[HN Gopher] As a US Navy fighter pilot, I witnessed unidentified...
___________________________________________________________________
As a US Navy fighter pilot, I witnessed unidentified anomalous
phenomena
Author : graderjs
Score : 117 points
Date : 2023-02-05 15:40 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thehill.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (thehill.com)
| FpUser wrote:
| I saw one myself when I was at University. Was watching night
| sky, lying on a beach at Black Sea resort. Basically it looked a
| regular satellite crossing a night sky of which one can usually
| see more than enough. Suddenly the "satellite" has made an
| instant 90 degree turn and kept going before disappearing over
| the horizon.
| nradov wrote:
| You might have seen two satellites. The second one appeared to
| intersect the path of the first from your perspective just as
| the first one faded from view.
| troyvit wrote:
| Ever get the feeling this is how cats feel about laser pointers?
| mabbo wrote:
| I think what bothers us most about incidents like this is that
| any country or human organization that had massive air
| superiority over everyone else would inevitably use it to their
| advantage.
|
| And yet, here are the reports, but no one is coming forward to
| say "yes, we Canadians actually never cancelled the Avro Arrow
| and have been decades ahead of the rest of you all this time- now
| please remove that Danish flag from Hans Island".
|
| It's such a foreign idea that someone might have this advantage
| and not use it that the best answer we have is "I guess they
| aren't humans". Maybe that says a lot about us.
| mxkopy wrote:
| If this technology were developed by a private individual,
| there's incentive to keep it hidden. No businessperson wants to
| have a military grade target on their back, but I feel like
| some are paranoid/wealthy enough to want to develop their own
| tech
| tarkin2 wrote:
| This assumes the advancements can give a significant military
| advantage, through cost of production and overall military
| effectiveness.
|
| And that the behaviour of other countries could be a problem to
| the manufacturing country--trade and cooperation etc.
|
| And if the advancements are used for spying then of course
| they'll be kept quiet for as long as possible.
|
| Showing your cards early, even if you think they're good, may
| not be the best approach.
| h2odragon wrote:
| I assume Canadian UFOs run on maple syrup
| motohagiography wrote:
| It makes sense to slow roll UAP/ET phenomena anyway, as they
| probably understand that beings of an emerging intelligence tend
| to align to whatever they percieve as powerful (just as other
| animals become dependent on human garbage dumps) and adapt to the
| dependency instead of evolving and developing themselves freely
| according to their natures.
|
| The dependency arrests their development, and ethically, who
| wants to be around just another bunch of pets? I could see there
| being some distinction between domestication and actualization,
| where the former stunts an evolution and the latter develops and
| accelerates it. The more interesting question around UAPs for me
| is under what conditions would we elevate a species on earth to
| participate as peers in our own civilizations, and what would the
| analogous criteria be for us to level up in the same way.
| llamaLord wrote:
| This conversation is going to happen pretty soon me thinks,
| just about computers running AI models rather then animals.
| 3pac wrote:
| I saw a UFO maybe 12-13 years ago. It did not look like anything
| a human would design, even with advanced technology. It looked
| something like the oblong silver blob in The Flight of the
| Navigator, just hanging there, "much in the way that a brick
| doesn't." It must have been 5 km away so it would have been
| pretty large. It was a breezy overcast day with low clouds, and
| the moving clouds obscured but never completely revealed it. Its
| stillness contrasted with the movement of the air, or any
| aircraft I have ever seen. I stared at it for a few minutes to
| make sure that my eyes were not deceiving me. I had not been
| taking drugs. When I came back outside from fetching my camera,
| it was gone, and I thought, well, this is how it goes, nobody
| will believe me, so I won't even bother talking about it. I never
| had more than a passing, pop-culture interest in UFOs.
| dilippkumar wrote:
| Aha! You're the person I've been searching for.
|
| A person who has seen something that is incredible (literally)
| and has a hard time following up because of a complete absence
| of data/evidence to back up your claim.
|
| Going back to your experience, what tools do you wish we as a
| society had that would help us document your experience?
|
| Did you try to document your experience? What were the barriers
| you encountered? If you were to document it, where would you go
| to document it?
|
| Ultimately, we need a civilian infrastructure of sensors,
| cameras etc pointing up at the sky to independently verify UAP.
| The first step in such an effort is some sort of statistical
| data that shows how often this occurs.
|
| With such data, we can build a realistic null hypothesis: (x
| number of cameras looking at y area of the sky for z years
| should find 0 UFOs if the null hypothesis is true)
|
| It's impossible for a civilian effort to even begin to
| accumulate the data to make even vague guesses on what x, y and
| z should be.
|
| And so, identifying the barriers that you encountered to
| document your experience is actually kinda important.
| llamaLord wrote:
| Can't tell if being sarcastic or not... But the vast majority
| of us carry an at least 12 megapixel camera in our pocket
| literally everywhere we go now...
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/1235/
| stevenhuang wrote:
| The mystery of the lack of good footage in the age of
| smartphones is less mysterious when one considers that
| perhaps the phenomenon itself is intelligent.
|
| And in fact if one considers witness testimony, that's
| what it seems to be.
| suddenclarity wrote:
| This is my opinion as well but it should be mentioned that
| wide angle lenses on phones are quite terrible at picking
| up small things, especially in low light. I tried once 2-3
| years ago when I noticed a bright light late at night from
| my bedroom window. I'm 100% convinced it had a reasonable
| explanation but it did bother me that I spent several
| minutes without getting a decent image/video of something
| my eyes could see clearly. Since then, I'm a bit more
| understanding that phones doesn't capture everything but
| with that said - there are still a ton of DSLRs and
| telescopes. Unfortunately I didn't have the hindsight of
| fetching mine.
| [deleted]
| nradov wrote:
| Could it have been a large mylar balloon?
| bglazer wrote:
| Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence etc. We should never
| underestimate human capacity for self delusion and fighter pilots
| are certainly not privileged in that regard.
|
| It's also worth considering why this seems to be a phenomenon
| that exclusively effects military aircraft. I can certainly
| imagine that the military would not mind if it was seen as the
| last line of defense against a mysterious, extremely powerful
| force, especially when we're effectively in peacetime. Apparently
| the aliens didn't pick up an interest in the tens of thousands of
| sorties flown over Afghanistan or Iraq. It's also worth
| remembering that the CIA was recently extremely vocally concerned
| about a mysterious "sonic weapon" death ray that turned out to be
| either frog noises or simply non-existent. The US government has
| shown that its quite willing to completely fabulate or at least
| tacitly support bullshit if it serves their purposes.
| hwillis wrote:
| Why don't commercial pilots report the same things? I believe
| they have far more time in the air.
