UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

[Magical Realist]

None of the unidentified aerial phenomena were confirmed to have any of those characteristics, except for obvious ones, in cases where there was video evidence or similar. Thus, some objects (if they were objects) could be confirmed to look round or spherical. Some reported colours could be confirmed. On the other hand, speeds were always always guesses and were rarely confirmed. The" same goes for reported altitudes. None of the unidentified objects could be identified as "metallic"; it can be confirmed in some cases that the descriptions of the objects as looking "metallic" are reasonable.

You're simply lying again. At no point in Kirkpatrick's statements nor in the UAP report itself are there ANY terms of ambiguity such as "looked round" or "guessed at speeds" or " were rarely confirmed". You're just making shit up to counter the hard data of the report. This is military science James. They have precise methods for identifying these parameters in videos with certainty. Why don't you back up these claims about the report's various uncertainties with quotes? I provide quotes to back up my claims. You should be doing the same. Till then you have corrected nothing. And BTW,,it is clear you are continuing your lies about me trolling just so you can have an excuse to ban me and basically censor me from this thread. It is afterall the only way an abusive administrator can win arguments these days is it not? lol

 

[James R]

"A single unidentified phenomenon" is an oxymoron.

If we don't know what they are, then it is far too early to decide they're one thing.

That's insane. That's basically saying because we don't know what a phenomenon is, then it doesn't exist.

Note how the troll tries to reframe what was said, to pretend that what was said was not reasonable. The troll actually has the audacity to claim that what was said here was "insane".

DaveC stated the bleeding obvious: that if we don't know what any of the items in a group of items are, then we can't conclude that all the items in the group are identical.

The troll responds by claiming that this is "insane", and lies about the context.

DaveC did not say "If we don't know what they are, then they don't exist." That would be stupid, and DaveC is a clever man.

But the troll is not here for an honest discussion with DaveC. The troll wants to waste DaveC's time, and everybody else's time along with it. If the troll can provoke an angry response from DaveC, that pushes the troll's buttons. That is what the troll lives for - the reaction to his clowning.

The phenomenon of metallic spherical uaps is clearly one thing.

No unidentified UAPs have been identified as metallic. The troll knows this.

The troll also knows that no UAPs that were later identified turned out to be anything unusual, in the case where the identified UAP was spherical and metallic-looking.

 

[James R]

What gets me, and what has always stumped me about uaps/ufos, is that they show no compunction whatsoever about being seen or detected by us.

The Planet Venus doesn't hide from us.
Weather balloons don't hide from us.
Military aircraft sometimes hide from us, but neverthless they are often seen. Commercial aircraft don't hide from us.

These are just some examples of things that show "no compunction" about being seen or detected. In fact, they are all incapable of showing compunction, either way.

The troll, of course, knows this. But the troll wants to conflate the 1% of "unusual" UAP sightings with the 99% of UAP sightings that turn out to be completely ordinary and familiar things. Because trolls always want to muddy the waters. They want plausible deniability. They never want to be pinned down on their bullshit. So, specificity is anathema to the troll.

They appear at night lit up like discos. They land in sunlit farm fields pretending to collect plant samples in coveralls. They glide silently in vast underlit black triangles over major metropolitan areas. And now in these Navy encounters they're zipping in and out between jet fighters mischievously taunting them with their superior capabilities.

The troll knows, of course, that none of the claims about vast black triangles and the rest have ever been shown to be alien spaceships or anything similar.

It must all be part of some plan to disclose their presence to us, only gradually over the years. But the presence of what or whom?

And the troll jumps from "somebody reported seeing something he couldn't identify" to "there's a race of alien beings and I'll tell you what their plans are". All with zero linkage other than wishful thinking and fantasy to get from A to Z.

The troll knows what the flaws are in his claims. He cannot fail to be unaware, after years of repetitive discussion on these matters. Nevertheless, the troll disappears, only to reappear at some future time re-running the same tired old falsehoods and pretending he is a blank slate who has less knowledge than a four year old.

Are they culturally engineering some sort of global consciousness change in our species? Or are they AI artilects from the future preparing us for some unimaginable world crisis? It is all so obscure and baffling to me.

Is everybody still enjoying Magical Realist's village idiot act?

If you had to give him a rating out of 10 for pulling it off convincingly, what score would you give?

 

[Magical Realist]

No unidentified UAPs have been identified as metallic.

The AARO report clearly states otherwise. That these spheres comprised the typical profile of all the UAPs examined. That they are metallic or white or translucent spheres that are 1 to 4 meters in diameter and that fly at speeds from stationary up to Mach 2 and make very interesting maneuvers and are seen all over the world. Tell me James how this could mean they are balloons or drones or birds or conventional craft or the planet Venus or any other mundane object. Go ahead and explain that for us. Don't lie now!

 

[James R]

My opinion is that the repeated sightings that Ryan Graves describes might well have been closely related. While they may or may not have been the same type of vehicle (I'm assuming vehicle, well aware that's an assumption) they do seem to have had a similar mission observing Naval air combat training exercises in the same area of closed airspace over a succession of days.

So, you're thinking maybe spy aircraft from another nation, then? That's one possibility, although I think it could only account for some of the observations that were reported. Of course, there's no guarantee that we're dealing with a single phenomenon there.

We have Ryan Graves' testimony (that I believe) that these things were observed both visually and on radar.

It would be nice to have corroboration of that testimony, wouldn't it? Still, I sure you can think of lots of reasons why many witnesses are reluctant to come out in support of Graves, Fravor and the others. I can too, but maybe my reasons are different from yours.

We know that multiple aviators submitted reports using the Navy's new UAP reporting procedure. (The reports were FOIA'd and turned over with virtually all of the information on them redacted/blacked out.) We know that video of the objects was submitted with some of the reports. (The Navy refused to turn over the videos in response to FOIA citing their top secret classification.) In fact we know (from Congressional testimony) that all UAP video is classified top secret.

It is hardly surprising that the armed forces classify certain operational information. The reasons they would give would no doubt involve considerations of national security. I'm not saying it's all justified, mind you.

What I don't know is whether the metallic appearing spheres seen over the Middle East were related in any way, let alone whether they were the same aircraft type.

Why would you think that are related? The objects reported seem quite different in the two cases.

All we have in that regard is that they were unknown anomalous spheres.

All we have is that they were reported to be unknown anomalous spheres.

(I'm sure the military and intelligence agencies know a lot more about their motions, infrared signatures and radar reflectivity etc., but it's classified top secret or above.)

Personally, I think that the fact that the military is not at all worried about these things ought to suggest something to you. They have actually stated that these things are "not a threat". Doesn't that suggest to you that they are probably fairly confident that they know what they are?

I am very inclined to think (but I don't actually know) that Fravor's 'tic-tac' experiences off San Diego were related somehow to Graves' later experiences off Norfolk.

"Related somehow" is very vague. Related in what way?

Their descriptions of the vehicles (?) differ somewhat (spherical vs lozenge shaped), but the objects' missions seem similar (observing Naval maneuvers, capabilities and tactics over a period of days).

Why do you say "observing"? Where's the evidence of any "observation" by anything?

There were multiple visual sightings in each case, corroborated by radar. (Which in the SD case reportedly included contacts decending from and ascending to space in a matter of seconds.)

Not, to my knowledge, confirmed to be other than radar glitches.

Both Fravor and Graves agreed (in their Congressional testimony) that the anomalous behavior observed with these things include the ability to station-keep motionless even in high wind, the ability to accelerate from motionless to mach seemingly instantaneously, and the ability to make high speed right angle turns. All with no air surfaces or engine exhaust detected.

Yes, but that's just based on their personal perceptions and guesstimates of how the objects appeared to move (or not). Not very convincing, IMO.

 

[James R]

The AARO clearly states otherwise.

No. Don't tell lies.

Now you're saying that unidentified things have, in fact, been identified?

That they are metallic or white or translucent spheres that are 1 to 4 meters in diameter and that fly from speeds of stationary up to Mach 2 and make very interesting maneuvers and are seen all over the world. Tell me James how this could mean they are balloons or drones or birds or conventional craft and any other mundane object. Go ahead and explain that for us. Don't lie now!

