4 ms·
>By all accounts, the UAP were observed by these sensor platforms and pilots performing maneuvers which indicate intelligent control and technology beyond what
by unlinked_dll 7y ago
>By all accounts, the UAP were observed by these sensor platforms and pilots performing maneuvers which indicate intelligent control and technology beyond what we can duplicate at present, no matter how hard we try.
The public has very little insight into both what is "possible" to achieve by military aircraft, and more importantly in this context, their observational capability.
If the navy says that they spotted an unidentified flying object moving mach X at a distance of Y km, that tells geopolitical adversaries things like "they can monitor our railgun fire under these conditions."
Every piece of information we get from the military that isn't through investigation needs to be taken with a massive grain of salt, since it's always been released under the pretenses of information warfare and the tactical consequences of it being public.
And as an aside, not only does the public have very little insight into what the military and its contractors can do, the military itself has little insight into what other parts of the military are doing. It's entirely possible that one observation from one unit was entirely unaware of another unit doing another thing.
- wtf_confused 7y agoI understand your distrust of the military, but what does this skeptical outlook gain us? Do you think we stand to benefit more from dismissing these claims as potentially tainted than seriously investigating them? I do not think humanity has a strong track record of scientific or technological advancement when it talked itself out of gaining new knowledge.
- unlinked_dll 7y agoIt's not distrust of the military, and skepticism is the foundation of the scientific method. What I'm saying is that one possible explanation here is that UFO observations are just experimental aircraft and/or observational technology. While at the same time, we should be extremely careful in vetting evidence from military sources, since it's highly vetted before we see it. The "distrust" you sense isn't really distrust, it's the understanding that all military intelligence is vetted before it reaches the public. In particular, they're extremely careful to disclose any information that would compromise operational security - especially as it relates to aerospace monitoring. The reason for this is that any observational capability of the US to detect objects at high altitudes/speeds influences the nuclear strategy of other nations (ie, if you plan for a first strike, you plan around the known capability of the US to detect it). And that's where the skepticism comes from. Any disclosure about what was observed, how it behaved, and the conditions of the observation have real world impacts on US operational security, and any information regarding that should be taken with a massive grain of salt. Basically, treat public intel from the military as a secondary source - not a primary one. That doesn't eradicate its value, but it puts more onus on you to be critical of it.