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

Discussion in 'Science' started by Patricio Da Silva, Dec 24, 2021.

  1. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are obviously confused here on what constitutes evidence.
    The publicly released Navy videos are truncated. CIC and ship's personnell who have the security clearance to know, tell us this fact, that the originals are much longer can show a lot more. Therefore, the publicly available Navy Videos have zero forensic value.

    Obviously, the originals would, but we are not privy to those. But, we do have something that would hold up in a court of law.

    Listen to the videos I just provided. The CIC radar operator personnel's testimonies, derived from hard tracking data, NOT 'visual contact', do, indeed, corroborate Fravor's and Dietrich's testimony.

    That is hard evidence and would would hold up in a court of law.

    If corroborating testimony derived from hard data corroborating visual testimony had no forensic value, we would have no choice but to take down the entire justice system.

    This is not a lab test, or an engineering project, it is a forensic analysis.

    In short, you do not know what you are talking about and appear to be wholly unable to grasp something fundamental to forensics.

    Again, and I repeat, the Navy videos are truncated, this is now an established fact per testimony of pertinent personnel, and by virtue of the fact they are truncated, they do not contain content discussed by CIC testimony which corroborates pilot testimony.

    I thought you said you were an engineer, that would suggest you are logical.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2022
  2. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm repeating my reply, but simplifying it.

    The publicly released Navy videos are truncated. CIC and ship's personnel who have the security clearance to know, tell us this fact, that the originals are much longer can show a lot more. Therefore, the publicly available Navy Videos have zero forensic value.

    Obviously, the originals would, but we are not privy to those. But, we do have something that should hold up in a court of law.
    (and please don't retort that we are not in a court a law, that would be pettifogging -- I say this because you have pettifogged a number of times )

    Listen to the videos I just provided. The CIC radar operator personnel's testimonies, derived from hard tracking data, NOT 'visual contact', do, indeed, corroborate Fravor's and Dietrich's testimony.

    That clearly demonstrates the pilots' testimonies are reliable, that their testimonies are not contained in the truncated videos.

    My research thus far indicates this is the only evidence we, the public, have.

    What can we know from their testimony, and that of the CIC personnel?

    The only thing we can know is that the objects are extraordinary.

    That's it. Please don't add anything to it, or attempt to trivialize that fact.

    However, that is something I would assert is compelling. Something worth empowering men, women, money, and machines to try and figure out what they are.

    I think it's time you should step out of your comfort zone and acknowledge the facts I have given herein.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2022
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are still trying to convince me that I should accept the word of these Navy pilots that there are aliens flying around this planet.

    You want me to ignore the fact that the Navy personnel have been VERY wrong. You want me to ignore analysis of the other videos. And, THEN you want me to take their WORD for having OTHER evidence we can't see!!!

    Please remember that I'm not EVER going to buy that.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2022
  4. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    For god's sakes, would you actually read what I'm writing?

    No, I'm not. I stated, in specific terms, what is knowable.

    There are only TWO things that are knowable,

    1. they are ordinary things
    2. Or they are extraordinary things.

    Please stop ignoring what I wrote, and stop putting words into my mouth. REfer only to #1 and #2 above

    Stop, just stop it.

    I'm beginning to understand now that you are gaslighting me. You refuse to
    understand what I am writing, and you make stuff up that I do not intend to be part of this subthread.
    I defined, clearly, what I meant by the two things that are knowable.

    You continue to ignore this.

    Stop, stop , stop it.

    Please.

    You have ZERO evidence that the Navy personnel are wrong.

    How do I know this? Because the testimony describes maneuvers truncated
    from the videos. Therefore, the videos are worthless. WE do not have
    the originals, the Navy is not releasing them.

    The publicly available videos are truncated, and worthless.

    I repeat, for the umpteenth time

    What personal described is NOT on the videos.

    The videos are truncated.

    Do you understand this?


    The videos are worthless as evidence because the parts the pilots describe
    are truncated from them.


    Do you understand this?


    the ONLY evidence we have are testimony.

    The CIC personal data is not visual, it's radar data testified to which corroborates the pilots visual testimony. That makes their testimony reliable.

    do you understand?

    OMG, you don't.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2022
  5. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Given that the testimony given is not contained on the truncated video, you have
    zero evidence the testimony given is wrong.

    No claim of aliens is being made by me. I'm claiming they objects are
    one of two things:

    1. Ordinary things
    2. Extraordinary things.

    Please abstain from projecting anything beyond this, as it is not a claim by me.
    The three videos are truncated, the pilot's descriptions of maneuvers are excluded.

    Therefore, the 'West analysis' is of no forensic value as the released videos have been edited to include only the most banal maneuvers of the objects, the juicier maneuvers have been intentionally excluded. It does make sense that
    the Navy would do this. Military has historically be difficult to deal with on evidence, most of which they have classified.
    the Nimitz Pilot are among the best the Navy has. Fravor is an instructor of the best. Their very lives depend on accurate vision, which, if faltering, they are not allowed to be pilots. No one is saying a pilot cannot err, but the difference here is that we have CIC radar personnel attesting to the accuracy of the pilot's testimony based on radar data taken over weeks.
    If that is your position, I can remember one thing:

    You are not logical.

    I've created a graphic, which, I hope, simplifies this:

    We know the videos are truncated, that the non released versions are much longer and have much better resolution, this is based on the testimony of FC3/PO3 Voorhis

    Also, by 'truncated' I mean, 'edited' , ie.., sliced.


    Pilot.jpg

    In other words, at this juncture, the only evidence do have are the testimonies
    of CIC personnel and that of the Pilots.

    In view of this fact, the evidence we do have points to the concept that
    the objects are 'extraordinary'.

    Please, don't inject 'aliens'. I'm not making that claim.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2022
  6. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing you have said makes my position regarding evidence as being illogical.

    Accepting the word of others concerning evidence I'm not allowed to see is ridiculously illogical.

    Besides, your claims about the accuracy of the Navy on this topic has been totally disproven.
     
  7. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you continue to put words in my mouth?

    I did not make claims about the accuracy of the Navy videos.

    West's calculations are accurate.

    However, it's of no consequence because the videos have been edited, the more compelling maneuvers have been edited out.

    Now, I'm going to ask you one more time.....

    do you understand what I just wrote?

    do you understand the significance of what I just wrote?

    Will you just answer the question?
     
  8. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I did not make claims about videos being inaccurate.

    West's calculations are accurate, I'll exclude the issue of the 'darting' for now.

    However, because the videos have been edited and that the more compelling maneuvers have been edited out, the analyses given by Wests have no forensic value.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2022
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely. I did that. The "go fast" video along with the audio of the pilot while in flight is a clear demonstration of how wrong a pilot can be.

    Remember it has been I who has been pointing out that accepting testimony concerning evidence that is being denied us is not an acceptable foundation for any conclusion such as that posed by the Navy, 60 Minutes, and the rest.

    Remember that the Navy testimony and reports totally dodge the major mistakes made by their "go fast" pilot.
    Now you are fatally undermining the whole Navy collection of papers, testimony, video, etc.

    Given what you are saying here, nobody should accept ANY of this as being legitimate.

    We know from "go fast" that their analysis can be grossly wrong. We know the questions concerning "tic tac". It's ridiculous to ignore that record and then decide to accept what they say about evidence they deny us.

    This has long ago left the realm of science, where flaws such as this are lethal, where duplication is standard, where openness of evidence is required.

    I think this conversation is over. I don't believe this Navy info proves there are no aliens. But, I absolutely do see no way to consider these tapes and the follow-on analysis and testimony as legitimately supporting a conclusion that something of unknown physics was detected.

    And, neither does anyone else in physics. The world is investing hugely in finding life or evidence of life, even unintelligent life that isn't of Earthly origin. There is a large investment being made in extending our understanding of this universe and how it works.

    Yet this Navy thing is clearly not of interest in this effort.

    You can say what you will about me. I'm undoubtedly not the best representative. However, it is clearly not just me.
     
  10. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then, what precisely did you mean by:
    Besides, your claims about the accuracy of the Navy on this topic has been totally disproven.
    ?

    I did not Claim the Videos were inaccurate, nor did I claim any other testimony, data, etc., is inaccurate.

    That was my reply, and you answer now is "Absolutely, I did that". ?
    How many times do I have to repeat the following:

    The videos are truncated. The maneuvers the pilots and the CIC personel describe are not contained in the videos, which are truncated.

    How many times do I have to tell you this before you understand it?
    I presented you an interview of CIC personnel who recount what the Ship's radar data show. Which are:

    1. A fleet of 14 Tic Tacs.
    2. Descending from how altitudes (28k - 80k feet) to sea level in less a second, and back up again in less than a second.
    3. Further testimony which corroborates the pilots.

