New Campkill Commentary 40 on FLIR GIMBAL GOFAST

Everyone's favorite Mr. Siff sings about the released navy videos while kicking ass in CoD..

Enjoy


m.youtube.com...



It's only three minutes long, so just watch it !



Respectfully,
~meathead

a reply to: Mike Stivic

He mentions this...which is interesting.

U.S. patent number: US10144532B2

SUMMARY

The present invention is directed to a craft using an inertial mass reduction device. The craft includes an inner resonant cavity wall, an outer resonant cavity, and microwave emitters. The outer resonant cavity wall and the inner resonant cavity wall form a resonant cavity. The microwave emitters create high frequency electromagnetic waves throughout the resonant cavity causing the outer resonant cavity wall to vibrate in an accelerated mode and create a local polarized vacuum outside the outer resonant cavity wall.

It is a feature of the present invention to provide a craft, using an inertial mass reduction device, that can travel at extreme speeds.

However this doesn't explain these same UFO's seen since at least the early 1940's....before even the microprocessor was invented.

This just tells me that perhaps they have made some progress with their alien tech back-engineering projects. Either that or they are just taking a stab at it and attempting to mock the alien tech in order to jump the gun on patent holdings before the other guys get them.

SOURCE

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Mike Stivic

He mentions this...which is interesting.

U.S. patent number: US10144532B2

SUMMARY

The present invention is directed to a craft using an inertial mass reduction device. The craft includes an inner resonant cavity wall, an outer resonant cavity, and microwave emitters. The outer resonant cavity wall and the inner resonant cavity wall form a resonant cavity. The microwave emitters create high frequency electromagnetic waves throughout the resonant cavity causing the outer resonant cavity wall to vibrate in an accelerated mode and create a local polarized vacuum outside the outer resonant cavity wall.

It is a feature of the present invention to provide a craft, using an inertial mass reduction device, that can travel at extreme speeds.

However this doesn't explain these same UFO's seen since at least the early 1940's....before even the microprocessor was invented.

This just tells me that perhaps they have made some progress with their alien tech back-engineering projects. Either that or they are just taking a stab at it and attempting to mock the alien tech in order to jump the gun on patent holdings before the other guys get them.

SOURCE

skhval torpedo comes to mind

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
However this doesn't explain these same UFO's seen since at least the early 1940's....before even the microprocessor was invented.

You don't need any patent to explain the "FLIR, Gimbal, and Gofast" videos that are the topic of the OP video commentary and this thread. None of those three videos show any advanced technology. We may not know what the objects are, but whatever they are, they don't do anything interesting that can't be done by ordinary planes, drones or balloons.

Maybe you're trying to change the subject to other UFOs because those three UFO videos released by the navy are so boring?

I never claimed to be an Arial phenomena expert, because I am not.

That's why I didn't wax poetic in my OP.




I do however appreciate the time and effort put into this three and a half minute video..

And it speaks for itself..

Respectfully,
~meathead

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
We may not know what the objects are, but whatever they are, they don't do anything interesting that can't be done by ordinary planes, drones or balloons.

Umm....

at this point the UFO apparently accelerated and disappeared in less than two seconds, leaving the pilots "pretty weirded out".[16][20]

Subsequently, the two fighter jets began a new course to the combat air patrol (CAP) rendezvous point. "Within seconds" Princeton radioed the jets that a radar target had appeared 60 miles (97 km) away at the predetermined rendezvous point. According to Popular Mechanics, a physical object would have had to move greater than 2,400 miles per hour (3,900 km/h) to reach the CAP ahead of the Navy fighters. Their jets have a maximum speed of Mach 1.8 (1,190 miles per hour (1,920 km/h)). To actually get there "within seconds" would have required an air speed of at least 42,000 miles per hour (68,000 km/h).

en.wikipedia.org...

So yeah...we have planes and drones and balloons that can.... no wait. We don't. And by we I mean humanity.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
However this doesn't explain these same UFO's seen since at least the early 1940's....before even the microprocessor was invented.

You don't need any patent to explain the "FLIR, Gimbal, and Gofast" videos that are the topic of the OP video commentary and this thread. None of those three videos show any advanced technology. We may not know what the objects are, but whatever they are, they don't do anything interesting that can't be done by ordinary planes, drones or balloons.

Maybe you're trying to change the subject to other UFOs because those three UFO videos released by the navy are so boring?

Read the post above this one....

a reply to: neformore
Fravor described things the video didn't show. What you have posted is someone else saying something the video doesn't show. So what I'm saying is the videos show absolutely no sign of advanced technology.

I didn't say that eyewitnesses haven't made incredible claims that don't appear in the videos, but that's another matter. People are making a big deal out of the videos, but there's nothing interesting in the videos in terms of advanced technology.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
Read the post above this one....

I did, it only confirms how totally boring the three Navy videos are because it doesn't describe the slightest sign of advanced technology in any of the three videos.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So in the videos you mentioned, what is the means of propulsion that the UFO's are using?

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So in the videos you mentioned, what is the means of propulsion that the UFO's are using?

Whatever it is, the videos show nothing interesting, propulsion-wise. The UFOs don't do much. At least one of them I think is a or could easily be a balloon with no propulsion at all, that TTSA has made the ridiculous claim it's going at 2/3 the speed of sound which is a lie. It's not going any faster than a balloon and you can prove it yourself if you know high school trig as explained in this video.

"Go Fast" UFO Video Explained?

That video briefly mentions the other two videos also.

The other videos don't offer as much distance information as the gofast video so it's not possible to calculate the speed of those the same way that was done for gofast. But so far I haven't seen anything that rules out a balloon in the FLIR video, though it may not be a balloon, Mick West thinks it might just be a distant plane, but I'm not sure what it is, all I know is it doesn't do much. I agree the objects are unidentified, but that by itself doesn't make them interesting.

Gimbal has an interesting illusion of rotation, but that's not a sign of advanced technology, that's a sign of how the camera works for the FLIR system. It has a gimbal, and as the name of the video implies, it's the gimbal which causes the rotation illusion. The camera actually rotates via the gimbal mechanism, but that doesn't imply any rotation of the UFO.

a reply to: Mike Stivic

Yes, the time and effort put in paid off. Loved it.

As for the message in the vid, plausible if you believe the US DoD has cornered the electrical, mechanical, computer and nuclear engineering human capital markets — not to mention the material science and several other hordes of human capital markets. They haven’t. And a plug to a dime-a-dozen patent is proof of zilch.

Still, props for bringing that entertaining 3 minutes to my attention.

Soooo.... if I understand correctly, There's a resonant cavity involved? Somewhere, right?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I don't know much about that video you are referring to however the OP video mentions the "Tic Tac" video. Are you proposing that the UFO in that video is a balloon also?

Have you seen this interview?

originally posted by: ChayOphan
Soooo.... if I understand correctly, There's a resonant cavity involved? Somewhere, right?

Yeah. Do you know what that means?

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Ok, ya got me. Nope, not a clue. I'm tired, I skimmed, I saw the phrase "resonant cavity" repeated no less than seven times and well... I tried to be funny.
Personally, my thoughts on the various patents involving exotic tech are that they fall into one of two categories:
1) tactical diversion - OPFOR blows huge chunks of national treasure on chasing high-tech rabbits down bottomless holes never to be seen again.
2) patents are genuine, representing actual technological leaps of unprecedented proportions.
I lean toward the first option because there exists measures that could've been utilized to covertly develop sensitive technology.
If the technology in those patents is real, I do not like the implications. Just ask yourself why any country with access to such potential release it for public scrutiny.
The answers aren't very comforting. But, then again, I'm about as imaginative as I am funny so I'm probably overlooking many other possibilities.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I don't know much about that video you are referring to however the OP video mentions the "Tic Tac" video. Are you proposing that the UFO in that video is a balloon also?

If you ever do watch the FLIR video, let me know if you see anything that rules out a balloon. If you do I'd like to know what that is. But I don't know what it is, could also be a distant plane or unmanned drone (UAV or UAS) as the form written to release the 3 videos describes the contents. It's far away, whatever it is, which is part of the reason the FLIR gives such a fuzzy image, and is unable to calculate the distance as it does in the Gofast video where the UFO was only about 4 nautical miles away.

Internal Air Force/Navy E-Mails on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Revealed

“What the Navy was trying to talk about was unmanned aerial systems… that got turned into UFOs and aliens.”

The e-mail by Mcandrews reflects that of what appears to be the Navy’s original statement by Stratton, which got truncated and altered before submission to Politico. It appears that the Air Force focus on this threat surrounds unmanned aerial systems, and not “[unidentified flying objects]” as asserted by Politico...

In Elizondo’s own words, the three videos that the Navy admits to designating as “UAPs,” were described as, “UAV, Balloons, and other UAS,” on the official paperwork and written in his e-mails.

The navy paperwork says they are “UAV, Balloons, and other UAS,” which could be right.

Have you seen this interview?

Yes. But I don't jump to the conclusion that what's in the FLIR video is what Fravor saw. Fravor had a camera wired to his helmet mounted switch, all he had to do was flick the switch to make a video of what he saw, but he didn't so there's no video of what he saw. Apparently the E2 crew got a better look at it and or recorded some information about it on their instruments and it's alleged they were required to sign a non-disclosure form so they can't talk about it. I have a hypothesis about what it could be and it's too bad they can't disclose what their instruments recorded as it might confirm, or not, my hypothesis.

The FLIR video that was made later by another pilot who says he can't confirm it's the same object Fravor saw and it does nothing interesting like Fravor describes.

thenimitzencounters.com...

LT.__________ was clear in that he couldn’t confirm that it was the same object as described by FASTEAGLE flight. He never had visual, only seeing the object via the FLIR.

originally posted by: ChayOphan
I lean toward the first option because there exists measures that could've been utilized to covertly develop sensitive technology.

That's the only thing that makes sense to me. There are something like 5000 secret patents and if it was as groundbreaking as claimed, why would they give such an advantage freely to an adversary? I think it would end up as one of those secret patents, but if the objective is for China to chase rainbows, a secret patent won't accomplish that goal so it would need to be public, which it is.

Besides you don't need anything in that patent to do what Fravor described, we've had technology to do things like that being tested as far back as 1990 but the origins of the technology go back decades earlier in the history of particle accelerators.

Fravor's 2004 UAP sighting

a reply to: Arbitrageur

"I have a hypothesis about what it could be and it's too bad they can't disclose what their instruments recorded as it might confirm, or not, my hypothesis."

If I bet my life that you believe the object recorded by the E-2 was entirely of human origin, would I win that bet?

originally posted by: ChayOphan
a reply to: Arbitrageur

"I have a hypothesis about what it could be and it's too bad they can't disclose what their instruments recorded as it might confirm, or not, my hypothesis."

If I bet my life that you believe the object recorded by the E-2 was entirely of human origin, would I win that bet?

I'm not sure. I think alien is a possibility for any UFO, though man-made phenomena and natural phenomena seem far more likely based on analyzing many UFOs.

In this case I'm not sure at all about my hypothesis and it could be wrong, but eyewitness descriptions are so unreliable it's hard to say. If David Fravor had made video of what he saw, and I could look at that I could give a better answer. He thinks what he saw was alien, but I'm not at all convinced of that after analyzing numerous other cases where people thought the UFO they saw was alien, and it was later identified to not be alien.

This is one that popped up recently, where a credible witness (a doctor) and his companions even saw the aliens inside the UFO:


www.ufocasebook.com...

That's the artist's impression, this is the sketch from the files of the Spanish Air force:

www.planetabenitez.com...

So if all we had was witness testimony in that case, we can be sure it was an alien craft.
But because we have photos and other documentation, we are sure it's not.
This is why it's irresponsible to place too much confidence in what even credible witnesses say. They're usually not lying but it's well known by scientists there are many ways we can mis-perceive things. Some UFOlogists like to deny that and some people are still promoting that object with some aliens inside as an alien ship even though we now know what it was.

A new video about it came out this year:
New YouTube Video On 1976 Canary Islands Mass UFO Sighting

So even credible eyewitnesses are just not reliable and are subject to all kinds of misperceptions. Some people think pilots are better witnesses. They may be better at identifying known aircraft but the most prominent UFO researcher found they are actually the worst witnesses when it comes to UFOs, with the highest misperception rate.

So while the stories are fun and interesting, they are just stories which have turned out to not be very reliable. A serious researcher needs something other than an eyewitness description because obviously if the eyewitness descriptions were all you had in the canary islands UFO case (or the Yukon case, or others), you could never correctly analyze the case.

Some people have some other hypotheses about what David Fravor saw which are based on him having even greater misperceptions than my hypothesis allows, and I can't rule out those hypotheses, and I can't rule out aliens at this point either. If I could see what the E2 crew recorded in the electromagnetic spectrum I might be able to identify what they and Fravor saw, but that, apparently, is classified.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Totally understand your skepticism and cynical take on all things deemed ‘UFO’/*insert you favorite anomalous phenomena parlance/nomenclature/etc.* and your disappointment in Fravor not capturing it with an instrument measuring EM radiation, etc.

Although, given your propensity to use these measuring instruments to speciously dismiss everything Nimitz-related, I’d bet dollars-to-donuts had Fravor did as you had hoped he would, you’d still dismiss his lying eyes and use the measuring instrument data to fit your ‘want to debunk’ mechanism (much in the same vein true believers still don’t accept a party ballon was shown on a projection screen for TTSA’s launch). But, carry on, good soldier.

The fact this was actively discussed 13 years ago on ATS, is about as close to a smoking gun there’s something afoot...

I just wish everyone involved in these discussions — when it turns to ‘just arrived here in this part of your spiral galaxy’ aliens — truly appreciated the discontinuity in ALL things engineering-related. Teepees to the Great Pyramids isn’t even a pimple on an elephant’s ass, in terms of the engineering advances that humans would have to make to get remotely close to the alleged “Tic-Tac”.

Apologies in advance to the vid maker, but chances this is man-made are slim-to-none and slim just died of a heart attack.

So whatever it is, I’m betting $20 to a bottle of piss that’s it’s not new, novel or even remotely concerned with humankind.

ETA: This story was campfire fodder for 10-12 years until the article (I think fightersweep but don’t quote me) by Paco came out in 2015 — for years this was a well-known story that was bounced around in bar the world over — and the “trickle-flow-gush” dynamic was complete by Dec 2017. Regardless of any analysis of alleged official government data, the myth has been fully formed and the same old dogmas and questions persist, so what are we to do differently?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I guess where I'm coming from is this...

The incident was corroborated by radar tracks from AN/SPY-1 Radar on USS Princeton

Fully trained naval aviators know a balloon when they see one. if they don't, then god help us all because WW3 is surely imminent, that or an awful lot of money is being wasted chasing balloons.

Similarly, they would be well versed in recognition of other aircraft.

To suggest a 'simple' explanation for something observed/described by highly trained personnel flying a state of the art jet fighter seems - frankly - insulting.

in other words, is the military run and manned by idiots? It isn't. These people are the best in the world at what they do.

What they described does not fit any aircraft they were aware of (or I am aware of, being an aviation enthusiast of some 40 years) and although both they, as professionals and myself as an amateur most certainly probably won't be in the loop of advanced test articles, what they have described has no lift capacity and no visible propulsion system and from what little we know of black projects by snippets of leaked info, 40 ft long white tic-tac shaped craft are not and have not been on the drawing boards. Conversely congress and the military wouldn't be throwing money at the B-21, F35 and F22 if that kind of tehcnology is so obsolete.

Not only that, but I'm fairly sure the US military would not put its name and reputation on the line by releasing a video of a balloon and claiming they don't know what it is. That would suggest the footage hasn't been analysed numerous times and subject to military intelligence scrutiny.

But hey... a guy without that background says its a balloon... right? Karen from Facebook strikes again....