Ray Santilli made millions off that film, it took 10 years for him to admit it was fake but was a staged reconstruction of footage he claimed to have viewed yet never produced one frame of the so-called original
Even Star Treks Jonathan Frakes made $700k just to be the host of the film, when are people going to wake up and realize this UFO crap is just a money making scheme!
Transparency which leads to more data would be necessary to be able to better evaluate given data.
It could lead to being able to differentiate between something that's an in-camera artifact and something that's real. It could lead to being able to differentiate between something that's close and something that's further away. Or something that's moving due to the camera moving or actually moving in reality. Or being able to verify that two observations are observing the same thing.
In an ideal world we'd have telemetry data for all this (as would be done in scientific observations), but obviously military or civilian devices aren't going to be instrumented in such a way as to gather all the necessary data, but it still would be helpful to have all the relevant data that there is.
If that means establishing a way to flag such data for being stored for later disclosure sure.
If nothing else it would help differentiate between stuff that's actually interesting and misinterpretation of mundane phenomenon.
Because ultimately if I find a hoof print in my yard it COULD be evidence of a unicorn, or a zebra, but it's probably not, but if I have more data that shows it couldn't be a horse that's more interesting.
The Gimbal UFO explanation presented by Mick West turns out to be false. At this point if his "debunking" video is still live, he is actively spreading misinformation and knows it.
the gimbal ufo explanation presented by mick west turns out to be false. At this point if his "debunking" video is still live, he is actively spreading misinformation and knows it.
That's 20 minutes I'll never get back. A lot of obfuscation and distraction in trying to explain something that really is irrelevant to trying to dispute the Nimitz events, considering there were multiple witnesses, in multiple planes and ships, and not just FLIR camera data. Far be it that anyone should question the amazing work done Mick West, especially without a peer reviewed article to question his "findings." Oh wait, we can.
Is this likely to change minds or even consider that Mick West is a hack of epic proportions? No. Not at all. The skeptic community has done its job in making anyone who questions their dogma as being "whackadoodle." From Dr. Knuth's own publication.
"4.0 Conclusions
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. Even though older sightings are less reliable, observations of seemingly similar UAPs go back to well before the era of flight [1]. Collectively, these observations strongly suggest that these UAVs should be carefully studied by scientists [9,10,11,12,13].
Unfortunately, the attitude that the study of UAVs (UFOs) is “unscientific” pervades the scientific community, including SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) [34], which is surprising, especially since efforts are underway to search for extraterrestrial artifacts in the solar system [35,36,37,38,39], particularly, on the Moon, Mars, asteroids [40], and at Earth-associated Lagrange points. Ironically, such attitudes inhibit scientific study, perpetuating a state of ignorance about these phenomena that has persisted for well over 70 years, which is now especially detrimental, since answers are presently needed [41,42,43,44,45,46]."
From a physicist who does real science, including finding ways of discovering exoplanets. Amazing stuff, considering there are no peer reviewed articles out there (don't go down the SETI or METI rabbit holes to debunk this myth).
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
What were you doing? We both know you wouldn’t spend more than 20 seconds on West.
See, there's the difference between you and I. I will sit through this stuff and weigh what it presents, even if it is obfuscation, nonsense, and general noise. I'll even allow you to dismiss large swaths of research with unsubstantiated claims of false memories. I'll play along to try and see where you're coming from. But I'm not going to fall for a whole bunch of garbage about gimble tracking, that is really irrelevant when we're taking about the enormity of the data in question. This isn't just about a FLIR gimbal video. This is about a target that the pilot had eyes on, that another pilot and his rear had eyes on, that the radar operators from other vessels had tracking data on, and that the ballistic defense network had tracking data on. The gimbal angle is noise and attempt to cloud the fact that a target is doing things beyond the capability of any machine ever observed.
From the linked "peer reviewed paper" on the event, where the radar operator provided details that "skeptics" like West just gloss over and try to make disappear with stories of technical difficulties with FLIR.
"Senior Chief Kevin Day informed us that the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) radar systems had detected the UAPs in low Earth orbit before they dropped down to 80,000 feet [23]. The objects would arrive in groups of 10 to 20 and subsequently drop down to 28,000 feet with a several hundred foot variation, and track south at a speed of about 100 knots [23]. Periodically, the UAPs would drop from 28,000 feet to sea level (estimated to be 50 feet), or under the surface, in 0.78 s."
Low earth orbit is between 80 and 2000 km from the surface. That's 262,500 to 6,562,000 feet above the surface. We have craft that can travel into this orbit, powered by chemical rockets, but they can't re-enter the atmosphere with the speed and control captured by radar. Then the drop from 28,000 feet to the way below the hard deck (50 feet!) in under a second. The math Dr. Knuth uses shows the velocity of the object peaking at 46,000 MPH or 74,000+ KPH. The power required to generate such velocities of a craft, similar in size to the F/18 Super Hornet tracking the UAP, would be 1,100 GW, or all the nuclear energy used by the United States in one year, but multiplied by a factor of 10. Anyone have that type of technology? Anyone close to that type of technology?
But let's focus on gimbal tricks and haloes caused by IR. Don't focus on the totality of the evidence, just try to focus on a minor data point and try to create confusion that casts a cloud over the event. Classic obfuscation. Classic denialism.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
See, there's the difference between you and I. I will sit through this stuff and weigh what it presents, even if it is obfuscation, nonsense, and general noise. I'll even allow you to dismiss large swaths of research with unsubstantiated claims of false memories. I'll play along to try and see where you're coming from. But I'm not going to fall for a whole bunch of garbage about gimble tracking, that is really irrelevant when we're taking about the enormity of the data in question. This isn't just about a FLIR gimbal video. This is about a target that the pilot had eyes on, that another pilot and his rear had eyes on, that the radar operators from other vessels had tracking data on, and that the ballistic defense network had tracking data on. The gimbal angle is noise and attempt to cloud the fact that a target is doing things beyond the capability of any machine ever observed.
From the linked "peer reviewed paper" on the event, where the radar operator provided details that "skeptics" like West just gloss over and try to make disappear with stories of technical difficulties with FLIR.
"Senior Chief Kevin Day informed us that the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) radar systems had detected the UAPs in low Earth orbit before they dropped down to 80,000 feet [23]. The objects would arrive in groups of 10 to 20 and subsequently drop down to 28,000 feet with a several hundred foot variation, and track south at a speed of about 100 knots [23]. Periodically, the UAPs would drop from 28,000 feet to sea level (estimated to be 50 feet), or under the surface, in 0.78 s."
Low earth orbit is between 80 and 2000 km from the surface. That's 262,500 to 6,562,000 feet above the surface. We have craft that can travel into this orbit, powered by chemical rockets, but they can't re-enter the atmosphere with the speed and control captured by radar. Then the drop from 28,000 feet to the way below the hard deck (50 feet!) in under a second. The math Dr. Knuth uses shows the velocity of the object peaking at 46,000 MPH or 74,000+ KPH. The power required to generate such velocities of a craft, similar in size to the F/18 Super Hornet tracking the UAP, would be 1,100 GW, or all the nuclear energy used by the United States in one year, but multiplied by a factor of 10. Anyone have that type of technology? Anyone close to that type of technology?
But let's focus on gimbal tricks and haloes caused by IR. Don't focus on the totality of the evidence, just try to focus on a minor data point and try to create confusion that casts a cloud over the event. Classic obfuscation. Classic denialism.
Traveling at 100 knots at 28,000 feet is not easy. Way too slow for most airplanes and helicopters would struggle getting there if they could. Yet there's a whole fleet of them.
Kevin Day said in the interview I posted way above in this thread that he also had eyes on it using the ships powerful binoculars. The fact that they couldn't identify the tracks, he says, bothers him to this day. That was his whole purpose in the navy, identify all air tracks within a certain distance of the carrier group.
I would agree that to not understand that the Tic tac incident, with Fravor and Day and all the others that were there and spoke about it, was an encounter with a highly advanced intelligently controlled aircraft, is denialism. Mind was made up long ago.
The Following User Says Thank You to karl262 For This Useful Post:
Isn't West's video just providing evidence that certain elements of the occurance are explainable by camera movements/glare that hide the actual object?
Feels like the reaction doesn't really match the conclusion made in the video.
Good point karl. Stall speed of a loaded F/18 is around 135 knots. That's when it falls out of the sky. Traveling along at 100 knots at that altitude is impressive enough, but the jump to mach 60 is literally unheard of. That is twice the speed of escape velocity. To be able to do both is beyond our technical innovations. We're all hot and bothered about hypersonic weapons (up to mach 8), and this tic tac would lap those things several times on a trip around the globe. The ability to go slow AND go fast are very different beasts and this device displayed a mastery of both.
Good point karl. Stall speed of a loaded F/18 is around 135 knots. That's when it falls out of the sky. Traveling along at 100 knots at that altitude is impressive enough, but the jump to mach 60 is literally unheard of. That is twice the speed of escape velocity. To be able to do both is beyond our technical innovations. We're all hot and bothered about hypersonic weapons (up to mach 8), and this tic tac would lap those things several times on a trip around the globe. The ability to go slow AND go fast are very different beasts and this device displayed a mastery of both.
Or telemetry and visual reports were tricked by the same affect.
It’s easy to hand wave the physics problems with “alien technology we don’t understand” and then say what was observed is physically possible. In general you don’t see things like lack of sonic boom meaning no air was displaced by this ship moving. What kind of deviance in the realm of imagination and the edges of theoretical physics could do this. Why didn’t this ship rip itself apart.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
An interesting write-up on Congress' actions with regards to deliverables from the National Defense Authorization Act and the setup of the new Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG).
I can't help but notice how Senators Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) have been pushing this file hard in the last 12 months.
Note the following is editorial-forward but does cover some of the basics and interesting points:
"... President Biden signed the 2022 Omnibus Bill spending package on March 15th 2022, which now provides funding for quarterly UAP classified reports and a new Congressional office, yet to be named, which will be dedicated to the intelligence gathering on UAP.
Congressional motivation to control the narrative on the now unavoidable realization reached from the classified report is evident in its obvious urgency.
Lawmakers have now covered more ground on UAP in the last nine months than in the last 75 years, which is both historic and somewhat unsettling.
Congressional lawmakers, having seen high-resolution videos of UAP, which influenced the language now ratified in the NDAA, forced them to draw some inescapable conclusions even if it’s not on the official record, yet.
The widely covered addition to the NDAA which includes inquiries into nuclear weapon site incursions and biological effects suffered by military and aerospace personnel within close proximity to UAP is just the tip of the iceberg."
Ultimately observations trump theory, so if you observe something that violates your theory you have to change your theory.
HOWEVER you have to make sure your observations are legitimate first. You have to eliminate all potential sources of error. You have to be able to differentiate between slow and close and fast and far. Between subject motion and camera motion.
This is hard enough to do in controlled environments sometimes, and the plural of anecdote isn't data. It's a necessarily high bar.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Or telemetry and visual reports were tricked by the same affect.
Hahahaha. Keep telling yourself that. Went from skepticism, past cynicism (did not collect $200), and directly to pure denialism. Every piece of technology failed at the same time in the same manner. Every personal account was a false memory. Everything that identified the craft and presented the same data are all wrong. All righty then.
Quote:
It’s easy to hand wave the physics problems with “alien technology we don’t understand” and then say what was observed is physically possible. In general you don’t see things like lack of sonic boom meaning no air was displaced by this ship moving. What kind of deviance in the realm of imagination and the edges of theoretical physics could do this. Why didn’t this ship rip itself apart.
Great question. There are lots of theories. The answer is we don't know. Just like we don't know everything about our universe or physics itself, even though there are tons of people who have deluded themselves into believing we do.
As Dr. Knuth stated in his "peer reviewed" article, "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. Even though older sightings are less reliable, observations of seemingly similar UAPs go back to well before the era of flight. Collectively, these observations strongly suggest that these UAVs should be carefully studied by scientists."
I know plenty of scientists, including a couple of very famous (one now infamous) physicists/cosmologists who are very open to the possibility of us being wrong, and acknowledge their approach is on what we "currently" know, but that can quickly change. The sad thing is it is people like West that make taking these questions head on more difficult. He has no expertise but that doesn't stop him from pushing people willing to consider these questions as wingnuts, which drive scientists - who live off their reputation - away from taking on the unexplainable and challenge what we think we know. Dr. Knuth concluded, "Ironically, such attitudes inhibit scientific study, perpetuating a state of ignorance about these phenomena that has persisted for well over 70 years, which is now especially detrimental, since answers are presently needed."
Apparently asking questions or presenting competing theories to something undetermined is denialism?
I’m not sure any reasonable person would agree with that and I’m not sure what the constant condescension and combativeness from one poster does to make this thread more interesting, as I don’t really see why these discussions need to be dramatic. I think it’s interesting hearing the differing stories of Fravor/Day/Underwood and others who were there for that specific event as well as West giving reasonable explanation for certain elements of it.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
