BreastMilkPopsicles t1_it8jdhh wrote
Reply to comment by ryanq99 in NASA Announces Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Study Team Members. The nine-month study will begin on Oct 24. by ICumCoffee
Mute the audio on the videos, ignore the descriptions and stories you have been given about them and tell me what is interesting about the videos
ryanq99 t1_it8kksp wrote
The commentary is what is interesting because we are listening to people who have been trained in that field observing something that they deem unusual.
Bad analogy though. If a scientist showed you a presentation about observing a virus through a microscope without the audio, you wouldn't know what you are looking at without hearing the explanation. Can we then conclude that the information in that presentation is not valuable just because muting it made it uninteresting?
BreastMilkPopsicles t1_it9107m wrote
No, a virologist will be able to explain to me what we're seeing on the screen without audio. They'll be able to point to parts of the virus and explain what what we're seeing here is important because blah blah blah.
The problem with the tic tac videos is all that the "virologist" (or NASA expert) would be able to talk about in this case, is what people on the audio are saying, which means you have to trust that they're 1) right and 2) honest.
Again, there is nothing special about the videos if you mute them. That is a huge red flag for skeptics. I can only assume that the lack of more compelling evidence only strengthens the skepticism considering their would be mountains of data to support what these people are seeing.
ryanq99 t1_it92cau wrote
You could give the muted ufo video of the sensor data to an aviation expert and they would find it interesting. A layman would not know what they are looking at.
In that vein, unless you know what a virus is and the parts it has, you would have no clue wtf you're looking at without some context. I get what you're saying, but the analogy is bad.
>I can only assume that the lack of more compelling evidence only strengthens the skepticism considering their would be mountains of data to support what these people are seeing.
That surely is the problem, there is not much evidence at all. The little we have is enough to look into it, but not enough to come to a conclusion.
BreastMilkPopsicles t1_it934xp wrote
But there are lots of videos that explain the numbers on the screen that you see in the videos are all normal and not noteworthy. There is absolutely nothing happening in any of the videos that an aviation expert will find interesting if you mute the audio.
I'll try to dig up some of them when I finish work.
ryanq99 t1_it93kt6 wrote
Sure yeah I appreciate any info you have, I think its all interesting.
Have you looked into David Fravor's accounts? He and 3 other pilots observed the same thing. They have video and sensor data.
As far as I am aware, there hasn't been a satisfactory answer to what they saw and picked up with their sensors.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments