Dr. Rudolf Schild (astrophysicist) is impressed with Bob Lazar's science on the reactionless drive

I was referring to the 11:00 minute mark on in this video.

I'd point out that this is not all that West has said concerning "tic tac". Nor is it a recap of all that other analysts have said.

In our past discussions I cut it off at "go fast", because I was having difficulty causing each tape to be analyzed as a separate event and was failing to get agreement concerning the incredibly concrete analysis that invalidated "go fast" as being anomalous. It wasn't because I saw the other two videos as justifiable support for an alien interpretation.

 

We don't know what he's doing.
One thing is certain, that the bulk of pilot testimony are about occurrences not documented in the Naval videos. I believe the Navy has truncated those tapes, which makes sense, given they are so short and surely a pilot recorded them for more than a minute or so. So, it would make sense that the Navy is only going
to release the least interesting videos. The videos are copies, not originals.

I think that, given the plethora of pilot testimony going back 70 years, it is reasonable to to agree with the document.

The document asserts that there are objects in our airspace which appear to be defying conventional physics.

If that is true, the possibilities are:

1. Foreign enemy tech
2. American/allies tech
3. Unknown, but otherworldly is a viable hypothesis.


Given that the US Navy has a patent for an antigravity device, #2 seems the likely answer.

But, that begs the question, why would they use the drones to interfere with Naval maneuvers?

If it is ours, then we have antigravity technology, and they are keeping a tight lid on it because they don't want the enemy getting a hold of the tech.

I do hope it is #2, for national security's sake

 

yes, and at 11:00, while he agreed with West on the point of the artifact, he also acknowledged testimony of the object gong from high altitude to sea level, and zig zagging, which suggests something more extraordinary.

I already acceded to the fact that the videos do not add up to aliens, so you do not need to bring that up any further.

But, the testimony of pilots, including the confirmation of Ship CIC acknowledging that the pilot's target disappearing, and reappearing on ship radar 2 seconds later and 60 miles further away, does leave us wondering about the extraordinary maneuvers of the objects.

 

We have a crystal clear case supporting that we should NOT accept what pilots claim.

"Go fast".

 

No, because there is vast testimony equivalent of credible observations of incredible things not documented in the video.

West's opinion of the 'darting' is offered as a possibility,

Underwood's testimony refutes that 'possibility'.

I believe the pilot, and not the 'possibility'.

 

The tiny clip of West does not show his full analysis nor does it show the analysis of others.

In particular, he has shown how the gimbal mechanism and the following functions, which he did not address at that 11:00 point, can make objects look like they are behaving in ways in which they are not behaving.

 

As we saw with "go fast", the pilot's testimony is also only a possibility.

In the "go fast" case, there is solid proof that the testimony of the pilot is wrong. The testimony was the pilot's fully honest observation, but human observation is not proof.

 

As Professor Simon told us, that West was describing how the gimbal mechanism accounted for the rotation.. But, Testimony from the Nimitz pilots, noting for being the best, deserve respect for what they saw noting that what they saw is not documented in the videos.

You never seem to mention this fact.

 

No, because West's declaration that the darting was an 'artifact' is a possibility, not a fact.

I find Underwood's testimony far more compelling than West's 'possible artifact'.

On the rotation, we have the pilots express surprise at the rotation. one would think that a pilot would know his system well enough to recall why the target rotated, whether or not it rotated because of an illusion in the system.

Moreover, one of the pilots declared,

"There's a whole fleet of them, look on the AESA".

That fact was not shown on the FLIR, and these pilots must be looking at these videos at CIC, making comments, and looking at other screens not represented in the video.

A 'fleet' doesn't suggest balloons, or anything ordinary. If they were birds, a loose formation would be obvious, whereas a rigid formation would not suggest something ordinary. Moreover, more sophisticated radar is designed to filter out birds.

With due respect, there is too much testimony pointing to the extraordinary.

There just is.

 

When choosing between "possible artifact" and "pilot believes he saw aliens flying around the USA", I'll pick the former every single time.

Having someone in the military say he believes the pilots who work for him is NOT additional evidence.

 

We saw what pilots said about "go fast", and we know how absolutely wrong they were.

Thus we KNOW FOR A FACT that these pilots make MAJOR mistakes in what they think they see.

Now, you just want me to take some pilot's word for there being aliens???

Seriously?

 

YOu continue to make the same strawman argument. You attempt to trivialize their observations as 'aliens'. This trick is to attempt to get the stigma attached to the term to diminish the credibility of their testimony. This falls under the false debate method called posturing. Trivializing is a form of it, by talking something down, you attempt to heighten your posture in the argument.

