Navy pilots describe encounters with UFOs - 60 minutes

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.

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

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.

Great, thank you for (eventually) answering those questions.

Now, let's address what you have said since then. I will address one of your claims in large detail rather than many of your claims in little detail as I feel like that would be most beneficial to you. Note that I am not going to respond to this thread again after this post, nor am I even going to read this thread again, as, honestly, having to resort to explain what has already been explained elsewhere offers me no enjoyment, and I feel I would have to do it again and again.

So, I'll choose the claim that I think you made the most.

Your claim: The altitude of the object is not ~13,000 ft but much much closer to sea level.

Now, let me walk you through the very basic analysis needed to show that your claim is not only incorrect, but it is objectively incorrect. This is a screenshot of the moment when the camera first locks on to the object.

• The number in the red box is the altitude of the aircraft above sea level, i.e. 25,000 feet (or 7,620 metes)
• The number in the green box is the straight line distance from the plane to the object, i.e. 4.4 nautical miles (or 8,149 metres)
• The number in the blue box is angle subtended counter-clockwise from the plane to the object. As the angle is negative, this means that the object is 26 degrees clockwise from the plane to the object, i.e. the object is below rather than above the plane.

Here is a quick representation of what that looks like.



The value of x, i.e. the vertical distance between the plane and the object, can easily be calculated as 8149*sin(26) = 3572 metres. Therefore, the value of y, i.e. the height the object is above sea level, is 7620-3572 = 4,048 metres (or 13,280 feet).

You can also calculate this value at any other point in the video when the object is locked by using the three values in the boxes at that time. For example, the guy on Parabunk also calculates it for the end of the video and obtains a value of 4,062 metres (or 13,326 feet).

If you choose any other point in time when the object is locked, you will always find that the object is above and around 13,000 feet and not close to the ocean as you claim.

Note the most important point of the above. I am not giving you an opinion on what the height of the object is, I am telling you what it is. There is no subjectivity in what I have calculated above and there is therefore no subjectivity in what the height of the object is. Stating that the object is much lower is not an opinion, it is simply an incorrect statement.

Like I said, I will not be returning to this thread again as I believe it is futile. I will leave you to it.

Boggles

Wedwood wrote: »

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 !!

Hamsterchops

Well yes indeed Boggles, we either stay in the make-believe Sci-fi world of Mulder & Scully, or this whole topic moves into the realms of serious scientific study

That's what hinges on the upcoming report which is due out in only a week or two.

AbusesToilets

Wibbs wrote: »

You use "basic logic" in a subjective way and are sheldon cooper level obsessed with this conspiracy angle. Take stealth tech mentioned above. Pretty much all such research and certainly practical research was in the hands of military researchers and what wasn't was a tiny sideshow going unnoticed. The military have the massive budgets and less oversight and fewer blocks to progress so a lot of research is drawn to it. When the F117 came out in public there was a lot of surprise even among aviation industry types and it had been in play in secret from skunkworks prototypes to operational vehicles flying through the air for over two decades. Could civilian researchers or interested aviation nuts have reverse engineered its existence and design from public domain information? Certainly, but it would have been a hard task and few did and even fewer got it right. It stayed "dark" for a remarkably long period. The Aurora project a posited hypersonic spyplane or technology platform has had legs since the mid 90's and has hints like Californian seismic stations tracking sonic booms at high altitudes and at hypersonic speeds heading out over the pacific, a couple of witnesses on a North Sea oil platform(one of whom was a trained airforce observer) observing a large delta winged aircraft being in flight refuelled above them. Whatever it or they were, they remain "dark" down to today.

However I don't buy the black project super secret aircraft with these sightings. That makes no sense, especially for American black projects farting around American naval groups. Don't buy the Russian/Chinese secret weapon stuff either. That's a near meme among militaries throughout history that the enemy has some secret stuff going on. It's sometimes true, but rarely enough, and when true usually wildly inaccurate. EG WW2 "Foo fighters". The germans did have all sorts of secret often very advanced stuff, but not foo fighters. The whole alien thing is more than a bit dubious too. Travel unimaginable distances using equally unimaginable technology to harass a few planes risking collision and conflict and or probing some housewife from Rhode Island? Eh nope. The unimaginable distances don't particularly trouble me. If Christopher Columbus had seen Concorde his brains would have dribbled out his ears from the shock of it. Hell, a mind like Leonardo DaVinci would have had a very large WTF?? moment. Interstellar travel is likely achievable, we just don't have the physics technology or reasons yet. We might never bother.

I'd look at these releases in the context of the current political posturing between the US and Russia/ China. We're in the midst of fairly heightened tensions at the moment. With the demise of the treaty covering Intermediate ballistic missiles, there's been a deluge of new weapon systems being divulged. Hypersonic missiles left and right. These craft would easily fall into that sphere. The US has past form for that, from Star Wars to the reveal of Stealth aircraft. Putting the US' enemies on notice.

Boggles

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Well yes indeed Boggles, we either stay in the make-believe Sci-fi world of Mulder & Scully, or this whole topic moves into the realms of serious scientific study

That's what hinges on the upcoming report which is due out in only a week or two.

I imagine the report will conjure up far more questions than answers.

But listen, we are looking for other life, it's not beyond the realms of possibility they found us first.

