UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record

[nismaratwork]

Hemp protection... ahhhh, you worked on "Reefer Madness" if I'm reading this right... right?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hemp protection... ahhhh, you worked on "Reefer Madness" if I'm reading this right... right?

I wondered if it would take more than one post for someone to pick up on that.

The inside joke was that I was doing HEMP testing for the DOD.

Of course, the H is for high-altitude, which refers to the source of the EMP - a high-altitude nuclear detonation.

 

[nismaratwork]

I wondered if it would take more than one post for someone to pick up on that.

The inside joke was that I was doing HEMP testing for the DOD.

Of course, the H is for high-altitude, which refers to the source of the EMP - a high-altitude nuclear detonation.

Ha! Remember... it could have been: "HAND-EMP or the like. Someone in the naming department was sucking on a joint while that folder was being printed, or at least, it would explain a LOT.

Nice souvenir however, once you put the kidding aside it's quite impressive. Did you enjoy the work and the team you worked with?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Did you enjoy the work and the team you worked with?

The weeks were often 80-hours long and there was unbelievable pressure at times, but it was fantastically interesting and fun. I had a chance to go to Kwajalein but didn't want to spend six months on a sand bar. I also had a shot at the final programming for the launch control system but lost that job to Rockwell [just as well, I didn't want to spend two years in nowhere Alaska!]. For the EMP stuff, I answered directly to the company President so I wasn't really a part of a team on that one. That was just lots of research, cost analysis, and report writing.

I also had the opportunity to work on a stealth boat-submarine for the Iraelis, which was a real treat. In fact, that's what got my foot in the door for the other jobs.

 

[nismaratwork]

The weeks were often 80-hours long and there was unbelievable pressure at times, but it was fantastically interesting and fun. I had a chance to go to Kwajalein but didn't want to spend six months on a sand bar. I also had a shot at the final programming for the launch control system but lost that job to Rockwell [just as well, I didn't want to spend two years in nowhere Alaska!]. For the EMP stuff, I answered directly to the company President so I wasn't really a part of a team on that one. That was just lots of research, cost analysis, and report writing.

I also had the opportunity to work on a stealth boat-submarine for the Iraelis, which was a real treat. In fact, that's what got my foot in the door for the other jobs.

So we're talking about high-pressure type-A work, but rewarding and fun. I have to say, it sounds like a fantastic experience; thanks for telling us about it!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So we're talking about high-pressure type-A work, but rewarding and fun. I have to say, it sounds like a fantastic experience; thanks for telling us about it!

It was fun but type-A is right, and it will kill you. In fact, nevermind heart attacks, while I was doing some of the engineering work, the project manager on that part of the project fell asleep while driving home - after a twenty-hour day, and probably one of several that week - and nearly died. He rolled his truck but he was okay. It was a close call.

It has been long enough now that I finally feel comfortable talking about it in a bit of detail. It was fortuitous that I had a good excuse to bring it up. It definitely ranks as one of the highlights of my career.

...and there's not many guys that can say they did HEMP testing for the DOD.

 

[nismaratwork]

It was fun but type-A is right, and it will kill you. In fact, nevermind heart attacks, while I was doing some of the engineering work, the project manager on that part of the project fell asleep while driving home - after a twenty-hour day, and probably one of several that week - and nearly died. He rolled his truck but he was okay. It was a close call.

It has been long enough now that I finally feel comfortable talking about it in a bit of detail. It was fortuitous that I had a good excuse to bring it up. It definitely ranks as one of the highlights of my career.

...and there's not many guys that can say they did HEMP testing for the DOD.

Wow... that's type-A with rabies!... sounds fun. I still love the HEMP testing for the DOD, and let's face it, when you tell people what HEMP stands for, it's far more interesting than hemp (the plant). Thanks again Ivan, this is interesting stuff and has rekindled some interest for me in how EMP hardening is achieved in practice and not theory.

 

[alisterio]

I suppose the only thing left to be said is that Gelder seems to be a pretty poor artist when it comes to painting doves, and the like.

I just stumbled across this forum, and am obviously reading posts from people far more knowledgeable in this area than I, but, to look at this artist's painting and say that he tried to paint a dove and is so unskilled at his craft that he actually painted what most, if not all observers, would say appears to be a contemporary depiction of a flying saucer, is obtuse at best. What it really comes off as though is being a real jerk in an otherwise informative discussion.

 

[alisterio]

And here we see a saucer with a laser beam:

FCOL - "A saucer with a laser beam?"

Sure, you could describe it that way if you wanted [STRIKE]to be right at all costs[/STRIKE] support your opinion. But again, most reasonable people who see a work of art and see a round YELLOWish object in the top left of right corner with a line in that same color emanating from it would not use that terminology. The would call it the "Sun" and a ray of light or sun beam.

I know when I first started painting, drawing, etc at around five years old, that's where I put the sun and it's pretty clear that one artist drew a disc hovering in the sky, and the other drew the sun.


After reading the first 20 pages of this thread - I teach French at an inner city school in DC on the day before Thanksgiving, it's hard enough to get them in class on regular days, I've got some free time - I have faith in the message board gods that you will no doubt be able to cut, copy, paste and parse my words to demonstrate to the world how my first and only two posts on this subject are even sillier than the concept that ETs are among us.

 

[Vagn]

I just stumbled across this forum, and am obviously reading posts from people far more knowledgeable in this area than I, but, to look at this artist's painting and say that he tried to paint a dove and is so unskilled at his craft that he actually painted what most, if not all observers, would say appears to be a contemporary depiction of a flying saucer, is obtuse at best. What it really comes off as though is being a real jerk in an otherwise informative discussion.

If you ignore other images of the divine dove that look similar, but have a larger dove, then yes it does look like a "UFO" but when you see images like http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/descentoftheholyghost.jpg" which have an almost identical design, then it is a bit of a dubious claim. Not to mention that it is a painting of John the Baptist baptising Jesus in the River Jordan, so why on Earth a UFO ought to be present, God only knows (No pun intended).

 

[alisterio]

I present to you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun" . Here, upwards of 30,000 people were all confused at once. Surely, at least a few hundred of them were very clever people (perhaps they were pilots, military officials, doctors, or break dancers). By your rules, we cannot discount their observations because there were so many of them.

That link hardly points to the reports of 30,000 people. It is mainly the second hand information (quotes he got from other people and printed in his book(s).) taken from Father De Marchi. Hundreds maybe, gathered second hand, 700 years ago. Hardly the equivalent to the eye-witness testimony being referred to in this thread and the book of the same title.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I present to you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun" . Here, upwards of 30,000 people were all confused at once. Surely, at least a few hundred of them were very clever people (perhaps they were pilots, military officials, doctors, or break dancers). By your rules, we cannot discount their observations because there were so many of them.

However, do you find it likely that the entire solar system was torn apart, the Earth was sent hurtling towards the sun, and only 30,000 people in Portugal knew about it? I have given you a clear example where 30,000 people were all confused about a single event. I suggest you study the case carefully.

The error in your logic is the assumption that the event was real if and only if the interpretation of the event was correct.

In my book, it's a UFO report.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That link hardly points to the reports of 30,000 people. It is mainly the second hand information (quotes he got from other people and printed in his book(s).) taken from Father De Marchi. Hundreds maybe, gathered second hand, 700 years ago. Hardly the equivalent to the eye-witness testimony being referred to in this thread and the book of the same title.

It is also circular logic to assume that an event never took place, and then use this assumption as evidence that other reported events never happened.

But your last point is the most significant. The point of this thread was to discuss the most credible cases where "Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record", not those that are easily challenged or obvious dead ends.

 

[nismaratwork]

Was that so easily challenged in its own time? I don't know, but I'll concede it's generally off the OP topic. There are other examples of people seeing a reflection of their city in the sky, which is a kind of mirage... there is a famous example I keep trying to find a citation for, but I forget the city in the US!

Anyway, in my travels and travails I came across this: http://listverse.com/2008/04/19/20-amazing-and-unusual-weather-phenomena/

Certainly this is just a place to jump-off from in terms of reliable sources, but the photos and the list are worth it.

Here's a question: as land-bound mammals the only people who get to see some natural (and amazing, if regular) phenomenon such as TLE's ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper-atmospheric_lightning )... maybe that makes them good as witnesses, but not when they draw conclusions?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Was that so easily challenged in its own time? I don't know, but I'll concede it's generally off the OP topic. There are other examples of people seeing a reflection of their city in the sky, which is a kind of mirage... there is a famous example I keep trying to find a citation for, but I forget the city in the US!

Anyway, in my travels and travails I came across this: http://listverse.com/2008/04/19/20-amazing-and-unusual-weather-phenomena/

Certainly this is just a place to jump-off from in terms of reliable sources, but the photos and the list are worth it.

Here's a question: as land-bound mammals the only people who get to see some natural (and amazing, if regular) phenomenon such as TLE's ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper-atmospheric_lightning )... maybe that makes them good as witnesses, but not when they draw conclusions?

It is not appropriate to post potential answers to claims not made. In order to be applicable, you would need to show these phenomena can account for specific claims that meet the criteria specified in the title.

It is no secret to anyone that these phenomena account for many typical UFO reports, but not all UFO reports are typical. It is the 1%-5% that interest us, not the 95%-99% that even the most devout UFO researchers accept as easily explainable.

I have several pages of interesting reports in the Napster. Is it a mystery that in over seven years, [as nearly as I can recall... it is very rare at best] no debunker has ever cited any of these for discussion? [edit, after ponding this thought a bit, there are probably a few examples, so again we get back to the 1% rule. ]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Was that so easily challenged in its own time? I don't know, but I'll concede it's generally off the OP topic.

Forgot to respond to this: I do think that is an interesting case, but not for this thread. Also, a claim that old, and one lacking any solid references, is pretty tough to evaluate.

I was thinking more of the references to artwork with part of my comment. How to interpret a beam of light on a painting, is a pretty hopeless discussion.

 

[christopherV]

Hi everyone let me start by saying I'm not a UFO nut, but i live in fort worth and during the Stephenville sightings I did witness a "Black Triangle", not as a distant thing but with in about a eighth to a quarter of a mile. It was as real and solid as the laptop I'm now typing on. So I have never questioned the idea of whether they are real, only what the heck are they. My conclusion is that :

A: It was a real structured object in the sky that interacted with it's environment.
B: It displayed unconventional flight characteristics.

So I became obsessed with finding out what it was, how it would be built, and what kind of science would be involved. I now believe that there is more than enough technology available to construct the craft that I saw with good old fashioned human ingenuity.

Take an large number of asymmetrical capacitors (been around since the 50's), some black budget money, a handful of scientists, and a nuclear power plant, boom instant flying hovering triangle that has an ionic smell, a soft glow, and can hover silently forever... then to keep it secret let's start talking about UFOs.

I think the UFO thing is all smoke and mirrors I mean the SR-71 is 1960's (50 years old) technology and it's still the fastest and highest flying declassified military plane. So we are to assume that the exponential growth of technology doesn't apply to aviation?

