UFO's UAP's

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds like denialism to me.

Why? And why can't you find another source for your article? It is behind a paywall.

 

[exchemist]

Sounds like denialism to me.

It would be denialism if I was trying to deny a well-founded consensus on what these reports represent, e.g. as in climate change denialism. But in this case there is no consensus. Furthermore, many of the reports that have been subjected to scientific scrutiny have had mundane explanations, including those reported by Navy pilots. The 6 minute video below is an example:

What that means is that there is solid evidence for reports mischaracterising what people think they are seeing. Please note I am not attempting to rule out something new to science here. I am simply demanding proper professional scrutiny of these reports, one by one, before we draw conclusions. That is what one does in science, e.g. in peer review.

What I will not accept is an attempt to Gish-gallop me into belief in something or other (undefined), based on the sheer volume of reports, rather than the quality of them. That is what creationists do: "Here are all these things science can't explain [producing a list too long to analyse]. Therefore God did it." The danger here is the same process: "Gosh there are all these reports, some even by Navy pilots, therefore there must be something going on that is inexplicable to science ", without stopping to go through them one by one, properly.

 

[idea]

This is all the junk floating around - just in the low earth orbit

Low Earth Orbit Visualization | LeoLabs

A visualization of satellites, debris, and other objects tracked by LeoLabs in low earth orbit

platform.leolabs.space

The blue ones are being tracked, but are classified as "unknown".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I suspect that statistics is not your strong suit.

Care to elaborate?

Care to show me the math? It's hard to do a lot of statistical analysis with a sample size of one.

On an entirely different note, there is a not overly subtle difference between:

• the number of planets presumed capable of sustaining life,
• the number of planets shown to have sustained life, and
• the number of planets shown to have sustained intelligent life.

(For what it's worth, I rather assume that life is near ubiquitous.)

 

[Windwalker]

It would be denialism if I was trying to deny a well-founded consensus on what these reports represent, e.g. as in climate change denialism. But in this case there is no consensus. Furthermore, many of the reports that have been subjected to scientific scrutiny have had mundane explanations, including those reported by Navy pilots. The 6 minute video below is an example:

Here's the deal. Some YouTube "debunker" site vs. the U.S. Navy. Who has more credibility in your eyes? My first thought is, generic blogger can figure out what the world's best pilots can't figure out about their own radar. That if anything shows a lack credibility for the debunker. This is what I mean by denialism. When presented with credible sources and material, they interpret the data with explanations that experts themselves failed to come up with? That smacks of desire to deny something that others who are experts themselves can't explain. You don't think the Navy knows how to read their own radar? That's all I meant.

What that means is that there is solid evidence for reports mischaracterising what people think they are seeing. Please note I am not attempting to rule out something new to science here. I am simply demanding proper professional scrutiny of these reports, one by one, before we draw conclusions.

The only conclusions made are that these cannot be explained. Yet dude on YouTube can explain them just fine, while the Navy and the Pentagon itself cannot? And it they aren't "proper professional scrutiny", then what are they? Hacks that need air-chair Bob from debunkers.com to set them straight? This was released by the Pentagon as unexplainable. And yet, here we have dude on YouTube explaining it with answers they couldn't figure out themselves? I am rightly skeptical of that.

That is what one does in science, e.g. in peer review.

Which does not include going to dubunkers.com to explain what the experts who say they can't explain. that's not doing science. That's doing denialism. Or if you don't like that word, denying it could be beyond explanation, is not doing science at all. It's doing belief.

What I will not accept is an attempt to Gish-gallop me into belief in something or other (undefined), based on the sheer volume of reports, rather than the quality of them.

I have not Gish-galloped anything at all. The only thing I have done is cite one source, the U.S. Navy and the credibilty of their piolts. I'm not impressed that some debunker site thinks they can explain the Navy's radar when they themselves concluded they can't explain what it is. That's it.

But is there other credible sources that see the same things and cannot explain them? Yes. The Air Force in Belgium has similar encounters. Maybe they need to learn how to read their radar better too from this YouTube bloggers post as well? If we were doing real science, we'd start by saying the experts say they can't explain it. Not try to explain it away by a YouTube blogger.

 

[SDavis]

From news today:

UFO hearing key takeaways: What a whistleblower told Congress about UAP

UFO hearing key takeaways: What a whistleblower told Congress about UAPs

A former military intelligence officer-turned-whistleblower told House lawmakers that Congress is being kept in the dark about unidentified anomalous phenomena.

www.cbsnews.com

What's everyone's views on UFO's / UAP's?

