Pentagon UFO chief: we may not be alone.

[SLD]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/u...ewsmax.com&utm_term=68731&utm_content=2165525

OK these videos have conspiracy theorists really talking. They apparently show alien craft that defy the known laws of aerodynamics. It seems to me though that they are not showing themselves obviously but aren't really camouflaging themselves adequately either. If they are really so advanced how do we catch them then? If they want to be known then why aren't they making themselves known.

And why haven't we detected where they are coming from?

Unfortunately most journalists aren't scientifically literate enough to ask good questions to this guy.

SLD

 

[ryan]

These quotes from recently released documents of the secret UFO program give me the shivers, from https://www.yahoo.com/gma/navy-pilo...not-world-160503613--abc-news-topstories.html

Retired Cmdr. David Fravor: "I can tell you, I think it was not from this world," Fravor told ABC News. "I'm not crazy, haven't been drinking. It was — after 18 years of flying, I've seen pretty much about everything that I can see in that realm, and this was nothing close."

Marine Col. Stephen Ganyard: "No aircraft that we know of can fly at those speeds, maneuver like that and looks like that," ABC News contributor and former Marine Col. Stephen Ganyard said.

The difference between these guys and those ex CIA guys that tell their stories after retirement is that these guys were put on a mission to find UFO's. So the coincidence is too great that the guys looking for UFO's are crazy and made up stories.

 

[untermensche]

It doesn't sound like the government is hiding more than they have no idea what these objects are.

 

[ryan]

It seems to me though that they are not showing themselves obviously but aren't really camouflaging themselves adequately either. If they are really so advanced how do we catch them then? If they want to be known then why aren't they making themselves known.

It might be that they (Gov or aliens) are "easing" us into the realization that we are not alone.

 

[Horatio Parker]

It is exciting.

Growing up with stories about UFOs(remember Project Blue Book?), the age of ubiquitous video and the Internet has been a disappointment. This is a whole new ball game.

 

[aupmanyav]

Oh sure, we are not alone. But can we visit others? That is well neigh impossible. Sure, if we send messages, some one somewhere may receive them after a few million/billion years.

 

[Malintent]

with the proliferation of portable high definition movie studios in everyone's pocket (smartphones)... why has there not been an uptick on the rate of UFO video captures?

In everything that occurs, when a tool is invented that helps measure the occurrence, statistics show an apparent, dramatic increase in occurrence, due to more prolific or more accurate measuring. When Asperger's disease was re-categorized as a form of Autism, statistics were skewed enough to cause many people to believe that there was an ACTUAL increase in Autism rates in children. Increase, by definition, not by affliction.

So, where are the millions of clear UFO videos, complete with ET waving back through a portal, that are taken by a thousand independent people in a park? There should be hundreds of those today, if in 1955 there were dozens of them, but only available to military aircraft carrying the only camera in existence that is capable of resolving anything at altitude.

Now, millions of people are flying next to a window at 30,000 feet every single day. We should be getting fantastic pictures of aliens and their vehicles weekly.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/u...ewsmax.com&utm_term=68731&utm_content=2165525

OK these videos have conspiracy theorists really talking. They apparently show alien craft that defy the known laws of aerodynamics.

That'd be impossible. The UFOs have to obey the laws of physics. That is can maneuver in ways we can't with fighter jets and the like is different that violating the laws of physics.

It seems to me though that they are not showing themselves obviously but aren't really camouflaging themselves adequately either. If they are really so advanced how do we catch them then? If they want to be known then why aren't they making themselves known.

Or the Pentagon has toys it is working with and using these pilots to see whether they can be sited and how their maneuverability is.

Unfortunately most journalists aren't scientifically literate enough to ask good questions to this guy.

Especially at Newsmax.

 

[Iznomneak]

Retired Cmdr. David Fravor: "I can tell you, I think it was not from this world," Fravor told ABC News. "I'm not crazy, haven't been drinking. It was — after 18 years of flying, I've seen pretty much about everything that I can see in that realm, and this was nothing close."

Fravor is basically saying: We got something we can't explain, therefore, aliens from light years away (I doubt he meant within our solar system).

It reminds me of this comic:

 

[barbos]

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?12670-latest-UFO-video-from-Pentagon

I put my thread into a wrong place?

 

[barbos]

Retired Cmdr. David Fravor: "I can tell you, I think it was not from this world," Fravor told ABC News. "I'm not crazy, haven't been drinking. It was — after 18 years of flying, I've seen pretty much about everything that I can see in that realm, and this was nothing close."

Marine Col. Stephen Ganyard: "No aircraft that we know of can fly at those speeds, maneuver like that and looks like that," ABC News contributor and former Marine Col. Stephen Ganyard said.

It could be aliens, but then it could be a glitch, hoax and a lot of other things. Military guys have no imagination.

As I said in my thread, this "thing" appears to be rigidly fixed in the aircraft camera reference frame. Why would aliens do that?
And how many aircrafts took the video? more than one? cause if it's just one then it's clearly something inside camera lenses or something like that.

 

[steve_bank]

I watched the video on CNN. Same old stuff.