My only caveat is that this does not apply to older sightings...some preflight.

Love the convo.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hi everyone let me start by saying I'm not a UFO nut, but i live in fort worth and during the Stephenville sightings I did witness a "Black Triangle", not as a distant thing but with in about a eighth to a quarter of a mile. It was as real and solid as the laptop I'm now typing on. So I have never questioned the idea of whether they are real, only what the heck are they. My conclusion is that :

A: It was a real structured object in the sky that interacted with it's environment.
B: It displayed unconventional flight characteristics.

So I became obsessed with finding out what it was, how it would be built, and what kind of science would be involved. I now believe that there is more than enough technology available to construct the craft that I saw with good old fashioned human ingenuity.

Thanks for sharing. How did your observations compare with the other reports? What unusual flight characteristics did you observe?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is one thing that has never made sense. Considering events like Stephenville, Texas, or Highland, Illinois: Why would these guys keep flying classified aircrafts, the existence of which has been denied since at least the early 80s [I think the modern black triangle reports in the US go back to about 1976], over populated areas, at low altitude? In the case of Highland, it was chased or observed by police officers from three precincts.

Also, after all of these years, I've never read even a claim that someone was a pilot for one of these crafts.

 

[christopherV]

Thanks for sharing. How did your observations compare with the other reports? What unusual flight characteristics did you observe?

The UFO was amazingly large, mind numbly staggeringly large. maybe a football field or so, yet it hovered silently, displayed vector thrusting to the point of being able to turn 90 degrees without banking and while standing almost still. It had no wings no obvious airfoil or rotor. While the possibility has occurred to me that it could have been an internal rotor type craft with some sort of noise canceling device. My gut says that it was probably an ionic craft of some sort, that has absolutely no basis just feels right after seeing it.

This is one thing that has never made sense. Considering events like Stephenville, Texas, or Highland, Illinois: Why would these guys keep flying classified aircrafts, the existence of which has been denied since at least the early 80s [I think the modern black triangle reports in the US go back to about 1976], over populated areas, at low altitude? In the case of Highland, it was chased or observed by police officers from three precincts.

Also, after all of these years, I've never read even a claim that someone was a pilot for one of these crafts.

I think that the ships may be taking off and they have a very long trajectory because of the low lift to weight ratio of a craft constructed with asymmetrical capacitors would have.

Or they could be flying over all the time; they stay low to stay out of radar and they are only apparent when they have some sort of technical malfunction that breaks down a cloaking device of some sort. (side note: the British have publicly tested an invisibility cloak for tanks)

As for the pilots coming out, I have absolutely no idea...but I have to admit that the idea that it is a US secret project scares me a whole lot less than if it was an extra terrestrial craft.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The UFO was amazingly large, mind numbly staggeringly large. maybe a football field or so, yet it hovered silently, displayed vector thrusting to the point of being able to turn 90 degrees without banking and while standing almost still. It had no wings no obvious airfoil or rotor. While the possibility has occurred to me that it could have been an internal rotor type craft with some sort of noise canceling device. My gut says that it was probably an ionic craft of some sort, that has absolutely no basis just feels right after seeing it.

Please note that it isn't appropriate to speculate about the nature of any related technologies, but you are welcome to describe what you saw. We can offer potential mainstream explanations when possible. The only possible explanation that I can offer is one that has been kicked around for years: You saw some kind of blimp. The idea of a hybridized lighter-than-air craft has long been a favored explanation for these reports. This explanation would seem to be consistent with many elements of the reports.

To the best of my knowledge, any ionic drive system that one might imagine would not have the lifting capacity for a large craft. Consider that the lifter toys seen that use high voltage are very low in thrust, which is why they are extremely light. So from an engineering perspective, that explanation would have to be considered highly speculative at best; thus not appropriate for discussion.

 

[jreelawg]

The UFO was amazingly large, mind numbly staggeringly large. maybe a football field or so, yet it hovered silently, displayed vector thrusting to the point of being able to turn 90 degrees without banking and while standing almost still. It had no wings no obvious airfoil or rotor. While the possibility has occurred to me that it could have been an internal rotor type craft with some sort of noise canceling device. My gut says that it was probably an ionic craft of some sort, that has absolutely no basis just feels right after seeing it.

Did it have three lights, (one in each corner)? What I saw, to me looked much smaller in my perspective, if what I saw were a football field wide, then the diameter of the lights would have been maybe 10 yards wide at least. I'm just curious, if what I saw was the same thing, or something similar.

You say that it made 90 degree turns without banking. Did it do this at considerable speed?

 

[jreelawg]

What I saw, (the lights) I would describe as similar in appearance to the light that you see from lighting. In my case, the light was electric blue in color, however I have read reports similar to mine except that orange, red or violet light had been reported, and some report the color changing.

Would it seam that what I saw may be consistent with some sort of ionic phenomena or propulsion?

 

[christopherV]

What I saw, (the lights) I would describe as similar in appearance to the light that you see from lighting. In my case, the light was electric blue in color, however I have read reports similar to mine except that orange, red or violet light had been reported, and some report the color changing.

Would it seam that what I saw may be consistent with some sort of ionic phenomena or propulsion?

Mine had a strange blue haze across the bottom but no lights as i saw. though it was silhouetted on the night sky. It was almost standing still when it turned and then shot off at a clip of 100-150 mph.

I'm sorry that I can not comment on the ionic phenomena as my last post was removed and i was given an infraction for speculating on a non peer reviewed subject and i don't want another.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned how incredibly likely it is that this was one of the many aircraft or other phenomena mentioned earlier in this thread. As for blue glows, that can be 'St. Elmo's Fire', diffuse lighting, or even light from the moon being diffused through a transparent dirigible. I find that a far more likely speculation that a giant TIE fighter. At some point this thread moved from debunking and skepticism to, "share your close encounter"... I think around the time FlexGunship gave up on it, which I in turn am also doing.

