UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[Yazata]

It is not unlikely that the Omaha and its radar system (essentially identical to commercially-available systems at the time)

The USS Omaha's Sea Giraffe radar is a military radar that originated with Saab in Sweden and is widely sold on the military market. (The Australian navy uses them.) But I doubt very much whether it's available on the wider civilian market.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giraffe_radar

 

[Yazata]

I doubt that the Omaha incident was caused by secret drones. One of the radar targets was clocked at 50 knots (57 mph) and the FLIR camera image looked nothing like a drone.

I can't think that any speculative hypothesis that fits this sighting like a glove. Which is probably why it appears to still be in the "unidentified" file.

I certainly don't know with any certainty what it is.

 

[DaveC426913]

I doubt that the Omaha incident was caused by secret drones. One of the radar targets was clocked at 50 knots (57 mph) and the FLIR camera image looked nothing like a drone.

Military drones can easily do 50 knots. What makes you think they can't?

Secret drones would not be very secret if they looked like drones. What makes you think they couldn't disguise them?

 

[Magical Realist]

What makes you think they couldn't disguise them?

Disguised as what? What is elliptical in shape, flies around, stops and hovers, and plunges into the water?

 

[Sarkus]

Disguised as what? What is elliptical in shape, flies around, stops and hovers, and plunges into the water?

How can you be so sure that that's what the FLIR showed? What about the parallax issue? What does it look like if you remove that?
Also bear in mind that the FLIR can't really tell you the shape of the object, only the shape of the thermal signature that it's picking up. An aircraft moving away from the camera might well look like that seen in the video you posted.
And as for "plunges into the water"... there is no evidence that it did, other than the interpretation of those watching the FLIR image. It would look just like that if a heat source was travelling over the horizon. As the report says, they searched where they thought the object hit the water and found nothing... is it not reasonable to think that the reason nothing was found was because nothing hit the water, and it was a misinterpretation that led them to believe there was?

If you see someone you think you recognise, for example, and they turn out to be someone else, do you conclude that the person is therefore a shapeshifter, capable of changing their appearance? Or that you were wrong in your initial interpretation?
Just asking.

 

[DaveC426913]

Disguised as what? What is elliptical in shape, flies around, stops and hovers, and plunges into the water?

Disguised as not a drone, of course. Try to keep up.

The ship was operating right near an island where the US military had recently built an airstrip for the express purpose of testing new unmanned drones. The purpose of those drones: to pose as a "phantom fleet" of ships, with the aim of confusing an enemy as to numbers and locations of actual ships.

It is not unlikely that the Omaha and its radar system (essentially identical to commercially-available systems at the time) were used to test how well the new drones worked. Such a test would work better if the crew of the Omaha wasn't told in advance to expect to see a bunch of decoy drones on their radar and/or FLIRs.

 

[Magical Realist]

The targets were detected flying in the air up to 50 knots on radar. They were also filmed on FLIR flying horizontal to the water. Ships don't do that. None that I'm aware of at least.

 

[DaveC426913]

The targets were detected flying in the air up to 50 knots on radar. They were also filmed on FLIR flying horizontal to the water. Ships don't do that. None that I'm aware of at least.

Drones do.

 

[Magical Realist]

Drones do.

They couldn't pose as "phantom ships" flying in the air. That's a ridiculous hypothesis. And why was this incident submitted for recent UAP analysis? If it was a Naval exercise they would have known about it by now. Noone would still be talking about it as a mysterious incident.

 

[Magical Realist]

How can you be so sure that that's what the FLIR showed? What about the parallax issue? What does it look like if you remove that?
Also bear in mind that the FLIR can't really tell you the shape of the object, only the shape of the thermal signature that it's picking up. An aircraft moving away from the camera might well look like that seen in the video you posted.
And as for "plunges into the water"... there is no evidence that it did, other than the interpretation of those watching the FLIR image. It would look just like that if a heat source was travelling over the horizon. As the report says, they searched where they thought the object hit the water and found nothing... is it not reasonable to think that the reason nothing was found was because nothing hit the water, and it was a misinterpretation that led them to believe there was?

If you see someone you think you recognise, for example, and they turn out to be someone else, do you conclude that the person is therefore a shapeshifter, capable of changing their appearance? Or that you were wrong in your initial interpretation?
Just asking.

Sorry just not buying it Sarkus. The image on the FLIR clearly shows motion and then hovering and then plunging. This is not yet another comedy of errors. And no..it looks nothing like a jet flying away. You'd see a bright blob of jet exhaust. The signature of the uap is much clearer and darker and more distinct than that.

