Beyond Bigelow & BAASS, After AATIP and on To the Stars...

a reply to: pigsy2400

LOL...ok. Tell yourself whatever you need to calm your emotions.

Anyone attempting to make an absolute claim of what the gimbal video shows is never going to be able to prove it. It's impossible. But what people can do is prove what its not.

Here's are some examples of what gimbal is not:

- a flying elephant
- an ATS poster editing a TL;DR post
- another fighter jet

LOL

a reply to: 1point92AU

I didn't mention or infer any emotions at all in my post, I was simply asking you for your opinion on what you thought it was?

I was actually quite polite, I even stated I wasn't asking for your opinion so I could smash you down on it later, just intrigued is all.

So you don't think its a;

- a flying elephant
- an ATS poster editing a TL;DR post
- another fighter jet

So what do you think it is?
You do seem to have pattern of going to great lengths as to not commit to any position. You don't have to either, its a free world and its your choice, but its a pattern of behavior that you have exhibited a number of times now that is quite interesting.

Interesting in that, every time someone asks you, you attack them and tell them to get their emotions in check?! That doesn't make sense at all. But every time someone quotes someone else's opinions or theirs you resort to insults?

I personally think its Black Tech related, I don't have to be right or wrong, its just an opinion, one that is likely to change if new evidence becomes available.

a reply to: pigsy2400

Hey man...I cannot help it if you are a sensitive individual. I haven't attacked anyone. If you think I have then report the post to a mod.

I've provided a valid argument and all you and a few others attempt to do is shift the argument into a different direction because you've lost the argument.

Had to take a week out from the Woo; it was all getting a bit too loud, wild and fictional. Feel refreshed again now...

originally posted by: The GUT
Hey...do you think they'll finally let Puthoff speak tonight? So far he's just been a little scenery.

Perhaps Puthoff is feeling embarrassed about the whole series. Can't blame him. Alternatively, Lue wants to keep top ex-scientologists out of the frame for the moment. Cant blame HIM, either.

Which also reminds me - since when did a 'documentary' series ever have a fiction-orientated "season finale"? Wow, I really laid into episode 5, didn't I? Which was kind of the tipping point for me in terms of observing how TTSA deal with case histories that are well-known and studied, rather than the relatively unknown Nimitz affair that they can glam-up to their hearts' content... and they crashed and burned.

I was perhaps mean in calling their version of Rendlesham "dishonest", when "utterly inept" is a fairer assessment, but of no less concern in terms of TRUST.

Oh, and I saw Lue's piece to camera about what it means to be Human, which was curiously warm and welcoming. It was also interesting to see him throw the IDH at the viewer since the only indication of such a notion in the current trilogy of UFO stories being endlessly sold by Knapp and friends (Skinwalker, Lazar, Nimitz) was Sherman and NIDS' alleged sighting of portals opening on the ranch with 'dark creatures' crawling out and... well, quite.

Not entirely sure what Lue was attempting in that solo video, but it seemed almost apologetic in a way, as well as refreshingly free of the aggravating 'corporate-speak' that was so ubiquitous upon TTSA's launch. He was basically saying, "Look, I'm a nice fella bungling my way through territory I knew zip about 10 years ago".

He IS likable, can't argue with that. And certainly the best actor out of the whole crew.

a reply to: 1point92AU

"You could argue over semantics all day"

Our favorite mythology builders at Forgotten Languages have a new article up. I like to check on these folks every so often to see how they are mirroring the latest Ufology paradigms and/or respinning them into new tales.

I mention this here because it seems oddly relevant and timely...

Non-state actors and the weaponization of underwater unmanned systems - From narcosubs to sea-denial weapons.

The thrust of the article is that narco traffickers have been using undersea drones for some time now because they figured out something the rest of the world hasn't: everybody watches the skies but nobody pays attention to the large bodies of water covering the planet.

I've noticed that in recent decades the Navy has subsumed a lot of space-related R&D that was once the purview of the Air Force. I've always held the idea that the Navy was better suited for operating in deep space/HEO. The premise here though is that these "drones" aren't part of any formal military department.

"Funds were diverted towards the development of both the neutrino radar and the development of a high-speed, supercavitating vehicle. The currently N3 doctrine - National Naval Need - focuses on upgrades of existing torpedo systems, therefore paradigm-shifting vehicles and MilOrbs is not part of the Navy, neither DARPA, nor the Army or the Air Force run these programs. So the question remains as to who is really behind all these tic-tacs, MilOrbs, USOs, and MilOrbs."

The narrative being put forth by FL is that MilOrbs/PSVs/Tic-Tacs are un-manned UAV/USVs. There are several articles scattered throughout FL discussing MilOrbs + PSVs, but this is the first reference to Nimitz that I've seen. In short they're making the claim that the tic-tac was not a vehicle/craft but a weapon platform; basically a steerable missile.

"Tic-tac UFOs? No, sorry. They are kinetic weapons at hypersonic speeds. Do you know what the result would be if three of them impact against the USS Nimitz? I'll tell you: the smallest piece you'd find will be the size of a tic-tac mint. The incredible thing in that incident is not the kinetic weapon itself; it is the fact that we operated them from Tangent and Sienna and yet none of the assets in Carrier Strike Group 11 detected them. That's the situation."

FL is an odd duck that I haven't been able to pin down (Who/What/Why), but it serves as a nice comparison of narratives to see how the "messaging" can differ based upon the audience.

originally posted by: 1point92AU
a reply to: zazzafrazz

An idiot is a stupid person.

We can't argue that ATS ain't educational.

Continuing to make the claim that a video programmer who has never sat a single second in the cockpit of a fighter plane vs an actual 18 year veteran fighter pilot is literally and I do mean literally a stupid argument.

And failing to understand the nuances as to why it's not so cut-and-dry as you make out, is a prime example of an obstinate person who is veering towards idiocy.

It's also what separates TruBelievers (the loud mob) vs WannaBelievers (the comparatively quieter group on ATS who ask questions first).

Cellty kinda swings from one to the other like an excitable chimp.

a reply to: 1point92AU

So what do you think it is?

a reply to: ParticleNode

Ahhhh the old FL crew...they are an interesting lot.
It sure was interesting when they were around last time...

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: coursecatalog

I’m afraid that’s not the case. Read the book Ruse: Undercover with an FBI investigator by Robert Eringe as well as Ira Einhorns blog and you’ll see that there is very clearly a problem that Dr Pandolphi has with Dr Green. He makes multiple claims. To his credit Dr Green has never given the same sort of low treatment back.

See also newsgroups about Beltway Throat and Jack Sarfatti. Here we appear to have more scandalous and false allegations made up.

I have read most of that stuff but it inevitably just leads you down a hall of mirrors.

I have always assumed Beltway Throat was Dan Smith.

a reply to: coursecatalog

Beltway Throat wasn't Dan Smith CC, it was Ron Pandolfi

originally posted by: 1point92AU
People continually miss the simple fact that if the rotation of the object was being caused by the rotating gimbal then the entire background (clouds) would have to EQUALLY rotate the same number of degrees.

No, that is not correct.
You can do the experiment yourself: Point your phone camera to a bright light source, bright enough to cause glare.
Now rotate your phone. You’ll see that the scene does not rotate with it (the world stays where it is), but the glare does rotate, because it is caused by the optics in the phone you are rotating.
This is how you can tell effects caused by the optics from the actual image.

The Gimbal video clearly shows IR glare and Mick has shown that the Gimbal will have to rotate 90 degreed when the object is directly in its line-of-sight at a shallow angle.

So, the Gimbal rotation will cause the glare to rotate with respect to the scene. The 'de-rotation' unit in the ATFLIR will keep the scene horizon aligned with the jet's wings but cannot prevent the glare rotation within the scene to be visible.

Why else would the video be called 'Gimbal'? Why else would Elizondo say he got UFO video's released pretending they were training videos? Maybe it's the other way around: He got training videos released and pretends they are UFO videos...

a reply to: pigsy2400

Yep, interesting times. Quite bizarre.

Dear 1point92AU,
No point in arguing with them let's all be patient. Senators received classified briefings on the videos.... It should be obvious to everyone that the videos are not of balloons, glare, etc. But its good to have open discussion. There is clearly more to the vids. as noted below. Until the rest is release. Its good to have open discussion.
This quote is from the highly esteemed Richard Hoffman the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU).


link

a reply to: celltypespecific

Jed Doorbell claimed he has seen "longer videos" as have others in "Ufology" -"its not on the internet, but in private hands"

Apparently...51 mins in;

a reply to: pigsy2400

Yah he sure does, it's also the same interview he claims repeatedly the Nitwitz footage was leaked NOT on ATS in '07 but on Reddit where he is the UFO moderator. lol

I asked TFT if there was more to the video than he loaded on ATS, got no reply 🤷

a reply to: celltypespecific

It should be obvious to everyone that the videos are not of balloons, glare, etc. But its good to have open discussion

We keep hearing about these longer videos and the amazing things they show, but sadly such sights have to be classified. I find that strange.

Classified because it is an US capability? Can't be that if they are pitching it as a threat to the Senate.

Classified because it is a foreign threat? Well, why do you have to classify it then? We have already been told how amazing these things are, so seeing it won't make much of a difference, now would it?

Classified because they can't really allow analysis from a few million nosy bastards and bastatdettes across the world? Why don't they want us to see it?

Here is another thought: How much do senators know, I wonder, about how to interpret sensor image data? Is it a requirement for the US Senate to have detailed knowledge of this?

Or will the senators be at the mercy of the ones that interpret the data for them?

a reply to: ParticleNode

"How the messaging differs to the audience"

Think you nailed it there mate with that comment, it's seemingly adjusted to "Who" is listening, even those who don't believe.

a reply to: beetee

Also of interest is if those videos are classified, which we can assume they are, what are civilians with no security clearances viewing them for and how?

That is the question, but it could also be total bollocks as well, but I don't think it is...hmmm

a reply to: beetee

Here is another thought: How much do senators know, I wonder, about how to interpret sensor image data? Is it a requirement for the US Senate to have detailed knowledge of this? Or will the senators be at the mercy of the ones that interpret the data for them?

Hi Beetee,
Thank you for your response. I can't answer all your questions however. The esteemed Australian researcher Keith Basterfield does discuss this topic in the linked blog posting below:

After U.S. Congressional UAP briefings - What comes next?


Also of note...Dave Fravor is a constituent of Senator Jeanne Shaheen (a Senator that was briefed).....both from New Hampshire