Navy pilots describe encounters with UFOs - 60 minutes

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

156 posts in, and you have still not once tried to discredit the more logical explanations. Because you have no interest in listening or reading said explanations. Because you prefer fantasy land whether it's real or not.

You are also free to post any other unexplained incident. I will give you a logical explanation. You will keep your fingers in your ears for said explanation.

Repeat ad nauseum.

Something for you to consider. Let's hypothetically say that extra-terrestrial life never visited Earth. Nor that new technology is not being hidden by governments etc. Do you think in that case that there would never be such videos as in the OP? Never be witnesses saying they saw this and that to other incidents?

There are people who believe the current pandemic is a hoax. Let's say I ask such people, if and when a real pandemic happens in the future, whether there would still be people saying that that real pandemic was a hoax, what do you think there answer would be?

The explanation have just birds. You overlook the fighter cockpit footage that's establishes it is a solid actual thing of mass, high in the sky. What bird can dive 80,000 feet ( to sea level in a couple of seconds? Warships tracked the level fall on military radar. Fravor and multiple decorated pilots saw an object with a surface above the ocean not a birdl. Fravor took his plane down to have a further look, the object did a turn, and climbed rapidly in his direction, therefore had a closer study of the object. Chad Underwood a pilot who was involved in the same training exercise with Fravor captured footage of unknown high in the sky, later that day. Is the same bird playing games with them at different times of the day?

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

The explanation have just birds. You overlook the fighter cockpit footage that's establishes it is a solid actual thing of mass, high in the sky. What bird can dive 80,000 feet ( to sea level in a couple of seconds? Warships tracked the level fall on military radar. Fravor and multiple decorated pilots saw an object with a surface above the ocean not a birdl. Fravor took his plane down to have a further look, the object did a turn, and climbed rapidly in the direction, therefore had a closer study of the object. Chad Underwood a pilot who was involved in the same training exercise with Fravor captured footage of unknown high in the sky, later that day. Is the same bird playing games with them at different times of the day?

Every time you post claiming that you read the logical explanation, you give away in your first sentence or two that you did not read that explanation. I did not overlook anything, you did, and anyone who actually took the time to read those explanations is aware that nothing you have said here contradicts said explanations.

Just admit that you have no interest in considering logical explanations. It's fine, I can tell that's the case by the fact that you have ignored my other questions. I can then move on to other threads and have discussions with critical thinkers.

SortingYouOut

I'm looking forward to greeting our new alien friends of flying to New York in 5 minutes, once the government allow this technology to go mainstream. It's fascinating to think there could be something else out there or technology like this existing. Call me a fool, but it tickles my childhood self and I'll rue the day I lose that last bit of wonder within me.

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

Every time you post claiming that you read the logical explanation, you give away in your first sentence or two that you did not read that explanation. I did not overlook anything, you did, and anyone who actually took the time to read those explanations is aware that nothing you have said here contradicts said explanations.

Just admit that you have no interest in considering logical explanations. It's fine, I can tell that's the case by the fact that you have ignored my other questions. I can then move on to other threads and have discussions with critical thinkers.

The logical human explanation? An object dropping 80,000 feet and coming to a stop at sea level in 1 to 2 seconds. What technology have we can do that? The only other logical explanation is the existence of a breakaway civilization, somehow leaped human science,by hundreds of years or perhaps thousands of years? I don’t see any other explantation to explain the performance of the vehicles. That kind of acceleration would kill a human pilot the G- force dropping that high (space) to sea level think about it. Military Drones are not capable of this performance.

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

The logical human explanation? An object dropping 80,000 feet and coming to a stop at sea level in 1 to 2 seconds. What technology have we can do that? The only other logical explanation is the existence of a breakaway civilization, somehow leaped human science,by hundreds of years or perhaps thousands of years? I don’t see any other explantation to explain the performance of the vehicles. That kind of acceleration would kill a human pilot the G- force dropping that high (space) to sea level think about it. Military Drones are not capable of this performance.

Again, first one or two sentences gives away that you did not read the explanation.

I have asked this question several times. It's a yes or no question. Have you read the explanations I linked to or not? It's a simple question.

