U.S. Government Report Finds No Evidence of Alien Technology in Flying Objects......

From listening to former military people, the reason they put out stupid reports like this is that it's more important to hide military capabilities than show what they do know.

Can't let anyone know how good current military IR cameras or other military technologies we have available are can we? That's waaaaay more important than unknowns flying through your airspace. Let's just show some really grainy images and video because, reasons.

Also, just watched this yesterday:



I was hoping for better, with more details, than the stupid doublespeak we are getting.

originally posted by: game over man
Neil deGrasse Tyson is making the rounds on the news blaming people with smart phones to discover UFOs. That kind of victim blaming is pretty hypocritical considering he is vocal against police brutality...

Then he blames the declassified UFO videos as malfunctioning infrared radar.

Has any scientist attempted to explain how these UAP's...COULD work?? How come no one can reverse engineer these videos??

Totally irrelevant. It’s a nice attempt to garner some ATS stars mentioning hot button political issues, but they don’t relate to the subject at hand in any way, or is it that you can’t look past the lens of politics when viewing your reality? Filling in the unknown with your best guess and then demanding someone to shoot down your idea conclusively is pretty arrogant, and not a great way to uncover our reality, but you’ve already demonstrated a lack of intellectual integrity to analyze and interpret the subject matter. Nobody needs to explain how UAPs work for them to not be aliens.

if some of the reports were true, E.T. has the ability to time travel, read our thoughts, and cloak themselves.

Of course, it may possibly be our future self modifying a whole lotta BS. ie: terraforming

Disclosure via movie :
Interstellar, another earth
[I find it rather absurd people think anything we do actually makes a difference without guidance,; politics are put there so you don't assume a truth, our brains are made to be hacked and regularly change without any notice

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Below is a screenshot from last nights Tucker Carlson Tonight show....once again Elizondo is on.

It shows the document mentioned in the CNN Don Lemon report that was elaborated on, But Not, on Tucker’s show.

If anyone can find the document to share or link to.....please do.

Below is the two pages shown (actually the doc is 3 pages but page 3 is ref’s) on Tucker Carson Tonight.....

Thanks to MM for displaying the link to page 1 of the document on his post of his looooong thread .....which led me to pages 2 and 3.

Anyway...for what it’s worth

originally posted by: Rob808
Is it odd to anyone else that these things sure seem to interact a lot of the us navy? Like, it’s their objective or something? Also interesting, terrestrial options such as human derived or perhaps other options haven’t been taken off the table.

Do we or don’t we trust what they have to say at this point regarding the phenomenon?

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Where all we have are eyewitness reports, then we have to decide whether we can take such reports at face value. For a scientific analysis, that's a non-starter due to known, demonstrated and well documented issues with human misperception, especially with pilots, having some of the highest misperception rates of all classes of observers in a large UFO study.

Where we have videos, like the three videos officially released by the pentagon for example, we can analyze those videos, then it's not a matter of trust but a matter of analysis. You can demonstrate for yourself that both David Fravor and Chad underwood are wrong when they claim Underwood's FLIR video shows acceleration at the end, it shows an optical illusion of acceleration cause by loss of target lock and zoom change. The pilots who report on the audio of the "gimbal" video report that "it's rotating", but the UFO is not rotating, the rotation is an artifact of the Gimbal mount for the camera, probably why the video is called "gimbal", and the third video called "gofast" is also an optical illusion, resulting from parallax.

Now I could understand how in real time any of us including pilots might misinterpret the illusions seen in those three videos, it could happen to any of us. But what I can't understand is how, given plenty of time to sit down and analyze the videos, they would not be able to recognize the illusions as illusions. Fort example, it would be very easy for any high school student to make this graph from Chad Underwood's video, you can do it yourself easily.

www.metabunk.org...


It's further explained here:


It clearly shows the rate of leftward movement of the UFO does not make any sudden changes at the end of the video like Underwood and Fravor claim it does, and I find it very difficult to believe that they can't make this graph just as easily as we can to prove their claim false.

The UFO was said to be something like 30-40 miles away from Underwood when he took his video, no wonder it's hard to identify. Anything that far away is going to be hard to identify, and it doesn't really do anything interesting at all in the video as Underwood claims it does. So given a choice between trusting what he said and what the video actually shows, it's no contest, go with what the video actually shows, after you've corrected for the illusion. Same for the other two pentagon released videos, pilots are making false claims for those too, like "2/3 the speed of sound" for the gofast video which is not doing that. The pilots should be able to figure out their claims are false if they analyzed the videos. Why they are making these false claims, I can only think of two reasons, one of which doesn't make much sense, the other one seems to fit the overall pattern of what is going on.

"Go Fast" UFO Video Explained?


"Gimbal" video of "rotating UFO", which is not really rotating, explained as an artifact of the "gimbal" system.

Man today I was sky scoping today as is my want and I noticed a shiny glint in the sky to my south it stayed visible but was too far away or too small to see or too high to make out a shape. I tried to capture it on vid and photo but every shot looked poo poo, while I'm recording the object I had this thought in my head to be as still as I could (because the voice in my head was just repeating what I've heard on YouTube about UFO footage ie the cam operated must have Parkinson's or something) so I steadied myself but alas to no avail. Although there was a large plane going south at the same time. Then I lost sight of it completely although it stayed in the same spot but appeared to slowly rise higher then poof it was gone

originally posted by: Rob808

originally posted by: game over man
Neil deGrasse Tyson is making the rounds on the news blaming people with smart phones to discover UFOs. That kind of victim blaming is pretty hypocritical considering he is vocal against police brutality...

Then he blames the declassified UFO videos as malfunctioning infrared radar.