 

[nismaratwork]

Mine had a strange blue haze across the bottom but no lights as i saw. though it was silhouetted on the night sky. It was almost standing still when it turned and then shot off at a clip of 100-150 mph.

I'm sorry that I can not comment on the ionic phenomena as my last post was removed and i was given an infraction for speculating on a non peer reviewed subject and i don't want another.

It's been well established in this thread that humans are rot at guessing the velocity of objects with an indeterminate distance. The same goes for estimating light sources and size... You're making a vast number of assumptions after the fact... how about sticking to your observations rather than your conclusions.

 

[christopherV]

It's been well established in this thread that humans are rot at guessing the velocity of objects with an indeterminate distance. The same goes for estimating light sources and size... You're making a vast number of assumptions after the fact... how about sticking to your observations rather than your conclusions.

That is completely unhelpful to the conversation. Sorry you're mad. have no idea. I'm just making an informed conclusion to the phenomenon that i saw.

 

[FlexGunship]

That is completely unhelpful to the conversation. Sorry you're mad. have no idea. I'm just making an informed conclusion to the phenomenon that i saw.

Well, it's actually very important to the conversation, Christopher, for the following reason:

Every individual maintains the sense that he or she is an ideal bastion of observation; a perfect source of conclusions based on what our senses tell us. Nismar is trying to make the point that humans are fundamentally bad at this. It's not that you are bad, but rather that all humans are pretty bad at it.

The thing is, and this is important, we don't feel bad at it. In fact, sometimes we feel incredibly sure of our personal observations and amazingly confident in our conclusions. However the mere act of trying to give an explanation often sours the entire venture; cognitive biases plunder our minds and barbarize objective reason.

Despite your experience, there's actually a very good chance that you misunderstood your observations. Not because you're a bad observer, but because you're human... just like all of us. Both Ivan and Nismar said it well: share your observations, but try not to hang too much weight on them, and avoid premature conclusions.

We've all been there before, we all have our stories, and we all might be wrong. ​

 

[nismaratwork]

That is completely unhelpful to the conversation. Sorry you're mad. have no idea. I'm just making an informed conclusion to the phenomenon that i saw.

FlexGunship has said it well, but I'll be blunt: What informs your conclusions, when your observations are fundamentally unsound due to a condition of being HUMAN. We are terrible at judging distance, size, and shape outside of a relatively narrow distance designed for our cursorial hunting past.

The conversation is as the title of the thread states, and while it may have been deleted I still had the joy of reading your "conclusions" about the nature of the "craft". Your idea of skepticism is far from the reality of that mindset... it's not about just reigning in your WILDEST ideas...

 

[christopherV]

Well, it's actually very important to the conversation, Christopher, for the following reason:

Every individual maintains the sense that he or she is an ideal bastion of observation; a perfect source of conclusions based on what our senses tell us. Nismar is trying to make the point that humans are fundamentally bad at this. It's not that you are bad, but rather that all humans are pretty bad at it.

The thing is, and this is important, we don't feel bad at it. In fact, sometimes we feel incredibly sure of our personal observations and amazingly confident in our conclusions. However the mere act of trying to give an explanation often sours the entire venture; cognitive biases plunder our minds and barbarize objective reason.

Despite your experience, there's actually a very good chance that you misunderstood your observations. Not because you're a bad observer, but because you're human... just like all of us. Both Ivan and Nismar said it well: share your observations, but try not to hang too much weight on them, and avoid premature conclusions.

We've all been there before, we all have our stories, and we all might be wrong. ​

That is an eloquent well thought out reasonable retort to the entire observational process.

The problem I have with the current climate of skepticism in general is...it wouldn't pass mustard in a court room. What you are trying to do in a strictly legal sense is impeach the witness. You may legally impeach a witness for these reasons.

Bias--The witness is biased against one party or in favor of the other. The witness has a personal interest in the outcome of the case.

Inconsistent Statement--The witness has made two or more conflicting statements. By exposing his conflicting statements, you reduce his credibility.

Character--The witness has a community-recognized reputation for dishonesty.

Competency--The witness was unable to sense what he claimed to have (such as he could not see from where he was) or that he lacked the requisite mental capacity.

Contradiction--The witness is induced to contradict his own testimony during the present proceeding.

The observation conclusion process has lead us to many astounding revelations: evolution, Newtonian physics, relativity the list goes on and on without the conclusions that these men made they never would have questioned the long standing dogma.

and after all Edison failed a hundred times at making the light bulb, right?

So you attack the competency of the observer. I however am of sound mind and I have both of my eyes and ears. Making me a sound observer of the incident in question. Perhaps some of the finer details like size and speed could generally be called into question, but the question of whether the event happened is unimpeachable.

I have never been accused of dishonesty in this community...or in general.

I have not contradicted my testimony.

I have not been inconsistent.

I do however believe the emperor wears no clothes...so i am biased, it happened.

and i fail as a witness.

but aren't we all a little biased.

 

[FlexGunship]

That is an eloquent well thought out reasonable retort to the entire observational process.

Thanks.

The problem I have with the current climate of skepticism in general is...it wouldn't pass mustard in a court room.

I think you might have meant to type something else. Colloquialisms are dangerous.

What you are trying to do in a strictly legal sense is impeach the witness. You may legally impeach a witness for these reasons.

Non-sequitur?

