UFO of the day
- Started
- Last post
- 1,033 Responses
- Bennn0
Go watch this documentary on Netlfix :
Unacknowledged
- this is crazy if all trueBennn
- Its probably true. But what you gunna do about it? Get back to work, slave.Raybandana
- Rogan ripped this one apart about a year agomoldero
- lol, I got a bit into this until I saw the "evidence" they were working with ... so funny how people are so desperate to believemonospaced
- If you have an great adblocker/popupblock... https://ymovies.to/f…Bindegal
- it was okay but I'd be wary of Steven Greer.fadein11
- Can’t take it seriously as soon as they start to talk about „structures“ on Mars.NBQ00
- Greer is also a drama queen. Never once provided any real evidence. That said I do think the universe is full of live.NBQ00
- there's a lot of people talking in this documentary that seems honest and reliableBennn
- Great, but that's not a measure of truth, Bennn.monospaced
- i know. I just WANT TO BELIEVE ;)Bennn
- Bindegal-2
- Feels a bit CGI but we weren't theregrafician
- LOL!!!!!!monospaced
- Feels a bit CG? Really?
Bbbbwwaaaaahahahahah...monospaced - It looks like a horseBindegal
- antimotion1
bad sound but kind of fun
- PonyBoy-2
- PonyBoy2
- would you still be seeing diaphanous clouds if you were zoomed in that tightly?MrAbominable
- moon pigeonsutopian
- so he spotted those things with the naked eye then decided to affix his telephoto moon lens to see it up close, then he saw the next squadron? lol_niko
- also if real more than likely meteors coming in at steep angle?_niko
- meteors don't go that slow and leave HUGE shadows on the surface of the moon
Feels a bit CGI tho without some context first!grafician
- NBQ000
Is this guy full of shit? What you say?
- I remember flying around my house like Peter Pan as a kid. Doesn't meet it really happened.inteliboy
- Yes full of shit.monospaced
- utopian-1
- grafician1
"Pentagon declassifies three previously leaked top secret U.S. Navy videos of "unexplained aerial phenomena"—and that some believe could show UFOs."
Those videos are official af now
It's all over the news today, even on CNN's homepage!
- Bluejam8
- yeah those!grafician
- hands down this is the most fascinating and frightening UFO evidence everinteliboy
- I wonder which country thats fromOP31
- US Navy south of border near San Diego I think. Rogan had the actual pilot on the podcast a few months backmoldero
- BelieveBennn
- could be some sort of particle, atmospheric 'bubble' that then looks like an object moving, or said thing causing optical illusion.shapesalad
- it was tracked on radar and numerous pilots saw with their own eyes Shape. Not to mention the US Navy and now the Pentagon saying it is 'unidentified'fadein11
- You have to wonder that if they're releasing this, what the fuck are they keeping back from the public.
'But i forgot my pen, shit the bed again'Morning_star - A taster for whats coming after coronadrgs
- moldero, Joe Rogan talked about the Pentagon release today as well. Morning_star, indeed. Something (i.e., news) is coming.MondoMorphic
- Corona 2 - Colonapocalypse, massive sky anusNairn
- The fact that it rotated was a bit more evidence than just a spot.dbloc
- The fact that it rotated is a confirmed example that the Bob Lazar propulsion system explanation is probably trueprophetone
- Nice, proof here : https://cloud10.todo…i_was
- yeah watching the tim pool ep nowmoldero
- #twoyearsoldwagshaft
- @wag not from the pentagon, was a whistleblower beforefadein11
- This debunks one of them
https://www.youtube.…atomholc - I have had two "Close Encounters of the First Kind" experiences in my lifetime. The last time was in 2016.utopian
- When I told people in the past they laughed at me. After these Navy UFO tapes surfaced 2018,...now they will not stop asking me questions about my encounter.utopian
- BTW - the video was not debunked by a non-scientific Youtuber.utopian
- this looks like something in very bad quality not like an ufo. hollywood can do better ufo's!api
- @utop, I would love to speak to you about that. And yep wasn't debunked at all.fadein11
- please share Utop!inteliboy
- What do you think of this explanation? https://www.youtube.…atomholc
- Not trying to day you didn't see aliens though ... just that maybe some of these things have an explanation.atomholc
- Kelly from skunk works already said we have the capabilities to go to the stars, but the tech is locked up in black projectsgrafician
- And I don't know what you mean about non-scientific you-tuber ... Keith has an academic background in science.atomholc
- This ain't no UFO; it's man-made. It's part of Trump's Space Force fleet.Krassy
- that explanation came before this was officially release video. Why would the US military doctor up footage of a UFO?inteliboy
- I love conspiracy videos but I love debunking videos even more. given both options here i'd tend to agree with that Mick West video_niko
- @niko I always try to find evidence to debunk conspiracy vids. However, Mick West's video counters with little to no scientific facts, he's just some YouTuber.utopian
- Mick is using the data from video to do the calculations? How is that not factual evidence?atomholc
- utopian, yeah I'm weary of that and any "expert" with a youtube channel, of course i can't verify the data and the screen readings are what he says, just giving_niko
- ...him the benefit of the doubt. But all things being equal, from what i've looked at so far, his is the most plausible explanation._niko
- Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack! Ack!pango - what does he explain? that some guy in the military sat there and used after effects to make a fake video? seriously.inteliboy
- no, the video's real, the pilot's interpretation of what they were seeing is wrong._niko
- https://i.gifer.com/…pango
- It/they were also tracked on radar and it behaved like no known aircraft.
