Yazata:
One problem with this is that there are multiple modes of observation in play, and a few different witnesses. You think that's a strength; I see it as a weakness in this case.
Wouldn't the argument implicit in your view also be an argument against scientific confirmation and peer-review?
In both science and everyday life, the likelihood that a reported observation was in fact an observation of something in objective reality (as opposed to a subjective error or delusion) goes
up when others are able to observe it too. The likelihood that the observation was the result of a defect in a particular mode of observation goes
down when the variety of modes of observation all agree.
Convergence of evidence.
It is very easy to assume that whatever it was that was seen on somebody's radar screen must have been the same thing that was reported by an eyewitness in an aircraft
The aircraft had been directed to that specific point by the controllers on the cruiser on the basis of their radar. Just in the course of normal military procedure, if an unknown radar contact is observed and pilots are vectored to investigate it, when they visually sight a flying object in that specified location and proceed to photograph it, we wouldn't be insisting that what they saw and photographed had nothing to do with the radar contact. (Certainly not merely on the basis of speculation alone.) The aircraft intercept and the ensuing observations would be interpreted as
confirming the radar sighting.
or the same thing as appears in the footage from the IR camera on the aircraft.
It's conceivable that there was more than one UFO. The 2015 sightings over the Atlantic observed a number of them. But there's probably no need to multiply them in the
Nimitz case unless there is persuasive reason to do so.
But there's no a priori reason to assume that any of these things represent the same object (if it was an object) or as having a common cause (if it was something else).
The initial jets were vectored to the location by data being fed them from the cruiser's radar. As I just argued, I believe that in normal military procedure that would be interpreted as a single contact.
We know that the radar can produce spurious returns. We know that eyewitnesses can be mistaken, especially when they are far away from the object they are observing and moving at speed. We know what IR cameras on fighter jets can produce weird-looking images when they are observing, for instance, the exhausts of other aircraft. All of these effects are potentially in play in the situation under consideration.
In concert the multiple modes of observation seem to me to be mutually reinforcing, reducing the possibility that errors peculiar to one method of observation are infecting the entire encounter.
You talk about "rapidly moving aerial objects", but the evidence that there actually was any rapidly moving aerial object (other than the military aircraft in the area) is weak.
When I say "aerial objects" they were obviously objects of attention by the pilots. They were objects on the radar screens and the videos.
Admittedly the inference that there was something in physical reality that these objects correspond to is indeed an inference. I think that it's a very strong inference, but still not 100% certain. (I remain a fallibilist, and think that pretty much all of our beliefs might possibly be wrong.)
And I argued in a post up above that the ever-present possibility that we just
might be wrong shouldn't be pushed so hard that it entirely subverts the idea of knowledge itself.
We will just have to agree to disagree on this stuff.
To reach the conclusion that all this adds up to objects that "may arguably exceed any currently known aircraft technology" is to jump to an unwarranted conclusion on the back of shoddy information.
If we assume that the object observed was indeed a physical object (and unlike you, I think that the evidence is very strong that it was) then if the physical object was indeed an aircraft (a reasonable hypothesis) it would seem to exceed currently known aircraft technology. (Known to the public anyway. Hence my secret-project speculations.) It's easy for people like Nickell to glibly talk about "reconnaissance drones", but does he actually know of any that perform like this thing seemed to? Does he know of any aircraft propulsion method capable of producing that kind of performance without leaving an IR signature? (Jet or rocket exhaust or whatever.)
You don't know the Navy's thinking on this. There is classified information you don't have access to.
Of course. (Just like Joe Nickell.) But I can read the Navy spokesman's public statements on the matter. See post #2948 up the page. The Navy does seem to be taking the matter seriously, as indicated by their redesigning their UFO reporting procedures and their encouragement of their aviators to report whatever they see out there,even if it's unidentified.
Also, we do have several clues as to what it might have been. A number of eminently reasonable hypotheses have been put forward. If you choose to ignore those in favour of the LGM hypothesis, you're just jumping onto the bandwagon with UFO nuts like MR.
Whales? Submarines submerging? That show up on the
Princeton's radars like ascending and descending ballistic missiles? That are observed hovering, flying, chased and photographed by multiple jet aircraft? That might arguably have traversed 40 miles in less than a minute (suggesting upwards of 2,400 mph)?
My argument is that there's a broad gap between your "LGM" and flat Nickell (and JamesR) style debunking and dismissal. What if something is out there, probing US air space and Naval defenses, and it
isn't "LGM"?
It is far more likely that this was a result of a series of mundane occurrences coming together and being misinterpreted. Then, that misinterpretation was publicised, while potentially disconfirming information was withheld or simply not available to the public.
You're speculating there, aren't you?
Evidently, some people would prefer to believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, too.
False and intentionally misleading analogy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule