Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Navy pilots describe encounters with UFOs - 60 minutes

Options
24567…10

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,108 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    rtron wrote: »
    In fairness technology is moving very fast, if we can now power helicopters on Mars, it's not far fetched to think craft such as the ones on the video are using advanced techniques to stay airborne.
    A helicopter on Mars while impressive is actually not that advanced. The biggest issue is Mars' extremely thin atmosphere which means much higher rotor speeds and making it as light as possible to overcome that. By far the most impressive aspect to the whole venture is getting it and the lander and rover to Mars in the first place and to where you aimed for and in one piece and operational. That's where the hard sums comes into it.

    Now impressive as all that most certainly is there are no new principles in basic technology or understanding of physics involved. Even Isaac Newton would understand the nuts and bolts of getting there. Well he did help invent them.

    Take stealth tech. Almost since radar came along boffins had been hard at work trying to combat it. The Germans gave it a go with aircraft like the Horten flying wing which had lower radar reflection as part of its remit.

    horton229v1prototypek-jpg.386862

    Imagine you saw that yoke in 1944. It looks anachronistic, even "alien", especially being towed by a 30's truck in front of 1930's propeller aircraft. If you saw one in the sky you'd be forgiven for thinking the Martians are coming. But they weren't and though incredibly innovative it was based on solid and pretty basic aerodynamic theories and practice. From that to the SR71 Blackbird and F117 they've all got their feet firmly planted in solid theory and tech. No antigravity or any of that required. Even the B2 stealth bomber if jumped by a WW2 German ME262 could be in real danger of being shot down.

    Now IF and it's a very bloody big if, any of these reports do demonstrate technology that demonstrates no obvious means of propulsion or control, incredible speeds from rest or low speeds, extreme direction changes and seamless transitions from air to water and back that's a whole new paradigm indeed.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful S wrote: »
    There only two options here based on POD footage, its an unknown advanced capable of flight technology build by someone on earth and there managing to keep it secret or its advanced non human equipment coming from somewhere else.

    That is not the only two options, and you have proved that you have read any of my links.
    It's a bird.


  • Options
    #34
    PokeHerKing
    Registered Users Posts: 4,300 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Rather than bringing politics into it for some reason, you are free to be the first person to explain why the common sense explanations I have provided are twisted.

    Saying bokeh or parallex is not common sense. Linking to sites with laymen discussing their own opinions is not proof of anything either. Your opinion or common sense is not proof of anything.

    You say bokeh I say Aliens. You say parralex I say aliens. Neither of us have proved anything. So stop talking in absolutes or like you've just reinvented the wheel.


  • Options
    #35
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Now IF and it's a very bloody big if, any of these reports do demonstrate technology that demonstrates no obvious means of propulsion or control, incredible speeds from rest or low speeds, extreme direction changes and seamless transitions from air to water and back that's a whole new paradigm indeed.

    Basic logic would tell you that's not the case. It just doesn't make sense that the only scientists that came across such technology happened to also be employed by the military and were told to keep such technology hush hush and that no aeronautic engineers who simply work as professors in universities also came across the same technology and published it on arXiv. Such a coincidence is nothing but a conspiracy.


  • Options
    #36
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    PokeHerKing wrote: »
    Saying bokeh or parallex is not common sense. Linking to sites with laymen discussing their own opinions is not proof of anything either. Your opinion or common sense is not proof of anything.

    It is proof. Debunk it, and then it is no longer proof. Off you go.

    By your logic, nothing can be proved. Why did that apple fall from the tree? Gravity? Lol no, an invisible alien grabbed it and threw it towards the ground. You can't disprove that's not the case, so let's keep it as a plausible explanation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Cheerful S
    Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    Deleted User wrote: »
    That is not the only two options, and you have proved that you have read any of my links.
    It's a bird.

    Very few will understand the logic. Navy pilots latched onto a bird in the sky with the POD and tracked it?