Bias-- [...] present proceeding.

Woah, I'm not sure that legal precedent is exactly the best metric for scientific inquiry.

The observation conclusion process has lead us to many astounding revelations: evolution, Newtonian physics, relativity the list goes on and on without the conclusions that these men made they never would have questioned the long standing dogma.

and after all Edison failed a hundred times at making the light bulb, right?

Well, the difference here is that the long-standing observation process has shown that people are pretty bad at figuring out what's in the sky. In fact, you're trying to pitch the opposite idea; you're the opponent to evolution, the opponent to relativity. Evolution and relativity won because they best explain the observable facts.

So you attack the competency of the observer.

Negative. Attack is the wrong word. I qualify the observer. In the same way that you wouldn't use a thermometer to calculate the mass of a naval destroyer... I wouldn't use human observation to decide that this "black triangle" is anything but a balloon, a plane, or a helicopter. It's the wrong tool. It doesn't mean it's strictly impossible, but if a large triple-beam balance and your thermometer disagree on the mass of the destroyer, which one would you rely on?

I however am of sound mind and I have both of my eyes and ears. Making me a sound observer of the incident in question. Perhaps some of the finer details like size and speed could generally be called into question, but the question of whether the event happened is unimpeachable.

I'm sure it happened. I once saw an iridium flare out of place. Which is more likely, that I was in the wrong place on Earth, the Sun was in the wrong location, a satellite had jumped orbit, or that I was mistaken? Keep in mind, iridium flares are real things; unquestionably so.

I have never been accused of dishonesty in this community...or in general.

I have not contradicted my testimony.

I have not been inconsistent.

I do however believe the emperor wears no clothes...so i am biased, it happened.

and i fail as a witness.

but aren't we all a little biased.

A rant?

 

[nismaratwork]

Pass... MUSTER.

Not mustard... muster. Did you know that, but at the moment you wrote it your brain just didn't quite make it? Did you not know, but you'd heard it so you filled it in phonetically? This is a great metaphor for the human being as an observer whether we're honest as a saint, or crooked... humans:

Have gaps in their brains, vision, and more! I don't mean this as crudely as I sound, but it in essence our brain is fed various snapshots of what (by the time someone can read this) has become a familiar world. When confronted with something unfamiliar, our brains try to fill in those gaps too, with that same feeling of gut instinct, or intellectual certainty anyone has when fudging a word they don't quite know.

The thing is, this is about SKEPTICISM... not belief, not cynicism... Skepticism. You make an extraordinary claim, you need to be able to keep it aloft despite the reasonable critique of peers. If it still doesn't fly, and you're just believing because you feel that you know what you saw, period... then why discuss it here?

 

[FlexGunship]

The thing is, this is about SKEPTICISM... not belief, not cynicism... Skepticism. You make an extraordinary claim, you need to be able to keep it aloft despite the reasonable critique of peers. If it still doesn't fly, and you're just believing because you feel that you know what you saw, period... then why discuss it here?

To build on that idea: behaving defensively is often a sure sign that you're unsure about what you saw. It could be an indication of uncertainty if a conversation goes like this:

• I saw a giant blank triangle in the air
• Maybe it was actually small and close by.
• It couldn't be small because...
• Maybe a plane?
• It couldn't be a plane because...
• Oh, balloon then?
• It couldn't be a balloon because...

This is a sign that someone has actually already made up their mind about what they saw. Now, they are trying to convince you of their own interpretation. This is the danger of trying to share observations; you can't do it without introducing a cognitive bias.

Humans can't seem to pass mustard... without adding a dash of paprika.

 

[christopherV]

Thanks.

welcome.

I think you might have meant to type something else. Colloquialisms are dangerous.



Non-sequitur?

attacking the language of something is a deceptive ploy meant to beguile, undermine and intimidate someone in an argument shifting away from what was said... and has no place in a serious discourse.

Woah, I'm not sure that legal precedent is exactly the best metric for scientific inquiry.

Then you better be sure before you say it. Prove to me why.

Well, the difference here is that the long-standing observation process has shown that people are pretty bad at figuring out what's in the sky. In fact, you're trying to pitch the opposite idea; you're the opponent to evolution, the opponent to relativity. Evolution and relativity won because they best explain the observable facts.

Sentence one has nothing to do with Sentence two and the conclusion that you have drawn seems to have appeared out of thin air.

let me sort this...

Please provide me a peered reviewed paper on 'people are pretty bad at figuring out what's in the sky'. otherwise you are speculating and that statement is just your opinion presented as a fact.

again I have absolutely no idea how Sentence two is a fact of Sentence one... seriously please explain I'm sure there is a thought process there.

Negative. Attack is the wrong word. I qualify the observer. In the same way that you wouldn't use a thermometer to calculate the mass of a naval destroyer... I wouldn't use human observation to decide that this "black triangle" is anything but a balloon, a plane, or a helicopter. It's the wrong tool. It doesn't mean it's strictly impossible, but if a large triple-beam balance and your thermometer disagree on the mass of the destroyer, which one would you rely on?

My only problem with this is that you are presupposing again...that 'people are pretty bad at figuring out what's in the sky' only this time you contradict that statement and say if it is a balloon, plane or helicopter people are very good at that. huh? so expectations are preferable to observations? seems very unscientific.

I'm sure it happened. I once saw an iridium flare out of place. Which is more likely, that I was in the wrong place on Earth, the Sun was in the wrong location, a satellite had jumped orbit, or that I was mistaken? Keep in mind, iridium flares are real things; unquestionably so.

Most likely you where mistaken...doesn't mean i was. the two events have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

A rant?

LOL. yeah *blush* sorry.

 

[christopherV]

Have gaps in their brains, vision, and more! I don't mean this as crudely as I sound, but it in essence our brain is fed various snapshots of what (by the time someone can read this) has become a familiar world. When confronted with something unfamiliar, our brains try to fill in those gaps too, with that same feeling of gut instinct, or intellectual certainty anyone has when fudging a word they don't quite know.

valid point i have no retort.

The thing is, this is about SKEPTICISM... not belief, not cynicism... Skepticism. You make an extraordinary claim, you need to be able to keep it aloft despite the reasonable critique of peers. If it still doesn't fly, and you're just believing because you feel that you know what you saw, period... then why discuss it here?

My only claim was that I experienced an Unidentified Flying Object and in my personal quest to determine what it was. I discovered information that leads me to believe that the government has a secret weapons program that might involve experimental aircraft...ummm what part of that is extraordinary exactly?

 

[nismaratwork]

welcome.


attacking the language of something is a deceptive ploy meant to beguile, undermine and intimidate someone in an argument shifting away from what was said... and has no place in a serious discourse.

By the same token, neither does passing the mustard. There isn't much in the way of substance to address in your case anyway, but it's good to see that you suddenly have high standards for this little chat.

hen you better be sure before you say it. Prove to me why.

Now THIS, "has no place in serious discourse," especially when you're making a straw-man out of the notion of wanting proof that you saw a 1/8-1/4 flying object.

Sentence one has nothing to do with Sentence two and the conclusion that you have drawn seems to have appeared out of thin air.

He made a simple logical statement that you failed to follow... fair enough, this is when I'd ask for clarification, but instead you go for another round of, "you asked me for a source when I said I saw a giant flying triangle, so I'm going to go ad absurdem!" *yawn*[/quote]

let me sort this...

Oh let's not...

Please provide me a peered reviewed paper on 'people are pretty bad at figuring out what's in the sky'. otherwise you are speculating and that statement is just your opinion presented as a fact.

There are in fact a number of studies and even books on this very subject, many of which can be found in earlier discussions IN THIS THREAD. You can read older posts... maybe you weren't the first to raise this issue?

again I have absolutely no idea how Sentence two is a fact of Sentence one... seriously please explain I'm sure there is a thought process there.

They naturally follow as examples of theories which withstand the test of time and tests of man, versus myth and legend which are eventually discarded. If you didn't follow that, again, I recommend politely asking for clarification and not inventing an internal narrative.[/quote]

My only problem with this is that you are presupposing again...that 'people are pretty bad at figuring out what's in the sky' only this time you contradict that statement and say if it is a balloon, plane or helicopter people are very good at that. huh? so expectations are preferable to observations? seems very unscientific.

Go. Read. He's not presupposing anything that hasn't been shown in controlled and field settings, over and over. Again, read back in this thread... you're the one claiming to see quarter mile flying triangles... the burden of proof is on you and so is educating yourself to SOME extent.



<snip>[/QUOTE]

 

[nismaratwork]

valid point i have no retort.



My only claim was that I experienced an Unidentified Flying Object and in my personal quest to determine what it was. I discovered information that leads me to believe that the government has a secret weapons program that might involve experimental aircraft...ummm what part of that is extraordinary exactly?

One, the part that's extraordinary has been helpfully put in bold font by me. Second... you discovered information about a secret weapons program?... I don't suppose you have any proof that meets the standards of this site, and a scientific and skeptically minded person in general?

Oh, and do you see the similarity of someone who believes they had a close encounter with death, or god, etc... all have the same thing you're expressing here? It's called FAITH... and it's fine to have it, but this isn't the place to express your faith in secret government mega-airships.

 

[christopherV]

By the same token, neither does passing the mustard. There isn't much in the way of substance to address in your case anyway, but it's good to see that you suddenly have high standards for this little chat.



Now THIS, "has no place in serious discourse," especially when you're making a straw-man out of the notion of wanting proof that you saw a 1/8-1/4 flying object.




He made a simple logical statement that you failed to follow... fair enough, this is when I'd ask for clarification, but instead you go for another round of, "you asked me for a source when I said I saw a giant flying triangle, so I'm going to go ad absurdem!" *yawn*

Oh let's not...




There are in fact a number of studies and even books on this very subject, many of which can be found in earlier discussions IN THIS THREAD. You can read older posts... maybe you weren't the first to raise this issue?




They naturally follow as examples of theories which withstand the test of time and tests of man, versus myth and legend which are eventually discarded. If you didn't follow that, again, I recommend politely asking for clarification and not inventing an internal narrative.[/quote]






Go. Read. He's not presupposing anything that hasn't been shown in controlled and field settings, over and over. Again, read back in this thread... you're the one claiming to see quarter mile flying triangles... the burden of proof is on you and so is educating yourself to SOME extent.



<snip>[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

so that answered exactly nothing... how is this reasonable? you can't support your arguments and continue to make personal attacks because you have nothing to back this up with.

do not feed the trolls.

done

 

[FlexGunship]

Sentence one has nothing to do with Sentence two and the conclusion that you have drawn seems to have appeared out of thin air.

let me sort this...

Please provide me a peered reviewed paper on 'people are pretty bad at figuring out what's in the sky'. otherwise you are speculating and that statement is just your opinion presented as a fact.

again I have absolutely no idea how Sentence two is a fact of Sentence one... seriously please explain I'm sure there is a thought process there.

Of the various fallacies, I've chosen to concentrate on this one. As a note: I would be cautious in your style of discourse as it can sometimes rain infractions (consider it a friendly warning); you've chosen a very adversarial tone which I choose not to match.

