Jump to content
Robert Wilson

US Navy UFO video

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)


Hi all,

I would like to refer to the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1THwiaXZfzA

which implies that what we see here is some kind of an "aliens spaceship" from out of space.

I think that this is Ridiculous.

Check minute 0:50 and minute 1:15 in the video - that is the so called "UFO" that they saw.

I claim that this is just a small insect on the camera lens, and I don't understand how people can be so blind and not see it.

The aircraft's infrared camera sits inside a pod as you can see here:

https://www.raytheon.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/rtn_475606.jpg

The insect probably got inside when maintenance was done on the aircraft , and it sits either on the camera lens, or on the inside window of the pod through which the camera looks out (and obviously, the insect is not exposed to the outside wind).

That explains why it is SO STABLE in relation to aircraft sight (an external object like another airplane will NEVER be that stable) and it also explains why it is So Blurry... that is because it is adjacent to the camera lens so it is out of focus... Also, take again a good look at the video, you can see pretty clearly the Legs of that insect! can't you see it?

It looks like an insect, it moves like an insect, and that's exactly what it is! just an insect!

Also, why do they shows us the same video from the same aircraft all the time? Where is the video from the same event taken from the OTHER aircraft? let's see it and compare between the two videos. If it's really an external object to the airplanes, then we should see it moving EXACTLY the same way second by second in both videos! So where is the video from the second plane? Or maybe the camera of the other aircraft just didn't see the object? As expected if I'm right.

Also, I don't know what they saw on the radar, but from my experience, especially in a sea environment, radars have LOT of false alerts for many things - Bird bands, fish bands jumping out of the water, sea turtles and even just sea waves. I think that what you see in the infrared's camera screen is NOT what they saw on the radar.

I have no doubt a that what you see in this video is just a small insect walking on the camera's lens.

Your opinion please.
 

Edited by Robert Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UFO means Unidentified Flying Object. Once it is identified it not a longer U.F.O. It says nothing about whether it comes from Earth or from outer space.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Robert Wilson said:


Hi all,

I would like to refer to the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1THwiaXZfzA

which implies that what we see here is some kind of an "aliens spaceship" from out of space.

I think that this is Ridiculous.

Check minute 0:50 and minute 1:15 in the video - that is the so called "UFO" that they saw.

I claim that this is just a small insect on the camera lens, and I don't understand how people can be so blind and not see it.

The aircraft's infrared camera sits inside a pod as you can see here:

https://www.raytheon.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/rtn_475606.jpg

The insect probably got inside when maintenance was done on the aircraft , and it sits either on the camera lens, or on the inside window of the pod through which the camera looks out (and obviously, the insect is not exposed to the outside wind).

That explains why it is SO STABLE in relation to aircraft sight (an external object like another airplane will NEVER be that stable) and it also explains why it is So Blurry... that is because it is adjacent to the camera lens so it is out of focus... Also, take again a good look at the video, you can see pretty clearly the Legs of that insect! can't you see it?

It looks like an insect, it moves like an insect, and that's exactly what it is! just an insect!

Also, why do they shows us the same video from the same aircraft all the time? Where is the video from the same event taken from the OTHER aircraft? let's see it and compare between the two videos. If it's really an external object to the airplanes, then we should see it moving EXACTLY the same way second by second in both videos! So where is the video from the second plane? Or maybe the camera of the other aircraft just didn't see the object? As expected if I'm right.

Also, I don't know what they saw on the radar, but from my experience, especially in a sea environment, radars have LOT of false alerts for many things - Bird bands, fish bands jumping out of the water, sea turtles and even just sea waves. I think that what you see in the infrared's camera screen is NOT what they saw on the radar.

I have no doubt a that what you see in this video is just a small insect walking on the camera's lens.

Your opinion please.
 

considering all the testimony and the fact the "tic tacs" were picked up on multiple rader, seen by multiple pilots and the radar of an aegis class ship and seen over the course of several days and assumed at first to be radar clutter and the radars were adjusted several times but the "Tic tacs" only became clearer and seen more often  your explanation is "ridiculous" Doesn't make it an alien spacecraft but even the navy has admitted it was something real in the airspace that day and unexplained and several others have been seen now btw... BTW it was officially a UAP, not a UFO...

Edited by Moontanman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Considering all the testimony and the fact the "tic tacs" were picked up on multiple radar, seen by multiple pilots and the radar of an aegis class ship and seen over the course of several days and assumed at first to be radar clutter and the radars were adjusted several times but the "Tic tacs" only became clearer and seen more often  your explanation is "ridiculous" Doesn't make it an alien spacecraft but even the navy has admitted it was something real in the airspace that day and unexplained and several others have been seen now btw... BTW it was officially a UAP, not a UFO...

I think that I gave some very strong points in my post, which you ignored.

I don't know what they saw in the radars, and if the pilots testimony referred to the object that we see in this video or to some other events, it can be just a coincidence that the insect got inside just when the radars detected something.

BTW I forgot to say in my original post that I saw an interview with this pilot few months ago and he said that he did not see the object from the aircraft window, he saw it only in the infrared camera screen, which makes my claim stronger.

And again, where is the video from the other aircraft? If it's camera also saw that object, then why do they show us the video only from one point of view? And why at minute 0:50 in the video you can see very clearly an insect legs? From when an aliens spaceship has legs?  :huh:

And one last important point about this subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BRDCxNEuyg

Enjoy  :rolleyes:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Robert Wilson said:

I think that I gave some very strong points in my post, which you ignored.

I don't know what they saw in the radars, and if the pilots testimony referred to the object that we see in this video or to some other events, it can be just a coincidence that the insect got inside just when the radars detected something.

BTW I forgot to say in my original post that I saw an interview with this pilot few months ago and he said that he did not see the object from the aircraft window, he saw it only in the infrared camera screen, which makes my claim stronger.

And again, where is the video from the other aircraft? If it's camera also saw that object, then why do they show us the video only from one point of view? And why at minute 0:50 in the video you can see very clearly an insect legs? From when an aliens spaceship has legs?  :huh:

And one last important point about this subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BRDCxNEuyg

Enjoy  :rolleyes:

 

At no point in this thread have i said this "tic tack" was an alien space craft, the Navy's own explanation supersedes yours, I have no idea if an alien spacecraft has legs or tentacles and neither do you. 

You are pushing what is called in UFO circles "pelicanism"  It means when an explanation is pushed beyond all bounds no matter how silly it is. "pelicans fly much like some UFOs and have been suggested as an an explanation even though they were traveling at 1200 mph +" 

I don't see legs in the video, I honestly figured it was some sort of drone injected into the exercise by the Navy. Now the Navy says no to that. The video is not the only part of that sighting and is in fact footage from later that day after two other jets had tried to intercept them. Them is the proper pronoun as several were seen on the ships radar. 

Now I don't know what they were but one thing is for sure I see no reason to try and push a ridiculous explanation for anything, even UFOs...  

18 hours ago, Robert Wilson said:

I think that I gave some very strong points in my post, which you ignored.

I don't know what they saw in the radars, and if the pilots testimony referred to the object that we see in this video or to some other events, it can be just a coincidence that the insect got inside just when the radars detected something.

BTW I forgot to say in my original post that I saw an interview with this pilot few months ago and he said that he did not see the object from the aircraft window, he saw it only in the infrared camera screen, which makes my claim stronger.

And again, where is the video from the other aircraft? If it's camera also saw that object, then why do they show us the video only from one point of view? And why at minute 0:50 in the video you can see very clearly an insect legs? From when an aliens spaceship has legs?  :huh:

And one last important point about this subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BRDCxNEuyg

Enjoy  :rolleyes:

 

You seem to be saying that one sighting that is explained, by you at least, negates all others. No one here would rather find out there are aliens space craft operating in our atmosphere and apart from a handful of really extraordinary events the evidence is almost completely null. 

You might want to watch this for a larger perspective... 

https://youtu.be/K-FsylX3NgE

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

At no point in this thread have i said this "tic tack" was an alien space craft, the Navy's own explanation supersedes yours, I have no idea if an alien spacecraft has legs or tentacles and neither do you. 

You are pushing what is called in UFO circles "pelicanism"  It means when an explanation is pushed beyond all bounds no matter how silly it is. "pelicans fly much like some UFOs and have been suggested as an an explanation even though they were traveling at 1200 mph +" 

I don't see legs in the video, I honestly figured it was some sort of drone injected into the exercise by the Navy. Now the Navy says no to that. The video is not the only part of that sighting and is in fact footage from later that day after two other jets had tried to intercept them. Them is the proper pronoun as several were seen on the ships radar. 

