nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Do you believe in UFOs & flying saucers ?

Hamsterchops

Have you every seen an unidentified flying object?

A UFO of course is just an aerial phenomenon that you can't explain (hence unidentified), & probably not at all connected to little green men from Mars.

So what are UFOs and have you ever seen something in the sky that you couldn't explain?

In the past many people have mistaken aircraft, weather balloons, silver party balloons, and even bright planets in the night sky as UFOs, but of course under scrutiny they usually have a rational & logical explanation. More recently drones have been mistaken as UFOs.

Then in the last month we've had video clips released from the Pentagon actually showing real UFOs filmed darting around at amazing speeds & doing manouvers that would be impossible for any manned craft to do. The G forces would be so powerful as to kill any human occupants, so what was witnessed by the US Navy pilots and the aircraft carrier radar?

Are UFOs terrestrial or extraterrestrial craft?

Illusions or really there, imagination or reality?

What are UFOs !

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

igCorcaigh

So much focus on data from the US.

Surely, for the UAP phenomenon to be taken seriously, we need sources from other countries, right?

Has there been anything new?

igCorcaigh

Fuzzyduzzy wrote: »

https://twitter.com/CAARIU/status/1403865095139205124?s=20

"Crashed craft, material and bodies recovered *ahem*."

I hope The Orb are looking for new samples.

Nice though. We can only guess about the classified stuff. Or is this all a psyops ploy?

Regardless, it's damn interesting.

Fuzzyduzzy

https://twitter.com/CAARIU/status/1403865095139205124?s=20

steddyeddy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Sonic boom is not produced by an object. It's produced by the air it displaces.

Sure.

And even if you ignore the boom there's still the issue of compressive heating of air.

Also unusual is the fact that these things were out there were recorded in US airspace for hours at a time. Fighter planes only have enough fuel for 1-2 hours max.

Radar is tricky. The UK had awful problems with their Nimrod AEW3 project. Not least of which was starting with an aircraft that had been out of production for bleedin' ages. The software had to be updated to ignore cars and fast cyclists because there were too many radar returns.

Yes it's complicated alright.

What's being ignored by all of the hardcore sceptics is that the FLIR is often slaved to the radar systems in these aircraft. The FLIR doesn't focus on things not picked up by the radar.

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's true Cap. Actually the 40 number was taken from an interview with another pilot who stated radar data indicating 46k miles an hour.

Interestingly the pilots state that one of the interesting things about these craft is that they can go hypersonic without producing a sonic boom.

Sonic boom is not produced by an object. It's produced by the air it displaces.

And even if you ignore the boom there's still the issue of compressive heating of air.

Radar is tricky. The UK had awful problems with their Nimrod AEW3 project. Not least of which was starting with an aircraft that had been out of production for bleedin' ages. The software had to be updated to ignore cars and fast cyclists because there were too many radar returns.

Fuzzyduzzy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What was actually nonsense? Or are we just doing that thing where we shout "nonsense" at something and run away?

Maybe the reason "he's getting bookings" is that he actually has something to say rather than just "dismiss and run"?

Then you have answered your own question because I think that is essentially his response to both eye witness accounts - and things like radar readings.

In both cases he basically says "We saw something interesting - we do not know what it was - lets find out!".

Clown by giggling at his own outdated jokes. I love how the ufo same old samo jokes are fading away.

Nonsense by:
- wondering why an advanced technology would bother showing interest in Earth's most advanced military.
- Disregarding professional military observations.
- "some kind of bug or malfunction of the electronics"... really?

He talks about 2 incidents and ignores 70+ years of countless similar events.

If he was a decent scientist, who didn't just want to be part of the Mick West 'professional sceptic' brigade, he would be more accustomed to using the sentence: I don't know.

His arrogance amazes me more than the UAP videos tracked on radar.

Steve012

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Ashutos32363607/status/1398688531468283907

13 sec in is the tail light of the bike caught on the camera behind it, looks like a female human funny 😂

BorneTobyWilde

https://twitter.com/Ashutos32363607/status/1398688531468283907

[Deleted User]

Fuzzyduzzy wrote: »

spouting nonsense.

What was actually nonsense? Or are we just doing that thing where we shout "nonsense" at something and run away?

Maybe the reason "he's getting bookings" is that he actually has something to say rather than just "dismiss and run"?

Hamsterchops wrote: »

No, of cousre not.

Then you have answered your own question because I think that is essentially his response to both eye witness accounts - and things like radar readings.

In both cases he basically says "We saw something interesting - we do not know what it was - lets find out!".

Hamsterchops

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

do those eyewitness accounts say they are alien in origin?

No, of cousre not.

The phenomon is unknown & unidentifiable, which in itself is pretty amazing.

BorneTobyWilde

A toddler who refused to eat his vegetables reported an unidentified flying object had spent all morning attempting to shovel broccoli into his mouth.

ohnonotgmail

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Thanks for video, not do sure Neil Dr Grasse Tyson is spouting nonsense, quite the contrary as I'd say he's spouting well thought-out logical skepticism, but, here's a question for him ......

What about the eyewitness accounts of .......

Professional pilots.

do those eyewitness accounts say they are alien in origin?

Hamsterchops

Thanks for video, so here's a question for him.

What about the eyewitness accounts of .......

Professional pilots.

Fuzzyduzzy

I love how the people who believed in the non-human origins of these incidents used to sound like clowns now it's the other way around. Actually listen to this guy. I guess he must have some audience if he's getting bookings so it's in his own best interests to keep spouting nonsense.
https://youtu.be/siZPaZ9hcEA

Hamsterchops

satguy wrote: »

In a world were everybody has a good camera on their phone,, all we see is rubbish,, rubbish that should not even make the news.

If people from another star system are here, they have FTL travel,, and it's a long long way to come, just to hover over a clapped out US coastguard boat, and then go home again.

So no,, we are not being visited by aliens,, ever ..

OK, but the thing is this ......

The US have confirmed that these unknown craft are not theirs, and we doubt very much if the Chinese or Russians are capable of making such craft, and anyway, what about the physics of theses things? Doing Mach 13 with no sonic boom, changing direction in the blink of an eye, dropping 80k feet, then shooting back up in a flash! Stopping then accelerating to some "impossible" velocity in a nanosecond.

They may not be alien in origin, but if not, then who the hell is making them, SPECTRE?

I was going down the (ball lightening) route myself, untill recently, then I saw the interviews with Alex Deitrich, Dave Fravor, Chad Underwood + other pilots both military & civil, and they all talk about the fact that it's a solid craft, metallic /dull white, impossible to categorise and very very fast!

The official UFO report we've all been waiting for is now due out on the 25th of this month.

steddyeddy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

80,000 feet per second is 24.384Km/s.

7.8 km/s is enough to go into orbit and 16.6Km/s is enough to leave the solar system.

Not only would there be a sonic boom there would be massive compressive heating of the air too. Fireball.

40 miles in a second is way faster and louder and brighter.

That's true Cap. Actually the 40 number was taken from an interview with another pilot who stated radar data indicating 46k miles an hour.

Interestingly the pilots state that one of the interesting things about these craft is that they can go hypersonic without producing a sonic boom.

Capt'n Midnight

IMHO they still haven't ruled out this

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't want you to believe anything.

The senior radar operator on the Nimitz stated that radar data indicated that these unknown aircraft accelerated to 80,000 feet per second instantly. At one point the object in the Nimitz encounter moved towards another point 40 miles away in a second. It isn't surprising they wouldn't get a clear picture of that. They have radar data and FLIR imaging which gives us far more data about these things.

80,000 feet per second is 24.384Km/s.

7.8 km/s is enough to go into orbit and 16.6Km/s is enough to leave the solar system.

Not only would there be a sonic boom there would be massive compressive heating of the air too. Fireball.

40 miles in a second is way faster and louder and brighter.

[Deleted User]

Butson wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the US Navy ships that are tracking these things for days on their radar etc, extremely experienced fighter pilots, scientists in the Pentagon that have been looking at it....Electrical Weather?

Absolutely it should be _suggested_. Every hypothesis should be suggested. Then tested. Including a hypothesis of non-human species technology. Why not?

Rubbishing any hypothesis because it might seem "too obvious" would certainly be an error for the scientists and other people you list above. In fact in our past scientists have left themselves embarrassed at times because they did not consider the obvious simple explanations and only went looking for the complex ones.

On a general note however:

A warning light should go off for you however if you find yourself lending credibility to job titles. All the people you list above are people. And people err. Sometimes repeatedly - over long periods of time - and sometimes in groups too.

Scientists have engaged in errors in the past. And they have been duped quite often intentionally too. Go back and look into the time James Randi commissioned street magicians to dupe scientists into thinking they were psychic. The scientists fell for it despite the fact Randi gave them the order that if even _one_ scientist asked "Is this all a trick?" they were to come clean and admit it straight away

Simply no scientist asked. Rather all the scientists involved - instead of evaluating the data critically - evaluated it under the light of the bias of the conclusion they already wanted to reach.

Take the phrase "Experienced Fighter Pilot" for example. They are experienced yes. Which means they are _more_ used to the trials of high altitude high speed flight than you or I would be. But they are not impervious to them. They are less likely to black out - start to hallucinate - have visual discrepancies than you and I would be under that duress. But they are not immune.

Further it is very important also when evaluating any single testimony to work out whether you are speaking of direct human testimony - as in something seen with the actual eyes of the pilot or ship captain - or is the person giving the testimony actually recounting what their instruments saw rather than what they themselves saw. I find quite often people miss that difference at times.

Though either instrument biological or machine can err - it is worth pointing out that we have had quite a few embarrassments in the past due to bad equipment or bad interface between equipment and humans. Neil DeGrasse Tyson tells the story of how we used to think there was a Planet X for example based on data from our instruments. And after years of many people looking for it a man called Dr. E. Myles Standish Jr. decided to recheck some of the original data and found that two data points were off. One of the observatories in particular which produced some of the data had errors which were never challanged. And when Standish reworked the numbers using all the data _except_ the data from the faulty observatory - the evidence for Planet X pretty much disappeared. (Though Voyager 2 also helped here by giving us a new and more accurate measurement for the mass of Neptune).

I am saying all this without weighing in on any particular piece of data - or without giving what my own opinion on this stuff is - it is just a general statement about data as a concept rather than any specific data itself. Caution all the way is my approach.

I am generally with Tyson on this one. My General approach is:

New data is exciting. The quest to explain new data is even more exciting. Jumping to conclusions as to what the new data means - is boring as fuukk.

satguy

In a world were everybody has a good camera on their phone,, all we see is rubbish,, rubbish that should not even make the news.

If people from another star system are here, they have FTL travel,, and it's a long long way to come, just to hover over a clapped out US coastguard boat, and then go home again.

So no,, we are not being visited by aliens,, ever ..

MadYaker

flanna01 wrote: »

I'm leaning towards electrical weather phenomenon....

The speed and vast area(s) covered by forked lightening when it arcs is amazing. We have seen the footage of ball lightening doing its thing. I suggest the UAP sightings are of the same nature, except we have no understanding of it yet.

The intermittent fuzzy images witnessed on the videos suggest to me, that there is serious fluctuating speed velocity involved, couple this with the erratic 'flight path' seen, it compares to an electrical weather anomaly to me??

Studying some of the footage, it would seem similar to a tumbling barrel falling from the sky at supersonic speed (crude description I know), you can certainly rule out any form of intelligently controlled craft(s).

Interesting topic, but it's an electrical weather anomaly for me all the way.

If you watched and read everything that’s been released you would know there are things that pilots are claiming they saw that can’t be explained by lightning. Many pilots talked about their jets being followed by these things. These witness accounts are backed up by data from radar that shows actual physical objects moving through the air. Lightning is energy it has no mass and cant show up on radar.

So it’s not weather, but the Americans could still be making all this up. I myself am undecided until more information is released. The radar data is what makes it very interesting because that means these things have mass, they have a physical form it’s not just energy. Or at least not as we understand it.

Butson

flanna01 wrote: »

I'm leaning towards electrical weather phenomenon....

The speed and vast area(s) covered by forked lightening when it arcs is amazing. We have seen the footage of ball lightening doing its thing. I suggest the UAP sightings are of the same nature, except we have no understanding of it yet.

The intermittent fuzzy images witnessed on the videos suggest to me, that there is serious fluctuating speed velocity involved, couple this with the erratic 'flight path' seen, it compares to an electrical weather anomaly to me??

Studying some of the footage, it would seem similar to a tumbling barrel falling from the sky at supersonic speed (crude description I know), you can certainly rule out any form of intelligently controlled craft(s).

Interesting topic, but it's an electrical weather anomaly for me all the way.

Are you suggesting that the US Navy ships that are tracking these things for days on their radar etc, extremely experienced fighter pilots, scientists in the Pentagon that have been looking at it....Electrical Weather?

[Deleted User]

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sam Harris, one of the most die hard sceptics in modern times has changed his mind on this phenomenon. He's stating that we should be very excited

I am not sure he has changed his position much on the matter at all.

Firstly because I am not sure he has expressed an opinion on the matter in the past - or has he? To know if he has changed his position - one would have to have details of his previous position against which to compare it?

Secondly and more importantly though - the vast majority of that link you just shared was not him expressing his opinion or position on the matter. At all.

Rather he is reporting what was discussed in the Washington Post - rumours he has heard - and what a person who contacted him privately has said. Very little - if any - of that 3 minute piece of audio is Harris describing his own position at all! Re listen to it and give me the time stamps you _think_ is him giving his own position and I will recheck if you think I am in error here.

In fact the only part that sounds like Harris giving his own position is when he called the things he has heard "Goofy". Everything else is him reporting what he has read or heard or has been told may about to be revealed.

So no - at this point I think it fair to say that his position has not changed at all. And having just listened to him talk to Neil DeGrasse Tyson on a podcast released just yesterday - his position on the matter remains pretty much just as open - but sceptical - as Tyson's is.

As for "apologising" - if someone has been laughing or mocking someone then by all means apologise. If however someone is just sceptical of a claim without evidence - and then the evidence later comes in - there is literally nothing to apologise for.

If someone does need to apologise - and I hasten to point out I do not think anyone does - it is in fact the people making truth claimswithout evidence who should be apologising saying "Sorry we wasted your time making claims without evidence before - but actually now we have some - so can we please return to the table?".

flanna01

I'm leaning towards electrical weather phenomenon....

The speed and vast area(s) covered by forked lightening when it arcs is amazing. We have seen the footage of ball lightening doing its thing. I suggest the UAP sightings are of the same nature, except we have no understanding of it yet.

The intermittent fuzzy images witnessed on the videos suggest to me, that there is serious fluctuating speed velocity involved, couple this with the erratic 'flight path' seen, it compares to an electrical weather anomaly to me??

Studying some of the footage, it would seem similar to a tumbling barrel falling from the sky at supersonic speed (crude description I know), you can certainly rule out any form of intelligently controlled craft(s).

Interesting topic, but it's an electrical weather anomaly for me all the way.

Sakana

Hamsterchops wrote: »

I guess it means that either the academics or the UFO (alien) believers will be proved wrong, in which case one side will be delt the KO blow!

Aliens Yes = KO blow to the academics.
Aliens No = KO blow to the UFO brigade.

Next round please

Yeah, but I mean that the writer wrote kayo instead of KO. I'm wondering if they'd heard KO used but never connected it with the way it's used in boxing/fighting.

There have been worse blind spots!

Hamsterchops

I guess it means that either the academics or the UFO (alien) believers will be proved wrong, in which case one side will be delt the KO blow!

Aliens Yes = KO blow to the academics.
Aliens No = KO blow to the UFO brigade.

Next round please

Sakana

Hamsterchops wrote: »

A sneak-peek at the UFO/UAP Report.

"The academics can continue to rubbish the alien visitation idea, and the UFO believers can continue to cry cover-up. Everyone will retreat to their neutral corners and hope for a kayo in the next round."

Tantalising.

https://www.seti.org/sneak-peek-ufouap-report

Do they not know that KO stands for knockout?

Hamsterchops

A sneak-peek at the UFO/UAP Report.

"The academics can continue to rubbish the alien visitation idea, and the UFO believers can continue to cry cover-up. Everyone will retreat to their neutral corners and hope for a kayo in the next round."

Tantalising.

https://www.seti.org/sneak-peek-ufouap-report

steddyeddy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

apologise for what, exactly? Apologise for not believing something without evidence? What are the implications of this new evidence? We are still at the "we don't know what they are" stage.

Well I am very much keen that we stick to we don't know what they are line. That's what I have been saying all along here. I have my beliefs about what these are but I have evidence to say what they're less likely to be (planes, balloons and birds).

The problem is that a lot of the more dogmatic sceptics have attacked people for even reporting these things. They have ridiculed pilots and stifled the debate whereby it was impossible to even talk about these things. Whereas you and I say "we don't know what these things are" dogmatic sceptics often say "we know this is a bird\balloon\airplane".

In science we use a teaching tool to explain how scepticism can hold back investigation called "Cuvier's rash dictum". Cuvier, a zoologist heard reports of the mountain gorilla, the Okapi and other megafauna yet to be discovered and replied with the famous quote:

There is little hope of discovering new species of large quadrupeds

Cuvier's influence led to most later zoologists accepting his opinion, and refusing to consider the possibility of large undescribed animals, with obvious consequences for zoology. Cuvier even refused to acknowledge reports of unknown animals from trained observers, thereby slowing down knowledge acquisition in this area.

This has been observed in biochemistry, physics, chemistry and right now in genetics. Sceptics have made it very hard to get funding for certain studies due to the fact that they ridicule those who try to determine the nature of things we don't understand.

ohnonotgmail

steddyeddy wrote: »

Has anyone being following the news on this? It's amazing how much of a paradigm shift has occurred.

Sam Harris, one of the most die hard sceptics in modern times has changed his mind on this phenomenon. He's stating that we should be very excited about the implications of the recent news about the UAP report. The fact that the US government is telling us that there's unknown aircraft in our atmosphere displaying characteristics that couldn't be made by the most advanced nations on earth is a very big deal.

He rightly says that the die hard sceptics need to apologise to people who were taking this seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnpXife8JEQ

apologise for what, exactly? Apologise for not believing something without evidence? What are the implications of this new evidence? We are still at the "we don't know what they are" stage.