Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

104 Excellent

About DaviiB

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Catastrophic Disclosure it is then.... A couple points: Lou Elizondo has already said that there was a plan B and C in case the legislation didn't pass intact. He's a former (counter) intel guy, so perhaps this could be considered round one. Along those same lines, from a counterintelligence point of view, it might be the case that deliberately putting such strongly worded legislation out there forced a reaction from the "powers that be". I'm not a military strategist, but.... fire a shot and see who shoots back. Now you know who and where the enemy is. That is to say, the people behind the secrecy may have now outed themselves and the real fight can start. Someone could be playing 3D chess. DB
  2. This is getting very interesting. It's like watching a Cricket match between the New York Giants and Manchester United. I have no idea what's going to happen next, but I am absolutely here for it. We've established that the truth is somewhere to the right of "there are weird objects in the sky that don't seem to have a prosaic explanation"....... except everything to the right of that is bananas. Now it's just a matter of how crazy it's going to get. Note: I consider "the US and other governments have been conducting a fully-coordinated psyop on the entire world for 70 years" to be a crazier outcome than the Alien/NHI hypothesis. That would be quite the feat. DB
  3. It was a great podcast. The long-form format is great for understanding people's true positions, or complex subjects. Rumor floating around the Internet today is the Schumer amendment may not survive in-tact, due in most part to two congressmen (mentioned in the podcast) who are bought and paid for by Lockheed Martin, Boeing etc. Do with that information what you will. If there truly is nothing to this subject, why is the declassificarion of related government records being stopped by the companies directly implicated in the cover up? No, that's not evidence for the existence of NHI. It's evidence for a cover up of the evidence for the existence of NHI. (does the logic follow there?) DB
  4. This is not a hill I'm willing to die on, but with that said... There were some questions about the debris found that was allegedly from MH370. Another user already mentioned this. There was even some refutation of the calculations from the Inmarsat data that triangulated the aircraft's position in the southern Indian Ocean (basically that they got the math wrong). Regarding the videos.....absolutely nobody wants them to be real. Hence the lengths some have gone to try to demonstrate they are fake. However, the closer people look into them, the harder it became to dismiss them as obvious fakes. It appears that it would have taken quite a bit of sophistication and knowledge (beyond normal VFX / CGI) to create the videos in 2014, and as-yet, nobody has claimed responsibility for making the videos.....something one might do if you were responsible for a highly sophisticated CGI creation floating around the internet. The link to MH370 comes from the appearance that the aircraft in the video is a B777-200, the coordinates on the video pointing to the Nicobar Islands, and the timing of the video's release (mid-2014). Beyond that.....sure, it's coincidental. My interest in this came from the fairly intense scrutiny of the video, and the subsequent bewilderment of subject-matter experts who could not seem to demonstrate that it was an obvious fake. As for the actual fate of MH370, nobody here knows for sure. The videos just raise more questions. That's once you get past the "They must be fake because they can't be real".....that's not a very scientific way of looking at things. I hope the videos get properly (and conclusively) debunked....for all our sakes. DB
  5. And they'll need to be willing to bet a whole lot of money (and payloads) on that. Again, a task for people much smarter than me. It's definitely referring to reusability of the same vehicle. Otherwise it would be "rapid launchability".....and it's easy enough to do that as long as you don't destroy the launch site every time.....just roll the cranes as soon as the last one clears the tower. That is true, but the boosters don't have to re-enter from orbit. The Dragon capsules are a better analogue, but still, they're protected on the way up. Starship doesn't have that benefit. All the same, I'm excited for them to figure it all out. Who could see all this coming 10 years ago? (except SpaceX, of course). DB
  6. The original post of the first video was a dual-view (stereoscopic), and the information at the bottom was easier to see (though partially cutoff)......coordinates around the Nicobar Islands and "NROL-22" which is an NRO satellite, that allegedly relayed the signal from whichever unit(s) recorded the video. In any case....it makes sense that somebody (NGA...NRO...take your pick) is watching virtually every square inch of this planet 24/7. Remember, even before the incredibly capable Hubble Telescope was launched, the US military had multiple similarly-sized units in orbit looking down instead of up..... That was 33 years ago and they've been quite busy since. DB
  7. As ridiculous as this sounds....I think the medium is the message in this case. It sounds stupid because of where it's posted (and the comments around it). There has been quite a bit of level-headed discussion of the original videos by VFX experts, Computer techs .....people familiar with satellite systems, and the terminals used to access them etc etc. Oddly enough, the two videos have yet to be properly debunked IMO. And by properly, I mean beyond "This one frame of the video kind of looks like a pre-made VFX image from a game back in the day, so it must be faked". If you set aside the knee-jerk conclusion that it must be CGI, and actually look at the analysis (of the original videos) that has been done by folks who know what they're talking about (SME's in their respective fields), you end up with more questions than answers. I'm not convinced it's real, but if it's CGI, it's really, really well done. Too many little details, from the differential framerate in the mouse cursor matching the real Citrix terminals used to access satellite feeds, ID of the (relay) satellites involved from their positions at the time, proper (front and back) lighting on the clouds from the flash at the end of the video, the coordinates at the bottom of the video, the way the clouds move, the fact that the original video is actually stereoscopic, positive ID of the type of drone and sensors in the second video, the type and combination of IR / Thermal overlay used....the timing of the release of the original videos......it just goes on and on. Perhaps a combination of real footage, with CGI added on top? It's really weird, and there don't seem to be any explanations that make much sense (on either side of the fence) DB
