7 ms·

Here's my theory about the recent influx of UFO footages coming from high places. US military was working on advanced drones. Nothing fancy, think current best

by dvh 7y ago

Here's my theory about the recent influx of UFO footages coming from high places. US military was working on advanced drones. Nothing fancy, think current best tech, add 15 years and billion in r&d, that kind of stuff. Then when it was ready for test they flew it secretly before their own pilots and waited for reports. And waited. And waited some more. Silence. They disabled stealth, added flashlights, nothing. Military pilots didn't reported it. Maybe Venus. Or moonlight bouncing off swamp gas, but not UFO. Why? In past decades whenever military pilot reported UFO they were laughed at, sent to psychologist, evaluated, sent behind the desk. Other pilots knew and when they saw something really weird they have kept it for themselves. Then the higher ups panicked. If they don't report our drones, they will not report Chinese or Russian drones either. We have hundreds and thousands of eyes in the sky but they will not report because they are afraid to speak. So they came up with a campaign. They started to publish official UFO footage and started more openly talk about it to show pilots that it is now ok to talk about UFO. Don't be afraid pilots, if you see something strange jus tell us, we take it seriously now. There are no aliens. Videos you saw are created or modified to look legit, and officially supported or confirmed. Goal is to encourage pilots to report possible Chinese drones.