You began with a false analogy which I will restate here:

The observation conclusion process has lead us to many astounding revelations: evolution, Newtonian physics, relativity the list goes on and on without the conclusions that these men made they never would have questioned the long standing dogma.

You were implying that discoveries are sometimes "astounding" and "[require questioning] the long standing dogma." The way in which I understand this analogy is to say:

• Darwin : Evolution :: ChristopherV : Secret Government Weapons Programs
• Einstein : Relativity :: ChristopherV : Secret Government Weapons Programs

The reason that the analogy is false is as follows:

Darwin carefully gathered evidence over a long period of time for the purpose of overthrowing an idea which preceded his. Einstein carefully worked out the mathematics involved in explaining the behaviors of light with reference to various inertial frames. You have not performed a single experiment, nor have you demonstrated that you can mathematically predict the behavior of anything at all.​

In fact, what we can say is that there seems to be a trend in neuroscience which shows us that we are very likely to misunderstand what we experience; and that you are actually being the "old school thinker" by resorting to these methods to explain your experience.

I'm going to go off a bit tangentially here for the purpose of further clarifying my point. The human race used to think that atmospheric events, floods, plagues, and earthquakes (to name a few) were caused by gods, demons, and perhaps other magical things. Meticulous scientific inquiry has cleared some of these points up. What can be proven is questionable, but we certainly have better explanations than when we first started out.

The same seems to be true of other experiential phenomena: ghosts, UFOs, bigfoot, et cetera. Have they been proven to not exist? Certainly not. But we have better explanations now.

You have jumped into the old-school of thought: unexplainable phenomena are (in some way) paranormal.

I use the term "paranormal" to describe something that is not within the common purview of scientific experience. Please do not make this about "ghosts and demons." To declare that it was a "secret government weapons project" cannot have explanatory power since, firstly, it is a tautology ("we don't know what it is so it's a secret"), and secondly, it is assertion by fiat.

If you want to be on the cutting edge of understanding UFOs, start by admitting the most likely situation is that you were simply mistaken.

EDIT: Or better yet, share your observations, but discard the conclusions.

 

[FlexGunship]

do not feed the trolls.

 

[christopherV]

FlexGunship

your points are valid. I was not attempting to show that I was in some way right because i made an observation and a conclusion. I was stating that the process of making observation in inherent to learning new things.

As for the combative tone. I have heard that before, I'm not combative just a poor writer.

As for the Experience. I feel that the explanation i gave was the best that i had and while speculation on the subject granted, I would be more than happy to send you a PM with links to serious scientific research by NASA and AIAA on the subject.

Please stop the personal attacks I made a mistake in my grammar and you and nismaratwork became very combative about this subject right off the bat.

 

[nismaratwork]

so that answered exactly nothing... how is this reasonable? you can't support your arguments and continue to make personal attacks because you have nothing to back this up with.

do not feed the trolls.

done

First, please correctly format your quotes.
Second, how is confronting you with the likely reality of your experience trolling, and enough of this wounded doe, "you're being mean to me!".

I'm not combative... I'm challenging your assertion that you saw a 1/8-1/4 mile flying triangle and that you've uncovered military secrets. What you're doing now is deflecting... I'll ask you again:

How do you in support these two extraordinary claims?

My only claim was that I experienced an Unidentified Flying Object and in my personal quest to determine what it was. I discovered information that leads me to believe that the government has a secret weapons program that might involve experimental aircraft...

 

[nismaratwork]

FlexGunship

your points are valid. I was not attempting to show that I was in some way right because i made an observation and a conclusion.

Just what do you think a conclusion is, if not a decision that something is right, wrong, or indeterminate? You decided that in all likelihood your experience was the result of secret government weapons testing. That is, to be blunt, 'an assertion of rightness'.

I was stating that the process of making observation in inherent to learning new things.

As for the combative tone. I have heard that before, I'm not combative just a poor writer.

As for the Experience. I feel that the explanation i gave was the best that i had and while speculation on the subject granted, I would be more than happy to send you a PM with links to serious scientific research by NASA and AIAA on the subject.

Please stop the personal attacks I made a mistake in my grammar and you and nismaratwork became very combative about this subject right off the bat.

Your grammar isn't the issue, your belief sans proof or even a shred of evidence, of a secret government weapons program involving aircraft is the issue. Your inability or unwillingness to re-examine your experience or reconsider your "conclusion" makes your entire time in this thread seem more like a 'sharing' experience than anything to do with the OP!

 

[FlexGunship]

Please stop the personal attacks I made a mistake in my grammar and you and nismaratwork became very combative about this subject right off the bat.

This is a decoy. I pointed it out once with no further comment, then cracked a joke about it later. Nismar may have poked a bit harder, but I think this is behind us.

I suppose if you can't laugh about your own mistakes, then the chances you are willing to "be wrong" about something you claim are mathematically insignificant.

Furthermore, if you are so wounded by that type of comment, then you have very little chance of being convinced of being wrong.

It's a dangerous combination to have such thin skin and then make such a strong proclamation.

 

[christopherV]

First, please correctly format your quotes.
Second, how is confronting you with the likely reality of your experience trolling, and enough of this wounded doe, "you're being mean to me!".

I'm not combative... I'm challenging your assertion that you saw a 1/8-1/4 mile flying triangle and that you've uncovered military secrets. What you're doing now is deflecting... I'll ask you again:

How do you in support these two extraordinary claims?