Now I don't know what they were but one thing is for sure I see no reason to try and push a ridiculous explanation for anything, even UFOs...  

You seem to be saying that one sighting that is explained, by you at least, negates all others. No one here would rather find out there are aliens space craft operating in our atmosphere and apart from a handful of really extraordinary events the evidence is almost completely null. 

You might want to watch this for a larger perspective... 

https://youtu.be/K-FsylX3NgE

 

Dude, I know that you didn't say that it's an alien space craft, but all the reports & videos that I saw about this event (including in the link that you gave) are strongly implies that that is the case: "No aircraft or human made flying object we know can maneuver like that...".

If you assume that the object is external to the airplane then yes, it really looks like it's flying in a 1200 mph +.

I don't think that my explanation is ridiculous, I think that it's much more logic then the clues that they throw.

About the bug legs, it's hard to see on a single frame but I made some print-screens for you, don't forget that the legs are thin and the small insect is out of focus so it's not 100% sharp, but still you can see it clear enough, especially when you watch the video running on a full screen.

Take a look at the picture that I made:

https://i.ibb.co/X4X7spt/Tic-Tac-Bug.png

Can you see the legs now?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robert Wilson said:

 

If you assume that the object is external to the airplane then yes, it really looks like it's flying in a 1200 mph +.

 

As I have said before this was not a case of one single object... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

As I have said before this was not a case of one single object... 

I refer only to Evidence that I see, the testimonies about other objects can be a million things, for example the white "Object" that they saw in the water could be a large flock of fish jumping out of the water, I don't know.

What I'm very confident about is that what we see in that particular video IS a small insect on the camera lens.

I gave at least 4-5 strong evidence that proof that that's what it is.

BTW did you see the legs in my linked picture?

Also, I hope that you saw the video of Neil Tyson, specially minute 3:00 -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BRDCxNEuyg

 

 

Edited by Robert Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Robert Wilson said:

Dude, I know that you didn't say that it's an alien space craft, but all the reports & videos that I saw about this event (including in the link that you gave) are strongly implies that that is the case: "No aircraft or human made flying object we know can maneuver like that...".

One inference that could be taken from this is that it is not an aircraft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansont said:

One inference that could be taken from this is that it is not an aircraft. 

Don't be so naive, their intention is very clear.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Robert Wilson said:

Don't be so naive, their intention is very clear.

This is not a conspiracy discussion board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, swansont said:

This is not a conspiracy discussion board.

No conspiracy, it's common sense.

Ex-UFO program chief Luis Elizondo:

"Things that don't have any obvious flight services, any obvious forms of propulsion, and maneuvering in ways that include extreme maneuverability beyond, I would submit, the healthy G-forces of a human or anything biological"

"These aircraft - we'll call them aircraft - are displaying characteristics that are not currently within the US inventory nor in any foreign inventory that we are aware of"

Don't you know to read between the lines?

 

Edited by Robert Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Robert Wilson said:

No conspiracy, it's common sense.

...

Don't you know to read between the lines?

These statements are in conflict with each other.

You need to present evidence. Not "read(ing) between the lines"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robert Wilson said:

No conspiracy, it's common sense.

If you ask why the aliens spend so much energy to come here (trying not to be detected (unsuccessfully)), only to leave without so much as how do you do, or "mind if I take this"; then you might understand why your sentence makes no sense, much less common, without some sort of conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Robert Wilson said:

I refer only to Evidence that I see, the testimonies about other objects can be a million things, for example the white "Object" that they saw in the water could be a large flock of fish jumping out of the water, I don't know.

What I'm very confident about is that what we see in that particular video IS a small insect on the camera lens.

I gave at least 4-5 strong evidence that proof that that's what it is.

BTW did you see the legs in my linked picture?

Also, I hope that you saw the video of Neil Tyson, specially minute 3:00 -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BRDCxNEuyg

 

 

I saw your picture, I also saw the videos, what you portrayed could be anything and there is more than one video. Don't pain me as the bad guy here, everything surrounding this is either stone cold superior technology or complete BS. I tend towards technology and I think it's ours but to push one possible ide as though it has to be true does nothing but make us look like debunkers instead of investigators. Doesn't get caught up in the us and them part of this. It's not either UFO nuts or government shills. There is a phenomena, often inexplicable, it might be totally explainable or it might be totally aliens, I doubt either solution is likely...  BTW, stop saying you have given evidence, all you have given is your opinion, nothing more... 

35 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If you ask why the aliens spend so much energy to come here (trying not to be detected (unsuccessfully)), only to leave without so much as how do you do, or "mind if I take this"; then you might understand why your sentence makes no sense, much less common, without some sort of conspiracy.

Maybe messing with us is their version of the world series... 

Edited by Moontanman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Maybe messing with us is their version of the world series...

I don't want to be racist, but the world series is basically American... :-p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Maybe messing with us is their version of the world series... 

Initiation rite? Like sending kids up to the "haunted" house in the neighborhood on a dare (if you grew up in such an environment) Or a scavenger hunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, swansont said:

These statements are in conflict with each other.

You need to present evidence. Not "read(ing) between the lines"

 

I don't know what conflicts did you find in his statements, but I think that when he says:

"Things that don't have any obvious flight services, any obvious forms of propulsion, and maneuvering in ways that include extreme maneuverability beyond the healthy G-forces of a human or anything biological... that aircraft are displaying characteristics that are not currently within the US inventory nor in any foreign inventory that we are aware of"

then any average person with a little common sense understand that he is talking about flying machines which were not built on earth.

I don't understand how else you can interpret this.
 

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

I saw your picture, I also saw the videos, what you portrayed could be anything and there is more than one video. Don't pain me as the bad guy here, everything surrounding this is either stone cold superior technology or complete BS. I tend towards technology and I think it's ours but to push one possible ide as though it has to be true does nothing but make us look like debunkers instead of investigators. Doesn't get caught up in the us and them part of this. It's not either UFO nuts or government shills. There is a phenomena, often inexplicable, it might be totally explainable or it might be totally aliens, I doubt either solution is likely...  BTW, stop saying you have given evidence, all you have given is your opinion, nothing more... 

I'm having a very hard time with you.

Occam's razor says that if you have several explanations for some phenomenon, then the simplest explanation is most likely the right one.

You can call it evidence, you can call it opinion, you can call it whatever you want. I gave several strong points that are all pointing to a very simple explanation which is much simpler and earthy than a "superior technology that we don't know about".

1. The object shown in this particular video looks Too Stable to be external to the aircraft, it looks like it's glued/stuck to the lens. I saw many aircraft training videos and when you see other plane in front it's NEVER that stable in relation to the airplane sight.

2. It looks Too Blurry which suggests that it is Very close to the camera lens, an external objects would look much sharpen.

3. The pilot said that he didn't see the object from the window, but Only on the camera screen. If it's a real flying object in front of the aircraft then why didn't he see it also from his window?

4. When you carefully examine the object in the video, you can see something that looks very similar to an insect legs, as I showed here:

https://i.ibb.co/X4X7spt/Tic-Tac-Bug.png

And also it's shape reminds very much a shape of an insect:

https://i.ibb.co/yNsf5Kv/Insect.png

5. We didn't see any video showing that particular event from the other aircraft, I think that it's very strange. If it really was an external object then I would expect that the two aircraft will see it in their cameras, not just one.

Again, I think that my explanation is more simple and more logic than the explanation that they implies to.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Robert Wilson said:

I don't know what conflicts did you find in his statements, but I think that when he says:

"Things that don't have any obvious flight services, any obvious forms of propulsion, and maneuvering in ways that include extreme maneuverability beyond the healthy G-forces of a human or anything biological... that aircraft are displaying characteristics that are not currently within the US inventory nor in any foreign inventory that we are aware of"

then any average person with a little common sense understand that he is talking about flying machines which were not built on earth.

I don't understand how else you can interpret this.

He's saying what it does not appear to be. He is not telling you what it is. That is a conclusion that you are drawing, and via fallacious logic: appeal to personal incredulity — you can't think of any other options, so it must be aliens. You also appear to be superimposing an expectation of what the person should be saying, and inferring information from the difference between what they said and what you expect to hear.

Can you rule out it being some kind of optical phenomenon? Your own conjecture is that it's a bug on the lens (and I recall seeing a video where that was indeed the case; it was obvious when they changed the focus). It could even conceivably be a smaller unmanned object that is a lot closer than expected, so it only seems to be maneuvering in an extreme way. But since there isn't enough evidence to tell, it's unidentified.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Robert Wilson said:

I don't know what conflicts did you find in his statements, but I think that when he says:

"Things that don't have any obvious flight services, any obvious forms of propulsion, and maneuvering in ways that include extreme maneuverability beyond the healthy G-forces of a human or anything biological... that aircraft are displaying characteristics that are not currently within the US inventory nor in any foreign inventory that we are aware of"

then any average person with a little common sense understand that he is talking about flying machines which were not built on earth.

