I'm sure he would. We all would. But what would that explanation be? Still waiting for one that makes sense. GGG has suggested advanced human tech, but that doesn't make sense considering the testimony before congress. As Fravor says in his testimony this was not of human technology. Not now, not in the past, and not in the immediate future. Fravor was careful to frame that as in the next decade or more while testifying to congress, but he has framed that as centuries in other talks.
You ignore the fact that Fravor is not just some retired fighter jockey. Fravor has worked for Northrop Grumman as an engineer and senior analyst and has been consulting to the aerospace industry for over a dozen years in mission management systems for unmanned and manned vehicles. The guy works on the inside of this topic and is well versed on what is under development. If he's certain it's not human technology I take him at his word and I suspect congress does as well.
Fravor does not believe it to be human technology, that's a lot different than it not being human tech. The explanation is currently unknown, that doesn't make it alien by default.
So an expert in his field who is working with the very contractors who build the best technology man has to offer is not sure if it's human technology. If someone in his position wouldn't know who would? And if you say someone on the inside of the programs that could build such tech, well you have Grush's testimony. And no one said by default. Fravor was clear that he relied on his experience and expertise to make his assessment. He didn't go there by default, he weighed every option before coming to that conclusion. As he said, he was never a UFO guy nor thought about the subject matter. It was these events and then his later experience that formulated his belief. The technology he observed 20 years ago is so far advanced from anything we even have today or in the future that he is certain it is non-human in origin.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Yeah. Just because he believes in what he witnessed and it being not of human capability doesn't discount his credentials and his credibility/expertise in the field.
And Fravor has 5? others who were working with him that agreed that they witnessed the same thing.
Don't have to believe it, but raking people character/credibility over the coals because they attest to seeing something at one point over their long career is a bit of a fallacy. One does not discount the other.
Graves would be pretty idiotic to bring up the "big red square" in a hearing like that. Either he's idiotic, he's a disinformation agent, he's easily duped, or he's telling the truth. And I'm not sure he, Fravor or Grusch have sketchy backgrounds to warrant bringing up faulty secondary evidence like this in a congressional hearing.
In 2003, a group of Boeing contractors operated near the launch facility of what was then known as Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara County, Graves said.
At about 8:45 a.m., “they observed a very large, 100-yard-sided red square approach the base from the ocean and hover at low altitude over one of the launch facilities,” Graves said. “This object remained for about 45 seconds or so before darting off over the mountains.”
The UFO returned that evening after the sunset, but this time with more “aggressive behaviors,” Graves said.
“These objects were approaching some of the security guards at rapid speeds before darting off,” he said.
I mean it is secondary evidence, but not sure they could pull off what the onion suggests:
Yeah. Just because he believes in what he witnessed and it being not of human capability doesn't discount his credentials and his credibility/expertise in the field.
And Fravor has 5? others who were working with him that agreed that they witnessed the same thing.
Don't have to believe it, but raking people character/credibility over the coals because they attest to seeing something at one point over their long career is a bit of a fallacy. One does not discount the other.
Is anyone here doing that? I believe he believes the conclusions he has reached, I don't doubt his integrity. I question his conclusions.
Try respecting my viewpoint that belief in UFOs is asinine and misguided.
We know UFOs exist though so if that is your position it should not be respected.. There are currently unexplainable things in our sky’s. your position should be attributing Non human intelligence to explain UFOs is asinine.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
I think where people lose me is that people suggest that Fravor or Graves are experts on what human capabilities are based on the programs they have worked on.
They haven’t been involved with the crash recovery programs and the reverse engineering of alien tech.
So if they haven’t been involved and have no knowledge of the reverse engineering programs why should we believe them as experts in Human capacity. Why isn’t it just as likely that the hidden programs are Human developed craft wrll beyond peoples current understanding vs alien craft beyond human understanding.
Every argument made can replace the word top secret alien with top secret human and all the logic still holds.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
We know UFOs exist though so if that is your position it should not be respected.. There are currently unexplainable things in our sky’s. your position should be attributing Non human intelligence to explain UFOs is asinine.
It’s crazy because you could’ve read his two posts right before that where he explained in detail that his position is pretty much as you suggest it should be.
I also don’t think we need to pretend we don’t all know that “UFO” is pretty conventional short hand for “aliens.” Yes, I know that’s not technically what it stands for. But it’s OK.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Anton Petrov had a good segment a few months ago that explains why life in the universe may be extremely rare and it isn't mathematically impossible that Earth is the only planet in the whole universe to have life. The common assumption is that because the universe is so unimaginably large, that life must exist elsewhere, but that may not be the case.
The argument revolves around the different possible combinations that exist for amino acid combinations and how the proteins can fold in a way that life can form. The possible combinations are 10^300, while the number of potential worlds in the universe is about 10^30. It seems that for this to occur randomly, it should take longer than the age of the universe to occur just once. This could mean that the fact it happened once here was just an extremely fortuitous circumstance and that we shouldn't expect it again. You also have to consider the physical properties of our planet that allowed this to happen, and that most potential worlds will not have these properties. Also consider that even if it did form elsewhere, it may never have needed to evolve into complex or intelligent life forms, or survive through mass extinction events.
Obviously, there are some assumptions. It is possible that alien life uses a different recipe. We have no reason to believe that the same physical and chemical processes wouldn't apply everywhere though. Assuming anything else is not science as much as science fiction until we learn more.
