Was the Navy ufo video nothing more than a bird?

With these three Navy videos now being classed as unidentified, a lot of people, including myself was very happy because I believe it means we are heading in the right direction. I came across a video that made me question one of the videos.

The video in question is the one with the object travelling fast near the water with a pilot and his partner tracking it.

Now, the video in question, the guy is annoying as hell with the type of arragonce you would expect, but he brings up some good points. Points that are hard to debunk.

Here is the video


Can this object be nothing more than a bird? If so, how the hell did they not know? Surely they see birds all the time.

Would like your thoughts

a reply to: Jay-morris

Well the one video had the pilot saying that the object was moving against a 150 knot head wind so I’m going to say that wasn’t a bird.

Now the video in the link seems to consist and fast to be a bird.

a reply to: Jay-morris

How can an experienced Navy pilot "engage" and get in a dogfight with a bird? How can a bird be caught on radar dropping from 28,000 ft. to the surface of the ocean in .78 seconds?

So he vectored the Fast Eagle flight (David Fravor, Jim Slaight and the other two) to go intercept one of these objects. Once Fravor arrived, one of these objects dropped out of the sky from 28,000 feet, all the way down to the surface of the ocean. Day found out the next day that it conducted this maneuver in .78 seconds. No sonic booms.

Kevin Day: “When Commander Fravor made his intercept, we had the control comms in the overhead speaker. And he goes, ‘Oh my God! Oh my God! I’m engaged! I’m engaged!’ He was quite shocked.

Day went on to explain that the word “engaged” is a little bit misleading. It doesn’t mean they’re shooting at each other. It just means they’re in a dogfight and that by itself, is not a hostile act. Day said that from his point of view, these objects, whatever they were, were never, ever hostile. In fact, he thinks they just wanted to be left alone.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Can this object be nothing more than a bird?

Could be , I've seen nothing that would rule it out.

I think they probably do know or at least suspect what they are but for unknown reasons call them unidentified , it's the military so we shouldn't expect any kind of explanation.

That particular video could show a bird. But I don't see the guy debunking the other two released videos. Or the eyewitness reports. Is he trying to imply that they're all junk? What is his agenda?

a reply to: shawmanfromny

How can an experienced Navy pilot "engage" and get in a dogfight with a bird? How can a bird be caught on radar dropping from 28,000 ft. to the surface of the ocean in .78 seconds?

Well this is the thing. The way he explain in the video, the object is not going as fast as it looks. And at one point you can see a flapping motion.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
That particular video could show a bird. But I don't see the guy debunking the other two released videos. Or the eyewitness reports. Is he trying to imply that they're all junk? What is his agenda?

Well, he is your usual debunker. I only watched the video because someone sent it to me. What he is saying is hard to disprove.

a reply to: Jay-morris

I think it was maybe a test.

Testing of new video aquasition hardware and software.

A drone was used and the plane was testing the equipment perhaps which is why the operator was so exited to make the aquisition confirming that the system worked at very high speed.

Maybe.

The USN knows meow than they’re saying. They refused an FOI request because the requested info is TOP SECRET. It speaks for itself and we may never see it. My best,

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: Blue Shift
That particular video could show a bird. But I don't see the guy debunking the other two released videos. Or the eyewitness reports. Is he trying to imply that they're all junk? What is his agenda?

Well, he is your usual debunker. I only watched the video because someone sent it to me. What he is saying is hard to disprove.

If he really wants to do a thorough debunking of that particular video, he needs to definitely prove it was a bird. He suggests there are wing flaps. I don't see them. Then let him show the other videos are birds. I'd be happy with that. But I don't care for what he's implying without proof. Even debunking should be debunked when necessary.

a reply to: Blue Shift

The claim is that the video shows an object close to the surface moving very rapidly. The evidence shows this is not the case. The evidence shows that the apparent rapid movement is an illusion created by parallax.

So assuming those numbers are more or less accurate then it's an object that's around 13,000 feet ((25000 feet) - (1.95 nautical miles)) in altitude, viewed from a jet at 25,000 feet. Basically it's half way between the jet and the ocean surface.

www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: Blue Shift

If he really wants to do a thorough debunking of that particular video, he needs to definitely prove it was a bird. He suggests there are wing flaps. I don't see them. Then let him show the other videos are birds. I'd be happy with that. But I don't care for what he's implying without proof. Even debunking should be debunked when necessary.

Even though he cannot debunk it 100%, he gets pretty close. The speed of the object is explained. The size of the object (about the same size as a bird) is explained. The heat signature explained.

a reply to: Jay-morris

My take on the subject is this...