I can not of course support the first claim. All i can make is the reasonable statement that I am impeachable as a legal witness on all counts except my bias.

as for the government secret weapon program...seriously. ok

The SR-91

unacknowledged combat aircraft
F-23 ”Black Widow II”
YF-23A
MX-47 “Ripper”

and supposedly the The X-115 “Lifter” is a non-combat aircraft designed to test electrostatic propulsion. Though i have found only one reference to it and it may not be real.

how about NASA’s scramjet X-43

publicly does mach 9.6

And the elusive TAW-50 "space fighter" constructed by Lockheed-Martin Skunk Works and Northrop which supposedly has been leaked but i can't find a whole lot of information that i would deem credible... mostly because it stretches even my imagination...it supposedly does mach 50.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I can not of course support the first claim. All i can make is the reasonable statement that I am impeachable as a legal witness on all counts except my bias.

as for the government secret weapon program...seriously. ok

The SR-91

unacknowledged combat aircraft
F-23 ”Black Widow II”
YF-23A
MX-47 “Ripper”

and supposedly the The X-115 “Lifter” is a non-combat aircraft designed to test electrostatic propulsion. Though i have found only one reference to it and it may not be real.

how about NASA’s scramjet X-43

publicly does mach 9.6

And the elusive TAW-50 "space fighter" constructed by Lockheed-Martin Skunk Works and Northrop which supposedly has been leaked but i can't find a whole lot of information that i would deem credible... mostly because it stretches even my imagination...it supposedly does mach 50.

1). The photo at the top is a fake. It has been debunked before. You can also check Snopes.

2). In an ealier post, perhaps a PM, you cited the Biefield-Brown effect. If you check the rules, you will see that this topic is banned as the alleged effect cannot be duplicated - it has been debunked.

3). The rules were here long before you were. The requirement for a peer-reviewed paper has been in effect for about five years.

4). Yes, we have higher standards than a court of law. That is true of science generally.

5). I made an effort last night to find a paper about ionic propulsion that might be acceptable. I only noticed one from NASA that might qualify. I checked with the staff to see what they think, but the paper was not peer reviewed.

6). The rules are not subject to debate.

 

[FlexGunship]

The SR-91

EDIT: <deleted by author, redundant>

unacknowledged combat aircraft
F-23 ”Black Widow II”
YF-23A
MX-47 “Ripper”

Well, far from unacknowledged, the YF-23 "Black Widow" was one of two prototypes built for the F-23. Is the "Gray Ghost" also an unacknowledged combat aircraft?

YF-23A? Is that a reference to a video game? (http://acecombat.wikia.com/wiki/YF-23A_Black_Widow_II)

Other than someone talking about it (on a blog... again) even the INTERNET doesn't know of anything called the MX-47.

and supposedly the The X-115 “Lifter” is a non-combat aircraft designed to test electrostatic propulsion. Though i have found only one reference to it and it may not be real.

Yes, probably not real. Best to leave this one out.

how about NASA’s scramjet X-43
publicly does mach 9.6

Yeah, 'cause it's basically a missile.

And the elusive TAW-50 "space fighter" [...] it supposedly does mach 50.

Non-existent things often seem elusive (sic. unicorns). I'm not saying the TAW-50 is non-existent (that would be an unsubstantiated claim), but other than rumors (AND BLOGS) there seems to be no evidence of this plane.

Finally, we arrive at the end, and all we have for examples are PLANES! You told us this was large and hovered.

The UFO was amazingly large, mind numbly staggeringly large. maybe a football field or so, yet it hovered silently, displayed vector thrusting to the point of being able to turn 90 degrees without banking and while standing almost still. It had no wings no obvious airfoil or rotor.

As far as I can tell, your list of (questionably existent) aircraft does nothing to further your case for a football-field-sized triangle balloon.

EDIT: It does, however, reveal to us which types of websites you get information from, and what you consider to be "evidence" of something possibly existing.

 

[jreelawg]

This thread has already overwhelmingly been an argument about wether or not anyone could ever see something, and have a clue what they saw.

The conclusion some have drawn, is that trusting what you see as real, and not illusion is a function of how ordinary what it is you saw. This thinking leads to a view where it is impossible for a person to see anything out of the ordinary without assuming it was something common and uneventful, and being done with it.

It isn't just you, it is anyone and everyone, who they have discredited in advance under all circumstances as observes.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This thread has already overwhelmingly been an argument about wether or not anyone could ever see something, and have a clue what they saw.

The conclusion some have drawn, is that trusting what you see as real, and not illusion is a function of how ordinary what it is you saw. This thinking leads to a view where it is impossible for a person to see anything out of the ordinary without assuming it was something common and uneventful, and being done with it.

It isn't just you, it is anyone and everyone, who they have discredited in advance under all circumstances as observes.

Personal opinion:

I agree. I think the idea that no one can trust anything they've seen has been taking too far [generally speaking]. We can't accept observations as scientific evidence, but I don't think it is reasonable to completely dismiss observations as useless. It would be pretty difficult to mistakenly see an object the size of a football field, at close range, when nothing was there.

 

[FlexGunship]

It isn't just you, it is anyone and everyone, who they have discredited in advance under all circumstances as observes.

I think that's an unfair characterization.

The statement is this: if you are going to postulate the existence of a giant hovering triangle the size of a football field that makes no sound then you must do better than a personal story. It is an interesting experience, but history has shown that when someone says something like this, they are sometimes mistaken.

Does anyone remember this: (http://abcnews.go.com/International/video/new-ufo-sightings-in-china-11813189)? Hundreds of people saw it, and it turned out to be a helicopter.

China UFO:

Helicopter over DC:

EDIT: I guess there is still some debate over this. I will say that it "seems well explained as a helicopter."