
352
coïncidently , this came out yesterday: well worth the watch and it delves into a lot of the "but its banking at ridicioulous speed" claims aswell as explaining things like paralax. flare etc.

 
Last edited:

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
486
Thanked
352
@jetflag I am surprised as drone being your most likely, either way I will address that first.

So this object, pulling right angle maneuvers at 100’s of G-force, confirmed by multiple radars, is actually moving normally, but tricking or interfering with the different systems to make it believe that’s the case? How then can we explain the multiple pilot accounts corroborating exactly what that data is indeed telling us happened. The drone is also giving off no engine plumes, heat signature or air disturbances from its movements... that's impossible?

its the most likely, -> with a equal footnote on phenomena misinterpretation<- yes. and a quote: "combination of two or more of the above" <--yes.

( I also, to be incredibly smug about it still happen to think its disproportionaly more likely that a couple of pentagon officials are slapping themselves on the knees laughing at their brilliant troll, as well as another 22 billion dollar funding for another AATIP due to overwhealming public support, but that aside for another time..)


also, how is a drone with no engine plumes,, heat signature (which is actually not true, it has a heat signature albeit slim) or visible(!) air disturbances impossible to you.. but Physics breaking aliens isn't?

:unsure:

also, why are you presuposing / it being a single (mass) object, in the entire chain of events/every instance of the encounter (s) , instead of it being, what J Nickel describes as "a comedy of errors"? e.a. multible objects, errors of phenomena in (relative) sync?

Why is that less likely to you as opposed to physics breaking down?
 
Last edited:

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
486
Thanked
352
How can be drone tech when it is the size of an aircraft carrier? The one in Pheonix is on the radar across different places in the state with thousands reports across the places saying 'big big big motherfucker'. It move silently and fly great speeds but with no sounds coming out. So why they fly super tech over major civ American city like Pheonix? I don't think the Americans can make drone ship this size in 1997. And then in 2004 they decide to make it look like a small white pill, and sometimes like a metal flying classic UFO disc, also like a triangle with glowing lights? How many these secret drone tech they got, why so many shapes o_O
can you give me the specific (carrrier) case please?
 

Gagi

Archon
TranceFix Crew
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,717
Thanked
995
Location
Serbia
Some educational stuff from the great Kurzgesagt.

 

Hensmon

Admin
TranceFix Crew
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,202
Thanked
779
Location
UK
also, how is a drone with no engine plumes,, heat signature (which is actually not true, it has a heat signature albeit slim) or visible(!) air disturbances impossible to you.. but Physics breaking aliens isn't?

I put a question mark on impossible as I was asking a question. I am putting it out there. What propulsion system do we have that displays no air intake, air disturbance, no engine plumes and no sonic boom when moving at speeds at least equal to the F18's. Theories available on that? And how then would that propulsion system give off no heat? The video shows it's colder than the ocean behind it. Also we would see varying heat markings on the parts of the craft with the most friction, like the tail or the wings. Since this has no wings or tail (how does it stabilize and this speed btw?), you would see heat signatures at the front where the most friction is, but we don't.

And yes I believe advanced alien races might...just might....have knowledge and technology that exceeds what we know and believe to be true (shocking assumption I know 😛).
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: jetflag

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
486
Thanked
352
I put a question mark on impossible as I was asking a question. I am putting it out there. What propulsion system do we have that ON CAMERA #1 displays no air intake, air disturbance, no engine plumes and no sonic boom when moving at speeds at least equal to the F18's. Theories available on that? And how then would that propulsion system give off no heat? The video shows it's colder than the ocean behind it. Also we would see varying heat markings on the parts of the craft with the most friction, like the tail or the wings. Since this has no wings or tail (how does it stabilize and this speed btw?), you would see heat signatures at the front where the most friction is, but we don't.

And yes I believe advanced alien races might...just might....have knowledge and technology that exceeds what we know and believe to be true (shocking assumption I know 😛).
hehe, fair enough m8,

but can I add a slight change to that in red?