    Further testimony by CIC personell which reveals that the publicly released videos are edited, and much lower resolution.
    Moot point, per above.
    I linked to a video interview of CIC personnel telling us the publically released videos are edited, and of lo res.
    From that testimony, it is clear that the testimony of CIC personnel corroborating the pilot's testimony is not on the publicly released videos. It is also logical that the Navy would do that. This facts means that the publicly released videos, and any analysis garnered therefrom, have no forensic value given they do not reflect the body of Naval testimony thus far given.
    I'm not saying anything that isn't backed up by evidence, which you are IGNORING.

    That fact demonstrate clearly your position is not logical, and by that measure, cannot be legitimate.
    Moot point per the above.
    Now you are ranting.
    You can choose ignorance, if you want.

    But I do not.

    In your response, you

    1. Do not refute my points.
    2. You repeat the same illogical positions which do not refute my points.
    3. You provide refutations to points I do not make and by that measure, put words into my mouth..
    4. You resort to posturing and cheap shots.

    There is nothing legitimate, accurate, competent, or logical by your responses.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2022
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You keep wanting me to believe the Navy testimony, etc. I consistently point out that the testimony we've gotten does not warrant trust for several reasons.

    And, you don't comment on the reasons for not simply taking their word for it - for a couple examples, their track record and the fact that you want me to accept testimony on some sort of evidence that nobody gets to see.

    Why would I agree to that?
    This doesn't refute any of the points I've made.
     
  12. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I consistently point out that CIC testimony is based on radar data, which
    corroborates pilot testimony, none of which is reflected in the videos.

    By that measure, the pilot's testimony has forensic value.

    CIC personnel have confirmed the publicly released videos are truncated
    and are of much lower resolution.

    By that measure, the publicly released videos have no forensic value.

    You have not countered these facts which render your position moot.

    The only thing you must believe is that publicly released videos have no
    forensic value.

    That leaves is with pilot testimony, that's the only available evidence.

    ANd, it's corroborated by ships radar.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2022
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are still asking me to believe in secret stuff.

    And, you are doing so on a topic where those people have not been successful at analyzing their own tapes.

    You don't have to keep repeating your argument.

    I fully understand your argument. I just don't subscribe to it for the reasons stated.
     
  14. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, I'm not. I'm doing just the opposite and you are doing just the opposite.

    I'm asking you to consider the only evidence that is available, pilot's testimony.

    I'm asking to you consider that ship's radar data confirms their testimony.

    By virtue of that fact, I'm asking you to consider their value.

    You are asking me to consider truncated videos which contain nothing of forensic value due to the fact they are truncated, edited, etc.
    You're being vague. Who are 'those people'?
    Then there is only one inescapable conclusion to draw:

    You are not logical.

    I come to that conclusion because you have not, with precision, refuted my argument, which, on it's face, is logical.

    If you have information that refutes my argument, you should present it, and don't say you have, because you have not. I've searched for it. It is not there.

    Until then, I conclude you are not logical.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2022
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The testimony in question concerns what is in the secret stuff. We already know there are serious issues with the claims about the videos we HAVE seen. Clearly, it has not been reasonably represented.

    Now, you want me to believe these same people concerning evidence that we're not allowed to see.

    That is the problem.

    I'm not going to accept their testimony, because they have clearly demonstrated an inability to reasonably represent information of this type.

    This is exactly what I've said in the past, and you have presented NOTHING that addresses this problem.

    I don't really know why I'm saying this again, but maybe this version is clearer in some way.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2022
  16. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That makes no sense.

    There is testimony, and it is corroborated by ship's radar independent of pilot testimony -- it, therefore, cannot be 'secret'.
    What claims and by whom?

    You are being vague.

    Vagueness has no forensic value.

    Please be specific, and quote.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2022
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My understanding is that the Navy is saying that there is much more data/information that they have that we can't see. And, they are saying that in their view that information confirms what they say.
    I don't know how more specific I can get.

    The ability of the pilots and others who have made statements to reasonably represent what we have seen in the videos we are allowed to see is seriously questionable.

    They supported the pilot's view of "go fast", for example, and we KNOW that was WAY wrong.

    I'm saying that I'm not ready to take their word on the video we've seen and I'm WAY not willing to take their word on other material that we are not allowed to see.

    How much more concrete do you need that?
     
