The Futility of the Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence

FIRST, my comments have been about "go fast", NOT TIC TAC or the third video. The issues of "go fast" are not the same, so they have to be addressed separately.

The information above has been scrambled, with the various videos and the responses to them intermingled. So, it is NOT rational to accept ANY of the claims made above by ANY witnesses until it is identified which video they are responding to.

Imho, this was done as deception, as it has been repeatedly pointed out. I don't know for sure who engineered the deception.

To date, NO military or civilian individual has proved the analysis of "go fast" to be wrong.

Mick West did not claim the object in the "go fast" video WAS a balloon - that's just false reporting.

He DID point out that the object was behaving LIKE a weather balloon - at an expectable altitude and velocity. And, that it exhibited no thrust.

That is based on high school math and the information on altitude, speed and trajectory that are available on the pilot display.

 

The video only shows a small portion of what was witnessed.

That is what you are not factoring in.

After the target disappeared, it appeared on USS Princeton's radar seconds later, 60 miles away.

That fact is not on the video.

 

YOu're missing the point.

The math doesn't prove what it is.

Disregard movements, let's deall with that the thing is. we have two sources for that :

1. Mick West, who has math, no witnessing.

2. Lt Commander Dietrich, Commander Fravor, and Commander Underwood, all of whom tell us it wasn't a balloon (on two different vids).


So, is it a balloon?

Not according to the pilots.

IF it was not a balloon, then it's not 'ordinary'.

 

You are falling for someone's deception.

"Go fast" and "tic tac" are two separate encounters that are ENTIRELY unrelated.

The objects in these to different videos do NOT behave the same way.

Yet your source of deception is trying to apply remarks concerning "tic tac" to "go fast" even though they clearly DO NOT APPLY.

You need to get to the bottom of this, as you are getting roped into a deception.

 

I'm pretty dang sure the USS Princeton's sighting was of the "tic tac" object.

I don't believe it had anything AT ALL to do with "go fast".

Yet, that sighting keeps showing up as if it is evidence of behavior of the "go fast" object - behavior that is NOT shown in the "go fast" video.

 

AS for your floating object which makes you think it is a balloon:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/navy-ufo-sighting-60-minutes-2021-05-16/

Christopher Mellon served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence for presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and also on the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He told 60 Minutes that he believes the object that Fravor and Dietrich witnessed demonstrated advanced technological capabilities. Mellon says the UAP appeared to have an unlimited loiter time and exceptional acceleration.

Do you really think these people are so stupid that they would miss it being a balloon, if it were a balloon?

Exactly where is your logic?

It rests entirely on West's math, which suggests a floating object, but does not actually prove what it is, not to mention that the video only shows a portion of what the pilots' testimony describe.

 

The math and pilot display information shows the "go fast" object is NOT flying at the altitude nor in the manner that the pilots claimed.

Their mistake is easily explained by the parallax they experienced - the issues of relative motion and deceptive background.

The instruments show the object is flying like a weather balloon would be expected to fly.

Yet, you want to claim it is alien??

 

What evidence to you have that 60 minutes TV show is trying to decieve?

IF that is true, they will be challenged and ridiculed. You really think that, after 50 years of investigations, they are going to pull a stunt on a subject that is fraught with ridicule anyway? You really think they are not going to get all their ducks in a row? You really believe that, on the subject of UFOs, they are going to be sloppy? Where is your logic?

All that matters what the things are. WE can easily lump them all together.

YOur math is saying 'ordinary'. But math is not a witness.

Witnesses are saying 'not ordinary'.

who are the witnesses?

Lt Commanders and Commanders in the Navy.

Well, it takes round about 3 enlistments to make those ranks, and they are not awarded to pilots whose vision is poor.

So I'm going with the pilots.

 

Did I ever claim it was 'alien'? No, I didn't.

The videos only represent a small portion of what was witnessed.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/navy-ufo-sighting-60-minutes-2021-05-16/
Christopher Mellon served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence for presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and also on the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He told 60 Minutes that he believes the object that Fravor and Dietrich witnessed demonstrated advanced technological capabilities. Mellon says the UAP appeared to have an
unlimited loiter time and exceptional acceleration.

Red--there is your 'balloon',

Blue--proves it was not a balloon.

 

OK:
- Dietrich and Fravor were the pilots involved in Tic Tac. That involved the Princeton.

- "Go fast" did not involve those pilots and the aircraft carrier involved was the Theodore Roosevelt

Yet YOU want to refute the debunking of "go fast" with information from "tic tac"!!! Sorry, NO DICE!

As a total aside, I'd also point out that Dietrich has claimed for 17 years that the "tic tac" object could have an Earthly explanation. But, that is a different topic.

My intent here is to address ONE of these videos at a time. And, I hope you can see why that is the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to proceed.

SO, stop reporting "TicTac" data and testimony as if it applies to "go fast".

These are NOT the same incidents.


You are getting confused or duped.

Please stop that!

 

It was on the Go Fast, because Commander Underwood, who filmed the Go Fast video, in another video, refuting West, told us so, that the 'target was reacquired seconds later 60 miles away', in other words, Underwood vectored his jet to reacquire the target, lost it, spoke to the Princeton to see if they reacquired it, and they did, seconds later 60 miles away. That is what is confirmed on 60 minutes. 60 minutes is not making the distinction between one video or the other because apparently they didn't think it is important. Why? Because all that is really important are the fact that the evidence clearly points t something extraordinary, that is all that really matters, from the viewpoint of the TV show, in my opinion.

But, you are interpreting this as 'deception'. How so? Where is the deception?

Not seeing it.

If there were proof that they were balloons, and they were trying to push it off as something fantastic, that would be deception, but where is the evidence for that?

West? He has only a portion of what was witnessed, which was explained by
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/navy-ufo-sighting-60-minutes-2021-05-16/
Christopher Mellon served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence for presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and also on the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He told 60 Minutes that he believes the object that Fravor and Dietrich witnessed demonstrated advanced technological capabilities. Mellon says the UAP appeared to have an unlimited loiter time and exceptional acceleration.

 

I have not said that the 60 Minutes program tried to deceive.

What they did was present a segment full of sensational claims with NO room for Earthly explanations that absolutely do exist.

That made for good TV ratings. But, it had NOTHING to do with rational analysis.

Witnesses can not refute the math. Math isn't like that.

 

Once again, you are pretending that Tic Tac claims can be applied to the Go Fast video.

THAT shows how badly deluded you are.

 

What is your evidence for 'balloon'?

You have no evidence.

WE have several pilots saying they are not balloons.

Pilots with years in the navy.

Now, where is your logic?

 

Again, as I understand it, Commander Underwood and the Princeton were present for Tic Tac, not "go fast".

I have seen no report that the Princeton was present for "go fast".

Are you stating that it WAS??

 

Answer the question:

Are you stating that the Princeton was present for the "go fast" video?

 

Posturing is not a merit worthy argument.

 

it doesn't matter, because the following point, a summary of the videos and testimony, can be reduced to the following:

Your only proof of 'balloons' is math.

Math is not a witness.

We have the testimony of at least 3 naval pilots with at least dozen years of experience, each, witnessed and claimed that they are not balloons.

Why would they risk ridicule if there was even a remote chance they were balloons, let alone do it on 60 minutes?

Where is your logic?

Which is the more compelling?

 

The Roosevelt was the aircraft carrier involved in the "go fast" report.

The Princeton was preset for the "tic tac" incident.

Commander Underwood filmed "tic tac", not "go fast".

You need to get your facts straight about the who, where and what of these videos.

Until then, every single thing you say is highly likely to be wrong.

 

You need to answer this:

Was the Princeton present at the "go fast incident"

I've answered you questions.

Now it's YOUR TURN.

 

RE: The Futility of the Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence
SUBTOPIC: Evidence-Based Analysis and the Application of the Scientific Method Signals
⁜→ "Patricio Da Silva, et al,

BLUF: There is little doubt, but that you have summarized the salient points rather succinctly.

(COMMENT)

A weather balloon usually does not remain in one place in the air. And depending on the angular distance, footprint, and profile, the return may be very distinctive. Plus, the undefined suspicious target reflections from multiple RADARs (weather, acquisition, illumination), there would have been a very good picture of the undefined suspicious target. And it would be categorized suspicious because Weather Balloons are NOT radio quiet. The weather balloons usually have a set of outbound signals including the minimum Traffic Collision and Avoidance Systems (TCAS), Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B), and other telemetry to more than one type of ground station. Nearly all Weather Balloons (late 20th Century and 21sst Century) have GPS and identification, if not continuously transmitting, then on a preset periodic setting. The point is you do not have to see a weather balloon to detect the presence as such. And any trained investigator or experienced aviator would know this. And to identify an unknown (unidentifiable) target as a weather balloon is a form of misdirection. (That just makes investigators suspicious.).

So, there must be more critical information about the event under examination that is unavailable.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

OK, but ...

The data appears to suggest that the go fast object was NOT stationary. It just wasn't going anywhere near the speed being claimed.

There is no indication that the jet in the go fast video made any attempt at watching TCAS or ADSB, or that it tried monitoring data channels used by objects such as weather balloons.

The math shows that the object's flight characteristics matched those of a weather balloon. That doesn't mean it WAS a weather balloon.

The major point with that is that the object was NOTHING like the pilots reported. The pilots reported a superfast object near the surface of the water, behaving unlike what is possible from US aircraft. That's why it became a video of interest.

In actuality, it was a relatively slow object at about 13,000 feet (as I remember).

I'm not criticizing the pilots for any of this. I'm highly confident they reported the event as they saw it.

 

Which pilot said that, and please provide the link. I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing, because I do not recall a pilot characterizing it that way.

 

Willreadmore I do not care that the math shows a floating object.

There is considerable testimony outside of what was recorded, including a floating object and hypersonic movement.

If the video doesn't show it, then what the pilots were commenting on wasn't in the video. They describe what they saw.

You seem to be saying they were refuting specifically what was in the video.

That just isn't the case. Or, at the minimum, you need to prove that they were talking about what west was talking about.

I don't think they were.

 

Well, let's zero in on this:

Regardless of which video it is, Underwood said he vectored his jet to reacquire the target, as it rapidly shot off screen, and was unable to do that. He said that he expected that his multimillion dollar jet should have been able to reacquire the target, but he was unable to. Because of that fact, he reasoned that the object was moviong faster than anything he had ever witnessed, in terms of aircraft. He radioed the Princeton to ask if they had it on their radar, and they said saw that it moved 60 miles in a couple of seconds.

Now, we do not know for a fact which video it was, or if it was one of the three.

But, do the math on that one, see what you come up with.