7 ms·

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

by 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".
- tgflynn 7y ago
  I think the fact that 13 years passed between the Nimitz incident and it's public disclosure makes it highly unlikely that it was an intentional disinformation campaign.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - firethief 7y ago
    If you're saying it wasn't staged, I'd agree that that's obviously true.
    - tgflynn 7y ago
      Yes, that's what I meant.
- zuckluni 7y ago
  What a time to be alive. I never thought I'd see it, but it's happened. The tipping point has been reached where conspiracy theories denying this stuff have become crazier than the reports of it. I think a new and very rich vein of crazy is about to make itself available to the masses for their entertainment, that is the mental gymnastics some people will tie themselves into to deny the existence of something which they find impossible to face.
  - saber6 7y ago
    Re conspiracy theories - I basically admitted we (I) don’t know shit after the Snowden leaks. We joked about the NSA mass spying on us for years. It wasn’t a joke. I have no information that leads me to believe UFO-tech is in a different category currently. It’s probably real. Just a question of when we all learn about it.
  - firethief 7y ago
    I specifically haven't taken a position on what the sightings actually are. I'm speculating on why the government has changed their approach to information about UFO reports. I think they want to avoid the Streisand effect that happens around UFO coverups, and maybe also encourage reporting (because if some UFOs are actually foreign tech (aliens included I guess), they'd want to know)--they can easily do both by getting it on the news as a normal weird thing we hear about and shrug.
jml7c5 7y ago
That video has been convincingly explained here, without resort to secret or alien technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M
- lend000 7y ago
  West does have a convincing explanation for "Go Fast" which certainly looks like it could be a weather balloon due to parallax (ignoring the pilot testimony at least) -- but if you look at his attempt to describe the Nimitz one, it's pretty weak. He claims it's a reflection of "a distant jet" that would have had to be in restricted airspace, and despite the pilots having a visual on the same object, and the Nimitz's passive radar detecting the object and sending the fighters to intercept it at the correct location in the first place. That would also be a tremendous design error or equipment failure on the targeting pod, which seems unlikely given that all the other data for that encounter supports the video. There were three videos disclosed, and only one has a convincing explanation (not the most famous one the parent is describing). The one present in the parent's linked video referred to the Nimitz incident, where the pilot is the commanding officer for the first squadron that went in and observed the object, whereas a second group went in and filmed the tape that was eventually released hours later. You should watch the interview and see if Fravor seems legitimate to you -- it's a great listen.
  - jml7c5 7y ago
    >He claims it's a reflection of "a distant jet" that would have had to be in restricted airspace, and despite the pilots having a visual on the same object, and the Nimitz's passive radar detecting the object and sending the fighters to intercept it at the correct location in the first place. There was no visual on the object in the FLIR1 video. The video was taken hours after the visual encounter with the tic-tac. The plane that took the video was not vectored to the object in the FLIR1 video. Rather, they were flying south when their radar picked up an object 30-40nm away. They viewed it on FLIR, and saw a blob. At no point did they have a direct visual of it. As they had been told about the tic-tac encounter from other pilots, who had told them to be on the lookout and to try to record it, they were very susceptible to incorrect interpretation. It is very plausible that they recorded a distant fighter moving in same direction as them and jumped to conclusions. ----- I would argue that the "Gimbal" explanation West has is very convincing. In particular, the supposed rotation of the craft is clearly just the camera rotating.

by gfodor 7y ago

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".

tgflynn 7y ago
I think the fact that 13 years passed between the Nimitz incident and it's public disclosure makes it highly unlikely that it was an intentional disinformation campaign.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- firethief 7y ago
  If you're saying it wasn't staged, I'd agree that that's obviously true.
  - tgflynn 7y ago
    Yes, that's what I meant.
zuckluni 7y ago
What a time to be alive. I never thought I'd see it, but it's happened. The tipping point has been reached where conspiracy theories denying this stuff have become crazier than the reports of it. I think a new and very rich vein of crazy is about to make itself available to the masses for their entertainment, that is the mental gymnastics some people will tie themselves into to deny the existence of something which they find impossible to face.
- saber6 7y ago
  Re conspiracy theories - I basically admitted we (I) don’t know shit after the Snowden leaks. We joked about the NSA mass spying on us for years. It wasn’t a joke. I have no information that leads me to believe UFO-tech is in a different category currently. It’s probably real. Just a question of when we all learn about it.
- firethief 7y ago
  I specifically haven't taken a position on what the sightings actually are. I'm speculating on why the government has changed their approach to information about UFO reports. I think they want to avoid the Streisand effect that happens around UFO coverups, and maybe also encourage reporting (because if some UFOs are actually foreign tech (aliens included I guess), they'd want to know)--they can easily do both by getting it on the news as a normal weird thing we hear about and shrug.

jml7c5 7y ago

That video has been convincingly explained here, without resort to secret or alien technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M

lend000 7y ago
West does have a convincing explanation for "Go Fast" which certainly looks like it could be a weather balloon due to parallax (ignoring the pilot testimony at least) -- but if you look at his attempt to describe the Nimitz one, it's pretty weak. He claims it's a reflection of "a distant jet" that would have had to be in restricted airspace, and despite the pilots having a visual on the same object, and the Nimitz's passive radar detecting the object and sending the fighters to intercept it at the correct location in the first place. That would also be a tremendous design error or equipment failure on the targeting pod, which seems unlikely given that all the other data for that encounter supports the video. There were three videos disclosed, and only one has a convincing explanation (not the most famous one the parent is describing). The one present in the parent's linked video referred to the Nimitz incident, where the pilot is the commanding officer for the first squadron that went in and observed the object, whereas a second group went in and filmed the tape that was eventually released hours later. You should watch the interview and see if Fravor seems legitimate to you -- it's a great listen.
- jml7c5 7y ago
  >He claims it's a reflection of "a distant jet" that would have had to be in restricted airspace, and despite the pilots having a visual on the same object, and the Nimitz's passive radar detecting the object and sending the fighters to intercept it at the correct location in the first place. There was no visual on the object in the FLIR1 video. The video was taken hours after the visual encounter with the tic-tac. The plane that took the video was not vectored to the object in the FLIR1 video. Rather, they were flying south when their radar picked up an object 30-40nm away. They viewed it on FLIR, and saw a blob. At no point did they have a direct visual of it. As they had been told about the tic-tac encounter from other pilots, who had told them to be on the lookout and to try to record it, they were very susceptible to incorrect interpretation. It is very plausible that they recorded a distant fighter moving in same direction as them and jumped to conclusions. ----- I would argue that the "Gimbal" explanation West has is very convincing. In particular, the supposed rotation of the craft is clearly just the camera rotating.