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
1…468910

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Cheerful S
    Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #153
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #154
    SortingYouOut
    Registered Users Posts: 1,374 ✭✭✭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.

    Beverly Hills, California



  • Options
    #155
    Cheerful S
    Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #156
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,026 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #158
    Cheerful S
    Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #159
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #160
    Cheerful S
    Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #161
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Cheerful S
    Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #163
    iceage
    Registered Users Posts: 3,533 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #164
    Cheerful S
    Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #165
    Beechwoodspark
    Registered Users Posts: 15,405 ✭✭✭✭Beechwoodspark


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


  • Options
    #166
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #167
    iceage
    Registered Users Posts: 3,533 ✭✭✭iceage


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

    Mystery solved. ;)


  • Options
    #168
    Cheerful S
    Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭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.

    553875.png

    .


  • Options
    #169
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.

    553875.png

    .

    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?


  • Options
    #170
    Cheerful S
    Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭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..


  • Options
    #171
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Cheerful S
    Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭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.

    553877.png


  • Options
    #173
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.

    553877.png

    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.


  • Options
    #174
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Beechwoodspark wrote: »
    Until I see clear footage I have no interest in the various stories and speculation.

    I want a reg number damit :D

    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

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #175
    PokeHerKing
    Registered Users Posts: 4,300 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    silverharp wrote: »
    I want a reg number damit :D

    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.


  • Options
    #176
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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. :)


  • Options
    #177
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #178
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭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

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #179
    PokeHerKing
    Registered Users Posts: 4,300 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #180
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Cheerful S
    Registered Users Posts: 1,245 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement