4 ms·

Why ignore the Navy's official videos? Why lump that in with obvious nonsense?

by maxharris 6y ago

SiempreViernes 6y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M
- maxharris 6y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HInaJxFxWs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HInaJxFxWs
  - thoughtsimple 6y ago
    David Fravor is the most credible eyewitness to a UFO that I’ve ever heard. There is no reason that I can come up with why anyone listening to his account should doubt what he saw. The interview is long but the whole thing is worth a listen. I challenge anyone to listen to the whole thing and then deny something odd was happening in the Pacific.
- istorical 6y ago
  The problem with using Mick West's possible explanation for these videos is that it doesn't address the other tools that were used to track these UAPs. Let's say we believe with confidence that this debunking is correct and that these videos show a bird or balloon or some explainable phenomena. The next step is to look at the eyewitness testimony and reports from the people involved in this case - several Navy fighter pilots including a commanding officer of a squadron of aircraft onboard the Nimitz - and decide if we think the likely outcome is that they 1) did see radio signatures of these 'birds or balloons' moving at speeds beyond what is possible according to our understanding of physics, 2) were they collectively deluded or mistaken or misled by software bug across multiple technologies (radar including the AEGIS radar of an American aircraft carrier fleet), or 3) were they all lying. I don't think any of the debunking address the possibilities of these witness testimonies, only the video that we do have. Which sort of makes sense in that we only _can_ address the physical evidence that is in front of us as members of the public, but shouldn't we at least acknowledge it seems somewhat unlikely that several members of the Navy with thousands of hours of training onboard both fighter jets and also in the radar rooms of Destroyers all collectively believed they were seeing physically impossible maneuvers by multiple targets, or that these tracking systems are that unreliable, or that they all collectively decided to lie about these videos and make up a story? Dismissing a video as showing a bird or balloon subject to parallax is great, but those explanations fall down if we choose to believe the report that they had radar tracking these objects at impossible velocities. Perhaps the lying is the most logical possibility if this is a planned piece of government disinformation / muddying of the waters around technology or UFO/UAPs for some strategic reason, but let's at least discuss the topic before saying 'it was a bird or balloon, slam dunk, case-closed'.
  - tgflynn 6y ago
    There's also the point that the DoD has officially stated that it considers the objects in these videos to be unidentified. Unfortunately they haven't provided more information on how they reached that conclusion, but one would tend to assume that they would have had their experts consider possible alternative explanations before making such a statement public.
    - kipchak 6y ago
      The Navy's recent antigrav patents add another layer of mystery. tl;dr, that the Navy seems to be claiming that they could maybe build something like the Tic-Tac seen in video, and the Chinese are working on capabilities.[1,2] It seems to me that all this is an elaborate disinformation campaign of some kind, possibly to encourage near-peers from blowing research money on junk or cover some other program like UFOs did for the B-2 or F-117, or the project is either impractical enough or close enough to practical use to justify lifting the veil of secrecy somewhat. It hides in a quantum state of maybe, much like many of the things Ben Rich, former skunkworks director may or may not have said about how advanced their tech was. [1]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31798/the-secretive-inventor-of-the-navys-bizarre-ufo-patents-finally-talks https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31798/the-secretive-in... [2]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33859/blasting-the-air-in-front-of-hypersonic-vehicles-with-lasers-could-unlock-unprecedented-speeds https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33859/blasting-the-air...
  - hindsightbias 6y ago
    > speeds beyond what is possible Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. One of the transcripts was something akin to "you won't believe it, but it's back over there" - there's no claim by the radio operator that they "saw" a track move at speed X, it could just as well be taken as "it was here, and then it was back there". Unless the object was squawking an IFF or transponder code, how would they know it's the exact same object? Since we don't have that evidence - guy claims before he could even lock up the E2C tapes a pair from the USAF appear on a Naval Carrier (like teleported or what?) to take them. All the worlds most advanced collection systems, optical and radar and all we have are fuzzy videos no better than a bigfoot video. The only decent video is debunked by someone actually doing the math.

Why ignore the Navy's official videos? Why lump that in with obvious nonsense?

SiempreViernes 6y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M

maxharris 6y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HInaJxFxWs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HInaJxFxWs
- thoughtsimple 6y ago
  David Fravor is the most credible eyewitness to a UFO that I’ve ever heard. There is no reason that I can come up with why anyone listening to his account should doubt what he saw. The interview is long but the whole thing is worth a listen. I challenge anyone to listen to the whole thing and then deny something odd was happening in the Pacific.
istorical 6y ago
The problem with using Mick West's possible explanation for these videos is that it doesn't address the other tools that were used to track these UAPs. Let's say we believe with confidence that this debunking is correct and that these videos show a bird or balloon or some explainable phenomena. The next step is to look at the eyewitness testimony and reports from the people involved in this case - several Navy fighter pilots including a commanding officer of a squadron of aircraft onboard the Nimitz - and decide if we think the likely outcome is that they 1) did see radio signatures of these 'birds or balloons' moving at speeds beyond what is possible according to our understanding of physics, 2) were they collectively deluded or mistaken or misled by software bug across multiple technologies (radar including the AEGIS radar of an American aircraft carrier fleet), or 3) were they all lying. I don't think any of the debunking address the possibilities of these witness testimonies, only the video that we do have. Which sort of makes sense in that we only _can_ address the physical evidence that is in front of us as members of the public, but shouldn't we at least acknowledge it seems somewhat unlikely that several members of the Navy with thousands of hours of training onboard both fighter jets and also in the radar rooms of Destroyers all collectively believed they were seeing physically impossible maneuvers by multiple targets, or that these tracking systems are that unreliable, or that they all collectively decided to lie about these videos and make up a story? Dismissing a video as showing a bird or balloon subject to parallax is great, but those explanations fall down if we choose to believe the report that they had radar tracking these objects at impossible velocities. Perhaps the lying is the most logical possibility if this is a planned piece of government disinformation / muddying of the waters around technology or UFO/UAPs for some strategic reason, but let's at least discuss the topic before saying 'it was a bird or balloon, slam dunk, case-closed'.
- tgflynn 6y ago
  There's also the point that the DoD has officially stated that it considers the objects in these videos to be unidentified. Unfortunately they haven't provided more information on how they reached that conclusion, but one would tend to assume that they would have had their experts consider possible alternative explanations before making such a statement public.
  - kipchak 6y ago
    The Navy's recent antigrav patents add another layer of mystery. tl;dr, that the Navy seems to be claiming that they could maybe build something like the Tic-Tac seen in video, and the Chinese are working on capabilities.[1,2] It seems to me that all this is an elaborate disinformation campaign of some kind, possibly to encourage near-peers from blowing research money on junk or cover some other program like UFOs did for the B-2 or F-117, or the project is either impractical enough or close enough to practical use to justify lifting the veil of secrecy somewhat. It hides in a quantum state of maybe, much like many of the things Ben Rich, former skunkworks director may or may not have said about how advanced their tech was. [1]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31798/the-secretive-inventor-of-the-navys-bizarre-ufo-patents-finally-talks https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31798/the-secretive-in... [2]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33859/blasting-the-air-in-front-of-hypersonic-vehicles-with-lasers-could-unlock-unprecedented-speeds https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33859/blasting-the-air...
- hindsightbias 6y ago
  > speeds beyond what is possible Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. One of the transcripts was something akin to "you won't believe it, but it's back over there" - there's no claim by the radio operator that they "saw" a track move at speed X, it could just as well be taken as "it was here, and then it was back there". Unless the object was squawking an IFF or transponder code, how would they know it's the exact same object? Since we don't have that evidence - guy claims before he could even lock up the E2C tapes a pair from the USAF appear on a Naval Carrier (like teleported or what?) to take them. All the worlds most advanced collection systems, optical and radar and all we have are fuzzy videos no better than a bigfoot video. The only decent video is debunked by someone actually doing the math.