You have stated the object is a similar size to that of a jet, is that correct?

Overheal

I like to think it might be something exciting, like aliens, but of course that could just be over rationalizing.

“Ma’am a giant head in the sky is controlling the weather. Did you wanna play checkers? Let’s be rational, I’ll see you at gods house!”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb_hQP-ejbA

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, first one or two sentences gives away that you did not read the explanation.

I have asked this question several times. It's a yes or no question. Have you read the explanations I linked to or not? It's a simple question.

You have stated the object is a similar size to that of a jet, is that correct?

These three videos distributed by ATTIP.

Two videos apply to the UFO incident occurred in 2015.

The third video is the Nimitz UFO incident 2004.

Fravor considers the vehicle he saw, the size of small commercial airplane. Witnesses pilots have not disputed this.

The GO fast video claim you make is a bird. There an object on video autotracked at a high distance by a F/A-18 Super Hornet . There no way to identify how big the phenomenon was since the plane autotracking it at 25,000 feet. Its seem to be heading at a steady pace across the water. It might not be moving fast, as it appears, the video shows the hornet moving at 300knots. Object does not appear to be at speeds that are evidence of alien visitation. There typical flight ranges.

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

These three videos distributed by ATTIP.

Two videos apply to the UFO incident occurred in 2015.

The third video is the Nimitz UFO incident 2004.

Fravor considers the vehicle he saw, the size of small commercial airplane. Witnesses pilots have not disputed this.

The GO fast video claim you make is a bird. There an object on video autotracked at a high distance by a F/A-18 Super Hornet . There no way to identify how big the phenomenon was since the plane autotracking it at 25,000 feet. Its seem to be heading at a steady pace across the water. It might not be moving fast, as it appears, the video shows the hornet moving at 300knots. Object does not appear to be at speeds that are evidence of alien visitation. There typical flight ranges.

I don't see an answer to either question that I asked. I even made things easy for you by making both questions yes or no.

Would you like to try that again? Or would you prefer to further demonstrate a lack of critical thinking by going off on another tangent?

I'm just looking for two words in your response, and there is only two possibilities for what those two words are. Shouldn't be too difficult.

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see an answer to either question that I asked. I even made things easy for you by making both questions yes or no.

Would you like to try that again? Or would you prefer to further demonstrate a lack of critical thinking by going off on another tangent?

I'm just looking for two words in your response, and there is only two possibilities for what those two words are. Shouldn't be too difficult.

Two words?

Pages back in the thread you said the GO fast object was a bird. You already gave an opinion. Not down to me to second guess your feelings. What other explantations have you posted, have i missed?

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

Two words?

Pages back in the thread you said the GO fast object was a bird. You already gave an opinion. Not down to me to second guess your feelings. What other explantations have you posted, have i missed?

Yep, thank you for confirming that I am indeed talking to a wall.

Here are the two yes or no questions I asked.

1) Did you read the explanations that I linked to?

2) Do you believe that that object is the size of a jet?

Just reply yes or no to both. Nothing more.

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

Yep, thank you for confirming that I am indeed talking to a wall.

Here are the two yes or no questions I asked.

1) Did you read the explanations that I linked to?

2) Do you believe that that object is the size of a jet?

Just reply yes or no to both. Nothing more.

huh?

You linked to a chat area on the web with users posting about the subject and posting links. This is not an official study.

An explanation they gave for go Fast it was a bird. An explanation you agreed with or am i missing something:eek:

I never said GO fast object was the size of a jet.

I said the Tic Tac above the water was the size of a small jet according to Fravor. An incident in 2004, not 2015 when the go-fast incident occurred.

The chat room discusses the Chad underwood footage (flir 1) again this is not video of the Gimbal UFO from 2015. Its footage from 2004.

iceage

Anybody have any ideas about the sonar contacts reported during the incident? There appeared to be sub surface activity that took place during one of these encounters.

Cheerful S

iceage wrote: »

Anybody have any ideas about the sonar contacts reported during the incident? There appeared to be sub surface activity that took place during one of these encounters.

There is speculation doing the rounds the vehicles can fly and move through water. There going to be revelations about submarine encounters with unknowns.