|
| It seems very, very unlikely aliens would have any interest in
| our military capability. Even ignoring the technological
| implications of interstellar flight or the ability to enter our
| atmosphere without being detected, these objects are apparently
| _massively_ more capable than any kind of vehicle we have. To
| them a fighter jet might as well be a Cessna.
|
| It seems very likely that fighter pilots and finely-tuned
| military equipment would be very eager to pick up false signals
| from background noise and interpret it as vehicles that stretch
| out understanding of physics.
| epistemer wrote:
| On the navy video I remember one of the guys mentioning they
| think it is a drone.
|
| It such hubris to believe those are alien craft and not foreign
| military drones. As if alien craft is the more probable
| explanation than another country having drones the US Navy does
| not.
| gfodor wrote:
| An autonomous monitoring system for galactic-scale existential
| risk bearing technologies would def have probes that monitored
| the technological development of remote civilizations.
| [deleted]
| mach1ne wrote:
| I sometimes wonder if these galactic powers (if they exist)
| will prevent the creation of AGI.
| steve1977 wrote:
| You mean, another AGI besides them?
| willis936 wrote:
| If they don't then is that evidence that AGI is NBD?
|
| To be clear: I don't think this is a good line of thinking
| from the beginning, so I'm not surprised when the
| conclusions are not useful.
| mach1ne wrote:
| The point isn't to derive useful conclusions. The fact
| that we have no idea about the probability of the
| existence of extraterrestial intelligence seems to make
| it inherently impossible to derive any conclusions from a
| formula where they play a vital part.
| [deleted]
| sidlls wrote:
| "To them a fighter jet might as well be a Cessna."
|
| To play devil's advocate for a moment: they'd have to know the
| capabilities of these jets to make that determination, and
| observation of some sort would be required to do so.
|
| "Artifacts" (anomalous errors) appear on flight systems'
| sensors all the time, and atmospheric distortions can easily
| appear to the naked eye as flying/moving objects. I don't buy
| either that other countries have such advanced technology or
| that extraterrestrial intelligences are visiting us: the
| simpler explanations I noted cover more or less every published
| UAP we have seen.
| kcplate wrote:
| >> To them a fighter jet might as well be a Cessna
|
| I always find it odd that we ascribe a human understanding of
| logic to an alien species. Seems to me we wouldn't know jack
| shit about motivations, capabilities, approaches to decision
| making, etc...
| Teever wrote:
| well we make some reasonable baze line assumptions for an
| intelligent life form -- they have self preservation
| instincts and as such likely operate on some base level of
| game theory.
| akomtu wrote:
| From the descriptions, the aliens act like we would with a
| slightly better tech: they act like rangers in a national
| forest monitoring suspicious activity of smart beavers, but
| otherwise don't mess with the wildlife.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| That's just the ones we can see.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| We call them smart beavers, but the other beavers call
| them conspiracy theorists.
| stevenhuang wrote:
| They do, in fact all the time.
|
| You just don't hear about it because of stigma.
|
| See this NARCAP (civilian flight safety) report
| https://www.narcap.org/blog/narcaptr20 for a case where a FedEx
| flight crew documented an encounter with the commonly reported
| pulsating orb type anomaly. There is a video.
|
| Observed behavior:
|
| > The UAP/Light came from above and stopped/hovered near FL37,
| about the same altitude as the aircraft, shone a light on the
| 767 and briefly approached the aircraft. Then it instantly
| matched the speed, and heading of the aircraft and maintained a
| consistent separation.
|
| a. The light descended vertically, stopped abruptly, and shone
| a light on the 767 causing the crew to believe that there was
| another airliner on a collision heading with its landing lights
| on.
|
| b. It changed direction from vertical descent to a sudden
| stop/hover, to approaching the aircraft briefly, to taking the
| same heading and speed of the aircraft at about the same
| altitude and an estimated distance of 1-2k ft.
|
| c. It matched the altitude, speed, and heading of the aircraft,
| 575mph and at 37,000ft for over 32 minutes.
|
| d. The UAP/Light changed colors and turned away from the
| aircraft on a perpendicular heading, West, just inside the
| Mexico/US border.
|
| e. The UAP/light did not have wings or running lights. It was a
| new and unique observation to the experienced air crew.
|
| > It seems very, very unlikely aliens would have any interest
| in our military capability
|
| And in fact, apparently they do here too. It's been documented
| these UAPs have an interest in our nuclear capabilities. There
| has been many testimonies from people in the military these
| UAPs buzz around nuclear silos and apparently are able to
| disable them. See this well researched video for information on
| Robert Hastings https://youtu.be/l4EXL7jgqns
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| I find the Alaska case to be the most interesting. As the
| visual report of an object was supported by detections from
| the Soviet facing long range radar that were state of the art
| at the time.
| shortcake27 wrote:
| Here's the thing that gets me. A 767 costs hundreds of
| millions of dollars and yet I've filmed better videos with a
| potato. Why is the pilot filming with his smartphone? Why
| does the plane not have a sophisticated high-quality purpose-
| built camera system that can record phenomena like this?
| jcims wrote:
| The SLS costs $4B per launch and apparently has very little
| onboard imaging capability.
| yunohn wrote:
| Huh? Are you seriously asking why commercial airliners
| don't have 4K GoPros to record UAP/UFOs?
| edgyquant wrote:
| Yes. Why is that unreasonable?
| nradov wrote:
| It's unreasonable because installing and maintaining
| aviation qualified cameras is expensive. You can't just
| strap a consumer action camera to the wing and expect the
| FAA to approve. Airlines have no incentive to pay for
| extra cameras.
| bluepizza wrote:
| There are plenty incentives to including imaging as part
| of black boxes. Nothing unreasonable about it. It would
| help elucidate several non-UFO normal life kind of
| incidents.
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| Yep. It's the same reason why a lot of planes still have
| a "no smoking" light even though smoking hasn't been
| allowed on planes for years. If they took them out,
| they'd have to recertify the electronics. It's much
| easier and cheaper to have a useless light that always
| stays on than to go through that process to remove it.
| gizmodo59 wrote:
| Many commercial airlines at least international (like
| emirates) have cameras all over. You can even watch it
| from your seat.
| yunohn wrote:
| They're not 4K and they're not meant to be aimed at UAPs.
| IME they don't have long term storage either.
| shortcake27 wrote:
| No, that's not what I'm asking, because a GoPro costs
| about $400. I'm asking why they don't have something 10x
| better than a GoPro.
| willis936 wrote:
| I'm wondering why a multi-million dollar aircraft doesn't
| have a $10k imaging system when I put a $300 imaging
| system on my $30k car. If I'm willing to spend 1% to
| understand equipment damage then why would this logic not
| follow for a billion dollar fleet of aircraft?
|
| Like-minded drivers have caught amazing videos of
| meteors. Planes could do the same for supposedly
| legitimate UAP sightings.
| namaria wrote:
| Well would you increase the budget of your production
| grade deliverables for maybe proving to internet forum
| visitors that your product sometimes is in the presence
| of weird phenomena?
| shortcake27 wrote:
| Are you suggesting NARCAP is an internet forum?
| mkl wrote:
| More "why don't they have general-purpose dashcam-
| equivalents", for capturing anything of interest, e.g.
| the near-miss that was on HN yesterday.
| mr_sturd wrote:
| The pulsating in the NARCAP video looks like the camera
| trying and failing to find focus on anything that it's
| looking at.
|
| Interesting though.
| rcme wrote:
| Were their eyes failing to auto-focus? Did you watch the
| video with sound? They're talking about it pulsating as
| they film it.
| stevenhuang wrote:
| Camera autofocus is commonly brought up but in this case
| the crewmen were able to attest to the pulsating with their
| eyeballs, in addition to the other strange behaviour as
| noted in their testimony.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| That video looks like a distant light / laser that's tracking
| the airplane, going on and off target.
| picture wrote:
| The "going on and off target" effect seen here is likely
| the camera's autofocus.
| krapp wrote:
| >Why don't commercial pilots report the same things? I believe
| they have far more time in the air.
|
| They do. Here's a Forbes article about it[0].
|
| I'm firmly in the "it isn't aliens" camp but there are no
| shortage of UFO/UAP reports with multiple, credible
| eyewitnesses.
|
| [0]https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2021/06/26
| ...
| narag wrote:
| _To them a fighter jet might as well be a Cessna._
|
| Maybe not. Even when it all started, a few cases were
| alledgedly air combat:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantell_UFO_incident
|
| Other incidents crashes, like Roswell. Obviously I cannot vouch
| for any of those :-) just wanted to point that air fighters at
| the time were much less sophisticated than today. Maybe people
| that travels between stars are not so interested in bringing
| state-of-the-art war machines with them. The technology to
| maneuver a drone or vehicle at incredible speed or angles might
| still be vulnerable to bullets or missiles.
| snickerbockers wrote:
| There's a real problem with people being close-minded towards
| anything that seems fantastical. This includes scientists and
| other professionals who ought to know better.
|
| Obviously it's unscientific to jump to conclusions and assume
| that anything that doesn't make sense must be aliens or magic or
| whatever but at the same time, it's also unscientific to ignore
| physical observations just because they seem like something that
| might support what fringe idiots believe.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| What's "fantastical" about unexplained lights?
|
| I mean, I GN an adult Dungeons and Dragons centered on multiple
| worlds and I love considering different worlds and how they
| might work. But the people who extrapolate the unexplained to a
| claim that there's some fantastical things that science is
| suppressing seem so starved for "the fantastical" that they're
| distorting the entire situation. Science isn't there to squash
| your fun. Science doesn't deny that uncertainty is a constant
| part of ordinary human experience - scientifically established
| positions are merely a reliable tip of an iceberg of
| uncertainty.
| Fezzik wrote:
| The close-minded approach is to accept someone's fantastical
| claim because you want to, or just because the claim is being
| made, when the claim is contrary to mountains and centuries of
| evidence. The open-minded take incorporates all the possible
| evidence to reach the most likely conclusion. And the
| conclusion is never, so far, either aliens or magic. It's just
| silly to conclude that an observation that has no immediate
| natural explanation will not be explained naturally and is,
| instead, the work of aliens or magic. Especially in light of
| the fact that everything we have explained, thus far, has had a
| natural explanation.
| pixl97 wrote:
| For the longest time we didn't know the lightning event we now
| call sprites occurred. Pilots had said they saw such things bit
| without evidence at the time no one had any idea if they were
| real or not. Probably plenty of other explainable events that
| we've not captured yet out there.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| It is important to be open minded to the possibility of mundane
| explanations for these observations.
| smiley1437 wrote:
| Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (Sagan
| Standard)
| stevenhuang wrote:
| Glad to see this topic finally discussed here.
|
| With the shift in government posture and establishment of the
| All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office
| (https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/310005...)
| it will only be a matter of time until more service members come
| forward with their experiences and enough data is gathered to
| ascertain the inevitable: these craft are real and we've been
| visited by nonhuman entities since maybe even the beginning of
| human existence.
| mbnull wrote:
| I do remember the comment thread on the 2017 time article here
| on hn. Opinions already have changed considerably in the last 5
| years. It also appears as if the process of disseminating
| information still accelerates (with promis coming out as
| experiencers and so on). I can only advise everyone to consider
| C.G. Jung and read Jaques Vallee.
|
| This situation is very complicated, but not at all bad in the
| end. As far as I can tell, nobody got the real answers, not the
| pentagon, nor the religions.
| stevenhuang wrote:
| I second those recommendations.
|
| Reality may be not as we think.
| harimau777 wrote:
| Could you expand on how Jung is related? I think of him as a
| researcher in psychology which doesn't seem connected? I may
| be missing what you are getting at.
| runjake wrote:
| I worked on stealth aircraft that would occasionally cause
| civilian UFO reports.
|
| It was common for the reports to mention that these UFOs
| maneuvered unlike any man-made aircraft, which was always a good
| chuckle because they were usually just flying straight or banking
| normally.
|
| However when seasoned military pilots like Fravor speak on the
| matter, I listen. When a bunch of them speak about the same
| incident, I take them at their word.
| jackmott wrote:
| [dead]
| cma wrote:
| Fravor admitted to UFO pranks in the 90s (gliding over camp
| fires and then turning on afterburners). Some were found
| reported on UFO forums at the time.
| hartator wrote:
| Yeah, it can undermined his credibility a bit. Maybe a prank
| from someone else?
| dopeboy wrote:
| What would you say is the most credible incident that everyone
| should take seriously?
| runjake wrote:
| The Nimitz Incident of 2004(?).
|
| Extremely detailed visual and sensor events.
|
| Tons of human witnesses. Tons of activity.
|
| There was a detailed Reddit thread on the incident from a
| Seaman many, many years ago long before news of the Tic Tac
| came out.
|
| I'm on mobile but perhaps someone else can paste the thread
| URL.
|
| Could be an elaborate hoax but that's one heck of a long con
| game.
| jml7c5 wrote:
| Weren't there only four witnesses? The pilots were the only
| ones who saw anything with their own eyes. And there's been
| no release of sensor data or video, so it's hard to judge
| its quality. (The 'FLIR1' video was taken later, by
| different pilots who did not see their object visually, and
| simply shows a distant hot object slowly moving left, with
| no inexplicable manoeuvers.) That the ship radar was
| purportedly bouncing between maximum altitude and
| reasonable altitude suggests a software or hardware issue,
| or electronic interference.
| godelski wrote:
| > The Nimitz Incident of 2004(?).
|
| The Tic Tac UFO? That's probably one of the best explained
| events (debunked). Short answer is that there was sense
| misreading and a gimbal lock. Some people even simulated
| it[0]. I wouldn't call this an elaborate hoax, but an
| optical illusion and an event that took some expertise to
| understand. Expertise that a pilot wouldn't have.
|
| I should add that finding that link was nontrivial. Faster
| through Google but searching through YouTube just came up
| with UFO videos and no debunking. This is probably part of
| the problem.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEjV8DdSbs
| jseliger wrote:
| The original appears to have been deleted, but you may be
| referring to https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1qyu5i/
| my_ufo_encount...
| marcusverus wrote:
| Check out Joe Rogan episode 1361 with Commander David
| Fravor (who witnessed the UFO first-hand). They show the
| footage and Cmdr. Fravor talks through it around the 24
| minute mark. Pretty fascinating stuff.
|
| https://open.spotify.com/episode/16If5PVe6ouxeDwNbtu0iC?si=
| 8...
| krapp wrote:
| Were they really really big, black and triangular?
| runjake wrote:
| The B-2A was.
|
| Some other stuff were stealthy cruise missiles. Not too big
| but they flew so low that they would cause some "shock and
| awe".
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Yellow, Black and Rectangular.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmNfPkdCRf8
| themodelplumber wrote:
| There are/were also pilots specifically going for that
| effect...
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6nox5_QStw&t=1082s
|
| This despite the existence of people like Rendlesham's Colonel
| Halt, and so on, is, indeed, a very interesting military-UAP
| venn-ecosystem. I think it's a fascinating combination to
| study.
|
| Military psychology also naturally disincentivizes "looking
| into things" (see for example Colonel Halt's thoughts on "what
| to do about it"[1]) and there's a ping-pong false dichotomy
| that develops: Did we make it or didn't we; Did we cause it or
| didn't we. It's the perfect recipe for meaningless distraction
| from very important questions.
|
| This problem also further isolates important aspects of the
| military role in potentially damming up exploration & science
| efforts, especially when we examine its comparatively premium
| level of day-in, day-out access to what are de facto
| scientifically-capable exploration & discovery tools.
|
| Is it any wonder, in that light, that the accompanying de facto
| "scientists", i.e. pilots, radar operators, and privileged
| officers, are seeing extraordinary things? No. And that's a
| huge opportunity wrapped up in a problem, because the
| chartering mindset interferes.
|
| 1. "There's no doubt it was something beyond anything we know
| or understand. [...] I have concerns, but I don't think we can
| do anything about it. I think this is beyond us."
|
| "So: Quit worrying about it." -- From just after the 8m mark
| in:
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3cswsp9
|
| (An example of a rather stunning mindset, given the
| circumstances, and in comparison to the known-reliable mindset
| of exploratory effort / scientific learning & exploration)
| cma wrote:
| Fravor admitted to the same kind of pranks on Joe Rogan.
| supernova87a wrote:
| In grad school in astronomy, there was a fellow grad student who
| was extremely excited after a night's observations that he'd
| discovered something remarkable -- it was an unexpected distant
| galaxy that appeared in his images that night, and had all the
| right signatures because it appeared in different filters,
| different exposures, and you could see it there in the image
| files, raw.
|
| Turned out, it was noise / amplifier signal correlated with the
| adjacent chip dumping overexposed pixels on readout. He was
| embarrassed after a professor pointed out (after inspecting the
| files) that it always appeared on the same exact pixel
| coordinates on the array, but learned his lesson to try to
| disprove your own observations with independent tests.
|
| I wonder how much some of these unidentified phenomena might be
| checked for some similar effects. After all, these pilots aren't
| reporting things seen with their eyes, they're looking at imaging
| displays that have been processed. And maybe... were recently
| illuminated with lasers... hm? There certainly seem to be a
| pathology of similar reports of "the object never moved in the
| viewfinder, and would imply the ability to move suddenly at
| supersonic speeds"
| pmarreck wrote:
| > I wonder how much some of these unidentified phenomena might
| be checked for some similar effects.
|
| come on, man. at some point, after enough of these reports,
| toeing the line you're toeing starts to look ludicrous. these
| are trained observers, pilots who know what to expect in the
| sky. and do not take lightly that there is still a certain
| amount of embarrassment (a social cost) to even coming forward,
| so to even make this claim is still a brave act at this point.
|
| At least watch this 60 Minutes short piece about this
| phenomenon with interviews with real Navy pilots before you
| assert things like this:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBtMbBPzqHY
| robbiex88 wrote:
| If you haven't listened to it yet, highly recommend the Ryan
| Graves episode on the Joe Rogan Experience.
| stevenhuang wrote:
| Or the one with Lex Fridman.
|
| https://youtu.be/qLDp-aYnR1Y
| itronitron wrote:
| I used to occasionally watch JRE and at the time found some of
| the episodes to be interesting thought experiments. But then I
| watched one episode where the guest expert was talking about a
| topic in which I had enough familiarity to recognize that they
| were completely bullshitting their way through the interview
| and attempting to sound mysterious in order to avoid providing
| any factual information. Recalling the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect
| [0], I concluded that every previous episode I had watched was
| equivalent BS and I haven't watched another one since.
|
| 0.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes...
| autoexec wrote:
| That doesn't seem to make much sense. Even if one guest is
| 100% bullshitting, why would that mean the next guest is too?
| I mean, it'd be fair to conclude that Joe is full of shit
| since he's always there, but with all of the people who have
| been on the podcast I can't imagine all of them are frauds
| who have no idea what they're talking about.
|
| Stay skeptical, by all means, and don't count on the show to
| fact check everything for you, but why automatically dismiss
| them all as BS without evidence and without even hearing them
| out? If you found the show interesting before, you're
| probably missing out.
| phtrivier wrote:
| So UFOs are now UAPs, but at least we're sliiiiighly further on
| the path to admiting that they're either Chinese, Russians,
| Americans, or very surprising.
|
| And I agree it's something to be monitored, and we must not
| assume any sighting is a joke - but it does not mean we have to
| assume any sighting is extraordinary either.