  8. Again, I don't envy the guy who's job it is to figure out if the metal under that blanket was compromised on reentry. These are meant to be rapidly-reusable. Surviving reentry is one thing. Surviving twice is a whole other problem. DB
  9. Am I the only one who spent a good amount of time playing "Orbiter", back in the day? (It's still around). I remember blissful hours of launching the Delta Glider into orbit, only to find out my target (usually the ISS) was on the other side of the planet once I got there.....or on a completely different orbital plane.....then figuring out how to intercept (usually days or weeks later in game time). It was extremely satisfying to finally rendezvous and dock with the ISS, or any other vehicle.......and that was with a fictional vehicle that was very forgiving propellant-wise. DB
  10. Turns out, the "flying" dynamic is more fun than a realistic model. I'm reminded of a quote from the movie (and book?) Ender's Game, where the instructor is scolding the kids. "Come on guys, this is basic rocket science!" I doubt anyone will make a game of this scale with "realistic" physics, though it would be hilarious to watch the space battles (or lack thereof) that come out of it. DB
  11. Maybe what I saw was left over from the last launch then. Either way, it'll be cool to see them pick up the launch cadence. Long way to go still. She (Ship 25) shed a bunch of heat-shield tiles on the way up. That implies that the next set of fireworks may be in the skies near Hawaii after the next launch. DB
  12. That's great to hear....though I do recall seeing a massive dent in one of the tanks in the tank farm. Could just be cosmetic, but either way, it's a massive improvement over the last launch. I think NASA's timeline is a bit ambitious, or at least it's a bit naive to think they can meet it. Everything always takes longer than you think. DB
  13. I think the hot-staging worked as intended. (but we'll see) The problems with the booster seemed to appear after it flipped around for the boost-back burn. One, or more of its engines didn't re-ignite. To give an idea of how complicated this stuff is......if you look at the replay of the hot-staging, you'll see that the booster engines shut down in groups of five, rather than all at once. One of the reasons for this is the rapid pressure change from propellant suddenly stopping in the feed lines (at engine shutdown) can actually damage the plumbing. Shutting down all at once could destroy the rocket's innards. Couple that with the G-forces involved in rotating the booster around, possibly pushing propellant in the tanks away from the feed lines, and you get a fairly long list of scenarios that could lead to the booster disassembling itself. I don't envy the engineers who have to figure this stuff out. It's part science, part magic, part miracle when it all goes well, and orders of magnitude more difficult to do it routinely like they are with Falcon 9 / Heavy. DB
  14. I think it's the other way around. They lost the booster on the boost-back burn, and it appears the flight termination system activated on Starship shortly after engine-cutoff. Super successful test nonetheless.....hot-staging worked, and Starship got to space. The launchpad looks like it's still intact as well. That's a huge win. Edit: Still waiting on full confirmation on some of the above. DB
  15. Only claimed physical evidence that's never been verified I think that's a bit of a downplayed take on the matter no? Since 2017 we've had: Revelation of the existence of multiple programs within the DoD which study UFOs / UAP Confirmation from the people involved with those programs that the phenomenon is real The release (leak) of limited, downgraded recordings of unknown objects, with the testimony of the people who made the recordings corroborating their anomalous nature and behaviour. Note that these recordings were unclassified at the time. Subsequent to the release of those videos, the classification specs were changed and ALL pictures and videos of a similar nature within the DoD were made classified. Testimony from the person who leaked the videos confirming the above RE: classification. Legislation brought forward and pushed through by the elected government to create divisions dedicated to the transparent study of the phenomena (<<poor execution on this one) Outright refusal from the US Airforce to cooperate with said division(s). Further specific legislation pushed through to protect whistleblowers from within the DoD and government on the UFO subject, indicating: The elected government is aware that there is an issue and is attempting to get more information from people involved. Proposed legislation from the Senate Majority Leader that reads like this << Link to the actual document.....indicating: There appear to be programs within the DoD, or other areas (linked to the Department of Energy and Defense Contractors) related to the UAP issue that are being illegally hidden from congress. A decorated whistleblower who has decided to step into the public eye after following the correct procedures (as established by legislation) and having the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community open an investigation. The whistleblower's claims confirming a long-standing coverup on the UAP issue, among other things. The Inspector General referring the matter to congress, calling the matter "credible and urgent". Multiple respected and credentialed investigative journalists looking into the matter and coming to the conclusion that: It is highly likely the phenomenon is real. There appears to be a long-standing, very effective, ongoing coverup on this issue. Pushback from within the elected government that appears to be attempting to bury or further obfuscate the matter. ....and that barely covers the basics. As for verification of evidence, I assume you mean by the scientific community......most of the people who are involved, or have stepped forward, are claiming that the vast majority of the evidence and information on this matter is being withheld from the public (i.e. the scientific community). The actions of the elected government seem to strongly indicate an attempt to secure and release that evidence and information to the public. (Read the proposed amendment linked above.) Verifiable actions by other elements within the government and DoD appear to be congruent with an attempt to keep information on this subject buried. So far, the actions of all significant players seem to fit the narrative no? Looks like the wheels are turning, and someone is trying very hard to get you some evidence you'll be satisfied with. DB
  • Create New...