Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
I'm sure some people get very clear pictures of their "sightings". But when they look at what they thought they saw...
UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
What was reported by the Navy personel was exactly what happened. That's the way reality is James. We believe the eyewitnesses over the armchair skeptics who only wish to handwave away the whole event. You don't get to edit this incident to suit your no-ufo agenda. We have the eyewitnesses and we have the videos. There's really nothing more to say. What the skeptics say about it holds no water at all simply because they weren't there and they are biased by their own debunking agenda.
How do you know? You weren't there.
After a bit of reading on this, the whole thing is starting to look pretty dubious, I must say. Even the supposed footage from the aircraft can't be verified to be genuine, apparently. And that's before we even start on the statements from supposed witnesses.
As usual, I'm merely applying some common sense and asking sensible questions. And as usual, you're throwing yourself all in like an enthusiastic puppy. You're ready to believe anything that anybody tells you if it involves little green men.
If there was nothing more to say, the event wouldn't be a subject for discussion and debate.
And you were there, were you? Why didn't you say that before? Where were you? What did you see? It would be great to hear all about your unbiased agenda on this.
That might be interesting - if there was a link(s) to something passing as reliable debunking info, instead of mere assertion.
Supposed witnesses? That strongly implies lying or at least irresponsible exaggeration on the part of the crew 'allegedly' witness to events as per 'The Nimitz Encounters' vid.
Again - where is the link(s) to credible debunking info discrediting the former 'allegedly' highly trained and experienced crew members having 'allegedly' highly responsible positions at the time.
You mean as opposed to the gullible foolish acceptance of "obviously not of this world" as a substitute for Alien origin, without any empirical physical evidence, and ignoring the real possibilities of atmospheric anomalies both well known and otherwise.
Only one answer satisfies...an as yet unexplained UFO. End of story...both officially, and here.
..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_studies_of_UFOs#Fata_Morgana
Fata Morgana is a type ofmirage
A Fata Morgana of a boat below the horizon produces the illusion of a solid form floating in the sky.
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. According to GEPAN/SEPRA, the official UFO investigation in France,
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Check under his bed. Along with a few million $s he has a number of albums full of photos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident#Skeptical_views
Skeptical views[edit]
Defense and security writer Kyle Mizokami suggested three possibilities that could explain the sightings. The first is equipment malfunction or misinterpretation; USS Princeton's radars and the Super Hornets' electro-optical sensors and radars could have all malfunctioned, or the crew could have misinterpreted a number of natural phenomena. The second is classified government technology: If the objects were aircraft operated by the United States government, it would make sense that they were kept secret, as the object easily outmaneuvered multiple Super Hornets, a jet that was considered state-of-the-art in 2004. The third possibility is that the sightings were caused by objects of extraterrestrial origin.[1][22]
The New York Times included a disclaimer in its reporting of the incident: "Experts caution that earthly explanations often exist for such incidents, and that not knowing the explanation does not mean that the event has interstellar origins".[12]
Physicist Don Lincoln suggested that it was "very unlikely that what these pilots are reporting turns out to be an unfriendly superweapon or an alien craft," however he would like to see the reports investigated "under the premise that the best science is done when as many opinions are considered as possible, preferably in the open and subject to peer review." According to Lincoln, "unidentified doesn't mean flying saucer or a Russian superweapon. It merely means unidentified." [24][25]
Science journalist Dennis Overbye argued a "stubborn residue" of unexplained aerial phenomenon remain after review. Overbye highlighted that some of these accounts are obtained from respected observers such as military pilots. However, he cautioned, "as modern psychology and neuroscience have established, the senses are an unreliable portal to reality, whatever that is."[26]
According to Steve Cummings of Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems, the video images captured by a Raytheon-made Advanced Targeting Forward Look Infrared sensor (ATFLIR) are not definitive proof that the jet pilots were chasing an actual UFO. Cummings noted, "To really be sure, we would need the raw data. Visual displays alone are not the best evidence".[27]
According to Joe Nickell writing for the Skeptical Inquirer, there are differing versions of Fravor’s account, including a “truly curious document that tells Fravor’s story in the form of a military-style briefing” designed to create a "pseudo top-secret appearance". Nickell identifies the document as "a third-person account of an interview with Fravor, produced by a fringe-ideas group called To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science". Regarding the visual sightings reported by Fravor, Nickell questioned how he could see "what a forty-foot object was doing from forty miles away" and characterized the "confusion and incompleteness in the reports" of the training mission as a "comedy of errors". Nickell and astronomer and former Air Force pilot James E. McGaha speculated that reports of churning water could have been caused by a submerging submarine, sightings could have been of a reconnaissance drone, and that "one video image showing an object suddenly zooming off screen was likely caused by the plane’s banking while the camera was stopped at the end of its sweep".[28]
Illustration of the unidentified object based on Commander Fravor's account
Joe Nickell further argues this was Fravor's first military assignment with the U.S. Navy’s F-18 Super Hornet, and as a result, the experience "obviously rattled him."[28] The Washington Postidentified David Fravor as "the commanding officer of the VFA-41 Black Aces," at the time of the 2004 incident.[29] The Toledo Blade stated Fravor retired from military service in 2006, after a 24 year career, including 18 years as a Navy pilot and deployments in Iraq that began during Desert Storm. Fravor stated the identities of other Naval officers aboard the two fighter jets during his mission on November 14, 2004 had not been released publicly as they were still active in the military at the time of the Blade publication in 2018.[30]
Stephen Pope, editor of Flying magazine criticized the stories of the incident in The New York Timesas "borderline-sensationalist" and says they provoked "a flurry of breathless reporting by media outlets around the world, most of which seem to have failed to notice that the Times’ original reporting has some major problems with it." Pope noted that the purported UFO videos were not released by the Pentagon, but by a former official who is now connected to "To the Stars Academy of the Arts and Sciences", a Las Vegas company that is seeking funding for UFO research.[31]
Skeptical views[edit]
Defense and security writer Kyle Mizokami suggested three possibilities that could explain the sightings. The first is equipment malfunction or misinterpretation; USS Princeton's radars and the Super Hornets' electro-optical sensors and radars could have all malfunctioned, or the crew could have misinterpreted a number of natural phenomena. The second is classified government technology: If the objects were aircraft operated by the United States government, it would make sense that they were kept secret, as the object easily outmaneuvered multiple Super Hornets, a jet that was considered state-of-the-art in 2004. The third possibility is that the sightings were caused by objects of extraterrestrial origin.[1][22]
The New York Times included a disclaimer in its reporting of the incident: "Experts caution that earthly explanations often exist for such incidents, and that not knowing the explanation does not mean that the event has interstellar origins".[12]
Physicist Don Lincoln suggested that it was "very unlikely that what these pilots are reporting turns out to be an unfriendly superweapon or an alien craft," however he would like to see the reports investigated "under the premise that the best science is done when as many opinions are considered as possible, preferably in the open and subject to peer review." According to Lincoln, "unidentified doesn't mean flying saucer or a Russian superweapon. It merely means unidentified." [24][25]
Science journalist Dennis Overbye argued a "stubborn residue" of unexplained aerial phenomenon remain after review. Overbye highlighted that some of these accounts are obtained from respected observers such as military pilots. However, he cautioned, "as modern psychology and neuroscience have established, the senses are an unreliable portal to reality, whatever that is."[26]
According to Steve Cummings of Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems, the video images captured by a Raytheon-made Advanced Targeting Forward Look Infrared sensor (ATFLIR) are not definitive proof that the jet pilots were chasing an actual UFO. Cummings noted, "To really be sure, we would need the raw data. Visual displays alone are not the best evidence".[27]
According to Joe Nickell writing for the Skeptical Inquirer, there are differing versions of Fravor’s account, including a “truly curious document that tells Fravor’s story in the form of a military-style briefing” designed to create a "pseudo top-secret appearance". Nickell identifies the document as "a third-person account of an interview with Fravor, produced by a fringe-ideas group called To the Stars Academy of Arts and Science". Regarding the visual sightings reported by Fravor, Nickell questioned how he could see "what a forty-foot object was doing from forty miles away" and characterized the "confusion and incompleteness in the reports" of the training mission as a "comedy of errors". Nickell and astronomer and former Air Force pilot James E. McGaha speculated that reports of churning water could have been caused by a submerging submarine, sightings could have been of a reconnaissance drone, and that "one video image showing an object suddenly zooming off screen was likely caused by the plane’s banking while the camera was stopped at the end of its sweep".[28]
Illustration of the unidentified object based on Commander Fravor's account
Joe Nickell further argues this was Fravor's first military assignment with the U.S. Navy’s F-18 Super Hornet, and as a result, the experience "obviously rattled him."[28] The Washington Postidentified David Fravor as "the commanding officer of the VFA-41 Black Aces," at the time of the 2004 incident.[29] The Toledo Blade stated Fravor retired from military service in 2006, after a 24 year career, including 18 years as a Navy pilot and deployments in Iraq that began during Desert Storm. Fravor stated the identities of other Naval officers aboard the two fighter jets during his mission on November 14, 2004 had not been released publicly as they were still active in the military at the time of the Blade publication in 2018.[30]
Stephen Pope, editor of Flying magazine criticized the stories of the incident in The New York Timesas "borderline-sensationalist" and says they provoked "a flurry of breathless reporting by media outlets around the world, most of which seem to have failed to notice that the Times’ original reporting has some major problems with it." Pope noted that the purported UFO videos were not released by the Pentagon, but by a former official who is now connected to "To the Stars Academy of the Arts and Sciences", a Las Vegas company that is seeking funding for UFO research.[31]
https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/17563-photo-pentagon-ufo-story-fake-expert-reveals
Has the photo at the center of the controversy surrounding the Pentagon's secret UFO program officially been debunked?
