Neil deGrasse Tyson on Joe Rogan

a reply to: SpaceCowboy78

Neil is that guy that just has to be contradictory for the sake of being contradictory. Don't like him

originally posted by: Annee

Yes. Willful.

It’s not his interest.

Then why is he always pontificating about the UFO subject on countless TV shows then?

originally posted by: karl 12

originally posted by: Annee

Yes. Willful.

It’s not his interest.

Then why is he always pontificating about the UFO subject on countless TV shows then?

Probably because people want to know what he thinks.

originally posted by: Randyvine
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

He makes a great point....something such as unCalibrated equipment or sensors etc...can lead to false indications, results etc.

You're as wacky as Tyson. Hello! this is military equipment!
Not a GPS in some teenagers drift car.

It's not a great point it was a stupid thing to say.

Hello! this is military equipment!

You're as wacky as Tyson. Hello! this is military equipment!

That was hilarious .
Never been in the military , huh ?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: karl 12

originally posted by: Annee

Yes. Willful.

It’s not his interest.

Then why is he always pontificating about the UFO subject on countless TV shows then?

Probably because people want to know what he thinks.

Just like Michio Kaku .
Amazing.
I have just starred every one of your posts on this thread.

a reply to: vonclod

NDT’s answer in that clip is similar to Mick West’s one hypothesis of instrument malfunction.
And if the entire story depended on sensor data alone, then that could be the plausible explanation.
But we also have multiple trained observers who were there, whom were also eye witnesses to the event(s)

I, personally think, the likelihood of our fighter pilots and Naval crew members all spontaneously having the same mass hallucination, along with sensor/instrument failure across multiple platforms occurring, is less likely than the possibility of it being an actual unknown observed object.

originally posted by: HONROC
a reply to: SpaceCowboy78

Neil is that guy that just has to be contradictory for the sake of being contradictory. Don't like him

I think it’s more that people have expectations of him.

And then he doesn’t respond the way they think he should.

a reply to: Annee

No, that is not it. I have never heard him agree with anyone, he always has to be argumentative because he just has to feel like the smartest guy in the room. I mean this is the guy that trolls movies on twitter for inaccuracies.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1

originally posted by: Randyvine
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

He makes a great point....something such as unCalibrated equipment or sensors etc...can lead to false indications, results etc.

You're as wacky as Tyson. Hello! this is military equipment!
Not a GPS in some teenagers drift car.

It's not a great point it was a stupid thing to say.

Just so you know, I was a technician in the navy working on CIC warship NTDS equipment. I think I know what I’m talking about....nuff said

I would have to say your experience is not the norm. Nearly all of these radars are produced by big primes and they have very regular cal and spec requirements. They are regularly tested for cal in both metric and RCS and if they drift anywhere too far (they don't let them drift outside of spec) they are recalibrated. They aren't out there tracking false targets in any coherent, continuous way. A hit here and there, and a few short-lived spurious tracks once in a while, but nothing like you are talking about or what is being shown in the UAP vids is plaguing these radars.

originally posted by: HONROC
a reply to: Annee

No, that is not it. I have never heard him agree with anyone, he always has to be argumentative because he just has to feel like the smartest guy in the room. I mean this is the guy that trolls movies on twitter for inaccuracies.

That is your interpretation — as you choose to see it.

Argumentative or questioning another viewpoint. It’s pretty much what science type panels do. Each scientist panelist is going to present their version challenging the others.

Trolls?

a reply to: Gothmog

That was hilarious .
Never been in the military , huh ?

No I haven't Goth is that an argument or you are writing a book or...

originally posted by: Halfswede

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1

originally posted by: Randyvine
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

He makes a great point....something such as unCalibrated equipment or sensors etc...can lead to false indications, results etc.

You're as wacky as Tyson. Hello! this is military equipment!
Not a GPS in some teenagers drift car.

It's not a great point it was a stupid thing to say.

Just so you know, I was a technician in the navy working on CIC warship NTDS equipment. I think I know what I’m talking about....nuff said

I would have to say your experience is not the norm. Nearly all of these radars are produced by big primes and they have very regular cal and spec requirements. They are regularly tested for cal in both metric and RCS and if they drift anywhere too far (they don't let them drift outside of spec) they are recalibrated. They aren't out there tracking false targets in any coherent, continuous way. A hit here and there, and a few short-lived spurious tracks once in a while, but nothing like you are talking about or what is being shown in the UAP vids is plaguing these radars.

Agreed! I was merely saying and agreeing with Degrasse from an equipment standpoint, in principle, equipment is not infallible. Equipment does malfunction or erroneous results when not to spec or has failed parts. All equipment on board ships has a step by step preventative maintenance system which includes daily’s, weekly’s, monthly’s, quarterly’s, semi annual’s and annuals. At any point if the steps in these maintenance schedules are not performed precisely as laid out in the steps.....it invites problems.

That’s my ol girl.....USS Chandler DDG-996

originally posted by: Randyvine
a reply to: Gothmog

That was hilarious .
Never been in the military , huh ?

No I haven't Goth is that an argument or you are writing a book or...

No.
That was a valid comment .
All based on that line :

Hello! this is military equipment!

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
He makes a great point....something such as unCalibrated equipment or sensors etc...can lead to false indications, results etc.

I’ll buy that....in a younger life, I worked in the electronics field. We always had to make sure our test equipment was calibrated. If not, test results would be skewed, and incorrect.

For a radar to do what it does....there is a whole chain of associated equipment. Any fault in any part of the chain...will end up with a imprecise output.

These latest UAP radar readings.....you would want to ask if ALL the equipment was calibrated and up to specs when the radar sweeps were being done.

Two things, you didn't disclose pertinent information until
you suddenly needed it.

And you're saying our military is incompetent enough to
put birds in the air using faulty radar equipment.

Now I'm not calling you a liar yet. But you are making yourself
look like one.

Any way not nuff said.

a reply to: Gothmog

No.
That was a valid comment .
All based on that line :

Then let me apologize. I thought it was a question.

Oh you saw them? dont matter to me I'm a scientist! Prolly forgot to calibrate your eyeballs. - Neil Degrasse Tyson astrophysicist.

a reply to: Randyvine

And you're saying our military is incompetent enough to put birds in the air using faulty radar equipment.

Absolutely not unheard of.
Only as good as the specialist that checks out the aircraft and the Chief that signs off on it .

NDGT Is a pompous know it all and he gets on my nerves big time but, hes probably right.

a reply to: Gothmog

Absolutely not unheard of.
Only as good as the specialist that checks out the aircraft and the Chief that signs off on it .

And you don't think that tracking a UAP is reason enough to
inspect the equipment after the incident? That surely would've
led to discovery thereby explaining away the whole incident?
And this adds up for you?

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: SpaceCowboy78
Here ya go!

I have to jet, but I'll watch it later.

Thanks man