If experienced naval aviators say they have encountered something that they can't explain, I would suggest that they encountered something they can't explain...

I've seen this written off as a bird, a balloon and a sensor glitch - but all because the clip is taken out of context forgetting the rest of the story surrounding the radar traces and the fact the the battle group had been picking things up for some time before the footage was taken.

I don't think the US Navy trusts £70million dollar fighter jets capable of carrying massive amounts of ordinance - including nukes (although maybe not off a carrier) and state of the art radar and optical systems to idiots.

I also don't think the Pentagon are idiots. if they say that these things are genuine, then they will have done so only after running through all of the variables and making damn sure they don't look stupid.

To have the equivalent of Karen from Facebook claiming otherwise is kinda laughable.

a reply to: Jay-morris

LOL 🤣 A BIRD!!! 🐦🦅🦆

a reply to: neformore

I've seen this written off as a bird, a balloon and a sensor glitch - but all because the clip is taken out of context forgetting the rest of the story surrounding the radar traces and the fact the the battle group had been picking things up for some time before the footage was taken.

Are you sure that the provenance of this video (called the "Go Fast" video) is the same as the other two? Are all three videos contemporaneous? Are they all taken in the same area? Do any of them have anything to do with what Favor says he saw?

I also don't think the Pentagon are idiots. if they say that these things are genuine, then they will have done so only after running through all of the variables and making damn sure they don't look stupid.

Meaning that they know exactly what is in the videos?

originally posted by: DiddyC
a reply to: Jay-morris

LOL 🤣 A BIRD!!! 🐦🦅🦆

Did you even watch the video? If so, then tell me how he is wrong?

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: Blue Shift

If he really wants to do a thorough debunking of that particular video, he needs to definitely prove it was a bird. He suggests there are wing flaps. I don't see them. Then let him show the other videos are birds. I'd be happy with that. But I don't care for what he's implying without proof. Even debunking should be debunked when necessary.

Even though he cannot debunk it 100%, he gets pretty close. The speed of the object is explained. The size of the object (about the same size as a bird) is explained. The heat signature explained.

I've said that it's possible it's a bird. I said so when I first saw it months ago. If he's proven that to your satisfaction, fine. What about the others? The implication here is that they're equally explainable too.

It's too bad that the Navy simply re-released low-resolution stuff that had already been exposed to the public and did not go on to release the rest of the original higher-resolution videos (which we now know they absolutely have). That would go a long way toward clearing up either what they are or why they're unidentified. But they didn't, which leads to the next question, "why not?". Because it doesn't show more than what we've seen? I find that unlikely.

More games. Endless games.

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: Jay-morris

My take on the subject is this...

If experienced naval aviators say they have encountered something that they can't explain, I would suggest that they encountered something they can't explain...

I've seen this written off as a bird, a balloon and a sensor glitch - but all because the clip is taken out of context forgetting the rest of the story surrounding the radar traces and the fact the the battle group had been picking things up for some time before the footage was taken.

I don't think the US Navy trusts £70million dollar fighter jets capable of carrying massive amounts of ordinance - including nukes (although maybe not off a carrier) and state of the art radar and optical systems to idiots.

I also don't think the Pentagon are idiots. if they say that these things are genuine, then they will have done so only after running through all of the variables and making damn sure they don't look stupid.

To have the equivalent of Karen from Facebook claiming otherwise is kinda laughable.

I have been on this site for years now. I am one of the ones who believe that some ufos defy explanation and need further serious investigation.

Saying that, I have also held my hands up when I have been wrong. The other two videos are more intriguing because we know that they are not birds. Also been classed as unexplained, lime this video. But the way the guy explains it ( rather annoyingly) he brings up good points.

Everyone who is into this subject should question everything, and that is all I am doing with the linked video.

The guy who wrote

LOL 🤣 A BIRD!!! 🐦🦅🦆

I bet he did not even look at the video, but claimed it was no sense anyway. Thst annoys me because it shows no respect for this subject.

If someone can debunk what he is saying, point by point, I am all ears.

No, it may be a highly classified drone being tracked on a classified system... but no not a bird.

First time I saw the videos they had pilot calls during the "chase" and they would have to be the worst pilots ever to mistake a bird and have trouble catching it.

a reply to: Irishhaf

No, it may be a highly classified drone being tracked on a classified system... but no not a bird.

How do you know it was not a bird? About the same size, the object was not going as fast as it looked, which was explained in the video. Yes, it also could have been a small drone.

First time I saw the videos they had pilot calls during the "chase" and they would have to be the worst pilots ever to mistake a bird and have trouble catching it.

Again, explained in the video. People need to watch the video before talking about it.