TFTRH #43 - Tim McMillan: The Challenges of UFO Investigations

[Mick West]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ncppqq41XRI


Investigating UFOs presents a number of challenges, many of which are not immediately obvious, but swiftly rear up to impede progress. There are straightforward issues, like military secrecy and people being afraid to talk because of ridicule. But there's also the issue of "UFOs" being things that are so far outside our common experiences that it's difficult to establish a shared baseline for conversations, leading often contentious and frustrating outcomes. Especially on Twitter.

I talk to investigative Journalist TIm McMillan about these challenges, and in particular how they apply to the recent Navy UFO cases: FLIR, GIMBAL and GOFAST.


Notes:

- I talk about the 1910 form listing UAPs at drones, balloons, or aircraft. The actual verbiage is "UAV, Balloons, and other UAS". UAV (Unmanned aerial Vehicle) would be military style drones (planes). UAS probably refers to "Unmanned Aerial Systems" - encompassing civilian style drones (quadcopters)
- I said US Navy Spokesman said something similar, and was talking about airspace incursions. I was probably remembering the quote from NBC News
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-capture-ufo-sightings-it-calls-them-n1056201
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gradisher said in emails that the larger issue about the three videos is what he called an increase "in the number of military training range incursions by unidentified aerial [phenomena]," and he said all such sightings are investigated.

"Any incursion into our training ranges by any aircraft or phenomena, identified or not identified, is problematic from both a safety and security concern," he said.

While the objects in the three videos in question are designated as unknown, Gradisher said that as inexpensive unmanned aerial systems — commonly called drones — become more prevalent, "sightings of this nature have increased in frequency."

While popular culture may refer to unexplained objects as UFOs, the phrase "unidentified aerial phenomena" was borrowed from the United Kingdom and describes "any aerial phenomenon that cannot immediately be identified," Gradisher said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[gtoffo]

This was an excellent interview. Nice job @Mick West. Keep them coming.

I doubt they would accept unfortunately but what about trying to interview some of the pilots next? It would be enlightening I think to share with them some of the theories regarding the videos and hear their reactions.

I think in general any ex-Navy pilot/WISO would be a great interview. To hear the perspective from a "pro".

p.s. just thought about it: C.W.Lemoine would be a perfect candidate! He has a youtube channel now and will certainly accept! He has analysed the videos in the past but it was a very superficial review for people like us that have studied in depth the footage. You could ask much more significant questions and get straight replies from an expert:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9NhOKy2K80

 

[Mick West]

p.s. just thought about it: C.W.Lemoine would be a perfect candidate! He has a youtube channel now and will certainly accept! He has analysed the videos in the past but it was a very superficial review for people like us that have studied in depth the footage. You could ask much more significant questions and get straight replies from an expert:

The problem I've found is that experts generally don't take the time to study fringe subjects like this in-depth. I can ask them a question based on years of the research here, and they will give a very superficial (and sometimes wrong) answer simply because it's something they have not had the time to think about. I've seen this in other fields, like chemtrails, and 9/11. Some of the concepts here, like a rotating glare, are highly counterintuitive if you've never thought about them before (which is why I made so many videos, trying to explain.)

 

[gtoffo]

The problem I've found is that experts generally don't take the time to study fringe subjects like this in-depth. I can ask them a question based on years of the research here, and they will give a very superficial (and sometimes wrong) answer simply because it's something they have not had the time to think about. I've seen this in other fields, like chemtrails, and 9/11. Some of the concepts here, like a rotating glare, are highly counterintuitive if you've never thought about them before (which is why I made so many videos, trying to explain.)

I see your point. However remember most pilots have scientific degrees and backgrounds. They also know these systems in depth and are very comfortable with the physics and dynamics of flight. You won't have any problems discussing rotating glare with any F-18 pilot or any other detail on those videos. They know much more than us and if you watch the video above Mover identified several of the issues we have been researching for years in just a quick review of the video with very little background (he gets dates wrong, he messes up the number of videos etc.). For example he immediately identifies the size and distance of the GO-fast video (although at first he reacts saying that "it's going very fast").

I've taken the liberty of forwarding your latest video summary of the evidence to C.W.Lemoine on YouTube. I hope you don't mind. If he is interested I'll put you in contact with him! (FYI: I would pay to see an in depth review of the videos by you two.. I'm sure I'm not the only one.)

