Was the Navy ufo video nothing more than a bird?

a reply to: Forensick

I know nothing about the military or technology for that matter but I feel like it would be very dangerous for the pilots if their targeting systems were locking into birds instead of enemy fighters. Take it for what it’s worth but I’m pretty confident that they can’t lock into birds

a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

Can someone confirm on here that the object was tracked by radar?

Christopher K. Mellon on Twitter regarding Mick West theories (several tweets combined here):

On "GO FAST":

I think the speed is modest but also not the issue. How does something without wings or exhaust stay aloft at any speed and fly straight and true? If it were lighter than air, it would be buffeted by the wind rather than flying such a perfectly straight path.
However, the UAP case does not depend on this or any other video. We know from the Nimitz aviators and Princeton crew that a 50ft long white object achieved hypersonic speed from a near hover in seconds after being observed descending from extreme altitudes and hovering.

On all three videos:

The issue is no longer TTSA’s analysis but that of DoD. DoD pilots & analysts have rejected these explanations for a variety of reasons:

Gimbal, the aircraft would be visible, not just the heat of the exhaust; a jet could not move in that manner and retain lift;
same with FLIR.
In terms of Go Fast, it does not behave like a lighter than air object.

See:

A Forensic Analysis of CSG 11 Encounter with a AAV

a reply to: SacredLore

it would be buffeted by the wind rather than flying such a perfectly straight path.

The "straight path" is an illusion created by parallax, the movement of the camera itself.

What exactly do you think is meant by "buffeting", btw? The Goodyear blimp is a lighter than air vehicle. Do you often see it "buffeted?"

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist
a reply to: Forensick

I know nothing about the military or technology for that matter but I feel like it would be very dangerous for the pilots if their targeting systems were locking into birds instead of enemy fighters. Take it for what it’s worth but I’m pretty confident that they can’t lock into birds

No they aren't locking on to birds. But that it locked on to something might be the whole point of this.

Why do you think it happened on a *Navy* training area? What is the Navy presently very concerned about?

Chinese missiles.

Wouldn't it be nice if they locked onto flying "tictacs" that had infrared and radar returns instead of F-18s or the really easy to shoot down P-8's and KC-135s?

a reply to: Phage

I agree.

Heck, I even had to look up "to buffet". The best definition I found for this context:
"to drive, force, move, or attack by or as if by repeated blows "
Even birds can fly fairly straight with a bit of wind.

The main point for me is that all these videos do not show a clear picture that would allow one to distinguish details of the objects in question. GO FAST could be a bird from my unexperienced point of view. "Plausible deniability" is the keyword: Let's see what happens and if we don't like the reaction we will explain it all away.

The latest article on CNN is saying they are believed to be drones. Kind of a bummer.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
With these three Navy videos now being classed as unidentified, a lot of people, including myself was very happy because I believe it means we are heading in the right direction. I came across a video that made me question one of the videos.

The video in question is the one with the object travelling fast near the water with a pilot and his partner tracking it.

Now, the video in question, the guy is annoying as hell with the type of arragonce you would expect, but he brings up some good points. Points that are hard to debunk.

Here is the video


Can this object be nothing more than a bird? If so, how the hell did they not know? Surely they see birds all the time.

Would like your thoughts

The pilot was not being arrogant jack ass.... Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a lock on something like that manually like he was doing? He was proud of himself for doing something that was not easy to do. pull your head out please...

a reply to: gunshooter

The pilot was not being arrogant jack ass.... Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a lock on something like that manually like he was doing? He was proud of himself for doing something that was not easy to do. pull your head out please...

Sorry, did not know an internet warrior was going to jump on board this thread. What the hell does that prove that he could not get a lick on it at first? Are toy saying because the object was too fast?

We know the object was not going as fast as the video suggest, so it was not because of the speed. Could it be the fact that the object was small?

a reply to: Jay-morris

No

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Jay-morris

No

Well, it's easy to come on here and just say "no" Please tell me how it was def not a bird?

What if was a Harpoon Missile?

a reply to: Jay-morris

Hmm, it appears my post was cut off. My apologies jay morris.

I meant to include that mainly the pilots involves could've IDed it as a bird and that it would've had flight surfaces and heat signatures*

Not sure why my post got lt trimmed probably my mobiles fault

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Jay-morris

Hmm, it appears my post was cut off. My apologies jay morris.

