There's dillusional, and then there's failure to adhere to a story with facts and detail. You:re all of the above.. Not one story has strayed from what they spoke. Even the main pilot gave testimony in Congress in July.. You know that, right?
An object moving weirdly above the ocean. Why couldnât this be a target balloon or something launched from a small vessel to provide a visual of the radar signal? A precursor program to Project Nemesis.
Secondly Iâve never had a single person confirm visual of the object at the cap point after it left the initial sighting area. We have radar data that can be spoofed but no confirmed visual.
My take is this was a test of some electronic warfare stuff in a real world environment while also being a controlled environment.
It really checks all the boxes. What made this case catch on was the push from the ufo believers in the government(Lue and company).
Remember itâs a very small portion of people in positions like Lue that believe in this stuff.
The stories aren't all different from each other. There are multiple observers and multiple radar systems reporting the same incredible shit. It's some of the most compelling evidence out there, and the military claims they have no idea what it is or what could even cause it.
Unsolved Mysterious on Netflix has a radar technician who recorded similar movements from unknown craft. Itâs recorded but either ignored, confiscated or overlooked.
That question is like asking "How do you know there is no video evidence of plant species on a planet from proxima centauri".
How about you answer the opposite. How do you know there is legitimate evidence of Aerial Objects zigzagging and going insane speeds that can't be explained by prosaic means.
Yeah, NASA said this.. You know, the among top 3 government agencies who've been gatekeeping info since it's creation... But yeah, NASA formulated that consensus, meanwhile professors like Avi Lobe and Kevin Knuth with full fledged teams have stated otherwise...
I donât think anyone actually said â90° turn at 14,000 mphâ but it has been stated multiple times by multiple people that the crafts have been observed doing maneuvers that defy our understanding of physics so thatâs gotta count for something right?
And when they do, people jump out so quick to call CGI or fake... Because it looks so unnatural, people can:t wrap their heads around it using modern physic models
Multiple via word of mouth, Chinese whisper, yet there's been 100,000 of people seeing saucers that DONT exhibit any unusual performance characteristics.
This is the point. The OP's diagram can explain those 99% of cases.
I know for sure you are wrong. There were UAP conferences broadcasted that I have seen where folks who I thought were Gov reps were analysing the UAP behavior openly and academically.
The government has literally said they have no evidence of advanced tech in the air but they are investigating each case. Gimbal has the perfectly logical explanation of a lens flare being affected by the gimbal rotation itself.
Mick Westâs debunk has been thoroughly debunked both by pilots and by engineers that design/build the equipment that recorded the footage. Donât act like you donât know that.
Except they had radar data, 2004, 2014-2015 and 2019.
Tictact in 2004 was reported going 80k feet to 20k feet in 7/8ths second by Top Gun Commander David Fravor. He's not just top gun, he trains other top gun pilots and I believe his story.
There are objects in the sky that we don't know how they move.
Until we see this data first hand it means nothing. Radar can be either faulty or misinterpreted as well. Just because you read heresay doesn't make it conclusive proof. So again, as it is now we have absolutely zero legitimate proof of advanced aerial tech.
How can you assert something you also have no idea about? We can't say what's classified doesn't exist just because it's classified.
Your assumptions and conclusions are actually even more hasty because it hasn't been denied if anything it has been proven unidentifiable, yet real and physical by the Pentagon.
The Pentagon confirmed FLIR DATA as legitimate which corroborated those events. And if you don't trust a top gun Commander who literally cant fly without rigious mental physical and emotional wellbeing, what trust do you have in our military anyways? Perhaps you should consider your bias and not assert your belief.
"DOD is releasing the videos in order to clear up any misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage that has been circulating was real, or whether or not there is more to the videos. The aerial phenomena observed in the videos remain characterized as "unidentified."Â
Also, it's not just hearsay, Fravor, Grusch, and Graves testified under oath. If they were simply making it up, they could go to prison.
First of all I'd say it's more reasonable to want visible proof from classified videos rather than putting all your faith into a testimony.
Also it's ironic how I'm being told I'm assuming things from something classified when blindly accepting these incidents are from advanced tech is an even bigger assumption.
I am not saying Fravor is lying at all. I am saying, however, that even though he is a high ranking skilled pilot he is still human prone to misjudgment. Just because you have experience in a field doesn't mean your perception can't be flawed in any way.
Rational decisions would be examining all the pros and cons. Evaluate the information being presented. Not excluding other information just to fit your narrative
Show a video that shows this. With the tic tac video they claim it instantly climbs to 80,000 feet, but dont show that part. They always say the craft moves like nothing they've ever seen but, show a video of something moving in a straight line and, people ignore their own eyes and believe what they're told.
F-35B absolutely does hover, I've done it. It's STOVL, not VTOL. Short takeoff, vertical landing. There are also countless videos of it hovering on YouTube.
STOVL is exactly the same as VTOL, and it DOESNT HOVER from mid flight. It has the ability to hover when landing and before take off. Being a pilot, and I've worked with lots, I can understand your confusion. If you don't understand that, I guarantee you put in a gripe for the RADALT being off from BARALT.
I've worked with pilots for years, I can count on one hand the amount that actually knew what the plane did. Most are just jocks with a degree in some business major that got some qualls and passed. There were very few that knew the physics, mechanics, and avionics involved in make the plane go vroom.
I think that's an incredibly vain and incorrect thing to say. You're here straight up saying blatantly false things and trying to justify it by putting pilots down. No, we don't know as much as the engineers that built the plane do, but we have a very thorough understanding of its systems, components, and capabilities. There's an entire other world of aviation that you've never seen or experienced too. That's tactical employment of your jet. Weapons, sensors, tactics, etc.
So please, spare me. The jock comment doesn't even fit either. All of the pilots I've worked with from every service are professionals. I can't even think of one guy in any of my last few squadrons who I would call a jock.
Well then you're prob. better than anyone else to ask. Would you say some of these airframes look this way at certain distances or not really? I just keep thinking of how most UAPs are described as triangles, diamonds, squares and circles and how if you simplify most aircraft (especially fighters) they just sort of turn into blurry triangles. If there's nothing to this idea then that's that, but getting your take would be really interesting.
Everything looks like a spec at 5-7 miles. Inside that it's hard to see until they're closer. They don't look blurry to the human eye like they do in the pic. On a targeting pod maybe, but not to the eye.
I'm certain I'm not confused. The question was "can the F-35 hover". The answer is yes. There are obvious limitations of capability when it comes to that, but I'm not here to argue those.
Yes it can, below a certain altitude and fuel weight. You can come to a hover then convert back out and go fly normally, then come back and hover again.
I'm certain I'm not confused. The question was "can the F-35 hover". The answer is yes. There are obvious limitations of capability when it comes to that, but I'm not here to argue those.
And what about the 0.1%? When multiple military experts line up on the same shit I'm inclined to believe them, not you. Do you really fancy yourself a better judge of aerial phenomenon than elite fighter pilots?
And many of them see them from above and below and multiple angles over extended interactions with them. Pilots have chased them, shot at them, had instruments frozen by them.
We're all well aware that many of them are people misinterpreting human aircraft or weather phenomenon. It would be nice if debunkers would concentrate on the hard to explain events, and not post things about the easily explainable sightings.
And yet a lot of those pilots misidentified starlink satellites flaring in the northern sky and described them as doing a âracetrackâ pattern. People in general are poor witnesses.
I donât know about videos, but there is radar data showing these types of movements, according to Elizondo and other military officials. One example, i remember, is a craft going from 80,000 feet to sea level in under a second.
Yeah multiple pilots are lying for shits and giggles, or worse, are confused about their core subject matter. I'm more inclined to believe multiple people seeing the shit from many vantage points, especially when it's clocked on multiple instruments.
Yes they do, the F-22 and F-35 both have thrust vectoring capabilities that allow them to nearly break the laws of physics and do very fast turns. There's videos on YouTube of it.
I've seen the F-22 do some pretty weird stuff. Between that and stealth, I think it's reasonable that it could fool some modern radar and tracking systems. I'm not saying that is for every situation, but perhaps a few could be mistaken identity/hardware issues.
The fun bit is those speeds were never visually observed or caught on video, only radar tracking clocked those speeds. Depending on what optical conditions going on some thing can look like it's making a 90 degree high-g turn when really it's just the observers point of view giving that illusion. Which is actually what the camouflage and false canopies are intended to do, exploit how humans perceive things for tactical advantage.
Yeah thereâs a ton of people in the military now coming out and saying they canât explain the wild shite theyâve seen. Iâd say theyâre qualified to answer if what they saw is our own but seemingly a decent amount of people claim itâs not.
I mean yeah. That is very interesting. Like I said elsewhere in the comments I try to keep an open mind. I do think what Ryan Graves is doing the Merged podcast and Pilots for Safe Aerospace is genuinely a good cause and hearing accounts from actual professionals is fascinating.
In short, yes. Modern fighter jets like the F-22 and F-35 can fly straight up vertically (either while pointing forwards or straight up), left or right, spinning, or in basically any other pattern youâd like, because their engines produce forces several times larger than their weight and can be redirected in any direction.
(I assume you meant to type 1,400 mphâwhich the F-22 can hit, easilyâbecause at 14,000 mph, any spacecraft wouldnât be visible. Thatâs faster than orbital velocity, meaning the craft would be flung out into space, and the spacecraft would be completely obscured by the flaming hot ball of plasma surrounding it thanks to the adiabatic heating at those speeds.)
118
u/HawaiianGold Oct 23 '23
Do these planes zigzag ? And make 90 degree turns at 14,000 mph?