Impulse control is not his strong suit.

No, that should not be the path here, but thunderfoot is not delivering any math. I have rewatched his video completely just now just to be certain I am not telling you bs. I am still not buying what he says. There is no math in it imo, he is just going over different incidents and cherry picks what he think he can debunk. And that makes it is very tyring, he is a bad salesman. He does not even show the tic tac incident on camera, he shows you the other ones, such as the "go fast" . Im not an ufo expert at all. I just keep seeing these crazy reports from cnn etc. And if all they got is thunderfoot as disproof then Im disapointed.

Thunderfoot is a nice name, but nothing wrong if you want to believe aliens are flying all over the place, and are easily being seen, yet remain hidden for psy op reasons. Don't forget as well - Global Warming is fake and where is that Syria place anyway, as found on the UFO articles on Fox news.

Would be amusing to see the alternate timeline if Biden's team actually embraced investigating this UFO stuff, and suggested some resources be used for that. Fox news and such would then talk about how UFOs are a joke and a waste of money so Biden investigating them is his way of distracting people from noticing him pushing through his global warming agenda (since global warming is fake) and where is that Syria place anyway? Also, look at his tax returns!

Yes, I gave up in conspiracies a while ago too. David Icke are Alex Jones drove me nuts a bit, they are not stupid but they are entertainers, showmen. They know how to sell. Similar to trumps, "Im gonna show you guys what happens on area 51" Someone told him exactly what to say and what the people want to hear, so he gets elected.

Id like to trust in math and numbers too, instead of possibly insane ex military personell, but this thunderguy is not delivering. He doesnt read the hud stats from the nimitz incident btw, thats from another incident. He talks about cloud formations, and camera effects. This is however irrelevant when you have pilots chasing something that agedgelly popped up on a radar etc. That he did not debunk, he didnt even try, becuase he cant do it. Instead he focused on cameras from the 1980s. And cut out bell shaped tin foil to cover his lens. Silly just completely silly imo.

I'm not sure if I can be bothered going over those videos for timestamps. He goes through what the screen display says, with references, he goes through the maths of how to calculate the field of view, in one of them he goes through the basic geometry to calculate the size, he goes through showing you how thermal cameras work.

Now, okay, you don't like his video because it's not convincing to you for whatever reasons. I don't care that much. The options are still going to be between some mundane explanation on the lines of that, OR literally defying the laws of physics.

And what we don't have is a whole bunch of scientists throwing physics out the door because of grainy thermal video.

You can pick which side you want to fall on, but I guarantee yours is going to require adopting some really weird, often contradictory, beliefs about the world.

I don't like snipping random parts of a post, but you really want to think this over. You have a choice. None of this hinges on whether you think a youtuber's take was up to scratch. But your choice here is some supposed witness corrobating a grainy video with his insistence, and the other side is maths and physics.

If you'd like to trust maths, do it.

He goes over ONE hud stat, which is speed, from one video, which is not the tic tac. I can even buy that explanation, it seems however like cherry picking one easy contradiction of one video. Why doesnt he show the tic tac video? And why does he show some silly clouds in the sky and make comparisons when they cant be compared to each other? You can trust me on this you dont have to watch it, the guy makes little sense.

I dont want to adpopt any weird belief, but I can see why people get frustrated with those videos. Someone should tell the big kahunas that if they release videos, there should be full disclosure of all data. Put the guys on a lie detector etc, do what it takes to peoples satisfaction, if you chose to release any video.

To be honest, the pilot and the radar guy could be lying of course. Thats why we should demand the navy to fully disclose any documentation of this.

Math and phyiscs would be data , I like to trust in math. Thats what I do, but they dont give us much to work with.

There's a few vids. I know from memory he went through the display showing the angle of the camera and such, so I guess you didn't pay much attention or watch them all. Which is fine, I'm not billing YouTube or this guy as an authority.

You're doing the standard thing of "Okay, okay, maybe not that, but he didn't mention this other thing". Well, I don't know, maybe because that would take approximately forever?

You're also taking a position that unless something is thoroughly conclusively explained that it shouldn't be released. Which is of course essentially a call for more secrecy, more coverups, for which people like you will then go crazy shouting "We know you're hiding something!". The reality is that nobody can conclusively prove what's in your grainy thermal video images. All anyone can do is point out that they don't contain spectacular instances of breaking the laws of physics, or when the camera zoom allows you to calculate that the slightly warm object is bird-sized.

There's kind of a weird dynamic in these discussions where you're sort of entrenching yourself in the position of protecting the conspiracy, but also backing off any specific claims. Rather than demonstrate there IS anything amazing going on, we're going down the lines of "Well that explanation doesn't convince me". I'm not really bothered if a particular explanation satisfies you. The choice is still going to be some mundane natural phenomenon or you mistaking a camera illusion for a literal breaking of the laws of physics.

Finally, lie detectors are also complete woo.

The guy is taking weird lines that dont make too much sense to me. Id like to have this type of player on my tables at all times. He is getting cought up in many things thats all I am saying.

Im not saying they should keep everything secret, in fact I want the opposite which is full tranparancy. There must be data of this on record which they dont show. (such as radar guy saw something at xxy at xxy speed, instead they give out bits and pieces, which only keeps us guessing. This is not the way to do it imo.

Lie detecors are faulty but at least something, Id like to have radar guy and that pilot on a lie detector.

All those videos and no files? I dont even want to pick apart this thinderfoot guy, but they shouldnt keep us in the dark, and pretend everyone is stupid. There are files and investigations which we dont see any of it.

Why do you think I posted those tweets I wonder? Do you think we can disambiguate between saying that UFOs are real in the sense that everyone can believe that, vs what Tucker Carlson is telling his audience?
I'm posting those tweets because they are making my argument that the rhetoric coming from mass media is changing. You're basically just playing semantic games with the point I was making.

You can't have full transparency and also think

It's impossible to satisfy everyone when people would rather believe in a physics defying mystery than a camera shake. It's impossible when the thing we're trying to satisfactorily explain is some grainy thermal image. It's impossible to show that they've released everything, you can always say they're hiding something. And because it's military security, they always will have reasons to hide something You can't have what you want. It's not possible.

You haven't provided any reason in this thread to think these videos show anything interesting beyond an appeal to an ex-pilots word for it. Just saying "Well that explanation doesn't convince me" isn't really anything I care to go into. I think if I tried to debunk every video of something a bit odd that someone could pull up I'd be here till I die of old age.

Lie detectors are way beyond faulty. It's pure woo for coercing confessions and making daytime chat shows. They aren't reliable.

Nothing changed. That Tucker piece is almost a muscle memory thing for him to target his audience. In this case he tacked on UFOs to get to the topics he wants to really talk about (whole first half of his opinion piece had basically nothing to do with UFOs). Tomorrow it may be whatever the topic of the moment is to do the exact same thing, just as other throwaway topics were used by him in the past for the very same purpose.

I personally would not call what he does a psy op - its just mundane target marketing in telling his audience things they want to hear, and tossing in a current clickbait headline to help the process.

Like when Tucker Carlson says "UFOs are real"-- what follows after that is sort of important. If he goes on to explain how everyone might see something out of the corner of their eye and not know what it is sometimes-- ok, then that's a meaningless state.
But if he's talking about things being seen by Navy pilots flying over military installations then it's a different idea that he's putting out.

I'm not playing semantic games by trying to get you state the kind of opinion that could even be analysed, never mind apply hypothetical methodologies to.

Trying to be clear, yet again, you pointing out to news articles isn't meaningful. You putting clips up isn't meaningful. For every instance given you've been given ones from the past.

For every time you say "This hippo is different" you've been pointed to the hippos in history that were the same. Posting another hippo and saying "Look, now there's two of them that are different" isn't actually moving the needle as you put it. We had two hippos ten years ago too. Three hippos even. And before you post a fourth, yes, there were four hippos.

Just take a step back for a second and consider whether, were the topic not UFOs, you'd ever want to point to Tucker Carlson to show the seriousness of the matter.

Tucker is just one person. I get why you guys have so much trouble with things. You aren't able to see any sort of patterns in data and you treat everything as isolated incidents. So of course you'll never think that anything is ever changing.

This shows a serious failure to understand the point that I've tried to make here.

Why? Its a clickbait statement to draw in his viewers. Hardly new in the entertainment industry. His main agenda was why bother with unknown places like Syria and that global warming is fake and that military people spending time worried about diversity is a waste of time. UFOs have nothing to do with that and even he suggests the pilots who are telling UFO tales may be a bit nutty to protect himself for those who actually care about the throwaway UFO stuff toward the end of his piece.

He goes onto talk about global warming being fake, diversity being a dumb goal for the military, where is Syria etc. Maybe be less of a sucker to a showman hitting you with a clickbait statement to lure you in.


He talked about global warming being fake, diversity in the military being a useless goal and where is that Syria place anyway.

Regarding the UFOs he pretty much did cut and paste of stuff and suggested the pilots may or may not be nutty, and he did that after doing his main rant about global warming being fake, diversity etc etc.


All the best.

I'm not trying to show the seriousness of the matter. I'm trying to show what the media is doing.
Tucker Carlson is some marginalized part of the media that reaches few people? Obviously he is not. Of course I would use something Carlson says to make points about media.

The trouble is that people spot "patterns in data" everywhere. Monteroy's been making comparisons to the poker riggies and it's never been more apt. Patterns you've perceived are meaningless to me and they should be to you too. Meaningless, that is, unless you've actually performed more analysis than merely say "But look, here's another time my aces got cracked!".

Quite possibly. But then I think I've made it clear that I have some understanding of the history of the topic at hand, that you don't, and that I've been incredibly patient in trying to help you form the kind of position that even could be analysed.

Lol @ "incredibly patient"
Thanks and I appreciate your patience with me here.
From my (limited) perspective, can you see how this 60 Minutes story and the massive amount of media response that it's getting might make me think that I was onto something regardless of whether or not I used some sort of rigorous methodology to reach my conclusions?

Retired US Navy Chief explains tech witnessed in UFO aircraft sighting: CNN's Chris Cuomo talks to Sean Cahil, retired US Navy Chief Master-at-Arms, and Christopher Mellon, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, about the forthcoming government report on UFO sightings.
CNN segment
Now....Bladesman, is it ok for me to use CNN segments to make my points but not Fox? Do you understand that the actual truth-value of what is being said in these segments is meaningless to me?

The media wouldn't build up to a big disclosure if that's what you're driving at. They'd be tripping over themselves to be the first to cover it.

Like I feel bad for you guys a bit because you're in this impossible position of just having to stick your fingers in your ears given the amount of UFO-hyping that's happening in media right now. You can't acknowledge that I was right as you don't want to admit that maybe I do just posses the ability to observe media propaganda and spot patterns better than you do.
Like it's not really fair for you that 60 Minutes put this story out that's getting massive attention and making my points. You didn't know that was going to happen when this thread started and neither did I. But I was on the right track about it and you weren't and now you have to resort to denials and word games in order to try to save-face some.
You've reached the "not even wrong" territory yourself on this one by continually pointing to my intuitive as opposed to more empirical and objective understanding of this.