Consider balloons, for starters. Can a balloon look metallic or white or translucent? Why, yes, it can. Can a balloon be spherical? Why, yes, it can. Can a balloon have a diameter between 1 and 4 metres? Why, yes! It can.

Can a balloon make very interesting maneuvres? Why, yes! It can, especially if the wind is right.

Can a balloon accelerate from stationary to Mach 2 in a few seconds? No, it can't. But then who measured the thing (if there was a thing) accelerating from stationary to Mach 2 in a few seconds? Nobody, as far as I am aware. So, maybe those claims are just mistakes, and it was a balloon.

Now, troll. Are you going to ask me how a UAP sighting could possibly turn out to be a bird or a drone, next? Because, you can't think of any way it could? Are you going to play the fool some more?

 

[Magical Realist]

Can a balloon accelerate from stationary to Mach 2 in a few seconds? No, it can't.

Yeah.. that's basically the clincher there. So it definitely can't be a balloon. And you're lying again: nobody said anything about accelerating. The report stated a velocity from stationary to Mach 2, neither of which indicate a balloon at all. The Devil's in the details James!

Haven't ruled out the planet Venus though! lol

So, maybe those claims are just mistakes, and it was a balloon.

Oh it was a mistake now? Wow..so how bout backing up that claim with some evidence now so we can all know for sure that you aren't just making shit up again?

 

[Magical Realist]

All we have is that they were reported to be unknown anomalous spheres.

Videos actually.. Hundreds of them in fact, Are you saying video evidence is no good now?

Personally, I think that the fact that the military is not at all worried about these things ought to suggest something to you. They have actually stated that these things are "not a threat". Doesn't that suggest to you that they are probably fairly confident that they know what they are?

If they thought they were some known mundane object, they would've ruled that out. In fact they did, ruling out hundreds of those videos. What remained are the mysterious metallic spheres as well as a number of other mysterious objects of all sorts of shapes and sizes. You remember that quote don't you? So no.,, there is no military conspiracy cover up that all these uaps are really balloons or foreign craft of any sort, despite your wishful thinking. See post #9946 where we learn that the head the AARO himself coauthored a paper recently speculating the metallic spheres to be probes from alien motherships. Doesn't sound like he believes they're something mundane now does it?

 

[exchemist]

Now that is an ad hom.

Now you know.

Have you really been bonified?

 

[exchemist]

Fer cryin' out loud, really?
View attachment 5863

View attachment 5864

View attachment 5865

Have you made no progress from your wide-eyed public school days of UFO fandom? Are you gonna go back to square one in this thread and revisit every blob ever to have appeared on film?

How can you expect us to take this seriously? How can you expect us to take you seriously when you post this stuff?

We don’t. It’s just trolling.

 

[Magical Realist]

The Planet Venus doesn't hide from us.
Weather balloons don't hide from us.
Military aircraft sometimes hide from us, but neverthless they are often seen. Commercial aircraft don't hide from us.

These are just some examples of things that show "no compunction" about being seen or detected. In fact, they are all incapable of showing compunction, either way.

The troll, of course, knows this. But the troll wants to conflate the 1% of "unusual" UAP sightings with the 99% of UAP sightings that turn out to be completely ordinary and familiar things. Because trolls always want to muddy the waters. They want plausible deniability. They never want to be pinned down on their bullshit. So, specificity is anathema to the troll.

The troll knows, of course, that none of the claims about vast black triangles and the rest have ever been shown to be alien spaceships or anything similar.

And the troll jumps from "somebody reported seeing something he couldn't identify" to "there's a race of alien beings and I'll tell you what their plans are". All with zero linkage other than wishful thinking and fantasy to get from A to Z.

The troll knows what the flaws are in his claims. He cannot fail to be unaware, after years of repetitive discussion on these matters. Nevertheless, the troll disappears, only to reappear at some future time re-running the same tired old falsehoods and pretending he is a black slate who has less knowledge than a four year old.

Is everybody still enjoying Magical Realist's village idiot act?

If you had to give him a rating out of 10 for pulling it off convincingly, what score would you give?

James has resorted to referring to me in the third person now---the troll did such and such, the troll said such and such.. It's a common and well-known ploy of abusers to do that to their victims to depersonalize and dehumanize them and so turn them into detestable objects. Serial killers do it to their victims for instance. It just underscores the levels to which James will unabashedly sink to derail civil conversation with some sick excuse to demean and humiliate me before others here. For those new here, don't worry about me. I'm used to it. But I'm not going to submit to it either. Calling someone a troll is just another ad hom used to attack the poster instead of their argument. He has no evidence at all that I'm trolling or that I don't really believe what I'm saying. He is essentially making a claim he can't support unless he can somehow read minds now. lol

 

[DaveC426913]

Have you really been bonified?

I let that one go. Why kick a troll when he's down?

 

[DaveC426913]

James has resorted to referring to me in the third person now---the troll did such and such, the troll said such and such.. It's a common and well-known ploy of abusers to do that to their victims to depersonalize and dehumanize them and so turn them into detestable objects. Serial killers do it to their victims for instance. It just underscores the levels to which James will unabashably sink derail civil conversation into some sick excuse to demean and and humiliate me before others here. For those new here, don't worry about me. I'm used to it. But I'm not going to submit to it either. Calling someone a troll is just another ad hom used to attack the poster instead of their argument. He has no evidence that I'm trolling or don't really believe what I'm saying. He is essentially making a claim he can't support unless he can somehow read minds now. lol

Troll complains people aren't engaging with him in good faith.
Boo hoo.
Perhaps troll should stop trolling, and see if people ever start to take a word he says seriously again.

 

[Magical Realist]

Yazata said: There were multiple visual sightings in each case, corroborated by radar. (Which in the SD case reportedly included contacts descending from and ascending to space in a matter of seconds.)

James R said: Not, to my knowledge, confirmed to be other than radar glitches.

Here's the chief radar operator Kevin Day's own firsthand account of what happened on that day on the USS Princeton in the USS Nimitz carrier group near Catalina Island. James claims they were radar glitches because...well...just because. lol Listen to this compelling version of the tic tac events:

 

[DaveC426913]

Here's a thing that will stop a troll in their tracks: let's cut the rhetoric and get back to talking about facts.

Here's the latest nonsense you've posted:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pi.../UFO-sightings-140-years-of-UFO-pictures.html

Would you care to offer your analysis of, say, this image, for example, in support of your idea that we are surrounded by, I dunno, denizens from the ocean depths?

Or would you be willing to concede that UFO fans are not a reliable source of reports and events and that maybe you might consider pulling away and smartening up about your own case?

 

[Magical Realist]

Yazata said: Both Fravor and Graves agreed (in their Congressional testimony) that the anomalous behavior observed with these things include the ability to station-keep motionless even in high wind, the ability to accelerate from motionless to mach seemingly instantaneously, and the ability to make high speed right angle turns. All with no air surfaces or engine exhaust detected.

James R said:Yes, but that's just based on their personal perceptions and guesstimates of how the objects appeared to move (or not). Not very convincing, IMO.

Yes.. firsthand eyewitness accounts by trained and experienced observers that are backed by radar and infrared video cameras. And in Ryan Graves case objects seen nearly everyday by the pilots for months and discussed in their safety meetings. So tell us James what would be more "convincing" to you that these objects were really there? What is lacking here?

Excerpt from Ryan Graves' Congressional testimony:

"Over time, UAP sightings became an open secret among our aircrew. They were a common occurrence, seen by most of my colleagues on radar and occasionally up close. The sightings were so frequent that they became part of daily briefs.

A pivotal incident occurred during an air combat training mission in Warning Area W-72, an exclusive block of airspace ten miles east of Virginia Beach. All traffic into the training area goes through a single GPS point at a set altitude. Just at the moment the two jets crossed the threshold, one of the pilots saw a dark gray cube inside of a clear sphere — motionless against the wind, fixed directly at the entry point. The jets, only 100 feet apart, were forced to take evasive action. They terminated the mission immediately and returned to base. Our squadron submitted a safety report, but there was no official acknowledgement of the incident and no further mechanism to report the sightings.

Advanced UAP defy conventional explanation .The UAP we encountered and tracked on multiple sensors behaved in ways that surpassed our understanding and technology. The UAP could accelerate at speeds up to Mach 1, hold their position against hurricane-force winds, and outlast our fighter jets, operating continuously throughout the day. They did not have any visible means of lift, control surfaces or propulsion — nothing that resembled normal aircraft with wings, flaps or engines. I am a formally trained engineer and I have no explanation for this."---- https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Ryan-HOC-Testimony.pdf

 

[Magical Realist]

Here's a thing that will stop a troll in their tracks: let's cut the rhetoric and get back to talking about facts.

Here's the latest nonsense you've posted:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pi.../UFO-sightings-140-years-of-UFO-pictures.html

Would you care to offer your analysis of, say, this image, for example, in support of your idea that we are surrounded by, I dunno, denizens from the ocean depths?

Or would you be willing to concede that UFO fans are not a reliable source of reports and events and that maybe you might consider pulling away and smartening up about your own case?

How do you know these photos were taken by "UFO fans"? Or are you just lying again?

 

[Magical Realist]

Here's a rather famous photo of a uap taken on Vancouver Island in 1981. To this day it bears up to all scrutiny and has never been debunked. To those complaining there is never any sharp photos of uaps this stands as a clear refutation. Below is the summary of an extensive analysis performed on the photo and interviews with the photographer herself:

"This photo was taken on October 8, 1981 at about 11O a.m. local time on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Photographer was Hannah McRoberts who took many photos of the local landscape. UFO was noticed only after she got negatives. Photography was analyzed by Richard F. Haines. This is what he wrote:

"The evidence consisted of a single frame of 35 mm color film which showed a sharply focused disc-like object against a clear blue sky with wooded mountain peak nearby. Analyses of the original negative included micro-densitometry, computer enhancements, and other measurements intent upon showing a support thread, atmospheric disturbance, or other evidences of a hoax. These analyses suggest that the disc was a three dimensional object located at a distance of at least 30 feet from the camera; the object's surface albedo was diffuse and of lower luminance than sunlit cloud. Extensive interviews with the photographer (who never saw the aerial object), her husband and daughter and site survey tended to support the entire narrative account. The identity of the disc object remains unidentified.

In summary, this investigation has shown that a mature adult with high credibility and little or no interest in UFO phenomena obtained a single, colored, sharp imaged photograph of an unidentified aerial disc-like object. Her subsequent reactions to seeing the disc's image on her photograph produced surprise and dismay as well as the normal array of "answer-seeking" behavior. She has not capitalized on having such a photo and still acts somewhat embarrassed at having taken it without seeing the disc. The disc's identity has not been identified to date."

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/docum...&doi=9f242e8a8ef215464c46f7b303d82311ffb0c64d

 

[Magical Realist]

DaveC stated the bleeding obvious: that if we don't know what any of the items in a group of items are, then we can't conclude that all the items in the group are identical.

Sure we can. Especially if we have a typical profile of those items based on observations of their characteristics and behavior. Hence while we still don't know what these observed uaps are, we DO know that the majority of them are all the same type of thing--metallic spheres 1-4 meters in diameter that fly at speeds from stationary to Mach 2 around 25,000 ft and that make very interesting maneuvers and that are seen all over the world. Once again ONE thing. This is so frick'n obvious it hardly needs to be said except to refute the looney claims of dogmatic skeptics.

 

[Sarkus]

Here's a rather famous photo of a uap taken on Vancouver Island in 1981. To this day it bears up to all scrutiny and has never been debunked. To those complaining there is never any sharp photos of uaps this stands as a clear refutation. Below is the summary of an extensive analysis performed on the photo and interviews with the photographer herself:

It's not a sharp image, though. It's rather grainy. It's quite a good photo relative to most other ones, but it isn't sharp. And, again, it's a single photo, no corroboration, no real data as to the size, distance (other than at least 30-ft away), speed etc. There's nothing in the photo to suggest that it isn't just something thrown into the air, like a frisbee.
Yes, it's a UAP, because it technically remains unidentified, but unless you want to provide something that shows that it isn't just something thrown in the air...?