Disclosure by whom ?
Stanford Professor warns massive UFO disclosure is around the corner.
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Last edited:
By the title of the thread
“Stanford Professor warns massive UFO disclosure is around the corner.”
Watch the 3rd video made by 60 minutes that Zee0Six posted.
MolaKule
Staff member
I have seen every post in this thread and every video in this thread and I have not seen any additional information in this third video that I have not seen before here:
Going to see Professor Brian Cox tonight...
"What is the nature of space and time? Why does the Universe exist? How did life begin, how rare might it be and what is the significance of life in the Cosmos? What does it mean to live a small, finite life in a vast, eternal Universe? The deepest of questions will be explored using the latest...
bobistheoilguy.com
or here
or here
UFO's and the NAVY
Vert Interesting, ;) https://www.yahoo.com/news/ufo-filmmaker-releases-46-second-155833281.html
bobistheoilguy.com
or here
Analysis of the Nimitz UAP encounter
Interesting info from the report.... Speed, acceleration, and power characteristics can be calculated based on statements from two navy personnel who observed the radar tracks of the “Tic-Tacs” in real time. The Senior Chief in charge of radar took notes while observing the radar in the CIC...
bobistheoilguy.com
or here
Tic Tac - Anti-Gravity
At first I was skeptical of this guy but I now believe him. The Tic TAC UFO incident that was confirmed by multiple Navy pilots was not of ET origin and was from the Air Force and DARPA. It was a test. The technology behind it is a game changer. *I'd appreciate it if you watch the video before...
bobistheoilguy.com
Point? Please don't post or rehash stuff already posted.
I dont know why your responding to a comment made to alarmguy. He mentioned Disclosure .
If you have watched every video in this thread and still think it's all bull then you are one of those I spoke of earlier that doesn't want to believe.
MolaKule
Staff member
I never stated I never believed people saw any of this, nor do I disbelieve believe the pilot's reports of what the sensors or sensor videos were showing them. Also see Post #400 on the history of this UFO topic.
Let me state again: It has not been proven to date that these UAP's actually defy any known laws of physics. The sensor data has not been qualified or correlated as yet to realistically make that claim. Post #394.
and
I have never rejected physics or its laws. What I do reject are conjectures and philosophical presuppositions parading as science. Post #454.
The post above, #485, clearly stated, Please don't post or rehash stuff already posted, and I gave 5 examples of threads previously posted on the same topic with the same or similar videos and comments.
Do you have any new startling or unequivocal scientific evidence that forces me to believe I should accept what you believe?
Last edited:
The pilots described in the videos about what they saw with their own eyes, and the intelligent like manoeuvres that they have never seen before from any known aircraft, and it seemed to defy physics in a very drastic way. And that's what sensors and radar from the ship also indicated. When all those sources seem to correlate with each other for the most part, then it makes it way more difficult to prove it was all some kind of mass sensor "glitch" and four sets of expert eyes were all fooled at the same time all the sensors were "glitching".
Last edited:
I believe we don't fully understand the laws of physics. I believe the laws of physics may be different in other galaxies.
Well, let's have it. If you,they have credible evidence, step forward and present it. If not, SHUT UP.
Then, your belief system conflicts with that of physicists.
The laws of physics do not vary over such short ranges and such short time periods, even though there is currently mild evidence for subtle differences in some physical constants 13+ billion years ago.
MolaKule
Staff member
Please describe what an "un-intelligent" maneuver would consist of?
A sensor system, any sensor system, contains two main components--hardware and software.
For example, weather Radar contains a panel out front in the nose behind a radome that scans the area or volume in front of you. The millimeter waves of the 'radar returns' are received and the resulting signals are sent to the computer where the returns are interpreted by the software to produce images of various concentrations of precipitation, turbulence, etc,, vs height, width (extent), and depth.
LIDAR is similar except a laser generates a light beam that does the scanning. The LIDAR returns are interpreted by the software as various targets vs length, width (extent), calculated velocity, etc..
FLIR is an Infrared system that scans for Infrared or heat emitting targets and its returns are interpreted by the software as various heat emitting targets vs length, width (extent), calculated velocity, etc..
The software has to do extremely fast calculations to keep up with the changes in the received signal and to subsequently update the images seen by the pilot.
The point here is: Software can be modified (uploaded) before a flight to accommodate various training and specialized exercises. Software can also contain glitches that are often not found until after an exercise has been executed.
Last edited:
From the pilot's decriptions of the incident, the maneuvers made by the tic-tac made them think it was 'aware" of them, and made maneuvers in reactions to their maneuvers. If that was the case, then what was causing it to interact that way? It wasn't just flying along at a constant speed at a constant altitide in a straight line like a Cessna on autopilot
All of that doesn't effect what the pilots saw with their own eyes. But what the pilots saw with their eyes basically correlated to what the sensors also picked up. So no real logic to say the sensors & associated software were all false readings which over-rides everything the pilots saw. Now if all you had was just sensor data without the correlating eye witness info, it might be easier to say it was all false sensor readings and/or messed up software glitches.
GON
$100 Site Donor 2024
Z06,
Take this same type of formation, but change the purpose from public relations to unpublished military excerise. Your a pilot and see this in the middle of nowhere, but instead of fancy colors there are no or limited lights on the drones. Very easy to be fooled by drones doing things not typically scene.
GON
$100 Site Donor 2024
I suspect you and I are not aware, using open sources, of all the drones in existence, not even close.
MolaKule
Staff member
Ok, not dismissing this, but this gets into the psychology of perceptions and I await further reports on this issue.
I would like to see a transcript and a further analysis, for example, it might go something like this: "I 'visually' saw this object do this and the sensors showed this." I.e, what did the pilots see, when did they see it, what actions were taken, and what did the sensors display at this time; this would be a more convincing scenario in my view. I am not convinced at this point in time that there was a real correlation of visual vs sensor data vs perception. Again, I await further more detailed analysis.
I bring this up because I worked on 'Synthetic Vision' (SV) for both commercial and military venues. For those not familiar with this technology, various sensors gather information and feed their respective data sets to a dedicated computer in which the software forms an almost 270 degree image of the surrounding airspace. That image is then projected onto the 'windscreen' (mostly commercial) or project the image onto a pilots visor (mostly military).
If the SV system is working perfectly, I can land an aircraft in almost zero visibility. For example, the image may show the runway (or deck) on approach, my exact position with respect to the runway, my altitude, speed, slope of attack, etc. You get the picture.
If any one sensor is not feeding in its data, or if the respective sensor data is feeding faulty information, the resulting image will not be correct. I say all of this because at this point in time, I am not 1) convinced the sensor data was correct in real time. and 2) there was not a glitch in the software, or 3) there was not a contrived software upload to produce those images.
I base number 3 on the fact that these military reports all seem to have occurred during 'training' exercises.
I can be convinced otherwise after I have seen some proper scientific analyses of these events that show my conclusions to be in error.
Until then, anything else is pure speculation.
Last edited:
I would suspect that everything recorded during the incident with time stamps have been gathered and analysed together to put a complete as possible timeline of everything as it unfolded to look for correlatons (ie, pilot visuals correlating with sensor data).
If occupants in the planes said they saw the object make some crazy manouver, and there is correlating sensor data to match, then I highly doubt that four people are all "hallucinating" and the sensors are all "glitching" in corrdination with their hallucinations. Now the odds of that would be infinity.
- Status