I think the most likely explanation is just some kind of visual phenomenon that occurs rarely in nature, that we don't know about. There could be something in nature that creates a flashy blurry light, that moves for a bit, and then dissipates.
In the UAP hearing, Ryan Graves said multiple witnesses working at Boeing saw a huge red square come out of the ocean and float over a military installation.
What kind of prosaic explanation might account for this?
I generally like this explanation, and think you could add that it’s some sort of atmospheric phenomenon that affects radar.
There are some wild visual things that we’ve been able to explain, like green flashes, floating ships, aurora, fallstreak holes, etc.
Without any other evidence to point to something more outrageous, like Aliens, that's the best explanation. I was watching a Neil Degrassi Tyson video on the subject recently. He, far more articulately than I can state, pointed out that the leap in logic from having something that you can't explain to aliens did it is large.
Speculating on aliens can be fun though. It involves a lot of discussion about physics, sci-fi, human nature/history, etc..
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
Old document but still interesting. Page 5 where it talks about 18 incidents with various characteristics and mentions “signature management”. I find that intriguing.
And AARO has repeatedly referred to these as “solid objects” picked up on multiple sensors so a simple visual phenomenon cannot explain these.
Could explore a large chunk of the galaxy in half a million years going 1/10th the speed of light.
And this is the thing.
An intellectual race of remote origin probably didn't "break out" when we did, but thousands if not millions of years earlier.
I think they've arrived remotely in some way. And initial contact with the earth could've been thousands of years ago. I don't they're here in the flesh but I think it's possible that they've established some kind of outpost/extension remotely that is producing and sending probes, some of which may have been recovered.
I also think it's highly possible that (non government or military) people are building their own craft and experimenting and they're just not stepping forward or announcing what they're doing. Like there were those floating metallic orb sightings at one point that were actually traced back to someone's data-collecting science project that physically matched what they were seeing from above.
I also think that lights in the night could be just that - lights. Aren't people now doing light shows with drones? Drones can float in one place for a period of time and then siddenly move very quickly. Mine can absolutely take off, and it's an entry level model.
Given the parallax illusion, if a light emitting drone was closer to the person observing them than they suspected, then it would appear to move much fast than if they were actually far up at aircraft height.
Explanations like that are why I lend way more credence to daytime sightings from qualified people like pilots.
Old document but still interesting. Page 5 where it talks about 18 incidents with various characteristics and mentions “signature management”. I find that intriguing.
And AARO has repeatedly referred to these as “solid objects” picked up on multiple sensors so a simple visual phenomenon cannot explain these.
ODNI acknowledged that limited data and sociocultural stigmas surrounding the topic of UFOs play a factor in why some of the 143 events remain unexplained. Shockingly, however, ODNI said that 18 incidents described in 21 reports appeared to involve some form of unknown advanced technology.
“Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernible means of propulsion,” the ODNI report reads. “The UAPTF [UAP Task Force ] holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management.”
In the UAP hearing, Ryan Graves said multiple witnesses working at Boeing saw a huge red square come out of the ocean and float over a military installation.
What kind of prosaic explanation might account for this?
Neil Degrassi Tyson also pointed out that human recollection is some of the worst kind of evidence, particularly second hand accounts.
I'd really like to here the details from the actual people who supposedly saw this. Also, it's strange that not a single picture exists. By 2003 camera phones (albeit not the best ones) were fairly common.
I'm not saying it couldn't have been a UFO....but this alone is certainly not enough to convince me it was. Once again, there's no collateral evidence to point to aliens, time travelers, etc...
I'd obviously like to wait, at least, until the actual people who saw the big red square come forward. There were supposedly many of them.
I appreciate your response. I too think the event needs more data, much like most UAP events and get that on the permanent, public record. However, multiple eye-witness reports can lend to a better explanation because of accounts that need to be corroborated. Much like the Phoenix Lights, Varginha, Ariel school or Westfall phenomena. The more eyes on the prize, the better.
I find large group sightings far more interesting, except I think close-up photos or video from pilots of objects in the sky will be the best silver-bullet material. But as suspected, I think the best photographic or video evidence is locked behind closed doors (at least for now). Lue Elizondo said there is a 23 minute video out there that's classified that is . . . something else. Christopher Mellon has also alluded to way better evidence that isn't available to the public. Those are the ones I imagine are being shared behind closed doors in SCIFs with people like Burchett and Gillibrand.
One recent quote from AARO stating that the metallic orbs are “real objects”. There are other similar previous quotes from AARO on other reports that I will try to find if anyone has doubts.
I think the most likely explanation is just some kind of visual phenomenon that occurs rarely in nature, that we don't know about. There could be something in nature that creates a flashy blurry light, that moves for a bit, and then dissipates.
Military personal see it more often, as the average person doesn't spend that much time with a close up view of those parts of the sky. The military also films more than the average person.
This is a reasonable explanation, my only reservation would be that beyond the microscopic & atomic levels, things in nature don't tend to come in perfect geometric shapes like triangles & circles with the type of symmetrical formations that are consistently described by observers.
This is of course unless this does happen and it's something we just haven't documented enough yet to classify it as a naturally occurring phenomenon.
But this precisely why there needs to be an official channel for pilots to report these sightings in detail.
Neil Degrassi Tyson also pointed out that human recollection is some of the worst kind of evidence, particularly second hand accounts.
I'd really like to here the details from the actual people who supposedly saw this. Also, it's strange that not a single picture exists. By 2003 camera phones (albeit not the best ones) were fairly common.