  18. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But that is not what 'secret' means. If there is testimony, it is no longer secret.
    You can get a lot more specific.

    You can be more accurate.

    You can stop ignoring pertinent facts.
    There are no testimony of pilots regarding Go Fast, and their testimony are the only testimony that is relevant.
    I will exclude Underwood because it is not clear which video, if any, he is referring to, nor did he appear on 60 minutes.
    You are ignoring ship's radar confirmed testimony of witnesses. That is allowed in any forensic study if there is nothing to refute it and there is nothing better available.

    You can reject ship's radar confirmed testimony of witnesses if you choose, however, your arbitrary rejection is counter to forensic standards.

    You assert there is something to refute witness testimony, but, in fact, there is nothing to refute it (noting the opposite is true) because the videos are truncated and the testimonies do NOT refer to the non truncated regions available.

    The point is, although West's calculations are accurate, they are of no forensic value given the fact that the videos have been edited
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2022
  19. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You can reject ship's radar confirmed testimony of witnesses if you choose, however, your arbitrary rejection is counter to forensic standards.

    You assert there is something to refute witness testimony, but, in fact, there is nothing to refute it (noting the opposite is true) because the videos are truncated and the testimonies do NOT refer to the non truncated regions available.

    The point is, although West's calculations are accurate, they are of no forensic value given the fact that the videos have been edited


    Pilot.jpg
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, there is testimony concerning events where all other evidence (videos, recordings of other type) are denied us due to secrecy requirements.

    I don't get it. You have stated this, too.
    The "go fast" video includes the testimony of the pilots. The tape has an audio component.

    Also, there is the response to "go fast" that is embedded in other documents that you have posted.

    Plus, there is the fact that the Navy published "go fast" as pertaining to this issue. That act alone is an example of their treatment of this topic.
    Your choice to ignore the analysis and testimony of West is absolutely unconscionable.

    You are saying that we can only accept evidence that supports YOUR opinion!!
     
  21. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    \\
    The testimony put's it out in the open. It's no longer 'secret'. The videos are locked up, fine.
    But 'secret' it is not.
    The pilot's testimony in the audio track refer to a 'fleet' This is corroborated by ship's radar data.
    Therefore, what remains in those videos is inconclusive, given that they do no reflect the totality of CORROBORATED witness testimony.
    The navy intentionally published a truncated video. Obviously, they do not want us to see vidoes that corroborate
    Deitrich and Fravor, and that of the ship's radar data testified to by FC3 Voorhis
    I do NOT ignore his analysis. The point you IGNORE is that his analysis is LIMITED to edited videos,
    and by that fact, do not refute compelling CORROBORATED testimony.
    I am saying for YOU TO STOP ignoring evidence that has forensic value.

    West's calculations refer only to edited videos, which do not refute the body of testimony given:

    If West's calculations do not concur with the audio track observations, insofar as height and speed,
    so what? That's just some pilots standing in front of a screen making rando comments.
    But, the fact that they said 'fleet of them' is a compelling data point, confirmed by FC3 Voorhis of CIC.

    THe following testimony is not reflected in the Naval videos released.

    "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 ridiculous 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.

    The CEC data amalgamates ship's radar data from all the ships in the group.
     
  22. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not ready to accept ANY of it as having forensic value for the reasons I've clearly stated many times now.

    Please remember at least this part:

    The Navy gave us "go fast". That was a piece of TOTAL SCHLOCK.

    Now, you want me to accept their WORD on material that we can't even seen and analyze.

    Sorry. It just doesn't work that way.
     
  23. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Well, lets take a look at what we do have.

    1. Three Naval videos are edited. IF they are edited, no conclusion can be drawn to refute other testimony not reflected in them.

    2. Pilot's testimony of extraordinary maneuvers by Nimitz pilots who are some of the best the Navy has to offer,
    whose testimony is confirmed by CIC personal attestation of those maneuvers.


    You don't have to accept it, but if that were all that was available, and that is all that is available, and no person's freedom is at stake, it would stand up in a civil court.

    All of the available testimony, none of which is reflected in the Navy videos, point to the following conclusion:

    The objects are extraordinary.

    You don't have to accept it, but that is the more compelling argument than that they are 'ordinary'.

    Other factors point to it, as well. Such as

    1. Men,Women, millions of dollars, and equipment, over decades, have been committed to their study. This doesn't suggest 'ordinary'

    2. Testimony of pilots pointing to unexplainable events for decades ( excluding all the explainable ).

    This would suggest that there is something buzzing around in our skies that defy conventional explanation.

    They could be ours, who knows? Perhaps some secret black project, that is very possible.

    Nevertheless, the aforementioned highlighted statement remains the far more compelling argument than West's parochial suggestions. .

    And please, confine conclusions to what is knowable, and there are only two:

    1. They are explainable objects.
    2. They are unexplainable objects.

    That's it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2022
  24. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Go fast" can absolutely be refuted. In fact, it has been refuted.
    We know from "go fast" and from the other videos that the video evidence does not confirm the statements by the pilots. And, the testimony of others tends to be no more than confirmation of the story told by the pilots + references to material we are not allowed to see.

    In fact, a major thrust of some of the interviews is that the pilots really can't be wrong, because of how expert they are - yet we KNOW they were wrong.
    So, no. I don't have to accept any of that.

    And, I see no justification of your claim about civil court. Do you really think these points wouldn't be brought up in civil court???
    The "Go fast" object is absolutely ordinary. And, there is evidence that the others shown in the videos are ordinary, too.
    No, it suggests an abundance of caution by our military industrial complex, along with testing and experimentation of our own devices that confound our own detection equipment, perform surprising maneuvers, attempt to hide signatures, etc.
    No, you can't use that idea. Just claiming that there is tons of evidence is not evidence. You mentioned the courts. You can't walk into court and say "I've spent TONS of money and MAN YEARS of effort and have so much evidence that you have to rule in my favor without looking!!"
    West's analysis has been concrete. You can not deny that.

    I don't know what you are looking for here.

    There may well be something that someone can't explain. But, that's true in EVERY field of endeavor. It's not even slightly surprising.

    It was the Navy that couldn't explain "go fast"!!

    THAT is what is surprising! And, it doesn't cause me to start believing whatever they say without even bothering to LOOK.
     
  25. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are being vague..
    It does not confirm, nor refute, the statements by Fravor and Dietrich.

    "So as I come across, I'm a little above him. He's at the three o'clock position and I
    go, 'Well, the only way i might get this is to do an aggressive out-of-play maneuver."
    so I dump the nose and I go from the nine o'clock through the vertical down, to go
    across to the three o'clock. So he's over here and I go like this [motions cutting
    across the circle]. So as I get down to about, I'm probably about 60 degrees
    nose low a little, pulling through the bottom. It starts to accelerate. It has an
    incredible rate of acceleration. And it takes off and it goes south. And it takes
    off like nothing I've ever seen. It literally is one minute it's there and the next minute
    it's like, poof, it's gone."--Commander David Fravor.


    These descriptions are confirmed by CIC radar personnel testimony describing contacts on radar.

    The audio track on Go Fast mentions 'a fleet of them', this is also confirmed by FC3 Voorhis, independent of Pilot testimony.

    The pilots on the audio track are making random comments. WE do not know who they are and they were not interviewed on 60 minutes. Without scrutiny of what you are seeing on screen, anyone can take a bad guess as to height, size, and speed. The fact that West's calculation refutes height, size and speed, does not mean that a more compelling data point, such as the very same pilot saying 'there is a whole fleet of them' is wrong. It's easy to guess wrong speed and height, but if you see a fleet of them, that is not a fact a pilot is likely to get wrong. Moreover, that fact is not reflected in the Go Fast video. However, that fact is confirmed by FC3 Voorhis, from CIC describing what he saw on the radar screen. So we know there was a fleet of them, and there were 14, to be exact. This data point is a fact.


    Fravor is a veteran pilot of 18 year of Military Service, not only is he Top Gun, he is a Nimitz instructor, and they send the best pilots to the Nimitz. If he is training them, that means he is cream of the crop.

    In an interview with Fravor, he describes how he often makes mental contemporaneous notes of his maneuvers in flight because he has to relay them in classes he gives to the pilots he is training and who are under his charge. he has trained himself to do this. I can find that video to confirm this, if you want me to.

    This idea that the above testimony, noting that it's corroborated by CIC radar personnel, is not reliable, when, in point of fact,
    the Three navy videos, because they are edited, DO NOT REFUTE his testimony, this idea that his testimony has no forensic value, that we should ignore it, is ludicrous.

    You are simply being ridiculous, particularly when the Navy videos do not refute it because they are shortened and lower res.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2022

Share This Page