True, but good agit prop leverages existing themes.

People have been discussing all kinds of things since the dark ages. Should the military consider astrology when making war plans and battle plans too cuz some people did and still make decisions based on astrology?

I understand you're being facetious, but if the military had visual and sensor data of a foreign power entering their airspace due to astrology, then the answer would likely be "probably".

During World War 2 the British consulted astrologers as part of their planning process. Not because they believed the astrology predictions, but because Hitler did and was known to have astrology influence his attack plans.

That's a cool anecdote and makes sense if you're trying to meet him at his level...

So what purpose does pursuing a belief in UFOs have? Are China and Russia gonna be like, what, UFOS?! Let's waste money studying something we have no evidence for!

There is evidence, however, which is why the government is studying it.

There's also a reason the government calls them 'phenomenon' and not 'objects' and not 'aliens'.

The reason the government is interested is not because they think there are aliens, it's because their job is to know what is in the sky and understand their sensor readings.

It doesn't really matter if it's China, aliens, a lens flare, or a kid with a drone. The military should be able to know what is in the sky.

That's it. It would be far better to know if it's some feedback in our sensors rather than Chinese hypersonic drones. I find it concerning that so many people want to just dismiss this off-hand when clearly the military considers it something to be worth looking into.

The part that is worth dismissing is the immediate jump to aliens. This topic is really a sensor data analysis discussion, not a conspiracy theory convention.

Why does the government not just say that? Hey, our instruments are having errors/artifacts and we want to fix it AND also dismiss any suggestion of alien craft --but, no, they go along with the most unlikely scenario. Are they looking to look stupid?

Because it would be dumb to publicly acknowledge any specifics of their weaknesses to their enemies.

They don't have to make any of it public. It was never public till they decided that they wanted to inject aliens into their strategy. Now, the Chinese communists and the Russian Oligarchs both still know our instruments suck, except they attributed to aliens.

> Now, the Chinese communists and the Russian Oligarchs both still know our instruments suck

There is no strategic or actionable value in a broad judgement of "sucks" or "doesn't suck". The point of keeping details secret is to prevent someone from building mechanisms to specifically counter it. Information disparity in war is an advantage because it can cause an enemy to misjudge their allocation of resources. (either they underestimate and are out-powered, or they overestimate and waste resources)

It's like poker. You might choose to selectively give off some information with your expressions, but you'd easily lose if you showed your cards.

> they decided that they wanted to inject aliens into their strategy.

The US military has not entertained the idea of aliens.

To preface: I am strongly in the opinion that this 'phenomenon' that's being seen is most probably a US-based contractor that's been testing exotic aircraft, as opposed to any of the other possibilities. There's a documented history of that over the years, and looking at where China and Russia are at currently indicates they might not have these capabilities.

However, I am going to hold off on the 'dismissing is the immediate jump to aliens' part as well, purely due to the position of this guy and the specifics of his claims - he was part of a team investigating the subject and so until he's proven unequivocally of lying I'll just assume there might be documentation he has access to that we don't. His credentials line up and it sounds as if the people who vouch for him are the same.

I'll think it's silly to discredit the fact the government wants to study what's being reported in the sky like some people are doing. Beyond that I'd rather not comment because it's safer to discuss the parts we are actually privy to rather than the parts we aren't, until the dude gets charged for lying to congress or some other official discrediting of his claims.

Unless the assertions made by those interviewed in the article are true. We are all arm chair quarterbacks who only have a view from the goal line to the one yard line. There is no sense in trying to say we know what happened in the game. We don't know what's actually happening and I don't see much sense in eliminating plausible explanations. It could be sensor aberrations, China, or something else. Why not keep an open mind and be scientific about evaluating it? Yes, we should probably focus on eliminating the more mundane explanations, but I don't think we would want to give up if we don't find it at first.

> Why not keep an open mind and be scientific about evaluating it?

I am for keeping an open mind, scientifically speaking. Entertaining theories rooted in fictional fantasy is not that. There is zero scientific evidence of technologically advanced life outside of Earth. It is a hypothesis that is just as unsupported as anything anyone might make up on the spot. Just because it is a hypothesis people want to believe doesn't make it any more supported than a hypothesis that it is the flying spaghetti monster.

By entertaining do you mean considering them plausible?

During the "balloon shootdowns" earlier this year, NORAD referred to them as objects and some people looked a little shook. They wouldn't show us pictures from any camera.. not from the planes, not from the missiles, nada. Yet, when Russia clumsily attacked a US drone near Ukraine, footage of the event was made available almost right away.

The "balloons" absolutely were referred to as objects, and you should question what was so special about them that they won't show anything.

Embarrassment at repeatedly scrambling F-22 Raptors to shoot missiles at a child's party balloon is not a good enough reason.

It was something. It wasn't nothing and it's just been brushed under the carpet as if it never happened.

That's nice, but you know what? If the object was "other", it'll be back.

What are you talking about? They released multiple pictures of the Chinese spy balloons.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/chinas-spy-balloon-ove...

That was only the 1st one which China owned up to. What about the other 3 objects that had fighters scrambled from both the US and Canada and of which no photos exist and no-one has claimed ownership of?

One object was blamed on a hobby balloon club and I have questions about it because usually winds move west to east and their balloon allegedly travelled east to west. In any case, how about the other 2 that weren't blamed on anyone, especially the one over Alaska?

Nobody can answer the questions because it's all classified "National Security".

> I have questions about it because usually winds move west to east and their balloon allegedly travelled east to west

On a macro scale, and on average, yes, but on the scale of a balloon, there are many winds that blow west.

Much of the capabilities of the F-22 are classified. This is why the information released is limited, and released slowly and vaguely if it is. It is the US's most advanced fighter, there's no way they're going to release all the data it collects publicly. China is taking notes.

Some of the planes were F-16 and F-18. Use camera footage from the F-18, run it through the low-resolution blurring filter to pretend that's as good as it gets for an airframe that entered service 44 years ago (yes, I know the avionics have been updated since then, but it's still an old jet) and redact out all the HUD numbering and readouts.

They did that with AARO's video of the metallic orb over the middle east. Made it blurry, and redacted out all data readouts. They could do the same thing with the F-18's footage.. show us that it's a balloon.

There may be suspicions about drones with unusual flight characteristics which may or may be be detectable with current sensors, and all this seemingly serious discussion from the government about UAPs may make people more likely to report strange things they see. Witnesses (with phone cameras) could potentially provide them with more information than they already have.

> Are China and Russia gonna be like, what, UFOS?! Let's waste money studying something we have no evidence for!

Yes. That’s exactly what happens. [1]

“In 1970 United States intelligence sources believed that the Soviet Union was spending 60 million roubles annually on "psychotronic" research. In response to claims that the Soviet program had produced results, the CIA initiated funding for a new program known as SCANATE ("scan by coordinate") in the same year.”

That program was funded until 1995.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project

Everything for an edge over the other side. Some folks just are good at staring at goats.

Ronald Reagan did, right? Commander in chief did, so for at least a time, they did?

Nancy had an astrologer and psychic, Jean Dixon, that she routinely consulted. Not aware of any evidence it influenced Bonzo, but everyone's partner has some weird thing, right?

fair enough