jeffrallen 7y ago
"If you see something, say something."
lend000 7y ago
Unlike you, this article has evidence and testimony from a number of places and people specifically saying this is not black project technology. Defense contractors and government IT staff aren't like the MIT grads in Google's AI group. They work exactly 40 hours for a paycheck (each hour logged to a program's charge number), don't "fail fast and break things", don't collaborate within a large open scientific community, and ultimately, don't do a whole lot of innovation. Most segments are at least a decade behind the market where electronics and software are concerned -- the NSA is only as capable as it is because it can coerce beasts like Amazon and Google into letting them in. I find it highly unlikely they can account for the seemingly inertia-less craft that have been sighted with some credibility for at least 70 years. Also, keep in mind that the USS Nimitiz Tic-Tac was over 15 years ago now. Where's that drone tech now?
- basch 7y ago
  Maybe its the remains or an artifact of future black project technology, that leaves ripples of pollution in the past.
gfodor 7y ago
The theory that this is US-controlled drone tech does not jive with the claims made with regards to aerodynamic performance by David Fravor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ Basically, skeptics need to embrace the idea that such an off-the-cuff, obvious theory like "it's drone tech" or "it's Chinese or Russian tech" like the one you mention is well outside the realm of things that should be taken seriously, given the current up-to-date evidence and claims. Such a theory would have to additionally claim that the existing evidence is completely fabricated, and those involved going on record are complete frauds or disinformation agents. Theories that at least include those aspects would have much more credibility, given that they at would at least fit the evidence, but would require a high degree of assumptions. Frankly, a much less reaching theory at this point is that we simply don't know what these things are, have completely failed to determine it, and can't safely conjecture anymore they are human created or purely natural phenomena. This is a perfectly suitable place to be given our place in the universe and our current level of understanding, and doesn't require any further leaps to explaining their origin beyond "we just don't know." Its fair to speculate, but we should recognize most of such speculations are probably unfalsifiable. In terms of action, it does mean we should try to find out more if we haven't yet fully exhausted our ability to do so. Hard to say, given the evidence, if our government has done so, but civilian industry certainly hasn't.
- firethief 7y ago
  > Frankly, a much less reaching theory at this point is that we simply don't know what these things are, have completely failed to determine it, and can't safely conjecture anymore they are human created or purely natural phenomena. This is a perfectly suitable place to be given our place in the universe and our current level of understanding, and doesn't require any further leaps to explaining their origin beyond "we just don't know." In terms of action, it does mean we should try to find out more if we haven't yet fully exhausted our ability to do so. Hard to say, given the evidence, if our government has done so, but civilian industry certainly hasn't. This is compatible with dvh's theory AIUI, which is not about explaining this particular case but about explaining why we're hearing about this stuff. If the government wants people to report UFO sightings, and they're encouraging it by amplifying instead of suppressing certain UFO reports, why would they shine the spotlight on the reports that are actually their top-secret drones? They'd pick something like this, where no one actually knows wtf it is. They don't have to fake the incident, they just pick something weird that happened and say "hey media, check this out".
michannne 7y ago
Sounds very plausible. I think many would agree there are no aliens piloting these craft, and that it isn't that hard to believe there are some groups that the government has either acquired or formed that can make extraordinary craft. Much of the critique of this idea stems from the idea that our government is incompetent in everything that they do. Even that image of incompetence is something that is potentially very valuable in order to give other nations the false sense that there is no way such an incompetent organization could produce X or Y.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
foldingmoney 7y ago
>Here's my theory about the recent influx of UFO footages coming from high places. US military was working on advanced drones. Nothing fancy, think current best tech, add 15 years and billion in r&d, that kind of stuff. The issue I have with this line of reasoning is that if the US military actually possesses technology that's vastly ahead of anything official, then that implies that about 99.9% of the US military budget -- and the entire known fleet -- is essentially a massive disinformation campaign.
- SuoDuanDao 7y ago
  While I don't believe the 'it's all cointel' theory myself, it does also seem possible the USAF could have highly advanced prototypes that aren't ready for mass production yet.
  - pfisch 7y ago
    Sure, they have "highly advanced prototypes" where those prototypes obey the known laws of physics and experience inertia. They have drones that are better than the existing drones. They absolutely don't have drones that are anything like the impossible vehicles in these UFO reports though.
    - nine_k 7y ago
      If some radio and optical trickery may lead an observer to believe that the device moves in impossible ways, it's valuable. Remember that we have strategic bombers with a radio signature of a trash can, or whatever. This is seen as normal, and has been publicized for decades. Same with Russian supersonic fighter jets that can stop in the air for a moment. If we (or "they") have a drone with a visual signature of an inertia-less device (under certain angles, doing a special manoeuvre, etc), this does not mean they are actually inerta-less, but that they can fool the aiming systems.
      - ColanR 7y ago
        > If some radio and optical trickery may lead an observer to believe that the device moves in impossible ways, it's valuable. Pretty sure this was ruled out by the multiple methods of observation used.
retiredalien 7y ago
This is a great theory and I’ve shared it with a few people in the past (since you posted it before). But it ignores the last 40-years and beyond. For example, the people mentioned in the article are linked to debunked CIA research, and there were specific events that happened at CIA in the 1980s in regards to the USAF that make this topic infinitely more complex.
- maybe-not-in-ux 7y ago
  Like what?
  - retiredalien 7y ago
