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

concrete, but incomplete given that videos are edited/shortened, and lo res.

concrete, but inconclusive, given this fact.

That, you cannot deny.

 

No, that was absolutely specific.

This is not the testimony the pilot in "go fast" gave during the flight. It is some version Fravor gave at a later date.

Now you are picking and choosing, ignoring the fact that your ground based "experts" blew off the facts of "go fast" even though THEY SUBMITTED THAT FLIGHT as evidence.

Sorry, THEY submitted the tapes as if they are evidence. They claimed the tapes show stuff they say is impossible. They have defended the tapes, but then resort to claiming the real evidence is something else that is classified.

I'm not interested in this topic anymore.

 

The "go fast" tape was PLENTY clear to debunk. There is no way to save that video. And, the others have similar problems.

Believe me, when you say the Navy played with the tapes that's even further reason to NOT accept anything they say.

I'm not surprised that they chose not to be up front about it.

What would you have said if they had said:

"Here are some tapes. Please remember that we edited these tapes, shortened them, made them blurry, and we don't agree with what the pilots said in flight, but we promise what we're saying is consistent with secret information you can't see."

 

then you must have a confusion on the word 'specific'.

The audio track referred to a fleet, that was confirmed, why are you ignoring this fact?

There is no reason to deny his testimony, and nothing in Go Fast refutes it.

No, they did not. Their testimony is not reflected in the videos. The videos were originally leaked, and the Navy released them because of public pressure. The Navy did not make any claim about them, whatsoever. But, they leave the question of what they are an open question.

False. And who are 'they'? You are being vague, again.

Who are 'they'. You are not making sense. No one made such a claim.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

This is incontrovertible proof of your faulty logic.

The "Navy" is not a monolithic creature.

The pilots and the CIC personell, have nothing to do, no influence, control, or responsibility, over how the tapes
are presented to the public. They are not acting in cahoots with some conspiratorial upper brass scheme.

 

Why would I care about such a hypothetical?

All that is relevant is what they did do.

And what did they do?

The tapes were leaked.

The navy, because of public pressure, at some later date, acknowledged and released them, officially, the same ones that were leaked.

They made no claim, or comment about them, OTHER than just to say ' they are real' (if I recall correctly)..

That's it. And to add to that is to waste time.

I was honorably discharged from the Navy in 1987. I can assure you with some authority, that the right hand doesn't always know what the left hand is doing.

In other words, they are not a monolithic creature. Not by a long shot.

 

Now you're just being silly.

I was very clear about what comments I was referring to.

And, the "Go fast" in-flight testimony states the maneuvers the "object" was taking. That showed just how wrong these pilots can be.

That doesn't mean they are ALWAYS wrong. I'm sure they can drive home at night. But, it does show that simply believing everything they say is not acceptable.

Plus, the Navy published that video, and the video is all about those maneuvers that we KNOW were majorly misinterpreted.

Admit it. Those comments about the object were absolutely wrong and the officials back home did two things: They published it and they backed up what the pilot said in the video.

That's totally irrelevant.

If they knew they were false, they should have stated that when they released them. If they didn't know they were false, then that backs ME all the more.

LOL!!

You've got nothing.

Please go away until you have something.

 

You should care about it, because the behavior of the Navy wrt these tapes is telling.

Being leaked did NOT mean they had to back up the tapes, regardless of misinformation contained.

They could have given their honest appraisal of the tapes.

Or, if they thought that was a security breach in itself, they could hope that people like us would have the sense to recognize the videos for what they are.

Just out of curiosity, were the tapes edited, blurred, cut short, etc. BEFORE they were leaked? Was the Navy thinking they might get leaked, so they made munged up copies for the purpose of being "accidentally" leaked?

Or, is there an actual unmangled version of the leaked tapes in public somewhere?

 

It would have been a more honest, straight forward approach than what happened.

It would not have been a greater risk to security concerns.

It would have killed the public interest that fueled many questions directed at the Navy by a wide range of constituencies.

It would not have left false impressions in the minds of the American public.

I'm somewhat curious as to why the Navy chose the approach they actually chose.

I know that organizations such as the Navy do not have perfect coordination on all topics. I come from industry, and I can tell you that large and respected private enterprises don't have this solved, either.

 

We cannot proceed from what you or I wish they would have done.

I wish they would release everything they have and admit to the public what they honestly know about the subject.

But, history demonstrates clearly they have no intention of ever doing that.

That leaves us with what is available, and what is knowable from what is available.

The proper thing to do is to weigh available evidence, documents, tapes, testimonies, analyses, forensic studies already achieved, etc.

That is what the search for truth entails, and nothing less.

And what is knowable here?

Either they are explainable, or they are not.

Either they are ordinary things, or extraordinary things. That's it.

No other concept about them is knowable, at this juncture, until better evidence arrives.

What our comfort zones are, or what our dreams are, are of no value in the search for the truth.

They are what they are, and that is all that matters.

 

Everything they do is part of this event, adding or subtracting from the believability of it all.

I've stated over and over again why I don't give these tapes much credence. And, their handling of this event is part of that.

I would recommend that response to others. But, if you really want to believe this is some sort of big deal, you are doing so while aware of what I've found.


Surely we are done with this topic, aren't we? Please?

 

Apparently so.

"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". ---PO3 Jason Turner

Turner worked in supply and had clearance to see the originals and has seen both original, and edited versions.

WE know who leaked them, it was a civilian pentagon official Christopher Mellon, I believe they were handed to him in a parking lot. But, the Navy obviously has some sort of scheme here, but they why of it all is not known.
.

Not in public. IF there were, the UFO community would have seized on them like white on rice.

The three videos were leaked by Christopher Mellon, who was the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations and later for Security and Information Operations. He formerly served as the Staff Director of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
[...]
Mellon was featured in the 2020 UFO documentary The Phenomenon, directed by longtime UFO enthusiast James Fox.[10] In the documentary Mellon stated that he was the source who provided the three Pentagon UFO videos which made the "lavish front-page Sunday spread"[9]


from a Vox article: https://www.vox.com/22463659/ufo-videos-navy-alien-drone
Make sure you read the last paragraph:

The FLIR1 video is “entirely consistent with being a plane that’s very far away,” West says. “Radar’s great if you know where to look, but if you’re looking in sector A and it’s in sector Q” you’re going to miss it — which is what he thinks happened in the Nimitz case.

West believes the GIMBAL video is most likely the glare of a jet’s engine; he says he has replicated this kind of image using his own infrared cameras. Its apparent rotation, he says, is due to a limitation in the camera’s ability to move and track the object. GOFAST, he thinks, is a lost weather balloon (or perhaps a pelican), which — because it’s midway between the jet observing it and the water — appears (misleadingly) to be going as fast as the plane itself when it’s really staying still.

So that’s number one, the naturalistic explanation. Elizondo, Mellon, Fravor, and other UFO disclosure advocates and ex-pilots do not just dispute this argument but are actively infuriated by it.

“I don’t know why people even take [Mick West] seriously,” Mellon told me. “He knows nothing about these sensor systems, he deliberately excludes 90 percent of the pertinent information and in the process maligns our military personnel. ‘Oh, Dave Fravor doesn’t know what he’s looking at. Oh, those guys don’t know how to operate those infrared systems.’ Who the hell does he think he is? These guys are the real deal. He’s a desk jockey sitting in front of a monitor.”

West, for his part, told me, “I don’t ignore the pilots. I try to engage with them to resolve issues like this. I respect their skills and experience but recognize (as they themselves have said) that they are human, not perfect.”

Elizondo is sometimes more charitable to the skeptics, even giving an hour-long interview to West on his YouTube channel. In general, his response was to argue that West was looking just at videos and not at the totality of information that’s available to researchers in the Pentagon. On Nimitz/FLIR1, he told West, “Based on my experience in the AATIP program, there is certainly additional information that is very, very compelling. People are going to say, ‘Well, what is it, Lue, why don’t you tell us? We want to know.’ Well, I can’t” — it’s still classified. But, Elizondo advised, this corroborating information might start to trickle out soon.

 

Read all of it to the last paragraph.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ctionless-drive.595406/page-6#post-1073212852

 

I'm not interested.

