Clearly, if you right clicked on the image and copied the image link, you would have seen the website and some info on the image. "... cdn.cnn.com...drone-drill-file... .jpg"
Just the image. No info.
It's a very poor quality image, looks faked at a quick look. But certainly doesn't look extra terrestrial.
Official: due to the cancel and woke culture, Loreal has announced a lipstick line for the Grey and excuse for any descrimination. They will launch a shampoo for air pilot too that wash the screen as well.
French ambassador at UNO excuses France if the lunch ritual is not allien compatible and invite Mac Donald to make circulat fries without hole for the integrity of Donuts people
Plus, Fravor's incident was witnessed by a total of four carrier based flight officers, located in two different fighters, each having a different vantage point. Fravor and his backseat, plus his Wingman and her backseat. FOUR. So, this isn't an issue of the credibility, or of the eyesight of one person. There simply is no rational view on how ALL four of these officers, including the squadron commander himself, could all be either lying, or delusional, or mistaken about the object not being conventional.
Not to mention, the Aegis radar tracking which directed the jets to the object in the first place. In addition, this was only a single Nimitz UFO incident, as there were others. It's one thing for someone to deny alien visitation, fine. It's quite another thing to deny the objects, whatever may be their origin.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
any summary notes, images, data etc. as this video is too long for me to bother with.
With regard to the 2004 Nimitz encounter, there was evidence from four multiple sources:
1. Fravor and three other pilots who visually identified the object.
2. The ship aegis radar.
3. A close by Hawkeye radar.
4. An F18 camera capture
There was a suggestion that what the radar saw was a result of our own radar spoofing tests, but then how could you explain that it was captured on camera of the F18 and the eyewitness account of four pilots?
1. Fravor and three other pilots who visually identified the object.
2. The ship aegis radar.
3. A close by Hawkeye radar.
4. An F18 camera capture
There was a suggestion that what the radar saw was a result of our own radar spoofing tests, but then how could you explain that it was captured on camera of the F18 and the eyewitness account of four pilots?
All that proves is that there was "something" which reflects radar waves and is (presumably) at different temperature than ambient.
An "object" for sure, using the widest definition possible.
A "solid" object? .... nothing shows that.
"Possible" objects?
Not trying to "explain" anything which has not been physically captured yet, not even photographed from close enough to show any detail such as: surface texture - different coloured areas - windows - holes - inscriptions - anything, just a fuzzy roughly oval ball, NEVER in focus, NEVER close enough.
C.A.T.? Small cyclone? Lightning ball? Ionized gas?
All of which meet the conditions I mention here.
What pisses me off, big time, is that NO Figher Pilot EVER flew close to those mystery objects.
Different temperature? (They show up in FLIR cameras)
Reflect radar?
Why the heck didn´t they fire one of these at the "object" and check what happens?
Radar guide:
Thermal and radar:
and then send helicopters and ships to recover debris.
IF there was a solid object to begin with.
All of this is a BIG/STUPID joke (pick one).
An "object" for sure, using the widest definition possible.
A "solid" object? .... nothing shows that.
"Possible" objects?
Not trying to "explain" anything which has not been physically captured yet, not even photographed from close enough to show any detail such as: surface texture - different coloured areas - windows - holes - inscriptions - anything, just a fuzzy roughly oval ball, NEVER in focus, NEVER close enough.
C.A.T.? Small cyclone? Lightning ball? Ionized gas?
All of which meet the conditions I mention here.
What pisses me off, big time, is that NO Figher Pilot EVER flew close to those mystery objects.
Different temperature? (They show up in FLIR cameras)
Reflect radar?
Why the heck didn´t they fire one of these at the "object" and check what happens?
Radar guide:
Thermal and radar:
and then send helicopters and ships to recover debris.
IF there was a solid object to begin with.
All of this is a BIG/STUPID joke (pick one).
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
You ask why? Would you want to be the guy that fired a missile at Gort ?
