A question for all...

[The Seeker]

Exactly, but they were saying that they used that footage on a DVD and that I got the footage from there. If that was the case then I couldn't use the video, as I would be using copyrighted material. Copyright laws are a little confusing, but I think that, although NASA footage (or any other work created by the US government or related organisations) is in the public domain, any work done that uses it has its own copyright, so if the creators do not want to put in the public domain they can.
The question was never if I could post it or not, they wanted to put adverts along with my post so they could get money from it. I sent the link from where I got the video to YouTube to show them where I got the video from, and, as far as I know, they didn't get the chance to get money from my post.

Now that is refreshing ArMaP; beat them at their own game and be able to laugh at them about it 

Gold. 

[bigpappy51]

Thor, I hate to tell you this, but those meta ads you just posted all those screen caps of do not show when I read those posts; to the best of my knowledge, there are no meta ads in any of my posts, signature line, etc.; I didn't place any anywhere on the forum, and I am not aware of anyone else doing so

I just checked myself as well I don't have those ads either. Must Be something on Thorfourwinds PC or Phone adware as ArMap stated.

[thorfourwinds]

Greetings:

Found the rascal and removed it.

BTW, should I revive the rate card, update it, and pursue ad revenue?

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=3779.msg132768#msg132768
Re: PRCLLC RATE CARD ONE- b - DRAFT ONLY!

I have an offer in writing from Ron of 50% of what I bring through the door, as I will be covering any expenses involved in landing the big fish [display ads].

And is the site being 'run' by Admins [and Kat], and who might be the fearless 'leader'?

What is the legal name on the bank account so I can get the advertising revenue checks right?

What can I do to help?

Be aware, we leave for Dorian/Florida on Wednesday or Thursday. We have reservations at the Baymont Inn, Chocowinity, NC, starting on Thursday, so I might have computer access.


With great respect
thorfourwinds/rabunopsec
Peace Love Light

[RUSSO]

Good question mate and there definitely seems to be an concerted agenda in play (whether it's active misdirection, plausible deniability or just saturation of search engine results) - I did see this vid a few weeks ago and call me cynical but I do hope the endgame to all this engineered hype isn't just going to be 'hypersonic tech',

That's what Kaku seems to be selling..

But then, how you explain the tic tacs were traveling at at least 104,895 mph and at most 281,520 mph during peak velocity? They were accelerating at 12,250 to 12,823 g-forces at maximum constant acceleration. Thats way above hypersonic is not it? Document Bellow:

The authors summarize that "We have no reasonable explanation for the accelerations demonstrated by the object."

A Forensic Analysis of Navy Carrier Strike Group Eleven's Encounter with an Anomalous Aerial Vehicle:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WgURI1Fzrkij3utVvcPISGTyEUNX4Z0J/view
https://www.explorescu.org/

Is not 12000 Gs acceleration plenty enough for Interstellar travel?

[ArMaP]

But then, how you explain the tic tacs were traveling at at least 104,895 mph and at most 281,520 mph during peak velocity? They were accelerating at 12,250 to 12,823 g-forces at maximum constant acceleration.

With those speeds and acceleration how could they keep the camera on them?

[RUSSO]

With those speeds and acceleration how could they keep the camera on them?

I dont think they could. I think its based on the performance Characteristics Based on Statements from Radar Witnesses, pilots and IR cameras. You can find it at page 16. There is 270 pages including the math of how they came to this conclusion there.

3 Analysis
3.1 Performance Characteristics Based on Statements from Radar Witnesses

Petty Officer Jason
Turner, USS Princeton
Cruise Book, 2003

15

SCU Manuscript

Speed, acceleration, and power characteristics can be calculated based on statements
from two navy personnel who observed the radar tracks of the "Tic-Tacs" in real time. The
Senior Chief in charge of radar took notes while observing the radar in the CIC area, and noted
that his equipment indicated that the object moved from 80,000+ feet to 20,000 feet in 0.78
second. A second man, the Petty Officer stationed in the same room at the same time as the
Senior Chief, characterized the erratic movements of the objects from stationary at 80,000 feet to
stationary at 20,000 feet on radar as "as fast as a thought." Calculations based on these
observations, 60,000 vertical feet in 0.78 second and an initial and final velocity of zero, and
assuming a constant acceleration (linear velocity) changing to a deceleration midway, yield a
maximum velocity of 104,895 mph at the midway point, and an acceleration of 12,250 g-forces
(see Appendix G). If one of the navy's jets of a similar size (F/A-18F at 18 tons) accelerated at
this rate, it would need 90 gigawatts of power.
These numbers are nonsensical to any known aircraft; one would expect to see a fireball
due to air friction at those speeds and one would not anticipate any known aircraft to remain
structurally intact with such large g-forces. We examine these characteristics from a second and
third set of data to compare with the above results. This is done in Sections 3.2 and 3.3
3.2 Performance Characteristics Based on Statements from Pilots
Two experienced Navy pilots in separate jets were vectored by the USS Princeton to the
location of one of the objects mentioned in the previous paragraph. Upon arriving at the
coordinates provided by the Princeton they simultaneously viewed the object from separate
altitudes and angles. During the engagement with the "Tic-Tac," it accelerated from stationary to
"out of sight" within one second according to one pilot, and "like a bullet shot from a rifle"
according to the other pilot. Both pilots estimated the length of the "Tic-Tac" to be 40-60 feet
along its major axis, and about 15 feet along its minor axis. The limit of a human's visual acuity
is one arc minute, and can be used to calculate a distance at which an object is no longer
resolvable. In a transparent medium, a 60 foot diameter object will reach the limit of human
perception at 39.1 miles. Using a time to disappearance of one second results in a peak velocity
of 281,520 mph and a maximum constant acceleration equivalent to 12,823 g-forces. Taking the
lower bounds by using a 15 foot diameter object, the limit of human perception is 9.8 miles.
Using a longer time to disappearance of two seconds results in a peak velocity of 35,280 mph
and a minimum constant acceleration equivalent to 803 g-forces. Appendix I contains tables that
show the calculated g-force based on various sizes of the object, time frames, and levels of visual
acuity.
The resulting speed and acceleration derived from the pilots' testimony is consistent with
that derived from the ship-board radar operators' reports.
3.3 Performance Characteristics Based on an IR Video
A third method to measure the performance characteristics of the "Tic-Tac" is to use
information in the IR video itself. There is sufficient information to determine the g-forces
generated depending on the size and distance of the object. The specific portion of the video
analyzed is when the object appears to move rapidly to the left at the end of the video. Once the
F/A-18's video system has locked onto a target, that target normally remains in the center of the

16

SCU Manuscript

video frame.29 A Canadian Air Force serviceman, with thousands of hours using the ASQ-228,
stated to one of the authors of this report that only once did he experience the system losing lock
and that was when they had the system in a vehicle and hit a jarring bump in the road. He stated
that the breaking of the servo lock on an object in the video is most unusual. He further indicated
that he used the ASQ-228 to video missile launches and never once did it lose lock during the
high acceleration of a missile launch.
The only other aircraft in the area of operation were other F/A-18s and an E2 Hawkeye
early warning radar aircraft. This is based on statements from the pilots who indicated that a
Carrier Strike Group exercise has complete control of its airspace and no other aircraft are
allowed into the area. It is very unlikely that the object in the video is an aircraft from outside
CSG 11 for this reason; however, there is always the possibility that the plane taking the video
took a video of another F/A-18 and this possibility is examined in detail in Appendix J. That
appendix also shows calculations that determine the distance that an F/A-18 would be from the
camera in order to create an image of the same size as seen in the video. The distance calculated
is 17 to 22 miles away. Based on statements from CDR Fravor and a Canadian Air Force user,
both with extensive use of the ASQ-228, the wings and outline of an F/A-18 should have been
visible on a clear day at that distance. Furthermore, the resulting g-forces calculated are 40 times
earth's gravity which is well beyond the capability of an F/A-18 or the ability of a pilot to
survive such an acceleration.
The work done in Appendix J shows that the identity of the "Tic-Tac" based on its size,
estimated distance and lack of aerodynamic details in the ATFLIR image, and by calculating its
average velocity and acceleration, along with the power requirements to perform these
maneuvers—it is well beyond the capabilities of any technology in the public domain.
Additional work from another author-analyst is shown in Appendix K. The acceleration
values are calculated by a different method than in Appendix J but the results are similar.
Appendix K also looks at the acceleration rates of an earlier portion of the video that shows
movement across only three video frames.

[ArMaP]

I dont think they could.

Then how does the camera follows them?

[Irene]

Then how does the camera follows them?

Computer.

[RUSSO]

Then how does the camera follows them?

I dont think they could get it at their max speed if not lucky to get the exact frame and it would be only one frame. But when they were hovering or at low speed, adding all the data from radar, ir and pilots for example, "measuring acceleration rates of an earlier portion of the video that shows movement across only three video frames".

Can you contest the math on the document ArMaP? Are you implying the videos are fake or tampered? What is you take on this?

[RUSSO]

Computer.

[ArMaP]

Computer.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that.

[ArMaP]

Can you contest the math on the document ArMaP?

Most likely not, I didn't look at it.

Are you implying the videos are fake or tampered? What is you take on this?

I'm not implying any thing, what I mean is that they are talking about something that does not happen in the videos, so how can we know they are talking about the same thing?

I don't think the videos are fake, I just think we aren't getting the whole story.

For example, all those speed, acceleration and energy calculations are useless if we are talking about something that was not an object with mass, something like a hologram or a projection accompanied by something to create a radar signal.

[petrus4]

My experiences have implied that extraterrestrials do exist, but that they generally aren't corporeal, or physically solid in the usual sense.  I believe in the frequency model which New Agers have talked about; radio is the analogy for it.  We see beings on different channels or frequencies as either transparent, non-solid, or simply not there at all, and they probably see us the same way.

I think there is a bias in the design of the universe, against us having definite certainty about the existence of extraterrestrials.  The default state of the universe is compartmentalised; different creatures are located in different domains, (interdimensionally speaking) and that is so that a universe of human beings does not become intermixed with a universe of giant spiders (or worse things) for example.

Are UFO sightings being staged in order to distract us from something?

I doubt it, quite honestly; simply because if they want to distract us, there are plenty of simpler and less outlandish ways to do it.  Terrorist attacks or mass shootings are two ways, which have been used a lot; but they can also just bring out some new TV show on Netflix, or some new computer game.  That will just as easily do it.

I think it has to be difficult to stage a UFO sighting, and really make it seem authentic and convincing, with our current level of technology.  Four or five decades ago maybe, sure.  But now, if you give me a piece of footage of something which is a few minutes long, then I can zoom in with almost microscopic detail, and use AI to reconstruct it, and immediately figure out what it is that I'm seeing, and how the hoax is being made.

So again; I think if they want to distract us, there are easier and better ways.

[RUSSO]

Most likely not, I didn't look at it.
I'm not implying any thing, what I mean is that they are talking about something that does not happen in the videos, so how can we know they are talking about the same thing?

I don't think the videos are fake, I just think we aren't getting the whole story.

For example, all those speed, acceleration and energy calculations are useless if we are talking about something that was not an object with mass, something like a hologram or a projection accompanied by something to create a radar signal.

We probably not getting the whole story, as we know the whole story goes way deeper than just those 3 videos that were "leaked". For how long the government is studying the phenomenon? At least for 70 years imo. So they have way more data about it.

You may be right, it could be something else but when you listen to Commander Fravor and other people involved in this, the options of what that could be starts to get less "humankind made" and more "alien" in the sense  that similar uap have been around for a while, to me means that even if the tic tac was human made, it just means it was already reverse engineered from non human origin.

I will post the Cmdr. David Fravor interview here too cause it seems to fit better the thread:

[RUSSO]

My experiences have implied that extraterrestrials do exist, but that they generally aren't corporeal, or physically solid in the usual sense.  I believe in the frequency model which New Agers have talked about; radio is the analogy for it.  We see beings on different channels or frequencies as either transparent, non-solid, or simply not there at all, and they probably see us the same way.

As Jacques Vallee says:

"We are dealing with a yet unrecognized level of consciousness, independent of man but closely linked to the earth.... I do not believe anymore that UFOs are simply the spacecraft of some race of extraterrestrial visitors. This notion is too simplistic to explain their appearance, the frequency of their manifestations through recorded history, and the structure of the information exchanged with them during contact."

We also see some evidence of it when we look into skinwalker ranch case. I tend to believe it may be both. There is ETI and EDI. Afterall its my opinion we are in a simulation and once you see in this way, you learn everything is possible.

What are your experiences? Is there data here on Pegasus?

I think there is a bias in the design of the universe, against us having definite certainty about the existence of extraterrestrials.  The default state of the universe is compartmentalised; different creatures are located in different domains, (interdimensionally speaking) and that is so that a universe of human beings does not become intermixed with a universe of giant spiders (or worse things) for example.

You think it is possible we can intermix with a different dimensions or parallel realities?

Are UFO sightings being staged in order to distract us from something?

I doubt it, quite honestly; simply because if they want to distract us, there are plenty of simpler and less outlandish ways to do it.  Terrorist attacks or mass shootings are two ways, which have been used a lot; but they can also just bring out some new TV show on Netflix, or some new computer game.  That will just as easily do it.

I think it has to be difficult to stage a UFO sighting, and really make it seem authentic and convincing, with our current level of technology.  Four or five decades ago maybe, sure.  But now, if you give me a piece of footage of something which is a few minutes long, then I can zoom in with almost microscopic detail, and use AI to reconstruct it, and immediately figure out what it is that I'm seeing, and how the hoax is being made.

So again; I think if they want to distract us, there are easier and better ways.

I agree with you. People's attention span nowadays is ridiculous.