UFOs: No Longer Crazy?

[Tres Leches]

UFO's are a lot like the biblical god, or any god for that matter.  UFO's are only seen by a few people here and there.  UFO's never communicate to the masses all at once.  You'll never see a god or a UFO appear at a huge sporting event, land in the middle of the field and have a nice chat with everyone.  This, even though they're supposed to have a very important message for us.   No, they always need to be mysterious and just out of reach. Like gods, they're undetectable by modern science.   UFO's are just a different version of a god.  They're a high tech god who flies around in a saucer.

UFOs are just as crazy and unlikely as God? That is sort of funny to me. How big is the observable universe again?

"Undetectable by modern science"? There is verified military footage of these things operating in a manner that no known man-made craft can. Watch it for yourself right now if you'd like to. How much more could modern science detect them?

https://youtu.be/CnIG-i2WCfg?t=15

Ok. I watched the link and it's a 30 minute video of almost entirely a couple guys talking into microphones. And a short, tiny video at the corner of the screen in the last few minutes. The guy describing the video reminded me of a priest in a church interpreting the bible in a sermon. If we need someone to tell us what we're seeing... I dunno, man. If aliens are really real, why isn't this plain for all Homo sapiens to see for ourselves?

-Teresa

[Gwaithmir]

Ditto. 

[TheGentlemanBastard]

UFO's are a lot like the biblical god, or any god for that matter.  UFO's are only seen by a few people here and there.  UFO's never communicate to the masses all at once.  You'll never see a god or a UFO appear at a huge sporting event, land in the middle of the field and have a nice chat with everyone.  This, even though they're supposed to have a very important message for us.   No, they always need to be mysterious and just out of reach. Like gods, they're undetectable by modern science.   UFO's are just a different version of a god.  They're a high tech god who flies around in a saucer.

UFOs are just as crazy and unlikely as God? That is sort of funny to me. How big is the observable universe again?

"Undetectable by modern science"? There is verified military footage of these things operating in a manner that no known man-made craft can. Watch it for yourself right now if you'd like to. How much more could modern science detect them?

https://youtu.be/CnIG-i2WCfg?t=15

Ok. I watched the link and it's a 30 minute video of almost entirely a couple guys talking into microphones. And a short, tiny video at the corner of the screen in the last few minutes. The guy describing the video reminded me of a priest in a church interpreting the bible in a sermon. If we need someone to tell us what we're seeing... I dunno, man. If aliens are really real, why isn't this plain for all Homo sapiens to see for ourselves?

-Teresa

^^ This! ^^

Another fuzzy video of "something," with no corroborating evidence, or even a corroborating witness, doing something allegedly impossible yet easily mocked up by anyone with access to a camera, a flight video and some basic video editing tools. What's so convincing about this one?!?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I watched it yesterday. It hasn't gotten any better since then.

[Minimalist]

I'm not involved with this thread.  You never seen me. I was never here.

Carry on.

How are you at carving lime stone?

[skyking]

There's evidence, like Lucy's skull, and all those other skeletal remains. Geological evidence, sediment layers, tree rings, gasses trapped in deep ice.
Then we have evidence-lite. It all goes in the same symmetrical container. If ancient aliens existed, why are there no fossil records?
Oh that's right, they are stored next to the yeti and Loch Ness monster fossils.

[TheGulegon]

I wonder how long we had stealth fighters & bombers, before our own admirals & generals ~ not directly involved with the super top-secret black-operation charged with constructing them ~ knew we had them.

Not long at all is my guess. My dad, a lowly radar tech, was part of the program that mated the AGM-65 Maverick to the F-117, in 1982, when it was still in testing. He didn't talk, but he sure knew about it.

The purpose of the question was to implant the crazy notion that what's being seen by these perfectly sane, well trained pilots, might have a top secret, but totally Earthly, origin.

I saw a UFO, twice, in the last week. On the same route, heading home. Moving at what appeared to be velocity too slow for a conventional fixed wing aircraft. Which made it appear to not be too high up. Triangular in shape, black in color, with the first time showing no lights, but the second time showing it's running lights on both wings. One red, one blue.

Space aliens? 


Nah. We got Apaches flying over, and B-2s taking off from Whiteman, all the time. Figure some Air Force kid snuck one of the XBox controllers out, and flew some new drone around, or something. Fuckin aliens, gawdam.

[Minimalist]

[Thumpalumpacus]

I wonder how long we had stealth fighters & bombers, before our own admirals & generals ~ not directly involved with the super top-secret black-operation charged with constructing them ~ knew we had them.

Not long at all is my guess. My dad, a lowly radar tech, was part of the program that mated the AGM-65 Maverick to the F-117, in 1982, when it was still in testing. He didn't talk, but he sure knew about it.

The purpose of the question was to implant the crazy notion that what's being seen by these perfectly sane, well trained pilots, might have a top secret, but totally Earthly, origin.

I saw a UFO, twice, in the last week. On the same route, heading home. Moving at what appeared to be velocity too slow for a conventional fixed wing aircraft. Which made it appear to not be too high up. Triangular in shape, black in color, with the first time showing no lights, but the second time showing it's running lights on both wings. One red, one blue.

Space aliens? 


Nah. We got Apaches flying over, and B-2s taking off from Whiteman, all the time. Figure some Air Force kid snuck one of the XBox controllers out, and flew some new drone around, or something. Fuckin aliens, gawdam.

A B-2 can appear to be flying a hell of a lot slower than IAS. C-5s, too. They look like they're going to fall out of the sky on landing approach.

I can just imagine how a B-2 in the dark might look extraterrestrial.

[grympy]

I'm not involved with this thread.  You never seen me. I was never here.

Carry on.

 Jeez you think a lot of yerself. 

[SYZ]

Wow, you guys clearly didn't read or watch anything I posted.

I tried to check out your NYT link, but you have to open an account to view it (which I won't do).  I did however
see the video [elsewhere] showing the alleged "encounter" between a US Navy Super Hornet and a UFO—which is
laughably inconclusive, and leads to all sorts of absurd unsupported claims, even by the pilot himself.

You don't have to believe it, it doesn't really affect anything if you do or don't, but you clearly didn't give any of this new material a chance. You're automatically dismissing it without examining the evidence, which is not what a proper skeptic does.

Personally, I have very little belief that the earth has been visited by extraterrestrial entities—due of course to the
dearth of empirical evidence beyond a few blurry images that satisfy the UFO optimists pareidolia.  Or the wishful
thinking of the over-imaginative, scientifically-illiterate.

And, as "proper" skeptic, I can dismiss the evidence for UFOs with a similar level of confidence that I dismiss the
existence of mermaids, leprechauns, zombies, the Sasquatch and the Yeti, vampires and werewolves, wendigos,
the Loch Ness monster, and of course God and gods.

And the glaringly obvious question about the few supposedly legitimate images we do have of purported UFOs?
Why are they invariably blurry, ill-defined, colourless, and of indeterminate dimensions?  After all, we now have high
40MP prosumer digital cameras with fast 600mm lenses and burst mode;  why do UFO chasers never use these?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Reply!"

"They have said nothing."

"Then say nothing in return."

[mordant]

Wow, you guys clearly didn't read or watch anything I posted.

I tried to check out your NYT link, but you have to open an account to view it (which I won't do).  I did however
see the video [elsewhere] showing the alleged "encounter" between a US Navy Super Hornet and a UFO—which is
laughably inconclusive, and leads to all sorts of absurd unsupported claims, even by the pilot himself.

You don't have to believe it, it doesn't really affect anything if you do or don't, but you clearly didn't give any of this new material a chance. You're automatically dismissing it without examining the evidence, which is not what a proper skeptic does.

Personally, I have very little belief that the earth has been visited by extraterrestrial entities—due of course to the
dearth of empirical evidence beyond a few blurry images that satisfy the UFO optimists pareidolia.  Or the wishful
thinking of the over-imaginative, scientifically-illiterate.

And, as "proper" skeptic, I can dismiss the evidence for UFOs with a similar level of confidence that I dismiss the
existence of mermaids, leprechauns, zombies, the Sasquatch and the Yeti, vampires and werewolves, wendigos,
the Loch Ness monster, and of course God and gods.

And the glaringly obvious question about the few supposedly legitimate images we do have of purported UFOs?
Why are they invariably blurry, ill-defined, colourless, and of indeterminate dimensions?  After all, we now have high
40MP prosumer digital cameras with fast 600mm lenses and burst mode;  why do UFO chasers never use these?

Precisely my own reaction when I saw these on the national news. Just another smudge in a video combined with presuppositionalist commentary. All the story boiled down to is "sometimes our flyboys see things that we have been unable to explain". So what else is new.

[GenesisNemesis]

 

"Undetectable by modern science"? There is verified military footage of these things operating in a manner that no known man-made craft can. Watch it for yourself right now if you'd like to. How much more could modern science detect them?

https://youtu.be/CnIG-i2WCfg?t=15

 It's entirely possible there are top secret aircraft that can move in ways current aircaft can't. Any government is going to deny such aircraft exist. Besides it's not like our technologies aren't advancing at a rapid pace so actually that makes it even more plausible that we built "these things".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

 

"Undetectable by modern science"? There is verified military footage of these things operating in a manner that no known man-made craft can. Watch it for yourself right now if you'd like to. How much more could modern science detect them?

https://youtu.be/CnIG-i2WCfg?t=15

 It's entirely possible there are top secret aircraft that can move in ways current aircaft can't. Any government is going to deny such aircraft exist. Besides it's not like our technologies aren't advancing at a rapid pace.

And there are material objects that defy the current physical laws?

[skyking]

The other thing about all this is what Grympy stated, why not drop into a packed sports stadium and say hello?
It is the same as "god works in mysterious ways" bullshit.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I love it when they cite the "Prime Directive" like it was a universal law, and THEN say that they're seeing the ships and meeting the aliens all the time. Pick your crazy off the list.

[skyking]

LOL well, everybody trusts what Saint Picard says

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, that's really the Q, isn't it?

[Aegon]

I'll be straight with you guys, I wasn't ready for such a fight. I just thought it was cool as hell. I'm not a "UFO guy," and I was just impressed by the legitimacy I thought these cases had compared to virtually every other case I've ever heard. I thought a retired commanding officer of 20 years would be a pretty reputable guy, and his stories were very interesting. I suppose I'm alone in this? I really do think that if you allow yourself to remove the stigma that "UFOlogy" has, then there's something very cool about these crafts that appear to manipulate gravity in ways we haven't figured out yet. (That doesn't break the laws of physics. It's just something we can't do yet.)

UFOs are just as crazy and unlikely as God? That is sort of funny to me. How big is the observable universe again?

"Undetectable by modern science"? There is verified military footage of these things operating in a manner that no known man-made craft can. Watch it for yourself right now if you'd like to. How much more could modern science detect them?

https://youtu.be/CnIG-i2WCfg?t=15

Ok. I watched the link and it's a 30 minute video of almost entirely a couple guys talking into microphones. And a short, tiny video at the corner of the screen in the last few minutes. The guy describing the video reminded me of a priest in a church interpreting the bible in a sermon. If we need someone to tell us what we're seeing... I dunno, man. If aliens are really real, why isn't this plain for all Homo sapiens to see for ourselves?

-Teresa

^^ This! ^^

Another fuzzy video of "something," with no corroborating evidence, or even a corroborating witness, doing something allegedly impossible yet easily mocked up by anyone with access to a camera, a flight video and some basic video editing tools. What's so convincing about this one?!?

The... U.S. Department of Defense mocked up a video from 2004 and released in 2017 for giggles?

Wow, you guys clearly didn't read or watch anything I posted.

I tried to check out your NYT link, but you have to open an account to view it (which I won't do).  I did however
see the video [elsewhere] showing the alleged "encounter" between a US Navy Super Hornet and a UFO—which is
laughably inconclusive, and leads to all sorts of absurd unsupported claims, even by the pilot himself.

You don't have to believe it, it doesn't really affect anything if you do or don't, but you clearly didn't give any of this new material a chance. You're automatically dismissing it without examining the evidence, which is not what a proper skeptic does.

Personally, I have very little belief that the earth has been visited by extraterrestrial entities—due of course to the
dearth of empirical evidence beyond a few blurry images that satisfy the UFO optimists pareidolia.  Or the wishful
thinking of the over-imaginative, scientifically-illiterate.

And, as "proper" skeptic, I can dismiss the evidence for UFOs with a similar level of confidence that I dismiss the
existence of mermaids, leprechauns, zombies, the Sasquatch and the Yeti, vampires and werewolves, wendigos,
the Loch Ness monster, and of course God and gods.

And the glaringly obvious question about the few supposedly legitimate images we do have of purported UFOs?
Why are they invariably blurry, ill-defined, colourless, and of indeterminate dimensions?  After all, we now have high
40MP prosumer digital cameras with fast 600mm lenses and burst mode;  why do UFO chasers never use these?

I don't think flight videos are 4K yet but maybe sometime soon. I have no intention of defending any other footage you may be thinking of because I don't know anything about them and I don't particularly care.

Precisely my own reaction when I saw these on the national news. Just another smudge in a video combined with presuppositionalist commentary. All the story boiled down to is "sometimes our flyboys see things that we have been unable to explain". So what else is new.

Are there more examples just like this? "What else is new?" These ships do these that are mind-blowing to the pilots who witness it. I figured that'd be a big deal? Congress seems interested.

 

"Undetectable by modern science"? There is verified military footage of these things operating in a manner that no known man-made craft can. Watch it for yourself right now if you'd like to. How much more could modern science detect them?

https://youtu.be/CnIG-i2WCfg?t=15

 It's entirely possible there are top secret aircraft that can move in ways current aircaft can't. Any government is going to deny such aircraft exist. Besides it's not like our technologies aren't advancing at a rapid pace so actually that makes it even more plausible that we built "these things".

You really think we figured out anti-gravity in 2019? Hot damn. I thought nuclear fusion would be first!

[Thumpalumpacus]

I thought a retired commanding officer of 20 years would be a pretty reputable guy, and his stories were very interesting. I suppose I'm alone in this?

No, there are far too many people who think that a pilot's license, or command experience, confers immunity from recognition or other observational errors. It doesn't. 

We see friendly-fire incidents in both air-superiority and air-to-ground missions. Think about that last one -- the targets on the ground are traveling less than 50 mph, and still are misidentified with fatal results.

Now we're expected to believe that because Cdr X with Y years of experience cannot identify an aerial sighting, it is probably alien? Never mind the logical fallacy of non sequitur, the unspoken premise that military pilots don't err in their spottings is highly questionable, to be generous. Radar contacts can help expand upon a reported sighting to the extent it can confirm or undercut the observations of the pilot(s), but neither can radar say anything about the provenance of -- or even validity of -- the sighting.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Appeal to Authority is a fallacy.

[Mark]

Wow, you guys clearly didn't read or watch anything I posted. You don't have to believe it, it doesn't really affect anything if you do or don't, but you clearly didn't give any of this new material a chance. You're automatically dismissing it without examining the evidence, which is not what a proper skeptic does.

It certainly would be interesting if true.  Makes you wonder, why they don't they make contact.  Guess maybe we have to achieve light speed first.  

I haven't checked it out yet but maybe I will.  I guess people fear it might be a first step on a slippery slope into an obsession with conspiracy theory.  (I trust myself more than that.)

[Aegon]

I thought a retired commanding officer of 20 years would be a pretty reputable guy, and his stories were very interesting. I suppose I'm alone in this?

No, there are far too many people who think that a pilot's license, or command experience, confers immunity from recognition or other observational errors. It doesn't. 

We see friendly-fire incidents in both air-superiority and air-to-ground missions. Think about that last one -- the targets on the ground are traveling less than 50 mph, and still are misidentified with fatal results.

Now we're expected to believe that because Cdr X with Y years of experience cannot identify an aerial sighting, it is probably alien? Never mind the logical fallacy of non sequitur, the unspoken premise that military pilots don't err in their spottings is highly questionable, to be generous. Radar contacts can help expand upon a reported sighting to the extent it can confirm or undercut the observations of the pilot(s), but neither can radar say anything about the provenance of -- or even validity of -- the sighting.

I mean, yes, just because he's a retired commander doesn't mean I should treat what he says as gospel, that's undoubtedly fallacious. But we listen to physicists talk about physics and accept they're providing an accurate take on physics... why shouldn't I believe an experienced Naval officer when he reviews the type of footage he's looked at for decades? Who am I to laugh at this story and immediately dismiss it? I have a BA in Poli Sci lol. I don't know what half the markers mean in this footage. I'd very much like to see some other knowledgeable military personnel come out and say "HE'S WRONG, AND HERE IS WHY," but I have yet to see anyone do that in the last 2 years.

I also think we need to put more emphasis on what the ship did, rather than just noting it was unidentified. It's one thing to misidentify with those terrible consequences like the examples you provided, but did they misidentify it as a ship maneuvering in a way that no known man-made ship could? That's what I'm stuck on. I think that is what should be emphasized above all else - not just that it is a UFO, but that it's a UFO doing shit your average UFO is not doing. (Using UFO in the true sense of the term here.) It's one thing to misidentify friendly as enemy, but you're still seeing a plane that acts like a plane. That's not the case here.

It's one thing for one pilot to err in his spotting one time, but when he says his squadron all witnessed it (NYT did a story with one of them, separately) and then reviews the footage several times over several years and still reaches the same conclusion... is that an error? According to the story radar is very much aware of them too, which seems to confirm his observations rather than undercut them. Are they convincing themselves of bullshit? Who am I, as some random guy, to say that they don't know what they're talking about when they obviously know this shit better than me? I'm not so egotistical.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They don't want to violate the Prime Directive. And they're shit at that.