Comments by "Neil of Longbeck" (@neiloflongbeck5705) on "Found And Explained" channel.

  1. Birds. That's all these UAPs were. And not as far off as thought by the radar operators. If you go and watch the original,footage that has been released you can clearly see that the objects are small bird sized objects. The footage also shows that the magnificationn and field of view changes. The second incident's film show that the aircraft was in a turning flight whilst filming a bird move diagonally across the aircrafts direction of flight
    7
  2. Forward swept wings have a lot more limitations than a similar sized aft-swept wing.
    7
  3. Funny you should say that, but it was based on a Messerschmitt design.
    5
  4.  @arctic_haze  all we know about them is that analysis shows the item producing those shook waves was said to be travelling at between Mach 4 and Mach 5.2 at 90,000ft but not what caused them. Hardly convincing evidence for Aurora. The other alleged clue is the doughnut on a string contrail, but I've seen them produced by a 737 over London and so that's evidence of something but not Aurora.
    4
  5.  @supraguy4694  the first incident took place off an island with lots of sea birds and in an areas where whales are know to feed. The 2nd incident is also a high flying goose or duck.
    3
  6. Seen them over London being produced by a 737.
    3
  7.  @SkyLightsUFOs  the one titled ORB Lights are aircraft with FAA required strobe lights on. The rest will be aircaft, weather balloons or flying animals.
    2
  8. channel  also it was filmed in the IR part of the spectrum so all you see are the hotter parts. The wings, with little muscle, will be colder than the flight muscles with are going the majority of the work. Not an alien encounter just birds.
    2
  9.  @SkyLightsUFOs  it so clear that you should get your eyes tested before even riding a bike let alone flying a plane. The stones are so clear that it's laughable that someone who is a pilot couldn't see them.
    2
  10. They reinvented the Cierva W.11 Air Horse which first flew on 7th December 1948.
    2
  11. It's amazing just how incompetent governments can keep aircraft like this secret....
    2
  12.  @FirstDagger  applying Ockham's Razor, the Aurora codename for the finances of the B-2 is a better fit than an aircraft that no one has seen if photographed in the 40 or so years it has been in existence.
    2
  13.  @peterparker9286  and yet no one has any pictures of it in the 30 odd years it's been in existence.
    2
  14. Cierva Air Horse copy.
    2
  15. The Soviets and the Poles were both flying forward swept wing aircraft in the 1930s. The Soviets had the BP-2 flying in 1934 and the BP-3 flying in 1934. I'm not sure when the PWs Z-1u, Z-8 and Z-47 first flew.
    1
  16. All heavier than air aircraft use anti-gravity technology. They're called wings.
    1
  17. No, Airbus started on what would become the A380 in the late 1980s. As a student at Glasgow in 1995 I had the double-deck Airbus A3XX brochure as my dissertation was on aspects of double-deck airliners.
    1
  18. Except that turbojet and turboprops are considered different types of engines, in the saw way as rotary and radial engines are similar but different.
    1
  19. Its little better than a jet powered Bristol Freighter.
    1
  20.  @SkyLightsUFOs  no my mind was made up after seeing your evidence. Took only a few seconds to realise just how poor the evidence is and just how easy it is to come up with a more realistic explanation in line with the precepts of Occam's Razor.
    1
  21. Yes, but mainly in the early days of naval aviation. There was the Harrier Skyhook project which use gyro-stabilised cranes to pick Harriers out of the sky or to launch them. I'm not sure if it got any further than the drawing board.
    1
  22. RCS = Radar Cross Section.
    1
  23. The Nutcracker is all well and good until you get combat damage. That tail unit is in the jet blast with all the flutter and vibration issues.
    1
  24. No, Aurora was a name used on the B-2 programme, something to do with finance.
    1
  25.  @FirstDagger  the dimplest explanation is normally the truth. Aurora isn't real.
    1
  26.  @arctic_haze  considering Aurora was flying in the late 1980s the only evidence for it is the sonic booms you brought up and the strange contrails. I agree the sonic booms could have been caused by anything including Aurora. Byf why post this evidence in a thread about the fictitious Aurora?
    1
  27.  @arctic_haze  never did, but as there is no link between the booms and any aircraft there's no point in you bringing it up.
    1
  28.  @arctic_haze  yes Imam biased. Biased to only accepting evidence that confirms a position positively. The sonic boom record doesn't positive confirm anything other than something was going very fast at attitude.
    1
  29.  @peterparker9286  just read your incoherent posting. There never was a US government aircraft called the Aurora.
    1
  30.  @arctic_haze  you're posting stuff that has been used to support the conspiracy nutjobs in a thread about their fantasy. Nuff said.
    1
  31.  @arctic_haze  funny that 10 hours ago I stated that I don't accept that those seismic traces were made by the Aurora as there is no evidence that showing that there was ever a hypersonic aircraft called the Aurora.
    1
  32.  @arctic_haze  for a scientist you are a fucking joke. I can understand written text perfectly well. There are other options, other than the fictional Aurora, such as another air vehicle.
    1
  33.  @peterparker9286  the Argus As109 was the first practical pulse jet and most of the major engine companies are working on them for various uses including VTOL. Anti-gravity technology including the Alcubierre drive, is still only hypothetical, after all how do you bend space-time in such a way as to reverse it's normal curve. Space-time is simultaneously bent in all directions equally for an object sufficiently massive to have a noticeable gravitiational effect. It is the time part of space-time that causes gravity and so far no one has found a way to reverse the flow of time. And no I'm not a shill, but you don't have to belive me. Go ahead and use that freewill of yours to belive whatever crap you want. And I do accept that codenames for things change. It's basic security that anyone who reads James Bond books would pick up. but it still doesn't mean that the word Aurora was used for 2 different aircraft programs. That's just bad security. You never reuse code words.
    1
  34.  @peterparker9286  another hypothetical from a patent. Are you aware the British Rail filed a patent (now lapsed) for a flying saucer? No flying g saucer was ever made.
    1
  35.  @trapperjohn6089  and yet there is not one photograph of it anywhere. the engines have been in development since the 1980 but Ive not heard of one running for more than 5 minutes
    1
  36.  @trapperjohn6089  when the B-2 was unveiled no one was to see it's trailing edge, so they did it at between over passes of Soviet spy satellites and banned over flights, and then pullit out of the hanger in bright sunshine, revealing the secret of its trailing edge. Considering the Aurora has supposed to have been flying since the late 1980s and just how incompetent governments are, how come no photographs have leaked out?
    1
  37.  @trapperjohn6089  whilst possible, there is no evidence to support this claim.
    1
  38.  @trapperjohn6089  so you bury a fake program within a real program within a fake program. Makes sense, not.
    1
  39.  @peterparker9286  Georgia who? Don't know any Georgias. Ah, the work of Rudolf Schriever for which there are no records only what he said in interviews 20 years after the end of the war. Millenium Dalcon is another work of fiction - a craft was said to have done the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs [sic]. Even when I saw Star Wars in 1977 Inhad to laugh as even then aged under 10 I knew a parsec was a unit of length not time.
    1
  40.  @Biketunerfy  I never said anything about it being impossible, just that we can't do it. Perhaps I should have been clearer and said we can't do it at the present. The warping of space-time has been theorised shortly after Einstein published his theories. As for the Nimitz encounter it had been thoroughly debunked along with the later black blob encounter.
    1
  41.  @Biketunerfy  baa. You trust a government department that said the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction and then failed to find one trace of them. You poor deluded fool. The 2014 footage clearly shows a large waterfowl in flight as does the 2004 footage. Your pareidolia is strong if you see anything else. The UAP came up with 3 possible solutions - advance Russian or Chinese aircraft, our own advanced aircraft or aliens and missed all other possibilities.
    1
  42.  @Biketunerfy  have you actually watched the footage? Or even say in a moving vehicle and noticed the trees flying past whilst you remain stationery in that vehicle?
    1
  43.  @bleachorange  that is a reasonable assumption but is still only an assumption.
    1
  44.  @bleachorange  lots of assumptions there, with nothing substantive to hold up this house of cards. The only substantive evidence for Aurora ever being used by the USAF as a codename was in a report in the finances if the B-2 program. This has then been woven into it must have been another aircraft program hidden within the B-2 program without a shred of evidence to support that claim.
    1
  45.  @Biketunerfy  motor just another conspiracy nutjob. It was a duck in the second footage heading in the opposite direction to the F-18 and at a much lower altitude.
    1
  46.  @Biketunerfy  so you do your own thinking and came up with a non-terrestrial solution. A solution that has no grounds to support it and you call me the sheep.
    1
  47.  @Biketunerfy  it's a duck. It will always be a duck. There's nothing alien or high tech. It is a duck flying in the opposite direction to the aircraft in the 2014 footage. It is as clear as the summer sun that the camera system tracking in slewed round to track it. The aircraft was also shown to be in a well banked turn. As for the 2004 footage, we have IR blooming on footage shot from almost astern of the duck (you can see the offset angle being recorded as is the magnification setting. It's clear than when they changed the magnification the duck left the field of view momentarily before lock on was re-established. Until the duck was too close andthe aircraft lost lock on. The evidence is clear and I didn't need Thunderf00t or any other debunked to lead me to this conclusion. I watch the footage on a different platform BEFORE seeing g any of the debunking videos on YT.
    1
  48.  @Biketunerfy  these 2 examples were using IR tracking and switched from black for hot to white for hot and back again. No RADAR data used. Shows just how much you've been lead by the nose by the conspiracy nutjob. Whose looking sheepish now? As for not being able to see the wings, well wings contain very little in the way of muscle and as IR systems detect sources of heat they tend to see the hotter areas, such as the large flight muscles which during flight are working their hardest and as such will give the largest IR footprint for the bird. Frankly, I wouldn't trust s scientists that can't even understand the basics, sheep-boy. PS would those be the same scientists and engineers who couldn't work out how the humble bumble bee flew?
    1
  49.  @Biketunerfy  that is a recording of what the camera in the ATFLIR pod was looking at not the HUD display. No G reading, no heading information, no rate of climb information as would be expected on a HUD recording. But in did have the word ZOOM on the left hand side of the Nimitz 2004 footage. The 2014 footage clearly shows the sea behind the duck the whole time and the aircraft never gets closer to the waves as they all stay about the same size (if we were looking through the HUD, fire fly ahead of the aircraft the sea would get closer very rapidly and it doesn't). What we do see is targeting critical information such as altitude, bearing of the target relative to the aircraft, aircraft speed (not target speed, it can be done with IR systems, but radar does it so much faster) as well as how the aircraft is banking. So, you did you research? How come you missed the obvious?
    1
  50.  @Biketunerfy  dear gullible, I've read what passes as research on that clearly biased website. It's a pity that your mind is so closed to the truth. There were no alien craft. All we had was a duck being filmed either in the IR portion of the EM spectrum or the visible light spectrum using a low-light TV system (it even saws which system was being used at top of the screen). What you laughingly called the HUD is nothing more than a recording of the WSO's screen in the rear cockpit. In 2 of the 3 clips the aircraft is clearly in a turn of approximately 30 degrees angle of bank. Yes, there is a speed figure in the lower left, but that is the plane's speed not the target's (below it is the speed in Mach numbers - IIRC it's 0.55 Mach in the first, 0.58 Mach in the 2nd and 0.61 Mach in the last). Whilst you can use passive systems to detect range quiet easily, it's another matter to calculate speed using one (the average speed measurement systems use 2 passive devices known distance apart, but in these clips we have 1 camera fo.lowing the duck and that means you can't calculate the duck's speed unless you do speed matching for which there is no evidence).On the right we can see the altitude, which is around the 20,000 foot mark. In all 3 cases we see at the top or off to the top left of the screen the slew angle for the camera (ie the horizontal angle from the line of flight for the camera - in the 3rd clip the slew angle the anglewas about 41 degrees to the left). I'd go on but I'm bored with trying g to get the facts into your closed mind. The report you so gullibiy accept as true was written by someone who has already made up their mind that what is one the footage is alien technology. The footage does not match with the conclusion reached by the authors.
    1