I was with a group at our local observatory recently, and host asked how many there had seen UFO's - a little over half raised their hands, had a fun conversation with everyone talking about the crazy stuff they had seen.

I've been seeing them for a few decades.

I've been writing online about them and my belief concerning them for at least a decade.

From my point of view they are all through the Bible what is termed as angels by the ancients.

Even very old paintings depict UFOs.

UFOs have been discovered in these Historical Paintings

Images: Social Media) UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) have always held our curiosity. No one really knows where they come from or what beings are inside them. We can't even predict their origins.

sports.yahoo.com

Jesus Knew Aliens? 1000-Year-Old Painting With UFOs Flying As Jesus Gets Crucified Sparks Theories

A 1000-year-old painting of Jesus is taking the internet by storm as it apparently shows the existence of UFOs with two space blobs drawn flying in the sky.

www.indiatimes.com

 

[exchemist]

Here's the deal. Some YouTube "debunker" site vs. the U.S. Navy. Who has more credibility in your eyes? My first thought is, generic blogger can figure out what the world's best pilots can't figure out about their own radar. That if anything shows a lack credibility for the debunker. This is what I mean by denialism. When presented with credible sources and material, they interpret the data with explanations that experts themselves failed to come up with? That smacks of desire to deny something that others who are experts themselves can't explain. You don't think the Navy knows how to read their own radar? That's all I meant.

The only conclusions made are that these cannot be explained. Yet dude on YouTube can explain them just fine, while the Navy and the Pentagon itself cannot? And it they aren't "proper professional scrutiny", then what are they? Hacks that need air-chair Bob from debunkers.com to set them straight? This was released by the Pentagon as unexplainable. And yet, here we have dude on YouTube explaining it with answers they couldn't figure out themselves? I am rightly skeptical of that.

Which does not include going to dubunkers.com to explain what the experts who say they can't explain. that's not doing science. That's doing denialism. Or if you don't like that word, denying it could be beyond explanation, is not doing science at all. It's doing belief.

I have not Gish-galloped anything at all. The only thing I have done is cite one source, the U.S. Navy and the credibilty of their piolts. I'm not impressed that some debunker site thinks they can explain the Navy's radar when they themselves concluded they can't explain what it is. That's it.

But is there other credible sources that see the same things and cannot explain them? Yes. The Air Force in Belgium has similar encounters. Maybe they need to learn how to read their radar better too from this YouTube bloggers post as well? If we were doing real science, we'd start by saying the experts say they can't explain it. Not try to explain it away by a YouTube blogger.

40knots at 13000ft? Balloon, most likely. Or even a bird. But NOT some mystery craft moving at unimaginable speed.

 

[Windwalker]

40knots at 13000ft? Balloon, most likely. Or even a bird. But NOT some mystery craft moving at unimaginable speed.

Is that what the evidence shows? The Navy was mistaken in what they saw? They were mistaken they could not explain it? They were wrong in saying it wasn't going against the wind? They were wrong, and some "skeptic" dude on YouTube is right?

Isn't this exactly the same thing the Creationists do in saying the science is wrong because it disagrees with their understanding of God, and then they find some dudes on the Internet who have figured out how the experts are mistaken?

This isn't doing science. This is just blatant, science can't explain it, therefore it cannot be real denialism. The experts have to be wrong because it doesn't fit what we know about science. Dude on YouTube has the real answers. That is not what science does. Science looks at something and says, "We can't explain it. Let's figure out what we don't understand yet!" That's not what's happening here. It's just denialism trying to explain away credible information.

Sorry, but I don't buy that.

 

[Heyo]

Is that what the evidence shows? The Navy was mistaken in what they saw? They were mistaken they could not explain it? They were wrong in saying it wasn't going against the wind? They were wrong, and some "skeptic" dude on YouTube is right?

Isn't this exactly the same thing the Creationists do in saying the science is wrong because it disagrees with their understanding of God, and then they find some dudes on the Internet who have figured out how the experts are mistaken?

This isn't doing science. This is just blatant, science can't explain it, therefore it cannot be real denialism. The experts have to be wrong because it doesn't fit what we know about science. Dude on YouTube has the real answers. That is not what science does. Science looks at something and says, "We can't explain it. Let's figure out what we don't understand yet!" That's not what's happening here. It's just denialism trying to explain away credible information.

Sorry, but I don't buy that.

With "dude on YouTube", do you mean thunderf00t? He is a scientist. The pilots are not scientists.

 

[Windwalker]

With "dude on YouTube", do you mean thunderf00t? He is a scientist. The pilots are not scientists.

Do you believe that the pilots and the Navy do not know how to understand what they are reading on their radar screens? They just fly those things around but don't really understand what all those little knobs and gauges and screens are displaying?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's the deal. Some YouTube "debunker" site vs. the U.S. Navy. Who has more credibility in your eyes? My first thought is, generic blogger can figure out what the world's best pilots can't figure out about their own radar. That if anything shows a lack credibility for the debunker. This is what I mean by denialism. When presented with credible sources and material, they interpret the data with explanations that experts themselves failed to come up with? That smacks of desire to deny something that others who are experts themselves can't explain. You don't think the Navy knows how to read their own radar? That's all I meant.

It is not just one. There are multiple sources that refute those in the same way. And who do we trust? A YouTuber or the US Navy? We trust the one that can support their claims with the recorded observations and the math behind the explanations. The Navy's claim? "I donno."

The only conclusions made are that these cannot be explained. Yet dude on YouTube can explain them just fine, while the Navy and the Pentagon itself cannot? And it they aren't "proper professional scrutiny", then what are they? Hacks that need air-chair Bob from debunkers.com to set them straight? This was released by the Pentagon as unexplainable. And yet, here we have dude on YouTube explaining it with answers they couldn't figure out themselves? I am rightly skeptical of that.

Perhaps they could. For example the GOFAST UFO demonstrates how truly amazing that system is. It captured a duck at several thousand feet and was able to track it while the jet was cruising at high speed.

Which does not include going to dubunkers.com to explain what the experts who say they can't explain. that's not doing science. That's doing denialism. Or if you don't like that word, denying it could be beyond explanation, is not doing science at all. It's doing belief.

I have not checked that site out. Are you sure that they are experts?

I have not Gish-galloped anything at all. The only thing I have done is cite one source, the U.S. Navy and the credibilty of their piolts. I'm not impressed that some debunker site thinks they can explain the Navy's radar when they themselves concluded they can't explain what it is. That's it.

But is there other credible sources that see the same things and cannot explain them? Yes. The Air Force in Belgium has similar encounters. Maybe they need to learn how to read their radar better too from this YouTube bloggers post as well? If we were doing real science, we'd start by saying the experts say they can't explain it. Not try to explain it away by a YouTube blogger.

All air forces are going to have similar issues because they all are constantly using new technology that they do not fully understand.

So what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you believe that the pilots and the Navy do not know how to understand what they are reading on their radar screens? They just fly those things around but don't really understand what all those little knobs and gauges and screens are displaying?

Again, new technology that they do not fully understand. What they are testing is cutting edge and is not fully understood by anyone until it is out in the field for a while. This argument does not fly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

40knots at 13000ft? Balloon, most likely. Or even a bird. But NOT some mystery craft moving at unimaginable speed.

I am not sure if it was 13,000 feet, but if we are talking about the GOFAST UFO a medium to large size bird sounds reasonable. The UFO had a pulsing appearance that matched the size difference and rate of a bird of that size in flight.

 

[Heyo]

Do you believe that the pilots and the Navy do not know how to understand what they are reading on their radar screens? They just fly those things around but don't really understand what all those little knobs and gauges and screens are displaying?

It just so happens that the instruments they are using are state-of-the-art, i.e. new. The pilots are trained to use the instruments for very special cases, i.e. spotting enemy planes and missiles. When the instrument picks up a goose (which last years radar wasn't precise enough), they get confused as that is out of their training.
Remember that I said pictures are always blurry, no matter how good the camera is? Ever since there were UFOs it was always a phenomenon at the edge of the perception of the instruments.
And it is not that thunderf00t simply claims that he knows what is on the screen, he can explain it.
With an other video with the triangular "UAP" he even could reproduce the same effect with a camera at the edge of its perception.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It just so happens that the instruments they are using are state-of-the-art, i.e. new. The pilots are trained to use the instruments for very special cases, i.e. spotting enemy planes and missiles. When the instrument picks up a goose (which last years radar wasn't precise enough), they get confused as that is out of their training.
Remember that I said pictures are always blurry, no matter how good the camera is? Ever since there were UFOs it was always a phenomenon at edge of the perception of the instruments.
And it is not that thunderf00t simply claims that he knows what is on the screen, he can explain it.
With an other video with the triangular "UAP" he even could reproduce the same effect with a camera at the edge of its perception.

Yes, the triangular one demonstrated the shape of the aperture of the camera. A person that is very familiar with photography, especially of stars would likely be aware of that. Stars are essentially point sources of light. When a telescope is out of focus while aimed at a point source of light one does not get a blur. Instead the shape shows what the aperture of the telescope is like. Many camera have hexagonal ones, but that is not the only shape one has to use. One of Thunderf00t's hobbies is astronomy so he probably spotted that one himself. It was likely a mistake that he made. That, and the color and the frequency of the pulses that matched those required for aircraft by the FAA made that one rather easy to debunk, and repeat.