This is just more stuff that points out that the Navy has to go back home and think this through a lot better than they did this time.

I have no idea what they intended.

 

Just read it. Otherwise

Then you choose ignorance.

 

Ignorance can come from reading stuff that doesn't make sense, too.

One of our largest challenges, one that humans are crap at, is learning how to apply techniques of skepticism to filter out what may appear to be true, but is not.

 

There has been no agency who has historically been more skeptical of UFOs than the military.

Of late, they have changed their stance from "There are no UFOs" and spend decades (Project Grudge and Bluebook) trying to debunk them, now to "We don't know" and we are spending millions to find out what they are.

It would take a lot more than balloons for that sea change, and that most certainly is a sea change, for the Navy, 'xcuse the pun.

This make sense, you should read it.

Here is a study of a 1971 incident, which was reported to have been seen at a distance of 75 feet, which left trace evidence of chemicals on the ground, which was analyzed by a PhD. Hoax, Natural and UAP hypotheses are weighed.

Won't you study it?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B7PNmNITmERJn7pbMfjkAcutW_8yPwxz/view

 

Project Blue Book ended in 23 years ago, didn't it?

Their conclusion:

Project Grudge died a long time before THAT. It officially died in 1949!!!

That project concluded that:

Why do you post these projects??? Were you aware of their conclusions?

Do you believe them? If not, then why do you post them?


I'm fine with the military watching - that is one of the tasks they should be doing.

More than anything:

I'd like to know what the HECK the Navy was thinking when they published "go fast". Have they lost their high school math? They claim there were leaks that required a response, but this one could have been laughed off!!

 

I gather that you have a tendency to cavalierly rely on Military reports about UFOs, quickly retreat to your comfort zone on 'debunker' reports ( you did say, 'once it's debunked, that's it'. Well, not necessarily) and well, if that is true, then I highly recommend that you should read the book by J. Allen Hynek, entitled "The Hynek UFO Report: The Authoritative Account of the Project Blue Book Cover-Up

If that doesn't change your opinion from ever-so-quickly accepting a professed debunker's myopic assessments to opening your mind beyond your comfort zone, then nothing will.

*****************************************************************
Not necessary for you to read, but excerpts from the book

“I had scarcely heard of UFOs in 1948 and, like every other scientist I knew, assumed that they were nonsense,” he recalled.
"Blue book was now under direct orders to debunk, and what captain, or even major, would go against the recommendations of such an august body of scientists as was relayed through the Pentagon?

Because of the very great secrecy surrounding the Battelle study ( for years, the rule around Blue Book was that the name
*Battelle must never be mentioned!) it is unlikely that any of the *Robertson panel members were even aware that the expensive study was in progress, indeed, had they known, they might well have recommended that it be stopped in the interests of national security. The implication in the [Robertson] Panel Report was that UFOs were a nonsense ( non-science) matter, to be debunked at all costs. I remember the conversations around the conference table in which it was suggested that Walt Disney or some educational cartoon producer be enlisted in this debunking process"

"The released files of Project Blue Book contain little that is specific about the events which led to the demise
of Project Blue Book, particularly the role played by the *Condon Report and it's complete endorsement by
the National Academy of Sciences, and endorsement that, in my opinion, will come back to haught this prestigious body just as the fall of meteorites came back to haunt the French Academy of Sciences more than a century ago."

But what of the Condon Report itself? Was it actually a negative report? Surprisingly, if one goes past Dr. Condon's summary, and Walter Sullivan's (science editor of the New York Times) introduction, and concentrates on the case investigations themselves, one will probably find the Condon Report to be a powerful document in favor of the reality of the UFO phenomenon.

I am reminded of a visit I had, about a year after the Condon Report was issued, from Dr. Claude Poher, of the French Committee Nationale Études Spaciaux (CNES) who had been conducting some rocket experiments at Cape Kennedy in Florida. In the course of our conversation, he expressed a very serious interest in the UFO phenomenon and I asked him whence his interest sprang. He replied, “I read the Condon Report.” I asked how that possibly could have spurred his interest and he replied in a most serious manner, “If you really read the Condon Report and don't stop with Condon's summary, you will find that there is a real problem there.” I couldn't agree more.