Has any scientist attempted to explain how these UAP's...COULD work?? How come no one can reverse engineer these videos??

Totally irrelevant. It’s a nice attempt to garner some ATS stars mentioning hot button political issues, but they don’t relate to the subject at hand in any way, or is it that you can’t look past the lens of politics when viewing your reality? Filling in the unknown with your best guess and then demanding someone to shoot down your idea conclusively is pretty arrogant, and not a great way to uncover our reality, but you’ve already demonstrated a lack of intellectual integrity to analyze and interpret the subject matter. Nobody needs to explain how UAPs work for them to not be aliens.

When I wrote that I didn't think of police brutality as a political thing because it's not. I watch a lot of interviews and podcasts of him, do you? You're so triggered. And seriously "nobody needs to explain how UAPs work?" Why not?! That's exactly what needs to happen. He should explain how they could work instead of saying "we aren't actually seeing anything unusual."

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Kevin Day says in the video (0:28:00) that you posted that on his radar screen the UFO dropped from 20k feet to about 50 feet above water in less than a second. No hearsay.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Mick West doesn’t seem like the sharpest guy to me. He’s got real difficulties remembering what witnesses said.

The ballistic threat radar on the Nimitz tracked the UFOs from 80k feet to their cruise level at 28k feet. Later on one of them moved from 28k to sea level in a fraction of a second. Mick claims it went from 80k to sea level which nobody said.

On top of that he’s no sceptic in the scientific sense. In the video you linked he states that it’s impossible to go from 80k feet to sea level in a fraction of a second. This is clearly just his opinion and not fact. He’s already made up his mind on what’s possible and what isn’t. Confirmation bias much...?!?!

He is a skeptic entertainer with a channel to feed. He must find a way to discredit no matter how far reaching. I actually do like his insight on many topics. Unfortunately in this area he only uses the best percentage points of information available to him to back his narrative. He leaves out many searchable and crucial points that remain relevant that he can not fit in to his running explanation. And what is available to him and us to hand pick from is only a small portion of what is not classified data.a reply to: CyberBuddha

originally posted by: CyberBuddha
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Kevin Day says in the video (0:28:00) that you posted that on his radar screen the UFO dropped from 20k feet to about 50 feet above water in less than a second. No hearsay.

Where is the data to make it not hearsay?

A singular 28,000 ft to 50 ft vertical manoeuvre at 46,000 MPH from a singular 40 ft object would be extraordinarily difficult to verify on a system which relies on pulsed emissions as you'd need to gain a minimum number of successful range and elevation returns during the transition to provide the required evidential proof.

As soon as you increase frequency repetition (necessary to track a fast moving small object) it reduces range.....

a reply to: Seekur

Yep. I just hate when the “skeptics” make up more BS than your regular UFO nutjob.

originally posted by: Jukiodone

originally posted by: CyberBuddha
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Kevin Day says in the video (0:28:00) that you posted that on his radar screen the UFO dropped from 20k feet to about 50 feet above water in less than a second. No hearsay.

Where is the data to make it not hearsay?

A singular 28,000 ft to 50 ft vertical manoeuvre at 46,000 MPH from a singular 40 ft object would be extraordinarily difficult to verify on a system which relies on pulsed emissions as you'd need to gain a minimum number of successful range and elevation returns during the transition to make such a claim.

As soon as you increase frequency repetition (necessary to track a fast moving small object) it reduces range.....

How did you get to 46,000 mph? Just curious since you’re talking about data...

a reply to: CyberBuddha

Used Knuth's calculations based on the 28KFT to 50Ft + (margin of error)/ Time.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: Jukiodone

Let me get this straight. You’re questioning the ability of the Navy radar system to track a fast moving object and then you post velocity that was calculated from that very same radar return?

originally posted by: Jukiodone

originally posted by: CyberBuddha
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Kevin Day says in the video (0:28:00) that you posted that on his radar screen the UFO dropped from 20k feet to about 50 feet above water in less than a second. No hearsay.

Where is the data to make it not hearsay?

A singular 28,000 ft to 50 ft vertical manoeuvre at 46,000 MPH from a singular 40 ft object would be extraordinarily difficult to verify on a system which relies on pulsed emissions as you'd need to gain a minimum number of successful range and elevation returns during the transition to make such a claim.

As soon as you increase frequency repetition (necessary to track a fast moving small object) it reduces range.....

Anyway, if you carefully watch the video of Day talking to Mick West you see that the radar system never lost contact with the UFO during descent. How that’s possible is as obvious as it’s classified...🤠

a reply to: CyberBuddha

So you dont understand the difference between tracking a stationary object and a moving object in addition to the issue of taking Day's word as verified fact?

Carry on....you'll have this cracked by Xmas.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
a reply to: CyberBuddha

So you dont understand the difference between tracking a stationary object and a moving object in addition to the issue of taking Day's word as verified fact?

Carry on....you'll have this cracked by Xmas.

The UFOs were never stationary. Day’s particular radar is optimized for incoming, fast moving threats to the ship up to about 40k feet.

The same info for Skeptics or Quacks is there for any of us who want to look in to and self learn. Approaching the matter from a pre determined unwavering conclusion is irresponsible and ignorance in the purest form. And people relying on those to relay that info to them are just as ignorant. reply to: CyberBuddha

There’s no victim blaming here, just like with the police brutality issue... or are you the victim? It must be hard to not be able to prove what you desperately believe in.

You don’t seem to have the actual desire to understand the issue at hand as much as have your preconceived ideals proved correct. Sticking with it’s gotta be aliens prove me wrong bro isn’t an argument. And yes, the subject of police brutality is unrelated to ufos, keep chasing the stars and avoid the truth!

a reply to: game over man