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| Could be a projection
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/05/11/us-nav...
| traverseda wrote:
| They even patented it! Yeah that's pretty obviously what this
| is.
| snowpid wrote:
| It is very fascinating that it is not discussed in other
| democratic countrise.
| [deleted]
| isaacg wrote:
| These videos just look like optical artifacts of the lenses of
| the cameras, as discussed here: https://youtu.be/jHDlfIaBEqw
|
| Is there any evidence that there's more to these videos than
| that?
| likeabbas wrote:
| There's tons of evidence that Mick West is wrong and these are
| not artifacts of the lens
| https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1598090753011781634?s=...
| mach1ne wrote:
| The countless eye witnesses for one.
| scotty79 wrote:
| Human perception is easily manipulated by peer pressure.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| So is human misperception.
| klghqr wrote:
| The press and politicians started hyping up the UFO issue last
| year when it was clear that we were headed for cold war 2.0.
|
| It is a great narrative to get more funding, get people
| interested in space and the MIC, etc.
|
| The timing is suspect, it seems like just another manufactured
| crisis.
| localplume wrote:
| that doesn't make any sense though. UFOs dont get people
| interested in "space". if its aerospace then rockets and
| spacecraft do that just fine, and if its hard sciences then
| there are a billion other cool, real things. the MIC? yeah UFO
| people are famously pro-government and pro-military. the most
| well known media featuring UFOs/aliens, the X-Files, is full of
| government-related conspiracy theories.
| krapp wrote:
| That doesn't actually make sense, though. UFO believers were
| losing their minds thinking "disclosure" had finally come, but
| most politicians never even mentioned it and the press never
| presented it as a crisis.
|
| If the government wanted to create fear and panic in order to
| justify funding, they had numerous real-world scenarios to draw
| on. Manufacturing a meme about UFOs is a stupid way to do that,
| assuming "it was clear that we were headed for cold war 2.0."
|
| The report itself didn't even manufacture a crisis. It was
| lackluster at best, failing to reach a definite conclusion,
| much less hype up an imminent threat that presumably needs
| funding.
| stevenhuang wrote:
| Truthfully, it can be both.
|
| Never let a good crisis go to waste, etc.
|
| For example with project bluebook, UFO sightings have been
| discredited through ridicule and served double duty as
| smokescreen for legitimate secret military development such as
| the U2 spy plane.
| scotty79 wrote:
| I'm really surprised fascination and mystery that many HN users
| display here.
|
| After all software developers and systems administrators of all
| people should be the first to doubt veracity of output of various
| devices and what their users believe about them and their output.
| suddenclarity wrote:
| Topic aside, people have blind spots when it aligns with their
| beliefs.
| alexfromapex wrote:
| This pilot and another, commander David Fravor, have both given
| separate accounts that there are very technologically advanced
| craft well beyond US capabilities in US airspace (detected by
| multiple radars/instruments) on Joe Rogan's podcast. It's very
| interesting and would love to hear honest reports from the
| government on how much the level of activity is increasing.
| likeabbas wrote:
| I really wish people would take a look at the extensive analysis
| some scientists have done to show the 3 navy videos of UAP are
| showing flight characteristics that defy our laws of physics.
|
| This guy on Twitter has done a fantastic job to show the GIMBAL
| object performed what we can only describe as a "vertical u-turn"
| https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1504855791060148224?s=...
|
| This paper shows the tic tac video exhibited instantaneous
| acceleration to over 20,000 mph
| https://www.explorescu.org/post/2004-uss-nimitz-strike-navy-...
|
| Here is a paper from the National Aeronautical Observatory in
| Ukraine that tracked UAP via their two telescopes in different
| cities going Mach 15, stopping, and changing directions
| instantaneously https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.17085.pdf
| marmetio wrote:
| What do you want people to get out of those analyses? They
| quantify the incredible observations, but they don't explain
| how those observations could be possible, nor rule out other
| explanations.
| likeabbas wrote:
| At least in terms of the 3 navy video, I would argue that the
| data purports, with high confidence, that the craft did
| exhibit flight performance characteristics that we cannot
| explain with modern technology or physics. And these are just
| the three videos that got released. Many people with security
| clearances have come forward and said the AATIP database has
| hundreds videos (with the classified sensor data) of craft
| showing advanced flight performance characteristics.
|
| I want people to understand that this phenomenon is real, and
| it's happening constantly. So much to the point that it's
| affecting military training operations and putting our
| fighter jet pilots at risk.
| marmetio wrote:
| We had AATIP and now we have UAPTF. They do stuff and brief
| Congress about it. Why is that not good enough?
| likeabbas wrote:
| UAPTF is now AARO. But it's not enough for congress to be
| briefed. If what we're seeing is a better understanding
| of physics, than this would affect everyone's lives
| marmetio wrote:
| Then maybe they can mitigate the risk without you knowing
| about it.
| likeabbas wrote:
| What is that supposed to mean? This is about gaining a
| further understanding of reality; the universe
| marmetio wrote:
| > it's affecting military training operations and putting
| our fighter jet pilots at risk
| likeabbas wrote:
| I didn't forget. This issue could be both a security risk
| for our military members, and also an exciting venture
| for science.
| [deleted]
| marmetio wrote:
| If it was just a science thing or they didn't care about
| the security risk, I don't see why they'd keep forming
| new organizations that are increasingly secretive.
| likeabbas wrote:
| Because it's not just a science thing. It's a potential
| threat. Threat is defined as capability x intent. We are
| seeing these things with insane capabilities, but not
| really any intent (other than maybe observing our
| technology).
| marmetio wrote:
| We have AARO for addressing the threat. Why is that not
| good enough?
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I'm skeptical and so lean pragmatic on the issue.
|
| Fighter pilots at risk? If the military believed that they
| would already be fully engaged in solving the problem. In
| which case there is little for me or any other civilian to
| do.
|
| And you say fighter pilots at risk but, and this will sound
| callous, an actual incident that caused a loss of aircraft
| would be more compelling. It does away with the _may_ be at
| risk proposition. And, again, I suspect the military would
| be fully engaged in understanding the issue. Doubly so.
|
| I guess I also believe that things leak. There isn't going
| to be a secret program that is so far advanced that it
| counters known physical laws.
|
| It sounds as though you are certain that it is military in
| nature so no need to speculate as to whether it is
| extraterrestrial in nature.
| stevenhuang wrote:
| If you want to understand the stigma of reporting UAPs as
| a military pilot, see Ryan Graves interview with Lex
| Fridman:
|
| https://youtu.be/qLDp-aYnR1Y
|
| > There isn't going to be a secret program that is so far
| advanced that it counters known physical laws.
|
| I think you've misread this part--parent is not saying
| these are ours, not at all.
|
| We're all in agreement that if what we're seeing is real,
| these would be non-human in origin.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| If they're non-human in origin then the whole thing is
| even less actionable. We're not going to learn the
| secrets of hyper drive just because the military
| acknowledges that these are real phenomena.
| blep_ wrote:
| I don't know. We would learn that some things are
| possible which we thought were impossible, which means
| physics took a wrong turn somewhere and we need to back
| up and keep looking. Even if it's not the secrets of
| hyper drive, that's probably going to lead to _something_
| interesting.
| nl wrote:
| > We're all in agreement that if what we're seeing is
| real, these would be non-human in origin
|
| I don't agree with this at all.
|
| Firstly I suspect it isn't real.
|
| But if it is then I think it's most likely some human
| group has a technological breakthrough and it using it
| like this.
|
| Say a US adversary wanted to give a "don't fuck with us"
| message to the US military. Outperforming state-of-the-
| art US fighters would be a good way to do it.
|
| And just because the HN forum commentators don't know who
| it is doesn't mean the US intelligence community doesn't
| know. It might be broadly known that the Kamerians have
| access to this tech, and the knowledge is classified "to
| avoid broad panic".
|
| There might be secret briefing to congress about it,
| which would explain perfectly why there is an apparent
| lack of action. All responses are classified.
| scotty79 wrote:
| > these would be non-human in origin.
|
| So they must be natural in origin. There's no other
| option.
| likeabbas wrote:
| The direct quote from former DoD officials is that these
| aircraft are most a likely non-human intelligence.
| scotty79 wrote:
| And not Santa? I'm shocked. I guess they are too old to
| believe in Santa. But hey, dumb enough to believe in
| aliens on Earth.
| [deleted]
| likeabbas wrote:
| Like the other commenter said, there's a huge stigma
| amongst military officials to not report these events
| because the stigma is a career ended. That's why the
| government added legislation mandating the DoD create a
| channel for these events to be reported.
|
| Diving a little deeper, if the military suspected these
| aircraft were foreign adversary then this would be big
| news. But they don't. They believe it's something else
| entirely, which is why it's not been public headlines
| until recently.
| willis936 wrote:
| Three videos is not a preponderance of data. The number of
| photos taken in the past day exceeds the number of photos
| taken in the past year exceeds the number of photos taken
| in the 20th century. We have cameras in space, we have
| cameras everywhere we have people, so then where is the
| expected increase in observations? UFO sightings have been
| relatively steady, with peaks and valleys as the zeitgeist
| ebbs and flows. If we don't assume UFO presence as constant
| (ie it might go down when we have more observing
| capabilities) then there's little information to be
| learned. At some point it turns into metaphysics.
|
| Case studies are great, but I have not seen convincing,
| properly skeptical analyses. As they say: it's never
| aliens. People, unfortunately, are typically willing to see
| what they want to see.
| mach1ne wrote:
| If the events happen mainly at altitudes, smartphones
| have a hard time capturing them. There's also the
| argument that since these would be super-intelligent
| beings, they might aim for a level of exposure that
| they're confident won't make the grand public believe in
| their existence.
| krapp wrote:
| >There's also the argument that since these would be
| super-intelligent beings, they might aim for a level of
| exposure that they're confident won't make the grand
| public believe in their existence.
|
| The public by and large, more or less, already believes
| in their existence. There are actual _religions_ built
| around aliens, this has been been a part of pop culture
| since the 1940s. If they 're trying to obey something
| like the Prime Directive and prevent cultural
| contamination then they seem to be doing a terrible job.
| Picard would be ashamed.
| guhidalg wrote:
| LOL! What? Aliens are worried about being exposed? Why?
| Did you ask them?
|
| Answer: not aliens, just a big PsyOps to give the
| military more funding.
| likeabbas wrote:
| Unfortunately most of this data is highly classified and
| not going to leak. We do have cameras everywhere, but I'm
| not sure how many civilian devices can capture a good
| video of something going Mach 15+.
|
| All I can say to you is to look into the last NDAA
| legislation. These former DoD officials have convinced
| congress members enough to include legislation to further
| study UAP and create a system for pilots to report their
| events properly.
|
| One final note: a true scientist should never rule out a
| possibility. Blanket saying "it's never aliens" is wrong,
| because one day we almost for sure will find alien life
| in the universe.
| throwbmw wrote:
| Many of the characteristics of these beings are consistent
| with Jinns as described in Islamic teachings. Initially
| described in Quran and further elaborated in Hadith and then
| by various Sufi masters. Sufi masters engagement with these
| creatures was through intense meditation. And according to
| their estimates there may be more than 5 billion of them.
| harimau777 wrote:
| I'm not that familiar with the folklore around Jinn. Do the
| similarities go beyond those you could draw for other
| legendary creatures like ghosts or angels?
| edgyquant wrote:
| Jinn are angels (or angels are Jinn) according to Islam.
| marmetio wrote:
| Many of the characteristics of Qui-Gon Jinn are consistent
| with midi-chloreans as described in Star Wars teachings.
| Initially described in The Phantom Menace and further
| elaborated in the Expanded Universe and then by various
| Jedi masters. Jedi masters engagement with these creatures
| was through intense meditation. And according to their
| estimates there may be more than 5 billion of them.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| This seems like strong evidence that the "tic tac" is not a
| flying _object_ per se, but rather something like the focal
| point of a high-E-field laser? (Or a crossing point between two
| such beams?)
|
| If the object in question is not a physical object so much as a
| light show, it could undergo all sorts of impossible manouevres
| including instantaneous acceleration and even the appearance of
| exceeding the speed of light.
| jnurmine wrote:
| This is what I've been pondering too as a possible
| terrestrial explanation.
|
| Perhaps some fancy machinery can beam modified waveforms not
| only with microwaves, but with frequencies high enough to
| reach infrared and/or visible light.
|
| And perhaps some kind of an elongated blob is the state of
| the art now.
|
| And later, as the technology matures, one might expect more
| detailed movie-prop like "UFOs" to appear. Hoping to see a
| TIE fighter or Jetsons' space car soon.
| swagasaurus-rex wrote:
| Seen through instrumentation, aberrations or artefacts from
| the sensors, or even active jamming could explain the
| instantaneous acceleration
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| That's true, but "abberations or artefacts" are more of a
| low-effort non-explanation than an explanation, and
| unlikely to satisfy anyone who isn't already skeptical.
| Active jamming is... the kind of role that a high-intensity
| two-photon laser would be being tested for.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| What would a "high-intensity two-photon laser" be? A two-
| photon X-ray laser?