Dr. Condon had stated in his summary that further studies of UFOs ‘probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.’” In making such a sweeping statement Condon should have kept in mind the dictum of Sir James Jeans: “It is the unexpected that happens in science.” Suppose the early pioneers of science had adopted Condon's attitude and throttled human curiosity at its source whenever something new and unexplained appeared on the horizon. As Dr. Anthony Michaelis, science editor of the London Daily Telegraph, once pointed out, “The reality of meteorites, of hypnosis, of the continental drift theory, of germs, of the city of Troy, and of Pleistocene man were in the past dismissed with scorn and laughter. . . .”

Hynek, J. Allen. The Hynek UFO Report

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book

Hynek's commentary regarding the Condon Report (of Project Blue Book) is similar to how former AG William Barr put out a statement falsely assessing that the Mueller Report completely exonerated Donald Trump, which, as we learned by Mueller's reply refuting his statement, after reading the Mueller Report one cannot possibly come to the same conclusion that Barr did. Similarly, Hynek points to many summaries given in the Condon Report which defy their overall conclusion which it utterly ignores. The entire book's premise is that the subject of UFOs has been covered up by the Military, and that this is a serious subject which deserves serious scientific inquiry sans ridicule.

See, all of this occurred decades before the three Navy Videos and West's assessment, which you seem to cling to disregarding the broader field, of which Blue Book and Hynek are still but a tiny part ( there isn't enough room to cover it all here).

The point I'm trying to impress upon you, Willreadmore, is that you really should keep an open mind, and withdraw to comfort zones a lot less, because comfort zones, in my view, are smug zones, and that is breeding zone for mediocrity, stagnation, and unhealthy skepticism ( as opposed to healthy skepticism, which is a good thing),

You once stated that 'there is no ( regarding my comment on wheat and chaff) wheat'.

FYI, that statement is categorically false.

 

I've been unable to encourage you to have skepticism even when it is purely a matter of high school math.

But, that's ok. I'm not interested in this topic anymore.

 

How can you encourage me to be a skeptic, when I already require evidence for my beliefs, yet you ignore the vastly greater field of evidence, and pay attention only to a narrow aspect of it?

The topic has to do with what is the greatest story on earth.

And you're not interested?

 

I don't see anything that is even slightly convincing.

Let's remember that to believe most of these reports one has to start by swallowing the premise that all our physics is garbage and that there are aliens flying around Earth!

That's not 100% impossible, but surely it is more than 99.999% impossible. It is a gigantic hurdle given all that we know today, and how well it is known and the presence of far more probable answers.

In fact, ALL the other explanations are far more likely than that.

What one has to ask are questions such as, "Is the movement in "tic tac" a matter of diffraction and automated gimbal movement, or is all our physics wrong?"

There is not nearly enough to suggest that all our physics is wrong and that some alien is hot rodding around the USA.

Besides that, I don't see the Navy as being a reliable witness on this, given their performance to date.

 

You don't see anything? You are not looking, and that is the only conclusion I can draw.

You knock me for disrespecting physicists ( my ONLY issue is in the fields of propulsion) and you won't respect
our Top Gun pilots with 18 years experience.

No, not the casual fleeting comments of two guys looking at a screen, but visual descriptions confirmed Deitrch and Fravor by
ship's radar. Also, the 'fleet of them' is confirmed by ship's radar. You have no refutation of that.

That doesn't prove other worldly, but it does say 'compelling'.

But, you ignore it. You don't even consider it, or look at it. Nor do you make any comment on the forensic study.

You just fluff it off, and West's three calculations on Truncated videos is all you need, you are not interested in anything else.

Your opinion is based entirely on the bullshit argument that conquering the distance of space equals 'our physics is garbage'.

You can't possibly know that. Tell that to these people

Dr. Josie Peters, astrophysicist, thinks it's possible.
Aerospace engineer Dr. Ron Evans thinks it possible.
Dr. Neil Stansfield, engineer, thinks it's possible.

