Navy pilots describe encounters with UFOs - 60 minutes

Wibbs

Cheerful S wrote: »

I think its highly possible to keep a secret by limiting the size of people in the know. JFK for instance.

All it takes here is two to three dominant, influential, powerful figures, inside the Washington power structure placing a number of men to shoot at Kennedy in Dallas that day and then escape successfully. If one of those figures in the cover up power structure is Edgar Hoover ( just for argument) he can smother FBI investigations that found evidence for a second shooter and impede the capture of other suspects.

Again that secret wouldn't be long in coming out and it would require more than a handful of people to run such an operation.

Jet engine was the 50s

The pretty much fully worked out theory of the jet engine was in the 1920's and flying prototypes were operating by the late 1930's.

As an aside a pilot relative of mine mused that the famous "foo fighters" that were observed by bomber pilots over Germany in WW2 might be explained by ball lightning, but of a particular kind formed because of a very particular circumstance. His hypothesis was that many hundreds of piston engined bombers flying in close formation at the same flight level through the atmosphere whipped up a lot of static charge in said atmosphere and caused more ball lightning type events than would normally be expected. These foo fighters were not seen in the early part of the war or by fighters on their own or in small groups, only large bomber groups. He reckoned that's why the phenomenon came and went when the large bomber group flights came and went.

PokeHerKing

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Wait a minute you've said its absolutely explainable with physics and common sense? Remember you can debunk any video, even ones you've never seen or heard of before.

But you're now saying if two physicists/experts disagree then it is unexplainable but we can't throw alien in as another theory because that's fantasy?

Yes, that is what I am saying.

Case in point: the green triangle video. I have provided a link that can easily explain the UFOs seen, and such a video can even be easily reproduced.

• Did the Pentagon deny the existence of the video? No.
• Even though this has a trivial explanation, has the government said that it is explainable? No. Not only that, but the video is still being analysed by the government.
• Do we need a far fetched theory to explain the UFOs? No. See the video linked above.
• Can an amateur photographer recreate the unexplained video and the included UFOs tonight if they wanted to? Yes, quite easily too.

Therefore, does the fact that the government has not stated that a video can easily be explained or that a video is still being studied by said government signify that there is anything of significance in the video? Absolutely not.

PokeHerKing

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, that is what I am saying.

Case in point: the green triangle video. I have provided a link that can easily explain the UFOs seen, and such a video can even be easily reproduced.

• Did the Pentagon deny the existence of the video? No.
• Even though this has a trivial explanation, has the government said that it is explainable? No. Not only that, but the video is still being analysed by the government.
• Do we need a far fetched theory to explain the UFOs? No. See the video linked above.
• Can an amateur photographer recreate the unexplained video and the included UFOs tonight if they wanted to? Yes, quite easily too.

Therefore, does the fact that the government has not stated that a video can easily be explained or that a video is still being studied by said government signify that there is anything of significance in the video? Absolutely not.

Surely the common sense view would be if two experts have different theories one or both are wrong. Therefore there's as much room for a third or fourth as there was for the first two?

You seem to be of the opinion that its explainable up to the point of extraterrestrial. Which is very much the confirmed bias that you are so vehemently denying. If you could just admit that part this circular argument could at least end amicably.

Cheerful S

Wibbs wrote: »

Again that secret wouldn't be long in coming out and it would require more than a handful of people to run such an operation.


The pretty much fully worked out theory of the jet engine was in the 1920's and flying prototypes were operating by the late 1930's.

As an aside a pilot relative of mine mused that the famous "foo fighters" that were observed by bomber pilots over Germany in WW2 might be explained by ball lightning, but of a particular kind formed because of a very particular circumstance. His hypothesis was that many hundreds of piston engined bombers flying in close formation at the same flight level through the atmosphere whipped up a lot of static charge in said atmosphere and caused more ball lightning type events than would normally be expected. These foo fighters were not seen in the early part of the war or by fighters on their own or in small groups, only large bomber groups. He reckoned that's why the phenomenon came and went when the large bomber group flights came and went.

