Congressional UFO Report

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Congressional UFO Report

Page 1 of 2

Congressional UFO Report02-06-2021 22:37
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	I have been anticipating the release of this report from Congress. Does anybody know if the official report has been released yet? https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5288989001 Edited on 02-06-2021 22:58
02-06-2021 23:55
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Spongy Iris wrote: I have been anticipating the release of this report from Congress. Does anybody know if the official report has been released yet? https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5288989001 I haven't been following it at all, so idk if it's been released yet or not... On the UFO subject matter itself, if you would've asked me about it a couple of years ago, I would've called any believer in it a conspiracy nutter (as liberals now call pretty much anyone who disagrees with pretty much anything that's been programmed into their minds). Nowadays? I'm not at all opposed to the idea of UFOs being real.
03-06-2021 00:17
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	gfm7175 wrote: Nowadays? I'm not at all opposed to the idea of UFOs being real. This is good. UFOs are real. We grow them right here on planet earth. Any time an object in the atmosphere is unidentified, it gets the "UFO" label. Often we later identify it but until then it obviously remains unidentified. It's all very straightforward. I think you can imagine just how uninteresting you would find a list of unidentified objects.
03-06-2021 01:23
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Nowadays? I'm not at all opposed to the idea of UFOs being real. This is good. UFOs are real. We grow them right here on planet earth. Any time an object in the atmosphere is unidentified, it gets the "UFO" label. Often we later identify it but until then it obviously remains unidentified. It's all very straightforward. I think you can imagine just how uninteresting you would find a list of unidentified objects. Hey dude, check it out. This looks like a gigantic blimp doing spirals, maybe 6 miles up. I bet it's real huge, maybe bigger than the Titanic. https://youtu.be/d3w2HA9FxFo Solid UFO footage, no? I wonder if it will make it onto the Congressional report...
03-06-2021 01:36
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Spongy Iris wrote:Hey dude, check it out. It's a drone. Spongy Iris wrote:This looks like a gigantic blimp doing spirals, maybe 6 miles up. I bet it's real huge, maybe bigger than the Titanic. It fits on the lap of the guy who drove it to the site where he flew it. Spongy Iris wrote:Solid UFO footage, no? It absolutely was until I identified it for you. Spongy Iris wrote:I wonder if it will make it onto the Congressional report... I wouldn't count on the government not having identified it.

03-06-2021 01:50
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: [ Spongy Iris wrote:Hey dude, check it out. It's a drone. Spongy Iris wrote:This looks like a gigantic blimp doing spirals, maybe 6 miles up. I bet it's real huge, maybe bigger than the Titanic. It fits on the lap of the guy who drove it to the site where he flew it. Spongy Iris wrote:Solid UFO footage, no? It absolutely was until I identified it for you. Spongy Iris wrote:I wonder if it will make it onto the Congressional report... I wouldn't count on the government not having identified it. How can you tell it is a drone? What kind of drone is it? Edited on 03-06-2021 01:54
03-06-2021 02:12
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Spongy Iris wrote:How can you tell it is a drone? What kind of drone is it? How can you tell similar siblings apart? What kind of people are they? It's a white drone. It probably belongs to the person who made the video. Track down the maker of the video and he'll probably be more than happy to tell you the make and model of the drone.
03-06-2021 02:23
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:How can you tell it is a drone? What kind of drone is it? How can you tell similar siblings apart? What kind of people are they? It's a white drone. It probably belongs to the person who made the video. Track down the maker of the video and he'll probably be more than happy to tell you the make and model of the drone. I made the video. I don't know who was piloting the object. After I put down the camera it flew south until it became too small to see in the horizon. It did not land while I could still see it. It did appear to do a spiral maneuver consistently for more than 4 minutes straight. With a manned paramotor, doing a spiral maneuver would usually be to descend in altitude. I haven't found any other footage of a paramotor (drone or manned) that has been filmed from the ground, where you can capture a spiraling paramotor from a mostly steady camera position for more than 4 minutes. The camera would need to chase it. Most footage of spiraling paramotors captured from the ground doesn't last more than a few seconds. Edited on 03-06-2021 02:33
03-06-2021 02:58
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:How can you tell it is a drone? What kind of drone is it? How can you tell similar siblings apart? What kind of people are they? It's a white drone. It probably belongs to the person who made the video. Track down the maker of the video and he'll probably be more than happy to tell you the make and model of the drone. I made the video. I don't know who was piloting the object. After I put down the camera it flew south until it became too small to see in the horizon. It did not land while I could still see it. It did appear to do a spiral maneuver consistently for more than 4 minutes straight. With a manned paramotor, doing a spiral maneuver would usually be to descend in altitude. I haven't found any other footage of a paramotor (drone or manned) that has been filmed from the ground, where you can capture a spiraling paramotor from a mostly steady camera position for more than 4 minutes. The camera would need to chase it. Most footage of spiraling paramotors captured from the ground doesn't last more than a few seconds. My drones have a 400 ft altitude limit (FAA), but it can be changed. I don't remember the technical term, vortex something... But, it's a rough, scary, wobbly drop straight down. I do more of a zigzag descent. You can descend slowly, but hard to gauge when really high up, takes forever. I only get about 20 minutes flight on a battery, get a little concerned.
03-06-2021 16:53
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:How can you tell it is a drone? What kind of drone is it? How can you tell similar siblings apart? What kind of people are they? It's a white drone. It probably belongs to the person who made the video. Track down the maker of the video and he'll probably be more than happy to tell you the make and model of the drone. I made the video. I don't know who was piloting the object. After I put down the camera it flew south until it became too small to see in the horizon. It doesn't take much distance for a drone to become too small to see... Spongy Iris wrote: It did not land while I could still see it. It likely landed after it got outside your line of sight. Spongy Iris wrote: It did appear to do a spiral maneuver consistently for more than 4 minutes straight. Drones can do that. Spongy Iris wrote: With a manned paramotor, doing a spiral maneuver would usually be to descend in altitude. I haven't found any other footage of a paramotor (drone or manned) that has been filmed from the ground, where you can capture a spiraling paramotor from a mostly steady camera position for more than 4 minutes. The camera would need to chase it. Most footage of spiraling paramotors captured from the ground doesn't last more than a few seconds. Drones can do that maneuver for more than 4 minutes straight. It's perfectly reasonable to me to come to the conclusion that what you saw was a drone.
03-06-2021 16:59
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	HarveyH55 wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:How can you tell it is a drone? What kind of drone is it? How can you tell similar siblings apart? What kind of people are they? It's a white drone. It probably belongs to the person who made the video. Track down the maker of the video and he'll probably be more than happy to tell you the make and model of the drone. I made the video. I don't know who was piloting the object. After I put down the camera it flew south until it became too small to see in the horizon. It did not land while I could still see it. It did appear to do a spiral maneuver consistently for more than 4 minutes straight. With a manned paramotor, doing a spiral maneuver would usually be to descend in altitude. I haven't found any other footage of a paramotor (drone or manned) that has been filmed from the ground, where you can capture a spiraling paramotor from a mostly steady camera position for more than 4 minutes. The camera would need to chase it. Most footage of spiraling paramotors captured from the ground doesn't last more than a few seconds. My drones have a 400 ft altitude limit (FAA), but it can be changed. I don't remember the technical term, vortex something... But, it's a rough, scary, wobbly drop straight down. I do more of a zigzag descent. You can descend slowly, but hard to gauge when really high up, takes forever. I only get about 20 minutes flight on a battery, get a little concerned. My cousin's drone has the same altitude limit and a similar battery lifespan.
03-06-2021 22:28
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	[quote]gfm7175 wrote: [quote]Spongy Iris wrote: [quote]IBdaMann wrote: [quote] It doesn't take much distance for a drone to become too small to see... Heres a picture to the best of my recollection to give more perspective of the distance traversed. The green arrow points close to where I was standing when I filmed this; the blue arrow points to the street lamp seen at the start of the video; the red arrow points close to where I was when the object disappeared from view into the horizon; and the yellow arrow points about to the point where the object became too small to see, and disappeared into the horizon of the blue sky. The walking distance by trail from the green arrow to the red arrow is close to half a mile. Do you really think some toy remote control paramotor traversed such a distance? It likely landed after it got outside your line of sight. Sure. But how many miles away might that have been? Drones can do that. Please have a look at the below footage of a toy remote control paramotor. https://youtu.be/7LUs5LidgSw While it may be possible for a highly skilled remote controller to pilot this toy so that it does spirals, I maintain it would not be possible for a camera person standing on the ground to track such a spiraling object, for more than 4 minutes straight, while holding the camera in a mostly immobile position. The camera person would need to chase it. Drones can do that maneuver for more than 4 minutes straight. Another point is this kind of toy remote control paramotor would very likely start descending in altitude if it was spiraling in such a manner seen in my video. The object in my video did not descend. It's perfectly reasonable to me to come to the conclusion that what you saw was a drone. It's perfectly reasonable to me to come to the conclusion that what I saw was not some toy remote control paramotor which anybody could have easily found footage of on Youtube before I posted my video. Edited on 03-06-2021 22:33
03-06-2021 23:18
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Spongy Iris wrote: gfm7175 wrote: It doesn't take much distance for a drone to become too small to see... Heres a picture to the best of my recollection to give more perspective of the distance traversed. The green arrow points close to where I was standing when I filmed this; the blue arrow points to the street lamp seen at the start of the video; the red arrow points close to where I was when the object disappeared from view into the horizon; and the yellow arrow points about to the point where the object became too small to see, and disappeared into the horizon of the blue sky. The walking distance by trail from the green arrow to the red arrow is close to half a mile. Do you really think some toy remote control paramotor traversed such a distance? Yes. Spongy Iris wrote: gfm7175 wrote: It likely landed after it got outside your line of sight. Sure. But how many miles away might that have been? It doesn't take miles to lose sight of a drone. Spongy Iris wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Drones can do that. Please have a look at the below footage of a toy remote control paramotor. https://youtu.be/7LUs5LidgSw While it may be possible for a highly skilled remote controller to pilot this toy so that it does spirals, I maintain it would not be possible for a camera person standing on the ground to track such a spiraling object, for more than 4 minutes straight, while holding the camera in a mostly immobile position. The camera person would need to chase it. It doesn't require much of any skill at all; just some knowledge with telling the drone precisely what to do. Spongy Iris wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Drones can do that maneuver for more than 4 minutes straight. Another point is this kind of toy remote control paramotor would very likely start descending in altitude if it was spiraling in such a manner seen in my video. The object in my video did not descend. It wouldn't descend to any noticeable degree if properly told what to do. Spongy Iris wrote: gfm7175 wrote: It's perfectly reasonable to me to come to the conclusion that what you saw was a drone. It's perfectly reasonable to me to come to the conclusion that what I saw was not some toy remote control paramotor which anybody could have easily found footage of on Youtube before I posted my video. Drones can do more than you seem to think that they can do. Edited on 03-06-2021 23:24
03-06-2021 23:33
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	gfm7175 wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: gfm7175 wrote: It doesn't take much distance for a drone to become too small to see... Heres a picture to the best of my recollection to give more perspective of the distance traversed. The green arrow points close to where I was standing when I filmed this; the blue arrow points to the street lamp seen at the start of the video; the red arrow points close to where I was when the object disappeared from view into the horizon; and the yellow arrow points about to the point where the object became too small to see, and disappeared into the horizon of the blue sky. The walking distance by trail from the green arrow to the red arrow is close to half a mile. Do you really think some toy remote control paramotor traversed such a distance? Yes. Spongy Iris wrote: gfm7175 wrote: It likely landed after it got outside your line of sight. Sure. But how many miles away might that have been? It doesn't take miles to lose sight of a drone. Spongy Iris wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Drones can do that. Please have a look at the below footage of a toy remote control paramotor. https://youtu.be/7LUs5LidgSw While it may be possible for a highly skilled remote controller to pilot this toy so that it does spirals, I maintain it would not be possible for a camera person standing on the ground to track such a spiraling object, for more than 4 minutes straight, while holding the camera in a mostly immobile position. The camera person would need to chase it. It doesn't require much of any skill at all; just some knowledge with telling the drone precisely what to do. Spongy Iris wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Drones can do that maneuver for more than 4 minutes straight. Another point is this kind of toy remote control paramotor would very likely start descending in altitude if it was spiraling in such a manner seen in my video. The object in my video did not descend. It wouldn't descend to any noticeable degree if properly told what to do. Spongy Iris wrote: gfm7175 wrote: It's perfectly reasonable to me to come to the conclusion that what you saw was a drone. It's perfectly reasonable to me to come to the conclusion that what I saw was not some toy remote control paramotor which anybody could have easily found footage of on Youtube before I posted my video. Drones can do more than you seem to think that they can do. Other than my video, I cannot find footage of a paramotor spiraling, filmed from the ground, where the camera person captures it spiraling for 4 minutes, while holding the camera still. Can you? Edited on 03-06-2021 23:35
04-06-2021 00:03
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Spongy Iris wrote:Other than my video, I cannot find footage of a paramotor spiraling, filmed from the ground, where the camera person captures it spiraling for 4 minutes, while holding the camera still. Can you? The bottom line is that you absolutely have my vote for "Top UFO video." I hope your video is awarded the spot on the list that it so richly deserves. All UFO hunters should consider it required viewing. Good luck.

04-06-2021 00:05
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:Other than my video, I cannot find footage of a paramotor spiraling, filmed from the ground, where the camera person captures it spiraling for 4 minutes, while holding the camera still. Can you? The bottom line is that you absolutely have my vote for "Top UFO video." I hope your video is awarded the spot on the list that it so richly deserves. All UFO hunters should consider it required viewing. Good luck. Thanks man!
06-06-2021 00:31
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Spongy Iris wrote: I have been anticipating the release of this report from Congress. Does anybody know if the official report has been released yet? BBC said the report written by a task force set up by the US Department of Defense is slated for release to Congress on June 25. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57355192 Here is an interview with Luis Elizondo of Skyfort LLC talking about recurring reports of a "tic tac" shaped object engaging in flight maneuvers not possible with publicly known of aviation technology. https://youtu.be/iYW6VBdlkIk Edited on 06-06-2021 00:32
06-06-2021 01:08
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Spongy Iris wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: I have been anticipating the release of this report from Congress. Does anybody know if the official report has been released yet? BBC said the report written by a task force set up by the US Department of Defense is slated for release to Congress on June 25. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57355192 Here is an interview with Luis Elizondo of Skyfort LLC talking about recurring reports of a "tic tac" shaped object engaging in flight maneuvers not possible with publicly known of aviation technology. https://youtu.be/iYW6VBdlkIk As some in government have said, a UFO is an object that is not identified. With Roswell, New Mexico in 1947, no report has been conclusive as statements changed after the event. Unidentified does not mean alien. I did like the show X Files as it presented both sides of the argument. I grew up on Stark Trek and wonder how an advanced race would make themselves known to us. The original show went from a homogenized cast to what we know today. Star Trek without Lt. Uhuru wouldn't be Star Trek.
06-06-2021 01:16
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	James___ wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: As some in government have said, a UFO is an object that is not identified. With Roswell, New Mexico in 1947, no report has been conclusive as statements changed after the event. Unidentified does not mean alien. I did like the show X Files as it presented both sides of the argument. I grew up on Stark Trek and wonder how an advanced race would make themselves known to us. The original show went from a homogenized cast to what we know today. Star Trek without Lt. Uhuru wouldn't be Star Trek. There's a philosophical idea in Star Trek presented called The Prime Directive. It's something like an advanced society cannot interfere with the development of a less advanced society.
06-06-2021 01:47
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Spongy Iris wrote: James___ wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: As some in government have said, a UFO is an object that is not identified. With Roswell, New Mexico in 1947, no report has been conclusive as statements changed after the event. Unidentified does not mean alien. I did like the show X Files as it presented both sides of the argument. I grew up on Stark Trek and wonder how an advanced race would make themselves known to us. The original show went from a homogenized cast to what we know today. Star Trek without Lt. Uhuru wouldn't be Star Trek. There's a philosophical idea in Star Trek presented called The Prime Directive. It's something like an advanced society cannot interfere with the development of a less advanced society. I am well aware of the Prime Directive. Sadly people do not understand what is beneficial to the people who live on Earth. The people who live on Earth are primitive. They have computers and nothing more. Edited on 06-06-2021 01:48
06-06-2021 04:00
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	James___ wrote:The people who live on Earth are primitive. They have computers and nothing more. That's the wrong verb. The correct wording is "The people who live on earth developed computers, thus precluding them from being primitive." I'm glad I could help.
06-06-2021 04:02
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:The people who live on Earth are primitive. They have computers and nothing more. That's the wrong verb. The correct wording is "The people who live on earth developed computers, thus precluding them from being primitive." I'm glad I could help. Your syntax is not correct.
06-06-2021 05:29
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	James___ wrote:Your syntax is not correct. I used semantics instead. Glad I could help. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-06-2021 07:04
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	James___ wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: James___ wrote: [quote]Spongy Iris wrote: [quote]Spongy Iris wrote: I am well aware of the Prime Directive. Sadly people do not understand what is beneficial to the people who live on Earth. The people who live on Earth are primitive. They have computers and nothing more. Gee it doesn't seem these UFOs are following the Prime Directive the way it's described in Star Trek. It's as if as they are going out of their way to be noticed...
06-06-2021 07:25
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Spongy Iris wrote: James___ wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: James___ wrote: [quote]Spongy Iris wrote: [quote]Spongy Iris wrote: I am well aware of the Prime Directive. Sadly people do not understand what is beneficial to the people who live on Earth. The people who live on Earth are primitive. They have computers and nothing more. Gee it doesn't seem these UFOs are following the Prime Directive the way it's described in Star Trek. It's as if as they are going out of their way to be noticed... There was an episode of The Next Generation, where a little girl living on a planet experiencing volatile events sent out a radio signal to space, like a prayer for help. Lieutenant Commander Data answered her call, which pissed off Captain Picard. Picard said Data was violating the Prime Directive. But Data said she reached out first. Ultimately, the Starship Enterprise was able to correct the volatile event that was threatening to destroy life on the little girl's planet. Then they wiped the little girl's memory. Edited on 06-06-2021 07:26
06-06-2021 07:52
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Spongy Iris wrote:Gee it doesn't seem these UFOs are following the Prime Directive the way it's described in Star Trek. It's as if as they are going out of their way to be noticed... All these UFOs are going out of their way to be noticed, but only in the form of very blurry imagery. Hmmmm. Just like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and the Chupacabra. Hmmmm.
06-06-2021 07:59
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:Gee it doesn't seem these UFOs are following the Prime Directive the way it's described in Star Trek. It's as if as they are going out of their way to be noticed... All these UFOs are going out of their way to be noticed, but only in the form of very blurry imagery. Hmmmm. They're certainly not being noticed on accident. Are they not teasing military planes in no fly zones? Not exactly the kind of moves one takes when trying to fly under the radar... Edited on 06-06-2021 08:09
06-06-2021 09:04
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Spongy Iris wrote:They're certainly not being noticed on accident. Didn't you notice your UFO by accident? Spongy Iris wrote:Are they not teasing military planes in no fly zones? Actually UFOs seem to obey the law and only tease military aircraft in zones where UFOs are fully permitted. However no one has really ever verified if these UFOs are carrying enough insurance. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-06-2021 09:23
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: They're certainly not being noticed on accident. Didn't you notice your UFO by accident? Not if it knew where to find me and stalked me. I appeared to receive an interesting sign after chasing the blimp to the top of the nearest hill. As soon as I reached the top, my head was severely swarmed by an unbelievable amount of tiny blood sucking black flies. I thought I would be able to swat them away but the sheer number of flies that swarmed me made such an effort futile. I had to run down the hill to evade them. I had not been swarmed by flies atop that hill anywhere near that severe before that day, and have not since. I now dub that hilltop, Lord of the Flies summit. The following picture is the view of, Mount Diablo, as well as the intersection of Bollinger and Dougherty, as seen from the Lord of the Flies summit, with camera pointed north. Edited on 06-06-2021 09:29
06-06-2021 21:29
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	My Q500 has a range of about 1,500 feet, and it's kind of old. Was just going out of production, when I bought it a few years ago. I wanted one that didn't need a smartphone, or internet. The reality was line of sight, least for me was 600-700 feet, and it was tough to stay focused on. Looking down at the controller, and back up, it took a while to spot it again. Often had to switch to Return-Home, to see it again. 700 feet was about the limit of the live video feed as well. Was never really confident in flying FPV. It has GPS, and a few other sensors, so you can fly easy without video, but nothing that will prevent you from slamming into something... Sucks rebuilding, so always keep them in sight. Had a bad battery connection (plastic melted), and it just dropped out of the sky. Looked like it was 2-3 blocks from the house, so rushed out, looking for the remains. Didn't find it, and should have been easy to spot in that area. Fortunately, I remembered the controller keeps a flight log, so went home, pulled the card, and looked through. Got the GPS coordinates, googled them, and got a nice map. Turned out to be less than a block away, on a roof top, near the edge too. Loaded my ladder up, drove over, backed up, and retrieved it. It was a Sunday, the business was closed. Wasn't sure if permanently, or soon to open. There's a bar next door, having some sort of biker party thing. No one even asked what I was doing on the roof... It's difficult to estimate distances from the ground, or setting landmarks. Got a hunch a lot of UFOs are closer, or further away, than we think. Specially, since we don't actually know the size, or what the hell it is. If there were aliens visiting, you'd think they would be in need of some of our resources. Can't image traveling a long distance, and not needing, or wanting something. At the very least, fresh food and water. Long way to go, just to do a flyover, just to check us out. They could have just sent a probe/robot/drone. I don't believe in perpetual motion. Something is always consumed, when work gets done. We don't live, if we don't consume food and water. If it's more of a tourist thing, they would likely want to take a few thing back with them. If we were being visited, there would be strong evidence, and more frequent encounters. We have a resource rich planet. No way a technologically advanced race, didn't strip most of the resources from their own planet, and those nearby.

06-06-2021 23:06
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	HarveyH55 wrote: My Q500 has a range of about 1,500 feet, and it's kind of old. Was just going out of production, when I bought it a few years ago. I wanted one that didn't need a smartphone, or internet. The reality was line of sight, least for me was 600-700 feet, and it was tough to stay focused on. Looking down at the controller, and back up, it took a while to spot it again. Often had to switch to Return-Home, to see it again. 700 feet was about the limit of the live video feed as well. Was never really confident in flying FPV. It has GPS, and a few other sensors, so you can fly easy without video, but nothing that will prevent you from slamming into something... Sucks rebuilding, so always keep them in sight. Had a bad battery connection (plastic melted), and it just dropped out of the sky. Looked like it was 2-3 blocks from the house, so rushed out, looking for the remains. Didn't find it, and should have been easy to spot in that area. Fortunately, I remembered the controller keeps a flight log, so went home, pulled the card, and looked through. Got the GPS coordinates, googled them, and got a nice map. Turned out to be less than a block away, on a roof top, near the edge too. Loaded my ladder up, drove over, backed up, and retrieved it. It was a Sunday, the business was closed. Wasn't sure if permanently, or soon to open. There's a bar next door, having some sort of biker party thing. No one even asked what I was doing on the roof... It's difficult to estimate distances from the ground, or setting landmarks. Got a hunch a lot of UFOs are closer, or further away, than we think. Specially, since we don't actually know the size, or what the hell it is. If there were aliens visiting, you'd think they would be in need of some of our resources. Can't image traveling a long distance, and not needing, or wanting something. At the very least, fresh food and water. Long way to go, just to do a flyover, just to check us out. They could have just sent a probe/robot/drone. I don't believe in perpetual motion. Something is always consumed, when work gets done. We don't live, if we don't consume food and water. If it's more of a tourist thing, they would likely want to take a few thing back with them. If we were being visited, there would be strong evidence, and more frequent encounters. We have a resource rich planet. No way a technologically advanced race, didn't strip most of the resources from their own planet, and those nearby. Cool. The "drone" I saw definitely flew further than 1500 feet. I chased it on foot for at least half a mile and it was in sight during that time. It really didn't seem to move much and fast from my point of view. Imagine seeing the ISS from the ground. It's moving something like 25000 mph, but from the ground it looks like it's slowly moving. I don't think it was as high up as the ISS. My guess is still 6 miles. But just an example to give you an idea of how it seemed to move from my point of view. Most of the UFO images come across grainy, I'm guessing because the objects are far away. When I imagine there are UFOs with super advanced technology, I figure they must be harnessing the energy and/or wind generated from Earth. And if they have that kind of knowledge, then my assumption becomes, they must be the creators of Earth or have the knowledge of its creation. Edited on 06-06-2021 23:11
07-06-2021 07:27
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Spongy Iris wrote:The following picture is the view of, Mount Diablo, as well as the intersection of Bollinger and Dougherty, as seen from the Lord of the Flies summit, with camera pointed north. What road did you take to get up there? Norris Canyon? Crow Canyon? Eden Canyon?
07-06-2021 08:28
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:The following picture is the view of, Mount Diablo, as well as the intersection of Bollinger and Dougherty, as seen from the Lord of the Flies summit, with camera pointed north. What road did you take to get up there? Norris Canyon? Crow Canyon? Eden Canyon? Dougherty Hills Trail
07-06-2021 08:28
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Deleted double post Edited on 07-06-2021 08:30
08-06-2021 03:03
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: What road did you take to get up there? Norris Canyon? Crow Canyon? Eden Canyon? Dougherty Hills Trail I thought you were a bit further southwest. My bad. By the way ... I have to confess that I totally blew my previous assessment. I am embarrassed at my rush to explain from insufficient resolution. The video you took was of a parachute. I just recently saw it in normal size. Previously I had only glanced at a miniature window and boy am I embarrassed. I am so sorry. [backpedaling complete] Oh, you should quit smoking.
08-06-2021 07:32
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: What road did you take to get up there? Norris Canyon? Crow Canyon? Eden Canyon? Dougherty Hills Trail I thought you were a bit further southwest. My bad. By the way ... I have to confess that I totally blew my previous assessment. I am embarrassed at my rush to explain from insufficient resolution. The video you took was of a parachute. I just recently saw it in normal size. Previously I had only glanced at a miniature window and boy am I embarrassed. I am so sorry. [backpedaling complete] Oh, you should quit smoking. When I first started filming this, I thought it was a person parachuting. But after filming for 4 minutes and 30 seconds, it was apparent, this object was not falling. P.S. the most scenic drive to the Garden of Eden from the Dougherty hills is down Norris Canyon to Crow Canyon, if you like the whole windy road through an enchanted forest theme.
09-06-2021 21:40
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Spongy Iris wrote: When I first started filming this, I thought it was a person parachuting. But after filming for 4 minutes and 30 seconds, it was apparent, this object was not falling. Once again I truly wish to apologize to you and to everyone on this board for rushing to an erroneous conclusion. I watched the video first on my cell phone, not even in full screen, and I wasn't paying full attention ... and the way you were moving the camera around (I am not implying at all that my mistake was somehow your fault) and it just hit me as looking exactly like a drone ... and I just jumped over to Climate-Debate and posted as much. When I watched the video again on a full computer screen in full-screen mode, I felt like an idiot. It is obviously a parachutist and s/he is definitely descending. Actually, make that an unidentified flying parachutist that is definitely descending. I recommend you pay a visit to a sky-diving club when they are jumping and get a feel for how slowly and how long it takes for a diver to reach the ground. They do not go straight down. Sky-divers change direction a lot, often appear to be sideways and generally "steer" themselves towards the landing zone. It takes a while. All are welcome to refer to me as an idiot for a week. I totally deserve it. ... but it really did look like a drone while glancing at my cell phone. Again, I apologize for any confusion that I may have caused. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-06-2021 23:36
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: When I first started filming this, I thought it was a person parachuting. But after filming for 4 minutes and 30 seconds, it was apparent, this object was not falling. It is obviously a parachutist and s/he is definitely descending. Actually, make that an unidentified flying parachutist that is definitely descending. I recommend you pay a visit to a sky-diving club when they are jumping and get a feel for how slowly and how long it takes for a diver to reach the ground. They do not go straight down. Sky-divers change direction a lot, often appear to be sideways and generally "steer" themselves towards the landing zone. It takes a while. . Dude it was NOT descending. I pointed the camera at the same spot for more than 4 minutes. The movements of the camera were minute. I didn't have to track it descending at all. You should be able to get the perspective of that. Before I zoomed in, you could see a street light from where I was standing on the ground Have a look at these sky divers filmed from the ground. https://youtu.be/mwlWTtdzozI There's about a minute and a half of footage with a blue sky background. If you pay attention, you can notice the camera moving gradually lower to track the parachutes, every couple or few seconds. I didn't need to move the camera lower for 4 minutes and 30 seconds. I only made miniscule adjustments while pointing pretty much at the same spot constantly. Does it look like these sky divers could hover at the same altitude for 4 and a half minutes doing spirals? Edited on 09-06-2021 23:40
10-06-2021 00:14
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: When I first started filming this, I thought it was a person parachuting. But after filming for 4 minutes and 30 seconds, it was apparent, this object was not falling. Once again I truly wish to apologize to you and to everyone on this board for rushing to an erroneous conclusion. I watched the video first on my cell phone, not even in full screen, and I wasn't paying full attention ... and the way you were moving the camera around (I am not implying at all that my mistake was somehow your fault) and it just hit me as looking exactly like a drone ... and I just jumped over to Climate-Debate and posted as much. When I watched the video again on a full computer screen in full-screen mode, I felt like an idiot. It is obviously a parachutist and s/he is definitely descending. Actually, make that an unidentified flying parachutist that is definitely descending. I recommend you pay a visit to a sky-diving club when they are jumping and get a feel for how slowly and how long it takes for a diver to reach the ground. They do not go straight down. Sky-divers change direction a lot, often appear to be sideways and generally "steer" themselves towards the landing zone. It takes a while. All are welcome to refer to me as an idiot for a week. I totally deserve it. ... but it really did look like a drone while glancing at my cell phone. Again, I apologize for any confusion that I may have caused. . I won't refer to you as such because I'd then be ignoring the fact that I basically did the same thing that you did except I watched the video on a computer screen (but not in full size). Feel free to call me an idiot all the same.
10-06-2021 04:40
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Spongy Iris wrote:Dude it was NOT descending. Look, I have two perspectives to offer you: 1) My Unofficial Response: Yes, s/he is absolutely descending. Look, I realize that in your quest for a bona fide UFO, you are willing to convince yourself of details that were not the case ... because we all love a good story, especially one of our preferred genre. Feel free to just forget that I ever said anything. Nonetheless, go out to a skydiving club jump one of these days and bring yourself up to speed on just how long it takes for those suckers to land. I have taken my children out to watch exactly that and they sat in wonder looking up at the sky, at the divers, batch after batch. It's a great thing you can do for kids ... and for yourself. 2) My Official Response: You have a truly amazing UFO video there. The government needs to see this right away. Humanity should thank its lucky stars that you were there to capture this spectacular and otherwise indescribable event on video. I hate to think just how close we as a species came to missing this monumental event. Spongy Iris, on behalf of everyone everywhere, thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Spongy Iris wrote: I pointed the camera at the same spot for more than 4 minutes. 1) My Unofficial Response: You need a lot more time than that and no, I watched your video and you definitely were not pointing the camera at the same spot the entire time. One thing I like to do is watch los parapentes in Miraflores (Lima), Peru. They fly around and fly around and fly around and fly some more. They aren't very high at all and if you think they go through all that trouble to fly for only four minutes then you really need to get out to a skydivers club and watch them jump. What do you see in this video? (Note the time. Note the low altitude) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl_EI-cYltA 2) My Official Response: You are spot on. There's no way that could be any sort of parachute. You had that camera locked down on that same exact spot for more than four minutes and clearly it wasn't going anywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if the technology used came from somewhere a lot further away than Peru, if you know what I mean. Spongy Iris wrote: The movements of the camera were minute. 1) My Unofficial Response:: Think back to your high school geometry. At long distances even minute angular rotation results in a very large positional difference. You nonetheless had a few large camera movements as well as many minute ones. 2) My Official Response:: You don't have to tell me. Your camera didn't move at all. It was like you had it on a tripod or something. That UFO was just hovering there, doing some funky things. Wow! Spongy Iris wrote:Does it look like these sky divers could hover at the same altitude for 4 and a half minutes doing spirals? 1) My Unofficial Response:: You saw the video above, right? Can they fly around for close to fifteen minutes and land at the same altitude at which they took off? 2) My Official Response:: You're right, it's just not possible. No one is saying that your UFO is anything other than mesmerizing. I presume you have already contacted ODNI and provided copies of your video, yes? Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Washington, DC 20511 Phone Number: 703-733-8600 Once again, great job! Well done.

Page 1 of 2

Join the debate Congressional UFO Report:

Threads	Replies	Last post
COVID origins 'may have been tied' to China's bioweapons program: GOP report	43	28-12-2022 20:17
UN weather report: Climate woes bad and getting worse faster	1	08-11-2022 18:24
Trump disbanded it, but climate change panel regroups to release its report	9	09-04-2019 00:01
New Climate Change Report Should Be a Wakeup Call	3	06-04-2019 00:07
Report: Great Lakes feeling effects of rapid climate warming (Update)	1	22-03-2019 17:37