The answer to the #1 addition is: plenty. depending on your camera, from where you're filming how fast you're going when you're filming,what the parallax between you and the object is. ;) hell, you could even think of something as simple as a bird.

however not accounting for #1: There are hypotheticals that don't break physics in the manner that (most) proponents of the Alien UFO theory propose:

One of them involves an autonomous drone with a (again, hypothetical) drive who, via means of room termperature superconductivity and a massive yet micro-sized power source , (such as a couple of microsized 20kW carbon nano tube batteries), creates a massive circulating current to generate a counter magnetic field with enough force to lift something off of earths (weak) magnetic field. ( you would have to be away from the equator though) balance,maneuvering, direction and speed would happen via an internal gyroscope and re-aligning (what is most practially a torus given earths shape) and its physically not that hard to create something cooler then the ocean. just reflect/insulate properly and just direct your heatmarking area away from the camera (as in: show it your butt)

its still far fetched, but there's nothing in physics as we currently know it that theoretically rules that out.

:p
 
Last edited:

Hensmon

Admin
TranceFix Crew
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,202
Thanked
779
Location
UK
Lol ffs @jetflag, a bird!? Picked up on radar by the worlds best systems, followed by a set of F18 pilots who saw it with their own eyes, describing exactly as the thermal imaging camera later details; tic-tac shape, no plumes, no air disturbances, erratic movements + it has the ability to actively jam their radar. Then the third F18 flies in and ALSO captures those exact same things 40 minutes later! As you can imagine it’s an easily laughed off theory just as pilot CMDR Chad Underwood has done (will find that podcast).

Ok so back to the more reasonable argument; So this drone propulsion is hypothetically using a small but insanely powerful drive that generates a magnetic field that power gyroscopic movements. This would explain no heat, no wings, strange movements and also gives it the capability to go faster than the F18 (?). Ok fair enough, it sounds ridiculous but any evidence of that kind of technology, real or hypothesized would be good.

Remember it can also fly at 80,000ft and 0ft. Kevin Day who operated the radar system on the USS Princeton captured multiple of these objects at that height all week…it’s not a single object or incident. The speed of the objects at this height were 150 knots, which is much too slow for that altitude. This data must be false then and another special trick from the drones, who are are actually flying at 80,000ft at the required speeds (faking the 150 knots on the multiple systems all week). It can also fake or cause misreadings on the E2C Hawkeye (who also captured them at 80,000ft and falling to 0ft in 0.78s), fake the high g force data, including the that from the USS Nimitz and Princeton, and also the 3 F18 cameras. The fact that all those ‘fake’ readings coincide what the 4 pilots accounts is just a giant coincidence.

This is all from 2004. We can’t accurately conceive this tech in 2021 and maybe well beyond. Maybe the single greatest technology produced so far by human kind? Why have we never seen anything like this since then? China in 2004 could not do this, neither could Russia. They were behind US military not 30 years ahead.
 

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
486
Thanked
352
Lol ffs @jetflag, a bird!? Picked up on radar by the worlds best systems, followed by a set of F18 pilots who saw it with their own eyes, describing exactly as the thermal imaging camera later details; tic-tac shape, no plumes, no air disturbances, erratic movements + it has the ability to actively jam their radar. Then the third F18 flies in and ALSO captures those exact same things 40 minutes later! As you can imagine it’s an easily laughed off theory just as pilot CMDR Chad Underwood has done (will find that podcast).

Dude..an f18 radar's or even hawkeye radar are not the worlds best radar systems by a longshot m8, :ROFLMAO: They're impressive sure. but You have to remember that they have to cram these things into the nosecone or on top of a serial as-light-as-possible down-the-production-line preferably as cheap as possible airplane, which has to fold as to fit on a sea carrier...It does the job for combat situations.... but its far from an accurate science instrument..and you're still talking about an f18 2 seater jet, where one pilot basically has the back seat/obstructed view, in a multi layered plexiglass bend cockpit, and 1 pilot who never flew an carrier f18 before...claiming "they saw someting odd" -> 40 miles away<- whist traveling at high speed. (and those distances and speed include the camera, moving at the same velocity. And 40 minutes later. an comparative eternity in where al sorts of things in the playing field could change/happen.. ANOTHER f18 also "picked something up"

must be the exact same magical space alien breaking physics!. thats the most likely explanation..

Ok fair enough, it sounds ridiculous but any evidence of that kind of technology, real or hypothesized would be good.

