Quake3World

Interesting segment on the TV here last night. I really had no idea of the thousands of animal mutilations, mainly USA and here as well they suggest, maybe attribute to our stellar cousins.

seremtan wrote:

xer0s wrote:Is anyone else stocking up on toilet paper and canned goods in anticipation of making contact with aliens in July? I know I am…

are the aliens coming for our TP?

i mean, it's a long way so maybe they ran out on the way

I NEED TP FOR MY BUNGHOLE!

Turns out I too can find youtube videos confirming my point of view, must be true then?

[youtube]Tyw4JA00AMc[/youtube]

Seriously though, he makes some pretty valid points, those debunk videos are based on some shoddy ideas.

Also, this guy is a legit fighter pilot with multiple degrees including an aeronautics degree. Mick West helped make tony hawks pro skater games. food for thought.

This thread is comedy gold

Κracus wrote:Also, this guy is a legit fighter pilot with multiple degrees including an aeronautics degree. Mick West helped make tony hawks pro skater games. food for thought.

He claims the camera system in the GoFast video is bad at determining range. So that puts the range estimate in the debunk video (halfway between plane and surface) in doubt. However, that doesn't mean the object is definitely 100% certainly flying close to the ocean surface. If the system is incapable of determining range, then there is also not any proof that it's close to the ocean surface either. What still unambiguously stands, though, is that if the assumed range is correct, we would be seeing what we see: a slow moving object that appears to be moving extremely fast. Additionally, that range indication is there for a reason. If it was a totally random, unusuable number it wouldn't be prominently visible on the HUD. So at least it gives us an estimated ballpark figure of the range. This ballpark figure puts the object at something like 12000 or 13000 feet if I remember correctly. Even if the range finding was off by 50%, that'd still put the object as high as 2km, nowhere near the ocean surface.

About the Gimbal video, he basically says that you can't recognize it as fighter and normally you always can still see it's a fighter. The thing that bugs me there is that it is a subjective opinion. In all honestly, looking at the gimbal video, I can clearly see the distinct shape of a plane in there. He uses Mick West's setup as example where he says "you can still see it's a light on a pole in a garage", but what's actually interesting here is that the flare of the light obscures the entire light source. Also, the video isn't recording visible light, it's recording heat, so a jet engine blowing out hot air probably isn't going to look the same as a lamp on a stick.
So despite all his fancy trigonometry to prove the plane is relatively close, it's not smoking gun proof at all. Because he doesn't prove that at this close range, this obscuring effect couldn't happen. Funniest thing is that in the end he goes "could this be a weird bokeh effect? I guess. Maybe." right before diving into a Rorschach test type of speculation about what he's seeing.

And lets assume this guy is 100% right and the debunk videos are wrong. That still doesn't prove these are objects of alien origin. It just debunks the methods used in the debunk videos. Nothing more, nothing less. That still doesn't prove the GoFast video isn't a weatherballoon (let alone that it's an alien craft) nor does it prove that the Gimbal video isn't just a jet fighter.

why are we still debating this?

the claim that it's aliens is extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence, and there is none

the claim that it's another country's super secret tech was debunked by the Quillette article I linked (tech doesn't develop in the kind of massive steps that would allow someone to go from standard fighter jets to anti-grav vehicles that can zip around at transonic speed without sonic booms and redonkulous g-forces; also, we'd know if such tech had been developed just from leaks and espionage)

tl;dr - it's bollocks

Eraser wrote: He claims the camera system in the GoFast video is bad at determining range. So that puts the range estimate in the debunk video (halfway between plane and surface) in doubt. However, that doesn't mean the object is definitely 100% certainly flying close to the ocean surface. If the system is incapable of determining range, then there is also not any proof that it's close to the ocean surface either. What still unambiguously stands, though, is that if the assumed range is correct, we would be seeing what we see: a slow moving object that appears to be moving extremely fast. Additionally, that range indication is there for a reason. If it was a totally random, unusuable number it wouldn't be prominently visible on the HUD. So at least it gives us an estimated ballpark figure of the range. This ballpark figure puts the object at something like 12000 or 13000 feet if I remember correctly. Even if the range finding was off by 50%, that'd still put the object as high as 2km, nowhere near the ocean surface.

About the Gimbal video, he basically says that you can't recognize it as fighter and normally you always can still see it's a fighter. The thing that bugs me there is that it is a subjective opinion. In all honestly, looking at the gimbal video, I can clearly see the distinct shape of a plane in there. He uses Mick West's setup as example where he says "you can still see it's a light on a pole in a garage", but what's actually interesting here is that the flare of the light obscures the entire light source. Also, the video isn't recording visible light, it's recording heat, so a jet engine blowing out hot air probably isn't going to look the same as a lamp on a stick.
So despite all his fancy trigonometry to prove the plane is relatively close, it's not smoking gun proof at all. Because he doesn't prove that at this close range, this obscuring effect couldn't happen. Funniest thing is that in the end he goes "could this be a weird bokeh effect? I guess. Maybe." right before diving into a Rorschach test type of speculation about what he's seeing.

And lets assume this guy is 100% right and the debunk videos are wrong. That still doesn't prove these are objects of alien origin. It just debunks the methods used in the debunk videos. Nothing more, nothing less. That still doesn't prove the GoFast video isn't a weatherballoon (let alone that it's an alien craft) nor does it prove that the Gimbal video isn't just a jet fighter.

Yeah I'm not going to argue the gofast video because I'm kinda on board with what you're saying about it. The gimbal video though is total bullshit from Mick and that's the one I've been discussing. I do believe that guys account of debunking the debunking video however. Meaning Mick West's approach on debunking it is total bullshit. All he does is talk about gimbals and degrees of motion without any real substance. I said it, this guy said it and I'm sure anyone that thinks about it for more than 5 seconds would see it too. I'm not saying it's aliens, I'm just saying it's not an airplane, it's not a jet, it's not some natural phenomenon. So what is it?

Κracus wrote:I'm just saying it's not an airplane, it's not a jet, it's not some natural phenomenon.

How do you know that for sure? You're going to eventually learn that it was some digital artifact or glitch or lens flare or something and be wholly unimpressed with the reality of the matter.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3d3mm/ ... -officials

"For realistic situations, you might have a turning radius of hundreds of kilometers—a thousand kilometers or more, possibly, for higher speeds. So this instantaneous 90-degree turn? That's something that's not possible. The forces involved just don't work out."

There are even more basic reasons to find the hypersonic weapons theory obviously nonsensical. The idea that China and Russia—which spend, respectively, less than a third and less than a twelfth what the U.S. does on defense—would have technology not just more advanced than what the U.S. has but so much more advanced that it can't be identified strains credulity, for instance. And so does the idea that these countries would have arrived at innovations so far removed from the state of known technologies as to be functionally magical. While Tracy declined to speculate on the truth behind UFOs, "There are a lot of explanations one can imagine that are more realistic than a new class of hypersonic weapons," he said.

One of the few theories I was even remotely willing to entertain was hypersonic weapons, but it really doesn't make sense at the end of the day. These videos are all going to end up being big fat nothingburgers.

Yeah that could totally be the case but I'm skeptical on account of how intelligently these crafts have behaved. Like the cmdr Fravor report where the craft left them in the dust only to rendevous with where they were headed. Like how did it know that's where they were going if it's some natural phenomenon?

I was also watching this documentary about geopolymers yesterday and technologically these are fairly new things and it turns out they were using geopolymers in ancient sites down in Brazil. A lot of the large stones were conceivably made this way, especially megalithic foundations which makes a LOT of sense. People have been scratching their heads as to how they moved such large stones but if they didn't and instead created a geopolymer and made a cement that just hardens into rock it would actually explain how they moved them, not as one large piece but as gravel formed back into rock using various plant chemicals, water and gravel. Might also even explain the pyramids.

In the show I watched he made a geopolymer rock and brought it, along with actual stone to an expert and had him tell him which of the 3 was a geopolymer and he couldn't tell the difference from a rock.

Ever looked up how large the universe is? you should.

It's not aliens, Kracus.

Doombrain wrote:Ever looked up how large the universe is? you should.

Our strong tech isn't even capable to get a good glimpse. We have a vague vision/idea of what is out there.

Doombrain wrote:Ever looked up how large the universe is? you should.

I have actually and yeah, I know.

Also, more bullshit from Mick West being cleared up.

[youtube]1DTYqMqc3cU[/youtube]

Ferrao10 wrote:

Doombrain wrote:Ever looked up how large the universe is? you should.

Our strong tech isn't even capable to get a good glimpse. We have a vague vision/idea of what is out there.

So our tech really isn’t all that strong then, is it?

It doesn't even matter. The speed of light is the real limiting factor. You can't see past the distance it's travelled once the time it took to get there equals the age of the universe.

:olo:

What Kracus is alluding to, that some areas of the universe are unseeable from here, is actually due to space expanding faster than the speed of light.

Nah, it's because the aliens don't want us to see it.

Unless he's trying to say that the speed of light is why you can't see before the universe existed. Which is totally something I can imagine him saying.

I'm not but that's technically also kinda true. Stop trying to pretend you're smarter than I am, I'd offer to do a battle of wits to prove it but I don't fight unarmed people.

Be careful Puff, Stephen Hawking used to run marathons every week until a 5-minute conversation with kracass about quantum physics.

Oh no look, the retards are uniting.