A lot of people want to believe, especially the UFO organization started by Blink 182's former singer Tom DeLonge, the To The Stars Academy.
At a presentation this past October, an academy member named Chris Mellon, who served for 20 years in various national security positions in the US government, pointed to a famously cited photo of a supposed UFO and claimed that it was the craft spotted in the 2004 "Nimitz incident," in which pilots witnessed a craft that seemed to "defy the laws of physics."
Unfortunately, Express.co.uk has revealed that not only is the photo of the infamous "white Tic-Tac UFO" most likely a distorted picture of a mylar party balloon, the photo wasn't even taken in 2004 near the Nimitz incident—it was photographed in 2005, in Manchester, England.
According to UFO investigator Steve Mera, who investigated the original sighting in England: "Truth of the matter is... it was taken in Eccles, Manchester and I investigated the case. Likelihood... it was a novelty balloon, a number 'one.' Someone manipulated the photo a little by increasing its brightness."
The photo somehow found its way into an article about the Nimitz incident published in 2015, where it was apparently picked up by members of DeLonge's academy and included in the October presentation, where Mellon commented:
"Clearly this is not a US experimental aircraft, but whose is it? How did it accomplish these feats? This story may sound like a sci-fi movie, but it is a true story, and far from being the only one of its kind."
Despite the organization boasting a collection of highly qualified government officials and experts, the fact that the To The Stars Academy didn't put due diligence into researching the photo or its connection to the Nimitz incident makes them less than trustworthy when it comes to separating facts from fiction. This is reinforced by DeLonge's claim in November that a CGI hoax video of a triangular UFO was genuine, despite quickly being revealed as a fake, similar to the "alien interview" that went viral on YouTube in 2016.
Has the photo at the center of the controversy surrounding the Pentagon's secret UFO program officially been debunked?
A lot of people want to believe, especially the UFO organization started by Blink 182's former singer Tom DeLonge, the To The Stars Academy.
At a presentation this past October, an academy member named Chris Mellon, who served for 20 years in various national security positions in the US government, pointed to a famously cited photo of a supposed UFO and claimed that it was the craft spotted in the 2004 "Nimitz incident," in which pilots witnessed a craft that seemed to "defy the laws of physics."
Unfortunately, Express.co.uk has revealed that not only is the photo of the infamous "white Tic-Tac UFO" most likely a distorted picture of a mylar party balloon, the photo wasn't even taken in 2004 near the Nimitz incident—it was photographed in 2005, in Manchester, England.
According to UFO investigator Steve Mera, who investigated the original sighting in England: "Truth of the matter is... it was taken in Eccles, Manchester and I investigated the case. Likelihood... it was a novelty balloon, a number 'one.' Someone manipulated the photo a little by increasing its brightness."
The photo somehow found its way into an article about the Nimitz incident published in 2015, where it was apparently picked up by members of DeLonge's academy and included in the October presentation, where Mellon commented:
"Clearly this is not a US experimental aircraft, but whose is it? How did it accomplish these feats? This story may sound like a sci-fi movie, but it is a true story, and far from being the only one of its kind."
Despite the organization boasting a collection of highly qualified government officials and experts, the fact that the To The Stars Academy didn't put due diligence into researching the photo or its connection to the Nimitz incident makes them less than trustworthy when it comes to separating facts from fiction. This is reinforced by DeLonge's claim in November that a CGI hoax video of a triangular UFO was genuine, despite quickly being revealed as a fake, similar to the "alien interview" that went viral on YouTube in 2016.
How ironic that 'flitting in and flitting out' - your derisory put-down of UFO sightings in general, aptly describes your predatory strikes back here at SF.You mean as opposed to the gullible foolish acceptance of "obviously not of this world" as a substitute for Alien origin, without any empirical physical evidence, and ignoring the real possibilities of atmospheric anomalies both well known and otherwise.
Only one answer satisfies...an as yet unexplained UFO. End of story...both officially, and here.
..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_studies_of_UFOs#Fata_Morgana
Fata Morgana is a type ofmirage
A Fata Morgana of a boat below the horizon produces the illusion of a solid form floating in the sky.
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. According to GEPAN/SEPRA, the official UFO investigation in France,
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
To seriously propose Fata Morgana apparitions could even remotely explain the incredible maneuvers (including underwater!) and physical forms described in that vid is beyond ludicrous.
Give it a rest - stick to your fav topic of BH's and suchlike over at SFN. Somewhat safer territory for you.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
So we should get your permission to post in this thread?
Where did that conclusion come from? To suggest to someone who by his own admission shouldn't even be posting back at SF, that his Fata Morgana BS explanation is crap, and that he's really only behaving as a vexatious poster out to needle me in particular, and should therefore desist, is improper and overbearing!? You have btw my grudging 'permission' to keep posting quips and ditties. LOL.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This type of outlandish assertion of MR's convinces me that he's not arguing sincerely - even he knows he can't know exactly what happened.
I'm more and more convinced he's trying to see how much trolling he can get away with, and see how far he can goad you without actually getting banned.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I wasn't there and neither were you. That's why rely on what the people who were there say happened. That's the real common sense we use in cases like this. The evidence speaks for itself:
"After a bombshell report detailing near-daily interactions with unidentified flying objects by Navy pilots in 2014 and 2015, Christopher Mellon has argued that this information is nothing new, and the government needs to do something about it.
Mellon, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, is involved with a new History Channel series, 'Unidentified,' which will expand on topics discussed in a recent New York Times article. In numerous interviews, Navy pilots revealed that they saw UFOs moving at hypersonic speeds, performing acts “beyond the physical limits of a human crew,” and emitting "no visible engine or infrared exhaust plumes."
In a Wednesday morning interview with "Fox & Friends," Mellon, who has written extensively on the topic before, outlined the reasons the Navy is concerned about these sightings.
"We know that UFOs exist. This is no longer an issue," he said. "The issue is why are they here? Where are they coming from and what is the technology behind these devices that we are observing?"
There are indications, Mellon said, that the objects reported by Navy pilots in 2014 and 2015 were doing things that aren't possible in this physical realm.
The speeds being reported (about 5,000 miles per hour, according to Mellon) were only sustainable for about an hour by an aircraft in the air, and these objects would be flying around all day long, the pilots said.
"Pilots observing these craft are absolutely mystified and that comes through clearly in their public statements," Mellon continued.
Fascination turned to fear one day, however, when a Super Hornet pilot said he almost collided with one of the objects — which he described as a sphere encasing a cube. An official report was filed, and the incident shattered the previous theory by Navy pilots that the objects were a part of some sort of extremely classified drone operation.
"These are reactions between intelligently controlled vehicles operating in and around U.S. military facilities, hence the concern," Mellon explained.
"One: there have been near mid-air collisions so there is a safety issue. Two, there is a vital national security issue which is that our sovereignty is being violated by vehicles of unknown origin," he continued.
Although all of this information is old news to Mellon, it's taken America by storm, and he says we're hardly the only country to have interactions with these objects. Having written extensively about UFO sightings before, Mellon said he's frustrated with the lack of action being taken by the government, as are the Navy pilots who experienced the sightings.
He decided that the only way to make progress was to release this information to the public in the form of his new show, and television interviews.
"We are giving military personnel on the front line a voice," he said. "We are helping them get out the message of what it is they are encountering and why they are so concerned about it."----- https://www.foxnews.com/science/christopher-mellon-official-ufo-sightings-real
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That is not even remotely the same as
"What was reported by the Navy personel was exactly what happened."
I find it paradoxical that, here, you take them at their word absolutely, yet elsewhere - when it doesn't suit your narrative - you call them liars and accuse them of cover ups.
Your view of what reports are trustworthy and what ones are not has a strong bias toward wishful thinking.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I've never called eyewitnesses liars or accused them of cover ups. That's what your team does consistently, making up shit about the accounts and cherry picking out only the things in them that supports your no-ufo narrative. That's the kind of shoddy intellectual dishonesty and bias we see all the time with the skeptical crowd. No ambition to objectively consider the facts of the case. Just the endless drive to falsify and debunk. And that's why they have no credibility. Again, the eyewitnesses were there, and you weren't. Case closed.
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
The thing about Fata Morgana is that it is only visible when you're level with the water. It's the refraction of light images from over the horizon like a ship or a city. These ufos were seen in the sky and from overhead and even detected by sonar under the sea. They were also observed zipping around at hypersonic speeds and at one point reached the cap point 60 miles away in one minute! Plus they showed up on jet radar AND ship radar. Fata Morgana doesn't show up on radar. It's merely an optical illusion.
Last edited:
Says the guy who has no credibility. That's like a leprechaun saying he doesn't believe in ghosts.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
And so here come the ad homs..
You should learn what an ad hom is.
I'm not saying you're wrong because you have no credibility. I'm saying you have no credibility because you're proven wrong so often.
And it's pretty funny for you to say that the people who prove you wrong have no credibility.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Nothing has been proven wrong yet. Just skeptics saying the trained eyewitnesses are making shit up or else mistaking seagulls for ufos.