UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wrong. Both explanations are extraordinary. Your one far more so. My position is to accept the massive accumulated evidence for supernatural/paranormal phenomena as negating the strict materialist ideological position. You have to assume astronomically absurd (understatement) chains of coincidence in order to satisfy your rigid materialist dogma.
The rest of your post is as usual not worth my time to respond to.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Going to extremes is poor argumentation. As is making me out as believing in alien visitations - contrary to many clear posts of mine arguing otherwise. But then that is your consistent MO.

Keep chanting that mantra - your ideological clones here will smilingly approve. It's on record the released vids re Nimitz & Roosevelt encounters were deliberately degraded in quality.
As for 'unreliable anecdotes' - I'd love to see you have the guts to say that face to face with those naval personnel - and watch as they proceed to punch the shit out of you.

Reversing things yet again. Recall I challenged you to provide one - to back up your cavalier dismissal as 'comedy(s) of errors'. Common sense is my guide on the incidents. One doesn't just need a mass of temporally coincident human + instrument glitches, they need to also miraculously provide a convergent 'false extraordinary encounter(s)' scenario. The mind boggles - well not the skeptics scoffers minds here.
The onus is rightly on you to convincingly justify dismissing such as you have attempted to do over and over with nothing more than assertion and suggestion.
Take a stab at it. If you are so confident in the 'nothing there' position, why not?

 

Such a lazy sod. It was covered in earlier posts yet you feign forgetfulness. Spoon-feeding again:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/in-defence-of-space-aliens.160045/page-209#post-3629666 (bad paste!)
https://newspunch.com/us-sailors-speak-out-about-2004-ufo-encounter/
Not good enough for you? Not official enough? No presidential signature? Why not just outright accuse the whistle-blowers who have bravely defied censure, and ridicule from the likes of you, of being nothing more than publicity-seeking liars? It's what you and your ilk here have repeatedly implied.

Do keep lying like that for the record. What you actually wrote just hours earlier in #4163:
"A few fuzzy videos and unreliable anecdotes don't amount to massive accumulated evidence. Sorry to break it to you."
That's an outright accusation - no point in then questioning. Shoot first - ask questions later.
Yeah of course those qualified and experienced and dedicated folks would be justified in roughing you up as an arrogant armchair-critic know-it-all.

Keep lying.

Keep accusing without any justification. Not that you ever need prodding for that.

Do you really believe your own BS there?

Only have to remember a few posts ago - #4162:
"...Both explanations are extraordinary. Your one far more so. My position is to accept the massive accumulated evidence for supernatural/paranormal phenomena as negating the strict materialist ideological position. You have to assume astronomically absurd (understatement) chains of coincidence in order to satisfy your rigid materialist dogma..."

It's sad that you feel no shame in continued postings with imo the sadistic primary intent of being provocative. A veteran liar with never a real open-minded search for truth.

 

Oops - too many tabs open on different browsers....Last post first para should have had following link:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a29771548/navy-ufo-witnesses-tell-truth/
Part way down, under sub heading THE MYSTERY, start with passages that reads
"Equally by chance, during the time of the now-famous intercept, after being called to have a conversation with another detachment, Ryan Weigelt found himself inside the Princeton’s CIC. According to Weigelt, a video of an F/A-18 trying its best to catch the elusive “Tic Tac” was playing on the monitors. Like Turner, Weigelt says what he saw was a lot longer than the brief clip released in 2017.

“I was in there for quite a while and it was on the screen the whole time. I could not tell you how long, but it was playing when I went into combat and it was playing when I left,” Weigelt said in a YouTube interview.

Voorhis tells Popular Mechanics that he, too, saw a much longer and clearer version of the ATFLIR video through the ship’s Top Secret LAN network. “I definitely saw video that was roughly 8 to 10 minutes long and a lot more clear,” Voorhis says."

 

What idiocy. Actually expecting as reasonable that officials charged with degrading publicly released footage would then openly admit to doing so??!! Hahaha. Secrecy is a central aspect of US armed forces culture. Violate it and kiss your career goodbye.

Your reply carefully excluded my follow-up post that pointed to where at least one of those involved explicitly stated pristine footage was both far longer and far sharper than that available on YouTube etc. And I do recall the phrase 'deliberately degraded footage' or equivalent words being uttered by at least one party present. And general agreement with that from the others present that have come forward. Ditto for the East coast 2014-2015 series of encounters and subsequent publicly released footage vs original material carefully stashed away. Not worth my while to view the entire relevant vids again just to provide exact time stamps. None of that effort would make any difference to you. Nothing would. As the long record of posts here clearly shows.

The other worthless replies in #4168 need no response.

 

No liar. What I wrote is correct. Read the Popular Mechanics article. And watch again those YouTube vids of interviews. Where indeed it is on the record there that far clearer and longer footage than publicly released was seen by those involved and present. Troll. As usual the rest of your trolling comments are unworthy of reply.

 

This article?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a30538203/navy-ufo-video-investigation/
Quite a long detailed, drawn out and indetermined article from where I am...
extract:"For some, the Pentagon’s stance that object in the film is yet still “unidentified” means that whatever it is, it’s “exotic,” and even possibly extraterrestrial. Meanwhile skeptics say, “unidentified” means just that, and thus there could easily be a prosaic explanation, such as an error with the Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) system or even a misidentified flock of birds". end
I also checked out the link within that link at
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/are-the-navy-ufos-real-or-just-in-the-low-information-zone.10921/
"Several media reports are making much of recent statements from Joseph Gradisher, the spokesperson for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare, as relayed by John Greenewald of TheBlackVault.com. Before I get into that, let's recap what I think are the most reasonable hypotheses for the three videos in questions:

Flir1 (also called Nimitz, or TicTac) is a fuzzy blob in the distance. It does not move (although it jumps around when the camera changes zoom settings or does a gimbal lock correction). There's what looks like a final "zipping away at high speed" at the end of the video, but it's actually just the camera no-longer tracking the object, combined with a change in zoom that gives the illusion of speed. See:
https://www.metabunk.org/2004-uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-flir-footage-flir1.t9190/

Gimbal is a saucer-shaped infrared glare. It rotates because the camera is rotating to counter gimbal lock. We can prove this because there are other light patterns in the sky that rotate at the same time the glare rotates. The video is consistent with a jet engine several miles away. it does not have any sudden acceleration. See:
https://www.metabunk.org/nyt-gimbal-video-of-u-s-navy-jet-encounter-with-unknown-object.t9333/

Go Fast is what looks like a cool object moving rapidly across the surface of the ocean. However, the angles and range on the screen allow us to triangulate the position and speed of the object. It turns out it's actually moving quite slowly (under 50 knots) and is quite high (13,000 feet). It does not accelerate at all. In fact, it most closely resembles a balloon, or possibly even a large gliding bird. See:
https://www.metabunk.org/go-fast-footage-from-tom-delonges-to-the-stars-academy-bird-balloon.t9569/


The statements are generally framed with a lot of commentaries, paraphrasing, and older statements, which can be rather confusing - especially in secondary stories, but also in Greenwald's originals. Greenewald has not released the actual emails, so I've extracted here what was reported in his article as attributed to Gradisher."
and a link within the link, within the link.......
https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...ial-phenomena-not-cleared-for-public-release/
U.S. Navy Confirms Videos Depict ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena’; Not Cleared For Public Release
a comment, well two comments I found rather interesting was......
"As someone who's actually worked on video forensics (WA Department of Justice), most of these analyses you see in the media on the truth or otherwise of videos is kind of nonsense. More often then not someone notices M/J/PEG artifacts and claim that as some sort of proof or lack therof of authenticity without much understanding on how those come about. One courtroom I worked in the judge actually banned certain video formats in the trial after I explained that with MPEG temporal compression means you actually don't know whether certain images are really showing what they show. That is , you CANT tell if certain images are faked. In this case MJPEG was a better format for evidence than MPEG as MJPEG only compresses spatially not temporally. long ramble to say, don't trust any claim an image or video is true or false based on people trying to divine tealeaves from J/M/Peg artifacts. Better to look for chain of custody and things like that."

and follow up comment by the same.....
" Im not a UFO believer. However I've long suspected that IF the Saucers are visiting, the concern with dislosure is not so much about freaking out the public, but freaking out the saucer dudes. Like, "Pretend we cant see them" might well be the safest policy, to avoid having to be forced by the public to take actions which could have drastic, and possibly disasterous consequences. If theres reason to believe these bloody things are not 100% friendly, play-dead-to-the-bear might be the safest option. If these things are visiting aliens, the chances are good they've been hovering around for centuries or even millenia keeping a curious non-interventionary eye on the curious furless apes, so it might stand to reason if we don't suddenly start chasing after them with cruise missiles they might continue being non-interventionary. Orrrrrr.......... more likely the UFOs are just weird physics phenomena in the atmosphere or something like that."

Like I said, drawn out, confusing and indecisive.
I'm with the final comment by Shayne.
I still can't see how any one can infer insideously or otherwise, how this incident [along with the Zimbabwe school children one] are anything more then weird unexplained occurrences or UFO's, or UAPs or whatever else that actually means unknown at this time.
One of the links could also be classed as less then fair dinkum I might add.

To help avoid confusion, my words are coded blue:

 

Yes.

None of which can remotely explain ongoing radar tracking of tight formation 'fleet(s)' of UFO's for around a week prior to the airborne intercepts - which radar images only became more clear after equipment re-calibrations. Nor the extraordinary sudden, perfectly synchronized changes in altitude of the 'fleet(s)' as also captured on shipborne radar.