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| Ah, I don't mean that the laser outputs only two photons,
| but that it (might) be designed around 2-photon
| interactions, so if you have two very-high-intensity IR
| lasers and the beams meet at a point in space, that
| crossing point could locally ionize the air as though it
| consisted of a beam of photons with higher energy.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_optics
| traverseda wrote:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=tangible+holographic+plas
| ma
| andbberger wrote:
| ion beam. look at the energy dissipation rate charts for ion
| beams in matter.
| traverseda wrote:
| I suppose that works as a weapon, and would be
| electromagnetically steerable. Not exactly safe but...
| likeabbas wrote:
| It absolutely could be an adversary spoofing our sensor
| systems. But, I would argue the testimonies of the 4 pilots
| that saw the object with their own eyes may rule that out
| (unless it was some kind of hologram).
|
| Whatever it is, we need to further study it because more and
| more military pilots are seeing them and their military
| exercises are being disrupted
| traverseda wrote:
| A ball of super heated plasma would show up visually.
| likeabbas wrote:
| Have you heard Cmdr Dave Fravor's testimony of the
| incident? A ball plasma does not exhibit intelligent
| movement as the way the tic tac began to mirror him as he
| descended on to it
| traverseda wrote:
| Sure it does, this small scale demo can even draw the
| death star in mid air
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=tangible+holographic+plas
| ma
|
| That's certainly no natural phenomenon!
| likeabbas wrote:
| As I said to another commenter, I'm not discounting the
| possibility of this being human tech. But, wouldn't
| adversaries need other ships or satellites to launch this
| holographic plasma from, and wouldn't we have tracked
| those before seeing the tic-tac (or other unidentified
| craft) on radar?
|
| Many reports are actually happening over the United
| States airspace. How could the military not track the
| planes the plasmas are being launched from being over our
| airspace? And suppose this is Chinese tech over our
| airspace - HOW IS THAT NOT A HUGE STORY? The blimp is the
| perfect example - if this stuff was Chinese, it would be
| a huge story.
| traverseda wrote:
| It's classified US technology, obviously. That's why it
| mostly appears near military installations that have
| significant power production capabilities (things like
| nuclear aircraft carriers, possible nuclear submarines).
|
| The fact that the military isn't investigating it implies
| to me that they already know what is it. Now why they're
| letting pilots talk about it on the Joe Rogan experience
| I don't know, but whether that was a simple mistake or
| they just felt like not keeping those pilots in the loop
| at all was better, well that's not unexplainable.
|
| So yeah, ground based plasma hologram projection is a
| specific, real, technology that can produce results that
| match the description of the UFOs. I'm not speculating
| here, all the data I've seen has matched the description
| of a ball of plasma and these systems can make balls of
| plasma appear in mid-air at any location you want, at any
| speed and with any flight characteristics.
|
| Once you know what technology has been used to make the
| "UFOs" the rest is pretty easy.
| likeabbas wrote:
| Let's take this hypothesis and run with it. What you're
| saying is there's a faction of the government that is
| fucking with our military operations and endangering our
| pilots. How is this not headline news? How is this not a
| problem?
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| What if the ball plasma was the product of the end of
| someone's high-power gimbal-mounted laser, which they
| were intelligently steering while watching him fly?
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| That's the thing! A high-intensity laser (or microwave,
| etc) can certainly produce a visible phenomenon, through
| heating or ionization of the air, scattering, etc. It
| wouldn't necessarily be visible through sensors only.
| likeabbas wrote:
| It totally could be. I have to wonder where the laser
| would be shot off from though. Either a satellite above,
| which we should see, or a submarine/ship near by, which
| should be tracked on sonar.
|
| Whatever it is, we need to find out. I'm not 100% on the
| ET hypothesis. This could be human tech and just
| spoofing. But we need to know
| traverseda wrote:
| Yep, seems like the obvious answer. Especially as these
| phenomenon are mostly observed near military installations
| and places with a lot of power generation capability.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| We have already existing phenomena - ball lighting. It can
| spawn in the middle of nowhere, scorch stuff or people, go
| through walls, disappear, move slowly or relatively fast...
| my father saw once down their street, with these
| characteristics (without harming anybody). That it can also
| jump around at non-trivial speed and doing maneuvers
| impossible to current technology is not that hard to imagine.
| And that's just one example I came up just now.
|
| Given how many hoaxes exist, how many people blindly believe
| basically anything, how many folks happily take advantage of
| that at any cost, and host of other known facts, very very
| hard skepticism is in place.
|
| Oh and since its HN, we all know all software has tons of
| bugs, including military stuff. But no, little green men have
| nothing else to do just show off mostly to US air force but
| otherwise be untraceable, and watch us kill each other and
| whole ecosystem over stupid stuff.
| mrtksn wrote:
| > This paper shows the tic tac video exhibited instantaneous
| acceleration to over 20,000 mph
|
| Would't it mean that the footage doesn't actually show real
| objects then?
|
| You see a Mona Lisa on the wall in your friends house, before
| you assume that your friend has the original or that Leonardo
| Da Vinci painted two of those and this is the other one you
| will need to go through many many other scenarios because you
| know a thing or two about the painting and your friend. You
| don't just throw away all your constructs about the world on
| the first observed anomaly.
| likeabbas wrote:
| Nobody is throwing away all of the constructs of what we
| know. This may turn out to be sensor malfunction. But the DoD
| has over 300 events of unidentified objects that exhibit
| interesting flight characteristics. At the very least we
| should not be ignoring this data, but studying it deeply to
| figure out what it is.
|
| Either it's a foreign adversary with advanced technology, an
| adversary that is spoofing our sensor systems, or it's
| something else. Whatever it is, We need to find out
| mrtksn wrote:
| Of course it's interesting and worth investigating but
| there is underlining suggestion, dog whistle if you wish,
| that these are records of extraterrestrial activity or
| physics beyond our understanding. It's a new age mysticism.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Do you have any reason to suppose that we _are_ ignoring
| it? Any reason to suppose that we are _not_ studying it
| deeply?
| likeabbas wrote:
| Yes. The Chinese blimp being a huge news story, but the
| 300 unidentified objects over US airspace (some with
| performance characteristics that we cannot explain) is
| the biggest reason. Some in the government are studying
| this for sure, but it's not getting the attention that it
| needs.
| j0057 wrote:
| There are plenty of explanations for these videos that
| don't involve alien species traveling multiple light years
| to troll American air force pilots, like
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEjV8DdSbs and
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGzJ9dx3n4o.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Honestly the "it's aliens" explanation is so unlikely
| that I'd put "Wakanda is real" above it in my probability
| tables.
| sambull wrote:
| Even one that the Navy itself patented..
| https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en
| likeabbas wrote:
| youtubers can hand waive off a few grainy videos. You
| can't waive off corroborating classified data from radar,
| sonar, satellites, and military pilot testimony.
| j0057 wrote:
| I'm not sure why I even tried...
| narag wrote:
| _> This paper shows the tic tac video exhibited instantaneous
| acceleration to over 20,000 mph
|
| Would't it mean that the footage doesn't actually show real
| objects then?_
|
| Maybe, but consider the context: even if the acceleration was
| more "reasonable", wouldn't you feel something's missing? I
| mean any indication of a propulsion system, like reaction
| gases or propellers.
|
| My point is: if we're watching something we have no idea how
| it works, it doesn't make sense to tell it how it _should_
| behave.
|
| How could one vehicle move if not using jets, rockets or
| other known means? Maybe creating some kind of field? A field
| gives accelereation instantly and uniformly. So if you can
| manipulate a field, everything inside it will accelerate as
| fast as you can gauge it and without feeling G forces. That
| thing could even have a crew.
| traverseda wrote:
| Anything here that wouldn't be consistent with a tangible plasma
| hologram being broadcast from a nearby military installation?
