Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Unexplained Mysteries and Paranormal
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-16-2018, 04:10 PM
 
Location: Greenville, SC
6,219 posts, read 5,895,851 times
Reputation: 12159

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
Agreed. But in addition to the video and data, you have the eyewitness testimony of the pilot. This is a guy who is trained to recognize enemy aircraft of every sort, and he had no clue what this was.
In the video, he mentions the object under the surface of the sea which he describes as being the size of a 737 but he doesn't describe its appearance - only the waves breaking on it. Hard to tell what that was. The flying objects are a different matter - I have to wonder if he was making naked eye observations or looking at them through some sort of advanced heads up display. If the latter, the same hypothesis of a glitch in the software/firmware would apply. I'd be curious to see if he says anything about this in the full interview.

If on the other hand, they were observing these things with their naked eyes, that would be very hard to explain other than their being related to some sort of unknown technology (or unknown natural phenomenon).

One of the things that bothers me about this sort of observation is the objects moving suddenly at great speed - yet there are no sonic booms - the observations are always described as being silent. You can't displace a lot of air suddenly without causing a hell of a sound. This suggests to me that whatever is being observed, it's likely not a physical object.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-16-2018, 05:26 PM
 
27,539 posts, read 15,942,434 times
Reputation: 18953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Guard View Post
There are a number of things that I think. I think when I read someone stating these accounts that they are misrepresenting the account because often when I read them they do not match what people state that they are saying. I think that people are influenced by what they have seen or read and so form follows function, or in this case people are just seeing what they are looking for. I think that people are flawed.

Some people see something like this:



And think it is a representation of a modern airplane made by almost prehistoric people's. But when you look at similar, contemporary, objects you can see it is not.

Ancient Aliens Debunked does a great job of debunking things found in art from the past that people try to use as proof of UFO's being reported by people from the past.
Academia sees a cave painting and calls it a “god that primitives worshipped”. I don’t know which is more silly
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2018, 06:55 PM
 
138 posts, read 127,539 times
Reputation: 132
Looks like a squashed bug on his windshield.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2018, 08:58 PM
 
17,264 posts, read 11,082,017 times
Reputation: 40511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
Discussions like this bring out the inherent prejudices in both sides of the argument. The UFO "true believers" immediately dive into government cover-ups, aliens, etc. While the die-hard skeptics are now seeing military data, video evidence, and the eyewitness testimony of trained pilots, and still it has to be a computer error, a hallucination, etc. Neither side wants to take an honest view of the evidence because they are blinded by their own preconceived prejudices.

I'm much more skeptical than most. But c'mon. There comes a point where you have to admit you just don't know.

Both sides need to read this and ponder:

Can Skepticism Blind You to the Truth?

https://io9.gizmodo.com/can-skeptici...uth-1548544855
That's pretty much how I see it. Skeptics will say just about anything not to believe there might be something there even disqualifying a trained navy fighter pilot as if he's just another tourist looking out of an airplane window. The other side has all kinds of theories about how some secret branch of the government controlled by a handful of people has had all this extreme technology for several decades and has no intention of ever letting the space program or the military know about it.
It's not so wild and crazy anymore to think there is more to this than either of these two scenarios. I mean, how much can you ignore with a straight face?

Last edited by marino760; 03-16-2018 at 09:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2018, 01:42 AM
 
5,891 posts, read 3,194,152 times
Reputation: 5548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
Discussions like this bring out the inherent prejudices in both sides of the argument. The UFO "true believers" immediately dive into government cover-ups, aliens, etc. While the die-hard skeptics are now seeing military data, video evidence, and the eyewitness testimony of trained pilots, and still it has to be a computer error, a hallucination, etc. Neither side wants to take an honest view of the evidence because they are blinded by their own preconceived prejudices.

I'm much more skeptical than most. But c'mon. There comes a point where you have to admit you just don't know.

Both sides need to read this and ponder:

Can Skepticism Blind You to the Truth?

https://io9.gizmodo.com/can-skeptici...uth-1548544855
Is absolutely true we don't know. That's why I said we should apply Occam's Razor instead of looking for the most unlikely scenario imaginable.

BTW, none of these elements of evidence are new to the UFO issue. All of these have been around for 50+ years. Good quality video is of more recent vintage of course, but even within the last 20 years there have been many videos of similar caliber to the 2015 Navy footage. Heck NASA has excellent footage from Shuttle missions going back to the 80s.

So nothing new with the "evidence" or the quality or veracity of this report. The Navy films are frankly less compelling than many other videos that have been captured. And they are less compelling to people who truly appreciate the context of the videos and the system that created it (you may have seen my post).

Also the anomaly, or object, if that is what it was, is only unusual for its apparent configuration. Its not exhibiting dynamics unattainable for a conventional aircraft - it appears to be doing at least several hundred knots - but its not doing multiple Mach or exhibiting directional or attitudinal changes or accelerations that conventional aircraft can't achieve. In all respects other than its apparent appearance, it is unremarkable.



Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
That's pretty much how I see it. Skeptics will say just about anything not to believe there might be something there even disqualifying a trained navy fighter pilot as if he's just another tourist looking out of an airplane window. The other side has all kinds of theories about how some secret branch of the government controlled by a handful of people has had all this extreme technology for several decades and has no intention of ever letting the space program or the military know about it.
It's not so wild and crazy anymore to think there is more to this than either of these two scenarios. I mean, how much can you ignore with a straight face?
Who's disqualifying the Navy pilots? But I think its clear that you don't know very much about black programs or how they operate. Lots of tech is classified at the highest levels and because of that, even government employees in other departments who may hold security clearances for their role will not have any access to these programs. This extends to members of Congress, to WH officials, and even to the President. To paraphrase what someone who knows about such a program would say, "You don't break OpSec just because some flyboys are curious."

And if asked by someone not "read in" to the program, "I'm not at liberty to discuss that." And that's the polite official answer, btw. The more casual one is unprintable here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2018, 07:19 AM
 
17,264 posts, read 11,082,017 times
Reputation: 40511
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot View Post
Is absolutely true we don't know. That's why I said we should apply Occam's Razor instead of looking for the most unlikely scenario imaginable.

BTW, none of these elements of evidence are new to the UFO issue. All of these have been around for 50+ years. Good quality video is of more recent vintage of course, but even within the last 20 years there have been many videos of similar caliber to the 2015 Navy footage. Heck NASA has excellent footage from Shuttle missions going back to the 80s.

So nothing new with the "evidence" or the quality or veracity of this report. The Navy films are frankly less compelling than many other videos that have been captured. And they are less compelling to people who truly appreciate the context of the videos and the system that created it (you may have seen my post).

Also the anomaly, or object, if that is what it was, is only unusual for its apparent configuration. Its not exhibiting dynamics unattainable for a conventional aircraft - it appears to be doing at least several hundred knots - but its not doing multiple Mach or exhibiting directional or attitudinal changes or accelerations that conventional aircraft can't achieve. In all respects other than its apparent appearance, it is unremarkable.





Who's disqualifying the Navy pilots? But I think its clear that you don't know very much about black programs or how they operate. Lots of tech is classified at the highest levels and because of that, even government employees in other departments who may hold security clearances for their role will not have any access to these programs. This extends to members of Congress, to WH officials, and even to the President. To paraphrase what someone who knows about such a program would say, "You don't break OpSec just because some flyboys are curious."

And if asked by someone not "read in" to the program, "I'm not at liberty to discuss that." And that's the polite official answer, btw. The more casual one is unprintable here.
By shrugging it off and saying it's a missile or not taking into account that it was viewed visually not just on radar as a glitch of some sort, one disqualifies the Navy pilot.
I'm somewhat aware of the black programs but even that could not possibly explain technology that is at least hundreds of years ahead of it's time. No visual exhaust, no sonic boom, being able to make 90 degree turns at lightning speed and taking off at above supersonic speed from a standing position without at least some visual acceleration. That's what the pilot said he witnessed. Anything the gov does, doesn't remain secret for very long when you consider there are people that will go rogue and Russians and Chinese looking into everything we do especially with technology and military and the existence of high tech spy satellites . The U.S. gov would have had to have kept this a complete secret for decades already. I don't think so, but I'm not big on gov conspiracy theories but I know there is some credibility to this as well, but not in this case.
I think there is more out there that many people are comfortable with including those in the military and government and I don't blame them.

Last edited by marino760; 03-17-2018 at 07:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2018, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Greenville, SC
6,219 posts, read 5,895,851 times
Reputation: 12159
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
That's pretty much how I see it. Skeptics will say just about anything not to believe there might be something there even disqualifying a trained navy fighter pilot as if he's just another tourist looking out of an airplane window.
As I said, is there evidence in his report that he was making a naked eye observation of the objects rather than viewing them through a heads-up display? I don't see any statement to that effect in the posted video. I'd be very interested if anyone's found that sort of statement on the part of the pilot in question. If your six year old told you he was seeing Pokemons on the lawn, the first thing you'd do is check to see if he was using Pokemon Go on his cell phone.

If there was a heads-up display performing image manipulation between the pilot and the outside, that would mean the possibility of image glitches in the heads-up display needs to be eliminated. If on the other hand, the pilots were seeing these things without intervening software, that makes it hard to explain as something other than physical objects (or something immaterial that appeared to be physical objects) in the sky.

Arthur Conan Doyle wrote, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." What I see in discussions in this forum is a desire on the part of the True Believers to get rid of the "eliminate the impossible" part in Doyle's equation - and to do so by dismissing anyone who asks reasonable questions about the nature or reliability of the data as a narrow-minded skeptic. Or in my case, being accused repeatedly over the years by someone who's now on my ignore list of being a government shill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2018, 09:55 AM
 
Location: Concord NC
1,858 posts, read 1,632,435 times
Reputation: 5175
UFOs are like Schrodinger's alive/dead cat; it is in two states until observed. Only instead of "is a photon a wave or particle", it is: "Alien or Terrestrial". Photon observed by double-slit = wave. Photon observed producing photoelecrtic effect = particle.
UFO observed by Person A...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2018, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Chicago area
18,748 posts, read 11,708,497 times
Reputation: 64054
What else could UFO's possibly be if not alien? How about experimental aircraft? I saw one up close. It had small square windows like you'd see in a conventional aircraft. It had red and white flashing like you'd see on a conventional aircraft. Do I think it was alien? No.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2018, 10:59 AM
 
28,122 posts, read 12,418,621 times
Reputation: 15329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
So your saying that the F-35 has no technological advances in it that have trickled down and is essentially not really different from the F-18?
Look at most modern UFO reports, the crafts reported usually have the same capabilities...

They can hover in total silence (no engine noise), they can move very slow like a blimp, and then take off so fast, it looks like they vanished.

They can cloak themselves to appear like the sky.

They have effects on electrical and mechanical things on the ground in the immediate area, shorting out cell phones, stalling cars, etc.

Many also produce negative effects on people as well, such as nose bleeds, trigger headaches, nausea, memory loss, etc.

If the F35 is the most advanced aircraft we have, then no, not much has trickled down (if UFOs are truly experimental craft).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Unexplained Mysteries and Paranormal

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top