Was the Navy ufo video nothing more than a bird?

originally posted by: JBurns
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?

He explained the illusion of the speed in the video, and that made perfect sense. It might not be a bird, it could be a small drone, but the object dies absolutly nothing to justify it being other worldly.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Its lack of flight surfaces and heat near its propulsion system is other worldly. As is its lack of a control signal, which would've been picked up by the AWACS handily in the vicinity. Just because something was a drone, hypothetically, doesn't mean it gets to defy the laws of aerodynamics. Typically if you move a craft like that you are going to crash it. And nothing exists - manned or unmanned - that can climb/descend thousands of feet per second (or faster) as evidenced by the unimpeachable witness testimony.

That is one video, even if you accept his argument (which I do not). What of the other two? What of the thousands of other credible reports, pictures and videos?

And FYI his explanation for the illusion of speed was not correct. The gimbal he's referring to prevents that from happening. You can tell its true speed by watching the object moving over the water that appears to be "passing by" below it. Changing a location in space isn't an optical illusion.

We're talking about Raytheon's SPY system, one of the most advanced tracking systems in the world. You can prove me wrong, just show me another example of mere humans achieving this level of technology that is mature enough to play peekaboo with a US navy carrier strike group and win.

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

Its lack of flight surfaces and heat near its propulsion system is other worldly. As is its lack of a control signal, which would've been picked up by the AWACS handily in the vicinity. Just because something was a drone, hypothetically, doesn't mean it gets to defy the laws of aerodynamics. Typically if you move a craft like that you are going to crash it. And nothing exists - manned or unmanned - that can climb/descend thousands of feet per second (or faster) as evidenced by the unimpeachable witness testimony.

That is one video, even if you accept his argument (which I do not). What of the other two? What of the thousands of other credible reports, pictures and videos?

And FYI his explanation for the illusion of speed was not correct. The gimbal he's referring to prevents that from happening. You can tell its true speed by watching the object moving over the water that appears to be "passing by" below it. Changing a location in space isn't an optical illusion.

We're talking about Raytheon's SPY system, one of the most advanced tracking systems in the world. You can prove me wrong, just show me another example of mere humans achieving this level of technology that is mature enough to play peekaboo with a US navy carrier strike group and win.

The other two objects are not easy to explain, and are still unexplained.

With this footage, has there ever been a time that a bird has been caught on these cameras? Would be interesting to know what they look like with these cameras.

I am not saying it is a bird or a drone for sure, just this video (And I normally hate these debunking videos) made some interesting points worth debating.

And FYI his explanation for the illusion of speed was not correct. The gimbal he's referring to prevents that from happening. You can tell its true speed by watching the object moving over the water that appears to be "passing by" below it. Changing a location in space isn't an optical illusion.

If that's the case, then fair enough.

a reply to: Jay-morris

With this footage, has there ever been a time that a bird has been caught on these cameras? Would be interesting to know what they look like with these cameras.

What a great point! I will see what I can dig up

I am not saying it is a bird or a drone for sure, just this video (And I normally hate these debunking videos) made some interesting points worth debating.

True

All good questions I'm curious on those too Jay, going to see what I can find out

oh! yes thats plainly a super turbo charged lesser spotted mallard. it doesn't fly over the Andes mountain range, it just fly's right through them.
superman meets super duck. Surely there must be something cheaper than 70 million to get video footage of a duck.....give me a break....

originally posted by: flipflop
oh! yes thats plainly a super turbo charged lesser spotted mallard. it doesn't fly over the Andes mountain range, it just fly's right through them.
superman meets super duck. Surely there must be something cheaper than 70 million to get video footage of a duck.....give me a break....

And another person who did not watch the video.

t actually did and not for the first time either, when it first hit the internet I seen it all, I was interested in the attempt of debunking this video, and so I put myself through the boredom of listening to some maniac shouting because he couldn't believe he actually got a handle on the damn thing, What I find disappointing is the clarity of the footage, with all of today's tech one would imagine that after spending such a large amount of money, they would be able to capture better imagery, I know its infra red, even so, cant something be done with that application to improve on clarity, perhaps this time it was a duck or a Canadian goose but what if it was a real in your face UFO, better images are required and not some dot the size of about 4 or 5 pixels flickering or as he and some other stated flapping in a video clip, I made my earlier comment because I thought this would be more that it turned out to be, I lost interest and that was my comment, But do not assume I did not watch this, video, I am very interested in all things UFO, some are complete tripe, some a plausible and some are just inexpiable. I do not appreciate you announcing to ATS that I am another who didn't watch the video,,,, That only shows you make assumptions without back up evidence a reply to: Jay-morris

originally posted by: flipflop
t actually did and not for the first time either, when it first hit the internet I seen it all, I was interested in the attempt of debunking this video, and so I put myself through the boredom of listening to some maniac shouting because he couldn't believe he actually got a handle on the damn thing, What I find disappointing is the clarity of the footage, with all of today's tech one would imagine that after spending such a large amount of money, they would be able to capture better imagery, I know its infra red, even so, cant something be done with that application to improve on clarity, perhaps this time it was a duck or a Canadian goose but what if it was a real in your face UFO, better images are required and not some dot the size of about 4 or 5 pixels flickering or as he and some other stated flapping in a video clip, I made my earlier comment because I thought this would be more that it turned out to be, I lost interest and that was my comment, But do not assume I did not watch this, video, I am very interested in all things UFO, some are complete tripe, some a plausible and some are just inexpiable. I do not appreciate you announcing to ATS that I am another who didn't watch the video,,,, That only shows you make assumptions without back up evidence a reply to: Jay-morris