https://en.m.wikiped…fadein11 - @atomholc - excellent vid, thanks!Nairn
- @utop - 'little to no scientific facts'? That entire video shows his working out. Not his fault we're too dumb to check his sums. Curious to know what you mean?Nairn
- Given Cunningham's Law, I'd expect his YT comments to be littered with counters if he was off-base.Nairn
- I find it surprising the Pentagon and US Navy wouldn't have ruled this out before releasing the videos, not to mention the testimony of the 'trained observer'fadein11
- pilots and radar data.fadein11
- Saying that it is only a small section of 1 of 3 videos being analysed.fadein11
- Have the Pentagon or US Navy even officially publicly commented on any of this?Nairn
- https://33.media.tum…pango
- @nairn
"The objects seen in three clips of declassified military footage are "unidentified aerial phenomena," Navy spokesperson Joe Gradisher confirmed to CNN."fadein11 - https://edition.cnn.…fadein11
- that was after the original leak by whistleblowerfadein11
- Well, there's nothing untrue in that statement. I'd suggest that the very fact we've seen these means they know what they are and discount anything too oddNairn
- Department of Defense this week.
"The US Department of Defense has released three declassified videos of "unexplained aerial phenomena".fadein11 - https://www.bbc.co.u…fadein11
- "The Pentagon said it wanted to "clear up any misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage that has been circulating was real"."fadein11
- There is way more detail if you dig deeper. Many interviews with pilots and radar operators. More detail to both releases from US Navy and DoD as well.fadein11
- I watched a lot about this last year or whenever it was that Set was going on about it. There's just one vid now that seems as yet unexplainable to meNairn
- I just really liked the analysis of the guy in the aforelinked video, and even if I don't have the smarts to test his working, the example video of the runawayNairn
- balloon 'splained it in an obvious and ELI5 fashionNairn
- yep that video is good. I just don't understand why they would bother releasing stuff again after it was leaked if easily explained.fadein11
- surely they would just refer us to videos like that. The pilot interviews are pretty incredbile. These guys know what they saw.fadein11
- They were seeing things with their own eyes, not those grainy videos. And the radar operators who recorded the incredible speeds and movement.fadein11
- I don't think there was radar contact for the video explained above. There was for the Tic-Tac Nimitz group one.Nairn
- https://cdn.discorda…pango
- Like I said, all the info is out there, it's interesting if nothing else.
I guess some need El Presidente to confirm the phenomenon is real, Pentagon doesn'tfadein11 - cut it these days :)fadein11
- looks like QBN is divided into two camps, the Skullys and the Mulders, well three actually if you count the Peacocks but we don't talk about them._niko
- Ack ack ackpango
- lol _nikofadein11
- cbass990
Tell me why every time there is a video or picture, its blurry and grainy? In the world of HD, and the money NASA has, I find it pretty odd we can't get one solid, zoomed in detailed image.
- You can see my garden furniture on google maps satellite view.monoboy
- Although, it isn't moving fast and in orbit.monoboy
- UFO’s are blurry irlGnash
- ^thislemmy_k
- did you see the chile navy one from 2014? they switch from tv view (don‘t see it) to infrared where you see it blurry.uan
- Because then it might be IDENTIFIABLEmonospaced
- Because if they were HD, they would be IFOs.maquito
- Bennn0
We will not really believe it 'till the day we have an actual encounter with extraterrestrials live on TV with many witnesses
- until then, its always gonna be a secret military project, an atmospheric phenomenon hoax, etc.Bennn
- * an atmospheric phenomenon, hoax, etc.Bennn
- ^ Oh but there was, the Voronezh UFO incident.Maaku
- ^ meh... "allegedly witnessed by a group of children, with other members of the local community"Bennn
- But many will believe with far less. Including nothing at all. Like right now.monospaced
- hehe yeah :)Bennn
- fadein11-2
A decent piece from Richard Dolan on those videos after they first emerged end of 2017.
The Pentagon and UFOs: Assessing the Revelations
January 1, 2018Richard Dolan
On December 16, people interested in UFOs received an early Christmas surprise. The New York Times---a longtime leader in mainstream UFO debunking efforts---published two articles on the subject in one day.
These were not the vacuous, snarky pieces that typically emanate from the newspaper that publishes “all the news fit to print.” These were, in fact, two good articles that gave genuine information.
The main article, “Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program,” offered several bombshells. Mainly, that the Pentagon, from the end of the George W. Bush presidency and through at least the first term of Barack Obama, spent millions of dollar investigating UFOs. Granted, $22 million over roughly five years is less than a pittance in Pentagon numbers. But that anything was spent at all is significant. We are talking from 2007 until (officially) “the 2012 timeframe,” in the imprecise words of a Pentagon official.
The program’s name was also typically vague---Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification (AATI). It was managed by a career intelligence officer named Luis Elizondo, who has been very straightforward about the program and the incredible nature of what it analyzed. According to Politico, which also published an article on this that came out soon after the Times pieces, Elizondo “described scores of unexplained sightings by Navy pilots and other observers of aircraft with capabilities far beyond what is currently considered aerodynamically possible.” Moreover, he said, these occurred near nuclear facilities, ships at sea, and power plants. Clearly, this is not random but intelligent. According to Elizondo, "We had never seen anything like it."
Recovered UFO Materials
UFO skeptics, as ever, wave all this away. Still, isn’t anyone curious about the revelation that the program contracted out to Bigelow Aerospace to study “metal alloys and other materials that Mr. Elizondo [who managed the program] and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena.”
In any normal world, this would prompt a massive, collective, “whoa.” But the bland statement is buried within the article in the Times. Most people seem to have missed it. For years, researchers have argued that U.S. military agencies (and several other national militaries) have recovered and studied UFOs. Indeed, a number of declassified documents, to say nothing of a virtual avalanche of testimony, have at least supported this claim. So now we have it acknowledged in the New York Times itself, although couched in disclaimers (“Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said...”).
Even with the disclaimers, however, don’t we want to ask what exactly constitutes these “metal alloys and other materials”? This is a reasonable question. We are talking about, quite literally, recovered UFOs. What, if any, were the conclusions generated by Bigelow Aerospace regarding these materials?
Effects of UFOs on Human Biology
That revelation was followed by another one: “Researchers also studied people who said they had experienced physical effects from encounters with the objects and examined them for any physiological changes.”
There has been a lot of quiet talk about this over the past few years. Former U.S. Airman First Class John Burroughs, from the well-known Rendlesham Forest case of December 1980, has experienced documented and life-threatening physical after-effects from his encounter with a landed UFO. He was also the investigator who first recognized the immense value of the declassified U.K. report from the late 1990s known as the Condign Report, which discussed at length physical effects on human beings from UAP --- that is, UFOs.
So, these are things that researchers essentially already knew, but now the New York Times confirms that U.S. taxpayers funded, via the Pentagon, studies of such physiological and biological effects. Again, we want to know: what conclusions, if any, were found? More to the point, wouldn’t it be worthwhile to flesh out this story?
An Extraordinary Encounter
We don’t yet know all the UFO cases studied by the AATI Program. But at least one high profile encounter has now reached us: the November 2004 incident involving the USS Princeton one hundred miles off the coast of San Diego. This was the theme of the other article published by the New York Times on December 16.
Briefly, Commander David Fravor and Lt. Commander Jim Slaight were each flying F/A-18F Super Hornets on a routine training mission. It turned out that for the previous two weeks, the Navy had been tracking extraordinary unidentified objects that would appear at 80,000 feet, dive to 20,000 feet, stop and hover, then drop out of radar range or shoot straight up.
Now something once again appeared on Navy radar, and Fravor and Slaight were ordered to investigate. The weather was clear and perfect. Fravor got in the closest and saw a whitish object he described as “tic tac shaped” hovering 50 feet above churning water. He estimated it to be about 40 feet long. As he initiated a circular descent and approached the object, it ascended as if to meet him. He then dove straight at the object, at which point it sped away nearly instantly.
In an interview with Tucker Carlson, Fravor didn’t give an estimate of the object’s speed, but he did describe it as accelerating from a dead stop just over the water to an altitude of 12,000 feet and being out of sight, all within two seconds. He would only state that its speed was “well above supersonic,” or “like the bullet out of a gun.” Just for fun, we can do our own rough estimate of the speed, based on his information. During the interview, Fravor stated that there was more than fifty miles of visibility that day, with “easy” visibility of ten miles. It’s reasonable to think the object travelled at least ten miles within two seconds, and perhaps over fifty miles.
If you take the more conservative estimate of ten miles, that translates to 300 miles per minute, or 18,000 mph. If you want to be more liberal with the data, just multiply by five. Incidentally, Fravor added the object displayed no exhaust or discernable method of propulsion. He could only conclude that the object was “not from this world.”
Silence from the Hierarchy
And yet, as far as has been reported, no one seemed to care about these events. In his interview with Politico, Elizondo pointed out that "if a Russian 'Bear' bomber comes in near California, it is all over the news. These are coming in the skies over our facilities. Nothing but crickets."
His observation is spot on. If such technology were Russian or Chinese, the U.S. would be losing its collective mind. And yet, no one seems to believe it’s Russian or Chinese. Which begs the obvious question: to whom does this tech belong? Something “beyond next generation,” as Elizondo put it. If I think about what that phrase means, it would seem to be something vastly beyond not only what we currently have, but what we can imagine doing for the foreseeable future. And yet, there it is, easily outperforming some of our top fighter-interceptors.
Can we really think that no one in the military hierarchy cared about these events? I believe that there are those who very quietly care a great deal. But why stir the pot, so to speak, when there is absolutely nothing you can do about it?
On a related note, can we realistically think that, given the extraordinary nature of these events, and the truly incredible implications of the technology encountered, that no other funding has been allocated to study or deal with it?
There is a reason Elizondo was only hearing the sound of crickets. Because the study of UFOs continues to be revolutionary. It always has been, and this is why the most intense levels of secrecy have surrounded it since the Second World War.
Bigelow, the Pentagon, and MUFON
A few other random thoughts arise from all this.
It’s interesting that while Bigelow Aerospace was contracting with the Pentagon to analyze physical pieces of UFOs and more, it also had a relationship with the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), in which Bigelow’s organization provided money to MUFON to assist in on-site investigations of UFO encounters and sightings. The relationship ended acrimoniously. MUFON members believed Bigelow was simply using the organization to siphon its best cases while Bigelow appears to have been unsatisfied with the ragtag and sometimes less-than-professional nature of MUFON’s investigations. Probably both sides had a point, but the reality is that Bigelow’s relationship with MUFON now appears in a new light, as part of a larger effort to obtain hard data about UFOs.
White House Stonewalling on “Disclosure”
Another random thought. You might remember there were quite a few citizen based initiatives throughout the 21st century that, either explicitly or implicitly, sought to obtain some sort of government acknowledgement on the reality of UFOs. From the Disclosure Press conference of 2001 organized by Dr. Steven Greer, to the numerous X-Conferences organized by Stephen Bassett, as well as press conferences involving Leslie Kean (who co-authored the two pieces in the New York Times), James Fox, Robert Hastings, and others. None of these events elicited the slightest positive response from any branch of government.
In 2011, Bassett organized a “We the People” petition to the Obama White House to formally “acknowledge an extraterrestrial presence engaging the human race.” It garnered 12,078 signatures, more than enough to force a response from White House spokesperson Phil Larson, who simply stated that not only did the U.S. government lack evidence suggesting extraterrestrial life beyond or on our planet, but that there was “no credible information to suggest that any evidence is being hidden from the public’s eye.” All this, while Elizondo and the AATI existed and actively studied UFOs.
Just two years after that, Bassett organized the massive Citizens Hearings on Disclosure. Forty witnesses and researchers testified for an entire week about the reality of UFOs at the National Press Club in Washington, DC before six retired members of Congress and the Senate. I was actively engaged in this hearing, and saw firsthand the dramatic transformation of each member of the panel. The information presented to them clearly rocked their world.
All of this is to say that a mere scratching of the surface finds more than enough reason to warrant the most detailed and profound investigation of UFOs. But there is indeed an establishment in this society, and organizations like the New York Times are part of it.
Why Publish These Articles?
Which begs another question: why would the New York Times publish anything at all on this matter? Without question, the paper has a spotty track record of accuracy and honesty in its reporting. Some of this can be traced to its history of cooperation with the U.S. military-intelligence community (as in the case of Operation Mockingbird). Perhaps this explains why the Times willfully lied about UFOs as far back as 1947 when it promoted the military’s explanation of Roswell (weather balloon). For, whatever else you believe about Roswell, it wasn’t a weather balloon.
The New York Times promotes deceptions well beyond UFOs, of course. The fiction about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, promoted actively by the George W. Bush administration, was frenetically disseminated by the NYT, resulting in the destruction of that entire nation, and arguably much of the Middle East. More recent lies about Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, all promoted by rabid neocon warkhawks, were repeated in the Times and led to tremendous human suffering.
Well, of course. Along with the Washington Post and CNN, the New York Times is the voice of the establishment, that is, of the most powerful members of our society. They are the embodiment of “mainstream.” Such institutions are not here to radicalize the population with truth and such.
So to repeat: why publish these two articles? It’s a fair question to ask. Was this simply a great scoop by dedicated journalists, or is there something else at work here?
Look, I am not impugning these journalists as some have done by referring to this story as some sort of “false flag” (a claim that not only makes no sense, but obliterates the meaning of the term). I am glad and grateful they wrote these articles. But we can’t ignore the fact that these were published where they were.
Anyone paying attention knows that this story was really opened up by the To the Stars Academy press conference two months ago by Tom DeLonge, formerly of the rock band Blink 182. Elizondo presented there, along with several other impressive scientists and officials from the world of science and the intelligence community. Although the participants said it wasn’t “about” UFOs, everyone knows that is precisely what it was about. This press conference is where the 2004 sighting first received a wide audience. It was clear from this event that high-level people were taking UFOs seriously, even in our 21st century. It’s fair to say that this press conference jump-started a process.
The establishment could have continued to ignore this developing story, just as it usually does. But I suspect this was a story that needed to be confronted head-on, and so enter the New York Times, almost as if it were the official voice of the government.
This story looks to me to be an exercise in damage control. Again, this is not to state that the authors were consciously seeking to do this. But authors answer to editors, who answer to publishers. And you can’t just throw things out there willinilly if you are writing for the New York Times. You just can’t.
How likely is it that what has been reported is the entire story? Clearly there is much more going on here. These two articles, dramatic as they are, strike me as cauterizing a wound. You keep the main story contained by releasing a portion of it and hope that nothing more is needed.
There are the telltale signs of classic NYT debunkery, even in these pieces. Indeed, one of the titles make you wonder. “Glowing Auras” sounds definitely spooky, sci-fi, and woo. The phrase black money just has to be in quotes, since after all you can’t recognize that such a thing really exists. And finally, it’s amusing to see that the Times continues to insist on keeping periods in the word UFO. This isn’t the 1950s; UFO is recognized by everyone around the world. You’d think that after all these years these people could take the pole out of their collective asses, breathe deeply, and just use the damn word. I can’t help but think that, by not recognizing the word UFO fully, the Times isn’t fully recognizing the reality of the phenomenon. It’s subtle but real.
More tangibly, the Times almost compulsively had to throw cold water over its own piece, which presumably is why it quoted two skeptics early on. One, James Oberg, a former NASA employee, has been a prominent debunker for many years. Offering no specific rebuttals to the information in the article, he simply stated that people who saw such things were usually either misled by their own perceptions or else probably saw some new tech that no one wants to reveal. This ignores specifics such as the incredible encounter of Commander Fraser and the USS Princeton. The other skeptical comment in the article on “Glowing Auras” was by an astrophysicist from MIT who offered one of the blandest statements imaginable: “what people sometimes don’t get about science is that we often have phenomena that remain unexplained.”
