Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Do you believe in UFOs & flying saucers ?

17980818284

Comments



  • Steve012 wrote: »
    IMO, The "craft that ain't American" are interdimensional not from other planets.
    my 2 cent

    A good point there. We’re only really aware of about 5% of our surroundings. 95% of everything around us is practically invisible to current human tech. We could be sharing this planet with a far older more advanced race of people that can freely operate in and out of the realm of dark matter which is everywhere around us. For all we know we’re about as interesting to them as a large colony of ants. Just pure speculation of course and absolutely no way to prove it or disprove it.




  • The vast majority of these modern UAP sightings are being reported by the US Navy, is this correct? It just seems strange to me that this is the case, when the US Airforce, who I would assume have vastly greater numbers of airborne aircraft, with greater numbers of pilots, better aircraft, more aerial camera's/tech etc, aircraft flying all throughout the entire globe and they don't seem to have anywhere near the numbers of reported sightings of these aerial phenomenon?




  • buried wrote: »
    The vast majority of these modern UAP sightings are being reported by the US Navy, is this correct? It just seems strange to me that this is the case, when the US Airforce, who I would assume have vastly greater numbers of airborne aircraft, with greater numbers of pilots, better aircraft, more aerial camera's/tech etc, aircraft flying all throughout the entire globe and they don't seem to have anywhere near the numbers of reported sightings of these aerial phenomenon?


    I also wonder why satellites don't pick up more sightings?




  • Aristotle wrote: »
    Or you can continue to make irrelevant comments. Your choice. :)

    ar·​ro·​gance | \ ˈer-ə-gən(t)s

    Definition of arrogance

    : an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions

    : an insulting way of thinking or behaving that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people




  • kingtiger wrote: »
    ar·​ro·​gance | \ ˈer-ə-gən(t)s

    Definition of arrogance

    : an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions

    : an insulting way of thinking or behaving that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people

    I'm aware of what arrogance is, thank you. Have you looked up when arrogance is justified?

    You might find it includes when people complain about two people who are having a constructive discussion, in which they make one post per day, and suggest that they are taking over a thread with those two posts per day when no one is stopping them from posting whatever they like as often as they like.

    But thank you for another personal attack. Would you like me to define the word hypocrite for you, seeing as how the only posts you've made in this thread in the past week is attacking people?


  • Advertisement


  • kingtiger wrote: »
    ar·​ro·​gance | \ ˈer-ə-gən(t)s

    Definition of arrogance

    : an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions

    : an insulting way of thinking or behaving that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people
    Aristotle wrote: »
    I'm aware of what arrogance is, thank you. Have you looked up when arrogance is justified?

    You might find it includes when people complain about two people who are having a constructive discussion, in which they make one post per day, and suggest that they are taking over a thread with those two posts per day when no one is stopping them from posting whatever they like as often as they like.

    But thank you for another personal attack. Would you like me to define the word hypocrite for you, seeing as how the only posts you've made in this thread in the past week is attacking people?

    Mod

    Lads this is AH. Take it handy and post a little more lightheartedly. Thanks.




  • buried wrote: »
    The vast majority of these modern UAP sightings are being reported by the US Navy, is this correct? It just seems strange to me that this is the case, when the US Airforce, who I would assume have vastly greater numbers of airborne aircraft, with greater numbers of pilots, better aircraft, more aerial camera's/tech etc, aircraft flying all throughout the entire globe and they don't seem to have anywhere near the numbers of reported sightings of these aerial phenomenon?

    Not at all when most UAP are the Air force ,why would they report themselves ,

    For years the government pretended there was nothing in the sky no there using the opposite tactics and pretending whats up there is not them when it is ,


    What wold do people live in that they think if there was not real UAP the sky would not be constantly full of army aircraft looking for them,

    In what world would our Governments tell us about them & if they had no idea about them,

    Why do you think the same Governments who lied & hide the, are all of a sudden happy to tell us about them without information themselves

    Makes no sense for people who distrusted the Governments for decades & tried to tell us at nay chance they had that where being lied to all of a sudden take the same Governments words as gospel ,

    Lastly no decent picture or Video to this day existences .....sure Nasa, Airforce whatever can't get a good picture,




  • This will probably by my last long winded reply Aristotle because it's taking way too much time to go through these posts and it is cluttering up the thread. It's been fun though and I hope we've both gotten something from it. Cheers.

    But if you don't think the video shows anything spectacular, why were you debating the video? You are fully aware that I don't think the video is doctored or anything like that and that there is therefore an object or an anomaly of some sort within it, so why were you stressing things like no heat signature? You believe that the video alone shows evidence of something moving at significant speeds at high altitude with no propulsion. But also that the video alone does not show something spectacular?

    By nothing spectacular I meant no sudden acceleration or crazy manoeuvres as some people suggest. I do think it's interesting that it doesn't appear to have a conventional means of propulsion and I'd love to see the radar tracking of it. But it could be anything and I'm not enthralled by it by any means.

    But former presidents, senators, NASA, military etc. have all said such things for decades. In fact, as I said before, my PhD was about something in the atmosphere that could not be explained.

    Really? I wasn't aware that senior US officials were so open about the phenomenon previously. I've heard that Carter was interested in the subject but I've never seen any statements he made on it. Do you have any links to previous acknowledgements by such high ranking officials?

    Again, completely and utterly false. I am not picking parts of what you said. What you said was

    They have stated that they can't categorise 143 of the 144 cases, 80 of which involve data from multiple sources. They have so far defied common sense explanation.

    That is an objectively incorrect statement. No, they so far have no defied common sense explanation. There is nothing in the report that claims that. That just have not been identified, nothing more.

    Not only is it an incorrect statement, but it is a very common way for conspiracy theorists to get some ammo for their ideas. If you, as a pilot, stated that in an interview, such theorists would quote that objectively false statement for years to come. They would say "hey, this pilot says that 143 have defied a common sense explanation! It must be true!" Even though the source you took that belief from did not only not say that, but did not even imply it.

    I think this is somewhat pedantic on your part and you want to make a massive distinction between unidentified and unexplained. I can understand that but let me tell you what way I'm thinking about it:
    If you have radar data of an object moving faster than any known vehicle can then not only is that object unidentified but you also cannot explain how that object was moving so fast therefore it is unexplained. You do not have a common sense explanation for that particular incident. You can theorise that it is a radar anomaly but until that is proven you cannot offer that as an explanation.
    If you have IR footage of an object at 20000' that you can't identify, you also can't explain where it came from or in some cases how it manoeuvres so therefore it is also unexplained.
    That is my thinking behind that wording.

    Again, you are taking a quote and making false statements using that quote. What does the second word of that quote state? They at no point suggested "they do not understand some of what they have seen".

    Of course it may require additional scientific knowledge, because they are unidentified objects, so you have to have an "other" category by definition. If they instead stated, "we don't have enough data to identify this object, but it's certainly not a new phenomena", that wouldn't be the scientific way of analysing data.


    Yes that's fair. Even to go so far as to include this statement is a pretty big deal to me. I read it as "Some of these observations may be unidentifiable because we don't understand what they are and we need further scientific advancement in order to make identification possible".

    Now we don't know what, if any issues this causes the AN/SPY-1. We're not told of any known radar errors associated with ice crystals. So I'm not in the least bit surprised that it's not offered as an explanation for this case, because it isn't one.

    How did you come to that conclusion?

    A little bit of googling didn't turn up any known issues with radar data caused by ice crystals. As you said the report you linked didn't mention the possibility of the radar data being corrupted by the MET conditions. If you have evidence to suggest this may have been the case I'd like to see that.

    Yes, which is why I'm not claiming that that's what Fravor and others saw. I'm just suggesting that the radar stuff could be related to a meteorological phenomenon and what the pilots saw was something else. I'm not saying that with confidence as it's just one of so many possibilities.

    Okay, well you were saying that ice crystals could cause the radar errors so can you link to something explaining that? But I agree it's possible, though very coincidental that the radar returns and the sighting by the pilots were unrelated.

    I don't think I did jump to any conclusion. The report focused on military UAP reports where there was pilot testimony and good data from 2004 to 2021. This incident ticks all the boxes, do you contest that?

    I do not contest it at all.

    Okay... you have mentioned it a couple of times that I was just assuming this event was part of the report. It seemed to me you were suggesting it wasn't.

    Are you again making the same mistake of suggesting that a UAP does not have an explanation? A UAP, by definition, can be considered as such because it in fact has multiple explanations. This incident also has many explanations. Video - you are agree is not significant. Testimony - plenty of ways testimony can be wrong. Radar - we don't even have access to, but there many explanations for false radar tracks, even over days.

    Sorry, we don't have explanations for any of those pieces of evidence right now. It was a pretty simple question: Is the Nimitz event explained as of now? Clearly everything has an explanation, but as of now that explanation hasn't been found for this event so it is unexplained.

    No link, just a science shower thought. How have you concluded that it's a minute chance given how many ice crystals there are during such events and that meteorological events can last for days? What is your maths behind that?

    And, as an add on, ice crystals can melt and reform as they fall or move. That can also explain sudden apparent jumps in their location. Again, just a shower thought, and again, I'm not saying it's credible (or even necessary given that we don't have the radar data), I'm simply demonstrating that it's quite easy to come up with common sense explanations even just while you're typing a message.


    So you don't have a link to a source that explains these kind of radar anomalies being caused by ice crystals? Where are you getting this information from?
    I don't have any maths behind the ice crystal thinking. I don't even have any proof that this kind of radar error exists! It's just common sense. I just don't believe that this rare atmospheric condition would reoccur daily in the same way at the same location.
    As for melting and reforming: I can't see that causing a radar return 60 miles away from the original one. Again if you have links to any of this stuff that would be great.

    You are correct, my apologies. I'm actually quite confident that I did mean to write "reliable reports" and slipped up. It's of little significance as if you replace UAP with report in what I said then I still hold by my statement that you misquoted. They stated that the systems were reliable, not that the reports were reliable.

    Okay well I take your point on reliable reports versus reliable systems. Thank you.

    I don't understand what you're trying to say here. You're saying that I cannot discount the pilot testimony? Because they focused on both? You even said about that the testimony was the least reliable source above.

    I'm saying that you are completely dismissive of the eyewitness testimony but it's worth noting that the report considers eyewitness testimony as valuable, evidenced by the fact that they focused on such reports and reports with reliable systems data. I'm trying to point out to you that it's not constructive to completely dismiss eyewitness testimony to the point where you refuse to discuss it.

    I never said there was a "phenomena" of it. But based on the fact that they included it as a likely explanation for some of the UAPs, it's safe to assume that many of the things reported by pilots as unidentified later turned out to be plastic when they looked at the data.

    Agreed.

    Where did I state that the Nimitz incident could be plastic? I only gave a plastic bag as an example of something with "unusual flight characteristics" and that some of these UAPs could be plastic bags. And the military believe that they could be too, which is why it they specifically mentioned it. Not quite sure of the point you're trying to make here.

    You didn't, I was just using the Nimitz video as an example because that's the case we're discussing. The point was that plastic bags should be pretty easy to identify.

    Yes, you have said this a few times, but you have not explained what the significance of it is? I have said that the overwhelmingly majority of pilots likely have not seen a UAP in their careers. You seem to be just backing up my statement.

    Yes, precisely, which goes to validate my point that the number of UAP reports coming out of the US military seems high to me, considering most pilots probably don't ever see one.

    The reason they did not filter out less mysterious reports, in my mind of course, is that such a report would be blank. They have listed several categories, one of which is other, and have of course correctly stated some may or may not fall into each category. They have no stated that any of these 144 UAPs definitely fall into the "other" category and I am obviously of the strong opinion that they have not ruled out that all 144 UAPs could fall into the other four categories.

    Fair enough.

    I know that you are primarily interested in this one incident. But based on what I believe is a misunderstanding on your part of what a UAP is, I would stress again that you give an example.

    As you said, this report has focused on incidents with firsthand reports and data collected from reliable systems. Can you give an example of how such an incident is a UAP if a possible explanation of what that UAP is is a bird?


    Okay then I'll humour you: A pilot observes an albatross in the distance and well below his altitude, flying in the opposite direction at a seemingly fast pace, but he cannot identify it as a bird. It is also captured on the FLIR camera, but the object is too far away to distinguish what it is on the video. Nobody can identify what it is. It's a UAP.

    In the video? No, not at all. We're both in agreement that the video does not show anything unusual and is of little significance after all.

    Okay, I assumed you had this video in mind when you brought up thermal fluctuation. Any thoughts then on what that is in the Nimitz video?

    So the only reason you believe this report is of any significance is because of a "gut feeling"?

    Gut feeling is the wrong term, it's just logical to expect more than one in 144 reports being resolved after some serious scrutiny. That's a poor success rate.

    So do you believe that is likely that a group of pilots have been wrong about a similar incident in the daytime? Or was my inference instead correct? If my inference was incorrect, then what is the point of this night vs day argument you are trying to make if you also believe a similar thing has happened in the past during the day anyway?

    I have no doubt that there have been misidentifications by pilots during the day. But it still holds that daytime observations are likely to be more accurate and detailed. I would not discount testimony just because others have gotten it wrong before.

    4 pilots suffered from optical illusions? How many pilots saw it with their eyes again?

    4, three who have gone public.

    It's a good thing those aren't the only two options. Fravor may have seen something he believed was unexplainable, the other(s) saw something unusual but not necessarily unexplainable but either intentionally or unintentionally sided with the unexplainable idea as that's what their superior believed. Or perhaps Fravor got caught up in the excitement of seeing something unexpected, wrote his report while still excited, realised he may have jumped the gun a few days later after calming down, but stuck with his statement for his reputation's sake, and is maybe even enjoying the fame from it too. I'm not suggesting that either of those are the case, I am just saying you have suggested two common sense explanations, and I have suggested two more, and there are many many others. And within e.g. optical illusions, there are many many sub explanations. We do not need to jump to the idea of government scientists coming up with new technology that college professors couldn't and things like that.

    All true.

    Yes. I did read his wiki as I used it to source my screenshot and I assumed you would resort to this disingenuous argument. Just because Hynek changed his opinion about something does not suggest in any way that Hynek, a man very knowledgeable in statistics, was not being scientific when he collected and analysed his data either before or after he changed his opinion. In fact, it takes a strong will to admit to yourself that you were wrong about something after such a long time. Fravor might want to take a page out of his book.

    I don't think it's disingenuous. It's a study that was conducted more than half a century ago. How much data was available outside of pilot testimony? Hynek has said he was hired to be a debunker. He was therefore working in a very biased environment. He was hired because of his astronomy background to point out stars and planets that may have been mistaken by pilots for lights in the night sky. It all sounds subjective to me.

    Ok? Are you suggesting that should discredit everything from SETI? And all other similar jobs whereby we are employed to do some specific thing?

    Absolutely not. I don't think there are many scientific studies that are conducted with such a heavily biased pretense. This is the difference and Hynek has said as much. He wasn't hired to study the phenomena, he was hired to compile data that would discredit reports.
    Anyone carrying out scientific research should be doing so from an open and unbiased standpoint don't you agree?

    I wouldn't have a clue. I am instead under the assumption that this expert collected and analysed his data correctly, and you have not demonstrated why I should not believe that. Did he specifically state any point after he changed his viewpoint that his methods for determining these numbers were wrong? You would think that, as a scientist, that if he realised he was horribly wrong about something that he would have stated it in some form afterwards, especially since he also had a different opinion afterwards.

    I don't know because I don't own any of his books so I can't look that up. He has stated however that he regrets some of the work he was involved in, which if it was unbiased and fair then it would be an odd thing to regret being involved with it.

    Likewise, if it's believed that he was wrong about the misperception rate of pilots, why has another study not come along to discredit him? It would be a very basic thing to do what he did, and you would think it would be important thing to have some idea of how often pilots are wrong. Since I asked you in the previous to link to such a study and you haven't, I assume no such study exists. So, after 40+ years, his analysis has not been discredited by people on either side. What should someone conclude from that?

    The whole UFO topic has been taboo for years, there has been very little scientific research into the phenomenon at all that I'm aware of. Hence why the reference you've provided is from data compiled in the 1950s. I wouldn't conclude much from the fact that no other research may have been conducted. We would have to rely on UAPs being identified and then cross referencing the data with what the pilots reported. These reports have only been standardised in the US military since 2019 so it may be some while before that kind of research is even possible.

    Again, what's the significance of there being four pilots if they did not all see it? I'm a bit confused. In fact, the fact that there were four pilots but all four of them didn't see what was supposedly a bizarre object is of benefit to my argument and not yours, is it not?

    What makes you so sure that all 4 of them didn't see something? 3 of them have publicly said that they did. There is only one that hasn't come forward publicly. Not uncommon in these events due to the stigma attached.

    Agreed. But if a pilot saw something for long enough to confidently conclude that it was object travelling faster than the speed of sound, breaking the laws of physics and had a shape he had never seen, then I don't see the relevance of this argument.

    Don't really get your point here.

    Which, as any statistician will tell you, is of no significance.

    Yes they would, fair enough.

    You were asking if experimental scientists should stop doing experiments, i.e. stop doing their jobs, if they make an inaccurate observation. Again, I would say that that is a bad analogy.

    I think the analogy is fair. In both cases there is error in observation. In both cases it would be unfair to say that future observations should be discounted because there has been past error. You determine the cause of the error and you incorporate this into future training. This allows for more robust observation going forward.

    But you seem to be quite defensive about the idea of a logical explanation? You're saying that you're taking the Hynek data with a pinch of salt only because he changed his personal opinion, for example.

    Well I have discussed my position on Hynek in detail above so I won't go into that again.
    I'm just trying to eek out a good logical explanation from you, seeing as you are so confident that there is nothing new in what has been observed, just simply a lack of identification of something prosaic.
    But in the Nimitz case it requires a lot of coincidence to explain that it is all mundane and simply unidentified. Not that that is impossible, but that it requires the coincidence of multiple days of radar anomalies, total misidentification of an object by multiple eyewitnesses and the capturing of IR footage of an unrelated other UAP, just seems like a lot to accept.
    Now the alternative is obviously a lot to accept too, that it was the result of some either massively advanced tech that most are unaware of or other phenomenon that nobody understands. You could make an argument that this is actually the simpler answer and perhaps that's why so many people gravitate towards it.
    I'm open to the idea that the latter solution is an option, as unlikely as it seems. Maybe that comes across as defensive?

    And as you probably expected, I would ask you to quantify how less prevalent it was 17 years ago compared to less than 30 years ago.

    I suppose you could go through all airline accident reports from 30 years ago, see how many were found to have CRM issues as part of the cause and then compare that against the same data from 17 years ago. I'm confident that you would see a notable decrease from 30 to 17 years ago. That's sounds like a lot of work though and not something I'll be doing to prove a point to you!

    Good thing this incident was not pre 90s then.

    Barely, it was 1991. CRM was in it's infancy then and like anything takes time to have a notable impact.

    Do you have any link that suggests that CRM did not have immediate impact on the attitudes of commercial pilots? You weren't there after all, or are you again only basing this on more hearsay from fellow pilots and/or because you want to believe that that is the case? And I don't just mean a link showing the the application of CRM improved over time. Of course it would improve over time.

    No, but do you agree that with any new concept in any field, it takes time to develop, refine and see improved results?

    Well, considering neither of us are psychologists, I don't think either of us can or should conclude anything from interviews, podcasts etc. about whether someone is genuine or not. I have co-authored a book on psychology in relation to medical physics, but I certainly would not suggest that my opinion has more significance than yours on the matter. Because neither of our opinions matter. Because we're not psychologists.

    No we're not qualified to make claims about anybody, but I didn't claim he is definitely genuine. I just said he comes across as genuine to me. That's just my own judgement on what I've seen.

    There are, however, plenty of unsolved murders that have witnesses, CCTV footage etc., as well as combinations of such sources.

    True. What I was getting at is that if this is some new phenomenon, then time will help us to understand it.

    Why would occurrences of UAPs ever stop? You use the phrase "don't seem" as if UAPs could stop being a thing in the future.

    I meant these highly unusual ones where people are claiming to have observed incredible behaviour.

    Eh, what? You're unlikely to gain new data for a murder from a hundred years ago, just like you're unlikely to gain new data for a UAP from a hundred years ago. The occurrence of UAPs don't seem to be stopping, and the occurrence of unsolved murders don't seem to be stopping. You don't seem to have made any point here.

    The point is if some UAP do indeed represent an as yet unexplained new phenomenon then further recording of data related to this phenomenon will lead to better understanding of it going forward.




  • No problem. I'll just pick some of the more glaring things if that helps. I'll ignore things where you've said "it's possible you're right etc." If there's anything specific I didn't reply to that you'd like me to reply to, just let me know. :)

    I think this is somewhat pedantic on your part and you want to make a massive distinction between unidentified and unexplained. I can understand that but let me tell you what way I'm thinking about it:
    If you have radar data of an object moving faster than any known vehicle can then not only is that object unidentified but you also cannot explain how that object was moving so fast therefore it is unexplained. You do not have a common sense explanation for that particular incident. You can theorise that it is a radar anomaly but until that is proven you cannot offer that as an explanation.


    Yes, but where in the report does it state that all 143 UAPs are UAPs because of such reasons? An object can be unidentified because of a lack of data. It can be unidentified because instruments says it's one thing whereas eyewitnesses, or other instruments, say it's another thing etc. There are many many ways for an object to be a UAP without being anything like your example. You stated that 143 UAPs defy common sense explanation, and since the report does not claim that anywhere, it is incorrect statement, is it not? Does your albatross example defy common sense explanation? Could your albatross example be one of these 143 UAPs?

    Sorry, we don't have explanations for any of those pieces of evidence right now. It was a pretty simple question: Is the Nimitz event explained as of now? Clearly everything has an explanation, but as of now that explanation hasn't been found for this event so it is unexplained.

    We have pilot testimony, which does need to be explained as testimony is often wrong, and we have radar data we don't even have access to. So there isn't even anything to explain.

    I'm saying that you are completely dismissive of the eyewitness testimony but it's worth noting that the report considers eyewitness testimony as valuable, evidenced by the fact that they focused on such reports and reports with reliable systems data.

    I would disagree. I would say they focused on incidents that include only testimony as it rules out there having being issues with instruments and because it simply reduces the number of UAPs to focus on from thousands to hundreds.

    Yes, precisely, which goes to validate my point that the number of UAP reports coming out of the US military seems high to me, considering most pilots probably don't ever see one.

    But again, how is that high? If there are e.g. six per month, or even more, how many US pilots see a UAP in their career?

    Okay then I'll humour you: A pilot observes an albatross in the distance and well below his altitude, flying in the opposite direction at a seemingly fast pace, but he cannot identify it as a bird. It is also captured on the FLIR camera, but the object is too far away to distinguish what it is on the video. Nobody can identify what it is. It's a UAP.

    Thank you. So, how often do you think that happens? To me, even birds alone, based on your own example, can easily explain 6 UAPs per month.

    Okay, I assumed you had this video in mind when you brought up thermal fluctuation. Any thoughts then on what that is in the Nimitz video?

    Not really, just that it's not an inanimate object.

    Gut feeling is the wrong term, it's just logical to expect more than one in 144 reports being resolved after some serious scrutiny. That's a poor success rate.

    You can scrutinise your albatross example as much as you like. It's going to remain a UAP.

    I have no doubt that there have been misidentifications by pilots during the day. But it still holds that daytime observations are likely to be more accurate and detailed. I would not discount testimony just because others have gotten it wrong before.

    But if you did not have this radar data that you don't have access to, you would therefore agree that it is more likely that these group of pilots are wrong than e.g. some hidden technology, given that you believe groups of pilots have been wrong about similar incidents in the past in the daytime?

    4, three who have gone public.

    Do you have a link that says 4 pilots saw it with their naked eyes?

    I don't think it's disingenuous. It's a study that was conducted more than half a century ago. How much data was available outside of pilot testimony? Hynek has said he was hired to be a debunker. He was therefore working in a very biased environment. He was hired because of his astronomy background to point out stars and planets that may have been mistaken by pilots for lights in the night sky. It all sounds subjective to me.

    You seem to have an interesting fascination with how long ago something was. Scientists 50 years knew how to put their personal beliefs aside to come to the correct scientific conclusion, just as they do now. I didn't take any courses at any point that specifically taught me how to be unbiased, you just gradually get better at it as you do more and more science in your career. So I don't quite see why scientists of today would be less unbiased than scientists of 50 years ago.

    Anyone carrying out scientific research should be doing so from an open and unbiased standpoint don't you agree?

    Yes. So why are you discrediting Hynek and not SETI?

    I don't know because I don't own any of his books so I can't look that up. He has stated however that he regrets some of the work he was involved in, which if it was unbiased and fair then it would be an odd thing to regret being involved with it.

    Again, if he had a different opinion afterwards, then why did he not write a correction to his work? The reason is because he just changed his opinion,
    as many scientists do, that's all. Based on the evidence etc., he believed his opinion was wrong. That does not suggest that that is work before his opinion should be null and void.

    The whole UFO topic has been taboo for years, there has been very little scientific research into the phenomenon at all that I'm aware of. Hence why the reference you've provided is from data compiled in the 1950s. I wouldn't conclude much from the fact that no other research may have been conducted. We would have to rely on UAPs being identified and then cross referencing the data with what the pilots reported. These reports have only been standardised in the US military since 2019 so it may be some while before that kind of research is even possible.

    But a pilot's misconception rate is incredibly important for things outsides of conspiracy theories, is it not? You would think there would much research done on it if Hynek's work was incorrect.

    What makes you so sure that all 4 of them didn't see something? 3 of them have publicly said that they did. There is only one that hasn't come forward publicly. Not uncommon in these events due to the stigma attached.

    You are correct, I jumped the gun. However, you are stating a lot that four pilots saw this and that, which is not factual.

    Don't really get your point here.

    You stated an example of a pilot catching a glimpse of something in the corner of their eye. But that is obviously not the case here, given the description that the pilot gave.

    But in the Nimitz case it requires a lot of coincidence to explain that it is all mundane and simply unidentified. Not that that is impossible, but that it requires the coincidence of multiple days of radar anomalies, total misidentification of an object by multiple eyewitnesses and the capturing of IR footage of an unrelated other UAP, just seems like a lot to accept.

    Strongly disagree, I wouldn't even consider it a lot of coincidence. I don't dispute that what the pilots saw is likely what's also on the camera. So there are just two things - human testimony and radar data we can't access. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me.

    I suppose you could go through all airline accident reports from 30 years ago, see how many were found to have CRM issues as part of the cause and then compare that against the same data from 17 years ago. I'm confident that you would see a notable decrease from 30 to 17 years ago. That's sounds like a lot of work though and not something I'll be doing to prove a point to you!

    So we'll just say therefore that you have another gut feeling then.

    No, but do you agree that with any new concept in any field, it takes time to develop, refine and see improved results?

    Every program improves over time, and pilots in 30 year's time will probably laugh at the CRM program we have today. But many programs can still be great initially and have an immediate impact, and this program even had a few years in between that incident to improve. So I would still insist on a source for this statement.

    True. What I was getting at is that if this is some new phenomenon, then time will help us to understand it.

    It will? How do you know? Time has not helped solve all unsolved murders. If you just have a certain set of data, time can often not help with anything.

    I meant these highly unusual ones where people are claiming to have observed incredible behaviour.

    Why would they ever stop? You think that humans would stop claiming to have seen unusual objects? You think that instruments will eventually become infallible?

    The point is if some UAP do indeed represent an as yet unexplained new phenomenon then further recording of data related to this phenomenon will lead to better understanding of it going forward.

    And that is true of an unsolved murder also. What is the difference between this

    "The point is if some UAPs do indeed represent an as yet unexplained new phenomenon then further recording of data related to this phenomenon will lead to better understanding of it going forward."

    and this?

    "The point is if some unsolved murders do indeed represent an as yet unexplained new phenomenon then further recording of data related to this phenomenon will lead to better understanding of it going forward."

    If you don't believe that unsolved murders with witnesses, CCTV etc. necessitate an unexplained phenomenon, why do you feel it is necessitated with UAPs?




  • Irishjg wrote: »
    A good point there. We’re only really aware of about 5% of our surroundings. 95% of everything around us is practically invisible to current human tech. We could be sharing this planet with a far older more advanced race of people that can freely operate in and out of the realm of dark matter which is everywhere around us. For all we know we’re about as interesting to them as a large colony of ants. Just pure speculation of course and absolutely no way to prove it or disprove it.

    FLIR top end cameras with certain filters, can pick up stuff we can't see, spirits etc.. My Psychic old friend once said to me.. the sky and air around us, are teaming with life, you just can't see it


  • Advertisement


  • Thank you to fuzzyduzzy and steddyeddy and all the other contributors, all of you, for this interesting thread.

    We could be on the cusp of discovering the game changer for humanity, or maybe not.
    Either way, it's damn interesting, and I will continue to read this thread, but might not contribute much to it.

    Thanks to you all for keeping this topic active.




  • igCorcaigh wrote: »
    Thank you to fuzzyduzzy and steddyeddy and all the other contributors, all of you, for this interesting thread.

    We could be on the cusp of discovering the game changer for humanity, or maybe not.
    Either way, it's damn interesting, and I will continue to read this thread, but might not contribute much to it.

    Thanks to you all for keeping this topic active.

    The truth is out there




  • Huge news indeed. If called upon to speak, Elizondo, Eric Davis (and others) can say what they know without worrying about Non Disclosure Agreements (NDA's).
    https://twitter.com/devgru1980mi/status/1411748636518670341?s=20




  • Given the chaos on in the universe and the inevitable dying of stars which provide the life we know, I just can't imagine life elsewhere (which I'm sure is there) getting to a stage of progression in a space of time that allows them to travel to us. At the same time, there's still a lot we're unaware of but I think that if these sightings are legit, I can only see them being man-made. That would mean that there's scientific progressions way way ahead of where we currently are though and an ability to defy what we know of the physics around us. The atomic bomb was known to be a possibility by every physicist on the planet before it became reality and we're now in a world where information is shared widely in seconds, so that doesn't sit with me either.
    Is it a great way to justify military spending to a nation becoming more more disconnected with the old idea of what America was?




  • GooglePlus wrote: »
    Given the chaos on in the universe and the inevitable dying of stars which provide the life we know, I just can't imagine life elsewhere (which I'm sure is there) getting to a stage of progression in a space of time that allows them to travel to us. At the same time, there's still a lot we're unaware of but I think that if these sightings are legit, I can only see them being man-made. That would mean that there's scientific progressions way way ahead of where we currently are though and an ability to defy what we know of the physics around us. The atomic bomb was known to be a possibility by every physicist on the planet before it became reality and we're now in a world where information is shared widely in seconds, so that doesn't sit with me either.
    Is it a great way to justify military spending to a nation becoming more more disconnected with the old idea of what America was?

    But that's just it. It's equally unfathomable to imagine another species travelling all the way to us, as it is to see how these technologies are man made. The G force alone would kill a human instantly. And if they were man made, these capabilities have been reported since the 50's, and not just since 2004 as the UAP report would lead people to believe.




  • Fuzzyduzzy wrote: »
    But that's just it. It's equally unfathomable to imagine another species travelling all the way to us, as it is to see how these technologies are man made. The G force alone would kill a human instantly. And if they were man made, these capabilities have been reported since the 50's, and not just since 2004 as the UAP report would lead people to believe.

    I think the reports back in the 50's was a mixture of fear and imagination fuelled by fiction and sightings of research planes that we're now aware of. This was a time of pure paranoia with the Russia scaremongering.

    But yeah, I've no answers either and it'll be interesting to see where it goes. It's just a nice time for it to be released when public consciousness of the mess that that's around them grows and grows.




  • Fuzzyduzzy wrote: »
    Huge news indeed. If called upon to speak, Elizondo, Eric Davis (and others) can say what they know without worrying about Non Disclosure Agreements (NDA's).

    Wow, this really is big & exciting news, if true




  • GooglePlus wrote: »
    I think the reports back in the 50's was a mixture of fear and imagination fuelled by fiction and sightings of research planes that we're now aware of. This was a time of pure paranoia with the Russia scaremongering.

    But yeah, I've no answers either and it'll be interesting to see where it goes. It's just a nice time for it to be released when public consciousness of the mess that that's around them grows and grows.

    The technology witnessed in the Tic Tac incident has been seen since the 50s. They've been tagged all sorts of names, from huge toilet rolls to lozenges. Leslie Kean has lots of statements from commercial airline pilots and military folk about them seeing the 'five observables' for decades. It is said that military secret technology is 20 years ahead of what we the public are aware of. These things have been seen for over 70 years. But like yourself, I am far from certain to what they are.
    https://www.amazon.com/UFOs-Generals-Pilots-Government-Officials/dp/0307717089


  • Advertisement


  • Fuzzyduzzy wrote: »
    The technology witnessed in the Tic Tac incident has been seen since the 50s. They've been tagged all sorts of names, from huge toilet rolls to lozenges. Leslie Kean has lots of statements from commercial airline pilots and military folk about them seeing the 'five observables' for decades. It is said that military secret technology is 20 years ahead of what we the public are aware of. These things have been seen for over 70 years. But like yourself, I am far from certain to what they are.
    https://www.amazon.com/UFOs-Generals-Pilots-Government-Officials/dp/0307717089

    The Australian report on UFOs published by the NAA very recently was the strongest report that indicated that there are aliens. Strange stuff




  • BettyS wrote: »
    The Australian report on UFOs published by the NAA very recently was the strongest report that indicated that there are aliens. Strange stuff

    https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/ViewImage.aspx?B=30030606&S=1

    or PDF version:

    https://ia800203.us.archive.org/24/items/AustralianUFOFiles/A13693_3092-2-000_30030606.pdf




  • yaknowski wrote: »

    The summary on page 7 of that PDF reads like something from a sci Fi movie just before the aliens arrive on the big stage. Basically accusing the US army of ridiculing the idea of UFO (aliens) for numerous strategical reasons.

    Some of this reads like a Men in Black and/or X-files type history within US agencies.

    Page 11:

    "Control of public awareness of the UFO situati0n was tightened by the issuing of JANAP 146 in 1953 which prohibited service personnel from discussing UFO ' s by threatening defaulters with up to 10 years gaol and up to a $10,000 fine ."

    To reduce the effect of these (retired staff discussing UFOs) and similar defections from official policy after retirement , the revised J~~AP 146E, passed in 1960, made it an offence under the Espionage Act if data on UFO ' s were revealed .



    Is this actually true ?

    Its also interesting that the more reliable the data the more reports of "unknown" objects.

    The US engaging in gravity experiments that the Aussies felt was directly correlated to the UFO ship sightings (ie - US army believed they may of been UFO ships and wanted to see if they could experiment themselves to come up with similar ships).

    Haven't read all that document, but some of it reads like a Sci Fi novel, nearly stranger then fiction if this is a legitimate document.




  • Drumpot wrote: »
    The summary on page 7 of that PDF reads like something from a sci Fi movie just before the aliens arrive on the big stage. Basically accusing the US army of ridiculing the idea of UFO (aliens) for numerous strategical reasons.

    Some of this reads like a Men in Black and/or X-files type history within US agencies.

    Page 11:

    "Control of public awareness of the UFO situati0n was tightened by the issuing of JANAP 146 in 1953 which prohibited service personnel from discussing UFO ' s by threatening defaulters with up to 10 years gaol and up to a $10,000 fine ."

    To reduce the effect of these (retired staff discussing UFOs) and similar defections from official policy after retirement , the revised J~~AP 146E, passed in 1960, made it an offence under the Espionage Act if data on UFO ' s were revealed .



    Is this actually true ?

    Its also interesting that the more reliable the data the more reports of "unknown" objects.

    The US engaging in gravity experiments that the Aussies felt was directly correlated to the UFO ship sightings (ie - US army believed they may of been UFO ships and wanted to see if they could experiment themselves to come up with similar ships).

    Haven't read all that document, but some of it reads like a Sci Fi novel, nearly stranger then fiction if this is a legitimate document.

    If you search it on the NAA (Australian government archives), you will find it for yourself. So the document appears to be legitimate





  • And yet still no clear footage of any of these fuzzy ball's.... I find that part hard to believe?

    You sure it's not just the Military cranking up the fear factor to harvest more money for black projects??





  • Interview with Ross Coulthard starts at 35.50, in my opinion one of the most thorough current journalists in this field who only recently showed interest.

    https://youtu.be/_Da99jOMlOg





  • Boards is dead,

    and so is this thread.





  • and 4 days later here I am, but still nothing to read.


    Boards is dead

    and so it this thread



  • Advertisement
Advertisement