Support NeoGAF

[Romulus]

According to this, making a mockery of UFOs was an official policy in place it seems.


I remember in another video, the pilots said as soon as the tic tac encounter news spread throughout the ship, they started playing comical and unbelievable movies for the crew about aliens. Kinda makes sense, you don't want anyone questioning their definition of reality during military exercises. Ridicule, distance, and joke.

 

[ResilientBanana]

How do we know it's bright? You said insects show up just like that on IR and most aren't bright.

IR works like a flashlight and cameras aren't perfect when it comes to WDR when using night vision. So the further away an object is the less it will blow out the CMOS sensor in the camera. However the closer to the light it is, it will get brighter and brighter as more light is bouncing off the object. It's not rocket science. If that's video is indeed below freezing, it literally could be a piece of snow blowing around. It appears far away at first, but then it disappears in front of the trees without dispersing light to the area.

 

[Grand Theft Scratchy]

So when is this report, Thursday?

It is expected on Friday but I added a Scientific American article in the OP for some reading.

 

[Romulus]

IR works like a flashlight and cameras aren't perfect when it comes to WDR when using night vision. So the further away an object is the less it will blow out the CMOS sensor in the camera. However the closer to the light it is, it will get brighter and brighter as more light is bouncing off the object. It's not rocket science. If that's video is indeed below freezing, it literally could be a piece of snow blowing around. It appears far away at first, but then it disappears in front of the trees without dispersing light to the area.

This explanation and "it's not rocket science" doesn't really help the case if you're taking all these guesses. If it's not rocket science, it should be easily explainable. A snowflake is the worst guess thus far. A snowflake that falls like a rock out of the sky, slows to nearly a stop, then speeds to one side, then rapidly speeds off even faster like a gust of 100mph. Not only that, why is there one random snowflake in the entire sky? And why does it move unlike any snowflake I've ever seen?

 

[Shadowplay1979]

Just witnesses? No video, radar, pictures or anything?

Im sure theres a grainy video of an object moving in a pretty conventional way that someone will say is an amazing technology doing things impossible by human standards to accompany this video..no?

 

[INC]

Im sure theres a grainy video of an object moving in a pretty conventional way that someone will say is an amazing technology doing things impossible by human standards to accompany this video..no?

That would be better than just witnesses at this point

 

[Romulus]

Im sure theres a grainy video of an object moving in a pretty conventional way that someone will say is an amazing technology doing things impossible by human standards to accompany this video..no?

1960s clear video?

 

[Phunkydiabetic]

1960s clear video?

It's a video of a "ufo", would you expect any less?

 

[Romulus]

It's a video of a "ufo", would you expect any less?

And when there is a clear pic, "cgi."

 

[StormCell]

It is expected on Friday but I added a Scientific American article in the OP for some reading.

Oof, some of those quotes from leading scientific researchers and UFO investigators are sure to age poorly, especially the one staunchly claiming that the DoD knows less, not more, about UAP than leading civilian UFO researchers.

One consistent trait among skeptics is they always lead off with the worst or most laughable evidence presented in the media rather than going getting directly down to business with the hardest cases to solve.

In particular, I like what the guy who worked on the Condon comittee had to say since he has previously worked with supposed UFO photographic evidence in the past. He contrasts it with astronomy in that when they are looking at images from a telescope they can always trust that the data they're receiving is really there whereas with analyzing UFO photographs they have to take into account that some of the pictures are put there with the explicit purpose of misleading, and for that reason the best photographs are often simply too good to be true -- he would need to have photographs from multiple sets of witnesses who have no relationship with one another along with the object being spotted multiple times over some distance before he would even begin to get excited.

This is really what we're all looking for from the DoD, specifically something along the lines of the Nimitz incident which they should have in spades. The only problem? The DoD doesn't give af whether they convince us of anything. They are thusly not compelled to deliver much unless explicitly made to do it.

 

[ResilientBanana]

This explanation and "it's not rocket science" doesn't really help the case if you're taking all these guesses. If it's not rocket science, it should be easily explainable. A snowflake is the worst guess thus far. A snowflake that falls like a rock out of the sky, slows to nearly a stop, then speeds to one side, then rapidly speeds off even faster like a gust of 100mph. Not only that, why is there one random snowflake in the entire sky? And why does it move unlike any snowflake I've ever seen?

Either that, or it just blows by really close to the camera. There is no other visual evidence that discourages my theory either. It's not emitting light, it's reflecting it. If it was a UFO, it's too far away from the camera to be reflecting the cameras IR and if it was emitting IR light, then that IR light would be seen reflecting off of the other things in the area.



If you look at the direct feed footage, it lands in front of the pine trees which aren't that far away. The car lights are blocked by the pine trees and this spec is certainly in front of them. Sure, the flight path is erratic and unpredictable, but why would a craft fly like that and why is there not debris considering it flew right into the ground without emitting light or an explosion? It could even be someone playing with a powerful laser pointer for all we know.

edit:

it was 52 - 55 degrees Farenheit in Larkhaven, Saskatchewan on April 17th 2021. On a cow farm, bugs are not unlikely as it was not a frozen tundra as previously thought.

Weather in Larkhaven, April 17 – Detailed Weather Forecast for April 17 in Larkhaven, Saskatchewan, Canada (world-weather.info)

another thing to note is that the object does not become visible until it hits the light to the left. It's a fuckin' fly.

 

[INC]

Wait.......what?

 

[Romulus]

Either that, or it just blows by really close to the camera. There is no other visual evidence that discourages my theory either. It's not emitting light, it's reflecting it. If it was a UFO, it's too far away from the camera to be reflecting the cameras IR and if it was emitting IR light, then that IR light would be seen reflecting off of the other things in the area.



If you look at the direct feed footage, it lands in front of the pine trees which aren't that far away. The car lights are blocked by the pine trees and this spec is certainly in front of them. Sure, the flight path is erratic and unpredictable, but why would a craft fly like that and why is there not debris considering it flew right into the ground without emitting light or an explosion? It could even be someone playing with a powerful laser pointer for all we know.

edit:

it was 52 - 55 degrees Farenheit in Larkhaven, Saskatchewan on April 17th 2021. On a cow farm, bugs are not unlikely as it was not a frozen tundra as previously thought.

Weather in Larkhaven, April 17 – Detailed Weather Forecast for April 17 in Larkhaven, Saskatchewan, Canada (world-weather.info)

Nighttime was much cooler and an insect virtual descending from no where. But, much better than a snowflake

 

[Romulus]

 

[ResilientBanana]

Nighttime was much cooler and an insect virtual descending from no where. But, much better than a snowflake

The forecast is in my post, at 20:00 it was around 52-55 degrees Fahrenheit at that time. Also, read my edit, the bug enters the frame approximately where the light is projecting from the literal light bulb.

Can you guys see how hard you are trying to believe?

 

[Romulus]

The forecast is in my post, at 20:00 it was around 52-55 degrees Fahrenheit at that time. Also, read my edit, the bug enters the frame approximately where the light is projecting from the literal light bulb.

Can you guys see how hard you are trying to believe?

I think you need to look at the link again fr the timeframe, and even at that, no one said it was a "craft." Most of these objects don't look solid at all. Insect is a pretty terrible explanation but better than a snowflake or laser.

 

[Dev1lXYZ]

This is a deeply personal subject to me and I’m sure that there are those out there that have had experiences similar to what was described in those sentences. That post was for you. I hope that it brings you comfort in knowing that there are a lot of people out there with a shared experience.

 

[PleaseDontBanMe]

I'm not a meteorologist but apparently there's something that can happen in the atmosphere that causes white electric looking balls that can randomly ping pong across the Sky

apparently it's a natural occurrence on most planets with active weather systems or whatever

and this is probably what alot of these pilots have been witnessing.

heres an example

Ball lightning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jufonuk]

Pentagon won't rule out aliens in long-awaited UFO report

The report provides few answers on what the US military knows about unexplained flying objects.

www.bbc.com

 

[Wheeljack539]

This is a deeply personal subject to me and I’m sure that there are those out there that have had experiences similar to what was described in those sentences. That post was for you. I hope that it brings you comfort in knowing that there are a lot of people out there with a shared experience.

I saw it. Thank you for sharing and hope that you are well.

I remember that I was with my uncle when my sighting happened. He was unfortunately drunk so I was walking him back to my grandmother's house. He was the one in the family that was fascinated by that stuff. I on the other hand didn't believe but didn't like to be around when he was watching that stuff on tv as it unnerved the hell out of me (I was in 7th grade at the time). I had just turned my head upward and saw it and when I realized what I had been looking at I grabbed his arm and hauled him into the house before he could notice and do something stupid. Changed my outlook as I sat in my grandmother's living room as she and my mom talked in the kitchen and just reeling at what I witnessed.

 

[INC]

I'm not a meteorologist but apparently there's something that can happen in the atmosphere that causes white electric looking balls that can randomly ping pong across the Sky

apparently it's a natural occurrence on most planets with active weather systems or whatever

and this is probably what alot of these pilots have been witnessing.

heres an example

Ball lightning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So ball lightning can circle and track incoming jets.....huh, learn something new everyday

 

[PleaseDontBanMe]

So ball lightning can circle and track incoming jets.....huh, learn something new everyday

well i guess its just aliens then bro

mybad

 

[INC]

well i guess its just aliens then bro

mybad

Well military yanks must be retarded then, since theyre chasing ball lightning, how embarrassing for them and America

Good to know you see anyone saying ufo, must mean alien tho

 

[jufonuk]

Rendlesham forest what was that then ?

 

[INC]

Rendlesham forest what was that then ?

A light House

Mass hallucinations

Hoax to sell books

Ball lightning

UFO

 

[nush]

A light House

Mass hallucinations

Hoax to sell books

Ball lightning

UFO

A firefly really close to your eyeball.

 

[INC]

 

[INC]

A firefly really close to your eyeball.

We don't really have fireflies in uk, maybe 1 species, so I guess 2 separate incidents, by 2 different teams, could of mistaken what they saw, as fireflies in their eyes upclose

But yet again, that must mean US military is beyond incompetent, if that's the case.

Seems to be a shit load of cases of US incompetence stack up, think they need their toys taken away, if they're indeed, this uneducated in identifying objects over nuclear bunkers, and military airspace

That sounds pretty dangerous for the rest of world, considering what US has in its inventory

 

[INC]

Wonder if we'll get any more info on the 1971 incident in Antarctica, whether that it's complete BS or not

Odd that a 1971 photo (if real), seems to show the same behaviour as the gimbal video

Could 'leaked UFO photos taken from US submarine in 1971' prove existe

PHOTOGRAPHS revealing bizarre UFOs claimed to have been taken by a US Navy submarine crew have been hailed as the best EVER evidence of extra-terrestrial visits to Earth.

www.express.co.uk

 

[Airola]

One consistent trait among skeptics is they always lead off with the worst or most laughable evidence presented in the media rather than going getting directly down to business with the hardest cases to solve.

I don't understand what's wrong with that.

I mean, what's the alternative? There are things that are easy to explain and there are things that are hard to explain. If something is hard to explain, it doesn't mean it's impossible to explain so it might eventually get solved. In the meantime of course people would solve the easy cases and show the explanation to others. What else they would do? Not explain them at all?

It's always better to explain the "easy" ones to people so that as many people as possible would understand what they are instead of believing and spreading the word that it's proof of aliens. Those shouldn't be put away just because there are other things that haven't got their explanation yet. If there are ridiculous examples that have actually been used (and still might be used) as evidence, of course they can be shown as prime examples of gullibility among believers.

 

[ResilientBanana]

I don't understand what's wrong with that.

I mean, what's the alternative? There are things that are easy to explain and there are things that are hard to explain. If something is hard to explain, it doesn't mean it's impossible to explain so it might eventually get solved. In the meantime of course people would solve the easy cases and show the explanation to others. What else they would do? Not explain them at all?

It's always better to explain the "easy" ones to people so that as many people as possible would understand what they are instead of believing and spreading the word that it's proof of aliens. Those shouldn't be put away just because there are other things that haven't got their explanation yet. If there are ridiculous examples that have actually been used (and still might be used) as evidence, of course they can be shown as prime examples of gullibility among believers.

Very good points. Not to mention UFO Believers typically believe that everything is a vehicle from another world so easily. A lot of times you have to spell it out. You'd think that after all these years of being caught on film, they would come up with new ideas to stay out of sight.

 

[Phunkydiabetic]

Ehhh, this dudes job was to lie, deceive and spread misinformation. Kinda makes me side eye everything he says. Same with the report, they'll announce whatever it is they'll announce and the whole time I'll be sitting there wondering what the angle is. There is always an angle. Especially since the U.S. government has already been known to spread lies about ufo sightings in order to confuse the public in regards to spy planes being used.

Whatever they end up saying take with a massive grain of salt. I'm mostly talking to you alien people, they'll be the ones scrambling for any shred of justification that aliens exist.

 

[StormCell]

I don't understand what's wrong with that.

I mean, what's the alternative? There are things that are easy to explain and there are things that are hard to explain. If something is hard to explain, it doesn't mean it's impossible to explain so it might eventually get solved. In the meantime of course people would solve the easy cases and show the explanation to others. What else they would do? Not explain them at all?

It's always better to explain the "easy" ones to people so that as many people as possible would understand what they are instead of believing and spreading the word that it's proof of aliens. Those shouldn't be put away just because there are other things that haven't got their explanation yet. If there are ridiculous examples that have actually been used (and still might be used) as evidence, of course they can be shown as prime examples of gullibility among believers.

The problem for me is they usually stop at the easy ones and broad brush explain the rest as just being more of the same. At some point, we need to move past the usual talking points (bokeh effect and pentagon pyramid video) and deal with the actual business. I believe there are good explanations for some or most of the strange lights that people see (ball lightning being a great example of a phenomena not seen often and not well understood by many). What the veterans in the room want to discuss are incidences such as the Nimitz and similar, although I doubt we'll be informed anytime soon since the DoD has no vesting interest in convincing us of anything.

The people who are actually interested in getting to the right understanding of these sightings are the ones who advocate for spending money to actually place quality cameras where we seem to be having these encounters and to actually go to these sights and investigate to see if we can determine what we're actually seeing. You know an actually reasonable response. When a little kid tells you the boogeyman is in his closet, you don't just dismiss the little one and make them feel ignored. No. You gotta open the door. You gotta shine light into that unknown. Any scientific attempt at explanation will require cameras and other instruments anyway, or at best we will just confirm what we don't know is out there.

 

[INC]

I don't understand what's wrong with that.

I mean, what's the alternative? There are things that are easy to explain and there are things that are hard to explain. If something is hard to explain, it doesn't mean it's impossible to explain so it might eventually get solved. In the meantime of course people would solve the easy cases and show the explanation to others. What else they would do? Not explain them at all?

It's always better to explain the "easy" ones to people so that as many people as possible would understand what they are instead of believing and spreading the word that it's proof of aliens. Those shouldn't be put away just because there are other things that haven't got their explanation yet. If there are ridiculous examples that have actually been used (and still might be used) as evidence, of course they can be shown as prime examples of gullibility among believers.

Bit like using the Bible as evidence of God lol

 

[INC]

Ehhh, this dudes job was to lie, deceive and spread misinformation. Kinda makes me side eye everything he says. Same with the report, they'll announce whatever it is they'll announce and the whole time I'll be sitting there wondering what the angle is. There is always an angle. Especially since the U.S. government has already been known to spread lies about ufo sightings in order to confuse the public in regards to spy planes being used.

Whatever they end up saying take with a massive grain of salt. I'm mostly talking to you alien people, they'll be the ones scrambling for any shred of justification that aliens exist.

Yet everything he's released has been confirmed.......but yeh I'm still on the fence with him tbh.

The fact he's said he'll run for office is a big red flag for me.

 

[Phunkydiabetic]

Yet everything he's released has been confirmed.......but yeh I'm still on the fence with him tbh.

The fact he's said he'll run for office is a big red flag for me.

Oh yeah, forgot that part. Regardless I'm very interested in what will be released this Friday. It's certainly fun to hypothesize about the possibilities, and whatever is in this report will probably shape the theories going forward.

 

[INC]

Oh yeah, forgot that part. Regardless I'm very interested in what will be released this Friday. It's certainly fun to hypothesize about the possibilities, and whatever is in this report will probably shape the theories going forward.

As most of us have said from the start, if its US technology, theyve leap frogged every other nation for over 60years, this a paradigm shift due to the technology

if its foreign technology, thats equally impressive, since some of humanity has leaped frogged technology for over 60 years, this is also a paradigm shift

If its natural, this is also amazing, since we have no idea what it is, this is also a paradigm shift on our understanding of nature

If its aliens well....thats also a paradigm shift

Theres only a few things we know have been confirmed, and the top of the list, it isn't US technology

So its a win for me whatever the result in the coming years

 

[Airola]

As most of us have said from the start, if its US technology, theyve leap frogged every other nation for over 60years, this a paradigm shift due to the technology

if its foreign technology, thats equally impressive, since some of humanity has leaped frogged technology for over 60 years, this is also a paradigm shift

If its natural, this is also amazing, since we have no idea what it is, this is also a paradigm shift on our understanding of nature

If its aliens well....thats also a paradigm shift

Theres only a few things we know have been confirmed, and the top of the list, it isn't US technology

So its a win for me whatever the result in the coming years

I wouldn't really say that's a confirmation of it not being US technology.
I mean, only "no comments" or "not ours" are the only things they really CAN say if it's their technology. And "no comments" would be suspicious as hell too. If they really have some super secret stuff, they wouldn't come and say "oh yeah, sorry that was us the whole time and still is" just because they are told to write a report. If it was so, it would mean that super secret military projects could be revealed just by having high enough authority to tell them reveal them after getting too much public pressure to do so.

And I think one other option is that a lot of radar data and IR camera UAP stuff is all about having fantastic equipment for tracking things they've been built to track but the equipment having limits on what they can show. And the people who use it are taught to analyse the screens in certain ways. Mix in the fact that the observers aren't really that different from the rest of us, and they too might "want to believe" so they also might make errors in judgment because of that too.

If it is possible in any way to mistake a bird as an UAP in IR camera, then the fault isn't really in the people who observe the screen but it's in the equipment. While the equipment shows a lot of great data, it doesn't show enough. And people might not look at the screen with those limits in their minds because 99,999% of time they show clear enough data for clear enough subjects.

 

[INC]

I wouldn't really say that's a confirmation of it not being US technology.
I mean, only "no comments" or "not ours" are the only things they really CAN say if it's their technology. And "no comments" would be suspicious as hell too. If they really have some super secret stuff, they wouldn't come and say "oh yeah, sorry that was us the whole time and still is" just because they are told to write a report. If it was so, it would mean that super secret military projects could be revealed just by having high enough authority to tell them reveal them after getting too much public pressure to do so.

And I think one other option is that a lot of radar data and IR camera UAP stuff is all about having fantastic equipment for tracking things they've been built to track but the equipment having limits on what they can show. And the people who use it are taught to analyse the screens in certain ways. Mix in the fact that the observers aren't really that different from the rest of us, and they too might "want to believe" so they also might make errors in judgment because of that too.

If it is possible in any way to mistake a bird as an UAP in IR camera, then the fault isn't really in the people who observe the screen but it's in the equipment. While the equipment shows a lot of great data, it doesn't show enough. And people might not look at the screen with those limits in their minds because 99,999% of time they show clear enough data for clear enough subjects.

And Fravors case? Thats still a sticking point to me, because why would 4 highly trained pilots go on the record, with their account. And it wasn't a fleeting observations either......

But I'm open to whatever, if its all BS, then the next question for me is why? Whats the end goal? Because this is a world wide phenomena, thats something on a mass scale. its world wide, whos pushing it? And again why?

Or has the entire planet gone full retard? That too ironically is a paradigm shift too lol

 

[infinitys_7th]

Wait.......what?

BAS involved in a cover-up and slowly trickling out info. . .imagine my shock. Makes me wonder what Bigelow is hiding about Skinwalker Ranch, especially with BAS having been over the property for a time after the NIDS investigation.

 

[infinitys_7th]

Very good points. Not to mention UFO Believers typically believe that everything is a vehicle from another world so easily. A lot of times you have to spell it out. You'd think that after all these years of being caught on film, they would come up with new ideas to stay out of sight.

Yes, all UFO "believers" think these are aliens.

Strange how trusting repeated radar corroboration is belief, but that same standard never gets applied to other instrument interpretations. Imagine calling a particle physicist a "believer" just because they only have repeated instrument readings.

 

[StormCell]

I wouldn't really say that's a confirmation of it not being US technology.
I mean, only "no comments" or "not ours" are the only things they really CAN say if it's their technology. And "no comments" would be suspicious as hell too. If they really have some super secret stuff, they wouldn't come and say "oh yeah, sorry that was us the whole time and still is" just because they are told to write a report. If it was so, it would mean that super secret military projects could be revealed just by having high enough authority to tell them reveal them after getting too much public pressure to do so.

And I think one other option is that a lot of radar data and IR camera UAP stuff is all about having fantastic equipment for tracking things they've been built to track but the equipment having limits on what they can show. And the people who use it are taught to analyse the screens in certain ways. Mix in the fact that the observers aren't really that different from the rest of us, and they too might "want to believe" so they also might make errors in judgment because of that too.

If it is possible in any way to mistake a bird as an UAP in IR camera, then the fault isn't really in the people who observe the screen but it's in the equipment. While the equipment shows a lot of great data, it doesn't show enough. And people might not look at the screen with those limits in their minds because 99,999% of time they show clear enough data for clear enough subjects.

Everything you're saying here is based on a set of conjectures.
1. You have made an assumption that a classified report to be delivered to congress can outright lie. They haven't just been told to write a report, they have been given a legal request to provide a comprehensive report to brief congress on a subject. If the same congress was deciding whether to go to war with China, they would request a similar report on what we know about China. Do you propose the DoD would outright lie in its report about China's capabilities in an effort to keep hidden details that expose similar craft being used to spy on our adversaries?

2. While you make an excellent point about tools and instruments being designed for specific purposes (ie. tracking aircraft traveling at speeds under mach-8 as opposed to tracking something at plus-mach-10), you're prepared to dismiss expert opinions and testimony on an unfounded assumption that trained military personnel are anything like a group of civilians sitting behind keyboards in apartments and houses rooting for aliens to exist. If it were me on board that ship, I want to keep everything vanilla and boring in terms of what the ship is encountering.

3. All tools have their limitations, but this is another conjecture about military equipment picking up birds and causing trained personnel to misread objects on screen. All this aims to do is undercut confidence in what is being reported and add questions in the wrong areas. The answer here should have always been to add better cameras and better document the incidences if they're not already doing so.

What we should do is press congress to follow up on the report regardless of how devoid of interesting data it is, because we have what amounts to a smoking gun in the Nimitz incident, and we want to know who fired the gun and who it was aimed at (basically, what the hell went on there and why is the DoD so content to just ignore it?).

 

[Romulus]

Are there people that believe that everything in the sky, sea, and even space is identifiable through 'modern' explanations? Doesn't that seem even more ridiculous considering we haven't even identified much of the species on our own planet, and don't even understand how much of space works outside of theories? The sea is almost completely undiscovered and the vast majority of human history is unknown.

 

[StormCell]

Are there people that believe that everything in the sky, sea, and even space is identifiable through 'modern' explanations? Doesn't that seem even more ridiculous considering we haven't even identified much of the species on our own planet, and don't even understand how much of space works outside of theories? The sea is almost completely undiscovered and the vast majority of human history is unknown.

I think it would be more apt to say there are people who believe that everything in the sky, sea, and even space is identifiable through 'natural scientific' explanations. Examples would be a glowing orb that appears to ping pong across the sky at slightly unpredictable intervals that is traveling at tens of thousands of miles per hour would, in fact, be a kind of ball lightning rarely seen or observed. That could make a lot of sense for those kinds of objects.

At this point, aliens might as well be just a half step below god on the list of unacceptable explanations.