 

[exchemist]

I am not sure if it was 13,000 feet, but if we are talking about the GOFAST UFO a medium to large size bird sounds reasonable. The UFO had a pulsing appearance that matched the size difference and rate of a bird of that size in flight.

yes gofast. And plenty of birds fly at 13000ft.

 

[blü 2]

From news today:

UFO hearing key takeaways: What a whistleblower told Congress about UAP

UFO hearing key takeaways: What a whistleblower told Congress about UAPs

A former military intelligence officer-turned-whistleblower told House lawmakers that Congress is being kept in the dark about unidentified anomalous phenomena.

www.cbsnews.com

What's everyone's views on UFO's / UAP's?

I was with a group at our local observatory recently, and host asked how many there had seen UFO's - a little over half raised their hands, had a fun conversation with everyone talking about the crazy stuff they had seen.

As AI rises, so the chance of a believable UFO sighting recorded in flight sinks (or, depending on your point of view, sinks even lower). Gosh, they were throwing hubcaps in the air to photograph their UFOs in the 1950s or earlier. But now the fakes will be knocking on the door of perfection, given a smart director.

 

[exchemist]

Do you believe that the pilots and the Navy do not know how to understand what they are reading on their radar screens? They just fly those things around but don't really understand what all those little knobs and gauges and screens are displaying?

That is not an intelligent remark. No one disputes these pilots are trained very well, for their military function. But, as the NASA investigators have explained in their submissions, with actual examples, these pilots can and do misattribute what they see on their instruments.

 

[exchemist]

Is that what the evidence shows? The Navy was mistaken in what they saw? They were mistaken they could not explain it? They were wrong in saying it wasn't going against the wind? They were wrong, and some "skeptic" dude on YouTube is right?

Isn't this exactly the same thing the Creationists do in saying the science is wrong because it disagrees with their understanding of God, and then they find some dudes on the Internet who have figured out how the experts are mistaken?

This isn't doing science. This is just blatant, science can't explain it, therefore it cannot be real denialism. The experts have to be wrong because it doesn't fit what we know about science. Dude on YouTube has the real answers. That is not what science does. Science looks at something and says, "We can't explain it. Let's figure out what we don't understand yet!" That's not what's happening here. It's just denialism trying to explain away credible information.

Sorry, but I don't buy that.

Did you watch the Mick West video that I linked on the "Go Fast" UAP? It's only 6 minutes. It goes painstakingly through what the pilot's instruments show, and how these readings do not show what the pilot thought he was seeing, because of parallax. And did you watch the Mick West video I linked earlier (3 mins) on a simple demonstration of parallax?

Pilots are trained to make split-second decisions about friend or foe, how to acquire and neutralise a target and how to take evasive action. (Not that that stops them occasionally shooting at their own side, but that's another story). They are not trained to scrutinise and measure carefully their observations and check the effects of parallax. They don't have the time, the patience or the training. That is the sort of thing astronomers and NASA scientists do. Which is why they have found that so many of these reports are due to distant commercial airliners, birds, weather balloons and so on.

Creationists have no evidence, just faith-based claims. Unlike what creationists do, what I am showing you is hard scientific evidence that pilots make mistakes. Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, a career intelligence officer who is leading AARO, has given similar examples. I'm not just citing some YouTube nut. You should know me better than that by now.

 

[idea]

As AI rises, so the chance of a believable UFO sighting recorded in flight sinks (or, depending on your point of view, sinks even lower). Gosh, they were throwing hubcaps in the air to photograph their UFOs in the 1950s or earlier. But now the fakes will be knocking on the door of perfection, given a smart director.

It has always been the age of misinformation, partial-information, half-truths, one-sided histories.

I was hoping for a few more 1st hand accounts with this thread. Not debates about what others have seen, what strange things has everyone here seen?

I've seen:
It looked like a large boomerang - really large, with clouds surrounding it. Moved slowly - silently - pushing through cloud/fog.

Camping - it wasn't a meteor, too large, rectangular - burning up in atmosphere. 3 of us saw it from different camping sites.

Hiking - came across quite a few dead animals that had been carved up, missing organs, drained if blood - just shell left - hollow. Not old carcass, fresh. In the middle of nowhere. Clean cuts - not chewed on, no claw marks - clean cuts.

Everyone has seen a few strange things, right?