5 ms·

yeah the person(Mick West) who did the debunking is a retired gaming software engineer who is also somewhat of a known troll and has zero background in the fiel

yeah the person(Mick West) who did the debunking is a retired gaming software engineer who is also somewhat of a known troll and has zero background in the field of avionic systems used by the fighter pilots. Some of his debunking statements are borderline absurd, you have a sighting that is seen on FLIR, radar and has an eyewitness testimony along with video and his statement is the pilot who has flown for 10 years did not know what he saw, and all the electronic systems malfunctioned and the object clearly seen on video is a artifact of sun glare. The Gimball video has not been debunked by professionals currently.

Aerbil313 3y ago
Not to mention it's seen hundreds of times by hundreds of personnel and devices again and again over the years.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
heavyset_go 3y ago
Here's my post in response to a comment in the "US urged to reveal UFO evidence after claim that it has intact alien vehicles" HN thread[1] from a few weeks ago that addresses this: > Watch the introduction to the 4 hour UAP panel that NASA hosted a few days ago[2], they address this. > According to NASA, even highly trained and experienced pilots can easily be fooled, and often reported UAPs are artifacts of the technology that detects them, or are indeed things like weather balloons. For example, NASA even used the example of Navy pilots being fooled by a procession of commercial airplanes queueing to land at an airport 40+ miles away from their base. > They also emphasize that radar, detection systems, etc are not scientific instruments that are suitable for the detection or analysis of this phenomenon. They emphasize that the technology that the Navy et al. use are strictly optimized for defensive/offensive interception of conventional weapons. That's to say that they're calibrated for war and not for accurate scientific observation. > Going back to the procession of airplanes waiting to land, according to the instruments available to pilots and their own observations, those airplanes were doing things that were impossible to do without bending the laws of physics. Yet all they were were just a bunch of airplanes doing what all airplanes do. > > Due to the supposed feeds and eye witness accounts, it seems infeasible there is a 'weather balloon' type explanation > Pilots and their systems are fallible, you'd have to assume some argument from authority to believe otherwise. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36216745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36216745 [2] Public Meeting on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (Official NASA Broadcast): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQo08JRY0iM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQo08JRY0iM
- esbranson 3y ago
  Occam's razor tells us it's unlikely that all those unlikely failures happened at once. Videos, multiple eyewitnesses and AEGIS military radars. Lol.
  - quickthrowman 3y ago
    Now apply Occam’s razor to the following two choices: 1. Aliens have visited Earth. They crashed their spaceships or we shot them down. The US Government (and possibly other governments) retrieved and studied their technology and managed to keep it a secret for decades 2. Aliens have not visited Earth
    - Hikikomori 3y ago
      And somehow these alien crafts are capable to cross interstellar distances but then crash at a rate higher than our airplanes, unless of course there's a shitload of them flying around here.
      - midoridensha 3y ago
        Scenario 1: the alien craft are piloted by teenagers and stolen from their parents to go on joyrides. Scenario 2: the aliens are bumbling and incompetent, and stole their spacecraft tech from some more intelligent race. (You could call them "pacleds")
    - Loquebantur 3y ago
      "Occam’s razor" is merely a heuristic, not some sort of law. Neither logical nor otherwise. Here, you are even using it wrong. You present a false dichotomy and rely on top of that on the faulty, but commonly held assumption, one choice was vastly less probable than the other. If the US government has covered up the topic for the last 80 years, you must assume your priors to be faulty.
      - quickthrowman 3y ago

Aerbil313 3y ago

Not to mention it's seen hundreds of times by hundreds of personnel and devices again and again over the years.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

heavyset_go 3y ago

Here's my post in response to a comment in the "US urged to reveal UFO evidence after claim that it has intact alien vehicles" HN thread[1] from a few weeks ago that addresses this: > Watch the introduction to the 4 hour UAP panel that NASA hosted a few days ago[2], they address this. > According to NASA, even highly trained and experienced pilots can easily be fooled, and often reported UAPs are artifacts of the technology that detects them, or are indeed things like weather balloons. For example, NASA even used the example of Navy pilots being fooled by a procession of commercial airplanes queueing to land at an airport 40+ miles away from their base. > They also emphasize that radar, detection systems, etc are not scientific instruments that are suitable for the detection or analysis of this phenomenon. They emphasize that the technology that the Navy et al. use are strictly optimized for defensive/offensive interception of conventional weapons. That's to say that they're calibrated for war and not for accurate scientific observation. > Going back to the procession of airplanes waiting to land, according to the instruments available to pilots and their own observations, those airplanes were doing things that were impossible to do without bending the laws of physics. Yet all they were were just a bunch of airplanes doing what all airplanes do. > > Due to the supposed feeds and eye witness accounts, it seems infeasible there is a 'weather balloon' type explanation > Pilots and their systems are fallible, you'd have to assume some argument from authority to believe otherwise. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36216745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36216745 [2] Public Meeting on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (Official NASA Broadcast): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQo08JRY0iM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQo08JRY0iM

esbranson 3y ago
Occam's razor tells us it's unlikely that all those unlikely failures happened at once. Videos, multiple eyewitnesses and AEGIS military radars. Lol.
- quickthrowman 3y ago
  Now apply Occam’s razor to the following two choices: 1. Aliens have visited Earth. They crashed their spaceships or we shot them down. The US Government (and possibly other governments) retrieved and studied their technology and managed to keep it a secret for decades 2. Aliens have not visited Earth
  - Hikikomori 3y ago
    And somehow these alien crafts are capable to cross interstellar distances but then crash at a rate higher than our airplanes, unless of course there's a shitload of them flying around here.
    - midoridensha 3y ago
      Scenario 1: the alien craft are piloted by teenagers and stolen from their parents to go on joyrides. Scenario 2: the aliens are bumbling and incompetent, and stole their spacecraft tech from some more intelligent race. (You could call them "pacleds")
  - Loquebantur 3y ago
    "Occam’s razor" is merely a heuristic, not some sort of law. Neither logical nor otherwise. Here, you are even using it wrong. You present a false dichotomy and rely on top of that on the faulty, but commonly held assumption, one choice was vastly less probable than the other. If the US government has covered up the topic for the last 80 years, you must assume your priors to be faulty.
    - quickthrowman 3y ago