 

[jarlrmai]

I see your point. However remember most pilots have scientific degrees and backgrounds. They also know these systems in depth and are very comfortable with the physics and dynamics of flight. You won't have any problems discussing rotating glare with any F-18 pilot or any other detail on those videos. They know much more than us and if you watch the video above Mover identified several of the issues we have been researching for years in just a quick review of the video with very little background (he gets dates wrong, he messes up the number of videos etc.). For example he immediately identifies the size and distance of the GO-fast video (although at first he reacts saying that "it's going very fast").

I've taken the liberty of forwarding your latest video summary of the evidence to C.W.Lemoine on YouTube. I hope you don't mind. If he is interested I'll put you in contact with him! (FYI: I would pay to see an in depth review of the videos by you two.. I'm sure I'm not the only one.)

It didn't take "us" (I don't remember you being involved in that original thread) years to figure out that go-fast was not going fast or low, it was the working theory from previous experience of the parallax effect and it was really nice to have the figures all there on the screen so we could mathematically prove it, even if it took us a bit of research into military overlay units and terminology to get the raw data right which is of course obvious to pilots.

Micks point is that even experts make mistakes when presented with esoteric niche cases, it can take people who really spend the time and lack preconceived notions to see past assumptions.

That guy in your linked video (is he a jet pilot?) gets so close with Go Fast he works out its small because it's not that far away but he doesn't go the next step and figure out it's actually at 13000 feet and this not going fast, you can kind of see he gets caught up with the apparent excitement of the WSO because FLIR tracking is hard so he falls into the assumption that tracking was hard because the object was going so fast. So that's one pilot whose analysis of Go Fast whilst good doesn't quite get there.

David Fravor is also a pilot like you discuss and the TTSA people were apparently experts and even today their analysis (and Fravor as shown in the videos of him on various TV programmes ) of Go-Fast is trivially and mathematically provably wrong, of course this doesn't mean they are wrong about everything but it shows that even the people you mention are not infallible when presented with outliers.

TTSA's website still says "The unidentified vehicle appears as a white oval shape moving at high speed from top right to lower left of the screen flying very low over the water." even though the very low and high speed parts are mathematically disproved by the numbers in the video.

 

[gtoffo]

It didn't take "us" (I don't remember you being involved in that original thread) years to figure out that go-fast was not going fast or low, it was the working theory from previous experience of the parallax effect and it was really nice to have the figures all there on the screen so we could mathematically prove it, even if it took us a bit of research into military overlay units and terminology to get the raw data right which is of course obvious to pilots.

I was exaggerating with the years, approximating with the us.

Micks point is that even experts make mistakes... even the people you mention are not infallible when presented with outliers.

I said I wanted Mick to discuss the subject with an F-18 pilot not with an all knowing infallible god (although I would very much like to see that too )

Everybody makes mistakes. The only truths I believe in are the ones provided by the scientific method. But sharing ideas as much as possible across people with different perspectives is the best way of building new knowledge. I think such a discussion could generate substantial breakthroughs or "new trails" in this case which is still far from closed despite the many years of research by me, you, us.

 

[jarlrmai]

I was exaggerating with the years, approximating with the us.


I said I wanted Mick to discuss the subject with an F-18 pilot not with an all knowing infallible god (although I would very much like to see that too )

Everybody makes mistakes. The only truths I believe in are the ones provided by the scientific method. But sharing ideas as much as possible across people with different perspectives is the best way of building new knowledge. I think such a discussion could generate substantial breakthroughs or "new trails" in this case which is still far from closed despite the many years of research by me, you, us.

I think we all agree with that I would hope that that pilot would come on Micks YouTube show to talk about the videos it would be very interesting.

It would be great to prove what the objects in these videos are, but we can't really ever prove what they are as there is simply not enough information. Our discussion of these videos is not really aimed at showing exactly what they are (although it might seem that way this is only really our pontification after the matter) it is to address claims by others that they exhibit characteristics that are outside the capabilities of known technology/entities and that in some cases the description of characteristics of the objects by these people is incorrect. Go Fast is interesting because we can show with math using the figures in the video that they (TTSA) provided that shows that Fravor and TTSA are fundamentally incorrect in some of their statements about that video.