Fuzziness has recently been dealt with. Eyewitness testimony to far sharper untampered with footage. The claim of misidentified jet exhaust flare fails on several counts.
1: Shipborne long range radar should have easily identified it as a conventional foreign or domestic aircraft. Yet it registered as 'condition red'; no transponder response.
2: Mick's IR flare claim was itself debunked in a vid I posted back in another thread. I haven't the time to go through it again but here's the vid link:

An expert in analyzing both visual and FLIR video cited there strongly disagrees with Mick's take on it.

That claim of 'apparent only rotation' is clearly false by simple inspection between 1:50 - 2:0 here:

It obviously rotates suddenly wrt the cloud line as unrotated backdrop. A rotating camera cannot magically discriminate between the 'gimbal' and cloud line as Mick implies.

The single case where Mick West may be correct. But why would the navy/Pentagon not have picked that up with all the details available and plenty of resources and expert analysts at their disposal? They afaik continue to classify it as an 'unknown'. Even on a tactical basis it would make sense to admit to an initial misidentification as that would encourage foreign adversaries to underestimate US capabilities, a plus not a minus.

Chain of custody could hardly be better than with US navy procedure here. If fake footage - that would imply a bizarre and highly risky dis-info op by the navy/Pentagon.

Try telling that in bold to David Fravor and accompanying aircrew during their close and very visual tussles with the tic tac(s). Similarly for Graves et. al. in 2014-2015 East coast incidents.

There are points of conflict e.g. Fravor disputes confiscation of tapes and disks (but admits it's his opinion only as he wasn't present), and contradictory claims over official clearance or not of publicly shown material. Minor points when set against unanimity among naval personnel over the broad details of actual encounters that took place. It's that overall consistent picture that clinches it for me at least.

 

And I as a firm believer in the fact that we should not be alone in this universe, for reasons stated many times,I still remain unconvinced that this is the extraordinary evidence that will answer probably mankind's greatest question with any certainty...perhaps, perhaps not, other explanations are still possible, we don't really know, so unexplained or unidentified it should remain.

Like I said, a drawn out, confusing and indecisive account from any perspective, pro or con.

Again, as I said previously, I'm still in line with the opinion of the comments by Shayne in the final link I gave.
I'm like that bloke in the bible and the mythical story of the resurrection of JC...Thomas from memory of my old Catholic school days? When told that JC had risen directly by the other Apostles that had already seen him, still doubted, until as it is written, until he could stick his hands in the wound in his side, and the wounds in his hands from the nails.
This is a historical, monumental question for mankind on the whole...Are we alone?? To have that answered properly and convincingly in either the affirmative or otherwise, needs far more convincing and extraordinary evidence then that shown in a very few unexplained cases.

 

Q-reeus's version of the Scientific method, watching someone getting beaten-up because they won't accept something on just anecdotical evidence.
'' I'd love to see you have the guts to say that face to face with those naval personnel - and watch as they proceed to punch the shit out of you.''
Ok, ok, whatever you say Q-reeus, I will believe, I will, I will, just don't touch the face please.
You know, Dave said something about levels, you Q-reeus can't get any lower.

 

Still smarting after your 'clincher' post linking to hero Mick West's 'debunking' case re 2004, 2014-2015 US navy UFO encounters, crumbled in short order (with maybe a single exception)?:
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3602008/
Or maybe just generally restless with usual punching bag MR absent for a while now. Keep lifting quotes completely devoid of original context and use it to shit stir. Hypocrite.

 

What? Check out your own clip (time mark 13:25) and hear that bloke give west ''credit for a great job'' for west's ''go fast ''analysis.
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3602008/
Why would I be ''smarting'' after that bloke gives West ''credit'' for a ''great job'' . Silly billy you are.

Hypocrite?? That's reminds me of a lie of yours Q-reeus you thought you got away with.
Here you are asking '' have I ever outright accused anyone in particular at SF of for sure selectively stopping my email alerts? ''

And here you are doing just that very thing in an earlier post, and calling poor JamesR ''sick'' in the process.

Funny you say ''yours truly'' in that quote of you. Your not a very ''truly'' person are you.
Silly billy.

 

Your nasty and rather stupid cherry-picking selective quote attacks, some completely off-topic to boot, is eerily reminiscent of sweetpea. Hmm....
So much attention received might be flattering were it not for the abysmal low quality of it. Go snipe elsewhere you emotionally deranged fool.

 

And that from the person who wants to watch James R get beaten-up. Hypocrite.

You get like for like silly billy. You being a liar and a hypocrite,what do you really expect?
Calling james R ''sick'' just because you suspected James R of stopping your e-mail notifications, that was ''nasty''. Your so predicable in behaviour your boring, once your on a thread it can only go one way, ''nasty''.
Silly billy.

 

So, confirmed as James R's loyal bulldog #1. Brownie points aplenty.
For your info, in the last few days, some email alerts have again just 'randomly' gone straight to my spam folder. Poltergeist activity? Nah, something more prosaic at work here.
PS: If as is obvious you can't offer constructive, intelligent, and on-topic input here - just bugger off.