    Birds are not rare they are here and there and everywhere in the sky, visible a measurable thing. You have to ignore everything about the details to believe this a bird. The report measures the size of the object and there view its the size of a jet.

    What bird the scope of a human made jet? Is a long-lost dinosaur bird they found?


  • Options
    #38
    PokeHerKing
    Registered Users Posts: 4,300 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It is proof. Debunk it, and then it is no longer proof. Off you go.

    By you logic, nothing can be proved. Why did that apple fall from the tree? Gravity? Lol no, an alien grabbed it and threw it towards the ground. You can't disprove that's not the case, so let's keep it as a plausible explanation.

    No thats really not the same at all. Plenty of things are provable.

    Let's take your apple example Me and my friends are in an orchard, we see an apple fall from a tree. We video it with our phones. We post it to the Internet saying eow look at this apple fall from tree that me and my friends witnessed.

    Now some forum pops up with a load of amateur photographers claiming refracted light is creating an illusion of a falling apple but in reality the apple never
    moved. Thats your argument.


  • Options
    #39
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful S wrote: »
    Very few will understand the logic. Navy pilots latched onto a bird in the sky with the POD and tracked it?

    Birds are not rare they are here and there and everywhere in the sky, visible a measurable thing. You have to ignore everything about the details to believe this a bird. The report measures the size of the object and there view its the size of a jet.

    What bird the scope of a human made jet? Is a long-lost dinosaur bird they found?

    You're further demonstrating that you have no read any of my links. The object is not the size of a jet. It is 1-2 metres long.

    If you are actually interested in what the object is, have a read of the analysis I linked to.

    http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/04/analysis-of-ttsa-2015-go-fast-ufo-video.html


  • Options
    #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    PokeHerKing wrote: »
    No thats really not the same at all. Plenty of things are provable.

    Let's take your apple example Me and my friends are in an orchard, we see an apple fall from a tree. We video it with our phones. We post it to the Internet saying eow look at this apple fall from tree that me and my friends witnessed.

    Now some forum pops up with a load of amateur photographers claiming refracted light is creating an illusion of a falling apple but in reality the apple never
    moved. Thats your argument.

    No, that is not my argument. If you believe the arguments made are amateurish, then it should be quite easy for you to debunk them. So debunk them.


  • Options
    #41
    Andrewf20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,188 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    Seems strange that it's usually reported from the USA, but not Denmark, Sudan or Chile for example.

    I suspect its the USA creating a fake conspiracy to divert attention from the reality that they are working on developing secretive aircraft.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    TheValeyard
    Registered Users Posts: 12,258 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    It is neither fascinating nor interesting.

    Of course its both. There are objects putting the most high tech of US craft to shame. Need to know where they are coming from, either China or elsewhere.

    Fcuk Putin. Glory to Ukraine!



  • Options
    #43
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    TheValeyard wrote: »
    Of course its both. There are objects putting the most high tech of US craft to shame. Need to know where they are coming from, either China or elsewhere.

    You made me physically yawn, thank you.


  • Options
    #44
    Cheerful S
    Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You're further demonstrating that you have no read any of my links. The object is not the size of a jet. It is 1-2 metres long.

    If you are actually interested in what the object is, have a read of the analysis I linked to.

    http://parabunk.blogspot.com/2018/04/analysis-of-ttsa-2015-go-fast-ufo-video.html

    Thats the "Go Fast"video an entirely unique incident. You mixing up UAP incidents. It was alleged to be bird since it moving over water and the object from the height looks smaller.


  • Options
    #45
    PokeHerKing
    Registered Users Posts: 4,300 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No, that is not my argument. If you believe the arguments made are amateurish, then it should be quite easy for you to debunk them. So debunk them.

    Arguing against something is not debunking it you know that right? I've already givin my argument or by your definition "my debunking".

    To the parallex argument put forward by random Internet poster, I say its not parralex, its aliens.

    To the bokeh argument put forward by random Internet poster, I say its not bokeh, its aliens.


  • Options
    #46
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    PokeHerKing wrote: »
    Arguing against something is not debunking it you know that right? I've already givin my argument or by your definition "my debunking".

    To the parallex argument put forward by random Internet poster, I say its not parralex, its aliens.

    To the bokeh argument put forward by random Internet poster, I say its not bokeh, its aliens.

    What argument? I have seen no argument from you that explains why it being aliens is more logical than it being it being caused by common sense.

    You have said that "saying bokeh or parallex is not common sense." Explain.


  • Options
    #47
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful S wrote: »
    Thats the "Go Fast"video an entirely unique incident. You mixing up UAP incidents. It was alleged to be bird since it moving over water and the object from the height looks smaller.

    I am not mixing up incidents, you are not mentioning in your posts which incidents you are referring to.

    Which incident are you referring to?


  • Options
    #48
    PokeHerKing
    Registered Users Posts: 4,300 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    Seems strange that it's usually reported from the USA, but not Denmark, Sudan or Chile for example.

    I suspect its the USA creating a fake conspiracy to divert attention from the reality that they are working on developing secretive aircraft.

    Plenty of other military have released similar stuff. French, chillean, Mexican etc.


  • Options
    #49
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    PokeHerKing wrote: »
    Plenty of other military have released similar stuff. French, chillean, Mexican etc.

    There are also plenty of video of ghosts from around the world. What is your point?

    I will gladly debunk every single one of these videos if you link them.


  • Options
    #50
    PokeHerKing
    Registered Users Posts: 4,300 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What argument? I have seen no argument from you that explains why it being aliens is more logical than it being it being caused by common sense.

    You have said that "saying bokeh or parallex is not common sense." Explain.

    Because these videos are being recorded and witnessed by high tech instruments and by individuals who at the very least are better placed to know the difference between birds/balloons then some randomers on the Internet.

    Claiming the randomer on the Internet shouting parralex is the common sense option is actually the opposite of common sense imo.

    But I guess common sense is subjective...


  • Options
    #51
    PokeHerKing
    Registered Users Posts: 4,300 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    Deleted User wrote: »
    There are also plenty of video of ghosts from around the world. What is your point?

    I will gladly debunk every single one of these videos if you link them.

    So you're basically saying there's noting that can't be "debunked" as you'd put it? Everything is either taped off night vision lenses, bokeh or parallex and all the government officials who've viewd this stuff and the experts they've no doubt consulted are wrong and your merry band of Internet warriors are right?

    Thats some god complex you've got there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    PokeHerKing wrote: »
    Because these videos are being recorded and witnessed by high tech instruments and by individuals who at the very least are better placed to know the difference between birds/balloons then some randomers on the Internet.

    Claiming the randomer on the Internet shouting parralex is the common sense option is actually the opposite of common sense imo.

    But I guess common sense is subjective...

    I can quite easily disprove that even you do not believe what you just wrote.

    I have a PhD in astrophysics which specialised in fluid dynamics (you can check my post history if you wish). I understand how optics work better than military experts, and especially moreso than pilots.

    I am telling you that I have read the analyses that favour common sense, and they are the overwhelmingly likely to be the cause.

    Now, does that the fact that an expert just said this have any effect on your opinion? Not at all, not even a little bit. You were not dismissing the analysis that I linked to because it was done by a "randomer on the internet" , you dismissed it only because it goes against your own opinion, nothing more.


  • Options
    #53
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    PokeHerKing wrote: »
    So you're basically saying there's noting that can't be "debunked" as you'd put it? Everything is either taped off night vision lenses, bokeh or parallex and all the government officials who've viewd this stuff and the experts they've no doubt consulted are wrong and your merry band of Internet warriors are right?

    Thats some god complex you've got there.

    Link to the experts that have concluded that I am wrong.


