Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Neil deGrasse Tyson's Skepticism Over UFO's" video.

@VoidSurfer9 "That our military has observed vehicles performing maneuvers at speeds unknown to man" - This never happened. They had radar contacts that reported these speeds. This type of behavior was not observed through the pod footage. Meanwhile you could read up on the declassified reports of SOLVED ufo/uap contacts. Mostly quadcopter drones operating without permission and balloons.
2
@jmccann6735 "captured on their weapons cameras" - the footage from those cameras doesn't show what was claimed
1
@Bodhi594 "the Navy pilot saw this with his own Navy Pilot Eyes and Niel is saying he didn't see it" - Regarding the 80,000 feet thing
1
@Zozo806 What Tyson was talking about was the drop from 80,000 feet to 50 feet. Not looking at an object 20,000 feet away.
1
@Gwenhwyfar7 "they have better technology than regular people or any other government" - Not true considering how many countries buy American equipment.
1
@patrickoneill1341 But the thermal footage doesn't corroborate the supersonic/diving into water story.
1
And yet they keep getting caught even though they could just reveal themselves to us and cut to the chase and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
1
That works on radar cameras depending where you live. I know people who sent letters disputing the calibration of the radar and the fine was thrown out.
1
@pccalcio "without heat plums" - You can see the heat plume on video. "rotating on themselves" - That's the gimbaled optics rotating to maintain track. "goin through multiple mediums, air and water, seamlessly without displacing water" - This is not on video.
1
@pccalcio I have. Both Thunderf00t and Mick West have debunked the claims.
1
@pccalcio Mick West has shown how the plume ends up looking like a glare at distance. Mind that years ago his site Metabunk was able to identify the Chilean UFO as a commercial flight that was 60 miles away.
1
@skepsisrollins1711 We can't crack open the brains of the eyewitnesses to get their footage from the Eyeball Mark 1 Mod 0. The best we have is the footage captured by the pods. It is explained by basic geometry. If you had an argument, you'd make the calculations and explain why. You can't debunk the debunking so you resort to attacking people's credibility. Again, if these people had no credibility, you'd be able to disprove them in minutes. Nobody ever does this. Meanwhile, eyewitness testimony is known to be unreliable. I'll trust the recorded footage over people, sorry.
1
@pccalcio No, I trust geometry and elementary school maths. Again, notice how you went straight for the Strawman Argument. You're just admitting you have no other argument. Or you simply never made it through elementary school. Pick your poison. Fighter pilot commander David Fravor already exposed himself for having a huge ego and thinking he's infallible. I trust the calculations over a person who gets angry when questioned and also can't understand the elementary school geometry.
1
@pccalcio There's no champion here, only maths. Debunk the calculations. "as if he could give a more trustworty testimony" - There's no testimony, only calculations. Debunk them if you can. "rather than a first-hand encounter of a fighter pilot commander" - Who when questioned about West's analysis, he started huffing and puffing instead of debunking the calculations. He was a fighter pilot, he should understand elementary school maths. "and of the entire radar and sensors crew" - Do we have that radar data publicly released? "Then you resort to high school bullying." - You're the one bullying everyone who doubts the story. You have no standing here. Still waiting on those calculations.
1
@pccalcio "an entire squadron" - Of which only two have come forward in interviews to give their testimony, correct me if I'm wrong. "and then reviewed video footage and radar footage" - By the way the radar data was obtained right after a radar upgrade. The 0.78 second drop from 80,000 feet to 50 feet would also create a massive sonic boom and thermal signature (space shuttles entered the atmosphere at mach 26 and they burned through heat shield tiles in the process) that was not detected by any other sensors. Radar glitches would explain it. Additionally the phenomenon entering water at high speed would have created massive cavitation that would be detected by a submarine that was nearby. "here you talk about a dude who's a debunker for a living, that based his debunk on the interpretation of a video" - Because it's what we have available. If you had no video, you'd dismiss eyewitnesses as unreliable. You've seen footage, now they might have a point. What happens when the footage is explainable? Back to square one. "without training" - Yes, the massive amounts of training it takes to draw a few triangles to prove a point about perspective.
1
@pccalcio "tens of testimonies have been registered." - Only four people were involved in Fravor's flight. I need those other two's description of the events. "after resetting the radar" - Resetting doesn't make errors go away by magic. "A possible radar malfunctions has been therefore ticked off." - No. There's multiple errors that do not go away with a reset. "you have military officials talking on TV to urge a more in depth investigation, you just don't want to look at it as information" - Again, the Chilean military was unable to identify a UFO that Mick West and the people at Metabunk were able to identify as an airliner 60 miles away. Military officers don't know what they don't know. "do you really want to compare the training of a debunker" - No, I'm mocking the fact that an elementary school kid can understand the principles involved. I'm not comparing, I'm mocking. Because frankly it's embarrassing. "with the training a fighter pilot has to go through" - They're not trained to know what they don't know. Again, UFO footage has been solved by nerds on the internet that the military couldn't solve. Being trained to fly against other aircraft doesn't make someone an expert at identifying things they've never seen. "so in a trial, a direct testimony has no value, right" - You do realize that the more we understand about the topic the less eyewitness testimony is considered credible, right? You've seen the test where witnesses asked about the velocity of a car that rammed another at 30 mph said they witnessed a 60 mph car crash simply by changing the phrasing of the question, right? Simple words can make people misremember their memories. "I'm having fun XD" - No I'm having fun because it's amazing how you still haven't debunked elementary school math, a former fighter pilot embarrassed himself because he can't debunk elementary school math so his only response is getting angry on Lex Friendman's podcast, you think that pilots are superhumans and they're trained to identify every single object or phenomena and that eyewitness testimony hasn't been scientifically tested to have massive problems with how reliable it is. The more this goes on the more it shows you're afraid of checking the calculations. Mick West's math is available for anyone to debunk and you're all unable to fight him with actual evidence so you have to engage with strawmen, Ad Hominem and Appeal to Authority fallacies. I'm the one having fun because it shows how many people are afraid of numbers.
1
He's always been like this. He's right in this case, as much as it pains me to say it.
1