The UFO report is expected to be submitted next month

[Ivan Seeking]

The 2004 "tic tac" video has been released.



Nothing to see here, move along.

I didn't realize that was the same event. That doesn't show much of what the pilot described. It is only tracking at a distance. It doesn't cover most of the event.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

They might think that only by seeing with their own eyes is the actual evidence of existence. Simply put, it means seeing real aliens walking around in front of them and talking with them, plus further medical examinations and so on. Just like bacteria and viruses, humans may have to see it with their own eyes to truly believe in its existence. This is not like the black hole, which can be inferred from theoretical physics, or simply feel its existence, such as air.

My question was, what would they consider evidence of ETs given that they only have videos of aerial contacts? My point is that I doubt any evidence of that kind would be considered evidence of ET. It is a bit disingenuous to claim they don't have evidence of ETs, when there is no evidence they would accept as evidence of ET. You can always dodge that by claiming it could be technical glitches or advanced human technology we don't know about. Which are the same explanations that have been used for 70 years. In fact these videos are boring compared to other well documented military encounters. For example
https://www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electronic-Reading-Room/FOIA-Reading-Room-Iran/FileId/122011/

 

[nsaspook]

I didn't realize that was the same event. That doesn't show much of what the pilot described. It is only tracking at a distance. It doesn't cover most of the event.

The simple truth is the pilot didn't actually see the things he described. His eye-witness (actually processed sensor data seen by his eyes) account, as is usually the case with most eye-witness accounts, is an unreliable account of what actually happened IMO.

What happens if we believe what the observers say happen instead of what an analysis of the sensor video segments show to have much more likely happened during this event.

"We examined the last 32 frames of the Nimitz video in which the Tic-Tac UAV accelerated to the left and the targeting system lost lock. "
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiQiuO7gYHxAhUUpZ4KHasJApU4ChAWMAJ6BAgFEAM&url=https://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/33/1/26/pdf&usg=AOvVaw2wIzhBMrfBy4dBV1ZHK6Px

Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles in the 2004 Nimitz Encounter

The fact that these UAVs display no flight surfaces or apparent propulsion mechanisms, and do not produce sonic booms or excessive heat that would be released given the hundreds of GigaWatts of power that we expect should be involved, strongly suggests that these anomalous craft are taking advantage of technology, engineering, or physics that we are unfamiliar with. For example, the Tic-Tac UAV dropping from 28,000ft to sea level in 0.78s involved at least 4.3×1011J of energy (assuming a mass of1000kg), which is equivalent to about 100 tons of TNT, or the yield of 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles, released in 3/4 of a second. One would have expected a catastrophic effect on the surrounding environment. This does not rule out the possibility that these UAVs have been developed by governments, organizations, or individuals on Earth, but it suggests that these UAVs and the technologies they employ may be of extraterrestrial origin. That being said,it should be strongly emphasized that proving that something is extraterrestrial would be extremely difficult, even if one had a craft in hand.

If we take that sentence and modify cause and effect to be a sensor artifact as the linked video explains, those 'impossible' flight characteristics no longer exist.

"We examined the last 32 frames of the Nimitz video in which the targeting system lost lock and Tic-Tac UAV accelerated to the left"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The simple truth is the pilot didn't actually see the things he described. His eye-witness (actually processed sensor data seen by his eyes) account, as is usually the case with most eye-witness accounts, is an unreliable account of what actually happened IMO.

What happens if we believe what the observers say happen instead of what an analysis of the sensor video segments show to have much more likely happened during this event.

The reported events clearly occurred before the events in the video released. It was observed down close the water by both pilots. It was creating a disturbance in the water or was above white water. It was close enough for the female pilot to describe the finish as white matte. The manner of motion was described as bouncing around. The male pilot descended to take a closer look. The object then flew up directly in front of him.

If we are going to just ignore everything that both pilots reported and only release a video of a distant object after those events occurred, this entire exercise is just mental masturbation. What about the rest of the videos and data? That is why I didn't even recognize this as the same event.

Oh yes, based on the description, there was no evidence of wings or a propulsion system.

 

[nsaspook]

I respect your point of view but for me it's a simple belief in physics. To take the pilots viewpoint here requires extraordinary classical physics we have no evidence happens in the way they describe anywhere in the universe. I don't ignore it, I just think they are wrong.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I respect your point of view but for me it's a simple belief in physics. To take the pilots viewpoint here requires extraordinary classical physics we have no evidence happens in the way they describe anywhere in the universe. I don't ignore it, I just think they are wrong.

So if you don't understand, they are lying or what, delusional? That is a very specific account with a fair amount of detail from two witnesses you are just discarding. Okay. Where is the rest of the data? Has the Navy denied their account? Surely there is an official report that describes events moment by moment. Has that been released? This was certainly all tracked by the ship's RADAR. Where is that?

Is there any evidence of a propulsion system on the FLIR? If not, why not?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What is the range and speed of the object?

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, that's far enough. Let's wait for the report rather than speculating about the potential that evidence exists that we haven't seen which might support claims that currently are unsupported.