Unusual but definitely not without precedent or a reasonable explanation.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Odd article for the New York Times - UFOs
- Thread starter jmcquate
- Start date
Unusual but definitely not without precedent or a reasonable explanation.
Saw this pilot on Fox News in an interview and thought, "Okay, I will go to Air Warriors and see if they have anything to say..." Aside from the object itself, what about the acceleration of the object? He said he knows of no aircraft capable of such maneuvers...?
He saw what he saw, and he has an opinion as to what it is. That's a data point, not Gospel truth. It's worth looking into, not believing uncritically. I realize that last is a foreign concept to too many people in 2017.
And I'm not even an atheist, either.Carl Sagan said:
GroundPounder
Well-Known Member
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but my bet is that if the object exhibited acceleration or changes of course that were beyond what we have, that the video would not have ever been released. I imagine that someone is sitting around some office laughing ( or maybe cringing ) about how the Death Master X9R made the news.
I would be much more inclined to believe it is a human creation simply because the statistical likelihood of extraterrestrials is so nil. First there's the statistical likelihood of aliens with intelligence akin to humans, then the likelihood of them creating a civilization and advancing it technologically to being capable of interstellar travel, then their being able to find humans in this vast universe (which is near impossible). And then of course, if they don't want themselves to be known but are spying on us, why use a craft like that? I am sure they could make something much more inconspicuous.
You guys put a lot of faith in the Princeton and in the naked eye ID of stuff from high altitude that is very far away. I don't buy the radar tracks at all--I'd much sooner believe operator error and/or equipment issues than the Princeton's description of what they (and for some reason, they alone) had been seeing all week.
On FLIR at long range, that video could be anything. A fighter, an airliner, whatever.
This is what a fishing boat at Tanner Bank looks like. If you were vectored to an air contact and didn't realize that there's a shoal right under the water in the middle of nowhere, you're not in the right mindset to identify it correctly, especially from altitude.
As for the rest, about it suddenly flying around, hard to say. But those were my immediate thoughts the first time I read that article.
On FLIR at long range, that video could be anything. A fighter, an airliner, whatever.
NYT said:
This is what a fishing boat at Tanner Bank looks like. If you were vectored to an air contact and didn't realize that there's a shoal right under the water in the middle of nowhere, you're not in the right mindset to identify it correctly, especially from altitude.
As for the rest, about it suddenly flying around, hard to say. But those were my immediate thoughts the first time I read that article.
If it happened in W-291, neither, really. There's an LA Center corridor to the north, but FACSFAC runs the Wiskey areas.
RadicalDude
Social Justice Warlord
The Japanese could launch Pearl Harbor 2 on San Diego and Beaver would probably miss it, so unlikely.
Like, a second alien craft!
Fast Eagle XXX did imply a bunch of them.Like, a second alien craft!
Last edited:
There would be. Sea test range tracks raw returns as well as IFF.