Pentagon releases UFO videos

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

So is taking a well-reasoned and objective statement - based on the facts available - and calling it "a stretch" when you present nothing to the contrary other than your opinion. Ozy referenced government released information to support his statement, which you called "a stretch". If Ozy is making a stretch it would seem the US government and military are making a similar stretch?

I actually think that Ozy's claim makes the most sense. If the US has technology to track and intercept technology like that displayed it would make the Russian and Chinese investment in hypersonic assets all but useless. I don't think the US would want either country to know they were throwing good money after a technology that could already be defend against. Keep your defense secrets secret as long as you can, especially if the enemy is playing into your hands.

Actually, it was Ozy that used the term stretch first. I simply stated that what I thought was a plausible reason for items to remain classified. And he didn't reference the government info until after that.

Again, lots of good info from him, just no need for the snark.

[karl262]

I believe the past six months have proven that whatever these things are, they're definitely not advanced Russian technology.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Actually, it was Ozy that used the term stretch first. I simply stated that what I thought was a plausible reason for items to remain classified. And he didn't reference the government info until after that.

Again, lots of good info from him, just no need for the snark.

Then how you are communicating your position is not clear nor overt. I also stated what I thought was plausible, and I said that because the official government language is changing to accommodate possibly non man-made objects.

I don't think it's unreasonable to surmise that perhaps something exists out there that requires such adjusted language and legislation.

Now moving forward, let's look at your original statement:

"Or, more plausibly, they don't want to release the videos because the objects of the videos are their most advanced technology."

Why do you think that's more plausible? What do you think they're tracking of their own technology on video capture that can't be released? Please explain.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Then how you are communicating your position is not clear nor overt. I also stated what I thought was plausible, and I said that because the official government language is changing to accommodate possibly non man-made objects.

I don't think it's unreasonable to surmise that perhaps something exists out there that requires such adjusted language and legislation.

Now moving forward, let's look at your original statement:

"Or, more plausibly, they don't want to release the videos because the objects of the videos are their most advanced technology."

Why do you think that's more plausible? What do you think they're tracking of their own technology on video capture that can't be released? Please explain.

I was referencing your implication that some items might be non man-made.

Suggesting that terrestrial is more plausible than non-terrestrial seems pretty straight-forward to me, and really shouldn't require further explanation.

[Ozy_Flame]

You going to answer the question? Why would the US have video tracking their own tech?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

You going to answer the question? Why would the US have video tracking their own tech?

I would assume because not everyone in every department is aware of what everyone in every department is doing.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

You going to answer the question? Why would the US have video tracking their own tech?

The US is not a single entity - videos, and video surveillance, are being taken all the time, by various groups and departments. The people/entities/technologies taking those videos don't know everything else that other departments of the military are up to. it isn't difficult to imagine that classified technology gets accidentally videoed periodically.

[Ozy_Flame]

That doesn't seem likely. The navy runs aerial training sorties and exercises usually in identified airspace or restricted airspace, such as off Catalina Island. If there were other US departments running activities in the same general area there would be a chain of command and coordination to minimize catastrophe.

Videos marked as classified because of UFOs (which is what the Black Vault submitted a FOIA request for) would likely not fall under this category.

If the US is testing hypersonic technology or something even more bizarre, they aren't doing it in Navy training grounds running the risk of collisions or near misses with their own jets or ships. It just makes little sense.

Unless you know something about private contractors, I don't think this is accurate.

[PepsiFree]

It’s more plausible than extra terrestrial, though.

[Ozy_Flame]

Whats more plausible IMO is not releasing classified footage because of sensor/radar technology used to track UAP in said footage.

You don't let Russia and China know how you're tracking them.

Again, no one is saying aliens. But we can't rule that out either.

[Enoch Root]

it can be both, and both are more plausible than extra-terrestrials

[Ozy_Flame]

Sensors are more likely than tracking your own bizarre tech IMO. Far, far more likely.

[Fuzz]

Ukraine’s airspace has been busy this year—that’s the nature of war. But scientists in the country are looking to the skies and seeing something they didn’t expect: An inordinate number of UFOs, according to a new preprint paper published by Kyiv’s Main Astronomical Observatory in coordination with the country’s National Academy of Science.

Using the cameras, stationed roughly 75 miles apart, allowed the scientists to make repeated observations of strange objects moving in the sky. The paper didn’t speculate on what the objects were, merely noted the observations and mentioned the objects’ incredible speeds. “Flights of single, group and squadrons of the ships were detected, moving at speeds from 3 to 15 degrees per second,” the research said. “Phantoms are observed in the troposphere at distances up to 10 - 12 km. We estimate their size from 3 to 12 meters and speeds up to 15 km/s.”

https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkg3...ufos-over-kyiv

To me, this lends a lot of support to the theory these recent UFO's are terrestrial in origin, unless you think aliens would be focuses on watching us shoot each other, which I guess is a possibility. But isn't it more likely they are American, providing intelligence to Ukraine? What better way for the US to test these out and use them than this? They could also be China, watching, but I'd lean more towards American.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkg3...ufos-over-kyiv

To me, this lends a lot of support to the theory these recent UFO's are terrestrial in origin, unless you think aliens would be focuses on watching us shoot each other, which I guess is a possibility. But isn't it more likely they are American, providing intelligence to Ukraine? What better way for the US to test these out and use them than this? They could also be China, watching, but I'd lean more towards American.

You got that from reading that article? Vehicles flying at mach 44 (15 km/s) through the atmosphere (troposphere) are likely to be American or Chinese craft? That would be a massive leap in technology for either nation. Hypersonic speed records have been set at a little more than half that speed, but only while traveling through the thermosphere where there is little resistance against the craft. To achieve these speeds within the troposphere is unheard of.

And then what better way to test an experimental craft than to fly it in a hotly contested warzone where one country has threatened nuclear attack if it determines possible forms of western aggression? Probably not the smartest move.

What is being ignored is there is a long history of UFO activity around times of war and locations where there is military activity. A lot of those sightings are explainable and misidentification, but others have long been unexplainable. From foo fighters of WWII to the recent sightings in the Ukraine, there is a rich history of these observations.

[PepsiFree]

A rich history of sightings in connection to military activity does lend itself to the idea of the objects being military in origin.

Again, going by what’s plausible, that’s just the most plausible conclusion based on that connection. The next would probably be a natural phenomena caused by the level of disturbance happening. And then somewhere down the line there’s the extra terrestrial possibility.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

What is being ignored is there is a long history of UFO activity around times of war and locations where there is military activity. A lot of those sightings are explainable and misidentification, but others have long been unexplainable. From foo fighters of WWII to the recent sightings in the Ukraine, there is a rich history of these observations.

Yes, there is a strong connection between military activity and UAP. There is also a similar rich history around nuclear facilities. Bob Hastings' book "UFO and Nukes" is a great capture of that phenomena.

As for the Ukrainian study, I am not sure what about it would lend to known terrestrial explanations. The 'Cosmics' and 'Phantoms' were reaching speeds both above and below hypersonic weapons (24140/kph), there was a variety of single/group/squadrons identified in the captures, and the shape/color signature don't always appear to match missiles. There is even a capture of a Phantom crossing the path of a Cosmic, so maybe there is not some universal rhyme or reason to their paths. I'm also not convinced it was any one country 'testing' technology, as it could lead to dangerous military outcomes if any of these were to collide with ground-level infrastructure, which is not known.

I'd love to see if they captured anything in the stratosphere or above, but it looks like they focused solely on the troposphere. That's probably due to using the technology at the two meteor monitoring stations. I'm sure there is better tech out there.

I'd classify their findings as objects of unknown origin and deserving of further study.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

A rich history of sightings in connection to military activity does lend itself to the idea of the objects being military in origin.

Military in origin, dating back to before flight was even possible. Sure, I guess you could make that argument. Doesn't hold much water, but sure.

Again, going by what’s plausible, that’s just the most plausible conclusion based on that connection. The next would probably be a natural phenomena caused by the level of disturbance happening. And then somewhere down the line there’s the extra terrestrial possibility.

What's plausible based on what? Your interpretation of things? Or that of others? I would think that after the past month the scientific community has faced because of new data about our perceptions of the universe that people would maybe reconsider how certain we are about things? We don't know, it is beyond our understanding, and we should consider all possibilities. What we do know is the government and military have acknowledged the activity in question is not of their doing, they have concerns about it from a national security perspective, and have created programs to observe and investigate from the terrestrial and extraterrestrial perspectives. They are taking on all plausible explanations to take on this challenge. Swamp gas and ball lightning will certainly be considered, but likely ruled out by these government agencies. They have for years and the body of evidence from accidental and intentional disclosure is there to support that claim.

[PepsiFree]

Plausibility isn’t certainty, not sure what the aversion to common sense is all about.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Plausibility isn’t certainty, not sure what the aversion to common sense is all about.

Common sense is limited to personal context, exposure to information, and belief. What you consider common sense another more read person considers as uniformed.

[PepsiFree]

Good thing that’s not the case here.