Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 66 of 66

Thread: US Navy Patent: Really??

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hatch View Post
    crafts coming down from 100k ft+- to close to sea level in less than a second for instance...
    Several times reentry speed, and down low where the atmosphere is much thicker - they must have a pretty advanced heat shield.
    A: "Things that are equal to the same are equal to each other"
    B: "The two sides of this triangle are things that are equal to the same"
    C: "If A and B are true, Z must be true"
    D: "If A and B and C are true, Z must be true"
    E: "If A and B and C and D are true, Z must be true"

    Therefore, Z: "The two sides of this triangle are equal to each other"

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hatch View Post
    Not true. Blurry clips indeed... You obviously have not listened to the first person accounts from both the pilots and the radar techs on board said ship(s) which are out there on the net....listening to their accounts it is obvious that what they witnessed was an inertialess drive.... crafts coming down from 100k ft+- to close to sea level in less than a second for instance... Why do you think the US Gov is releasing these clips? Are they pandering to the UFO nuts? Why do you belittle and marginalize first hand accounts from the military personnel? If nothing else, if these accounts are accurate, the Fermi paradox is no longer a paradox and we are Not alone. The more interesting question is, What are they doing here?
    I didn't say blurry clips... I said that your reasoning was driven by a set of assumptions that you accept due to your belief that you know what is really happening. Assumptions I and it appears most others don't agree with.

    Other than that Van Rijn covered all the points I would have made. Except one. You rage at my heinous crime of belittling and marginalizing first hand accounts from military personnel - yet why these paragons of accuracy and level headedness investigate further and say there are no aliens involved you ignore them. This for me highlights the pointlessness of this discussion. Anyone who agrees with you is accepted at face value and without reservation. Anyone who doesn't is dismissed or attacked.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,578
    I was the one who had used the "blurry clips" line.

    Judging motion from a fast-moving aircraft is difficult. Even folks standing on solid ground sometimes have the optical illusion of fast motion of stationary sky objects. I'd cast a skeptical eye and reserve judgement on the identity of the UAP's until a more detailed analysis of the videos than naked-eye guesstimate occurs.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    31,610
    My partner's in the military. I question his eyewitness testimony all the time, when it contradicts my known experience.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hatch View Post
    Not true. Blurry clips indeed... You obviously have not listened to the first person accounts from both the pilots and the radar techs on board said ship(s) which are out there on the net....listening to their accounts it is obvious that what they witnessed was an inertialess drive.... crafts coming down from 100k ft+- to close to sea level in less than a second for instance... Why do you think the US Gov is releasing these clips? Are they pandering to the UFO nuts? Why do you belittle and marginalize first hand accounts from the military personnel? If nothing else, if these accounts are accurate, the Fermi paradox is no longer a paradox and we are Not alone. The more interesting question is, What are they doing here?
    I'll just repeat something I posted on the "US Nimitz UFO event" thread
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    I've had personal bitter experience of "good quality" witnesses "determined to tell their story", who sincerely believed they had seen something that not only didn't happen, but couldn't happen, and which would have been impossible for them to observe from where they were standing, even if it had happened. Inconsistencies in their original reports ironed out very quickly after they had spoken to each other, and then some of them began to "remember" details which were consistent with one person's report, but inconsistent with their own original reports.
    Being sane and conscientious and "trained to observe" doesn't stop you misinterpreting sensory data, sometimes quite grossly, in order to align it with what you think you're observing, and it doesn't stop you remodelling your own memories for consistency later.
    Grant Hutchison

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,771
    The Nimitz event, which was the occasion of the FLIR1 film clip, resolves into three distinct phases.
    1/ The first was a series of anomalous radar traces, apparently descending from 80,000 feet to sea level in a matter of seconds. No-one ever saw these phenomena, and it seems very unlikely that any physical object could achieve such speeds in an atmosphere without causing a massive shockwave and plasma trail.
    If these supposed craft were somehow isolated from the effects of atmospheric friction and deceleration, how come they reflected radar signals at all?

    2/ The second phase was David Fravor's Tic Tac, which displayed none of the characteristics of the first phase. Fravor's sighting started with a disturbance in the water, which may have been a submarine surfacing or submerging, or some biogenic phenomenon such as whales bubble-netting. There were submarines in the area during these exercises, and it seems that the various parts of the Navy do not always know exactly where each submarine is on these occasions (they mention an 'unknown submarine' in a different report, suggesting that they are not always sure).
    The Tic Tac itself may have been a misperception by Fravor of a much smaller and closer object, and this is supported by its behaviour, which appeared to 'mirror' his movements in an uncanny way. The 'mirroring' could be the result of a simple parallax error, similar to the one in the 'GOFAST' clip (of which more later).

    3/The last phase of the Nimitz event occurred several minutes later, when Chas Underwood arrived in a different plane (with a working Forward Looking InfraRed detector and camera), and was directed to the site of these events by the Nimitz radar. Fravor was long gone by this time and back on the Nimitz.
    Underwood did not see anything at all visually, but his detector did pick up (and record) an apparently distant target (perhaps 50km or more away). This distant target behaved exactly like a normal plane, although it did apparently 'zoom off' at the end of the encounter - an effect which seems to have been an artifact of the sensing system, since the FLIR lost contact with the target when the system switched to a higher magnification. Underwood may have been looking towards a San Diego flightpath at this point, so the target may have been an airliner.

    So there doesn't seem to be anything particularly unusual about the FLIR1/Nimitz event.

    The other two clips, GOFAST and GIMBAL, from 2015, do not have any named witnesses or other details, and can be similarly explained by mundane phenomena. GOFAST in particular seems to have been a small bird-sized object halfway between the sea and the plane, and all the 'fast' movement is an artifact of parallax. So I don't see much here to get excited about.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •