It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: gnarkill1529
dont think it doesn't bother me that you couldnt explain what this PSY OP is accomplishing
Where? Link?
originally posted by: sean
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I posted my argument along with my own calculations to disprove his debunking and I never got a counter argument.
They may or may not have identified the craft with the flashing strobes in the "flying pyramid" bokeh video, but, so what? The flashing strobes look pretty familiar even if I can't tell you exactly what aircraft it is.
originally posted by: gnarkill1529
I dont trust the Pentagon but I do believe they are being honest about these UFO videos being unidentified.
1952, and numerous times since then, officials have admitted there are UFOs.
When have they ever said something like that before?
I'm not sure, that's odd. Of course Bigelow is in the thick of things and he's had past and present projects in consciousness research. That's mentioned in this analysis which suggests there seems to be some kind of effort to destroy the scientific approach to UFOs, and replace it with some medieval non-scientific baloney:
originally posted by: mirageman
● Why would an entertainment company employ a bunch of advisers in neuroscience, counter biological weapons, brain injuries and a Biomedical Attorney which no one ever talks about?
Something strange is going on. Maybe they never identified the fuzzy dot in the FLIR video, but if it was 40 miles away, it doesn't seem like much of a threat. Couple that with Kevin Day's story which contradicts what the Pilot Chad Underwood said, and it's obvious someone is not telling us the truth. Nobody talks about that though; investigative journalism is all but gone, you have to watch Mick West's channel to find out things like that, and that almost never seems to find its way to mainstream media.
By this spring, the imminent report, and prodding from Mellon and Kean, prompted another round of uncritical media coverage. Kean and Elizondo were profiled in the aforementioned credulous New Yorker article tied to the congressional report Mellon had lobbied for. Within days, Elizondo and Mellon, who left TTSA for their own unnamed new national security UFO venture, were everywhere in the media, from 60 Minutes to CNN, reinforcing the Pentagon and UFO threat narrative skeptics did not recognize.
The threat narrative was a brilliant bit of framing, turning a story of poltergeist hunters battling a cabal of demon-believers into a national security issue. But this influence campaign masks the deeper transformation its advocates want to bring about: Puthoff and his colleagues seek to delegitimize material science in favor of a magical, neo-medieval view of reality founded on spirit, or, in their terms, security issue. But this influence campaign masks the deeper transformation its advocates want to bring about: Puthoff and his colleagues seek to delegitimize material science in favor of a magical, neo-medieval view of reality founded on spirit, or, in their terms, “consciousness” and psychic powers. Elizondo still speaks of demon cabals, otherworldly beings, and UFOs operating beyond human perception, just not on 60 Minutes. UFOs, newly relevant as a security threat, are only the vanguard of a larger effort to undo the failure of Stargate and elevate spirit over matter. It’s bad science and dangerous as government policy, the kind of magical thinking that leads to lunacy and disaster.
...
Elizondo, and Mellon. So long as a compliant media plays along with the “fun” of UFOs, the clumsy effort to use them to break down modern science continues unabated. And Bigelow is prepared: Blumenthal recently gave him a lavish New York Times profile to launch his new think tank for “consciousness science” and afterlife studies. Bigelow appointed Hal Puthoff, members of the “invisible college,” and Leslie Kean.
So far in complete agreement. Here is the screenshot from his video at 2:37 showing the 4.4 nm and the 26° outlined in red:
originally posted by: sean
I'll post again here why it is wrong... The information in the HUD shows the plane doesn't deviate at all very much from 25k ft, which equates to 4.11 nautical miles. The range that Mick uses is 4.4nm (hypotenuse)
I come up with 1.9272 which I rounded up to 1.93 nm, maybe Mick truncated it to 1.92, but I'm not going to quibble about 1.92 versus 1.93 in this context.
and the angle of the plane at 26 degrees and uses S=O/H. Now plugging in all that information you'll wind up with a 1.92nm like in his video. This is incorrect!!
Can you make a drawing of what you're doing?
If the angle is 26, then the other angle has to be 64 and the planes height of 4.11nm at right-angle to the sea level at 90 for a total of 180 degrees. Now if you plug all that info in, you'll wind up with a hypotenuse of 4.57nm by using hyp=adj/cos(26) and the base being 2. So you can see that there is a problem here in his video at 4.57nm and the HUD is reading at 4.4nm this places the object close to the sea level.
The source I posted indicates the -22 or -26 degrees would be 22 or 26 degrees below the axis of the aircraft, which since the aircraft is in level flight, the axis of the aircraft would be a horizontal line at 25000 feet. The axis of the aircraft is not a vertical line as your interpretation suggests.
originally posted by: sean
The camera is looking down at -26 degrees and only knows it's looking down at -26 degree's because it is calculating that based off the height of the plane
originally posted by: sean
I'll post again here why it is wrong... The information in the HUD shows the plane doesn't deviate at all very much from 25k ft, which equates to 4.11 nautical miles. The range that Mick uses is 4.4nm (hypotenuse) and the angle of the plane at 26 degrees and uses S=O/H. Now plugging in all that information you'll wind up with a 1.92nm like in his video. This is incorrect!!
"There is absolutely reason to question everything and everyone involved"