Beechwoodspark

Until I see clear footage I have no interest in the various stories and speculation.

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

huh?

You linked to a chat area on the web with users posting about the subject and posting links. This is not an official study.

An explanation they gave for go Fast it was a bird. An explanation you agreed with or am i missing something:eek:

I never said GO fast object was the size of a jet.

I said the Tic Tac above the water was the size of a small jet according to Fravor. An incident in 2004, not 2015 when the go-fast incident occurred.

The chat room discusses the Chad underwood footage (flir 1) again this is not video of the Gimbal UFO from 2015. Its footage from 2004.

Incredible. Just incredible. The sheer lack of critical thinking by some people is just mind boggling at times.

The post in which you said the object is the size of a jet is here. This is a response to this post which is itself a response to this post.

You are therefore implying that the object in this image is the size of a jet.

If you had read the links that I had provided, which you evidently haven't, you will have realised that what you believe to be a video from 2004 and 2015 are in fact the same video taken about 10 minutes apart. Both have the same PRF code (1688) and PRF codes are assigned to specific aircraft for specific missions.

Next, did I mention anywhere that anything was an official study? If you believe that it is not credible because it's not official, then you should have no problem pointing out the mistakes in the analysis, shouldn't you? And yet no, you haven't.

Did I ask you what you believe the size of an object was, or what someone else believed?

Let me try one more time, and let me hold your hand while doing so.

1) Have you read any of the following three analyses? (1) (2) (3) I am not asking if they are official, if they are credible etc. I am not asking you anything else with this question. If you have read one or more of them in full, reply yes to this question. If you have not read one or more in full, reply no to this question.

2) Do you believe that the object seen in this image is approximately the size of the jet? If you believe it is, reply yes. If you believe it is significantly larger or smaller, reply no. Nothing more.

iceage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqY7cbvP-yo&t=4660s

Mystery solved.

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

Incredible. Just incredible. The sheer lack of critical thinking by some people is just mind boggling at times.

The post in which you said the object is the size of a jet is here. This is a response to this post which is itself a response to this post.

You are therefore implying that the object in this image is the size of a jet.

If you had read the links that I had provided, which you evidently haven't, you will have realised that what you believe to be a video from 2004 and 2015 are in fact the same video taken about 10 minutes apart. Both have the same PRF code (1688) and PRF codes are assigned to specific aircraft for specific missions.

Next, did I mention anywhere that anything was an official study? If you believe that it is not credible because it's not official, then you should have no problem pointing out the mistakes in the analysis, shouldn't you? And yet no, you haven't.

Did I ask you what you believe the size of an object was, or what someone else believed?

Let me try one more time, and let me hold your hand while doing so.

1) Have you read any of the following three analyses? (1) (2) (3) I am not asking if they are official, if they are credible etc. I am not asking you anything else with this question. If you have read one or more of them in full, reply yes to this question. If you have not read one or more in full, reply no to this question.

2) Do you believe that the object seen in this image is approximately the size of the jet? If you believe it is, reply yes. If you believe it is significantly larger or smaller, reply no. Nothing more.

Your interpretation of it. Right after I clarified for you what i meant. Read your quoted post and then notice my reply from yesterday, not from today.
Not my fault you did not take it in at this point.

I even said from a height the object looks smaller.



.

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

Your interpretation of it. Right after I clarified for you what i meant. Read your quoted post and then notice my reply from yesterday, not from today.
Not my fault you did not take it in at this point.

I even said from a height the object looks smaller.



.

Eh, no. You said I mixed things up. Did I mix things up, or did you mix things up?

And I assume you're going to just ignore everything else I said in my last post like you usually do?

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh, no. You said I mixed things up. Did I mix things up, or did you mix things up?

And I assume you're going to just ignore everything else I said in my last post like you usually do?

From yesterday; You said not the size of a jet- the object is 1-2 metres long.

I replied to it that's the Go fast video.

Unless I'm wrong i gave a response that i understand your point. Maybe we got our wires crossed. In that reply, i not rejecting your argument about the size of the object.. I even said people looking at the video claim it's a bird. From the height, the object looks smaller..

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

From yesterday; You said not the size of a jet- the object is 1-2 metres long.

I replied to it that's the Go fast video.

Unless I'm wrong i gave a response that i understand your point. Maybe we got our wires crossed. In that reply, i not rejecting your argument about the size of the object.. I even said people looking at the video claim it's a bird. From the height, the object looks smaller..

I am not responding to anything else you say until you answer my two very basic yes/no questions that you have dodged about a dozen times now. If you do not answer these questions yes or no, I will simply assume that you are a troll and will reply to whatever response you give by simply copying and pasting this post.

1) Have you read any of the following three analyses? (1) (2) (3) I am not asking if they are official, if they are credible etc. I am not asking you anything else with this question. If you have read one or more of them in full, reply yes to this question. If you have not read one or more in full, reply no to this question.

2) Do you believe that the object seen in this image is approximately the size of the jet? I am not asking you what video this is from, whether you got mixed up etc. I am asking you, right now, whether you, and not anyone else, believes that the object in this image is the size of a jet?

I expect only two words in the response.

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

Incredible. Just incredible. The sheer lack of critical thinking by some people is just mind boggling at times.

The post in which you said the object is the size of a jet is here. This is a response to this post which is itself a response to this post.

You are therefore implying that the object in this image is the size of a jet.

If you had read the links that I had provided, which you evidently haven't, you will have realised that what you believe to be a video from 2004 and 2015 are in fact the same video taken about 10 minutes apart. Both have the same PRF code (1688) and PRF codes are assigned to specific aircraft for specific missions.

Dishonest take on what I said in this thread.

Post from yesterday. Where do I claim the Gimbal and Go Fast occurred at different years? If i said Gimbal was 2004 footage please highlight it.

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

Dishonest take on what I said in this thread.

Post from yesterday. Where do I claim the Gimbal and Go Fast occurred at different years? If i said Gimbal was 2004 footage please highlight it.

1) Have you read any of the following three analyses? (1) (2) (3) I am not asking if they are official, if they are credible etc. I am not asking you anything else with this question. If you have read one or more of them in full, reply yes to this question. If you have not read one or more in full, reply no to this question.

2) Do you believe that the object seen in this image is approximately the size of the jet? I am not asking you what video this is from, whether you got mixed up etc. I am asking you, right now, whether you, and not anyone else, believes that the object in this image is the size of a jet?

I expect only two words in the response.

silverharp

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Until I see clear footage I have no interest in the various stories and speculation.

I want a reg number damit

Thunderf00t did a couple of good videos on it, basically birds and the Parallax phenomenon explain it

If anything the US airforce releasing these is showing off to their enemies how good their radar tech is. If they can lock on to a bird 2km away while flying near the speed of sound, your plane or missile doesn't stand a chance

PokeHerKing

silverharp wrote: »

I want a reg number damit

Thunderf00t did a couple of good videos on it, basically birds and the Parallax phenomenon explain it

If anything the US airforce releasing these is showing off to their enemies how good their radar tech is. If they can lock on to a bird 2km away while flying near the speed of sound, your plane or missile doesn't stand a chance

Yeah but they're also admitting their pilots dont know the difference between birds, planes or missiles. Not exactly the flex you think it is.

Hamsterchops

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder are you Mick West's evil twin, as you don't cut posters any slack at all, you just slap them down if they don't agree with you!

I have asked the same poster two simple questions that I can be answered yes or no about a dozen times and they have refused to do for whatever reason. So don't worry, I am giving this troll plenty of slack. But thank you for your concern.

PokeHerKing

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Yeah but they're also admitting their pilots dont know the difference between birds, planes or missiles. Not exactly the flex you think it is.

No they aren't.

silverharp

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Yeah but they're also admitting their pilots dont know the difference between birds, planes or missiles. Not exactly the flex you think it is.

you are assuming they are telling the truth , anything connected to military or spy agencies should be taken with a grain of salt. Disinformation is one of their main jobs

PokeHerKing

Deleted User wrote: »

No they aren't.

Yes they are if all these incidents are birds and parralex etc. That is exactly what they're doing. I mean one of their most decorated pilots can't tell the difference according to you and your debunking blogger.

PokeHerKing

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Yes they are if all these incidents are birds and parralex etc. That is exactly what they're doing. I mean one of their most decorated pilots can't tell the difference between a tic tac and a balloon.

No, they are not suggesting that a pilot can't tell the difference between a bird and a plane. They are asking whether a pilot can ascertain in real time whether something like this is a bird or a plane.

And the answer is yes, they can, but only if they work it out. They can do this in the cockpit but this pilot, for whatever reason, jumped to the conclusion of what it was before doing the math, likely due to the excitement of the moment.

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

1) Have you read any of the following three analyses? (1) (2) (3) I am not asking if they are official, if they are credible etc. I am not asking you anything else with this question. If you have read one or more of them in full, reply yes to this question. If you have not read one or more in full, reply no to this question.

2) Do you believe that the object seen in this image is approximately the size of the jet? I am not asking you what video this is from, whether you got mixed up etc. I am asking you, right now, whether you, and not anyone else, believes that the object in this image is the size of a jet?

I expect only two words in the response.

You can not force people to answer you. with two-word responses.

Links and contact are Parabunk.

Their perspectives are to debunk the findings.. On Parabunk they say TSSA never claimed, the videos are of accidents 10 minutes apart. Officially, only confirmed established known is the videos are from 2015. Conjecture is not facts, you assume facts since it's on a skeptic site.

I can have viewpoint the Gimbal video, of a craft that looks like the size of a jet just like this site says the go fast object is a bird. There opinions.

What's undeniable ,the cockpit footage shows a large object, flying, that rotates on its side. Flir experts have come out and said it's impossible for the pod to rotate an object on its own. If that were to happen the entire scene would rotate and did not happen. The object is itself rotating. Debunkers keep denying what the experts are telling them.

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

You can force people to answer you. with two-word responses.

Links and contact are Parabunk.

Their perspectives are to debunk the findings.. On Parabunk they say TSSA never claimed, the videos are of accidents 10 minutes apart. Officially, only confirmed established known is the videos are from 2015. Conjecture is not facts, you assume facts since it's on a skeptic site.

I can have viewpoint the Gimbal video, of a craft that looks like the size of a jet just like this site says the go fast object is a bird. There opinions.

What's undeniable ,the cockpit footage shows a large object, flying, that rotates on its side. Flir experts have come out and said it's impossible for the pod to rotate an object on its own. If that were to happen the entire scene would rotate and did not happen. The object is itself rotating. Debunkers keep denying what the experts are telling them.

1) Have you read any of the following three analyses? (1) (2) (3) I am not asking if they are official, if they are credible etc. I am not asking you anything else with this question. If you have read one or more of them in full, reply yes to this question. If you have not read one or more in full, reply no to this question.

2) Do you believe that the object seen in this image is approximately the size of the jet? I am not asking you what video this is from, whether you got mixed up etc. I am asking you, right now, whether you, and not anyone else, believes that the object in this image is the size of a jet?

I expect only two words in the response.

PokeHerKing

Deleted User wrote: »

No, they are not suggesting that a pilot can't tell the difference between a bird and a plane. They are asking whether a pilot can ascertain in real time whether something like this is a bird or a plane.

And the answer is yes, they can, but only if they work it out. They can do this in the cockpit but this pilot, for whatever reason, jumped to the conclusion of what it was before doing the math, likely due to the excitement of the moment.

On one of your links your blogger says that there's conflicting reports of where one of the events he was trying to debunk occurred.

One official said it was off the east coast and another said it was off the florida coast. Last time I checked a map florida was the east coast. So not conflicting at all.

Its pretty obvious the blogger is doing exactly what you're accusing everyone else of, who doesn't agree with you. He's already made up his mind and is working backwards from that.

PokeHerKing

PokeHerKing wrote: »

On one of your links your blogger says that there's conflicting reports of where one of the events he was trying to debunk occurred.

One official said it was off the east coast and another said it was off the florida coast. Last time I checked a map florida was the east coast. So not conflicting at all.

Its pretty obvious the blogger is doing exactly what you're accusing everyone else of, who doesn't agree with you. He's already made up his mind and is working backwards from that.

He is pointing out that there are two different sources that state that that video was taken on the east coast and that it is therefore very likely taken on the east coast. He is not suggesting that one source is saying something different to the other.

But yes, good! You are reading the links! Let us know when you are done and what mistakes you have found with the analysis.

Cheerful S

silverharp wrote: »

you are assuming they are telling the truth , anything connected to military or spy agencies should be taken with a grain of salt. Disinformation is one of their main jobs

Pilots and crews onboard Navy ships witness the sightings. The sightings are occurring at a new rate (we assume) that’s alarming to them. There's also a possibility the government knows something big about to happen soon and getting out ahead of the narrative before it’s too late.

You want to control the panic and ease citizens into the new reality, think? It’s actually is curious the opennesses of the US government about this topic. Fly on the wall in the DOD and at secret government facilities to figure this all out.

PokeHerKing

Deleted User wrote: »

He is pointing out that there are two different sources that state that that video was taken on the east coast and that it is therefore very likely taken on the east coast. He is not suggesting that one source is saying something different to the other.

But yes, good! You are reading the links! Let us know when you are done and what mistakes you have found with the analysis.

I read them yesterday before I disengaged you. They're a mix of math equations, conjecture and thinly veiled attempt to claim the whole thing is a military conspiracy. They are not proof of anything. I'm unsure why a genius like yourself has such a hard on for them but i guess they're telling you what you want to hear.

PokeHerKing

PokeHerKing wrote: »

I read them yesterday before I disengaged you. They're a mix of math equations, conjecture and thinly veiled attempt to claim the whole thing is a military conspiracy. They are not proof of anything. I'm unsure why a genius like yourself has such a hard on for them but i guess they're telling you what you want to hear.

Yes, they are in fact proof.

The maths uses the data that is on the screen in the videos. It is not complicated maths and a leaving cert student can tell you that there is no mistake with the maths. There is only one way to use that data to calculate the size of the object, the speed of the object etc. Upon doing so, the results disagrees with what the pilots believe they are seeing in the video.

Therefore, the pilots are wrong. You are refusing to believe that because, quite frankly, it's the boring answer.

PokeHerKing

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, they are in fact proof.

The maths uses the data that is on the screen in the videos. It is not complicated maths and a leaving cert student can tell you that there is no mistake with the maths. There is only one way to use that data to calculate the size of the object, the speed of the object etc. Upon doing so, the results disagrees with what the pilots believe they are seeing in the video.

Therefore, the pilots are wrong. You are refusing to believe that because, quite frankly, it's the boring answer.

No my choices are simple. I either believe you and your debunked buddy. Or I believe the US military/government and eye witness accounts from their pilots.

I choose the latter. If these things were so easily disprove d or explained with leaving cert maths then these pilots are lying and the US military is facilitating it. You realise that's a conspiracy and you're the one pushing that narrative yes?

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, they are in fact proof.

The maths uses the data that is on the screen in the videos. It is not complicated maths and a leaving cert student can tell you that there is no mistake with the maths. There is only one way to use that data to calculate the size of the object, the speed of the object etc. Upon doing so, the results disagrees with what the pilots believe they are seeing in the video.

Therefore, the pilots are wrong. You are refusing to believe that because, quite frankly, it's the boring answer.

Aristotle
Parabunk site says the object’s altitude is close to the plane. Everyone else is wrong the object, not at low altitude. The F/A 18 altitude is 25,000 feet. In the video- see the ocean waves moving in the background. It’s a visual clue that object just above the ocean.

Another problem, the object was at 25,000 feet the same altitude as the F/A 18, they would zoom in on the object and there be better clarity. It very hard to make out detail. Math can be wrong, if you basing it off a video.

PokeHerKing

PokeHerKing wrote: »

No my choices are simple. I either believe you and your debunked buddy. Or I believe the US military/government and eye witness accounts from their pilots.

I choose the latter. If these things were so easily disprove d or explained with leaving cert maths then these pilots are lying and the US military is facilitating it. You realise that's a conspiracy and you're the one pushing that narrative yes?

No, this is not your options.

Your options are that the witnesses are correct, or that fundamental mathematics is incorrect. Those are your only two options.

Since you are choosing to ignore the opinion of, modesty aside, an expert in mathematics, on what is basic mathematics, you are describing nothing but a conspiracy. You are free to ask any leaving cert student or anyone with basic grasp in mathematics if the mathematics is wrong. You can post the link to the mathematics forum on Boards and ask the experts there if they can find any flaws. Do anything you like.

But you won't do that. You won't put that 30 seconds of effort in. Because you don't actually care about what the answer is. You only care about your opinion being right and nothing more. Confirmation bias in a nutshell.

Your second paragraph is absolutely comical and I hope it's sarcasm for your sake.

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

Aristotle
Parabunk site says the object’s altitude is close to the plane. Everyone else is wrong the object, not at low altitude. The F/A 18 altitude is 25,000 feet. In the video- see the ocean waves moving in the background. It’s a visual clue that object just above the ocean.

Another problem, the object was at 25,000 feet the same altitude as the F/A 18, they would zoom in on the object and there be better clarity. It very hard to make out detail. Math can be wrong, if you basing it off a video.

1) Have you read any of the following three analyses? (1) (2) (3) I am not asking if they are official, if they are credible etc. I am not asking you anything else with this question. If you have read one or more of them in full, reply yes to this question. If you have not read one or more in full, reply no to this question.

2) Do you believe that the object seen in this image is approximately the size of the jet? I am not asking you what video this is from, whether you got mixed up etc. I am asking you, right now, whether you, and not anyone else, believes that the object in this image is the size of a jet?

I expect only two words in the response.

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

1) Have you read any of the following three analyses? (1) (2) (3) I am not asking if they are official, if they are credible etc. I am not asking you anything else with this question. If you have read one or more of them in full, reply yes to this question. If you have not read one or more in full, reply no to this question.

2) Do you believe that the object seen in this image is approximately the size of the jet? I am not asking you what video this is from, whether you got mixed up etc. I am asking you, right now, whether you, and not anyone else, believes that the object in this image is the size of a jet?

I expect only two words in the response.

Have you read the analysis?


I responded to the information in the image.

PokeHerKing

Deleted User wrote: »

No, this is not your options.

Your options are that the witnesses are correct, or that fundamental mathematics is incorrect. Those are your only two options.

Since you are choosing to ignore the opinion of, modesty aside, an expert in mathematics, on what is basic mathematics, you are describing nothing but a conspiracy. You are free to ask any leaving cert student or anyone with basic grasp in mathematics if the mathematics is wrong. You can post the link to the mathematics forum on Boards and ask the experts there if they can find any flaws. Do anything you like.

But you won't do that. You won't put that 30 seconds of effort in. Because you don't actually care about what the answer is. You only care about your opinion being right and nothing more. Confirmation bias in a nutshell.

Your second paragraph is absolutely comical and I hope it's sarcasm for your sake.

You're saying that the US military and government did not apply basic leaving cert maths to an incident with a UAP in their airspace. Youre comical. Youre a complete joke tbh. I'm disengaging again. Enjoy your night.

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

Have you read the analysis?


I responded to the information in the image.

1) Have you read any of the following three analyses? (1) (2) (3) I am not asking if they are official, if they are credible etc. I am not asking you anything else with this question. If you have read one or more of them in full, reply yes to this question. If you have not read one or more in full, reply no to this question.

2) Do you believe that the object seen in this image is approximately the size of the jet? I am not asking you what video this is from, whether you got mixed up etc. I am asking you, right now, whether you, and not anyone else, believes that the object in this image is the size of a jet?

I expect only two words in the response.

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

1) Have you read any of the following three analyses? (1) (2) (3) I am not asking if they are official, if they are credible etc. I am not asking you anything else with this question. If you have read one or more of them in full, reply yes to this question. If you have not read one or more in full, reply no to this question.

2) Do you believe that the object seen in this image is approximately the size of the jet? I am not asking you what video this is from, whether you got mixed up etc. I am asking you, right now, whether you, and not anyone else, believes that the object in this image is the size of a jet?

I expect only two words in the response.