  • Options
    #54
    Cheerful S
    Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Basic logic would tell you that's not the case. It just doesn't make sense that the only scientists that came across such technology happened to also be employed by the military and were told to keep such technology hush hush and that no aeronautic engineers who simply work as professors in universities also came across the same technology and published it on arXiv. Such a coincidence is nothing but a conspiracy.

    I hear this argument all the time.

    How can this be conspiracy be real when so many in academic circles and research are unware of it and don’t pay much attention to it.

    Another flawed argument by debunkers is thousands most be keeping the secret, so therefore its all absurdity to believe something else happened. This is typical when you distrust the 9/11, JFK or UFO official narrative.

    I never got this argument personally. If some in the military picked up a craft of unknown origin. Least in my view, very few will see it again once its picked up in the desert and taken to a new place. . It not like there exhibiting the craft for everyone to see it. It’ll be very easy to keep an unknown object at a secure base somewhere under lock and key with only a few have the keys to get in and have a further look and do research. There really no need for thousands implicated in keeping this find a secret from the public.


  • Options
    #55
    Ninthlife
    Registered Users Posts: 2,251 ✭✭✭Ninthlife


    listened to Joe Rogan podcast # 1361 withCmdr David Fravor. All based on ufo footage released by the military. He was the pilot. No hysterics, explained the weapons system how they work etc.

    I tend to believe him, aliens arent mentioned just that it is unknown technology


  • Options
    #56
    PokeHerKing
    Registered Users Posts: 4,300 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Link to the experts that have concluded that I am wrong.

    The US government releasing the footage as unexplainable. Do you think Obama was being shown footage that hadn't been scrutinised first by the military experts/scientists??

    Can you link to your own credentials please or the credentials of the bloggers you're linking to as proof?


  • Options
    #57
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    PokeHerKing wrote: »
    The US government releasing the footage as unexplainable.

    You've said that experts have concluded that I am wrong. That does not demonstrate that I am wrong.

    Again, link to experts that say I am wrong.


  • Options
    #58
    PokeHerKing
    Registered Users Posts: 4,300 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I can quite easily disprove that even you do not believe what you just wrote.

    I have a PhD in astrophysics which specialised in fluid dynamics (you can check my post history if you wish). I understand how optics work better than military experts, and especially moreso than pilots.

    I am telling you that I have read the analyses that favour common sense, and they are the overwhelmingly likely to be the cause.

    Now, does that the fact that an expert just said this have any effect on your opinion? Not at all, not even a little bit. You were not dismissing the analysis that I linked to because it was done by a "randomer on the internet" , you dismissed it only because it goes against your own opinion, nothing more.

    I love how everyone arguing against your opinion has confirmed bias but you don't.


  • Options
    #59
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cheerful S wrote: »
    I hear this argument all the time.

    How can this be conspiracy be real when so many in academic circles and research are unware of it and don’t pay much attention to it.

    Another flawed argument by debunkers is thousands most be keeping the secret, so therefore its all absurdity to believe something else happened. This is typical when you distrust the 9/11, JFK or UFO official narrative.

    I never got this argument personally. If some in the military picked up a craft of unknown origin. Least in my view, very few will see it again once its picked up in the desert and taken to a new place. . It not like there exhibiting the craft for everyone to see it. It’ll be very easy to keep an unknown object at a secure base somewhere under lock and key with only a few have the keys to get in and have a further look and do research. There really no need for thousands implicated in keeping this find a secret from the public.


    Nothing you have said there explains why that is a flawed argument.


  • Options
    #60
    Cheerful S
    Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭Cheerful S


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I am not mixing up incidents, you are not mentioning in your posts which incidents you are referring to.

    Which incident are you referring to?

    Debunking UFO videos released by the Pentagon and insiders are you not?. You should in that case notice immediately that FlIR screenshot (posted) from a different encounter entirely.

    USS Roosevelt ‘Gimbal’ UFO:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    PokeHerKing wrote: »
    I love how everyone arguing against your opinion has confirmed bias but you don't.

    I do not have confirmation bias, I instead believe in Occam's razor.


Advertisement