More likely nobody believed it was real and didn’t want to ‘throw away’ a very expensive missile.
More likely nobody believed it was real and didn’t want to ‘throw away’ a very expensive missile.
Proof to which claim?
One of the biggest problems with internet forums is that some people react to events that didn't take place.
Yes, the June 25 Report said there were a few "near miss" with our fighters, so they were close enough. But without any of the details, it's anybody guess.
Hi guys.
Just a thought in regards to the fuzzy pictures.
In (astrophysics)?, is it not commonly accepted that objects with massive gravitation distort light from other objects? Gravitational lensing.
If these objects are using some sort of gravity drive ,then the same physics should hold true for light being reflected off of these objects.
Yes/ no, maybe so?
But on the flip side, I've read multiple times that an electrostatic field may be responsible for these objects propulsion systems.
Thoughts?
Just a thought in regards to the fuzzy pictures.
In (astrophysics)?, is it not commonly accepted that objects with massive gravitation distort light from other objects? Gravitational lensing.
If these objects are using some sort of gravity drive ,then the same physics should hold true for light being reflected off of these objects.
Yes/ no, maybe so?
But on the flip side, I've read multiple times that an electrostatic field may be responsible for these objects propulsion systems.
Thoughts?
Gort WHO??? 😛
At least these ones and their UFO appear in sharp well illuminated pictures.
Pity they are "Made in Hollywood".
All others mentioned in this reaching 700 post thread? (and tens of thousands elsewhere): cri cri cri ... sound of crickets in the silence of the night.
Mmmmmhhhhh, maybe you have a point there 😀
Just try not to upset the True Believers 😎
You have put it up nicely, accurate description.
NOTE: when Pilots WANT TO, they get REAL close and even snap pictures.
Such as this, taken under the same circumstances as the CRAPPY "Tic Toc" pictures:
including being a *screen* picture.
If they actually snap a hand held camera (or a smartphone) through cockpit glass, they get:
although I should not be so hard with Air Force Pilots incompetence, in these last pictures I think I if I squint I can also see a Tic Tac. 😱
One of these of course, in the Pilot´s hand. Wonder what flavour is it?
Went thru the "Nimitz encounter" video...might as well have been telling the story of Gulliver's Travels, or Humpty Dumpty...OR the trials & tribulations of Moses...all of it, without merit.
========================================Rick.....
========================================Rick.....
Who are those true believers reading this thread? Can you quote their words that make them true believers?
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Gravitational lensing that could produce such behaviour on such small scales would imply extremely intense gravitational fields which would be creating significant and observable impact on the surrounding atmosphere as well as the jets observing it. Think ‘black hole’ drops in for tea.
Electrostatic fields create forces on charged objects, something with no relevance to propulsion in free air or space. Creating an electrostatic field around a space craft and then charging said spacecraft in anticipation of moving it sounds like the old joke of sitting in a sail boat and blowing air on your own sails.
Yeah why don't you ask yourself that question? Why we only get the blurry images?
1. Maybe the DoD got some clear images but they don't want to release them.
2. Lue Elinzondo said that they do get pictures as close as "50 feet away".
3. Infrared wavelengths are longer hence the low resolution.
1. Maybe the DoD got some clear images but they don't want to release them.
2. Lue Elinzondo said that they do get pictures as close as "50 feet away".
3. Infrared wavelengths are longer hence the low resolution.
Electrostatics is a reality perfectly documented by science.
Those who live in very dry territories are provided with one of these, always ready to draw and shoot !
😀
Attachments
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
If you allow for non-static fields, for a very very strong and varying self-propagating e-m field that is present in a high energy beam of UV light, then you can ionize the air along the path of the beam. Once ionized the air is a conductor and can transmit an electrical charge. This is the basis of a ‘phaser’ weapon already demonstrated decades ago, probably by the US military. John Wayne would not have approved, the smell of ozone is no substitute for the smell of a freshly discharged Colt 45…