Give it rest posting the same questions.

I’m answering you.

They debunking the video because they believe the trigonometry, shows this object was closer to the plane at 25,000 feet. The argument off to an inauspicious start when Mick West even admits here on video starting at 14.22 the object 11 hundred feet above the ocean :eek:

The Parabunk analysis is flawed. Just watching the video, you can see the object is flying above the water.

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

Give it rest posting the same questions.

I’m answering you.

They debunking the video because they believe the trigonometry, shows this object was closer to the plane at 25,000 feet. The argument off to an inauspicious start when Mick West even admits here on video starting at 14.22 the object 11 hundred feet above the ocean :eek:

The Parabunk analysis is flawed. Just watching the video, you can see the object is flying above the water.

You are not answering me. You have not answered two very easy questions, even though I have asked them ad nauseum.

I will gladly answer any questions you have, once you answer these two very basic questions. If you continue to not answer my questions, but then continue to ask me questions, you are admitting that you are nothing but a troll.

1) Have you read any of the following three analyses? (1) (2) (3) I am not asking if they are official, if they are credible etc. I am not asking you anything else with this question. If you have read one or more of them in full, reply yes to this question. If you have not read one or more in full, reply no to this question.

2) Do you believe that the object seen in this image is approximately the size of the jet? I am not asking you what video this is from, whether you got mixed up etc. I am asking you, right now, whether you, and not anyone else, believes that the object in this image is the size of a jet?

I expect only two words in the response.

Hamsterchops

Looking forward to some HD UAP pictures, as I'm sure we're all fedup looking at blurred B&W pictures taken with infra red cameras by the US Navy.

We demand clarity, that's what we want in the June report, so no more fuzzy nondescript images of shapes that are impossible to figure out.

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

You are not answering me. You have not answered two very easy questions, even though I have asked them ad nauseum.

I will gladly answer any questions you have, once you answer these two very basic questions. If you continue to not answer my questions, but then continue to ask me questions, you are admitting that you are nothing but a troll.

1) Have you read any of the following three analyses? (1) (2) (3) I am not asking if they are official, if they are credible etc. I am not asking you anything else with this question. If you have read one or more of them in full, reply yes to this question. If you have not read one or more in full, reply no to this question.

2) Do you believe that the object seen in this image is approximately the size of the jet? I am not asking you what video this is from, whether you got mixed up etc. I am asking you, right now, whether you, and not anyone else, believes that the object in this image is the size of a jet?

I expect only two words in the response.

Question 1. You believe they explained the videos, with analysis.

I read it yes.

I even highlighted a selected quote from the links provided. You just refusing at the current moment to answer me.

Again.. Parabunk claims the object closer to the plane's altitude. This is just plain wrong. Why believe they're right about other details?

I reinforced this viewpont, free from bias. For more clarity he's a debunker who debunks conspiracies about aliens.
Mick West, acknowledges, object 11 hundred feet above the Ocean.

Parabunk believing the plane just under the plane wing carriage at a similar altitiude of 25,000 feet. Whos right?

Since you linked this, assumed wrongly every last detail was correct.

Question 2.
Do i think its the size of a jet.
Probably, but i did not have eyes on view of object myself. Its a guess, i admit.
The smaller objects the saucers, tic tacs, oval shaped craft are described as 40 feet long.
Of course the Gimbal object could be smaller or bigger.
I don't believe its a balloon or a bird or a human build jet.

Wedwood

The Pentagon are delivering a declassified report on UFOs to the US Senate next month, hence the renewed interest in these videos. It’s interesting to think we’re possibly a few days away from having official confirmation by the US government of the existence of UFOs.

Would make an interesting time to live in, Environmental crisis, global pandemic, wars, arrival of aliens. Makes the 60’s seem boring !!

Cheerful S

Just saw this new video on a website. Weird as hell. The girl comment at 5.37 sums up this video perfectly!

Cheerful S

Wedwood wrote: »

It’s interesting to think we’re possibly a few days away from having official confirmation by the US government of the existence of UFOs.

Already confirmed this. Just waiting for a report with more information.

Listen to Elizonda words at 44 seconds.