Seriously? There is no reason whatsoever to include such literally meaningless statements as these except as necessary filler -- a psychological placeholder. That is, while you read powerful testimony that tells you the U.S. military encounters and studies real UFOs, the skeptical mantras continue to ruminate in your mind.
Disclosure?
I’ve been asked many times if these new revelations constitute “disclosure.” To which I answer, no, they do not. We are not getting a statement from the government that UFOs are real and they don’t know what they are, much less that UFOs are alien in nature. Nothing of the sort has happened. Moreover, the skeptical commentators refuse to give this story any meaning, and most of the news establishment, while admittedly giving the story fair coverage, already seem to be going back to telling you about Putin’s plans to destroy American Democracy.
It does seem to me, however, that the UFO reality just became a bit more real as a result of all this. It will be harder for authorities to dismiss. Skeptics may rail all they want, but rational, critically-minded people are seeing that there really is something going on, and it surely seems very important. There also appears to be a very large story lurking behind what we have already learned.
Those who have studied their history know that this sort of thing has happened before. Uncomfortable revelations about UFOs have been arising for many years, and each time it seemed to some that the end of secrecy was near. This time may be no different from the others. In my view, nothing seems capable of derailing the American-Now-Global system that wants 24/7 control over the information that reaches your eyes, ears, and brain. Presidential elections clearly don’t make a difference, no matter what the supporters and detractors of Donald Trump think. New guy comes in, old policies remain in place.
I’ve said so many times that UFO Disclosure is a paradox that I’ve stopped saying it because it became a cliche in my mind. And yet, I continue to feel that it’s impossible and inevitable. Impossible because there just appears to be no motivation for those holding the power to release this information. It’s way too disruptive.
It also appears to be inevitable. Nothing stays the same, certainly not in our time. I don’t know where we are headed with all this, and I will urge you not to trust those who claim they do. No more predictions, please. But it does seem to me that history began moving a little bit faster on December 16. Let’s all take a collective deep breath, stay focused, and above all remain curious enough to keep asking questions.
Richard Dolan
Rochester New York
January 1, 2018
- a link would have been ok ;-)Bennn
- here you go:
https://www.richardd…fadein11 - Must admit when I pasted it I didn't think was so long as I love this stuff hahafadein11
- Bennn0
these videos are fascinating
- grafician0
"This former senator isn't surprised by the new UFO tapes"
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/…
"Monday's release by the Pentagon of three short videos of "unidentified aerial phenomena" (aka UFOs) was met with wonder and astonishment across the country -- and the world.
One man was not surprised. And his name is Harry Reid."
"I'm glad the Pentagon is finally releasing this footage, but it only scratches the surface of research and materials available," tweeted Reid, the former Senate majority Leader. "The U.S. needs to take a serious, scientific look at this and any potential national security implications. The American people deserve to be informed."
- we're all going to end up in prisons with probes in each of our holesBennn
- "somebody" thinks awfully highly of his holes.MrAbominable
- Bennn1
mmh
- Link: https://petapixel.co…Bennn
- so yeah, it's a balloon.Bennn
- Sorry to burst your balloon,
but it's a balloon.Bennn - first thoughtshapesalad
- Bennn Balloon spationshapesalad
- A balloon... made of balloon material, retaining a circular shape, against winds, while traveling at hypersonic speeds?prophetone
- here's the effect, as you can see stallone is climbing the mountain at 3/4 mach speed
https://www.youtube.…_niko - I get the effect but also not quick to discount the experience of the pilots understanding how that works too, and w/ tech on $70mil planes, and their own eyesprophetone
- Could be a balloon, could be something else? again if a balloon I find hard to believe all these guys wud have never run across this before and just called itprophetone
- paralax effect, read the article and watch the vidiosBennn
- yet the Pentagon released it anyway lol.fadein11
- but at first, before the visual lock in and tracking, the obj seems pretty fast - after the lock in, yes, the obj is consistent with the airplane numbersgrafician
- i mean you couldn't seem to track it without the auto-tracking capabilities of the airplane system - it went just zip! past the field of view!grafician