Until anyone can prove what he is saying is wrong, then the theory is as good as any other theory.

obviously!.a reply to: Jay-morris

originally posted by: flipflop
obviously!.a reply to: Jay-morris

Yes, obviously! Hence the reason we are debating the footage.

I agree with debating a topic, but you do not have hard evidence to support your theory, where is the duck, will it take the stand and swear it was the duck involved in the navy's video clip. Why did this footage get released to the sheeples, if it were known to be a real ufo from another galaxy or indeed just another planet in this galaxy there is no way that would be released for general viewing and can only have been thrown out there as more of a prank by those involved... It's truly amazing no one on this planet can come up with a clear image of an ufo that theorists would have you believe are buzzing all over the place here on earth.

I a reply to: Jay-morris

originally posted by: flipflop
I agree with debating a topic, but you do not have hard evidence to support your theory, where is the duck, will it take the stand and swear it was the duck involved in the navy's video clip. Why did this footage get released to the sheeples, if it were known to be a real ufo from another galaxy or indeed just another planet in this galaxy there is no way that would be released for general viewing and can only have been thrown out there as more of a prank by those involved... It's truly amazing no one on this planet can come up with a clear image of an ufo that theorists would have you believe are buzzing all over the place here on earth.

I a reply to: Jay-morris

There is plenty of evidence that some ufos defy explanation, and are complete unknowns. Are they ET? They very well could be, but they can also be a number of things.

This footage shows an object not doing anything special , and the debunking video makes some this points that need to be answered. Does that mean I believe it's a bird 100%? Of course not. Could it be something else? Yes.

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: Phage

No - meaning they don't know.

They don't know for sure, but they did list three possibilities on the release form for the videos; "UAV, balloons, and other UAS":

Never known a military department to open themselves to ridicule and say 'hey, laugh at us!"

But they do make fools of themselves on the "Unidentified" TV show talking about this "Gofast" video, saying it's "hauling ass" and going "2/3 the speed of sound", which basically contradicts everything you say about them being credible, reliable witnesses, because you can prove yourself it's not going anywhere near 2/3 the speed of sound, in fact it's not going any faster than a bird or a balloon. So either the military personnel are fooled by the parallax optical illusion, or they are joining in this psychological operation run by TTSA to promote misinformation.

There's a clip of them making fools of themselves shown in this metabunk video in which Mick West doesn't say he knows what it is, but he says he can't rule out a balloon, I'm not sure what he thinks about the bird possibility. The Thunderf00t video saying it's a bird does point out the temperature of the UFO is a little cool, which he attributes to the 8000' altitude, but I'm not sure I can see the wings flapping like he thinks he can and perhaps the cooler temperature might be more consistent with a balloon, and the release form for the videos does after all list balloons as one of the three things believed to be shown in the videos.

Mick West's video at 6:42 is a lot shorter than Thunderf00t's 20:52 video (and predates it too), and his analysis is a little more technical but they come up with about the same answers regarding altitude and speed of the UFO.

"Go Fast" UFO Video Explained?

The "Go Fast" UFO looks like it's going really fast, but a simple analysis of the data available in the video shows that it is not.

So, the History Channel's "Unidentified" show was wrong and "To the Stars Academy" was wrong. Not only that, but they are either the worst 3D analysts in the world, or they knew it was wrong a year ago and just kept going with it because it's more interesting that way.

originally posted by: tommyjo
Screenshots of Chris Mellon during his brief.

The picture was nothing to do with the US Navy encounters, but simply a pic of a mylar party balloon taken in the UK.
Rense Link

Ridiculous, isn't it?

originally posted by: SacredLore
a reply to: tommyjo

Yes, I know. But I would accept this as a simple mistake made by the person who put together the background. They never referred to that picture during the presentation. But they should definitely have apologized later on.

I don't know how you can say "They never referred to that picture during the presentation.", you're being intellectually dishonest. Look at the image with the transcript at the bottom. He's showing the balloon and saying "clearly this is not a US experimental aircraft"... so to show that image and say that, everyone is going to think he's talking about that image. They don't have any images of the tic-tac Fravor saw, he never bothered to turn on his camera by flicking the switch on his helmet.

originally posted by: Phage
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?"

I wonder if anybody believes what he says, since his explanations completely lack any credibility with a small amount of critical thinking applied.

I wonder a little if Chris Mellon believes what he says himself. Is he really as clueless as he sounds when he says those things? Or is he a smart guy who knows what's really going on with the parallax, and he's just making up a line of BS about the "straight path" to spread misinformation?