Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "UFO video defended by REAL fighter pilot: BUSTED!" video.

  1.  @wessd  Way to miss the point, bud. It seems like he's embellishing his service record. Thunderf00t doesn't try to embellish who he is. He just demonstrates things. You don't have to hear his words as gospel. You can just verify the things yourself.
    10
  2. They're not laying off. They're having trouble recruiting and getting people to reenlist after their contract.
    2
  3. Nobody's career is ended. They report UAPs, there's an investigation, some times they're identified. How can you say it's moving quickly if you can't tell the size or distance?
    2
  4.  @wilfdarr  "who refer to them as lawn darts" - This was early in the F-16's operational life. Now the F-16 is an industry standard and the backbone of many NATO countries' air defenses. And might I add, the A-10 has the highest rate of blue on blue and civilian casualties. So it's not the F-16 pilots that are screwing up.
    2
  5.  @wilfdarr  You're denying reality at this point. The F-16 is so good at air to air it's the aggressor stand in for the MiG-29, it's so good at striking it was the aircraft that delivered payload in Operation Opera, the Israeli deep strike in Iraq. And in Operation Orchard it was the escort aircraft protecting the F-15s carrying the payload. The US Navy, which does not use the F-16 operationally, has F-16s for training purposes at the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center. You're copy pasting some article sugarcoating the facts. Oh 99 percent don't involve harm to friendlies or civilians. Yes, that's how it's supposed to be. Like Chris Rock said many years ago, you don't brag about not being in jail. The A-10 tops the charts for friendly fire, higher than the B-1B and the worst B-1B incident was caused by the FAC providing the wrong coordinates. It's also the aircraft involved with the most civilian deaths since 2010, with 35 killed. Don't sugarcoat. It performs worse. Don't copy paste puff pieces saying that they're trying really hard to avoid civilian and friendly casualties. Of course they do. It's their job. The A-10 is down in the dirt because it was built in a different age where AA defenses were pathetic. It was built for a world that didn't exist by the time it entered service. You put the bar on the ground and praise the A-10 for clearing it, then you make excuses for its lackluster performance. And you think you can stain the F-16s record with your BS comments.
    2
  6.  @maxxflame  "they're trained to identify anything that could potentially be flying in their AO so even water foul" - If there's appropriate sense of scale, sure. But if you have waterfowl on FLIR at a distance, and absolutely no sense of scale, it's just a blob.
    2
  7.  @maxxflame  "cant the pilot use it to lock and track a target?" - That's done by either by creating a waypoint and directing the gimbaled optics to stay on that position, or by using image contrast to keep the image centered. Like you can take a video file of you waving a hand, opening Adobe After Effects, and tell it to track the hand to put a CGI flame. That is a passive form of locking that uses the image itself. The only active "locking" is the firing of a laser designator for weapons to follow. Like guided bombs or missiles.
    2
  8. They only need to be trained in making things go boom and land back home with a functioning aircraft. They'll be fine.
    1
  9.  @Idelacio  Yeah but tank silhouettes are easy to see on the screen. No need to understand the optics. Anything more complicated than that and it's the guys on the ground who feed the targets to the pilot.
    1
  10. They're not credible as we can see from how easily they get debunked, the videos are crap, there's no radar data anywhere. Just stop. You lost. Get better material.
    1
  11. The ocean is reflecting solar light?
    1
  12.  @shootingbricks8554  Not always. Sometimes they are given kill boxes where they're cleared to fire at targets of opportunity. Mistakes have happened with either friendlies entering kill boxes by mistake or forward air controllers giving an all clear with wrong reference points. In 1991 one F-16 acting as FAC gave A-10s an all clear to attack as there were no friendlies within 6 miles of a burning tank, but the A-10s were probably looking at other burning tank and hit British friendlies. Also in 1991 the forward observers called in for an attack on an Iraqi vehicle, the A-10 strafed their observation post instead of the vehicle.
    1
  13.  @biggieb8900  Yes but it's only the core concepts and the basic math. Anyone who takes a photography course will understand optics by intuition even though they might not understand the math.
    1
  14. You're confused about the meaning of focus.
    1
  15.  @wessd  The problem here is that optical focus means nothing when the sensor has a very low resolution. It's gonna be blurry any way. For practical purposes, both the bird and water can be resolved acceptably in equal fashion.
    1
  16.  @cropathfinder  "Most people". Personally I can tell the difference up to 120-140 fps. In your studies I'd get dragged down by the low end of the bell curve so the average would end up as 90 even though the sample includes people who can notice more. Meanwhile studies done on air force pilots show they could see flickers of enemy aircraft in the middle of blank footage at 240 fps.
    1
  17. Navy and Air Force. The Army is not involved in this.
    1
  18. They don't need to know. The sillouette of a T-72 shows up really well on FLIR, it's really hard to mess up.
    1
  19.  @ad2181  I don't think any country's education system teaches photography unless they specifically pick photography as an elective class. Everyone takes optical focus for granted, even if technically they learned optics in 7th grade physics.
    1
  20.  @wilfdarr  Fully loaded F-16s have a better kill ratio than fully loaded MiG-29s.
    1
  21. It's mid-infrared. It uses more sensitive, cryogenically cooled sensors for the extra range.
    1
  22.  @YouGenom  Yeah the long infrared is the stuff you can get, it's common enough people get monoculars or even weapon sights to dispatch invasive species at night. Medium infrared is considered dual-use technology, so imports and sales are stricter because it could be used for military purposes.
    1
  23. Underrated comment.
    1
  24. Incredulity fallacy, argument from authority, and the burden of proof is on the UFO crowd. Try again.
    1
  25. DCS gang.
    1
  26. But it was Elizondo who sent it to the New York Times. The military didn't make it public.
    1
  27. That would be the A-10. Highest friendly fire rates in service.
    1