 

[James Brown]

As I said in my thread, this "thing" appears to be rigidly fixed in the aircraft camera reference frame. Why would aliens do that?

Isn't the camera designed to lock onto a target?

 

[Subsymbolic]

I think the key words there are 'not in any foreign inventory ... that we are aware of'.



As always, the likelihood that someone on earth secretly has drones that have unexpected flight characteristics is more likely than that someone off Earth has them. Even if we were not talking about the vasty depths of space.

Even if that wasn't the case, why is it always blurry images at extreme range?

As Hume puts it:

'No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish'

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As I said in my thread, this "thing" appears to be rigidly fixed in the aircraft camera reference frame. Why would aliens do that?

Isn't the camera designed to lock onto a target?

Which leads to the next issue... the camera was able to lock onto a bizarrely moving aircraft? Wouldn't the camera not be able to do that?

 

[Subsymbolic]

As I said in my thread, this "thing" appears to be rigidly fixed in the aircraft camera reference frame. Why would aliens do that?

Isn't the camera designed to lock onto a target?

Which leads to the next issue... the camera was able to lock onto a bizarrely moving aircraft? Wouldn't the camera not be able to do that?

This is a 'what the frog's eye tells the frog's brain' situation: the camera is merely 'locking on' to something it can detect. Maybe the system is using FLR to guide the camera, but then I'd expect ground tracking to work too. As such, I suspect it is simply processing the image that allows it to detect the boundaries of a splodge of hue, colour or whatever. There's no distinction about what the splodge is. The pilot would have picked out that splodge or return as a thing of interest, possibly via eye tracking and confirmation and then it would be tracked independently for as long as it persisted. If there were autolock technology, rather than offer the pilot a range of options and let him choose technology, then if it were outside the parameters of an aircraft it surely wouldn't have locked on. There's a lot of detail missing here.

 

[Malintent]

As I said in my thread, this "thing" appears to be rigidly fixed in the aircraft camera reference frame. Why would aliens do that?

Isn't the camera designed to lock onto a target?

I share Ryan's observation. You can see the two vertical bars on either side of what is being tracked. Those are what "locks on" to a target. You can see them varying... not "painted on" so to speak.
That which people are calling the "object" looks more to me like a redaction, or an occluding filter (to block out sun glare).. "painted on".
In my opinion, this is a video showing the tracking of a classified vehicle, the image of which was redacted (blacked out post-process).

 

[Malintent]

Which leads to the next issue... the camera was able to lock onto a bizarrely moving aircraft? Wouldn't the camera not be able to do that?

This is a 'what the frog's eye tells the frog's brain' situation: the camera is merely 'locking on' to something it can detect. Maybe the system is using FLR to guide the camera, but then I'd expect ground tracking to work too. As such, I suspect it is simply processing the image that allows it to detect the boundaries of a splodge of hue, colour or whatever. There's no distinction about what the splodge is. The pilot would have picked out that splodge or return as a thing of interest, possibly via eye tracking and confirmation and then it would be tracked independently for as long as it persisted. If there were autolock technology, rather than offer the pilot a range of options and let him choose technology, then if it were outside the parameters of an aircraft it surely wouldn't have locked on. There's a lot of detail missing here.

It was optical data tracking. google "Electro Optical Imaging"

 

[Subsymbolic]

Which leads to the next issue... the camera was able to lock onto a bizarrely moving aircraft? Wouldn't the camera not be able to do that?

This is a 'what the frog's eye tells the frog's brain' situation: the camera is merely 'locking on' to something it can detect. Maybe the system is using FLR to guide the camera, but then I'd expect ground tracking to work too. As such, I suspect it is simply processing the image that allows it to detect the boundaries of a splodge of hue, colour or whatever. There's no distinction about what the splodge is. The pilot would have picked out that splodge or return as a thing of interest, possibly via eye tracking and confirmation and then it would be tracked independently for as long as it persisted. If there were autolock technology, rather than offer the pilot a range of options and let him choose technology, then if it were outside the parameters of an aircraft it surely wouldn't have locked on. There's a lot of detail missing here.

It was optical data tracking. google "Electro Optical Imaging"

Cool so it's using edge detection to detect a splodge of difference, then the pilot decides whether that splodge is one he wants to keep an (artificial) eye on. I think that's what I said? Mexican hats and all that?

Mind you, ten seconds googling the F/A-18's avionics tells me that it has a few more resources fro tracking a bogey: FLR would minimally have been APG-79 or better, combined with IRST and full integration on all the feeds. As such, merely giving a visual feed and not the infra red or radar feed is really unhelpful.

 

[steve_bank]

Enumerate possbilities and assign probabilities/

1, ET..low probability. Space travel that is fast would require new sconce we do not have. Feynman who was on the sconce commission looking at UFOs said ET is possible but not probable.

2. Advanced race living in a hollow Earth...naaaa

3. Human technology..most likely. Back in the 90s seismic sensors began picking up disturbances in the western desert. After analysis it was determined that it was not an earthquake. It had to be hyper sonic aircraft. It made the national news. I renumber an AREA 51 spokesperson saying on camera that people should trust it is in the national interest.