Pentagon releases UFO videos

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Apparently asking questions or presenting competing theories to something undetermined is denialism?

When you ignore the mountain of evidence and focus on a tiny detail, and try to obfuscate the mountain, it's denialism.

I’m not sure any reasonable person would agree with that and I’m not sure what the constant condescension and combativeness from one poster does to make this thread more interesting, as I don’t really see why these discussions need to be dramatic.

Hey, then maybe stop dragging this discussion into others in attempt to discredit the poster in question. When I see posters dragging points made here into other topics and using an out of content statement like "believing in aliens" as a means to discredit, it's why the condescension and combativeness comes out, because the ruthless dogpiles and attacks are unwarranted.

I think it’s interesting hearing the differing stories of Fravor/Day/Underwood and others who were there for that specific event as well as West giving reasonable explanation for certain elements of it.

I agree, which is exactly why those particular points are put forward. These are actual subject matter experts. These are the actual people involved in the events. They are the ones we should be listening to. They are the ones best served in answering the questions. That is why their information is so important. What is annoying about guys like West is they are not out to try and answer the question of "what was that thing that all these people and technologies saw?" His whole gig is to try and explain the event away rather than try to understand the entirety of the event or ask the larger question. He is trying to discredit these people or the technology on minor technicalities more than answer questions. That's my problem with these people and why I don't view them as skeptics.

[karl262]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Apparently asking questions or presenting competing theories to something undetermined is denialism?

I’m not sure any reasonable person would agree with that and I’m not sure what the constant condescension and combativeness from one poster does to make this thread more interesting, as I don’t really see why these discussions need to be dramatic. I think it’s interesting hearing the differing stories of Fravor/Day/Underwood and others who were there for that specific event as well as West giving reasonable explanation for certain elements of it.

For Mick Wests control study in his garage, did he use a Raytheon targeting pod connected to a superhornet interface?

Did he prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the FLIR camera definitely did not capture what it seems to have captured and what the pilots and everyone else said was observed?

These people do this for a living, they are the best in the world with the best technology. They were dumbfounded.

Something was observed beyond our known understanding in the Tic Tac incident.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

When you ignore the mountain of evidence and focus on a tiny detail, and try to obfuscate the mountain, it's denialism.



Hey, then maybe stop dragging this discussion into others in attempt to discredit the poster in question. When I see posters dragging points made here into other topics and using an out of content statement like "believing in aliens" as a means to discredit, it's why the condescension and combativeness comes out, because the ruthless dogpiles and attacks are unwarranted.



I agree, which is exactly why those particular points are put forward. These are actual subject matter experts. These are the actual people involved in the events. They are the ones we should be listening to. They are the ones best served in answering the questions. That is why their information is so important. What is annoying about guys like West is they are not out to try and answer the question of "what was that thing that all these people and technologies saw?" His whole gig is to try and explain the event away rather than try to understand the entirety of the event or ask the larger question. He is trying to discredit these people or the technology on minor technicalities more than answer questions. That's my problem with these people and why I don't view them as skeptics.

Part of understanding an event is understanding all parts of it, and chipping away at what certain elements aren’t or highlighting what they are is a good thing. I don’t understand the outright refusal consider all angles from skeptics and believers alike. Isn’t THAT just denialism?

Also, please don’t play victim and pretend that mentioning your name along with aliens is why you act the way you do, especially considering you’re conflating some personal childish explosion you had at me with the casual and persistent condescension you consistently offer to posters like Fuzz and GGG. You’ve been doing it since long before and will continue doing it long after I’m sure. It adds nothing to the conversation and while I believe you have interesting, intelligent points to make you bury them under this need to bicker and condescend at every turn. It is truly annoying. You are an adult. I’ve made my point so I won’t mention it again and we can go back to having a laugh at all this stuff.

Originally Posted by karl262

For Mick Wests control study in his garage, did he use a Raytheon targeting pod connected to a superhornet interface?

Did he prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the FLIR camera definitely did not capture what it seems to have captured and what the pilots and everyone else said was observed?

These people do this for a living, they are the best in the world with the best technology. They were dumbfounded.

Something was observed beyond our known understanding in the Tic Tac incident.

Did you watch the video? Because this has little to do with the evidence presented or conclusions made from it.

Are you saying he’s wrong to believe a glare from the object could explain some of the spinning movements on the video? Have any evidence to the contrary? Did Fravor mention a spinning?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Hahahaha. Keep telling yourself that. Went from skepticism, past cynicism (did not collect $200), and directly to pure denialism. Every piece of technology failed at the same time in the same manner. Every personal account was a false memory. Everything that identified the craft and presented the same data are all wrong. All righty then.



Great question. There are lots of theories. The answer is we don't know. Just like we don't know everything about our universe or physics itself, even though there are tons of people who have deluded themselves into believing we do.

As Dr. Knuth stated in his "peer reviewed" article, "It is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions at this point regarding the nature and origin of these UAVs other than the fact that we have shown that these objects cannot be of any known aircraft or missiles using current technology. We have characterized the accelerations of several UAVs and have demonstrated that [B] if [/]they are craft then they are indeed anomalous, displaying technical capabilities far exceeding those of our fastest aircraft and spacecraft. It is not clear that these objects are extraterrestrial in origin, but it is extremely difficult to imagine that anyone on Earth with such technology would not put it to use. Even though older sightings are less reliable, observations of seemingly similar UAPs go back to well before the era of flight. Collectively, these observations strongly suggest that these UAVs should be carefully studied by scientists."

I know plenty of scientists, including a couple of very famous (one now infamous) physicists/cosmologists who are very open to the possibility of us being wrong, and acknowledge their approach is on what we "currently" know, but that can quickly change. The sad thing is it is people like West that make taking these questions head on more difficult. He has no expertise but that doesn't stop him from pushing people willing to consider these questions as wingnuts, which drive scientists - who live off their reputation - away from taking on the unexplainable and challenge what we think we know. Dr. Knuth concluded, "Ironically, such attitudes inhibit scientific study, perpetuating a state of ignorance about these phenomena that has persisted for well over 70 years, which is now especially detrimental, since answers are presently needed."

How is my post denialism?

The most common explanation for UAVs has been bad telemetry or misidentification. If these Tic Tacs turn out to be Aliens it will be the first time that has been shown to be the case.

A good example of the fear of bad measurement is the Higgs Boson. It was observed in December but it took them until July confirm with a 5-6 Sigma confidence that what they observed was in fact the Higgs and not a random fluctuation. When any new scientific discover is made the question of is this bad data should be asked. Cold Fusion, violations of the laws of thermodynamics have all been “proven” to exist but fall apart under scrutiny. Holding a default position of the most likely explanation is the explanation that does not involve alien life visiting from a far planet that there are no detectable signs of from space but they are bad enough at hiding that we observed them seems like a reasonable position.

Your good doctor more or less agrees with me. “IF” they are craft. He does discuss in his paper that he feels that it’s more likely it is craft than bad telemetry but certainly doesn’t exclude it as an option.

The last statement of studying these unknown effects is important certainly is reasonable. It just needs to be done with a level of scientific rigour not currently found in the field.

As an aside if/when evidence of extraterrestrial life reaches an acceptance level of say climate change I would still think your position today that the most likely explanation of this event is ET ( correct me if this is a Mis-statement of your position) is absurd. The balance of probabilities does not tilt in that direction.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

How is my post denialism?

Did I misinterpret this comment?

"Or telemetry and visual reports were tricked by the same affect."

Were you not suggesting that all the systems and people were faulty in their data collection, actions, and recollection of events? That would mean multiple people managed to describe the exact same things, from multiple angles and distances, where chromatic aberrations would not be represented in the same way, producing very different descriptions. That would also mean that the radar and tracking data from separate planes would have the exact same failure at the exact same time, while having very different angles of attack and views of the events. That would also mean that each ship in the attack group that was tracking this craft had similar failures. That would also mean that the ballistic defense shield, which tracked these devices from low earth orbit into the atmosphere and the field of the engagement also suffered a catastrophic failure that day and saw ghosts in the machine. This is the case you are attempting to build with that single statement. All of the telemetry, from at least a half dozen locations, were ALL wrong. Is that not what your statement was suggesting?

The most common explanation for UAVs has been bad telemetry or misidentification. If these Tic Tacs turn out to be Aliens it will be the first time that has been shown to be the case.

It actually wouldn't. J. Allen Hynek identified a number of instances where telemetry data made explanation impossible. Those are part of the 700+ incidents he couldn't close during his days with Project Blue Book, and then the other 800+ he categorized after his departure. Radar telemetry has played a big part in substantiating some of the wildest events around the globe, so this is not a first.

A good example of the fear of bad measurement is the Higgs Boson. It was observed in December but it took them until July confirm with a 5-6 Sigma confidence that what they observed was in fact the Higgs and not a random fluctuation.

We the scientists who worked on this vilified, considered whackadoodles, and then subject to a disinformation campaign? No, they were encouraged to finish their research. Not the same with this particular field, even though - as Knuth points out - there is a massive investment in the search for ET outside our planet by multiple interests. But this particular field is taboo for what reason? As photon pointed out, "observations trump theory, so if you observe something that violates your theory you have to change your theory."

When any new scientific discover is made the question of is this bad data should be asked. Cold Fusion, violations of the laws of thermodynamics have all been “proven” to exist but fall apart under scrutiny. Holding a default position of the most likely explanation is the explanation that does not involve alien life visiting from a far planet that there are no detectable signs of from space but they are bad enough at hiding that we observed them seems like a reasonable position.

Does it? Seems like this house of cards come crashing down when you include the ballistic missile defense data, tracking the objects from lower earth orbit?

Your good doctor more or less agrees with me. “IF” they are craft. He does discuss in his paper that he feels that it’s more likely it is craft than bad telemetry but certainly doesn’t exclude it as an option.

No, he does not agree with you. That claim is actually laughable. How can you read that publication and think he agrees with you that it was bad telemetry? Yes, he said it is a possibility, but that is part of the scientific method - to identify all possibilities - but then produces a wealth of work and math to show that it was not bad telemetry. The good doctor took apart the "bad telemetry" argument by getting data from multiple sources and having the wherewithal to make sure he verified the function of all equipment.

The last statement of studying these unknown effects is important certainly is reasonable. It just needs to be done with a level of scientific rigour not currently found in the field.

Here we agree. The number of people approaching this topic with any rigor is low. And that includes the likes of Mr. West and skeptic/cynic community.
A big part of that is because of the ridicule and #### the real researchers have to go through. Why subject yourself to such garbage and put your career at risk? The disinformation and smear campaign has been very successful in keeping serious scientists from working on this topic. It isn't that there isn't a rich field of inquiry, it's that anyone who wades into it is cast a pariah.

As an aside if/when evidence of extraterrestrial life reaches an acceptance level of say climate change I would still think your position today that the most likely explanation of this event is ET ( correct me if this is a Mis-statement of your position) is absurd. The balance of probabilities does not tilt in that direction.

I have no idea what this is. None. Evidence suggests it is well beyond our current technical capabilities. It could be terrestrial in nature - but from the oceans. It could be extraterrestrial, and there is evidence to support this. It could be interdimensional. I don't know. I am not ruling out any explanation, except the suggestion that it was a massive technical glitch and mass hysteria. That is absurd and anyone trying to argue as such is in the same boat as those who are arguing climate change isn't happening.

[GGG]

Nm

[Snuffleupagus]

Michael Shermer on Joe Rogan:

The Pentagon’s refusal to debunk its own UFO videos is frustrating, And even if the June report is as mundane as Dietrich and others expect, he doesn’t think it will matter to UFO enthusiasts.

If the government issues a report saying it’s all artifacts of camera, balloons, bokeh — the ufologists are not going to accept it,” he said. “Nothing satisfies a true believer.”

Spot on IMO

[Lanny_McDonald]

The irony of that statement is pretty thick, considering the source and the program it comes from. There is no one more vested in building a narrative against acknowledging there are things we don't know than Michael Shermer. I like him and respect a lot of his work. I will say that the fact he's a recovering fundamentalist Christian has made him become more dogmatic about his skepticism and rigid in his faith in disbelief. Shermer's history as a climate science denialist is an example of him picking the wrong hill and willing to die on it. He only changed his tune when the evidence was so stacked against the denialists that he had to switch sides to save his reputation. Nothing satisfies a true disbeliever until their reputation takes a hit.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

When you ignore the mountain of evidence and focus on a tiny detail, and try to obfuscate the mountain, it's denialism.

Mountain of evidence? Day himself stated in an interview with West(I'll find it if you like) that he thought it looked a radar malfunction and looked like snowflakes on the screen, he never gave it a thought of something extraterrestrial. but of course as the years pass and dollars are offered for a book stories always seem get more interesting.

Hmmm, I wonder why most of these "unexplained" seem to happen near military bases, I'd love to be a fly on the wall in a room at the pentagon when all of this is discussed, laughs all around

[Ozy_Flame]

I think this is pretty neat if true. Does anything we currently know of go the speed of sound underwater? I guess the closest would be missile technology? Maybe hypersonic technology?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1504985793185472512

[troutman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underw...8b688e82dac3ad

The British Spearfish torpedo designed to counter high-speed Russian submarines, such as the Alfa-class submarine, is reputed to have a speed in excess of 70 knots (130 km/h). The Russian rocket-powered supercavitating torpedo VA-111 Shkval is reportedly capable of speed in excess of 200 knots (370 km/h). German press reports of an underwater anti-torpedo missile named Barracuda that allegedly reaches 430 knots (800 km/h).

The Swordfish is the fastest sea animal with a recorded speed of 97 km/h (60 mph).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound

However, the speed of sound varies from substance to substance: typically, sound travels most slowly in gases, faster in liquids, and fastest in solids. For example, while sound travels at 343 m/s in air, it travels at 1,481 m/s in water (almost 4.3 times as fast) and at 5,120 m/s in iron (almost 15 times as fast).

[Ozy_Flame]

This is rather big step on the topic. The New York Times is reporting that there is going to be public hearings on UAP activity next week.

If you ask UAP pundits, this is a huge milestone as it may allow those to speak beyond their NDAs and give more information.

I don't know how confident to feel about what will come from this (obstruction might be on the menu if they talk to intelligence and/or air force folks) but this is a very important exercise to undertake on the topic.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1524011092887969793

https://twitter.com/user/status/1524026479687999493

[Ozy_Flame]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1534925386353721344

[troutman]

Check out 164: UFO Hearings with Special Guest Mark O’Connell
https://www.bethmund.com/casual-spac...-mark-oconnell

and here are the actual transcripts of the congressional hearing if you really want to dig in: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts...-22-transcript

[NOISIA]

Originally Posted by troutman

Check out 164: UFO Hearings with Special Guest Mark O’Connell
https://www.bethmund.com/casual-spac...-mark-oconnell

and here are the actual transcripts of the congressional hearing if you really want to dig in: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts...-22-transcript

I’m good. You keep on believing what ever you want man.
UFOs are real.

[NOISIA]

Double post
UFOS ARE REAL.

[NOISIA]

They length so if you attempt to go is disturbing.

[Two Fivenagame]

Originally Posted by NOISIA

They length so if you attempt to go is disturbing.

wat?

[handgroen]

Originally Posted by NOISIA

I’m good. You keep on believing what ever you want man.
UFOs are real.

Trout man is a card carrying skeptic.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by NOISIA

They length so if you attempt to go is disturbing.

Almost self aware…