K. I explained what a hypothetical propulsion system would like with the roundabout caracteristics that you described and which wouldn't break phycis. ofcourse I don't have evidence for that, (since its a hypothetical) other then its at least in the realm of physically possible. :)

i can look the calculations up for you if you like? (I don't think its in any way going to pursuade you from your beliefs) but in any case just ask and i'll look it up for you.

Remember it can also fly at 80,000ft and 0ft. Kevin Day who operated the radar system on the USS Princeton captured multiple of these objects at that height all week…it’s not a single object or incident. The speed of the objects at this height were 150 knots, which is much too slow for that altitude. This data must be false then and another special trick from the drones, who are are actually flying at 80,000ft at the required speeds (faking the 150 knots on the multiple systems all week). It can also fake or cause misreadings on the E2C Hawkeye (who also captured them at 80,000ft and falling to 0ft in 0.78s), fake the high g force data, including the that from the USS Nimitz and Princeton, and also the 3 F18 cameras. The fact that all those ‘fake’ readings coincide what the 4 pilots accounts is just a giant coincidence

i've already explained how you're excluding mulbtle seperate events in tandem in favour of "a single thesean object" So i'm not going to do that again: sufficed to say yes. giant coïncidence is still more likely then a magic tic tok aliens,

though, I will hand to you that the chances of the latter aren't absolutly 0, (there's just very close to it)

A radar or camera or eye recording of A horse with three heads! omg amazing! is more often then not just three horses standing next to each other.. ;)

I'll let phill do the further explanation from here on out. apparantly he has an entire series dedicated to the subject. *information hazard applies. (since you're a devout believer)








i'm right, you're wrong lalala can't hear you. Now debate me at the woke topic, which I especially started for you, dammit! 😠

(Ps. that was a joke)
 
Last edited:

Hensmon

Admin
TranceFix Crew
Joined
Jun 27, 2020
Messages
1,202
Thanked
779
Location
UK
I watched the Part 1 video @jetflag and I found it very weak, mainly because it requires ignoring specific bits of the evidence for the bird theory to work. It also works off an assumption that the claims from Pilots, Pentagon, US intelligence and CIA Direcotrs of ET visits, impossible maneuvers and strange characteristics are based ENTIRELY from this clipped footage, which they are not. The belief that ETs are visiting earth is not based off these isolated clips, which he frames his entire argument around.

The videos are supporting evidence that corroborate and work in conjunction with the entire information provided, you cannot cherry pick single aspects to form an argument. The multiple pilot testimonials, the multiple data sets of that day and the multiple data sets of that week are providing a wider situation and context that has to be addressed cohesively and I’m not seeing that at all from the skeptics. I see layers of different and (self proclaimed) highly unlikely individual theories that often don't work together and/or must be layered on top of each other, and that also MUST require all 4 pilots accounts to be ignored on top of that in order to stand a chance of holding up.

Example 1 - ‘its a bird’ - you would have to ignore the 4 pilot eye witness testimonials entirely for that to be true, all of which say without question what they saw is not a bird or balloon and that it jammed their radar. You’d also have to claim that military weapon censors and their data analysts cannot understand what a bird is, which I cannot know for sure, but seems a desperate argument I think, even if the U.S Navy camera and radar equipment in the F18s, USS Nimitz and USS Princeton is not considered ‘the world’s best’ (splitting hairs much lol?).

Example 2 is the GIMBLE video which he claims is likely a piece of falling rocket debris. But the object is not falling (which he observes) and it does not show heat signatures of the friction you would get. He even shows clips of this theorized debris in action and it has massive heat at the nose of fall and huge tails of heat and disturbance at the back…? The video is single unchanging heat with no plume.

I think it’s worth listening to the pilots accounts as a counter to the Youtube guy and other skeptics. They are the professionals with trained observational skills and knowledge of their vehicles, equipment and process and they debunk many of the points you and the video raises pretty easily.


CMDR Chad Underwood - Podcast (skip to 4:10) - He was the third jet scrambled, took the FLIR video (Shortish, explains the chain of events, debunks the sceptics)


CMDR David Fravor

@Gagi if you listen what do you make of their accounts when hearing them in the flesh?
 
Last edited: