Luis Elizondo sat down for a deep dive interview with George Knapp day before yesterday.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: 1point92AU
a reply to: JimOberg
You quoted Hynek. Literally the fakest news guy of his time. One of the best first disinfo agents of our time. And you quoted him as some imaginary "gotcha" in the hopes of supporting your RIDICULOUS argument that pilots are the least credible individuals to identify aerial phenomena.

We're getting nowhere due to your unbroken pattern of imagining and insisting on me saying things I never did.

Do you believe Kean's assertion that since military and civilian pilots report UFO behavior quite differently, this is due to the UFOs themselves choosing to behave differently based on the detected specialization of the pilots who are observing them?

In typical fashion as with the rest of the disinfo lot here you attempt to deflect away from my very valid questions and my stellar argument which clearly shows your lack of logic in your statements.

I will ask you one last time.

How many hours in a fighter jet do you have?
How many year's experience do you have flying fighter jets operating in both training environments and real world missions where you have had multitudes of opportunity to observe aerial craft be them identifiable or not?

We all know your answer is this:

NONE, nada, zero experience.

Therefore, and one last time, your argument is null and void, especially of logic.

As I closed with in my previous comment. By your logic if you continue to use the ridiculous argument that a trained and experienced fighter jet pilot who has served for 24+ years and has more than 10,000 + hours in a fighter jet serving in both peacetime missions and in active duty combat war zones has no credibility when it comes to identifying known or unknown aerial craft then by YOUR LOGIC your tenured and storied history with NASA means zilch in any matter relative to your prior profession(s).

Stop being obtuse and pretending you don't fully understand the correlation here. And stop crying because someone challenges your ridiculous use of a known disinfo agents completely unsubstantiated "data". Your ego is your downfall.

a reply to: 1point92AU

Are these arguments finished now? Moving on....

a reply to: 1point92AU

The late Mr. Friedman once said.

Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.

If one can’t attack the data, attack the people. It is easier.

Do one’s research by proclamation rather than investigation. It is much easier, and nobody will know the difference anyway.....

This topic obviously triggers some form of psychological stress for you when you are presented with factual information that you can't accept and can't argue against. We know you hold fighter pilots in some form of awe and think it's a great comeback answer. Because you keep repeating yourself. A great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect for those who study that sort of thing.

I think it best that we let this thread get back on topic. Or just let it sink into the bowels of ATS.

Because this is worse than trying to talk to my dog. At least when I ask how he's feeling he occasionally says - "Ruff".

a reply to: 1point92AU

If in over 100 threads I've authored on ATS your only comeback is to imagine they are all variations around your combat pilot obsession and something I said in relation to computer programmers then so be it.

I've hardly even followed the tic-tac UFO explanations in my posts. But you seem to have chosen to focus in on that aspect. Here's what I specifically said so everyone can judge for themselves. Certain interested parties like to profile the cognitive abilities of certain groups via social media. So this will assist in studies.

...it is entirely feasible that someone who programs video games knows as much as someone who flies military hardware. Pilots train on flight simulators which are in effect video games. The camera footage relies on software to process the data through to the visual displays. Who would know more about the software?

However I generally keep out of the debate about what the [TTSA UAP] videos show. If the best footage they've got is these inconclusive fuzzy low quality clips in infra red then we are no further on than we have been for decades.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here's a link to your responses in that thread so others can use them for further study.

One of your responses (which you repeated a number of times) was...

Let's look at what a video game programmer looks at versus a fighter jet pilot:


Video Game Developer Daily View:

Fighter Pilot Daily View:

How many computer programs have you written that model the real world? It takes a certain level of intellect and hours of studying real world events. You do understand computer programmers don't just sit on front of a PC screen to do that don't you? Even though the above post would indicate that you don't.

Yet you attack people calling them trolls, idiots and generally spilling vitriol. To what purpose?

What exactly is it you are arguing about?

I am trying to understand what you actually stand for not what you stand against.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: 1point92AU



This topic obviously triggers some form of psychological stress for you when you are presented with factual information that you can't accept and can't argue against. We know you hold fighter pilots in some form of awe and think it's a great comeback answer. Because you keep repeating yourself. A great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect for those who study that sort of thing.

How do "we" know that?

a reply to: mirageman

Actually I found Mick West's calculations to wrong in his Youtube video "Go Fast". However, people will argue that too. The whole point was to figure out the height of the UFO. So in his argument he took the angle of the camera and range (hypotenuse) @ right-angle to the sky and uses Sine. Instead of Using Cosine using angle of the camera and range (hypotenuse) @ right-angle to the height of the plane which is the leg of the right triangle that is Right-angle to the Sea level. Instead he uses the angle and totally disregards the what makes up that triangle. The plane was flying at a steady 25kft and never deviates off that during the entire time the video played out. The camera angle jumps rapidly from 26 degrees to 35 degrees and the hypotenuse also changing in respect to that measured in distance. I took his same measurements and converted nautical miles to Feet. The UFO went from 972Ft to 8050Ft in a time frame a of couple of seconds. Which is pretty dang fast. I did a rough estimate with closing speed of the jet and camera angle change per second and distance it jumped between angles. The speed between the 2 is roughly Mach3, being generous and subtracting the closing speed of mach1 for the Jet leaves the object doing just above Mach2 by about + 150-200mph.

P.S. That is the UFO was 972FT above the Sea level at the time the camera locked on at 26 degrees and climbed to 8050Ft above Sea level at 35 degrees. So there is big problem here, we have a combined speed of above mach 3 and a super hornet that can only do top speed of mach 1.5.

I would like to add more to to my previous post. If anyone wants me to explain further into why Mick West calculations are wrong I can do so. It is hard to follow and explain to people that may not understand the math part. There is some conversions involved as well.

a reply to: sean

Look up the definition if sine and cosine and try again.

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: sean

Look up the definition if sine and cosine and try again.

Indian chief named "SohCahToa" will also be able to tell you.

a reply to: moebius

I take it you believe the Mick West video is correct then?? Your reply isn't very telling as a counter argument as you haven't provided any info.

1. Can't use sine(A)=O/H, The value opposite of 26 degree's is unknown (the side), but opposite angle can be found to be 64. So I used cos(26) * 4.4 and cos(35) * 3.4 and then subtracted those values that draw a new adj to create the two new triangles to compare the differences of the length of the adj line giving me the unknown height. A right angle triangle must add up to 180 so the opposite angle is 64. However, Mick west in his calculations didn't use 64 he used sin(26) * 4.4 and sin(35) * 3.4 and subtracting the value from the leg 4.11

You can see that his calculations are not even drawing a right angle triangle that matches the orientation of the plane leg @ right-angle to the Sea level. Sin(26) * 4.4 draws a triangle which base is 3.95 on the Sea level and 26 angle at Sea level looking up and 64 degrees at the top which is definitely not the angle of the camera looking down. You can enter in values Here to get an idea of what I mean. If you enter in just the two values...Side C = 4.4 and X = 26 and then try C = 4.4 and X = 64. Mick could have used sin(64) * 4.4 and reached the same conclusion value 3.95 the same as cos(26) * 4.4 = 3.95, but he used sin(26) which is clearly wrong.

Military ufo sighting: bug on airplane windshield

Civilian ufo sighting: on pills

Adding more to my previous post. I thought I would add what the original hypotenuse and right-angle of the jet would look like without the UFO range as the hypotenuse and camera top angle @ 26 degrees and the bottom angle @ 64 degree's. Using the link above input that data...

Side A (4.11)
Side B (2)
Side C (4.57)
Angle X (64)

Note: The triangle looks the same and the base angle is on the left. This would be as if you was looking at the jet from behind. Mirror the base on the right-hand side you would be looking at the front of the jet head on. The base being the Sea level and the leg being the height of the jet. Furthermore, note all of the numbers used have been converted from Feet to Nautical Miles.

The reasoning behind using Cosine, is because we have no information for what the length of base is that the top angle is pointing at. The second reason is to draw a new right-angle triangle as the data from angle and hypotenuse changes. IE, the 4.4 range of the UFO gives us a new triangle with a new leg that we can compare and subtract from 4.11NM the 75kft altitude of the jet. So we can determine what the height of the UFO is from the surface of the Sea level.

Cannot alter the facts that Sin(26) = O/H cannot be used as the opposite of angle 26 is an unknown base value. However, you can use the bottom angle Sin(64) = O/H Which in turn equals the same as Cos(26) = O/H and draws the same conclusion and draws the exact same right-triangle. If you use Cos(64) = A/H you can't as once again the base becomes Adjacent with an unknown value.

I done just about as much as I can in explaining all this, as much as I ever want to. Link to Mick West video...

a reply to: mirageman

It's pretty clear you are triggered by your boy Zondo. Did Zondo punch you in the mouth or something? I've said repeatedly I don't have a particular like of TDL and I find him to be obnoxious. But nothing he's done is not what he's stated he would do from the very beginning since this all kicked off publicly in 2017.

To date...not a single one of your accusations on Zondo have been correct. You fill these forms with complete disinformation and you get upset when someone calls you out. You are the triggered one. Why else would you spend SO MUCH TIME making completely false accusations that never turn out to be true? Talk about triggered.

a reply to: 1point92AU

I can keep playing this game a long time. It all provides more data for studies too.

I've said repeatedly I don't have a particular like of TDL and I find him to be obnoxious. But nothing he's done is not what he's stated he would do from the very beginning since this all kicked off publicly in 2017.

What is your understanding of and specific examples of the "nothing he's done is not what he stated he would do"?

To date...not a single one of your accusations on Zondo have been correct

Let's start with this one....

In 2018 Elizondo gave a speech in Rome. Link to specific part of the speech on video

He told the audience that the 1952 Washington DC UFO Events were "unlike Roswell...many people were able to take photographs....And what you see here are real photographs linked to the story".

But there are no photographs or film from those specific incidents. Are you saying there are and I am wrong?

With one example your assertion below is proven false isn't it?

....not a single one of your accusations on Zondo have been correct.

I think we can trust the observation that pilots have. More so than the the average person on the ground. The Cmdr doesn't know what it truly is. He has stated that. However, he has pointed out several times what the object is doing in it's maneuverability, that is important. Saying, it was bouncing around like a ping pong ball. He also said, as he got closer to it he tried to gain on it in a circumference circular pattern and realized that he wasn't gaining on it. So then he cut across at a 6 o'clock so he could close the gap. Once that happen the object darted off to cap point I think he said. That is probably the time he got a closer look at it. He stated it's size to be about 32ft in length. That observation is important. It darted away and vanished and wound up on cap point support planes radar. He's stated it had no visible wings, cockpit, fuselage, engine, thrust wash. That doesn't sound like a bird, balloon, or even a plane for that matter.