Statically the chances of other life forms not being out there is practically zero.

Are they micro-robes, larger more intelligent beings, or 1000s of years ahead of us and are monitoring us with craft off the east coast of America probably will not be answered in our lifetimes in reality, certainly won't be in a hastily cobbled together report for congress next month.

Interesting times though.

speckle

If I was from off world flying an UAP here...I think I might avoid the human race altogether including naval ships and dive into the sea and communicate instead with intelligent lifeforms such as whales and dolphins and ask them about... 'How are things going on planet earth?'...

From some one who has seen an UAP that has yet to be scientifically explained..roll on next month and hopefully some clarity.
Regards Speckle

Hamsterchops

Must be an amazing experience to actually see an unidentifiable craft though. I'm referring to the eyewitness statements from Cmdr Alex Dietrich, Chad Underwood & Dave Fravor (in particular) who were shocked, amazed, excited and slightly worried about what they had just seen.

To be confronted by a large Tic-Tac shaped craft with no wings, no obvious propulsion system, and that can go from Zero to 10000 MPH in less than a second, and then disappears in a flash!

That must be one hell of an event to witness.

Overheal

I almost drove off the road yesterday to observe a pack of groundhogs so I imagine a flying tic tacs ranks much higher in levels of excitement.

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

Great, thank you for (eventually) answering those questions.

Now, let's address what you have said since then. I will address one of your claims in large detail rather than many of your claims in little detail as I feel like that would be most beneficial to you. Note that I am not going to respond to this thread again after this post, nor am I even going to read this thread again, as, honestly, having to resort to explain what has already been explained elsewhere offers me no enjoyment, and I feel I would have to do it again and again.

So, I'll choose the claim that I think you made the most.

Your claim: The altitude of the object is not ~13,000 ft but much much closer to sea level.

Now, let me walk you through the very basic analysis needed to show that your claim is not only incorrect, but it is objectively incorrect. This is a screenshot of the moment when the camera first locks on to the object.

• The number in the red box is the altitude of the aircraft above sea level, i.e. 25,000 feet (or 7,620 metes)
• The number in the green box is the straight line distance from the plane to the object, i.e. 4.4 nautical miles (or 8,149 metres)
• The number in the blue box is angle subtended counter-clockwise from the plane to the object. As the angle is negative, this means that the object is 26 degrees clockwise from the plane to the object, i.e. the object is below rather than above the plane.

Here is a quick representation of what that looks like.



The value of x, i.e. the vertical distance between the plane and the object, can easily be calculated as 8149*sin(26) = 3572 metres. Therefore, the value of y, i.e. the height the object is above sea level, is 7620-3572 = 4,048 metres (or 13,280 feet).

You can also calculate this value at any other point in the video when the object is locked by using the three values in the boxes at that time. For example, the guy on Parabunk also calculates it for the end of the video and obtains a value of 4,062 metres (or 13,326 feet).

If you choose any other point in time when the object is locked, you will always find that the object is above and around 13,000 feet and not close to the ocean as you claim.

Note the most important point of the above. I am not giving you an opinion on what the height of the object is, I am telling you what it is. There is no subjectivity in what I have calculated above and there is therefore no subjectivity in what the height of the object is. Stating that the object is much lower is not an opinion, it is simply an incorrect statement.

Like I said, I will not be returning to this thread again as I believe it is futile. I will leave you to it.

This not just my position. The US government concluded the object not high. The official documentation on the Go Fast was a fast-moving object above the ocean.

The math you posted here is from Parabunk. It’s a single set of data. They’re trying to work out the height using just a Youtube video.

Skeptics have alternative judgment the object higher, and fine for speculation, but that’s not the US government position and numerous experts disagree to their point on the matter.

The US government has talked with the pilots involved, talked with professionals, and none agree with you. and it's possible the readings on the video are not entirely accurate.

End of the day this bird has no wings and colder than the ocean at 62.6° F (.17 celsius) The object is colder than the ocean. documentation about this event and was recorded switching between the BLK and WHT mode.

A bird's normal temperature 39-43 degrees C (102-109 degrees F) If this was bird in flight it be very warm, not cold.

This an aspect Skeptics overlook is the lack of heat source from the object. There no reference to how it's moving and running. You don't see the glare of an engine.

Regards speed.
The plane moving over 300mph an hour. Listen to the video. The pilot who auto-tracked it, said was a fast-moving target. He trying to acquire it for a while still maintaining his speed. Skeptic says the object only going 50 to 70mph an hour., but that's 5 times slower than the pilot plane.

Cheerful S

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Must be an amazing experience to actually see an unidentifiable craft though. I'm referring to the eyewitness statements from Cmdr Alex Dietrich, Chad Underwood & Dave Fravor (in particular) who were shocked, amazed, excited and slightly worried about what they had just seen.

To be confronted by a large Tic-Tac shaped craft with no wings, no obvious propulsion system, and that can go from Zero to 10000 MPH in less than a second, and then disappears in a flash!

That must be one hell of an event to witness.

Chad Underwood tried his best to get an identification mode off the object and was unable to do so. The object in his video actively jammed him. He was receiving some sensor feedback from his equipment.

He talks about this and encounter with the object here. Starts at 4 minutes 50 seconds.