Alex_Krycek

I read the book a long, long time ago. Used to be a big Crichton fan.

Right, acceleration should be the main focus. The video shows the jet tracking the UFO, and then suddenly the object accelerates out of frame at such a speed that the jets could not keep up with it. According to David Fravor, the object practically disappeared in front of their eyes, reappearing a few seconds later 60 miles away after the Princeton picked it back up on radar. However, if there were multiple objects in that AO then that would explain the object "reappearing" on the radar 60 miles away. Here is an excerpt from the Popular Mechanics article: The second object suddenly rose up and flew towards the Super Hornets, with one pilot. Commander David Fravor, saying it appeared it was rising up to meet him. The Hornet turned towards the object to meet it and the object peeled away, accelerating, “like nothing I’ve ever seen,” Fravor later said. The Super Hornets conferred with the USS Princeton and were vectored to a CAP point 60 miles away. Within seconds, the pilots were told by the Princeton that radar had picked up the object already at the CAP point. By the time the Super Hornets arrived however the object had already disappeared. Source: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a14456936/that-time-the-us-navy-had-a-close-encounter-with-a-ufo/ ----------------------------------------------- Another point of focus: the USO (Unidentified Swimming Object) aspect. There are several interesting details about the sighting here. For one, there were clearly two unidentified objects. The first was a large underwater object that was “much larger than a submarine.” For reference, the U.S. Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines are 377 feet long. The object also had some passing resemblance to a “downed airliner.” This was technically a USO, or unidentified swimming object. Although much rarer than UFOs, such craft have been sighted over the years. I find this interesting, because similar to UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), the military has been working on USOs for sometime also: Full-sized, staffed ships and other sea platform cannot perform safely in all Navy missions in near-shore, or littoral waters. These missions include mine location and avoidance as well as remote surveillance. In 1988, a joint DARPA/Navy Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV) Program was initiated, with the goal of demonstrating that UUVs could meet specific Navy mission requirements. The program started with a memorandum of agreement between DARPA and the Navy that specified the design and fabrication of test-bed autonomous vehicles, the independent development of mission packages, and their subsequent integration. The Navy initially pursued a submarine-launched UUV that would either guide the submarine through an area that might be mined or search an area for mines. When the Cold War ended, however, the Navy revised the program with the objective of developing a tethered shallow-water mine reconnaissance vehicle for littoral warfare. The work in the UUV led to many follow-on projects, along with a range of technology developments. Even as the Agency enters its seventh decade, UUV R&D remains part of its portfolio. Source: https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/unmanned-undersea-vehicle-a So, perhaps this weapons system was a combination of USOs/UUVs and UAVs working in some kind of CODE organzation. The UAV would rendezvous with the USO/UUV into a battle group and then launch back out on mission, similar to the photo I posted above where the UAVs are grouped in formation just above the water's surface. This would correspond to what Fravor saw: a smaller "Tic Tac" (the UAV) launched from a much larger submarine like craft.

Indeed. How could a UAV out-maneuver an F 18? Further, Commander Favor described seeing a vehicle with no exhaust (which would have shown up on the FLIR), no stabilizer fins of any kind, or no other discernible means of propulsion. He described a capsule like object - hence the "tic-tac" moniker. It simply moved at will where it wanted to go in such a way that the Black Aces squadron could not keep up with it.

@MigLHere is another plausible form of technology that could have been used: CODE (Collaborative Operations in Denied Environment) CODE 1: https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2015-01-21 CODE: 2https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2016-06-03 Except from the article: DARPA’s Collaborative Operations in Denied Environment (CODE) program seeks to help the U.S. military’s unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) conduct dynamic, long-distance engagements of highly mobile ground and maritime targets in denied or contested electromagnetic airspace, all while reducing required communication bandwidth and cognitive burden on human supervisors. "CODE’s modular open software architecture on board the UASs would enable multiple CODE-equipped unmanned aircraft to navigate to their destinations and find, track, identify, and engage targets under established rules of engagement." "During Phase 2, DARPA plans to implement an initial subset of the behaviors within each of the two open architectures and use those architectures to conduct live flight tests with one or two live UASs augmented with several virtual aircraft. If those tests are successful, DARPA could move to Phase 3, in which one team would test the capabilities using up to six live vehicles cooperating among themselves and with additional simulated vehicles. These UAVs look very similar to what Fravor described. Very similar indeed.

Interesting. The physical design of the Tacit Blue does closely correspond with what Commander Fravor described seeing as they intercepted it. Looks like the TB was developed back in the late 70s - 80s, almost half a century ago. That's a long time when it comes to R+D in the US military. However, this incident occurred in 2004 - about 8 years after the TB was unveiled, so perhaps it wasn't the same craft, or a variation of it at least - "public model" vs. "classified model". Interesting also is the purported use of the TB: Unveiled by the U.S. Air Force on 30 April 1996, the Tacit Blue Technology Demonstration Program was designed to prove that such an aircraft could continuously monitor the ground situation deep behind the battlefield and provide targeting information in real time to a ground command center. The Princeton crewmen reported that the objects appeared at very high altitudes on the AEGIS radar (80,000 ft) and then rapidly descended to 20,000 feet, and then rapidly descended again to surface level (in this case the ocean). This would be the ideal way to penetrate behind enemy lines: ascend high above enemy radar, cross into enemy airspace, and then rapidly descend and maintain a "low probability of radar intercept" once at the desired altitude for monitoring the battle space. If this is the case, it would make sense that these would be unmanned vehicles / drones. Further, the war games exercise with Carrier Strike Group 11 (Nimitz / USS Princeton / Black Aces) would provide an ideal testing ground for these craft. What better way to test classified equipment than put it up against your best (albeit unwitting) pilots / personnel / equipment in an active war game and see if they are able to intercept / neutralize the threat? This is a plausible scenario, but what remains unexplained is the maneuverability of the aircraft. If it is advanced government technology they have indeed figured out a remarkable new form of propulsion. Side Note: Here is a recent project DARPA has been working on relating to radar (anti-jamming). It's called: Hyper-wideband Enabled RF Messaging (HERMES). https://www.darpa.mil/program/hyper-wideband-enabled-rf-messaging

According to the crew the weather that day was clear, no clouds or precipitation, no storms, etc. If there were not numerous eye witness sightings, then I think the "radar glitch" argument would be more credible. But when you have numerous crew all reporting the same thing and there is video evidence from one of the fighters? That puts the radar glitch argument to rest, in my view. Maybe, maybe not. It was some kind of physical craft, that much is clear. Advanced drone technology being tested by Uncle Sam? Who knows. 600 billion USD per year will buy you some nice toys.

Well, it wasn't a glitch on the Princeton. That much can be ruled out as A.) the pilots and crew saw the UFO with their naked eye upon intercepting it. B.) on the Princeton, a diagnostic test was run on the radar and no problems were found C.) video / FLIR footage filmed the UFO You make an interesting point about the type of radar employed on the Super Hornets. According to David Fravor, upon intercepting the object the pilots tried to lock on to it, but the radar was jammed and they were not able to obtain a signature.

That's not a logical rebuttal. The field of physics is an ever changing / evolving field. It's highly probable that physics can accommodate the phenomenon / technology described; human beings just haven't discovered it yet. Given the evolution of knowledge and technology over the past few centuries it's irrational to think that humans have a totally complete understanding of physics. That would be quite a limited mindset, actually. According to David Fravor they were guided to the intercept point by the Princeton, at which point they made visual contact with the UFO and attempted to intercept it. Completely relevant. The pilots in the 2015 encounter experienced similar craft which were picked up on FLIR and on their radar.

This is initially what they thought. According to Senior Chief Radar Operator, Kevin Day ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2zRabdvKnw&t=961s) and AEGIS Computer Technician Gary Voorhis (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YhlvUg2yk4&t=21s) when the tracks first appeared the crew immediately suspected a glitch / system malfunction. They subsequently ran a series of diagnostic tests to identify the error, of which they found none. Instead, after the diagnostic tests, the radar tracks only became more clear. The aforementioned crew of the USS Princeton and Commander David Fravor of the VFA-41 Black Aces, who were tasked with intercepting the unknown object. So that makes two independent lines of information (of highly credible witnesses). Here's another incident that happened in 2015, this time on the East Coast of the US: Between 2014 and 2015, seasoned pilots in the U.S. Navy experienced a number of harrowing encounters with UFOs during training missions in the U.S. While pilots were mid-flight, their aircraft cameras and radar detected seemingly impossible objects flying at hypersonic speeds at altitudes up to 30,00 feet (9,144 meters); these mysterious UFOs did so with no visible means of propulsion, The New York Times reported on May 26. Sources: https://www.livescience.com/65585-ufo-sightings-us-pilots.html Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/politics/ufo-sightings-navy-pilots.html It's interesting how people still deride and dismiss those who think it likely that extra terrestrials may have visited Earth. Publicly state that you believe in alien life on other planets due to the mathematical odds and how many viable exoplanets are out there, and you will be lauded from every corner. But state that you think extra terrestrials may have actually visited Earth and suddenly you're a heretic who's to be tarred and feathered. A bit incongruent / illogical, in my view. Really it all depends on your perspective regarding the Fermi Paradox. Note: "In November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way,[5][611 billion of which may be orbiting Sun-like stars.["7] That aside, the only thing that can be said for a fact is that there were "Unidentified Flying Objects" observed that day, tracked by radar and seen by the pilots and crew. Whether they were some kind of advanced government technology or objects of alien origin is the only real question.