I'm not saying it couldn't have been a UFO....but this alone is certainly not enough to convince me it was. Once again, there's no collateral evidence to point to aliens, time travelers, etc...
I'd obviously like to wait, at least, until the actual people who saw the big red square come forward. There were supposedly many of them.
I think this is probably in line with what Neil said (from an 2019 article in the Times about these sightings):
Quote:
Leon Golub, a senior astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said the possibility of an extraterrestrial cause “is so unlikely that it competes with many other low-probability but more mundane explanations.” He added that “there are so many other possibilities — bugs in the code for the imaging and display systems, atmospheric effects and reflections, neurological overload from multiple inputs during high-speed flight.”
I guess the other question, in regards to these hearings, is why the Pentagon would lie now:
Quote:
In a statement, Defence Department spokesperson Sue Gough said investigators have not discovered "any verifiable information to substantiate claims that any programs regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past or exist currently."
…
Pentagon officials in December said they had received "several hundreds" of new reports since launching a renewed effort to investigate reports of UFOs.
"We have not seen anything, and we're still very early on, that would lead us to believe that any of the objects that we have seen are of alien origin," Ronald Moultrie, the undersecretary of defence for intelligence and security, said at the time.
"Any unauthorized system in our airspace we deem as a threat to safety."
Given the state of things and the increased calls for transparency that seem likely to come to fruition, my guess is either:
A. They are being honest but careful in their wording, and whatever these things are, they are extraterrestrial.
B. They’re lying and have no reason to believe they’ll be caught in that lie anyway.
You would think with all these people willing to be whistleblowers, that there would be some that would spill the beans for a big enough bribe. If I was a billionaire lunatic like Elon Musk who seems to have an interest in space travel, I'd be offering substantial rewards for anyone who could provide hard evidence or pieces of alien technology.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
You would think with all these people willing to be whistleblowers, that there would be some that would spill the beans for a big enough bribe. If I was a billionaire lunatic like Elon Musk who seems to have an interest in space travel, I'd be offering substantial rewards for anyone who could provide hard evidence or pieces of alien technology.
True.
Even without a substantial bribe, you would think that someone would want to be that person that breaks it to the world. If such things exist, that person would be immortalized in the history books. People tend to be enticed by such a prospect.
There must be serious and real threats that constantly exist to people's well beings and careers in order to deter such an action, as well as strict security around anything that could be considered evidence.
I'm just surprised that no one on the way out just said "#### it" and took it upon themselves to spill the beans.
I could see it being a web of purposeful lies, perhaps with the goal of weeding out those who can't be trusted.
One of my favourite UFO/UAP stories is the 1994 Ariel School incident in Zimbabwe. Many (kids at the time) witnesses seeing the same thing, and then each drawing what they saw (separate from each other). The following is a 10-minute clip from The Phenomenon (which is one of the better-made UFO documentaries out there).
Last edited by Muta; 08-02-2023 at 01:56 PM.
Reason: 10 minute, not 1 minute!
One of my favourite UFO/UAP stories is the 1994 Ariel School incident in Zimbabwe. Many (kids at the time) witnesses seeing the same thing, and then each drawing what they saw (separate from each other). The following is a short 1-minute clip from The Phenomenon (which is one of the better-made UFO documentaries out there).
It's an interesting case because children that age haven't developed abstract thought and would perceive things very literally without the preconceived notions or beliefs that would influence the accounts of adolescents or adults.
These are probably as close to unbiased accounts of an incident as you can get.
But by the same token, these kids could've been pranked and they wouldn't have known, so there's that.
Last edited by TrentCrimmIndependent; 08-02-2023 at 02:07 PM.
This is a reasonable explanation, my only reservation would be that beyond the microscopic & atomic levels, things in nature don't tend to come in perfect geometric shapes like triangles & circles with the type of symmetrical formations that are consistently described by observers.
This is of course unless this does happen and it's something we just haven't documented enough yet to classify it as a naturally occurring phenomenon.
But this precisely why there needs to be an official channel for pilots to report these sightings in detail.
I have yet to see a UFO photo that resembles anything close to a perfect geometric shape.
Polling two years before the congressional testimony.
65% of American believe intelligent life exists on other planets.
34% do not.
The older you are the less likely you are to believe in intelligent life. 76% of people under the age of 30 believe, only 56% over the age of 65.
Men believe more than women (70/60).
51% of Americans believe UFOs/UAPs are evidence of intelligent life outside of Earth.
47% do not.
The older you are the less likely you are to believe in intelligent life being behind UAPs.
Men believe less than women (48/53).
For Canadians it's similar, polling done two years ago as well.
65% of Canadians believe intelligent life exists on other planets.
11% do not.
Only those over the age of 55 the less likely you are to believe in intelligent life. 70% of people under the age of 55 believe, only 61% over the age of 55.
Men believe more than women (70/61).
56% of Canadians believe in UFOs/UAPs (are evidence of intelligent life outside of Earth based on framing).
21% do not.
Age has little effect on belief in intelligent life being behind UAPs.
Men believe more than women (64/48).
The problem with population level polling like that is it isn't all that interesting or informative. Like, 1 in 4 Americans believe in astrology. 81% believe in god. 13% believe bigfoot is real. 41% believe in ghosts(and 43% demons, somehow). It just doesn't seem very informative.
Which is why I wanted to see a ranking of users here to get a general idea of where the possibilities lie for what people rank as possible explanations.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
