UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[Yazata]

The officially released 9-page unclassified Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l-6ozhNRgOy-KTey3sPjfH6WXCHpSWtc/view

Also linked to within:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pentagon-ufo-report-released-many-uap-cases-remain-unexplained/

You can get the document straight from the source here:

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf

As expected very little meat on the bone. A key point being an admission that out of 144 investigated reports collected between 2004 and (early part of) 2021, just one - a large deflating balloon, was positively ID'd as obviously mundane. With 18 having flight characteristics of a 'highly unusual nature' probably a guarded way of saying exhibiting extreme accelerations and/or hypersonic speeds without accompanying sonic booms. Nothing new just a commitment to expanding the dragnet and ongoing investigations i.e stamp-collecting exercises. Just like for the last 70+ years. Yawn.

Despite the unclassified public Preliminary Assessment saying as little as the military could get away with telling us, it actually says quite a lot that's new:

In most of the cases they examined, they believe that something was physically there. (That's new.)

Probably multiple kinds of somethings on different occasions. (That's new.)

It's happening repeatedly on many (more than a hundred in just the last few years) occasions. (That's new.)

More than half of the US government cases that they examined (80 out of 144) involve detection by multiple physical modalities such as radar, infrared, electro-optical seekers, visual. (That's new.)

They don't know what the cause(s) is/are. (That's not even remotely new, but their willingness to admit it is.)

They have a "small amount of data" that indicates that what they term "breakthrough technology" may (or may not) be involved. (The mere fact that they admit that particular possibility is still on the table is new.)

They suggest that the likelihood that unknown physical objects are in the skies represents a clear danger to air safety and may represent a challenge to national security. (That's new.)

So my opinion is that this is much bigger news that it might at first seem. It might actually turn out to be an epochal turning point in the history of aviation anomalies.

 

[river]

I haven't watched the movie .

 

[river]

You can get the document straight from the source here:

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf



Despite the unclassified public Preliminary Assessment saying as little as the military could get away with telling us, it actually says quite a lot that's new:

In most of the cases they examined, they believe that something was physically there. (That's new.)

Probably multiple kinds of somethings on different occasions. (That's new.)

It's happening repeatedly on many (more than a hundred in just the last few years) occasions. (That's new.)

More than half of the US government cases that they examined (80 out of 144) involve detection by multiple physical modalities such as radar, infrared, electro-optical seekers, visual. (That's new.)

They don't know what the cause(s) is/are. (That's not even remotely new, but their willingness to admit it is.)

They have a "small amount of data" that indicates that what they term "breakthrough technology" may (or may not) be involved. (The mere fact that they admit that particular possibility is still on the table is new.)

They suggest that the likelihood that unknown physical objects are in the skies represents a clear danger to air safety and may represent a challenge to national security. (That's new.)

So my opinion is that this is much bigger news that it might at first seem. It might actually turn out to be an epochal turning point in the history of aviation anomalies.

Highlighted

The most important statement by Yazata . Of all in this post .

 

[DaveC426913]

This video does a brilliant job of showing - with facts (visible right on-screen) and geometry - that the object captured by the Go FAST technology is constrained to the size, altitude, speed and characteristics of ... a bird (such as a goose).

IOW, Regardless of what, ultimately, anyone theorizes the object actually might be - the fact is that all its characteristics are consistent with a bird.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/gd3l4b/thunderf00t_pentagon_officially_released_ufo/






Note by the way, that you don't have to take any one else's word for it - and you don't have to get the data second-hand, and you don't have to have the SyFy channel tell you what to believe. The raw data is right there on the screen. You can do all the geometry for yourself at your leisure. That's how science works.



The video also posits (i.e. theorizes) a consistent explanation of the pilots' reaction to the video, which is not what it seems at first.

• the pilot and his friends were not unaware what they were viewing. The were conducting an unofficial experiment, seeing if they could track such a tiny bogey.
• true, one speaker asked "what is that thing?" but we don't know who. There's no reason to suppose the rest of the participants didn't know it was a bird. It would be a terrible idea to conclude form that that any mystery
• they weren't tracking it because it was weird - they were tracking it because tracking such a bogey is technically very challenging. And that's why they cheered when they nailed it.

In summary:

1. When objectively analyzed - via geometry and raw instrument data - there is nothing whatsoever occurring in this video that is outside the bounds of the mundane.
2. In fact, everything that occurs in this video is within the bounds of a fighter planes testing the ability of its technology by tracking a large bird.
3. There is no indication that the trained military personnel who were at the scene made any errors or otherwise misinterpreted anything. IOW, this incident does not require one to doubt the expertise of military personnel.

 

[Magical Realist]

This video does a brilliant job of showing - with facts (visible right on-screen) and geometry - that the object captured by the Go FAST technology is constrained to the size, altitude, speed and characteristics of ... a bird (such as a goose).

IOW, Regardless of what, ultimately, anyone theorizes the object actually might be - the fact is that all its characteristics are consistent with a bird.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/gd3l4b/thunderf00t_pentagon_officially_released_ufo/

View attachment 4323




Note by the way, that you don't have to take any one else's word for it - and you don't have to get the data second-hand, and you don't have to have the SyFy channel tell you what to believe. The raw data is right there on the screen. You can do all the geometry for yourself at your leisure. That's how science works.



The video also posits (i.e. theorizes) a consistent explanation of the pilots' reaction to the video, which is not what it seems at first.

• the pilot and his friends were not unaware what they were viewing. The were conducting an unofficial experiment, seeing if they could track such a tiny bogey.
• true, one speaker asked "what is that thing?" but we don't know who. There's no reason to suppose the rest of the participants didn't know it was a bird. It would be a terrible idea to conclude form that that any mystery
• they weren't tracking it because it was weird - they were tracking it because tracking such a bogey is technically very challenging. And that's why they cheered when they nailed it.

In summary:

1. When objectively analyzed - via geometry and raw instrument data - there is nothing whatsoever occurring in this video that is outside the bounds of the mundane.
2. In fact, everything that occurs in this video is within the bounds of a fighter planes testing the ability of its technology by tracking a large bird.
3. There is no indication that the trained military personnel who were at the scene made any errors or otherwise misinterpreted anything. IOW, this incident does not require one to doubt the expertise of military personnel.

And here I thought you said that Youtube videos were unreliable. I guess that all depends on what the video allegedly proves.

 

[Michael 345]

a bird

A extra terrestrial bird perhaps? Clutching at straws here

 

[Q-reeus]

You can get the document straight from the source here:

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf



Despite the unclassified public Preliminary Assessment saying as little as the military could get away with telling us, it actually says quite a lot that's new:

In most of the cases they examined, they believe that something was physically there. (That's new.)

Probably multiple kinds of somethings on different occasions. (That's new.)

It's happening repeatedly on many (more than a hundred in just the last few years) occasions. (That's new.)

More than half of the US government cases that they examined (80 out of 144) involve detection by multiple physical modalities such as radar, infrared, electro-optical seekers, visual. (That's new.)

They don't know what the cause(s) is/are. (That's not even remotely new, but their willingness to admit it is.)

They have a "small amount of data" that indicates that what they term "breakthrough technology" may (or may not) be involved. (The mere fact that they admit that particular possibility is still on the table is new.)

They suggest that the likelihood that unknown physical objects are in the skies represents a clear danger to air safety and may represent a challenge to national security. (That's new.)

So my opinion is that this is much bigger news that it might at first seem. It might actually turn out to be an epochal turning point in the history of aviation anomalies.

Agree that those points are new in the sense of finally being contained in an officially released publicly available document. But otoh at least the essence of all those points were either uttered in occasional press conferences, published as official statements in the press, or present in various classified documents going back to the late 1940s in to early 1950s. What baffled and occasionally concerned the military/CIA etc. then has become a Groundhog Day. Or one might say ever chasing rainbows expecting to get to the end of one. Nuts and bolts thinking. Add to that the ever changing 'official position' that lurched from 'watch the skies' to 'nothing there of interest'. Indicating internal power struggles between and within the US Air Force and CIA principally. A fascinating topic all its own.

UFO skeptic Nick Redfern's 'it's still government agency(s) providing believable BS to conceal top secret US advanced tech craft':
https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2021...-the-subjectivity-of-public-to-mass-hysteria/

I disagree with his take. When the totality of the historical sweep of nonmundane UFO/UAP/AAP/USO etc. phenomena is integrated into as consistent an objective overview as possible, paranormal/supernatural is the only one that imo makes final sense. More or less in line with Jacques Vallee's take on it.

 

[Q-reeus]

This video does a brilliant job of showing - with facts (visible right on-screen) and geometry - that the object captured by the Go FAST technology is constrained to the size, altitude, speed and characteristics of ... a bird (such as a goose).

IOW, Regardless of what, ultimately, anyone theorizes the object actually might be - the fact is that all its characteristics are consistent with a bird.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/gd3l4b/thunderf00t_pentagon_officially_released_ufo/

View attachment 4323




Note by the way, that you don't have to take any one else's word for it - and you don't have to get the data second-hand, and you don't have to have the SyFy channel tell you what to believe. The raw data is right there on the screen. You can do all the geometry for yourself at your leisure. That's how science works.



The video also posits (i.e. theorizes) a consistent explanation of the pilots' reaction to the video, which is not what it seems at first.

• the pilot and his friends were not unaware what they were viewing. The were conducting an unofficial experiment, seeing if they could track such a tiny bogey.
• true, one speaker asked "what is that thing?" but we don't know who. There's no reason to suppose the rest of the participants didn't know it was a bird. It would be a terrible idea to conclude form that that any mystery
• they weren't tracking it because it was weird - they were tracking it because tracking such a bogey is technically very challenging. And that's why they cheered when they nailed it.

In summary:

1. When objectively analyzed - via geometry and raw instrument data - there is nothing whatsoever occurring in this video that is outside the bounds of the mundane.
2. In fact, everything that occurs in this video is within the bounds of a fighter planes testing the ability of its technology by tracking a large bird.
3. There is no indication that the trained military personnel who were at the scene made any errors or otherwise misinterpreted anything. IOW, this incident does not require one to doubt the expertise of military personnel.

You do realize this latest 'explanation' FLATLY CONTRADICTS your skeptic/super-debunker hero Mick West's 'explanation' it was a (presumably weather) balloon?! Hey - who is the goose here? And why did not the official Pentagon release include that 'go-fast' incident 'explanation' as a second example of an accounted for mundane explanation? All you have done is showcase outsider attempts at debunking.

 

[DaveC426913]

And here I thought you said that Youtube videos were unreliable. I guess that all depends on what the video allegedly proves.

As I said, you don't have to take anyone's word for it. You can do the math yourself. The numbers are right there, and there's no reliance on any manipulative narrator.

That's what distinguishes science from story-telling: independent, third-party, repeatable verification.

 

[Q-reeus]

Moving on to watch Thunderf00t's 'debunking' "US Navy CONFIRMED UFO: BUSTED (Part 2)"

He just makes a fool of himself by firstly repeat repeat repeat.... of iffy IR footage of presumably a distant plane, and suggesting it represents the 'true situation' viz a viz the 2004 Nimitz tic tac incidents. Leaving out entirely the many corroborative AEGIS radar trackings recorded aboard the Princeton, hypersonic motions and extreme accelerations a part of that. Also carelessly conflating the visual close quarters intercepts by Fravor and two other FA18 pilots who corroborated Fravor's account, and AWACS crew confirming the tic tac shape and bizarre flight maneuvers also, with a LATER flight by another pilot who took the actual IR footage ThunderfOOt concentrates on exclusively. He further ignores testimony by several crew who saw much clearer footage showing sharp detail of the tic tac and which footage lasted around 10 minutes. They all testified the Navy or whoever released the publicly available footage, deliberately fuzzified it to deny adversaries intel of the actual US military's capabilities, as would be expected. They further testified the radar records and IR footage were all confiscated by Air force and possibly CIA personnel. Which he derides as a too convenient story. His inference then is they were all lying and/or grossly incompetent. Not likely.
Skeptical tone throughout jazzed up with some comedy scenes. Ho ho ho. His try at a bit of amateur psyop perhaps.
FAIL.

 

[DaveC426913]

You do realize this latest 'explanation' FLATLY CONTRADICTS your skeptic/super-debunker hero Mick West's 'explanation' it was a (presumably weather) balloon?!

No it doesn't.

The issue here is less about who is theorizing what, ultimately, the object might actually be. The fact is that all its characteristics are consistent with a totally mundane object.
In other words, there's just nothing of interest here.


(BTW, I don't know who Mick West is. Never heard of him. I don't play favourites. This isn't about the arguer - it's about the argument.)

 

[foghorn]

This video does a brilliant job of showing - with facts (visible right on-screen) and geometry - that the object captured by the Go FAST technology is constrained to the size, altitude, speed and characteristics of ... a bird (such as a goose).

was weird - they were tracking it because tracking such a bogey is technically very challenging. And that's why they cheered when they nailed it.