I don't understand how else you can interpret this.
 

I'm having a very hard time with you.

Occam's razor says that if you have several explanations for some phenomenon, then the simplest explanation is most likely the right one.

You can call it evidence, you can call it opinion, you can call it whatever you want. I gave several strong points that are all pointing to a very simple explanation which is much simpler and earthy than a "superior technology that we don't know about".

1. The object shown in this particular video looks Too Stable to be external to the aircraft, it looks like it's glued/stuck to the lens. I saw many aircraft training videos and when you see other plane in front it's NEVER that stable in relation to the airplane sight.

2. It looks Too Blurry which suggests that it is Very close to the camera lens, an external objects would look much sharpen.

3. The pilot said that he didn't see the object from the window, but Only on the camera screen. If it's a real flying object in front of the aircraft then why didn't he see it also from his window?

4. When you carefully examine the object in the video, you can see something that looks very similar to an insect legs, as I showed here:

https://i.ibb.co/X4X7spt/Tic-Tac-Bug.png

And also it's shape reminds very much a shape of an insect:

https://i.ibb.co/yNsf5Kv/Insect.png

5. We didn't see any video showing that particular event from the other aircraft, I think that it's very strange. If it really was an external object then I would expect that the two aircraft will see it in their cameras, not just one.

Again, I think that my explanation is more simple and more logic than the explanation that they implies to.
 

Your problem with me is irrelevant, your problem is that you keep making assertions you cannot provide evidence for while ignoring things about this that disagree with your conclusion. 

The idea that biological beings couldn't survive the supposed maneuvers is meaningless, ever hear of drones? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Robert Wilson said:

I don't know what conflicts did you find in his statements, but I think that when he says:

"Things that don't have any obvious flight services, any obvious forms of propulsion, and maneuvering in ways that include extreme maneuverability beyond the healthy G-forces of a human or anything biological... that aircraft are displaying characteristics that are not currently within the US inventory nor in any foreign inventory that we are aware of"

then any average person with a little common sense understand that he is talking about flying machines which were not built on earth.

I don't understand how else you can interpret this.

How about we interpret it to mean that "we do not understand how this works or which country built it, but it is clear from the G-forces that it is an unmanned craft."

31 minutes ago, Robert Wilson said:

Occam's razor says that if you have several explanations for some phenomenon, then the simplest explanation is most likely the right one.

 

Correct. So here is your choice.

1. It is something built by humans and is more advanced than what humans have previously built (we've seen humans build more advanced things millions of times), or...

2. it was built by aliens (we've seen aliens build exactly zero things, and in fact have no evidence of alien life anywhere in the universe.)

"Common sense" does not tell you that option two is the simplest explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, zapatos said:

How about we interpret it to mean that "we do not understand how this works or which country built it, but it is clear from the G-forces that it is an unmanned craft."

Correct. So here is your choice.

1. It is something built by humans and is more advanced than what humans have previously built (we've seen humans build more advanced things millions of times), or...

2. it was built by aliens (we've seen aliens build exactly zero things, and in fact have no evidence of alien life anywhere in the universe.)

"Common sense" does not tell you that option two is the simplest explanation.

You forgot number 3, the simplest of all:

It's just a small insect on the camera lens, but everyone are too blind to see this trivial solution.

 

Edited by Robert Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Robert Wilson said:

It's just a small insect on the camera lens, but everyone are too blind to see this trivial solution.

I'm not sure but an insect could really stay on a jet plane during the flight  ? The speed isn't too fast and the temperature isn't too low ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, sangui said:

I'm not sure but an insect could really stay on a jet plane during the flight  ? The speed isn't too fast and the temperature isn't too low ?

Insects are known as a very resistant/robust creatures, many of them can withstand temperatures, pressures and G forces which are much greater than what people can withstand.

The speed is not a factor, when you fly inside a Boeing 747 airplane you fly at about 540 mi/h (or 870 km/hr),  did you ever felt uncomfortable with that? So is an insect.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.