4 ms·
As usual, the claim that #2 could possibly be due to pilots misinterpreting visual evidence is tossed out as a hand wavy excuse despite the fact that the cases
by gfodor 9y ago
As usual, the claim that #2 could possibly be due to pilots misinterpreting visual evidence is tossed out as a hand wavy excuse despite the fact that the cases investigated by the Pentagon are (allegedly) corroborated by targeting systems, radar and satellite images, and possibly more evidence not disclosed. The entire point of the revelations was that after bringing to bear the entire analytical arsenal of the Pentagon there is no obvious explanation remaining for these cases other that these objects indeed exist and have an unknown origin. (This doesn't mean "aliens.")
The entire story hinges on the credibility of the Pentagon officials and pilots interviewed. If they are credible with regards to the narrative around just how many resources were used to generate alternative explanations, then the media should stop building up strawmen that these specific cases were due to pilots being fooled by their visual system.
- valuearb 9y agoThe problem is there is zero evidence of their credibility. Essentially it's an appeal to authority argument. And the video itself doesn't show anything of the claimed behavior. No hovering over the ocean, no super fast motion, just a blob or smudge superimposed over a cloudy background as video pans around.
- StanislavPetrov 9y agoWhich is one of many reasons we need total transparency when it comes to government. Every "state secrets" arguments falls well short when it comes to the need for the public to know everything in order to make informed decisions. Without informed consent we simply live in a police state. "National Security" is always a distant second to the need for transparency. Democracy dies behind closed doors.
- garmaine 9y ago> The entire point of the revelations was that after bringing to bear the entire analytical arsenal of the Pentagon there is no obvious explanation remaining ... The articles I read seemed to indicate this “office” at the pentagon was basically a one man show and was rediculed by his peers, probably receiving little if any analytical support.
- reaperducer 9y agoWorse, the office had an "I want to believe" poster on the wall. Fortunately, the one man show had a red-headed skeptic sidekick.
- kevin_thibedeau 9y agoIf this was real it would be classified TS and the leakers are subject to imprisonment. The US already has a ban on disclosing ordinary flight camera recordings without approval and getting the black bar treatment so how did this get out?
- nabla9 9y agoDon't mix narrative provided with evidence provided. Not pilots, a pilot. All that project came up with was one pilot (Fravor) describing unusual event and none of the other three pilots involved or ship crewmen backing his story up. Single person can see almost anything even if the observer is trained and trustworthy. As long as no other pilots collaborate the same event, there is little credibility. Three senators earmarked millions into UFO research. Pentagon had to spend that money but they never took it seriously. Person running the project for pentagon seems untrustworthy. Now the process continues with organization whose mission includes inspirational storytelling, telepathy and electrogravitic propulsion.
- mherchel 9y agoNo, there were multiple F18s. Each with a pilot. Multiple radar contacts, with the associated radar operators. Also, why do you say, "none of the other three pilots involved or ship crewmen backing his story up." That's not true.