 

[Airola]

And Fravors case? Thats still a sticking point to me, because why would 4 highly trained pilots go on the record, with their account. And it wasn't a fleeting observations either......

But I'm open to whatever, if its all BS, then the next question for me is why? Whats the end goal? Because this is a world wide phenomena, thats something on a mass scale. its world wide, whos pushing it? And again why?

Or has the entire planet gone full retard? That too ironically is a paradigm shift too lol

A trained pilot is still a normal human. It could be lies, exaggerations, misunderstandings or any mixture of things like that. It could be a thing they made up and decided to fool a lot of people with, for whatever reason. Or it could be one guy seeing something, exaggerating what he saw, then another person wanting to be part of it and exaggerating it a bit further. Maybe trying to cash in on it, or just trying to become famous, or just trying to feel life's more exciting, or just telling a lie/exaggeration to have people believe in what you believe in even if your evidence for it wasn't true. Like, lying for a "good cause", like what a religious person could do (believing in angels, claiming you saw an angel even though you didn't but it doesn't matter to you as you believe in angels and for you it's merely just a white lie to make people believe in what you think is the truth).

There are a lot of people in the world who willingly take part in all kinds of scams (demon exorcisms, having people fall by touching on the forehead at some churches, healing a person by pretending you push your hands inside a person and take that person's organs out, all kinds of things), and a lot of people are willing to exaggerate what they saw to make it feel more believable or more exciting or whatever.

And it's not the entire planet. Just a very small portion of people who make these claims.

I'm not saying they definitely are lying or even exaggerating, and I'm open to the idea that it really was alien stuff they told about, but I'm just saying that it's well in the realm of possibilities that four highly trained people fully or partly made things up. If we are willling to believe that people with certain status wouldn't lie, then to me that only makes it more probable that someone eventually would use their status to make a lie more believable.

 

[INC]

A trained pilot is still a normal human. It could be lies, exaggerations, misunderstandings or any mixture of things like that. It could be a thing they made up and decided to fool a lot of people with, for whatever reason. Or it could be one guy seeing something, exaggerating what he saw, then another person wanting to be part of it and exaggerating it a bit further. Maybe trying to cash in on it, or just trying to become famous, or just trying to feel life's more exciting, or just telling a lie/exaggeration to have people believe in what you believe in even if your evidence for it wasn't true. Like, lying for a "good cause", like what a religious person could do (believing in angels, claiming you saw an angel even though you didn't but it doesn't matter to you as you believe in angels and for you it's merely just a white lie to make people believe in what you think is the truth).

There are a lot of people in the world who willingly take part in all kinds of scams (demon exorcisms, having people fall by touching on the forehead at some churches, healing a person by pretending you push your hands inside a person and take that person's organs out, all kinds of things), and a lot of people are willing to exaggerate what they saw to make it feel more believable or more exciting or whatever.

And it's not the entire planet. Just a very small portion of people who make these claims.

I'm not saying they definitely are lying or even exaggerating, and I'm open to the idea that it really was alien stuff they told about, but I'm just saying that it's well in the realm of possibilities that four highly trained people fully or partly made things up. If we are willling to believe that people with certain status wouldn't lie, then to me that only makes it more probable that someone eventually would use their status to make a lie more believable.

Of course, but they were told to go there

 

[Airola]

Everything you're saying here is based on a set of conjectures.
1. You have made an assumption that a classified report to be delivered to congress can outright lie. They haven't just been told to write a report, they have been given a legal request to provide a comprehensive report to brief congress on a subject. If the same congress was deciding whether to go to war with China, they would request a similar report on what we know about China. Do you propose the DoD would outright lie in its report about China's capabilities in an effort to keep hidden details that expose similar craft being used to spy on our adversaries?

2. While you make an excellent point about tools and instruments being designed for specific purposes (ie. tracking aircraft traveling at speeds under mach-8 as opposed to tracking something at plus-mach-10), you're prepared to dismiss expert opinions and testimony on an unfounded assumption that trained military personnel are anything like a group of civilians sitting behind keyboards in apartments and houses rooting for aliens to exist. If it were me on board that ship, I want to keep everything vanilla and boring in terms of what the ship is encountering.

3. All tools have their limitations, but this is another conjecture about military equipment picking up birds and causing trained personnel to misread objects on screen. All this aims to do is undercut confidence in what is being reported and add questions in the wrong areas. The answer here should have always been to add better cameras and better document the incidences if they're not already doing so.

What we should do is press congress to follow up on the report regardless of how devoid of interesting data it is, because we have what amounts to a smoking gun in the Nimitz incident, and we want to know who fired the gun and who it was aimed at (basically, what the hell went on there and why is the DoD so content to just ignore it?).

1. Of course they can lie. People take their chances and lie on court all the time too. And if this is a lie that has been ordered from the highest people responsible of whatever they have and this has to be kept on secret, then what can you do. They probably wouldn't want to take a risk that some of it gets in the news, maybe through a leak or something. This particular thing is perhaps too public already. It's mainstream news now, even internationally. What comes to the China example, it would completely depend on what the thing is that should be kept a secret.

2. All I'm saying is that we are all humans. Our jobs and social positions don't change that. I am not making a claim that they must be just some ufo nuts or whatever, I'm just saying that it's very possible that within the military there are people who "want to believe" and who even might be able and willing to lie, exaggerate or create a scam to support it. Sure, credentials might make things more believable but giving too much credit on credentials give way to too much gullibility too. At best we should treat highly ranked people like doctors with a heart of gold, at worst we should treat them like politicians.

3. No, I'm just saying what other options and possibilities there are. This is something that could be possible. We shouldn't dismiss that either. Especially IF it is because of unreliable equipment, then that obviously should be talked about and fixed.

These aren't supposed to take as something made to dismiss claims of aliens. These are supposed to be put on the list of possible scenarios, which includes aliens and all kinds of other odd stuff too. We still need to have "faulty unreliable equipment" and "someone lies" as possible options. Those haven't really been ruled out by anything or anyone yet.

 

[Airola]

Of course, but they were told to go there

Which could've made a few people use the opportunity to tell an exciting story. Maybe nothing was there. Or maybe something was there, but nothing that incredible, and things were exaggerated until the exaggerations grew big and perhaps even got out of their hands. Who knows.

I'd love it to have more exciting explanation though. Would love it to be alien / ancient civilization / future people / things from other dimension kind of stuff, but would like it to be some undisclosed and secret tech by humans too. Hoping for stuff like that, fearing for it just being plain old bullshit that got too big.

 

[StormCell]

1. Of course they can lie. People take their chances and lie on court all the time too. And if this is a lie that has been ordered from the highest people responsible of whatever they have and this has to be kept on secret, then what can you do. They probably wouldn't want to take a risk that some of it gets in the news, maybe through a leak or something. This particular thing is perhaps too public already. It's mainstream news now, even internationally. What comes to the China example, it would completely depend on what the thing is that should be kept a secret.

2. All I'm saying is that we are all humans. Our jobs and social positions don't change that. I am not making a claim that they must be just some ufo nuts or whatever, I'm just saying that it's very possible that within the military there are people who "want to believe" and who even might be able and willing to lie, exaggerate or create a scam to support it. Sure, credentials might make things more believable but giving too much credit on credentials give way to too much gullibility too. At best we should treat highly ranked people like doctors with a heart of gold, at worst we should treat them like politicians.

3. No, I'm just saying what other options and possibilities there are. This is something that could be possible. We shouldn't dismiss that either. Especially IF it is because of unreliable equipment, then that obviously should be talked about and fixed.

These aren't supposed to take as something made to dismiss claims of aliens. These are supposed to be put on the list of possible scenarios, which includes aliens and all kinds of other odd stuff too. We still need to have "faulty unreliable equipment" and "someone lies" as possible options. Those haven't really been ruled out by anything or anyone yet.

I agree 100%.

I love this quote, btw:

At best we should treat highly ranked people like doctors with a heart of gold, at worst we should treat them like politicians.

As we have said all along for a while now, we're missing any shred of the incredible evidence to support such an incredible claim as "aliens."

 

[INC]