Good Find.
Just to compare figures with Mick West's.
Size of object:
Mick 6 to 7 feet long. Your video about one metre (3.28 ft).
Height of object from surface:
Mick about 13,000Feet. Your video about 8,000 feet.
Speed of object:
Mick 20 to 40 knots.Your video: Is there a speed given?
Both workings now a year old.

BTW, notice the RED QUESTION MARK on the front of West's Video... EXPLAINED ?

 

[Q-reeus]

This video does a brilliant job of showing - with facts (visible right on-screen) and geometry - that the object captured by the Go FAST technology is constrained to the size, altitude, speed and characteristics of ... a bird (such as a goose).

IOW, Regardless of what, ultimately, anyone theorizes the object actually might be - the fact is that all its characteristics are consistent with a bird.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/gd3l4b/thunderf00t_pentagon_officially_released_ufo/

View attachment 4323




Note by the way, that you don't have to take any one else's word for it - and you don't have to get the data second-hand, and you don't have to have the SyFy channel tell you what to believe. The raw data is right there on the screen. You can do all the geometry for yourself at your leisure. That's how science works.



The video also posits (i.e. theorizes) a consistent explanation of the pilots' reaction to the video, which is not what it seems at first.

• the pilot and his friends were not unaware what they were viewing. The were conducting an unofficial experiment, seeing if they could track such a tiny bogey.
• true, one speaker asked "what is that thing?" but we don't know who. There's no reason to suppose the rest of the participants didn't know it was a bird. It would be a terrible idea to conclude form that that any mystery
• they weren't tracking it because it was weird - they were tracking it because tracking such a bogey is technically very challenging. And that's why they cheered when they nailed it.

In summary:

1. When objectively analyzed - via geometry and raw instrument data - there is nothing whatsoever occurring in this video that is outside the bounds of the mundane.
2. In fact, everything that occurs in this video is within the bounds of a fighter planes testing the ability of its technology by tracking a large bird.
3. There is no indication that the trained military personnel who were at the scene made any errors or otherwise misinterpreted anything. IOW, this incident does not require one to doubt the expertise of military personnel.

The Pentagon's continued position that 'go fast' remains unidentified might just suggest some hubris on ThunderfOOt's part. Take a good look at the initial camera footage just before locking onto the 'apparently' fast moving object, beginning around 8:46 mark (also ~ 11:18 and 12:55 etc.). The fighter is at that point flying horizontal so not in a banking turn, yet the sea surface is practically stationary - consistent with the ~ 25000 ft altitude and cruising speed. Which actually implies the object is flying quite low and therefore is actually going fast relative to the sea surface. I'll trust the Pentagon's own analysts on this one.

[PS: ThunderfOOt's 'impressive trig argument' beginning around 12:50 mark, conveniently misses the actual implication that the beginning of lock on has a camera angle of ~ 25 degrees. That raking angle of view means an effective altitude of ~ 25,000 ft/Sin(25 degrees) = 25,000 x 2.37. So his 'true' size estimate is low by at least that factor and lower again if as is likely the object is actually at very low altitude. Further his 'you can almost see the bird flapping it's wings' is likely also bogus and in fact minor automatic scanning corrections would explain the jitter nicely.]

 

[Q-reeus]

No it doesn't.

The issue here is less about who is theorizing what, ultimately, the object might actually be. The fact is that all its characteristics are consistent with a totally mundane object.
In other words, there's just nothing of interest here.


(BTW, I don't know who Mick West is. Never heard of him. I don't play favourites. This isn't about the arguer - it's about the argument.)

Memory retention issues then. You quoted references to Mick West before:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ufo-friend-or-foe.163651/page-5#post-3652749
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/in-defence-of-space-aliens.160045/page-187#post-3621133
There are likely other instances but two's enough.

 

[James R]

You skeptics keep ignoring there is unanimous agreement among naval personnel involved in the 2004 USS Nimitz incident(s) and 2015 USS Eisenhower incidents that publicly released videos have all been deliberately degraded in quality.

Nothing like a good conspiracy theory to try to shore up shoddy data.

 

[Q-reeus]

OK I have backtrack from my #4933 after coming across this TTSA article: https://thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/2015-go-fast-footage
It's made clear there the initial radar range from aircraft to object is 4.1 nm, which turns out be almost identical to the aircraft altitude. At an inclination angle of ~ 23 degrees from horizontal, the intercept distance to ocean surface is ~ 1/Sin(23 degrees) = 2.56 times that. Assuming the 'go fast' object is slow flying and locked on, and aircraft is in steady level flight, that gives a leverage factor of -2.56/(2.56 - 1) = -1.64 from flight velocity to ocean surface sweep velocity (which is opposite to aircraft velocity). At 260 knots or 439 ft/s, that works out at an apparent ocean velocity of -426 knots or -719 ft/s.

According to ThunderfOOt's estimate assuming a straight down scan angle, the field of view is ~ 200 ft. But at ~ 23 degrees angle, that increases to ~ 512 ft.
So we have (512 ft)/(719 ft/s) = 0.712 as the ~ time in seconds for an ocean surface feature to sweep across the full field of view. ThunderfOOt gives a value of ~ 1.2 seconds.
To reconcile the difference the object would need to have a velocity x in the direction of the aircraft's motion given by
1.2 = |(field of view)/(effective ocean surface pivot sweep velocity) + (field of view)/(object velocity)|
1.2 = (field of view ft)/[(relative closing velocity)(1.64) ft/s] - (object speed) ft/s
1.2 = |512/[(-439 + x)(1.64) + x]|
1.2 = |-0.711 + 512/(2.64x)|
1.911 = 194/x
x ~ 97.5 ft/s ~ 57.8knots or 66mph
One would need to know the prevailing wind speed and direction at the assumed altitude to know whether a bird or balloon could really fill the bill but ab initio it's not out of bounds.

 

[DaveC426913]

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/ufo-friend-or-foe.163651/page-5#post-3652749
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/in-defence-of-space-aliens.160045/page-187#post-3621133
There are likely other instances but two's enough.

Rational discussion is about what is said, not who said it.

Reread foghorn's response in 4932. What is significant is the facts that constrain the object to the realm of mundane. The facts aren't contradictory.
Theorizing about what that mundane object might be is just gravy. It could be a bird - it could be a balloon.

 

[DaveC426913]

One would need to know the prevailing wind speed and direction at the assumed altitude to know whether a bird or balloon could really fill the bill but ab initio it's not out of bounds.

Thunderf00t points out that, at fighter jet speeds, the object is effectively stationary.

It is not really necessary to look at prevailing wind speeds. Calcs show it's well within error margins to be considered mundane.

The onus here is on UFO proponents to show that it has to be outside mundane parameters.

 

[Q-reeus]

Nothing like a good conspiracy theory to try to shore up shoddy data.

Please elaborate. You are well aware the relevant Nimitz 2004 incident personnel who have come forward unanimously make the claim the footage they viewed was much sharper and lasted much longer than that publicly released. So you are calling them liars/conspiracy theorists? You are further claiming the best multi-spectrum military surveillance gear available, and/or it's use, was 'shoddy'? And the visual encounters by multiple aircrew was also 'shoddy and unreliable'? Even though it matched radar intercepts very closely? YOU are the one needing to justify making such multiple charges!

 

[James R]

Please elaborate. You are well aware the relevant Nimitz 2004 incident personnel who have come forward unanimously make the claim the footage they viewed was much sharper and lasted much longer than that publicly released. So you are calling them liars/conspiracy theorists?

The relevant personnel are in unanimous agreement, eh? What do the irrelevant ones have to say?

Of course, it's possible that some or all of them are liars and/or conspiracy theorists. But I have no evidence of that. Besides, it's not necessary at this point to draw that conclusion. Inaccurate memories might adequately explain their mistakes.

On the other hand, not much turns on this, even if it is true. It is very probably the case that there was much more "footage" available. Maybe the rest of it was boringly mundane, or maybe it gave the game away and revealed the "UAP" to be something readily identifiable, which would be most inconvenient for the UFO crowd (and perhaps the US military). Maybe the footage was deliberately "degraded" before being fed out for the credulous edification of the UFO brigade. The military might well have its reasons for making itself look even less capable than it already does with this UFO nonsense.

Let's be clear: I'm calling you, Q-reeus, a conspiracy theorist. Because you are. All you UFO nuts are.

You are further claiming the best multi-spectrum military surveillance gear available, and/or it's use, was 'shoddy'?

You'll have to be specific. Provide me with the details and I'll give you an opinion, if you like. See, I like to have the data before I form an opinion. Not the way you like to do things, I understand.

And the visual encounters by multiple aircrew was also 'shoddy and unreliable'?

Again, you'll need to be specific. Which particular "encounters" and aircrewpeople are you referring to? What evidence are you relying on?

Even though it matched radar intercepts very closely?

The word "matched" is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

YOU are the one needing to justify making such multiple charges!

You sure read a lot into a one-line reaction. You sound upset. Why is that?