No, we don't have it yet, but the problem I have with you is your smug attitude, and all the rest of science that says it.

"Some people say they [quantum physics] break the laws of physics, but I prefer to say
they break the laws of physics as we understand it today."--Dr. Neil Stansfield, Defense Science and Technology lab.

You base this one what, three truncated videos? What kind of scientist are you?

I suppose that is why General Samson, 70 years ago, said, ' credible observations of relatively incredible things'.

It's not a matter of being wrong, it's a matter of being incomplete.

do you not see the difference? I don't think you do because you keep repeating your bogus narrative.

"Some people say they [quantum physics] break the laws of physics, but I prefer to say
they break the laws of physics as we understand it understand today."--Dr. Neil Stansfield, Defense Science
and Technology lab.

The Navy is not a monolithic creature, and you are dissing some 18 year Pilots, the navy's best. and then you knock me for saying rocket propulsion is old tech.

Yes, it is old tech.

 

What is your hypothesis toward which you find this compelling evidence?

I've read everything you have presented.

Yet, you keep claiming I don't. Why?

Dr. Peters bills herself as a presenter and comedian who has a phd in astrophysics. That doesn't make her a theoretical physicist.
The other two are engineers, not theoretical physicists.

This is NOT a problem of engineering something. It's a problem of figuring out something new about how this universe works - something that nobody has come across so far, something that is not even necessarily usable in terms of engineering a method of travel.

You think someone "just" needs to break the cosmic speed limit - the speed limit that applies to all mass in the universe.

This is NOT an engineering problem. It's a problem of figuring out that our universe DOESN'T work the way that physicists have found that it does work.

That is something you can not pass off so lightly as you do.

I have no problem with that statement at all. I've pointed out many times that physicists have not figured out how quantum mechanics works, nor now it could be compatible with Einstein gravity.

But, that doesn't mean we're going to break the cosmic speed limit.

The Navy made serious blunders with this release of videos.

Again, I'm fine with the pilots. Pilots make mistakes. I believe they told the truth as they saw it. But, they aren't physicists. And, the information they gathered does not stand up well, as we've gone over.

So, I remain unwilling to accept this Navy material as being even slightly convincing of any claim that physics was "broken" in some way, or that an alien craft was involved.

 

This is a quote by Fravor:

"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.

Lt Commander Dietrich then comments about the objects 'zig zagging' about in non aerodynamic fashion.

In a video between Luis Elizondo and Mick West, where they debate each other,
West says about the object in the video of the FLIR video: "You see the thing kind of jumping around"

He attributes the phenomenon as an artifact of the camera.

His assessment is counter to Commander Fravor's visual testimony, which was confirmed by Lt Commander Deitrich, who was also a visual witness, both of whom attested to the fact that their co-pilots agreed with what they saw.

The pilot's testimony is also confirmed by FC3 Voorhis who operated radar in CIC on the ship:

"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.

There is absolutely zero reason to doubt this testimony because both Voorhis and Elizondo state the tapes are shortened, and do not reveal all that the pilots are testifying about. So, we don't actually have documented refutation. All you have is West's suggestions of 'ordinary objects' of some kind, part of which is his belief that the 'you see the thing just kinda jumping around' is an artifact of the camera, which is possible, but that is all it is, a possibility, it doesn't refute the pilots testimony because it's not a fact.

This is what you do not understand, that West's suggestions of banality which counter's Deitrich's and Fravor's third party confirmed testimony is NOT a 'fact'. You seem to think it is, you seem to think it equals 'debunked'.

There is absolutely nothing true about that claim.

Because you make no substantive refutation of them, just a broad substantive swipe, which is not an argument.

It is not unfair to conclude you have not read my text or listened to the videos I have offered.

You claimed it was 99.99999% impossible.

There is no way you can know that.

In what way? yes, it's frustrating they released lo res truncated copies, but the Navy is famous for never giving out
anything, ever. But, what they did release wasn't particularly exciting, which was obviously by design.

West is not a physicist, either. You haven't 'gone over' anything, you've only made vacuous broad swipes.

All you've given me are vacuous broad swipes, nothing of substance, and you've done it repeatedly.