Correct. People are bad at judging distances / speeds, etc, which is why the US military does not rely on its personnel "eyeballing it". Instead, these crewmen reported what they measured on their AEGIS radar systems, the most advanced radar systems in the world. Kevin Day, for example, was in the Combat Information Center on the USS Princeton and was the Senior Chief Radar Operator on duty that day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System Again I would refer you to the six interviews supporting exactly this fact - interviews which you don't seem to want to watch.

"A video from a person". I think you mean six different video interviews of six different Navy veterans who were there that day and witnessed the event firsthand. Where? In the custody of the US Navy.

See my post above. I included links to the numerous Navy personnel who were there that day. They describe from an operational standpoint exactly what happened, what systems they were in charge of, etc.

Just when you thought you could sleep at night... An asteroid more than a mile wide will pass by Earth on Wednesday while travelling at a speed of about 19,000 miles (30,578km) an hour. The space rock, known as (52768) 1998 OR2, is expected to make its closest approach at 10.56am BST, when it will be just 3.9m miles (6.3m km) away – about 16 times the distance between the Earth and the Moon. Although the asteroid is classified as a potentially hazardous object (PHO), scientists have said it will not pose a danger to the planet. Dr Brad Tucker, an astrophysicist at the Australian National University, said: “This asteroid poses no danger to the Earth and will not hit – it is one catastrophe we won’t have. While it is big, it is still smaller than the asteroid that impacted the Earth and wiped out the dinosaurs.” Source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/apr/29/asteroid-passing-earth-1998-or2-wednesday-near-4m-miles-face-mask-fly-by

The fact that these objects were picked up on multiple radar systems from multiple different points in space many miles away and at different times rules out the theory that it was an insect stuck to the lens. A Boeing FA 18 F Super Hornet is a 70.5 million dollar aircraft flown by some of the most highly trained pilots in the world. The idea that it was a "bug stuck on the lens" is illogical. As for the general veracity of the encounter, here's some additional information: The Nimitz incident or Nimitz encounter refers to a series of UFO sightings that took place off the coast of San Diego, California in 2004 during a US military war games exercise involving Carrier Strike Group 11. Thus far six personnel involved in the war game have come forward describing what they saw: Commander David Fravor, VFA-41 Black Aces, U.S. Navy (testimony available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ&t=977s Ryan Weigelt , (Leading Petty Officer, Power Plant Systems Specialist, USS Princeton) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QawDa0-UlnA Kevin Day, (Senior Chief Radar Operator, Combat Information Center, USS Princeton) (testimony available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2zRabdvKnw&t=961s Jason Turner, (Petty Officer Third Class, Supply Officer, USS Princeton) (testimony available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnvA5WZ1QV4&t=20s Patrick Hughes, (Petty Officer, A2 Aviation Tech, USS Nimitz) (testimony available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kycZgGc-Yec&t=16s Gary Voorhis, (Petty Officer, Fire Controlman + AEGIS Computer Technician, USS Princeton) (testimony available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YhlvUg2yk4&t=21s All of these gentlemen describe the same thing: an aerial vehicle maneuvering in such a manner as to defy the known laws of physics (and with remarkably similar characteristics as what Lazar described). There are numerous other articles available online regarding the Nimitz incident, including pieces in the Washington Post and New York Times. There is also FLIR footage of the aerial vehicle that was witnessed, captured from one of the Super Hornets that were tasked with intercepting it. (This footage is shown during Fravor's interview on Rogan).

Basically what it comes down to: The French prime minister, Édouard Philippe, has begun outlining the schedule for the end of the coronavirus lockdown in France to MPs in the Assemblée Nationale. Philippe began saying the situation was unique. “Who could have envisaged a France where schools, universities, cafés, restaurants, the majority of businesses, libraries … beaches, stadia … would be closed. We have never known this situation in our country. Not during the war, not during the occupation, not during previous epidemics,” he said. “The country cannot be locked down for a long time … it is efficient against the virus, to stop its spread and the saturation of our hospitals and protect vulnerable people.” “An instrument is only useful if in the long term the positive effects are greater than the negative … We have to proceed to a progressive end of lockdown.” Philippe said he would outline the “national strategy” to end the lockdown. In medical terms “we have to learn to live with the virus …no vaccine will be available in the short term, there is no treatment and we don’t have what they call herd immunity”. Philippe said it was implausible to think the virus would just “disappear of it’s own accord”.

No need. We can already observe various strategies and the results. Sweden, for example, has implemented no such draconian restrictions: There is no official lockdown in Sweden and schools, restaurants and stores have stayed open during the pandemic. The government has issued social distancing guidelines and told citizens to avoid unnecessary travel. Gatherings of more than 50 people and visits to care homes have been banned. Karin Ulrika Olofsdotter, Swedish ambassador to the United States, told NPR: "About 30 percent of people in Stockholm have reached a level of immunity. We could reach herd immunity in the capital as early as next month." https://www.newsweek.com/sweden-stockholm-coronavirus-herd-immunity-reinfection-1500342

More people will die if you don't lift it, due to economic reasons. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Sacremento, for example, has reported a 40% rise in suicide hotline calls: https://www.sacbee.com/news/coronavirus/article241800966.html Telephone calls and texts to Wellspace Health’s Suicide Prevention and Crisis line from across California increased by 40 percent between February and March amid the coronavirus crisis, according to a news release. Just one of many articles on the mental health impact of the shutdown. Personally I support some form of UBI. However, systemic change takes time. This situation is an exigency. Yet again we return to the origin of the problem. Is that risk greater than the known risk of shutting down the economy? Highly debatable. Some experts would disagree with the direct causal link between lockdown and slowing the virus. Prof. Ben-Israel is the chairman of the Israeli Space Agency and the National Council for Research and Development, the head of the Security Studies program at Tel Aviv University, and a former MK for the Kadima party. He holds a PhD in Philosophy and a BSc in Physics and Mathematics from Tel Aviv University. Prof. Ben-Israel explained his position, pointing out that when measuring the rate of additional patients to existing patients, the trend can be clearly identified and adjusted in all countries. If, at the beginning of the epidemic, the rate of hospitalization was increasing at a rapid rate every day, this reality has since changed radically. "The incidence of patients was greater by the day. This was during the first four weeks after the epidemic was discovered in Israel. As of the sixth week, the increase in the number of patients has been moderate, peaking in the sixth week at 700 patients per day. Since then it has been declining, and today there are only 300 new patients. In two weeks it will reach zero and there will be no more new patients," Prof. Ben-Israel said. "This is how it is all over the world. Both in countries where they have taken closure steps like Italy and in countries that have not had closures like Taiwan or Singapore. In such and such countries there is an increase until the fourth to sixth week, and immediately thereafter moderation until during the eighth week it disappears." Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/278658 If you can clearly state the point you are referring to, please do so. For the moment. Let's see what those numbers look like after three more months.

This is speculation. Let's lift the lockdown and see what actually happens. I question this, I really do. I think most people are obeying the law just to obey the law - they fear punishment more than the coronavirus. They don't have a choice. However, given the choice between taking a risk with COVID-19 and resuming their normal life, or continuing to isolate themselves in fear, I think most people would choose the former.

Your comment came across as dismissive and specious. In a way it was very much a Trumpian statement. I could imagine him saying that at the podium of one of his daily press briefings when asked why he's extending the shut down: "Everything is temporary if it lasts long enough." he would blurt out. People are starving. People are committing suicide. Their lives are falling apart before their eyes; in some cases people have worked their entire lives for a business only to see it obliterated by this shutdown. "Everything is temporary if it lasts long enough." does nothing to solve actual problems. Such statements only reflect apathy and indifference to the suffering people are enduring in this situation.

Nonsense.

Well, I envy the UK, that's for sure. Your government actually seems to be doing something about it.

So, one person is in a satisfactory financial position and doesn't have to work, or can work from home. Another must physically go to work to earn a living in order to survive. Does the financially stable person have the right to mandate that the poor person stay home and starve? Because in both cases, staying home or going out to work, the perceived risk on both sides is death. So who takes precedence? The rich or the poor?

Great piece by Robert Reich: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/25/covid-19-pandemic-shines-a-light-on-a-new-kind-of-class-divide-and-its-inequalities

Keyword: "limitations". You can't arbitrarily suspend someone's constitutional rights. You don't get to decide that; only the courts can. "Temporary"? You don't know if it will be temporary. Many of the so called experts are advocating some form of shutdown for years. Fine because it won't affect them. Not so great for average working people. Here's a fun read for you: Unemployment causes 45,000 suicides a year worldwide, finds study https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/11/unemployment-causes-45000-suicides-a-year-worldwide-finds-study That was when unemployment was low. Think what the number of suicides will be at with 20,000,000 people unemployed (and rising), and that's just in the United States. Depressions / recessions KILL. No matter how dismissive you choose to be, that is just as serious a threat as possibly dying from COVID, if not more serious.

I don't see any parallel with the "crowded theater" argument. Someone leaving their home to protest doesn't infringe upon my rights to self-quarantine if I want to. But that's one for the courts. Ok, so what do you propose the world do? Extend the shutdown indefinitely, so that the economy crashes and millions starve? Great - you just created a problem that's worse than the supposed cure. And you didn't answer my question. Which is worse: A.) the reality of losing your job and going bankrupt (or the economy crashing), or B.) potentially getting infected with a disease form which the vast majority of people recover?