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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do you have a source for this? I've heard rumors there was an interview with the radar operator but haven't seen it myself. In any case, this is almost certainly the same object that was visually observed from multiple angles hours prior, which had been jamming the previous fighters' radars and observed passively from the Nimitz, considering it had been tracked in the general vicinity of the carrier strike group for over a week prior (passively by the Nimitz).
> I would argue that the "Gimbal" explanation West has is very convincing.
These radar systems do not typically suffer catastrophic breakdowns (such as locking onto a false bogie) from any causes shy of physical trauma or targeted jamming techniques. These things are sent back to the contractor for repair if they fall outside of a very tight spec range during regular testing, long before any discernible error would show up. Even when jammed, the state of the art wouldn't likely be able to create a false bogie in this spectrum; a jamming signal would manifest as intolerable noise throughout the image. If glare was not only visible, but allowed a system lock, that is a catastrophic system failure and not something that would be overlooked -- it would be sent back to the contractor for repair and the entire incident would be scrapped for this reason.
No malfunctions were reported on the receiver chipset, the pod, or any other component for either the Gimbal or the Nimitz recordings, to my knowledge.
Mick West is a smart guy, but he clearly does not know radar and is grasping at straws here. And he doesn't even attempt to describe the extremely precise relative orientations that would be required of two distant objects to keep the "glare" in the exact center of the lens while the fighter is moving about and recording the video.
I'm glad for his analysis to rule out the Go-Fast video as inconclusive at best. I have no interest in wasting time on false leads. But for the other two, we have legitimate, exotic phenomena that no one has successfully explained away, and it's increasingly seeming impossible to do so without venturing beyond the boundary of our current circle of knowledge.
>Do you have a source for this?
It seems the source used is more suspect than I'd like. It's the "executive report" from the To The Stars Academy which I am loathe to put any trust in. The quote in question is "LT ______ was clear in that he couldn't confirm that it was the same object as described by the FASTEAGLE flight. He never had visual, only seeing the object via the FLIR."
---
>a jamming signal would manifest as intolerable noise throughout the image
What sort of jamming signal are you referring to? The video doesn't involve radar, and I was under the impression that the only effective way to disable FLIR is to shine a laser at it.
>And he doesn't even attempt to describe the extremely precise relative orientations that would be required of two distant objects to keep the "glare" in the exact center of the lens while the fighter is moving about and recording the video.
I'm not sure what you mean with two objects. Can you elaborate? As I understand it, the theory is that there is a single hot object (or perhaps a two-engine jet) in the distance. The glare in the FLIR image is produced in the same fashion as the glare in a regular camera pointed at a bright object; nothing needs to be precisely positioned.
You mentioned restricted airspace, but AFAIK there's no info on the GIMBAL video apart from that it was taken somewhere on the East Coast.
Correct, there is significantly less background here than on the Nimitz video, to which I was referring.
I've seen all of Mick West's videos in this playlist now, and his explanation for the Nimitz footage is even weaker than for Gimbal. He skips the difficult points such as accounting for movement of the object and the momentary loss of target lock for FLIR-1. He fixates on the rotation of the targeting pod, which may be valid, but doesn't seem as interesting to me as the fact that there are no heat plumes coming from this "jet" in Gimbal. It seems like his whole gimmick is to find one nitpick and claim victory, not to try to piece together the full, most accurate story of what was witnessed given all the information. Not to mention, neither of you seem to appreciate how catastrophic of a design failure it would be to have distant glares generating opaque images and target locks. If there is one area where defense contractors innovate, it is in meeting specs and testing. If the specs are not met, you end up in F-35 hell, not in production.
Take a look at Fravor describing the video step by step which may clear up some of your questions -- my link skips right to where he walks through the videos, but the whole interview is fascinating, minus Corbell [0].
>just that the glare makes it look like something more fantastical than it is
Perhaps I misunderstand the way you were ascribing it to glare? The image is pretty much the same in TV mode and I believe the pod can even hold a target lock while flying directly into the sun. This is partially because of the radar component providing ranging, which Fravor describes is being jammed in the FLIR1 video, interestingly. Nothing else will be close to the same intensity as the sun, nor will it stay on the center of the target, if you are suggesting there are two objects overlaid. If you are instead saying the whole video is of one glare and the pod had a catastrophic system failure by allowing that, that seems like a huge logical jump.
> I was under the impression that the only effective way to disable FLIR is to shine a laser at it.
That is more or less my point.
I encourage you and Mick to keep challenging these videos, but don't be satisfied unless someone is able to replicate it (not a part of it, the whole thing). If it isn't exotic, it can be replicated, so the burden of proof has finally shifted now that we have reasonably solid evidence and credible witness testimony all together in a content treasure trove.
An aside: every legal system in existence is built around witness testimony -- even in the digital age. Do you believe Bill Cosby is innocent? (I don't) Because there is far more evidence of exotic phenomena than of Bill's criminality, and yet only one is socially acceptable (although that is slowly changing), and most people follow the herd.
Another thought experiment: if you lived in Galileo's time with your same personality - ask yourself honestly: who would you side with? The Catholic Church, or the heretic who believes in planets orbiting the Sun?
If you ever decide there is indeed "a phenomenon" occurring, and you want to learn more about it, there are far more interesting and weirder cases than the ones we've discussed, although I know of no single incident with the same volume of highly credible data as this 2017 release.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eco2s3-0zsQ&feature=youtu.be...
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?
"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.
Is the US military broadcasting strength? Probably. That would be consistent with its history.
However. That doesn't mean they know. It only means they are in the best position to make the claim. No one does misinformation as good as the NSA, CIA, etc. does.
The two things are independent.
That's a good point I hadn't considered.
Best to do both.
See my previous comment on the topic https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21860860
I found out later this is a rare mirage that occurs when a thermal inversion causes light on the horizon to bend.[0]
if this occurred at night and those mountain peaks were replaced with something like car head lights, I may have walked off that mountain as a UFO believer. I’m not saying this explains away all the UFO sightings. Only suggesting that there could be a lot rational, yet obscure, explanations that haven’t been considered.
I believe they exist because of the videos and statements. I believe they're man made for the reason I stated above.
>What's your guess on how the boys filled that gap?
That's a lot harder to answer. The short version is, I have no clue. We could speculate forever. We do know that stealth technology existed for years before the public was informed, as one example of many. And we know that agencies like DARPA and programs like Skunk Works exist and are extremely well funded specifically to develop new technologies for military use. I submit that we do not know about every technology these sorts of entities have created. How far those technologies go? Man, I'd really love to know! I'm hopeful these videos are a glimpse of that.
One of these is not like the others.
Why do you think it's less plausible that humans have this technology than any other intelligent entity? There's no real reason to believe there's a sharp line between "human" and "other" capabilities. If the alternative is literally aliens, it's not a large stretch to imagine that once you've had the right insight, a Mach effect drive or something similar is possible.
The part of that story that's harder to believe is that we could have successfully kept it hidden this long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnIG-i2WCfg
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"
- there's some communicative intelligence involved with the craft(s), that we've communicated with in a way that leads us to think they are harmless (despite radar jamming antics.) in a best case scenario, we've been given guarantees of safety as well as sufficient explanation and demonstration to consider that guarantee credible.
- we've seen sufficient examples of these in history to conclude that if harm was meant, it would have been dealt by now
- the crafts themselves have given indications of any game theoretic elements which would lead to harm. for example, perhaps they've communicated (perhaps indirectly through escalation and deescalation) what areas of engagement or human action will lead to escalation and which won't, and have done so consistently
i'm leaning towards a combination of the second and the third. there's no reason to believe these craft are new phenomena, but likely evaded sufficient detection to be accepted as real until the last several decades. if you assume the technology involved in these are far beyond our own, then it's also fair to assume that any capacity for harm from these has been ever-present and existential in scope since humanity first began. and yet, here we are. so it doesn't take a huge leap of logic to conclude that perhaps these are harmless, modulo any major disruptions in say the threat of humanity to itself or to other parts of the galaxy.
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.
Some people who tend to try to stick to what's verifiable are:
John Greenwald - Specializes in FOIA, sometimes over-focuses on probably irrelevant details but is evolving.
Mick West - A skeptic, one of the few people who has attempted any serious public analysis of the Navy videos, seems reasonably open minded though biased toward the most ordinary possible explanations even of phenomena that clearly deviate substantially from the ordinary.
Luis Elizondo - Certainly worth listening to, though opinions vary greatly on his credibility.
Tim McMillan - The author of the original post. Looks promising, especially if most of his claims here turn out to be accurate.
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.
He doesn’t speculate or fill in gaps. He is and writes like an historian, however, so get ready for some dry reading.
Me neither, though the History Channel sure tries these days, lol.
Anyway, can somebody explain what the fascination is with UFOs to somebody who never really got it?
I just assume the Universe is so big (and expanding) that nobody besides bacteria could make it alive to Earth. The End.
Why would you assume that ?
Even if the speed of light is an absolute barrier why do you rule out the following:
- ET's that are immortal or with enormous lifespans, either naturally or because they re-engineered themselves that way
- ET's that have produced artificial intelligent entities that are immortal
- Generation ships
- Ships that travel at a significant fraction of c, causing time-dilation effects to greatly reduce travel times in the traveler's frame of reference
I certainly wouldn't be surprised if humans were able to achieve at least one of these in the next thousand years and an ET civilization could easily be millions of years ahead of us.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think ET's are the most likely explanation for what's happening either, but I also don't think they can be ruled out entirely.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pretty sure this was ruled out by the multiple methods of observation used.
And have had them for decades now, if UFO reports are to be believed?
UFO sightings aren't new. The capabilities people report don't seem to be getting better over time. If UFO reports are (sometimes) real and they're advanced US prototypes not ready for production, what were they 30 or 40 years ago? Have UFO reports only been real for the last 10 or so years?
Except that's not how the world works.
We have peace for as long as there's a balance of powers in this MAD nuclear stalemate we find ourselves in.
If you've got secret goodies in the shed that completely disrupt the balance, you don't realize them until it's absolutely necessary. It's not a massive disinformation campaign, it's about operating at scale on a level appropriate for the circumstances.
China and Russia have been doing a lot of saber rattling and projecting new technologies that threaten to disrupt the balance, so I don't think it's too surprising that the US is responding with escalating propaganda of its own.
The big question is are these UFOs demonstrating real capabilities or is it just fabricated FUD propaganda.
We'll always have something better in the shed, otherwise we're obsolete.
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.
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".
"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...
Again that says nothing as to what they actually show.
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.
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.
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.
> 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
"Former FBI Agent Explains How to Read Body Language | Tradecraft | WIRED"
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.
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?
The entire progress of humanity came through converting "magic" to "mundane". It's usually called "gaining understanding".
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?
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).
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.