 

[DaveC426913]

They couldn't pose as "phantom ships" flying in the air. That's a ridiculous hypothesis.

You're right, it would be. Luckily, nobody's posing it except you.

I suspect you're being deliberately obtuse here and characteristically lazy. Just a moment's thought about the logistics of any such hypothetical mission will reveal any number of phases where drones would not be pretending to be targets of interest. For example, getting into position, going home, etc. We don't have to know any of the details to accept that it is quite plausible.

 

[Yazata]

More balloon news: Contrail spotted in the Montana sky and then a big boom. The internet suddenly filled with speculation that the balloon had been shot down. But the Pentagon says the balloon is still up there and it actually just seems to have been a sonic boom,

 

[Yazata]

Regarding the 2014 Omaha sightings, important information has been ignored by Magical Realist, as usual.

The ship was operating right near an island where the US military had recently built an airstrip for the express purpose of testing new unmanned drones.

San Clemente Island was discussed earlier in the thread. There's been an airfield on the island for many years. While the idea that it's used for testing UAVs is very plausible (I speculated about it myself in earlier posts) it isn't something that either I or Mick knows for a fact. What the Navy is doing on the island is in large part secret. (It's known to include lots of things like sonar testing and Navy Seal maneuvers.) I'm told by people who have circled it in boats, that while the side of the island facing the California coast appears deserted, the opposite side of the island has lots of lights.

The purpose of those drones: to pose as a "phantom fleet" of ships, with the aim of confusing an enemy as to numbers and locations of actual ships.

I'm very curious how Mick supposedly knows that. Assuming that the island is being used for UAV testing, the nature of the UAVs being tested is almost certainly highly classified. So it looks to me like there's a lot of speculation there being foisted off as fact.

It is not unlikely that the Omaha and its radar system (essentially identical to commercially-available systems at the time) were used to test how well the new drones worked. Such a test would work better if the crew of the Omaha wasn't told in advance to expect to see a bunch of decoy drones on their radar and/or FLIRs.

The Omaha's radar system is a military Sea Giraffe radar, not a commercial set that one would find on a civilian ship. But yes, assuming that the US Navy was testing UAVs (a speculation), they might indeed have been testing them against a modern warship (another speculation).

That this is what occurred has not been publically confirmed by the US military. I'm sure you can think of a few reasons the military would not confirm this explanation.

It's not an explanation, it's a highly speculative guesswork hypothesis. A hypothesis that doesn't appear entirely consistent with the sighting remaining unexplained.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's not an explanation, it's a highly speculative guesswork hypothesis.

Well since we agree there's some evidence (of a nearby drone airbase), that makes it more of a theory.

 

[James R]

Isn't that "moderator note" itself a troll?

No. It is routine to post a moderator note in a thread in which somebody is officially warned.

If you would like to discuss the reasons the warning was issued (because you can't work it out by looking at Magical Realist's recent posts), please start a thread in Site Feedback, or contact me by personal messaging. I will be happy to fill you in.

 

[James R]

That's entirely speculative.

So is the idea that these things might be alien spacecraft. One of these speculations is more plausible than the other.

If you're taking me to task on this, look at what I wrote: "It is not unlikely that the Omaha and its radar system (essentially identical to commercially-available systems at the time) were used to test how well the new drones worked."

If you think that it is unlikely, that's fine. Maybe you have more information on this than I do, right now. Care to share?

What's more, the UAP investigators have already said that some of the sightings they have investigated were determined to be American UAVs. If this one has been identified as an experimental American UAV type, why were they showing this video to Congress as an example of an unidentified UAP?

Nobody mentioned anything about this being shown to Congress. How do you know about that?

So not only is it a purely speculative hypothesis, Mick is also implicitly implying that the investigators are lying.

Which investigators are lying?
And lying about what?

I mentioned the proximity to San Clemente Island earlier in the thread regarding swarms of high-end quad-copter drones that buzzed US ships off San Diego

http://sciforums.com/threads/ufos-uaps-explanations.160045/page-319#post-3699374

And advanced experimental American UAV prototypes as a hypothetical explanation of the "tic-tacs" themselves.

http://sciforums.com/threads/ufos-uaps-explanations.160045/page-350#post-3702504

More generally

http://sciforums.com/threads/ufos-uaps-explanations.160045/page-346#post-3701993

Some background

http://sciforums.com/threads/ufos-uaps-explanations.160045/page-76#post-3525198

Thanks for the links.