    At 1:08:35 and 1:11:10, these pseudo-anonymous people appeared on UFO: Cover-Up Live (1988) which I think was on NBC- https://youtu.be/5CzZyrGolAg https://youtu.be/5CzZyrGolAg These individuals were affiliated with Col. Hennessy, Col. Weaver and the AFOSI. One of the Colonels attended a meeting at CIA after the broadcast. And KG from the OP was there too. It’s hard to know but I believe the Air Force was exploiting this private group that was leaking disinformation to these people, although the AFOSI also lied to people telling them UFOs were real. One of those individuals worked for TTSA’s Chief Scientist, who is also mentioned in the article.
34679 7y ago
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just pass orders down through the ranks to report all sightings, however odd they may seem? "Hey, we think the Chinese or Russians may have something new. It's imperative that all unidentifiable flying craft are reported." My personal theory is that the US knows exactly what these objects are because they built them. I don't believe the US military would've ever commented if they weren't fully aware of the nature of these objects. From a military strategy point of view, that's equivalent to broadcasting a weakness. Instead, I believe the US military is broadcasting a strength. A sort of disclosure of capability without any real disclosure. The release of these videos, and the accompanying comments from military personnel, in my opinion, is a warning to other nations.
- emiliobumachar 7y ago
  A lot easier, may not work. "On one hand, I've been ordered to report UFOs. On the other hand, I don't want to be laughed at, do a lengthy psych evaluation, and never fly again. " Best to do both.
- gfodor 7y ago
  You assume that if these are not ours, then broadcasting them shows a weakness. That seems like a big assumption. There are a variety of scenarios where the military may not see these as a threat, yet didn’t create them.
  - 34679 7y ago
    According to the Navy pilot who went on the Rogan podcast, the object he encountered was actively jamming his radar and targeting systems, which he also said is considered an act of war. I'm not sure how any military could consider a craft that can fly circles around ours while jamming our targeting systems to be benign. Unless it's ours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnIG-i2WCfg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnIG-i2WCfg https://podscribe.app/feeds/http-joeroganexpjoeroganlibsynprocom-rss/episodes/d9e17c921e16426f9a7ed615813e6b65 https://podscribe.app/feeds/http-joeroganexpjoeroganlibsynpr... "the way the system actually works is when you see something on the radar and you designate it as your primary target all the other sensors will look at that point so it's everything is kind of sink together so he picks up a hit on his radar and he goes to lock it up because I watched all the tapes he goes to lock it up and immediately the radar can tell it gets signals back that it's being jammed ► 00:20:44 so in technically jamming is an act of War it starts jamming the radar goes into a jam extrapolate a bunch of stuff happens on the scope"
remir 7y ago
There have been reports of UFOs since the second world war. I don't think the Chinese were flying highly advanced drones back then. Same thing with the US.
- lend000 7y ago
  You didn't hear about Mao's peasant anti-gravity division? Jokes aside, I'm certain the OP didn't read the article and isn't well read on the subject. The OP's idea makes for an interesting story if you don't try picking it apart, but the real story is much harder to grasp. Most rational people cannot delve too deep into this subject without training wheels -- it can take years to get comfortable with some of the concepts that have been made public with some level of credibility, in my personal experience. So most folks will attach themselves to a half-baked explanation like this and then feel comfortable dismissing it, but hopefully will come around and revisit it over time, as I eventually did.
  - voldacar 7y ago
    You seem to have done some reading on this subject - care to recommend a few books that are well-researched and well-reasoned and not written by cranks?
    - lend000 7y ago
      The pinnacle of UFO research quality is from Jacques Vallee [0], who seems to have always been well ahead of the field, but he doesn't really hold back, which is both a pro and a con to someone casually interested. I'm also not familiar with his opinions on more recent developments in the space, which are quite significant. I can recommend a fictional book "Sekret Machines" by the former lead of Blink 182 who has used his fame and lifelong passion for the phenomenon to create a media company espousing a more gentle introduction to the subject, while still providing some sobering and fascinating context on the phenomenon. The flashbacks are allegedly historical fiction, one of which was referenced in this popular mechanics article (when a UFO floated over Malstrom AFB and took all the ICBM's offline). It's also just a really good read. This same company hired Elizondo and a number of other "in-the-know" advisors, and caused the current UFO media hype cycle by releasing the Nimitz tape to the NYT in 2017. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Vall%C3%A9e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Vall%C3%A9e
partiallypro 7y ago
Video experts have already established the videos are real, and not edited. I think it probably is US tech in the videos, but since it's FLIR cameras the government doesn't care because you can't see details. Otherwise, I don't think your theory is implausible...but the videos are definitely legit. If the tech is a drone, or a manned aircraft or some sort of diversionary tech to throw off enemy radar/instruments (which we tested against our own highly advanced instruments) that is up for debate. I do doubt it's aliens, though I want to believe. It could even be a way to sow doubt into enemies like China, as a way to say "look what we have." We'll probably find out in 40 years.
- PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
  The forensics expert consulted by Popular Mechanics (in the original article) did not agree that the videos where "definitely legit".
  - tgflynn 7y ago
    I don't recall seeing anything in the article about experts being asked if the videos are legitimate. I think very few people question that the videos are real because the DoD has confirmed them and isn't thought to be in the habit of producing fake videos. I think the experts were asked if the objects in the videos might be conventional aircraft. There is still some discussion going on with regards to that point, but the Navy says they consider the objects "unidentified".
    - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
      Sorry, it's in a related PM article by the same author (and linked in the original post): "In an effort to try and clear up the debate, Popular Mechanics sought the help of a digital forensics expert to analyze the video. Having processed over 1,000 cases, including high-profile investigations like U.S. vs Zimmerman, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, and the shooting death of Laquan McDonald, Primeau Forensics is regarded as one of the nation’s leading digital forensics experts. ... When asked if there was enough with just the video to meet the threshold of legally admissible evidence or make a definitive conclusion, Primeau says, “Based on preliminary forensic video analysis, it is my opinion that the FLIR video recordings provided cannot be relied upon as true and accurate, and therefore should not be admissible as evidence in a court of law.” https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a30538203/navy-ufo-video-investigation/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a30538203...
