Debunking UFO Footage

[Nefaro]

This needed to be done back when the news media was making a fuss over it a short time back.   A little knowledge, and some skepticism, goes a long way  ;)

Bonus points for congressional kickbacks related to the subject.   <:-)

[Gusington]

^That was frickin' awesome. I've subscribed :)

[JasonPratt]

His girlfriend, btw, is  the red-pill commentator "Sh0eonhead". I watch their movie reviews sometimes.

I don't think he understands the point to a "threat assessment" study, however. The salient points.

1.) Things are happening.

2.) When we check to see if we're causing the things, then regardless of how far up the chain of top-secret "we" are, we apparently find out our nation isn't causing them.

So: what are these things (on a case by case basis)? How are they being caused? Are they a threat of some kind? Somewhat by definition, if evidence suggests they are craft in our airspace without our permission, they're a threat of some kind; but unregistered and unexplained air phenomena are still inherently, if passively, a potential threat. If there's something invisible to cameras and radar (something not a passenger jet therefore) throwing out a heat bloom as it moves through the sky, that could be pretty hazardous for someone to unwittingly fly through.

Now, how someone exploits a threat assessment study is something else worth studying (thus a legitimate topic for part 2). But Greg doesn't seem to understand HOW INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS FLIGHT IS! -- and thus why unaccounted phenomena would be treated as a hazard, at least until we identify it.

That said, I appreciate his open mind on the topic as well as his scepticism of political maneuvering behind release and promotion of this material through (apparently) official channels recently.  O0

[bbmike]

This needed to be done back when the news media was making a fuss over it a short time back.   A little knowledge, and some skepticism, goes a long way  ;)

Bonus points for congressional kickbacks related to the subject.   <:-)

Meh. These skeptical videos are just as entertaining and "informative" as the paranormal ones. He could have saved a bunch of time and just showed us the Neil response.

[Gusington]

I want the Armored Skeptic to cover ghosts.

[bbmike]

^And political moderates!  :bd:

[Nefaro]

Meh. These skeptical videos are just as entertaining and "informative" as the paranormal ones. He could have saved a bunch of time and just showed us the Neil response.

Naaa.

I think the widespread ignorance regarding the IRST targeting pod, which recorded the footage, needed to be addressed.  It was the cause for much of the unfounded suppositions.

There's even more that could be pointed out about it, but his explanation was sufficient and needed to be said.

His girlfriend, btw, is  the red-pill commentator "Sh0eonhead". I watch their movie reviews sometimes.

Shoe has does some pretty funny stuff, blasting some of the rabid feminist articles and vids.   

[bbmike]

Meh. These skeptical videos are just as entertaining and "informative" as the paranormal ones. He could have saved a bunch of time and just showed us the Neil response.

Naaa.

I think the widespread ignorance regarding the IRST targeting pod, which recorded the footage, needed to be addressed.  It was the cause for much of the unfounded suppositions.

There's even more that could be pointed out about it, but his explanation was sufficient and needed to be said.

[Centurion40]

Good video review of the original news story.

Now here's the Elizondo dude talking:

[Nefaro]

Meh. These skeptical videos are just as entertaining and "informative" as the paranormal ones. He could have saved a bunch of time and just showed us the Neil response.

Naaa.

I think the widespread ignorance regarding the IRST targeting pod, which recorded the footage, needed to be addressed.  It was the cause for much of the unfounded suppositions.

There's even more that could be pointed out about it, but his explanation was sufficient and needed to be said.

Shh!  Don't blow my cover!

[bbmike]

lol