Posturing/trivialising is a non argument, and, as such, do not improve an argument. They might diminish your argument by lowering the caliber of it.

Therefore, I would appreciate it if you please confine the conversation to 'extraordinary' or 'ordinary' regarding references to the 'tic tacs', because what they are aren't known.

Getting 'comfortable' with what they might be is not an argument, because it is not a fact.

The only fact we can ascertain, given what we have to work with, is that they are either:

1. Ordinary.
2. Or extraordinary.

Why? Because these are all the can be known (by us at this moment).

"Extraordinary' or 'ordinary' is knowable. You portray it beyond that, you are engaging in a pseudo debate trick.

I've listened to their testimony, and your characterizations are bunk.

Sorry.

 

I repeat, for the umpteenth time, Fravor and Deitrichs descriptions are not included in the Go Fast video.

Either the videos were truncated by the Navy excluding their descriptions, or their descriptions are on other videos the Navy hasn't released.

Your point is moot given the above.

 

There is nothing inappropriate about gauging the importance, accuracy, etc., of information that is being considered as evidence.

That is a necessary part of any analysis.

You do it too. You just don't actually question the evidence that supports your opinion.

 

To the OP, above my paygrade nevertheless fascinating.

LOL! So what did you do?

 

I THINK you are now trying to argue that the stories of "go fast" are to be ignored, because "go fast" was proven not to be anomalous by analysis of the physical evidence.

THEN, you want the stories of "tic tac" are to be accepted without looking at the physical evidence!!

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all. It is the physical evidence that proved the stories of "go fast" to be false. Why would anyone now decide that the physical evidence of "tic tac" should be ignored in favor of simply believing the pilots???

There is NO CHANCE that a legitimate evaluation of these incidents would ignore the physical evidence of the tapes that were released.

 

There's nothing appropriate in science about posturing IE the unjust trivialization of your opponent's words or others testimony, that sir is a pseudo debate trick unworthy in science debates

Other arguments weak or strong have nothing to do with this pseudo debate trick if my argument is weak that does not constitute a pseudo debate trick

 

Oh, please.

Nowhere in science of any kind is it considered justified to ignore physical evidence.

And, as is well demonstrated in this case, eye witnesses can be VERY wrong.

 

You think?

You think wrong.

You are making two mistakes here.

"Stories" is vague. You're being sloppy. Okay.... Whose stories? Because, for forensic purposes, the only ones that matter are those by:

A. CIC personnel who observed the Radar contacts, who have security access to the original videos, data & logs . (given in the videos, below)

B. The testimonies of those who made visual contact with the targets, of whom we know of two, Dietrich and Fravor.

As explained by the radar operator in the interview in the video below, the originals are much much longer than the one the Navy released, and at a much higher resolution.

Therefore, given that the only testimonies that matter are by those who made visual contact and those who operated the radar and had access to the original videos, and I now have corroboration on my presumption that the Navy truncated the videos, this it is demonstrably clear that their testimony is not reflected in the Go Fast video.

Therefore, your premise is moot.

Please understand that when you refer to stories, for forensic purposes, no testimony given beyond the aforementioned are relevant. "Stories" by random persons who were not directly involved with the incident of the video, random persons who may be in the peanut gallery shooting off opinions, those 'stories' have no forensic value.

The point is, if West's suggestions counter some random observations by persons whose opinions do not matter, your claim, therefore, has no forensic value.

The point is, the testimonies of those who do matter, their testimony is not contained in the Naval video.

Therefore, your premise is moot and West's suggestions as to what they are cannot be relied on, as the Naval vidoes are truncated.

See below:

The tapes released are truncated. This is now a known fact, per testimonies given in the videos, below.

What that means is, Willreadmore, your premise is moot and West's suggestions are based on analysis of incomplete videos, as such, cannot be relied on.

There is considerable more evidence, i just came across: Please watch each of the following videos, as they are interviews with key personnel who operated the radar on the ship, who were charge of the systems, and who had clearance to watch the original videos, It is explained that the Naval video is truncated, and the one we are seeing is of much less resolution than the original.


This interview is 32 minutes long
@4:20
"It [the radar contact] did go from around 30,000 feet to negative 500 feet in an unbelievable
amount of time....the subhead got it on sonar along with radar until....at a certain point it was
going faster than we could track"

"At certain point there were multiple objects that we were tracking" ( this corroborates the audio track on the go fast video where the pilot exclaims "There is a whole fleet of them, look on the AESA [radar]")

"That was towards the end of the encounter, and they all generally just kinda zoomed around at rediculous speeds, angles and trajectories, and then eventually they just all bugged out faster than are radar....[could track] ...we were getting what we called 'spot radar sightings' where it [the radar] would just catch a glimpse of it as it was moving because it was moving faster than our radar could register " ---Fire Control 3rd Class Gary Voorhis, '

Voorhis is also a key witness from the USS Princeton because he was in charge of the ship’s Aegis computer suite known as the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC). This system allows the sharing of radar, electronic data, and any other sensor data between all the ships and aircraft in a Strike Group and coordinates this information with the ship’s weapon systems.

He stated in the video that the object(s) were observed for weeks, suggesting there are tons of videos and footage not released.

This fact is corroborated:



In this second interview, about 15 minutes worth, with PO3 Jason Turner, who had security clearance to watch the videos, stated"

"The video that you see is cut short, there is actually more to it, why that is I don't know. It was quite a long video....I knew there was missing video....there was a lot more going on in that video.....the video you are seeing is really grainy, the one we saw was not".

Turner goes on to describe in more detail what the much higher resolution video revealed.
he also describe how, during the sighting, the ship went into 'general quarters', which, in the past, whenever they were in GQ, it was a drill, this one was not a drill. As you may know, general quarters is the actual Naval term for the more oft heard Hollywood's 'battle stations'.

I can hardly imagine a Caption of a Naval vessel calling general quarters off the cost of Mexico and California if they were ordinary objects, birds, balloons, etc.



This interview is 52 minutes

Senior Chief Kevin Day is a key witness from the USS Princeton because of his position, rank,
and experience. He was the Air Intercept Control Supervisor for the Princeton and for the Nimitz Strike Group. He has vast experience with the SPY-1 radar system. He explained how the system was able to merge all of the radar data from the 3 other ships in their group into one image on the radar (called the "cooperative engagement system"), that he stated he was certain that the targets were real.

"The object started at about 80,000 feet when I first saw them, then they would just suddenly drop down [to the surface of the ocean, as he clarified later] in altitude in a matter of less than a second."

"then they shot back up to their previous altitudes...there was a whole fleet of them above us going south, all going about 100 knots"
.
"There were all of these objects falling out of the sky. There were about 14 of them, at the time".


So, what is knowable?

There are only two possibilities as to what is knowable.

Either the objects are:

1. Ordinary things.

2. Extraordinary things.

All of the testimonies, radar data, etc., point inescapably to #2.


Please do not assert 'aliens', because that is not a knowable fact at this juncture.

 

You are refuting a data point I never contested.

You do that a lot. Please abstain from doing it in the future, not to mention your completely missing point that posturing (trivialising, etc ) is a non argument, and inappropriate in a science forum.

However, we now have corroborating testimony of CIC radar tracking personnel.

See

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ctionless-drive.595406/page-4#post-1073206902

 

Yes, those are the stories. They are NOT proof of anything.

The stories concerning "go fast" demonstrated that the testimony of those who were present is HIGNLY fallable.

Again, ignoring the physical evidence is not even slightly acceptable.

And, claiming that there is definitive evidence, but we can't see it is just plain SILLY.

Since when has it ever been legit to claim there is evidence that proves your point, but nobody is allowed to see it?

 

You haven't provided evidence to prove your point, given the following facts:

1. The Navy videos you assert are 'proving a point' do not, because they are truncated.

2. We now have CiC radar personnel testimony corroborating Fravor and Dietrich's testimony, noting that their testimony are not reflected in the videos you contend disprove their testimony and this fact is also corroborated.

Testimony of the CIC personnel has forensic value as it corroborates the pilots, regardless of the fact that the Navy is not releasing the complete higher res videos.

It has value to the extent that that is all we have, which is more than your argument provides.

Please watch the videos given in my previous reply.

 

There is nothing remotely wrong with pointing out that eyewitness testimony can be WAY off the mark.

And, it is especially interesting that NAVY PILOT testimony demonstrates NO immunity to that, as seen with the "go fast" video.

You have NO valid argument related to this point.

 

The Navy tapes include "go fast" and that proves the point that testimony even from Navy pilots can be VERY wrong.

And, I don't even slightly agree with your claim that we should take people's word for physical evidence we are being denied.

As above, we know that as much as people WANT to accurately convey events, there is no guarantee that it is being accomplished in the case of any specific selection of testimony.

 

I was searching for the message today, but I couldn't find it. Oh, well. It will come from memory then.

So, there is the Bob Lazar Wikipedia page, which is a safe link. I also recall one or two videos on YouTube that no longer exist. Beyond that, I did nothing but ignore the Lazar stuff in my examination of the UFO/E.T. subject topic.

I felt that the spook was warning me that I shouldn't risk drawing attention to myself which could lead to more problems for me because of my own experiences with aliens and working for an unknown branch of the military. Which I have posted publically about for years.