This thread is for any discussion that arises from this videoBrian has a BS in Aerospace Engineering and was a Naval Aviator for 15 years, flying an F/A-18. He flew with David Fravor (Tic-Tac UFO witness)We discuss the Navy UFO videos and the current UFO situation from a pilot's perspective. We also discuss the recent "whistleblower" UAP hearing, and David Grusch. Interview recorded August 11 2023
It was established that yes there were WSOs, but that might more relevant to the threads discussing Favor's experience.
It is understood that Fravor had a WSO. His name has not been publicly released. (I say 'he' because documents use that word.) It has been said by various people that he is still a serving officer, and for that reason does not wish to go on the public record. In the so-called 'Executive Summary' his rank is given as Lieutenant but his name is redacted. He gave a similar description to Fravor's of the appearance of the 'tic tac', but
(Fravor described it as 'holding like a Harrier', which is taken to imply 'hovering'.)
I feel like we need to move on from the three Pentagon videos at some point. How many times do we need to re-litigate JFK or the curvature of the Earth? It's not going to move the needle with the few remaining die-hards who have selected themselves as being totally uninterested in counter-evidence.
These videos are still playing an active part of convincing senators in congress that "something is going on."
Maybe, @Mick West, what is needed now is a "Primer for Members of Congress" as your next video -- compiling what we know about the various Navy videos and images that are out there?
What scientists would those be, who are sitting around without better things to do (that they are funded for), and have broad expertise on optics, camera technology, 3D motion analysis, and the history of UFO documentation? How much taxpayer money should be spent on flying saucers? IMO, more involvement by government officials clueless on UFOs is not what's needed here.
Why not both? I think there's an advantage to lay practitioners such as myself in that we have a lot of spare time to dedicate to specific cases we find interesting. I think we can at least augment more official investigation where the practitioners are not really that into it, and don't have time to get familiar with all the details.
@Mick West that's one scientists view from Nasa, on a pod cast. Not a whole team of scientists putting forward a theory. I don't believe Nasa have officially released any peer reviewed papers.
They haven't asked me.
I believe you have to volunteer however it seems they have enough (see below).
almost 20 years later, i dont think this makes a lot of sense
because something is going on.
"We" (alas, I'm not one of them) include pilots, mathematicians, computer whizzes, photography experts, engineers, and physicists. I align most strongly with the last, and if the description of an object's behavior breaks the known laws of physics, my first assumption is that it's probably wrong. The other experts can often tell us all just HOW the mistakes were made.
Because normally, they'd lock on aircraft much closer than 30 nm, and those images have much less glare, and thus the engines do look different.
oh i fully agree here. i was only talking about what is seen on flir and if multiple people that did this for a living say it doesnt look like an airplane they know of then i would take that into consideration and dont dismiss it the same way as if they said it disappeared in a wormhole.
do you have examples or is this just an assumption? its a valid hypothesis but if multiple pilots, even those not pushing aliens, tend to dismiss it as likely then i would propose to weight these insights a little bit higher
We had ATFLIR images of jet exhausts on metabunk previously, possibly on the thread about the temperature.
this thread: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/re...nd-range-and-temp-to-of-the-gimbal-uap.12486/ , be sure to see page 2!
At 1:03:15 in the video Burke says it's more likely an airliner in answer to Mick's question.
There's nothing to wonder here. Kaku has been the go-to "smart physics man who will entertain any woo" for a buck for a long time. Before UFOs, it would be time travel, wormholes, quantum woo, whatever. But the UFO scene is perfect because it is seemingly unending opportunities for attention and speaking fees. He hasn't done any important real physics in years (like publishing important papers).
If things like this were actually considered potential security/safety risks to the US, one might even think that perhaps training the pilots on exactly these kinds of situations would be useful. But they aren't (the latter), so perhaps they aren't (the former)?
Maybe the US armed forces no longer have any fighter jets with FLIRs so they can't perform a recreation of our model in order to show us how completely different it would look.
