Skeptics have already made their minds up about UAPs

[exchemist]

It's a 1-4 meter diameter metallic sphere that makes "interesting maneuvers", reaches heights of 30,000 ft, and can reach speeds of mach 2, If that isn't technology then what is it? The planet Venus?

Here we see the classic MR lie, deliberately misquoting the critical statement.

The speaker does not say "interesting manoeuvres".

He says "interesting apparent manoeuvres".

There is thus no endorsement of any notion of a "technology".

 

[DaveC426913]

You said

...I DID read about the AARO's slide presentation to them by director Sean Kirkpatrick. ... It's basically an admission of what I've been saying all along: at least some uaps are some sort of unknown technology.

If that isn't technology then what is it? The planet Venus?

So, no. There was no "admission of ... unknown technology", as you tried to assert. Disingenuous. Very Trumpian.

Quotes or it didn't happen.

No quote. Didn't happen.... what a shock.


Can we expunge such "deliberate falsehoods"* from thread?

*I'm being kind here

 

[James R]

It's a 1-4 meter diameter metallic sphere that makes "interesting maneuvers", reaches heights of 30,000 ft, and can reach speeds of mach 2, If that isn't technology then what is it? The planet Venus?

So, no quotes from NASA saying they think it's technology, then? I thought so.

Will you retract your false claim, then?

 

[Magical Realist]

So, no quotes from NASA saying they think it's technology, then? I thought so.

Will you retract your false claim, then?

Sure, I'll retract that they said it was technology, but I'm sticking to the evidence showing it is technology. The characteristics of the metallic spheres presented in the slide presentation of Sean Kirkpatrick and which I listed all point to some sort of advanced technology. Do you have a better suggestion as to what it is?

 

[exchemist]

Sure, I'll retract that they said it was technology, but I'm sticking to the evidence showing it is technology. The characteristics of the metallic spheres presented in the slide presentation of Sean Kirkpatrick and which I listed all point to some sort of advanced technology. Do you have a better suggestion as to what it is?

Haha, this is something creationists do. Something science cannot yet explain? Then godidit unless you have a better idea.

In science, one resists the urge to jump in prematurely with half-arsed notions, for phenomena on which there is insufficient evidence. Instead, one gathers more information, while keeping one’s trap shut.

 

[foghorn]

Haha, this is something creationists do. Something science cannot yet explain? Then godidit unless you have a better idea.

“we see these in making very interesting apparent maneuvers.”
Is this to do with off world technology? See quote below

This is Kirkpatrick talking at Defence meeting in April 2023:

I should also state clearly for the record that in our research AARO has found no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity, off-world technology, or objects that defy the known laws of physics. In the event sufficient scientific data were ever obtained that a UAP encountered can only be explained by
extraterrestrial origin, we are committed to working with our interagency partners
at NASA to appropriately inform the U.S. Government’s leadership of its findings.
For those few cases that have been leaked to the public previously, and subsequently commented on by the U.S. Government, I encourage those who hold alternative theories or views to submit your research to credible peer-reviewed scientific journals. AARO is working to do the same. That is how science works, not by blog or social media.

My bold above
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/download/kirkpatrick-statement?download=1

 

[foghorn]

About the slide.
Sean Kirkpatrick talking about the Middle East orb at the NASA meeting: My bold below:

This is an example of one that I showed at the hearing recently. This is a spherical orb metallic in the Middle East 2022 by an MQ-9. I will come back to the sensor question that David raised here in a moment. This is a typical example of the thing that we see most of. We see these all over the world and we see these in making very interesting apparent maneuvers. This one in particular, however I would point out demonstrated no enigmatic technical capabilities and was no threat to airborne safety.

My bold above. NASA meeting transcript:
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/nasa-holds-first-public-meeting-on-ufos-transcript
The slide itself (also shown in Magical Realist’s clip) has this to say about that Middle East orb:

No demonstration of enigmatic technical capabilities and no apparent threat to airborne-
asset safety

See my blue arrow on that slide below.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-red/s3fs-public/atoms/files/Sean Kirkpatrick - 1100am to 1130am.pdf

****************************************************

" we see these in making very interesting apparent maneuvers." See my post #86 above
Kirkpatrick defence meeting April 2023:
"I should also state clearly for the record that in our research AARO has found no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity, off-world technology, or objects that defy the known laws of physics."
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/download/kirkpatrick-statement?download=1

 

[James R]

Sure, I'll retract that they said it was technology, but I'm sticking to the evidence showing it is technology.

What evidence do you have that shows it is technology? What are you referring to?

The characteristics of the metallic spheres presented in the slide presentation of Sean Kirkpatrick and which I listed all point to some sort of advanced technology.

Not according to Sean Kirkpatrick.

I guess that if you're willing to refer to something like an ordinary weather balloon as "some sort of advanced technology" then perhaps you're right. When somebody says "advanced technology", the question of "compared to what?" can always be asked. Thus, the wheel and axle is advanced technology compared to the log-roll. The modern weather balloon is advanced technology compared to your average party balloon. A modern F15 fighter is advanced technology compared to the Wright Flyer.

What you really want to show is that there's some sort of technology in play that is advanced beyond anything that human beings have produced. Unfortunately for you, you have no good evidence in support of your wish, as usual.

Do you have a better suggestion as to what it is?

Better than what? You haven't suggested what it is. Tell me what you think it is. Then I'll tell you whether I have a better suggestion. Okay?

Also ... are we playing a round of Who Has the Best Fantasy? Or are we going to judge "better explanation" with reference to some actual evidence? For me, "better suggestions" tend to mean suggestions that are more closely aligned with what we actually know about the thing in question. How about you?

 

[DaveC426913]

Sure, I'll retract that they said it was technology, but I'm sticking to the evidence showing it is technology. The characteristics of the metallic spheres presented in the slide presentation of Sean Kirkpatrick and which I listed all point to some sort of advanced technology. Do you have a better suggestion as to what it is?

It's God.
All those properties point to God.

 

[billvon]

[QUOTE="Magical Realist, post: 3719148]If that isn't technology then what is it? The planet Venus? [/QUOTE]
I'd go with an aerostat that was misidentified.

 

[C C]

In terms of proof, I don't know what they are. And that may be the case for years, if the Middle East orbs were property of military establishment or rogue organizations. Similar to Kirkpatrick ambiguity, future mediating spokespeople would be wavering: "These appear interesting... but not really that interesting" for some reason gone undisclosed.

The best guess of the doubter and debunker community, despite misgivings about hasty judgements, is (surprise and shock!) that they are balloons.

(metabunk) Anti-drone countermeasure? A reflective balloon designed to spoof radar?
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mi...rent-spherical-uap-via-aaro.12932/post-289445

(meatbunk) Orb similar to Winch Aerostat Small Platform [WASP], used by the US military
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mi...ent-spherical-uap-via-aaro.12932/#post-289446

2016 Mosul orb
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sk...inds-up-about-uaps.166140/page-4#post-3719117

Pop-market debunkers from visual effects trade
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ufos-uaps-explanations.160045/page-463#post-3719158

If military spy balloons that broke free from a tow tether, rather than party balloons -- and something other than a "radar spoofer", then the images and footage shot from above could feature the balloon itself obscuring a payload. Or occasionally the latter looks like a blended part of the former, in frames where the UAP becomes less round-shaped. Plus, some promotional photos of WASP exhibit a generic, underlying apparatus hugging very close to the belly of the balloon rather than extending far below it.

Some of the Chinese inflatables (and probably those of other nations) may also have a metal-coated appearance, if going by this: "The unidentified flying object was described by a Pentagon memo as a 'small, metallic balloon with a tethered payload below it.'" (LINK)

video link --> Ordinary balloon appearing to move extraordinarily fast

 

[Magical Realist]

[QUOTE="Magical Realist, post: 3719148]If that isn't technology then what is it? The planet Venus?

I'd go with an aerostat that was misidentified.

I don't think so..

Aerostat:

 

[Magical Realist]

The best guess of the doubter and debunker community, despite misgivings about hasty judgements, is (surprise and shock!) that they are balloons.

Might be a balloon if we cherry pick out of the characteristics that it makes very interesting maneuvers and flies up to Mach 2. Typical editing of account to make it fit their preconclusion.

 

[exchemist]

Might be a balloon if we cherry pick out of the characteristics that it makes very interesting maneuvers and flies up to Mach 2. Typical editing of account to make it fit their preconclusion.

Except it probably does neither.

 

[DaveC426913]

Might be a balloon if we cherry pick out of the characteristics that it makes very interesting maneuvers and flies up to Mach 2. Typical editing of account to make it fit their preconclusion.

We have been over this. No one account is described as having all the characteristics.

I'll use crayons:
"Typical Midwest Fruit Crops include purple grapes and seedless oranges."
MR: "See how they admit the existence of purple oranges?"

(Talk about "editing of accounts to make it fit your preconclusion". You got that right!)

You are so dishonest.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't think so..
Aerostat:

Aerostat:

So dishonest.

 

[Magical Realist]

Aerostat:

So dishonest.

aer·o·stat
/ˈerōˌstat/
noun

1. an airship or hot-air balloon, especially one that is tethered."

 

[Magical Realist]

No one account is described as having all the characteristics.

Still the fact that some accounts have these attributes rules out them being balloons.

 

[DaveC426913]

aer·o·stat
/ˈerōˌstat/
noun

1. an airship or hot-air balloon, especially one that is tethered."

I find it ironic that you use the phrase "cherry picking" since that's exactly what you're doing.

Someone: "Grapes can rot."
MR: "Here's twelve pictures of grapes that are not rotten."
Someone: "OK well, here's one pic of grapes that are rotten."

You wanna play quotes? OK.

"Originally, aerostats were simply known as balloons. As lighter-than-air flight technology evolved, new types of powered aerostats were invented, with “balloon” being reserved for unpowered aerostats. Perhaps the simplest form of aerostat, a balloon is an unpowered aerostat with no capability for propulsion."

So there's your rotten grape.

So dishonest.

 

[DaveC426913]

Still the fact that some accounts have these attributes rules out them being balloons.

No it doesn't.

Because they don't say they have these traits; they say "they appear to have these apparent traits".

Which is worded that way to make it clear those traits are not considered fact.

So dishonest.