Yes, that's what I was using. You've enlarged Mick's too much, and while your ellipses match on the vertical axis, your horizontal axis is too long—your green box is wider than the blue box.
I've made no enlargement or alteration.
Exactly. Surely what this has proved is that there is no need for an expensive taxpayer-funded "reporting process".
are you saying reddit is more academic and focused in its approach than MB? huh. You might be right.
The event we are discussing occurred while he was speaking to Congress about UFOs less than a week ago. He is the central figure in the release and debate over the three Navy videos (Gimbal, GoFast and FLIR) which kickstarted the recent fascination with UAPs/UFOs. I'd say that makes him important in the UFO field.
External Quote:
That's exactly where opinions differ. (Not our opinions.)
Not embarrassed?
Disclosure advocates are also upset that AARO is apparently not releasing a trove of images and/or reports of unidentified UAPs, but you can't have it both ways. You can't have a transparent government agency devoted to UAP identification that withholds reports that might be potentially embarrassing to the sources.
If one really wanted to put on their big tinfoil hat, one could argue Elizondo was "carrying the idiot ball" or taking one for the team. He presented this photo from a pilot fully expecting the blowback so that he and the others could use the blowback as evidence that a new government UAP reporting program is needed for civilian pilots to avoid just this type of blowback. If the pilot had a program to report this photo to, none of this would have happened.External Quote:
That's one explanation that cannot be ruled out. Another is that Elizondo needs a continuous stream of previously unseen incidents but the actual number of ambiguous and yet somehow still impressive incidents is not sufficient for him to maintain his relevance. As a result, he clutches at straws much as Jeremy Corbell did when he posted video of a 'UAP' which had the same blinking lights as a standard aircraft.If one really wanted to put on their big tinfoil hat, one could argue Elizondo was "carrying the idiot ball" or taking one for the team. He presented this photo from a pilot fully expecting the blowback so that he and the others could use the blowback as evidence that a new government UAP reporting program is needed for civilian pilots to avoid just this type of blowback. If the pilot had a program to report this photo to, none of this would have happened.
Perhaps that was what he was hoping.
Oh most likely he was, I think maybe there's still a little naivety about what the community can debunk when motivated.
Yeah, I do get that.
I wouldn't go so far as to claim that the "pilot" is entirely fictional, but Lue's portrayal of that pilot is probably spun somewhat to favor Lue.
But nothing about them is a believable character.
It's a good one because I am not sure what else you can see, either a giant flying saucer or 2 fields with an optical illusion
What I can believe is a non-pilot who takes a random photo out of the window and finds out much later that it looks a bit like a 1000ft disk.
I wouldn't say the pilot is entirely fictional either, but neither would I be surprised to find out that the pilot was entirely fictional.
Lue is asking a lot of us to believe an experienced pilot would not know a couple of circular fields, would not look at them long enough for the illusion to be broken and not to be a little sceptical of an aircraft whose aerodynamic design is shear ludicry. It's not completely impossible, but it asks a considerable lot of our credulity.
Claim | Evidence | True | False | No Info | |
| 1 | This is a photo taken from an aircraft with an "average camera." | No details about the flight or camera have been provided. | X | ||
| 2 | The photo was "taken over the Four Corners region." | Satellite imagery identifies it as irrigation circles in Lincoln County, CO, ~300 miles from Four Corners and well beyond the visible range of an "average camera." | X | ||
| 3 | The photo was taken at "21,000 feet". | The Sitrec simulation supports a lower altitude closer to 18,000ft | X | ||
| 4 | "It is a lenticular object, and when you look at the shadow being cast. It is significantly large." | Photo shows two circular center-pivot irrigation fields of contrasting colour. The "shadow" is the darker field. There is no visible airborne object or craft. | X | ||
| 5 | "It is a lenticular object and it is silver." | Image is black and white or almost completely desaturated. It depicts static circular agricultural fields viewed obliquely. | X | ||
| 6 | "We have all the information on the camera." | No camera data has been provided. | X | ||
| 7 | Size was estimated at "600–1,000 feet in diameter". | No details on how this estimate was made. The agricultural circles measure ~2,500 feet across, per Google Maps. | X | ||
| 8 | "Taken by a civilian pilot", a "private pilot." | No metadata or pilot testimony. Origin and date unverified. | X | ||
| 9 | The photo was taken in 2021. | Satellite imagery for 2021 shows the irrigation fields did not resemble the photo at any time. Also, at no time between January 2017 and today [see #82 and timelapse below]. | X | ||
| 10 | "I'll give a copy [of the photo] to congress for them to see." | No official record of the photo as yet. | X |
From the top post. [link added].
Let's not forget that you have been sat on this photograph for about 4 years.