I meant to include that mainly the pilots involves could've IDed it as a bird and that it would've had flight surfaces and heat signatures*

Not sure why my post got lt trimmed probably my mobiles fault

Did you watch the video? All that is explained in the video.

originally posted by: Forensick
What if was a Harpoon Missile?

Think the object was not going fast enough to be a missile, but I could be wrong, as I am no expert on missiles.

The main issue with all three videos is that, by themselves, they don't provide enough evidence, one way or another. They could show mundane things or they could show something extraordinary. There are valid analysis out there to support both thesis.

So at the end it comes down to believing the DOD when they say they don't know what the objects are (and if they were birds or drones or missiles they would probably know) and to believe the pilots and the rest of the witnesses when they describe what they saw with their own eyes.

a reply to: Jay-morris

I did watch the video. I just so happen to take the word of veteran Navy fighter pilots over an analysis from somebody who was not there.

We sentence people to death based on witness testimony, assuming it is credible testimony. And this doesn't get any more credible. And then on top of that you have photographic evidence consistent with the witness statements.

To put it another way, if this were a murder trial it'd be a "slam dunk"

When the pilots say they behave like technology produced off-world, I take their word on it and believe them. I operate under the assumption they were extraterrestrial articles operating around our task force.

Because lets face it, Russia/China didn't pass us up overnight and even if they did, they wouldn't risk such a significant advantage by flying it near US Navy strike groups (that's a good way to lose your tech right?). Even today, both those countries combined are 1/10th as strong economically, and even less than that militarily. They aren't peers to the United States.

Lets face facts here, governments around the world (especially US government) is lying about the UFO/UAP phenomenon. They've given every excuse under the sun, but these are lies. There isn't much left other than the ET hypothesis. Anybody who thinks this massive universe exists for one meager species is.......just wrong.

a reply to: JBurns

I did watch the video. I just so happen to take the word of veteran Navy fighter pilots over an analysis from somebody who was not there.

And this specific footage we are talking about, what did the pilots say about the object?

We sentence people to death based on witness testimony, assuming it is credible testimony. And this doesn't get any more credible. And then on top of that you have photographic evidence consistent with the witness statements.

And yet, we know the object was about two feet, and not going as fast as the footage shows, which was perfectly explained in the video, unless you can prove otherwise?

To put it another way, if this were a murder trial it'd be a "slam dunk"

Slam dunk for what?

When the pilots say they behave like technology produced off-world, I take their word on it and believe them. I operate under the assumption they were extraterrestrial articles operating around our task force.

The footage we are talking about, when did the pilots say that?

Because lets face it, Russia/China didn't pass us up overnight and even if they did, they wouldn't risk such a significant advantage by flying it near US Navy strike groups (that's a good way to lose your tech right?). Even today, both those countries combined are 1/10th as strong economically, and even less than that militarily. They aren't peers to the United States.

What does this object do that defys the laws of physics? We have an object going in a straight line, the speed nothing special. So please tell me?

Lets face facts here, governments around the world (especially US government) is lying about the UFO/UAP phenomenon. They've given every excuse under the sun, but these are lies. There isn't much left other than the ET hypothesis. Anybody who thinks this massive universe exists for one meager species is.......just wrong.

I have been into the subject of ufos for over 30 years now. I believe that the subject needs serious investigation, and I also believe that some cases defy explanation. I also believe the government's around the world do take ufos seriously, even though they pretend they do not.

Saying that, I do not go into the subject believing everything I see as unexplained.

I ask a serious question regarding this footage, but no one seems to be able to prove what he is saying in the video is wrong.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Jay, I appreciate the arguments you made. But what about heat signatures, flight surfaces, control link signal (with an AWACS nearby)?

Apparently, the video you are referring to was something other than the 3 videos released by the DOD so I apologize for the misunderstanding. I will watch the video in question and report back

Saying that, I do not go into the subject believing everything I see as unexplained.

I ask a serious question regarding this footage, but no one seems to be able to prove what he is saying in the video is wrong.

I don't either, but I do fully believe the three pentagon videos show examples of the ET artifacts many many credible people have seen.

Just curious, but what do you make of the Phoenix lights? My own UFO video? Sightings by tens of thousands+ over hundreds of years?

Just reviewed the video but have to strongly disagree with his proposition that it was a bird. His claim that a bird is zipping along at those speeds at 8,000ft just doesn't fly with me. The point of a gimbal is that it tracks the object without taking your own speed/pitch/roll/whatever else into account.

Where's his evidence supporting his claims?