zuckluni 7y ago
This all just seems a little anachronistic... a little arrogant... Are there really people in this day and age that believe there's nothing that exists that can't be explained with a textbook? Is the world do devoid of magic, or is wonder in such bountiful supply that something amazing and wonderful must be snuffed out, crushed under the weight of such dullness, such grasping conspiracy theories? A government psyop, really? That's your big plan to explain centuries of reports -- that all of that is because it's some state wanting to massage the minds of it's soldiers... are you insane?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Name one thing that a) we're sure exists, and b) it's so extraordinary that it "can't be explained with a textbook". The entire progress of humanity came through converting "magic" to "mundane". It's usually called "gaining understanding".
  - tgflynn 7y ago
    That's easy: subjective experience.
  - Supermancho 7y ago
    > Name one thing that a) we're sure exists, and b) it's so extraordinary that it "can't be explained with a textbook What does "explain" mean? There are lots of things that are known but unexplained as well as effects that are known but we havent proved an explanation (eg. the shower-curtain effect to wikipedia unknowns in physics).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - zuckluni 7y ago
    I suppose it depends on the security classification of the textbook. But seriously, your question probably depends on how you assess the explanations in textbooks, and the meaning of sure. I mean, are you sure you're satisfied with textbook explanations for stuff? But the bigger picture is, it doesn't matter if we're sure, we're not sure about anything. We're not even sure about what's in the textbooks. It exists, the reports exist, that's what matters. Gaining understanding by converting magic to mundane is good, but we don't get there by pretending everything is already explainable. We don't get there by denying the magic. Obviously. We got to face it, right? It doesn't have to be aliens (or any theory that makes it hard for people to think about because they find it impossible to face), but we gotta look at it. And if the "textbooks" (or other 'sources of authority') are explaining it away as stuff we already know, that's not helping us look at the magic, that we need to understand, right? capiche? Obvious, right? I don't know why everyone's so crazy about this. Science is supposed to look at stuff it doesn't understand. When did everyone get so scared of doing that?
dntbnmpls 7y ago
Interesting theory and I suppose it's possible but unlikely. > We have hundreds and thousands of eyes in the sky but they will not report because they are afraid to speak. This isn't true. Pilots report UFOs all the time. > In past decades whenever military pilot reported UFO they were laughed at, sent to psychologist, evaluated, sent behind the desk. If true, this would only be true for UFOs that acted beyond the scope of modern technology ( aka "alien" ufos ). Not for normals UFOs that are simply unidentified flying objects. > Goal is to encourage pilots to report possible Chinese drones. Pilots were already encouraged to report chinese or any other drones. Not only that drones can be detected by drone-targeting radar. I know we are in a trade war and everyone has to push anti-chinese propaganda, but not everything is tied to "china". Before long every top comment is going to be nonsense with "china" in it. My guess is that after the "state" has come under attack recently and people have lost trust in the "state", the "state" is releasing information to seem more transparent and open and likeable. Sort of like how the CIA, FBI, etc are putting people all over media/social media. "Former CIA Chief of Disguise Breaks Down 30 Spy Scenes From Film & TV " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUqeBMP8nEg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUqeBMP8nEg "Former FBI Agent Explains How to Read Body Language | Tradecraft | WIRED" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jwUXV4QaTw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jwUXV4QaTw The past few years have been relentless "china bad", "russia bad" and "we good" for understandable reasons. But who really knows. It could be anything.
PaulRobinson 7y ago
Civilian pilots outnumber military pilots. I've not heard any report where the pilot was not treated seriously if they believed there was a threat to their aircraft, passengers or the airspace they were travelling in. Often the phenomenon they describe can be attributed to meteorological conditions. This is a training opportunity for all concerned, and witness testimony can be useful. The reason why this material is being leaked is not to encourage people to come forward, but to say "hey, this is weird, we don't know what this is". If we were to accept a non-ET origin, this footage could be helpful in signalling to foreign countries "you've got tech we don't recognise" to tempt them into being more brazen about it, thereby increasing the chances of capture. Occam's razor says they genuinely don't know, and given the context of multiple interesting incidents over the last 70 years (often focusing on nuclear capabilities/facilities), it's reasonable that there are teams of people trying to work out what's actually going on.
jacobush 7y ago
I could swear I'd read this verbatim before. I had: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21858749 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21858749
- whatisthiseven 7y ago
  I had the exact same "Deja vu" moment until I realized the same as you. Feels rude for OP to just verbatim copy/paste their comment without acknowledging they are doing that. It cheapens their words and makes it feel like copy-paste garbage you see all over the web. It also makes me think OP never learned anything significant from previous replies to their first comment, and is just spamming to get others to agree with them. edit: Furthermore, OP never engaged with the comments on their previous post, and isn't engaging with comments here that disagree. So, is OP part of a misinformation campaign of their own design? No idea. Wish they would bother responding rather than copy-pasting the same stuff each time uncritically.
- tomcatfish 7y ago
  Oh my god thank you. The unacknowledged repeat proving UFOs weren't real was the most convincing thing I've ever read to point to them being real. It literally sent a chill down my spine. I'm glad I saw this.
webmobdev 7y ago
A simpler and more obvious theory is that the USA's "Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program" (to detect and identify UFOs) was just that - meant to identify any unknown potential threat in the sky. Any plane, drone, satellite, rocket, missile etc. is technically an Unidentified Flying Object till it is identified.

by dvh 7y ago

jeffrallen 7y ago

"If you see something, say something."

lend000 7y ago

Unlike you, this article has evidence and testimony from a number of places and people specifically saying this is not black project technology. Defense contractors and government IT staff aren't like the MIT grads in Google's AI group. They work exactly 40 hours for a paycheck (each hour logged to a program's charge number), don't "fail fast and break things", don't collaborate within a large open scientific community, and ultimately, don't do a whole lot of innovation. Most segments are at least a decade behind the market where electronics and software are concerned -- the NSA is only as capable as it is because it can coerce beasts like Amazon and Google into letting them in. I find it highly unlikely they can account for the seemingly inertia-less craft that have been sighted with some credibility for at least 70 years. Also, keep in mind that the USS Nimitiz Tic-Tac was over 15 years ago now. Where's that drone tech now?

basch 7y ago
Maybe its the remains or an artifact of future black project technology, that leaves ripples of pollution in the past.

gfodor 7y ago

The theory that this is US-controlled drone tech does not jive with the claims made with regards to aerodynamic performance by David Fravor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ Basically, skeptics need to embrace the idea that such an off-the-cuff, obvious theory like "it's drone tech" or "it's Chinese or Russian tech" like the one you mention is well outside the realm of things that should be taken seriously, given the current up-to-date evidence and claims. Such a theory would have to additionally claim that the existing evidence is completely fabricated, and those involved going on record are complete frauds or disinformation agents. Theories that at least include those aspects would have much more credibility, given that they at would at least fit the evidence, but would require a high degree of assumptions. Frankly, a much less reaching theory at this point is that we simply don't know what these things are, have completely failed to determine it, and can't safely conjecture anymore they are human created or purely natural phenomena. This is a perfectly suitable place to be given our place in the universe and our current level of understanding, and doesn't require any further leaps to explaining their origin beyond "we just don't know." Its fair to speculate, but we should recognize most of such speculations are probably unfalsifiable. In terms of action, it does mean we should try to find out more if we haven't yet fully exhausted our ability to do so. Hard to say, given the evidence, if our government has done so, but civilian industry certainly hasn't.

firethief 7y ago
> Frankly, a much less reaching theory at this point is that we simply don't know what these things are, have completely failed to determine it, and can't safely conjecture anymore they are human created or purely natural phenomena. This is a perfectly suitable place to be given our place in the universe and our current level of understanding, and doesn't require any further leaps to explaining their origin beyond "we just don't know." In terms of action, it does mean we should try to find out more if we haven't yet fully exhausted our ability to do so. Hard to say, given the evidence, if our government has done so, but civilian industry certainly hasn't. This is compatible with dvh's theory AIUI, which is not about explaining this particular case but about explaining why we're hearing about this stuff. If the government wants people to report UFO sightings, and they're encouraging it by amplifying instead of suppressing certain UFO reports, why would they shine the spotlight on the reports that are actually their top-secret drones? They'd pick something like this, where no one actually knows wtf it is. They don't have to fake the incident, they just pick something weird that happened and say "hey media, check this out".

michannne 7y ago

Sounds very plausible. I think many would agree there are no aliens piloting these craft, and that it isn't that hard to believe there are some groups that the government has either acquired or formed that can make extraordinary craft. Much of the critique of this idea stems from the idea that our government is incompetent in everything that they do. Even that image of incompetence is something that is potentially very valuable in order to give other nations the false sense that there is no way such an incompetent organization could produce X or Y.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

foldingmoney 7y ago

>Here's my theory about the recent influx of UFO footages coming from high places. US military was working on advanced drones. Nothing fancy, think current best tech, add 15 years and billion in r&d, that kind of stuff. The issue I have with this line of reasoning is that if the US military actually possesses technology that's vastly ahead of anything official, then that implies that about 99.9% of the US military budget -- and the entire known fleet -- is essentially a massive disinformation campaign.

SuoDuanDao 7y ago
While I don't believe the 'it's all cointel' theory myself, it does also seem possible the USAF could have highly advanced prototypes that aren't ready for mass production yet.
- pfisch 7y ago
  Sure, they have "highly advanced prototypes" where those prototypes obey the known laws of physics and experience inertia. They have drones that are better than the existing drones. They absolutely don't have drones that are anything like the impossible vehicles in these UFO reports though.
  - nine_k 7y ago
    If some radio and optical trickery may lead an observer to believe that the device moves in impossible ways, it's valuable. Remember that we have strategic bombers with a radio signature of a trash can, or whatever. This is seen as normal, and has been publicized for decades. Same with Russian supersonic fighter jets that can stop in the air for a moment. If we (or "they") have a drone with a visual signature of an inertia-less device (under certain angles, doing a special manoeuvre, etc), this does not mean they are actually inerta-less, but that they can fool the aiming systems.
    - ColanR 7y ago
      > If some radio and optical trickery may lead an observer to believe that the device moves in impossible ways, it's valuable. Pretty sure this was ruled out by the multiple methods of observation used.

retiredalien 7y ago

This is a great theory and I’ve shared it with a few people in the past (since you posted it before). But it ignores the last 40-years and beyond. For example, the people mentioned in the article are linked to debunked CIA research, and there were specific events that happened at CIA in the 1980s in regards to the USAF that make this topic infinitely more complex.

maybe-not-in-ux 7y ago
Like what?
- retiredalien 7y ago
  At 1:08:35 and 1:11:10, these pseudo-anonymous people appeared on UFO: Cover-Up Live (1988) which I think was on NBC- https://youtu.be/5CzZyrGolAg https://youtu.be/5CzZyrGolAg These individuals were affiliated with Col. Hennessy, Col. Weaver and the AFOSI. One of the Colonels attended a meeting at CIA after the broadcast. And KG from the OP was there too. It’s hard to know but I believe the Air Force was exploiting this private group that was leaking disinformation to these people, although the AFOSI also lied to people telling them UFOs were real. One of those individuals worked for TTSA’s Chief Scientist, who is also mentioned in the article.

34679 7y ago

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just pass orders down through the ranks to report all sightings, however odd they may seem? "Hey, we think the Chinese or Russians may have something new. It's imperative that all unidentifiable flying craft are reported." My personal theory is that the US knows exactly what these objects are because they built them. I don't believe the US military would've ever commented if they weren't fully aware of the nature of these objects. From a military strategy point of view, that's equivalent to broadcasting a weakness. Instead, I believe the US military is broadcasting a strength. A sort of disclosure of capability without any real disclosure. The release of these videos, and the accompanying comments from military personnel, in my opinion, is a warning to other nations.

emiliobumachar 7y ago
A lot easier, may not work. "On one hand, I've been ordered to report UFOs. On the other hand, I don't want to be laughed at, do a lengthy psych evaluation, and never fly again. " Best to do both.
gfodor 7y ago
You assume that if these are not ours, then broadcasting them shows a weakness. That seems like a big assumption. There are a variety of scenarios where the military may not see these as a threat, yet didn’t create them.
- 34679 7y ago
  According to the Navy pilot who went on the Rogan podcast, the object he encountered was actively jamming his radar and targeting systems, which he also said is considered an act of war. I'm not sure how any military could consider a craft that can fly circles around ours while jamming our targeting systems to be benign. Unless it's ours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnIG-i2WCfg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnIG-i2WCfg https://podscribe.app/feeds/http-joeroganexpjoeroganlibsynprocom-rss/episodes/d9e17c921e16426f9a7ed615813e6b65 https://podscribe.app/feeds/http-joeroganexpjoeroganlibsynpr... "the way the system actually works is when you see something on the radar and you designate it as your primary target all the other sensors will look at that point so it's everything is kind of sink together so he picks up a hit on his radar and he goes to lock it up because I watched all the tapes he goes to lock it up and immediately the radar can tell it gets signals back that it's being jammed ► 00:20:44 so in technically jamming is an act of War it starts jamming the radar goes into a jam extrapolate a bunch of stuff happens on the scope"

remir 7y ago

There have been reports of UFOs since the second world war. I don't think the Chinese were flying highly advanced drones back then. Same thing with the US.