Are you saying that this case has come up before, in this thread? Why did Magical Realist present it as something new, then? Trolling, perhaps?

But that being said, I've always been careful to state that these are just speculative hypotheses and not established explanations.

That makes two of us, then. It's a pity you can't teach Magical Realist the difference between a speculative hypothesis and an established explanation.

 

[James R]

I doubt that the Omaha incident was caused by secret drones. One of the radar targets was clocked at 50 knots (57 mph) and the FLIR camera image looked nothing like a drone.

It is already established that you're an incompetent judge when it comes to identifying things in videos, so how some video footage looks to you, of all people, is likely to be largely irrelevant to working out what it actually is.

A 57 mph speed for a drone is easily within expected performance limits.

Perhaps you're unaware of the many types of things that are classed as drones. This is what happens when you put in zero effort.

 

[DaveC426913]

A 57 mph speed for a drone is easily within expected performance limits.

Took about 12 seconds to find references to military drones that can exceed Mach 1.

 

[James R]

wegs:

Thanks for replying.

It is clear that you and I disagree on certain matters. However, I was hoping that we could have a discussion about our points of disagreement, with the aim of reaching a consensus. I will be a little disappointed if you decide you prefer to just "agree to disagree".

I know that you don't like Mick West and that you don't trust him, but I was hoping you'd have concrete reasons for that which go beyond the fact that he has a following in the "skeptical" community and probably makes a little money from his youtube channel. Leaving all that aside, the question remains as to whether his analyses of UFO cases are valid or invalid, on their own merits. If they are valid, does it really matter how popular his debunkings are, or even whether, as you suggest, he wants UFOs to all be mundane things (something I don't think is true, by the way, if that's not already obvious).

Opinions are all well and good, and we all have to decide whose opinions we trust. But there are also objective facts about the world that don't rely on anybody's opinion. Every UFO sighting has an actual, factual explanation. A scientific approach seeks to get to that explanation without introducing personal biases, preconceptions or wishful thinking, to the extent that is possible. In some cases, an explanation is there, but we just can't find enough information to determine what the explanation is with certainty. Or maybe we just haven't thought of the right way to analyse the data to get to the answer. But even in the cases with the poorest data, it is often possible to at least narrow down the set of possible solutions. That's progress; it's better than "we have no idea at all what the thing was".

Lastly, please realise that I'm not trying to be unfriendly if I question your assumptions or methods. There is an opportunity for both of us to learn new things from the other when we discuss what we disagree on and why.

 

[James R]

What is elliptical in shape, flies around, stops and hovers, and plunges into the water?

You should not keep repeating claims you cannot support, especially after it having been pointed out to you that support for your claims is lacking. What you need to do is to try to support the claims you make. If you make no effort, and simply repeat empty claims, then you are trolling.

The targets were detected flying in the air up to 50 knots on radar.

Flying in the air? Were they? I thought the radar being used was a sea-surface radar system.

They were also filmed on FLIR flying horizontal to the water.

How did you confirm they were flying?

If I hold up a flashlight on a pole or mast, from a distance it might look like it is flying or hovering above the water. But it wouldn't be.

What did you do to rule out this sort of possibility?

They couldn't pose as "phantom ships" flying in the air. That's a ridiculous hypothesis.

They would pose as phantom ships that stick up above the water line - you know, like regular ships do.

Maybe you should tell the US military that they are ridiculous. Them and their secret drone programmes. See how that goes for you.

And why was this incident submitted for recent UAP analysis?

Don't you know?

Why have you done nothing to try to find out?

If it was a Naval exercise they would have known about it by now.

Maybe. But you have done nothing to confirm or deny the navy's knowledge of this. Right?

Noone would still be talking about it as a mysterious incident.

Nonsense. For instance, you'd still be talking about it as mysterious incident even if we handed you a cut and dried solution on a golden platter.

The UFO Believer community is still recyling debunked cases from decades ago, pretending they are unsolved and mysterious. You can't be unaware of that.

The image on the FLIR clearly shows motion and then hovering and then plunging.

No. If it clearly showed that, there would be no argument.

But, as you are aware, DaveC, for one, provided you with a compelling argument against the notion that anything plunged into the water. You ignored it and denied it and attempted to ridicule it, as usual, but you made no attempt to refute it using evidence or valid argument.

This is not yet another comedy of errors.

This is the usual MR clown show.

And no..it looks nothing like a jet flying away.

You have previously been shown what jet exhaust looks like on FLIR footage. You can't pretend you haven't been shown that. Stop trolling.