All that involved is space and hidden locations to fire the rifles. That involves spotters, the assassins ,and communications center in the Square to track the event. Even with three teams on the ground thats only six men in the know. Communications maybe two to three. Nine to ten men in total involved in the ground operation. Nowhere close to thousands participated. Cover up then rests on the men who send them in to obscure any anomalies found. Kennedy fired, the head of CIA Allen Dulles and he later ended up with a seat on the commission and ruled that one gunman killed Kennedy That's another debate though.

It's very possible i agree its balls of lighting that pilots saw in WW2. When its solid mass craft not so much.

PokeHerKing

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Surely the common sense view would be if two experts have different theories one or both are wrong. Therefore there's as much room for a third or fourth as there was for the first two?

The common sense view is that at least one of the theories presented by the experts in the matter would be correct.

PokeHerKing wrote: »

You seem to be of the opinion that its explainable up to the point of extraterrestrial.

I don't understand your statement. If there is both a logical explanation, or multiple logical explanations, as well as a far fetched explanation, I will always choose a logical explanation, if that's what you mean.

PokeHerKing

Deleted User wrote: »

The common sense view is that at least one of the theories presented by the experts in the matter would be correct.



I don't understand your statement. If there is both a logical explanation, or multiple logical explanations, as well as a far fetched explanation, I will always choose a logical explanation, if that's what you mean.

I disagree, if two experts gave me different diagnosis I would not assume one is correct and blindly choose. I would seek a third or fourth opinion until there was some sort of consensus.

You seem to think you get to decide what's logical and what's not. You don't. You're just biased and have an opinion and we know what they say about opinions.

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

which is why that video is called Gimbal.

Rotation does not lose the track on. Object appears to rotate on its own and there no obvious signs of a flip of the camera. The object is only thing in the background that flips on its side and appears to slow down before the side rotation occurs.

The lock is positioned at same angle when it's flying.


The angle of the lock still the exact same when the rotation occurs.

PokeHerKing

PokeHerKing wrote: »

I disagree, if two experts gave me different diagnosis I would not assume one is correct and blindly choose. I would seek a third or fourth opinion until there was some sort of consensus.

Yes, but you seek that third or fourth opinion from an expert.

No physicist would ever suggest that such phenomenon are caused by aliens/hidden technology when more logical explanations are available. The consensus you would find is a logical one and not the one you were hoping to find.

PokeHerKing wrote: »

You seem to think you get to decide what's logical and what's not. You don't.

Yes, I do. Modesty aside, I can say what is logical and what is illogical within my area of expertise with a large degree of confidence.

PokeHerKing

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, but you seek that third or fourth opinion from an expert.

No physicist would ever suggest that such phenomenon are caused by aliens/hidden technology when more logical explanations are available. The consensus you would find is a logical one and not the one you were hoping to find.



Yes, I do. Modesty aside, I can say what is logical and what is illogical within my area of expertise with a large degree of confidence.

If theres no consensus then there's no consensus. The US government could not find one for these sightings so why would you , a so called "expert" think linking to random blogs was the smoking gun?

Anyway, enjoy your night pal and remember, keep looking up.

PokeHerKing

PokeHerKing wrote: »

If theres no consensus then there's no consensus. The US government could not find one for these sightings so why would you , a so called "expert" think linking to random blogs was the smoking gun?

Because after 114 posts, nobody has given one reason as to why any of the logical explanations I linked to are incorrect.

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

Object appears to rotate on its own and there no obvious signs of a flip of the camera. The object is only thing in the background that flips on its side

There is obvious signs

The rotation of the object happens exactly around the time that the angle passes 0°. Why is this?

Have you ever watched a PTZ security camera rotate up and over the vertical axis and down the other side? It will tilt up until it nears the vertical axis, at which point it will rotate around that axis, and then tilt back down, now facing the other way. It does this to avoid gimbal lock [1], a state in which it would lose a degree of freedom of rotation. (In this case, it's not the vertical axis, but the forward axis.)

and the object is the only thing in the background that flips on its side because the object is not in the background, it's on the camera.

Andrewf20

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Plenty of other military have released similar stuff. French, chillean, Mexican etc.

But you rarely if ever hear of them. Us secret aircraft could be transglobal, the government testing high altitude jets that travel world wide at hypersonic speeds. Its just a hunch I have. Alot of the historical ufo sightings and talk seems to gravitate around the USA more than anywhere else in the world. Alot if it during the cold War era too, exactly when you would expect the USA to be developing frantically, like Russia.