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=tangible+holographic+plasma
| lizknope wrote:
| Johnny Harris just made a good video on this last week.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQSxY7TR6mI
| ttpphd wrote:
| This is a great reminder that I need to bookmark metabunk.org,
| where Mick West and others go into enormous detail about the UAP
| evidence, including simulations and reconstructions.
| likeabbas wrote:
| Mick and others do a great job. But they often leave key
| details out or selectively choose facts.
|
| For example, with the GIMBAL video, the pilots are on record
| saying the object is 6-8 nautical miles (NM) away as they saw
| on their Situation Awareness (SA) Screen. Mick's attempt to
| debunk the GIMBAL rotation asserts that the object was 30 NM
| away, and he refuses to look at other evidence that contradicts
| the statement.
|
| Other scientists have done extensive efforts to show that the
| rotation of the gimbal object directly correlates with the
| flight path, which shows to be a vertical u-turn exactly as
| described by the pilots who had access to the SA
| https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1504855791060148224?s=...
|
| Metabunk have debunked a lot of things very well. But they have
| not debunked the 3 navy videos. I can provide more evidence to
| the analysis on the other two videos to show that these objects
| are exhibiting foight characteristics that are unique and defy
| the laws of physics.
| ttpphd wrote:
| >and he refuses to look at other evidence that contradicts
| the statement.
|
| Hmm I'm doubtful about this. It would be very unlike him. I
| found his explanation quite illuminating, and the pilot he
| had a back and forth with was interesting.
|
| It's been a few months since I checked but last I did, I was
| satisfied that Mick made a good case for why the others are
| wrong about the distance.
| likeabbas wrote:
| There's nothing to doubt. It's all on Twitter. TheCholla
| has done a fantastic job showing here what f18s look like
| at different distances on FLIR https://twitter.com/the_chol
| la/status/1598090777950793729?s=...
|
| Mick refuses to accept the fact the distance is 6-8nm as
| the pilots stated it was shown on their SAs. Ryan Graves
| asked Mick to present his analysis at a coalition of former
| military pilots for them to debate him, but he said he was
| "too busy".
|
| Again, mick does a great job debunking things that should
| be debunked. But you can't debunk something by claiming the
| distance of the object was farther than it actually was
| scotty79 wrote:
| > But you can't debunk something by claiming the distance
| of the object was farther than it actually was
|
| ... farther than instruments indicated ... Which still
| beats "it's aliens" by a long shot.
| likeabbas wrote:
| Multiple of the most sophisticated instruments for this
| purpose on the planet are capturing this data. If the US
| was flying F18s that misconstrued the range of a foreign
| adversary by over 20 nautical miles, that would be a huge
| story in of itself.
| scotty79 wrote:
| You trust the tech way too much to the point of not being
| able to confidently reject the impossible.
|
| This woderful US military tech tracked a guy in
| Afghanistan for a day and bombed him thinking that water
| he was carrying home to his children is explosive and
| he's a terrorist.
|
| It's not aliens.
| likeabbas wrote:
| I am not rejecting the possibility of this being human
| technology. to quote the former Deputy Secretary of
| Defense for Intelligence "The Alien Hypothesis currently
| best fits the facts".
| scotty79 wrote:
| Yeah. But that's impossible. So there, on Earth, are just
| two kinds of intelligence.
|
| Human intelligence and military intelligence. Because
| there's no alien intelligence here.
| likeabbas wrote:
| Everything is impossible until it is done.
|
| We have been to space. We have theories that FTL travel
| may be possible (Alcubierre drives, wormholes). The JWST
| just showed us that galaxies formed as early as 300
| million years after the Big Bang. Hell, we didn't know
| there were planets outside of our solar system until the
| 1990s. We still don't know what Dark Matter or Dark
| Energy are. We have far more left to explore and
| understand.
|
| I despise people like you who try to diminish every
| important scientific venture because you think you know
| better.
| dharmab wrote:
| The SA page on the MPCD is very small and cluttered. Is it
| possible that the pilots made a mistake?
| stevenhuang wrote:
| It's not an isolated incident. There has been many
| sightings and direct action (e.g. fighter jets sent to
| pursue) by members of US military as well as those in other
| countries.
|
| The Navy incident got the traction it did because the
| original footage leaked years ago and only now
| acknowledged.
|
| If you're interested, see here for a documentary on the
| Colares, Brazil UFO incident that occurred in 1977
| https://youtu.be/Mr1NrnsdY5I
| likeabbas wrote:
| According to one of the pilots, there is a longer,
| classified video of the incident that shows the SA page and
| has the distance listed there.
|
| People make mistakes, but data doesn't. And according to
| these pilots and the former head of the DoD UAP program,
| the data shows that there are craft moving in our airspace
| with impunity.
| noizejoy wrote:
| > People make mistakes, but data doesn't.
|
| But data collection, storage, retrieval and/or
| interpretation may contain errors.
| likeabbas wrote:
| That's why it's important to look at all the reported
| cases to get a probabilistic measure. The 3 videos
| represent 2 cases that occurred. The DoD has over 300
| unidentified cases currently. At least 18 exhibit flight
| characteristics that don't seem possible.
| cma wrote:
| Wouldn't that be revealing classified info? Probably no
| punishment if the "classified info" is made up as a prank
| so he can freely claim it if it isn't real but would be
| risking punishment if it was.
| isthisthingon99 wrote:
| [flagged]
| jbm wrote:
| That is a nearly 2 hour video without any links or any details,
| with the top comment being from someone with the name "woke
| world order". Can you please offer some synopsis beyond the
| video title?
| somat wrote:
| On the subject of the term UFO.
|
| The term Unidentified Flying Object is perfectly fine. But then
| some people say "Aha, you mean aliens, right". No, It is like the
| SQL NULL, No unidentified object matches any other unidentified
| object. If I meant aliens I would have said it was an Identified
| Flying Object(IFO) or perhaps an Extrateresteral Flying
| Object(EFO), But all I said was that something was flying and I
| could not identify it. Once you identify it, it is no longer a
| UFO.
|
| Apparently The military abandoned the term UFO mainly because
| enough people attached more meaning to the term than it actually
| has. And it got awkward to use because of that attached meaning.
| hnthrowaway0315 wrote:
| The pessimistic part of me thinks that was a top secret black
| project of either drones or sensor interference.
|
| The optimistic part of me thinks that was part of galactic
| refugee flights that hide themselves in deep ocean, using the
| humans as shields and can only be detected by the Empire if close
| enough. This part of me sincerly believes I will join the
| resistance by invitation.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-05 23:00 UTC)