lend000 7y ago
You didn't hear about Mao's peasant anti-gravity division? Jokes aside, I'm certain the OP didn't read the article and isn't well read on the subject. The OP's idea makes for an interesting story if you don't try picking it apart, but the real story is much harder to grasp. Most rational people cannot delve too deep into this subject without training wheels -- it can take years to get comfortable with some of the concepts that have been made public with some level of credibility, in my personal experience. So most folks will attach themselves to a half-baked explanation like this and then feel comfortable dismissing it, but hopefully will come around and revisit it over time, as I eventually did.
- voldacar 7y ago
  You seem to have done some reading on this subject - care to recommend a few books that are well-researched and well-reasoned and not written by cranks?
  - lend000 7y ago
    The pinnacle of UFO research quality is from Jacques Vallee [0], who seems to have always been well ahead of the field, but he doesn't really hold back, which is both a pro and a con to someone casually interested. I'm also not familiar with his opinions on more recent developments in the space, which are quite significant. I can recommend a fictional book "Sekret Machines" by the former lead of Blink 182 who has used his fame and lifelong passion for the phenomenon to create a media company espousing a more gentle introduction to the subject, while still providing some sobering and fascinating context on the phenomenon. The flashbacks are allegedly historical fiction, one of which was referenced in this popular mechanics article (when a UFO floated over Malstrom AFB and took all the ICBM's offline). It's also just a really good read. This same company hired Elizondo and a number of other "in-the-know" advisors, and caused the current UFO media hype cycle by releasing the Nimitz tape to the NYT in 2017. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Vall%C3%A9e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Vall%C3%A9e

partiallypro 7y ago

Video experts have already established the videos are real, and not edited. I think it probably is US tech in the videos, but since it's FLIR cameras the government doesn't care because you can't see details. Otherwise, I don't think your theory is implausible...but the videos are definitely legit. If the tech is a drone, or a manned aircraft or some sort of diversionary tech to throw off enemy radar/instruments (which we tested against our own highly advanced instruments) that is up for debate. I do doubt it's aliens, though I want to believe. It could even be a way to sow doubt into enemies like China, as a way to say "look what we have." We'll probably find out in 40 years.

PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
The forensics expert consulted by Popular Mechanics (in the original article) did not agree that the videos where "definitely legit".
- tgflynn 7y ago
  I don't recall seeing anything in the article about experts being asked if the videos are legitimate. I think very few people question that the videos are real because the DoD has confirmed them and isn't thought to be in the habit of producing fake videos. I think the experts were asked if the objects in the videos might be conventional aircraft. There is still some discussion going on with regards to that point, but the Navy says they consider the objects "unidentified".
  - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
    Sorry, it's in a related PM article by the same author (and linked in the original post): "In an effort to try and clear up the debate, Popular Mechanics sought the help of a digital forensics expert to analyze the video. Having processed over 1,000 cases, including high-profile investigations like U.S. vs Zimmerman, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, and the shooting death of Laquan McDonald, Primeau Forensics is regarded as one of the nation’s leading digital forensics experts. ... When asked if there was enough with just the video to meet the threshold of legally admissible evidence or make a definitive conclusion, Primeau says, “Based on preliminary forensic video analysis, it is my opinion that the FLIR video recordings provided cannot be relied upon as true and accurate, and therefore should not be admissible as evidence in a court of law.” https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a30538203/navy-ufo-video-investigation/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a30538203...

zuckluni 7y ago

This all just seems a little anachronistic... a little arrogant... Are there really people in this day and age that believe there's nothing that exists that can't be explained with a textbook? Is the world do devoid of magic, or is wonder in such bountiful supply that something amazing and wonderful must be snuffed out, crushed under the weight of such dullness, such grasping conspiracy theories? A government psyop, really? That's your big plan to explain centuries of reports -- that all of that is because it's some state wanting to massage the minds of it's soldiers... are you insane?

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Name one thing that a) we're sure exists, and b) it's so extraordinary that it "can't be explained with a textbook". The entire progress of humanity came through converting "magic" to "mundane". It's usually called "gaining understanding".
- tgflynn 7y ago
  That's easy: subjective experience.
- Supermancho 7y ago
  > Name one thing that a) we're sure exists, and b) it's so extraordinary that it "can't be explained with a textbook What does "explain" mean? There are lots of things that are known but unexplained as well as effects that are known but we havent proved an explanation (eg. the shower-curtain effect to wikipedia unknowns in physics).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- zuckluni 7y ago
  I suppose it depends on the security classification of the textbook. But seriously, your question probably depends on how you assess the explanations in textbooks, and the meaning of sure. I mean, are you sure you're satisfied with textbook explanations for stuff? But the bigger picture is, it doesn't matter if we're sure, we're not sure about anything. We're not even sure about what's in the textbooks. It exists, the reports exist, that's what matters. Gaining understanding by converting magic to mundane is good, but we don't get there by pretending everything is already explainable. We don't get there by denying the magic. Obviously. We got to face it, right? It doesn't have to be aliens (or any theory that makes it hard for people to think about because they find it impossible to face), but we gotta look at it. And if the "textbooks" (or other 'sources of authority') are explaining it away as stuff we already know, that's not helping us look at the magic, that we need to understand, right? capiche? Obvious, right? I don't know why everyone's so crazy about this. Science is supposed to look at stuff it doesn't understand. When did everyone get so scared of doing that?

dntbnmpls 7y ago

Interesting theory and I suppose it's possible but unlikely. > We have hundreds and thousands of eyes in the sky but they will not report because they are afraid to speak. This isn't true. Pilots report UFOs all the time. > In past decades whenever military pilot reported UFO they were laughed at, sent to psychologist, evaluated, sent behind the desk. If true, this would only be true for UFOs that acted beyond the scope of modern technology ( aka "alien" ufos ). Not for normals UFOs that are simply unidentified flying objects. > Goal is to encourage pilots to report possible Chinese drones. Pilots were already encouraged to report chinese or any other drones. Not only that drones can be detected by drone-targeting radar. I know we are in a trade war and everyone has to push anti-chinese propaganda, but not everything is tied to "china". Before long every top comment is going to be nonsense with "china" in it. My guess is that after the "state" has come under attack recently and people have lost trust in the "state", the "state" is releasing information to seem more transparent and open and likeable. Sort of like how the CIA, FBI, etc are putting people all over media/social media. "Former CIA Chief of Disguise Breaks Down 30 Spy Scenes From Film & TV " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUqeBMP8nEg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUqeBMP8nEg "Former FBI Agent Explains How to Read Body Language | Tradecraft | WIRED" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jwUXV4QaTw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jwUXV4QaTw The past few years have been relentless "china bad", "russia bad" and "we good" for understandable reasons. But who really knows. It could be anything.

PaulRobinson 7y ago

Civilian pilots outnumber military pilots. I've not heard any report where the pilot was not treated seriously if they believed there was a threat to their aircraft, passengers or the airspace they were travelling in. Often the phenomenon they describe can be attributed to meteorological conditions. This is a training opportunity for all concerned, and witness testimony can be useful. The reason why this material is being leaked is not to encourage people to come forward, but to say "hey, this is weird, we don't know what this is". If we were to accept a non-ET origin, this footage could be helpful in signalling to foreign countries "you've got tech we don't recognise" to tempt them into being more brazen about it, thereby increasing the chances of capture. Occam's razor says they genuinely don't know, and given the context of multiple interesting incidents over the last 70 years (often focusing on nuclear capabilities/facilities), it's reasonable that there are teams of people trying to work out what's actually going on.

jacobush 7y ago

I could swear I'd read this verbatim before. I had: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21858749 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21858749

whatisthiseven 7y ago
I had the exact same "Deja vu" moment until I realized the same as you. Feels rude for OP to just verbatim copy/paste their comment without acknowledging they are doing that. It cheapens their words and makes it feel like copy-paste garbage you see all over the web. It also makes me think OP never learned anything significant from previous replies to their first comment, and is just spamming to get others to agree with them. edit: Furthermore, OP never engaged with the comments on their previous post, and isn't engaging with comments here that disagree. So, is OP part of a misinformation campaign of their own design? No idea. Wish they would bother responding rather than copy-pasting the same stuff each time uncritically.
tomcatfish 7y ago
Oh my god thank you. The unacknowledged repeat proving UFOs weren't real was the most convincing thing I've ever read to point to them being real. It literally sent a chill down my spine. I'm glad I saw this.

webmobdev 7y ago

A simpler and more obvious theory is that the USA's "Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program" (to detect and identify UFOs) was just that - meant to identify any unknown potential threat in the sky. Any plane, drone, satellite, rocket, missile etc. is technically an Unidentified Flying Object till it is identified.