Can you provide a link, please?
Given that you've put that second statements in quotes, who here are you quoting? Link please. "Do not paraphrase" is explicitly in the posting guidelines. There may be times when it wouldn't matter so much, but your statement is accusatory, it should be precisely worded and precisely aimed.
3) The DoD found out what was going on before they got around to asking Fravor for an in-depth interview.
for the record, from a laymens definition, he didnt "track" the radar blip. the radar blip just showed up at the cap point. (or whatever it was called). Just like it just showed up, then disappeared, off and on the radar screen for days before that.
Scott talked about atmospheric lensing which could certainly explain ping-ponging and an object appearing to shoot straight up.
To add to the reasons given by Mendel (post #768 - are we that far along already?) there's the consideration that Fravor SAID there were no investigations. So the possible outcomes include A) yes there was an investigation but Fravor wasn't told about it, B) yes there was an investigation but Fravor chose to ignore it, and C) yes there was an investigation but Fravor disagreed with the conclusions and so denied it.
I'll add, it is pretty standard practice NOT to just trust the medical expert, especially on anything important, but to seek a second opinion in which some other specialist looks at the evidence and renders a judgement. Perhaps MB is the second opinion provider in these cases?
People who get good medical news seldom seek a second opinion. I think it's a fair statement to say most patients get medical second opinions only in cases where the initial/previous opinion gave a bad or unacceptable diagnosis. Yes, that sounds like MB.I'll add, it is pretty standard practice NOT to just trust the medical expert, especially on anything important, but to seek a second opinion in which some other specialist looks at the evidence and renders a judgement. Perhaps MB is the second opinion provider in these cases?
https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-astronaut-scott-kelly-describes-ufo-experience-2023-6
Please stop with the "pilots are infallible" line of defense to literally every claim. It's so played out. Either way we're dealing with rare occurrences: a super perfect pilot making a mistake or an alien spacecraft visiting in the middle of a Navy training exercise. (Of course there are more possibilities; just making a point.)
By the way, if you attempt to fly an orbit round something of which you misjudged size and/or distance to begin with, it's bound to behave rather erratically for you, as it won't stay where you thought it should.
I can't comment on Fravor's observation.
That's true but wouldn't you be able to use structure from motion + inertia to figure out the true range and size of the object? Like humans seem pretty good at gauging depth of objects from parallax of this magnitude but maybe in this sort of context with no size prior and just the sea as the background it is much harder? In your example I think it would become immediately obvious that the tic-tac was closer than I guessed since the motion would create a strong baseline to get a depth estimate regardless of the size of the object. (For reference I actually have a PhD focused on state estimation from machine vision but haven't done the math yet for this particular encounter to see how difficult it would be for a person to do this).
The one in question was white, so your observed rates aren't applicable, I'm afraid...I can't comment on Fravor's observation.
But from personal experience, the orange and lime Tic-Tacs disappear at a rate which defies our normal expectations
I'm not entirely sure how it works mid-air against a featureless sea, but I'd venture if you've successfully managed to fly circles around it for 5 minutes, you've probably got an idea where it is. If you see it for 8-10 seconds, maybe not so much.
Experimental testing will surely boost Tic Tac sales. Tic Tac® Coca-Cola® must not be overlooked.
Which makes the comparison of the actual burden of the two possible burdens of proof even more stark. If the two sides are *firmly convinced* of their stances, the side which is convinced there are aliens or bodies just has to reveal the evidence for others to examine, it could barely be simpler, barely a burden at all. However, there's nothing the Kirkpatricks of the world can do, as he can't show us every unconvincing thing he's ever seen to come to that conclusion. And in fairness, the NASA et al. guys kinda did their bit a few weeks ago, they showed us a whole bunch of unconvincing evidence and proffered their conclusion that none of it amounts to any evidence of the non-mundane. And half of us shrugged because we already knew that, and the other half of us shrugged as they hadn't been shown the pictures of aliens they were hoping for. Nothing changed. The game's rigged.
No, sorry, I limit my analysis to wintergreen only.
I know that. But there is no way they would want him up there. Besides Bob Lazar has a very shady criminal past.
If what he saw was Kurth's F/A-18 it was indeed under intelligent control. If the object Fravor (but not Kurth who was in a Red Team Hornet) saw was a drone or balloon launched from a submarine as part of the exercise there would have been some intelligent control there too.
It's the old "Can't prove a negative" thing again. And if we were, miraculously, to show that every single sighting to date has a mundane explanation, those convinced of their mysterious origin would only have to say "Well, what about the next one, huh?"
https://kansasreflector.com/2023/07...estrial-life-congress-tries-to-figure-it-out/Democrat Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida asked David Grusch, a former Department of Defense task force member, about the existence of satellite imagery of UAP.
I personally reviewed both what we call overhead collection and from other strategic and tactical platforms that I could not even explain prosaically. I have a degree in physics by the way,” testified Grusch, a former National Reconnaissance Office representative on the Defense Department’s Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Task Force.
But what if Lazar is one of Grusch's sources?
At the time there were no *scalable* solutions, the problem was bigger than the computers they had available. But the boffins were working on a solution, and not long after the treaty was signed, in its rather toothless form, an algorithmic breakthrough was made, making it quite tractable. (Ironically, the roots of the algorithm were ancient, it had just never been considered for these large tasks - the tasks it was best suited for.)
From a quick google search, "2009 Bachelor of Science Degree, Physics, Minor in German, University of Pittsburgh".
I always have trouble trying to understand the equivalent degrees for different countries... What is "bachelor" equivalent to? a 4 years career at university?
You weren't the most recent critic of my glib psychoevaluations anyway which concerned the 'scientist' demeanour (as opposed to 'scienciness') of one Dr. Kirkpatrick.
What you say doesn't seem to be there. But thanks for the video, I have good use for it
I didn't want to be the first to mention that, but I came away with similar thoughts about Grusch from the hearing. I worked with people like that in the DoD, I called them "Look at me I'm wonderful" types.
