UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

wegs said:
Sometimes, when emojis aren't a part of the standard set given on a forum, the additions don't show up, but yours do. I'll have to add some of my own...
Click to expand...
cranky.gif
 
Posted at another site:
The Nimitz Encounters
Recorded behavior of 'tic tacs' accords with my earlier stated position suchlike are real but virtually certain to not be physical craft i.e. not composed of matter. No (physical) alien occupants inside.
And now for the banal quips from the usual scoffers, and perhaps pointless leading questions from resident 'expert debunker of paranormal'.
 
Last edited:
Q-reeus:

We're supposed to watch a 30 minute video to find out your point of view on this topic?

Q-reeus said:
Recorded behavior of 'tic tacs' accords with my earlier stated position suchlike are real but virtually certain to not be physical craft i.e. not composed of matter. No (physical) alien occupants inside.
Click to expand...
Not aliens then? Then what?

Got a summary?
 
James R said:
Q-reeus:

We're supposed to watch a 30 minute video to find out your point of view on this topic?


Not aliens then? Then what?

Got a summary?
Click to expand...
As MR has put it 'other worldly' in the sense not secret military or interstellar aliens. Something else.There is some fill for sure but, apart from the earlier radar tracking sequences, the actual fighter pilot (and later AWACS) encounter events start at around 14+ min mark. It's later that the former crew members recount the recorded-on-disk/tape maneuvers and calculated speeds and implied 'g' forces, lack of any sonic booms etc. necessarily applying for any material object undergoing such bizarre antics. Not to mention the undersea tracking of same 'tic tacks'. Sorry - but government agency/military coverup is very much a part of the scene.
Given your continued frequent participation in this and similar threads, I would suggest the time spent viewing all of it is well worth it. But your choice. Must go.
 
I took a look at your video from the 14 minute mark onwards. There's nothing much there that I was not previously aware of. Most of that video has "re-creations" - i.e. imagined footage - mixed in with some interviews with witnesses and the grainy footage published by the military. There's also a lot of speculation, along with dubious estimates of the sizes of the objects, their speeds, their manoevering and the like.

As usual with this kind of thing, there's not enough information available to allow us to suggest plausible explanations for the events in question. I agree with you that probably the military has a better idea than we do what went on. There's no evidence of any cover-up. On the contrary, the release of the footage would tend to suggest the opposite.

Wild speculations about other-worldly objects and the like are all well and good, but they aren't supported by the available data.
 
There's no evidence of any cover-up. On the contrary, the release of the footage would tend to suggest the opposite.
Click to expand...

If you had watched the entire video you would've seen how they tried to cover it up. The personel involved were all taken to a private room and forced to sign non-disclosure agreements. Then civilian govt officials arrived in a helicopter and confiscated all the radar video recordings. The radar operators were made to wipe clean all the data regarding that incident. If that isn't a cover-up I don't know what is.

Most of that video has "re-creations" - i.e. imagined footage
Click to expand...

The video's recreations are accurate depictions of what was seen and reported by the eyewitnesses. There's nothing wrong with that at all. Much as say an artist will sketch a portrait of a criminal based on the eyewitness's description.
 
Last edited:
Q-reeus said:
Recorded behavior of 'tic tacs' accords with my earlier stated position suchlike are real but virtually certain to not be physical craft i.e. not composed of matter. No (physical) alien occupants inside.
And now for the banal quips from the usual scoffers, and perhaps pointless leading questions from resident 'expert debunker of paranormal'.
Click to expand...
Such beliefs along with the fools that see 9/11 as some sort of conspiracy, are totally nutty!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_studies_of_UFOs#Fata_Morgana

220px-Fata_Morgana_Example.jpg


Fata Morgana is a type of mirage: A Fata Morgana of a boat below the horizon produces the illusion of a solid form floating in the sky.
responsible for some UFO sightings, by making objects located below the astronomical horizonappear to be hovering in the sky. It also magnifies images and makes them look unrecognizable.

The UFOs seen on radar can also be due to Fata Morgana, since water vapor in the air can create radar mirages more readily than temperature inversions can create optical mirages.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Look Ma, a tic tac!!! :D:D
 
"
Fata Morgana mirages may continue to trick some observers and are still sometimes mistaken for otherworldly objects such as UFOs.[38] A Fata Morgana can display an object that is located below the astronomical horizon as an apparent object hovering in the sky. A Fata Morgana can also magnify such an object vertically and make it look absolutely unrecognizable.

Some UFOs which are seen on radar may also be due to Fata Morgana mirages. Official UFO investigations in France indicate:[39]

As is well known, atmospheric ducting is the explanation for certain optical mirages, and in particular the arctic illusion called "fata morgana" where distant ocean or surface ice, which is essentially flat, appears to the viewer in the form of vertical columns and spires, or "castles in the air."

People often assume that mirages occur only rarely. This may be true of optical mirages, but conditions for radar mirages are more common, due to the role played by water vapor which strongly affects the atmospheric refractivity in relation to radio waves. Since clouds are closely associated with high levels of water vapor, optical mirages due to water vapor are often rendered undetectable by the accompanying opaque cloud. On the other hand, radar propagation is essentially unaffected by the water droplets of the cloud so that changes in water vapor content with altitude are very effective in producing atmospheric ducting and radar mirages.
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fata_Morgana_(mirage)
 
Magical Realist said:
If you had watched the entire video you would've seen how they tried to cover it up. The personel involved were all taken to a private room and forced to sign non-disclosure agreements. Then civilian govt officials arrived in a helicopter and confiscated all the radar video recordings. The radar operators were made to wipe clean all the data regarding that incident. If that isn't a cover-up I don't know what is.
Click to expand...
That would be a garden-variety Classified Military Secret. They get to have those.

Whether it amounts to a Cover Up would depend on whether the public had a right to know. And that is not entirely apparent.
 
Magical Realist said:
It's a cover up. There's no other way to designate it.
Click to expand...
I just did. It's a Classified Military Secret.

To declare it a cover-up, you'd have to show that the public should have the right to know.

Remember, all personnel and equipment involved belong to the military.

Or do you not think the military has a right to its own secrets? For example: do they get to keep their missile launch codes - or positions of their fleets - secret?
 
To declare it a cover-up, you'd have to show that the public should have the right to know.
Click to expand...

Wrong. To declare it a cover-up, I have only to show how the govt tried to cover it up. Which I already did. End of story.
 
Magical Realist said:
Wrong. To declare it a cover-up, I have only to show how the govt tried to cover it up. Which I already did. End of story.
Click to expand...
By your broad brush of "cover up", anything the military doesn't share with the public counts.

Does the government try to "cover up" normal operations? Does it "cover up" launch codes and fleet positions? New technology?

No, a "cover up" is an attempt hide something that they have no right to hide from the public. You'll need to show that they have no right to hide these particular military operations and communications from the public.

Till then it's just a Classified Military Secret.
 
Magical Realist said:
Wrong. To declare it a cover-up, I have only to show how the govt tried to cover it up. Which I already did. End of story.
Click to expand...

Was it covered up somewhat like a clear sheet of plastic ie can still see it in clear view?

Or tarpaulin cover up which will be harder to access but still can?

Or slab of concrete cover up which would really take some digging up and really could not be done without exposing yourself?

End of types of cover up

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top