I remember living in the US and coming across a number of USA documentaries about UFOs and aliens, abductions etc. I have never seen any in Ireland or on BBC, ch4 or on my travels elsewhere around the world.

WhomadeGod

WhomadeGod wrote: »

Do you ever post in good faith?

Biggest troll on boards.

Did a rereg just refer to me a troll? Comical. :rolleyes:

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

There is obvious signs



and the object is the only thing in the background that flips on its side because the object is not in the background, it's on the camera.

By flipping a frame or image, the entire scene will move. The flir would rotate on its axis very fast, not be slow like it’s seen on video. During a battle you hardly be comfortable knowing the camera taking ages to rotate different axis against an enemy position in the air.

The only thing that changes between frames is the object between the bars. That a targeted/radar pod. The changes in IR mode are because of the banking to left (its L) under the position dips, the plane doing that, the lock already placed. The pilot following the object and there is a slight dip angle bank to the left. The object could be heading north or west it hard to tell exactly from the video itself.

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

By flipping a frame or image, the entire scene will move. The flir would rotate on its axis very fast, not be slow like it’s seen on video. During a battle you hardly be comfortable knowing the camera taking ages to rotate different axis against an enemy position in the air.

The camera would not take long to rotate if it wasn't locked to a target.

You can believe if you wish that it is simply a massive coincidence that the UFO is completely stationary up until it coincidentally starts moving exactly at 0 degrees like the theory I linked to said it should. But that is simply looking for an alternative explanation when it isn't needed.

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

The camera would not take long to rotate if it wasn't locked to a target.

You can believe if you wish that it is simply a massive coincidence that the UFO is completely stationary up until it coincidentally starts moving exactly at 0 degrees like the theory I linked to said it should. But that is simply looking for an alternative explanation when it isn't needed.

The pilot moves inside the plane cause the IR mode degree changes not the lock on. You don’t seem to get that. Watch the video and watch the top screen. Changes are happening all the time. But the target pod bars are still positioned at the same tilt to the right on video. If the flir flipped to a new scene that would cause a background flip, the system not build in that way to rotate just this object on its own according to experts at the Pentagon. If you have a different opinion source it.

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

The pilot moves inside the plane cause the IR mode degree changes not the lock on. You don’t seem to get that. Watch the video and watch the top screen. Changes are happening all the time. But the target pod bars are still positioned at the same tilt to the right on video. If the flir flipped to a new scene that would cause a background flip, the system not build in that way to rotate just this object on its own according to experts at the Pentagon. If you have a different opinion source it.

So why is the camera moving? It's tracking the object. But the object isn't moving! Well, the camera doesn't track movement. It tracks position. The object is slightly offset from the center of the frame, so the tracking software slightly moves the camera to compensate. This of course does not change the situation, so the tracking software repeats its compensation. This constant camera movement in a single direction gives the appearance that the object is moving.

.

Hamsterchops

bewareofthedog wrote: »

Thought this was an excellent segment released last week - no speculation or conspiracies just the facts from high up Government officials and experienced pilots. The man and lady pilot towards the end describe the most bizarre encounter where one of the objects formed a shape in the sea and it was detected 60 miles away seconds later after speeding off.

Assuming these things do exist I'd speculate they're man made, some new technology coming out of China / Russia but who knows? Perhaps the US have developed such technology which is highly classified.

Hey, glad you've opened this in Current Affairs. I tried to start mine exactly one year ago this month and was told to open it in After Hours, which I did, and it's ticking along very well, specially as we approach June!

Just shows that within the space of just one year, how this topic is now mainstream and being taken seriously.

Seven decades of witness testament, pilot verification, video and radar data means there must be something unexplained in our skies.

CNN.

https://youtu.be/taqUPnWeLPI

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The common sense view is that at least one of the theories presented by the experts in the matter would be correct.



I don't understand your statement. If there is both a logical explanation, or multiple logical explanations, as well as a far fetched explanation, I will always choose a logical explanation, if that's what you mean.

That’s a bias. A bad one at that, researchers hypotheses are thwarted all the time.

passatman86

Heard some expert on the radio today explaining the black dots recorded could be something simple as the camera screen been effected from pointing at the sun.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

That’s a bias. A bad one at that, researchers hypotheses are thwarted all the time.

As a researcher, I'm aware. But in history, what fraction of hypotheses from experts have been wrong compared to counter hypotheses made by non-experts? And more importantly for this topic, what fraction of hypotheses from experts have been wrong compared to conspiracy theories?

Kermit.de.frog

There is something out there

Hamsterchops

Spherical & Transmedium!

https://youtu.be/RVKkAluLS7o

Certainly getting a lot of mainstream coverage in the last few months, from CNN to Sky News, BBC Newsnight + many more outlets, it seems to be building a head of stem prior to the official UAP report in about ten days time (early June).

It's very interesting but it's likely not even a foreign or alien craft. Stealth technology has historically been designed to trick detection equipment into thinking the stealth object was of a different size, going a different direction, or at a different speed in order to confuse anti-aircraft security measures. This is most likely a new technology designed by DARPA and tested on it's own navy/airforce.

After all, what would be the best training/practical research test than to use it on your own advanced military to see if it has the capabilities of avoiding detection. I watched a podcast with an interview of the same pilot that we see on 60 minutes and in that podcast he said the craft appeared 60 miles away near another F-18 which got a shot of it aswell. We can see that part on the 60 minutes video.

That part, to me, debunks the alien/foreign craft speculation. The object knew where the F-18's were during their exercise. I doubt that's a coincidence. Very likely that DARPA had their training schedule and wanted to test the vehicles stealth capabilities. Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Christopher Mellon said that he would know if it was American because of the position he held but DARPA often report directly to the Secretary of Defense who reports directly to the President who can then choose to brief the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He wouldn't know if it was American because it is quite literally above his paygrade and likely his classification level. The fact he was told to not worry about it tells me that the Sec of Def was aware of the training exercise.

Hamsterchops

Wow, like a DARPA prototype stealth vehicle without wings or rotor blades, that flies in the sky and goes under water.

That's quite a jump in technology!

Very advanced & very Cool, if that's what it is.

Hamsterchops

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Wow, like a DARPA prototype stealth vehicle without wings or rotor blades, that flies in the sky and goes under water.

That's quite a jump in technology!

Very advanced & very Cool, if that's what it is.

I know it's a little out there in terms of technology and how feasible it seems but DARPA had worked with Lockheed Martin on something similar at the time.

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

Ironically the number of sightings of the tic tac shaped UAP that was being reported on dried up after 2006. Lockheed shut down the development of the Cormorant in 2008. My guess is that the UAP being described in this video is a version of the Cormorant that eventually stopped development. I suspect it's contract was cancelled because for an underwater deployed UAV that was touted as being undetectable, having multiple Navy pilots detect it for years on end meant it wasn't as effective as it was claimed to be.

Again, I'm only guessing here. I would personally prefer it to be aliens because that would be so much cooler but occam's razor would be LM and DARPA failing at developing a stealth UAV launched underwater.

bewareofthedog

For now I think I'll side with the genuine questioning of such phenomena from actual professionals and government officials in this case when they say certain objects and their movements cannot be explained, and not lap up the opinions of those from some internet blog as fact or from those who wish to impose their pseudo intellectual superiority upon others.

The upcoming hearing will be interesting.

Here is an extended segment about the 4 pilots who saw the object in the water which was detected again on radar seconds later 60 miles away. Might have been another bird I guess.

Signore Fancy Pants

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I do not have confirmation bias, I instead believe in Occam's razor.

With all due respect, Occam's Razor is only relevant in the context of established knowledge. There are an insurmountable number of "unknown unknowns" out there.

While you are well qualified in your field, the scale of our galaxy and indeed the universe has the potential for life.

The fact that we exist, should be enough to lend merit to the argument.

At a very very minute scale, the time in relative terms that humankind has gone from dragging their knuckles to space exploration is astounding.

It is entirely plausible that we are not alone, and that we may be less advanced than others.

Signore Fancy Pants

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

With all due respect, Occam's Razor is only relevant in the context of established knowledge. There are an insurmountable number of "unknown unknowns" out there.

While you are well qualified in your field, the scale of our galaxy and indeed the universe has the potential for life.

The fact that we exist, should be enough to lend merit to the argument.

At a very very minute scale, the time in relative terms that humankind has gone from dragging their knuckles to space exploration is astounding.

It is entirely plausible that we are not alone, and that we may be less advanced than others.

At no point did I indicate that I do not believe that extra-terrestrial life exists. Statistics indicates that it's incredibly unlikely that the only life in the universe is on Earth.

However, statistics also indicates that the likelihood the extra-terrestrial life is even aware that Earth exists is ridiculously small. Let alone that such life has found a way to travel to Earth. Let alone that such life has decided to hide from us when arriving. Let alone that such life has the capability of hiding from us and yet for some reason mimics ghosts in only appearing on blurry, random occasions for ****s and giggles etc.

So yes, Occam's Razor does indeed apply to what we are talking about, because established knowledge explains the observations without the need to resort to ridiculously unlikely possibilities.

I see we're now considering the possibility of crab people.

Hamsterchops

Doesn't have to be extraterrestrial.

So let's say that the June report accepts that this Unidentified Aerial Phenomon is real (but unknown)!

Then what are the options?

Aliens, I doubt it, but then what are we left with?

A terrestrial lifeform that's always been here? Just out of sight, very fast moving and very elusive? So not from another planet at all.

The alien option must be the last and most unlikely option don't you think.

Signore Fancy Pants

[Deleted User] wrote: »

At no point did I indicate that I do not believe that extra-terrestrial life exists. Statistics indicates that it's incredibly unlikely that the only life in the universe is on Earth.

However, statistics also indicates that the likelihood the extra-terrestrial life is even aware that Earth exists is ridiculously small. Let alone that such life has found a way to travel to Earth. Let alone that such life has decided to hide from us when arriving. Let alone that such life has the capability of hiding from us and yet for some reason mimics ghosts in only appearing on blurry, random occasions for ****s and giggles etc.

So yes, Occam's Razor does indeed apply to what we are talking about, because established knowledge explains the observations without the need to resort to ridiculously unlikely possibilities.

I agree with your opinion and I agree about the minute degree of possibility of us encountering ET life.

However in the human context, what are the statistics that Neanderthals living in caves using rudimentary tools would evolve to harness Nuclear power. While not something that can be accurately qualified, it would indeed not seem possible at that time, incredibly unlikely perhaps.

Also while statistics (based on current knowledge and supposition) may indeed support your position, our evolution to this stage cannot be considered to be singular.

Furthermore, our basis for assessment rests on what we know or what we accept as norms. Our understandings underpin our statistics, while determining the likelihood of alien life, their advancements, capabilities, intents and characteristics are unknowns.

Our assumptions of the likelihood that they exist, can travel and awareness of Earth certainly cannot be quantified. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest our assumptions and statistics are inherently flawed.

It may well be unlikely they are among us and unlikely they would remain as observers instead of engagers. Again, this is applying the human condition against an unknown entity.

For balance, blurry footage etc is not an indicator of alien life, I agree. However, while a majority of cases can be easily explained away, some may indeed be the result of undisclosed technology here on Earth.

Signore Fancy Pants

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

I agree with your opinion and I agree about the minute degree of possibility of us encountering ET life.

However in the human context, what are the statistics that Neanderthals living in caves using rudimentary tools would evolve to harness Nuclear power. While not something that can be accurately qualified, it would indeed not seem possible at that time, incredibly unlikely perhaps.

Also while statistics (based on current knowledge and supposition) may indeed support your position, our evolution to this stage cannot be considered to be singular.

Furthermore, our basis for assessment rests on what we know or what we accept as norms. Our understandings underpin our statistics, while determining the likelihood of alien life, their advancements, capabilities, intents and characteristics are unknowns.

Our assumptions of the likelihood that they exist, can travel and awareness of Earth certainly cannot be quantified. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest our assumptions and statistics are inherently flawed.

It may well be unlikely they are among us and unlikely they would remain as observers instead of engagers. Again, this is applying the human condition against an unknown entity.

For balance, blurry footage etc is not an indicator of alien life, I agree. However, while a majority of cases can be easily explained away, some may indeed be the result of undisclosed technology here on Earth.

I believe your argument is that it makes no sense for humans to even try to calculate the probability of extra-terrestrial life existing because we have no way of knowing the limits of how far intelligent life can evolve to, is that right?

Yes, I understand and agree with this way of thinking to an extent.

However, you have to take into account the following.

Life on earth has been constantly evolving for 4 billion years, which is nearly one third the age of the universe, and in that time we have not even figured out how to colonise our nearest planet, let alone leave the solar system, let alone the galaxy etc. In getting to this stage, it has been necessary for earth's climate to be stable for long periods of time geologically, which is incredibly rare for a planet in of itself.

In terms of life, we don't fully understand what initial conditions are required to start it but we believe that such conditions are very rare. Going from prokaryotic bacteria to complex cells took a billion years alone. In the whole history of the different forms of life on earth, only one such single cell managed to make that transition. All non-bacteria life on our planet is derived form that single cell. Our planet has also undergone several mass extinction events, and it is believed that if one of these mass events did not occur (the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event), that mammals would not have formed. This is also ignoring the fact that evolution does not naturally seem to lead to intelligence, as we are the only species on the entire planet that is intelligent enough to ask whether there are other intelligent life forms, and we have been lucky so far in avoiding any mass extinction event of our own.

First year undergrad students are often taught the Drake equation to determine the likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere. While this equation is a good introduction, it is incredibly flawed and many physicists refuse to even mention it in lessons (similar to how biologists hate the food pyramid). Improved modifications of the Drake equations (or different equations entirely) shows that the likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere is much less than what what the Drake equation says.

As a simple example, this paper replaces the estimates used in the Drake equation with probability distributions for those estimates and concludes that the likelihood that we are alone in our galaxy is 53%-99% and the likelihood that we are alone in the observable universe is 39%–85%. (I've linked to this paper specifically as it has no complicated maths and people who understand Leaving Cert probability can read and understand it, I recommend it!)

Even if we assume that intelligent life does indeed exist elsewhere, we then jump into the next caveat - that they know that we exist. We have only been sending out radio signals for the past 100 years or so, a ridiculously tiny amount of time on the cosmological scale. The idea that these radio waves have reached a planet with intelligent life, let alone that that life form was listening out for such signals, let alone that that life form had their detector pointed in that direction etc., is unbelievably small.

And then we also have to take an even bigger leap of faith and assume that that alien life form then figured how to travel to us within those 100 years. Then decided not to say hello to except in rare, obscure occasions for no apparent reasons.

A ridiculously small probability that requires breaking physics that requires another ridiculously small probability and so on. All to explain what is likely smudges on a lens.

This way of thinking, i.e. that we should consider something like aliens as the answer for something that we cannot explain (which is not even what we're doing as we can explain it), was done by people centuries and millennia ago by people considering that certain unexplained things (that we now understand) must have been caused by God. This way of thinking slowed down human progress. This way of thinking led to the Dark Ages. Let's try not to think like this for our sake.

Hamsterchops

Deleted User wrote: »

I have provided links detailing what they are.

Love it.

So everybody has been duped & fooled, including ex President Obama, like the sightings and readings are all easily explainable and totally not Unexplained.

Really looking forward to some kind of official announcement on this next month, then maybe everybody can pull in the same direction, as currently we at least two camps, total believers (in aliens), hard-line debunkers like Mick West, and everybody else in the middle waiting to see what happens next.

If this whole thing (7 decades of sightings) is all just an illusion, or trickery or some big fake involving birds, balloon & prototype aircraft I'd be amazed.

Hamsterchops

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Love it.

So everybody has been duped, including Obama, like they're all explainable and totally explainable.

Really looking forward to some kind of official announcement on this, then maybe everybody can pull in the same direction, as currently we at least two camps, total believers in aliens, hard-line debunkers, and known unknowns, whatever they are.

If this whole thing is an illusion, trickery or some big fake I'd be amazed.

No, everybody has not been duped. By stating that, you believe that the overwhelming majority of people believe it. Where is the breaking news then? Why is it not all over the news every hour of every day?

Some critical thinking will answer those questions for you.

Hamsterchops

Deleted User wrote: »

Where is the breaking news then? Why is it not all over the news every hour of every day?

The Big report, the Big reveal happens next month!

Damp squib or Worldwide breaking news, or a hint at something we don't yet understand?

Let's wait and see, although I gather you're already ahead of the game, you know the answer which is that there's nothing to report?

Hamsterchops

Hamsterchops wrote: »

The Big report, the Big reveal happens next month!

The big reveal of Roswell happened in 1994 too, I'm sure you'll find next month's report just as thrilling.

Hamsterchops

Yes indeed, it might be a total dead end.

But forgive me for being more than a little curious what with all the background noise in the build-up to the report. Like, can there be so much chatter and anticipation of something, only to be told there's nothing unexplained?

Hamsterchops

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Yes indeed, it might be a total dead end.

But forgive me for being more than a little curious what with all the background noise in the build-up to the report. Like, can there be so much chatter and anticipation of something, only to be told there's nothing unexplained?

There is not a lot of chatter and anticipation. Marc Rubio asked the Pentagon to release a report within six months and that six months is almost up. The usual people are getting overly excited because the Pentagon is releasing a report. Sensible people, on the other hand, are aware that they are only releasing a report because they were told to do so.

WhomadeGod

WhomadeGod wrote: »

There is alot of chatter and anticipation.

There is a lot of chatter among the usual crowds of people who chatter about such things. You'll find them here.

SortingYouOut

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is a lot of chatter among the usual crowds of people who chatter about such things. You'll find them here.

Jesus, you're still here giving it socks over 16 hours later.. were you probed in a past life?

WhomadeGod

WhomadeGod wrote: »

Yet this ufo thread is in current affairs.

Yes, and there was a thread about the US election too.

SortingYouOut

SortingYouOut wrote: »

Jesus, you're still here giving it socks over 16 hours later.. were you probed in a past life?

And you're still here 16 hours later, still not debunking any of the logical explanations put forward.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

In terms of life, we don't fully understand what initial conditions are required to start it but we believe that such conditions are very rare. Going from prokaryotic bacteria to complex cells took a billion years alone. In the whole history of the different forms of life on earth, only one such single cell managed to make that transition. All non-bacteria life on our planet is derived form that single cell. Our planet has also undergone several mass extinction events, and it is believed that if one of these mass events did not occur (the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event), that mammals would not have formed. This is also ignoring the fact that evolution does not naturally seem to lead to intelligence, as we are the only species on the entire planet that is intelligent enough to ask whether there are other intelligent life forms, and we have been lucky so far in avoiding any mass extinction event of our own.

+1000 This is regularly missed. Life showed up here, but it was a rare event even here and it showed up the once and took ages to become complex life and even then the quantity of complex life is dwarfed by the single celled. There are no "aliens" even here on a planet that was apparently just right for life. Then we get to intelligence. Our particular form of same. The symbolic, the questioning. Hominids have been around for a few million years in the same basic form. Modern humans pretty similar to us have been putatively put back to around 150-200,000 years. Neandertals were around for 2-300,000 years. Yet evidence for symbolic thought is around 100,000 years(though an artificial cave structure built by Neandertals in France could put it back 50,000 years before that). So in all of the Earth's biological history intelligent life emerged the once in one species(near enough) and even in that species line our kind of intelligence that can muse on aliens and build spacecraft came only the once too and late to the party with it. Oh and was nearly wiped out in a genetic bottleneck around 50,000 years ago.

Now maybe if the dinosaurs hadn't kicked the bucket a small dino might have followed a similar trajectory to us. There were a fair number of small bipedal social predators with free arms and hands, a dinosaur analogue of apes as it were and birds their nearest living relatives can be remarkably intelligent(corvids can be scary clever) so in that case we might have had our kind of intelligence 40 million years ago, but it could have gone the other way and a basic "hominid" style intelligence would come along and stay like that. Like I said we stayed like that for the guts of a million years and we've no idea why we changed. If an alien probe had passed through our solar system 200,000 years ago it would have had to look pretty bloody closely to find the very rare in the landscape not so dumb tool using apex predator that would lead to us.

Hamsterchops

My shopping list for the June report.

HD close-up of UAP at close range.
Irrefutable evidence of unknown tech!
Confirmation that UAPs really do exist.
An explanation for all the stuff we've been fed by the Pentagon.

That's my list, although I suspect the reality of the report will be a wishy washy affair with nothing concrete. In other words, as you were .....

Nothing will have changed, and you will either be a believer or a non believer, which it total pants IMO.

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

The big reveal of Roswell happened in 1994 too, I'm sure you'll find next month's report just as thrilling.

Remember about Roswell was the US army that announced the recovered a crashed disk at a ranch on July 7, 1947. The public did not release the story. It took almost a day half for the reversal story to come out: now, it was a weather balloon. This is strange took this long for field personnel at 509th bomber group to detect the material was not alien. The fact remains here there was recovery operation, mystery genuine, but what truly find is the real puzzle!

Airforce story evolved over the years. Three times it changed, the first retraction it was a weather balloon, decades later claimed to be a high altitude balloon to detect Soviet Union nuclear blasts ( a balloon called Mogul). Reports came out about alien bodies found at the crash site and taken away by army trucks. Army/Airforce denied it, but later made a statement, witnesses saw test dummies used during parachute tests.

Hamsterchops

Problem with Roswell, Rendlesham forest and the like, is that they're just mythical events with no real-life science to back up the claims!

Hard facts and concrete evidence is what's needed in order for this story to stay mainstream, otherwise it's off back to the Twilight Zone, and back into the world of fantasy and Sci-fi.

Cheerful S

This a thread about UAPs. Unidentified flying objects.

US government finally acknowledged the phenomenon is a real as butter on your toast. In their accepted period of UFO incidents, the pilots are seeing the craft that defies known physics.

Debunkers of course ignore the decades-long incidents of people noticing these unusual craft in the sky. I don’t forget the men/and women have for decades fought against the establishment groups "saying no ( nuts to believe this) . Media catching up to what others said is real, so again field researchers are the real heroes who did all the groundwork and cataloged all the UFO stories for the public..

Roswell is a UAP story, like or not. Its part of the discussion,

Cheerful S

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Problem with Roswell, Rendlesham forest and the like, is that they're just mythical events with no real-life science to back up the claims!

Hard facts and concrete evidence is what's needed in order for this story to stay mainstream, otherwise it's off back to the Twilight Zone, and back into the world of fantasy and Sci-fi.

It's overlooked here about Rendlesham. The US government paid the medical bills for servicemen after a long battle in court. The developed illnesses from the interactions with UAPs up close.

Another aspect ignored is the Halt audio record. This was audio from one of nights incidents , a real time recording of the base personnel heading into the forest outside the base 1980. Your hearing on tape what they see in the sky and pretty amazing especially at the end.

Audio rules out this was fake event.

Maybe the visitors are from the twilight zone :eek: If aliens are interdimensional they are basically doing things that are beyond us. They could be opening portals to other worlds and walking in and driving the vehicles through the openings. Of course this speculation and obviously very few people want to believe this even remotely possible.

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

This a thread about UAPs. Unidentified flying objects.

US government finally acknowledged the phenomenon is a real as butter on your toast. In their accepted period of UFO incidents, the pilots are seeing the craft that defies known physics.

Debunkers of course ignore the decades-long incidents of people noticing these unusual craft in the sky. I don’t forget the men/and women have for decades fought against the establishment groups "saying no ( nuts to believe this) . Media catching up to what others said is real, so again field researchers are the real heroes who did all the groundwork and cataloged all the UFO stories for the public..

Roswell is a UAP story, like or not. Its part of the discussion,

156 posts in, and you have still not once tried to discredit the more logical explanations. Because you have no interest in listening or reading said explanations. Because you prefer fantasy land whether it's real or not.

You are also free to post any other unexplained incident. I will give you a logical explanation. You will keep your fingers in your ears for said explanation.

Repeat ad nauseum.

Something for you to consider. Let's hypothetically say that extra-terrestrial life never visited Earth. Nor that new technology is not being hidden by governments etc. Do you think in that case that there would never be such videos as in the OP? Never be witnesses saying they saw this and that to other incidents?

There are people who believe the current pandemic is a hoax. Let's say I ask such people, if and when a real pandemic happens in the future, whether there would still be people saying that that real pandemic was a hoax, what do you think there answer would be?