Anyway, I am sure Anton Petrov explains it better than I can.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
It’s crazy because you could’ve read his two posts right before that where he explained in detail that his position is pretty much as you suggest it should be.
I also don’t think we need to pretend we don’t all know that “UFO” is pretty conventional short hand for “aliens.” Yes, I know that’s not technically what it stands for. But it’s OK.
If there is a thread to be pedantic in it’s this one.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Part of David Fravor' Statement for the House Oversight Committee
Quote:
What concerns me is that there is no “Oversight” from our elected officials on anything associated with our government possessing or working on craft that we believe are not from this world. This issue is not about full public disclosure that could undermine national security, but it is about ensuring that our system of checks and balances works across all work done in our government using taxpayer funds. Relative to government Programs, even Unacknowledged Waived programs have some level of oversight by the appropriate committee members in the House and Senate and this work that is said to be occurring from Whistleblower testimonies should not be exempt.
In closing, I would like to say that the Tic Tac Object that we engaged in Nov 2004 was far superior to anything that we had at the time, have today, or are looking to develop in the next 10+ years. If we in fact have programs that possess this technology, it needs to have oversight from those people that the citizens of this great country elected to office to represent what is best for the United States and in the best interest of its citizens.
I thank you for this time to speak with you today and God Bless America!
He may have seen tech that was incredible to witness, but even without me being there, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that nothing otherworldly exists and it was definitely swamp gas.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
We know UFOs exist though so if that is your position it should not be respected.. There are currently unexplainable things in our sky’s. your position should be attributing Non human intelligence to explain UFOs is asinine.
Yah, I missed adding "being aliens" to my statement. To clarify, UFOs exist, but believing that some of them must be aliens is what is absurd.
To illustrate why believing that aliens are the only explanation is absurd, why can't these objects be time travelers? Or humans from a parallel world? Or secret military tech? Or hoaxes? Disinformation by the American government intended to indicate to foreign powers that they possess secret military tech? The direct manipulation of observers' minds by psychics? Hallucinogenics being tested on unsuspecting subjects by the CIA?
Oh, some of those explanations are ridiculous? Well, there is just as much evidence for any of those explanations as there is for visiting aliens. As Fuzz said, it's the conclusions that are faulty here, we don't KNOW what UFOs are, hence why they are unexplained. Until there is hard evidence, like something physical and incontrovertibly alien, or a signal from an unambiguously extraterrestrial source, or anything else tangible (not anecdotal, no matter how trusted the source) then there is no reason to respect anyone's belief in alien visitors any more than their belief in reincarnation or chiropractic or other weakly supported assertion.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
I saw Steven Spielberg talk about UAP after the balloon incident. His theory was "what if it's not aliens, but us from thousands of years in the future?"
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
I'm still waiting for the Tic Tac UAP mystery to be solved. Until then I will keep an open mind to all possibilities. That includes being called whatever term someone would come up with for me because I happen to have a belief in UFO's. Bring it on!
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
I've been following the UFO phenomena for over 40 years. There has been a lot anecdotal evidence from people in the military to police and other credible witnesses that has given me pause for thought. Over the years most of the sightings have been explained from test military aircraft to other explanations. It's the 3 percent of sightings that haven't been explained that have me curious.
The problem with hallucinogens is when groups of people questioned individually are reporting the same thing in the sky. They're more likely to have their own individualized interpretations in such an instance.
Or when you have objects filmed from several different vantage points showing these crazy maneuvers and lights, which is happening more frequently of late. Which rules out some kind of video effect/edit (unless someone got hold of all collective footage before release and went to painstaking lengths).
Hoaxes in order to drive such a narrative is possible. Maybe the US Wants other countries to believe they're sitting on tech of non human origin. Or distract from something else. That does seem of higher likelihood than NHI. But NHI is far from the craziest possibility on the list.
I'd be more than happy to admit that UFO's do not exist when and if all sightings have been explained. Until then.......
It was said by one debunking "authority" on the matter that roughly 5% of reported cases are the kind that can't be debunked given the information available (in some cases, a lot of data is there).
Until you can explain away those 5%, I'll reserve any definitive statements.
And I think that's a wise and reasonable perspective to hold.
Assuming what is possible and what isn't with such a limited perspective on what's out there is simply shortsighted, or at least premature. Unless, of course, you can debunk those 5% of sightings right here and now.
Nothing is impossible until that point.
Last edited by TrentCrimmIndependent; 07-30-2023 at 05:08 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to TrentCrimmIndependent For This Useful Post:
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent
It was said by one debunking "authority" on the matter that roughly 5% of reported cases are the kind that can't be debunked given the information available (in some cases, a lot of data is there).
Until you can explain away those 5%, I'll reserve any definitive statements.
And I think that's a wise and reasonable perspective to hold.
Assuming what is possible and what isn't with such a limited perspective on what's out there is simply shortsighted, or at least premature. Unless, of course, you can debunk those 5% of sightings right here and now.
Nothing is impossible until that point.
I believe that we will never know the truth/explanation in regards to the 5% of cases unexplained. Fravor and like got a chance to tell their story but their attempts to get to the bottom of the UAP mystery is a waste of time IMO. I don't think the govt is telling us everything and I have my doubts we will ever get the truth.
