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

[FlexGunship]

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.

Could there be a middle ground where we accept the observations, but NOT as evidence of a floating football field?

(Forgive my crude paraphrasing.)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Could there be a middle ground where we accept the observations, but NOT as evidence of a floating football field?

(Forgive my crude paraphrasing.)

That is what I try to do. But I suspect we have differing opinions about what constitutes the middle ground.

I think there comes a point where one has to assume that all observers are complete idiots, which clearly isn't true, in order to ignore the essential elements of their reports.

I should note that the [photo] alleged stealth aircraft was a prop from a movie. Btw, I posted that one myself before I realized it was a fake. It was sent to me by a former Col. in the Marines. Given that it fooled him, I didn't feel too badly about it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Flex, I agree that it is easy to misinterpret something seen in the sky. But, for example, you posted the stuff about a mistaken helicopter. What differentiates that report from reports that would interest me, is that a helicopter would exhibit typical flight characteristics for a helicopter. So there would be nothing implicit to the report that makes it unique. That is one of the est 95%-99% that don't interest us here.

Note that classically speaking, the favored number was about 90% - i.e. 90% of all UFO reports are uninteresting. I have seen the number 95% used, and assume because of the internet that we are probably closer to 99%. It is so easy to post a report to a UFO website that we see a lot more clutter. It used to take some work to file an "official" report.

Interestingly, it was also estimated classically [pre-internet] that only about 10% of all UFO sightings were reported.

 

[FlexGunship]

That is what I try to do. But I suspect we have differing opinions about what constitutes the middle ground.

I agree that we differ about this middle ground. In my personal view, I find speculation about football sized hovering triangles to be unfruitful; but discussing possible mundane explanations for it (i.e. cargo plane overhead) often yields answers.

I think there comes a point where one has to assume that all observers are complete idiots, which clearly isn't true, in order to ignore the essential elements of their reports.

I maintain that this is a false dichotomy. While there are many common threads, I think it is a premature leap to group all "black triangle" reports together. Some hover, some have 3 lights, some have 4 lights, some make a humming noise, other are silent, some have "engines" in the back, others have windows.

If it's necessary to lump them all together to find establish a compelling argument, then shouldn't all the reports at least agree on the details? And if they don't... how many types of black triangles do we have floating around?

Flex, I agree that it is easy [...] used to take some work to file an "official" report.

I apologize. I wasn't pushing it forward as a "compelling" case. I was just trying to illustrate that even something as mundane as a helicopter can be misunderstood by entire crowds of people (that live near an airport, nonetheless).

If these people can misidentify a helicopter under those situations, then perhaps we could do the same.

It was more of a "well, if they can mess that up, surely we can mess this up!"

EDIT: Condensed to prevent a double post.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Don't have time to talk any more right now, but I do want to make it clear that my personal opinion is just that. In no way does this determine what is appropriate for discussion. Hopefully the posting guidelines eliminate any need for subjective judgment on my part.

Wrt to the quality of the reports. If something is topical, personal [a personal observation], or compelling, it is fine to start a thread about it. Flex, I know you started one thread that I locked. There is soooooo much nonsense out there that I try to limit the discussions to the really interesting stuff. It is fine to reference specific prosaic events to make a point, as you were doing here. I wasn't complaining.

We do look to credible news services and the like as a mininum standard. Please do not link to UFO reporting sites in order to start a discussion.

 

[nismaratwork]

My only regret is that I was too slow to respond to the "evidence" of military skulduggery.

Anyway, the great bit about the scientific method is that we don't need to agree on middle grounds, just the basic rules. It may be that it takes time to work through the process, but as long as all parties are committed to following it then we should either reach a correct conclusion, or conclude that we have too little information. This only breaks down when the mutual exchange of ideas becomes a one-way conduit for junk such as ChristopherV's last post.

I would remind folks here that Red Sprites and Blue Jets are pretty otherworldly, but that doesn't make them from another world. We can see things that are genuinely out of the ordinary (ball lightning, a real experimental aircraft), but the fact is that usually we see clouds and other mundane objects. It's through the rigorous application of skepticism that the genuinely interesting UFOs can be plucked from amidst the vast sea of crap that makes up so much of the field.

Go back 10 pages or 15, and the quality of the discussion was far greater because we were talking about compelling and bewildering cases with relevance to the OP... now we're not, and things have suffered as a result.

OH, and the YF-23A is indeed a bonus aircraft of purely fictional nature from the Ace Combat videogame series by... I think... Bandai? I'm pretty sure that Bandai isn't on the "approved source" list...

Jreelawg: The more out of the normal range something is, the less likely we're going to be able to correctly interpret the nature of that thing in a relatively short period of time. Naturally it's going to be widely observed, repeatable (and repeated), events or phenomenon that get attention. When someone says that flying objects shut down missile readiness, or that there was a football-field sized triangle in the sky... well... it takes more than doctored photos, videogame references and vague allusions to a personal quest for truth to even start a discussion.

Skepticism isn't about temperament... it's about using a method to ensure that personal inclinations to believe something, or not, is based on rational examination of evidence.

 

[christopherV]

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."

You know it's funny you post that event because UFO skeptic and space flight expert James Oberg thinks it was military testing, but there are no secret weapons projects right.

here's the article http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/space-expert-china-ufos-likely-from-this-world/19560026

and here are the people that don't fly the stuff of course...this is silly
http://www.afspc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3651

YF-23A

The Northrop/McDonnell Douglas YF-23 was a prototype fighter aircraft designed for the United States Air Force. The YF-23 was a finalist in the U.S. Air Force's Advanced Tactical Fighter competition. Two YF-23s were built and were nicknamed "Black Widow II" and "Gray Ghost", respectively. The YF-23 lost the contest to the Lockheed YF-22, which entered production as the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor.

YF-23A PAV-1 (s/n 87-0800) is now on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio. The aircraft was recently put on display following restoration and is located in the Museum's Research and Development hangar

General characteristics
Crew: 1 (pilot)
Length: 67 ft 5 in (20.60 m)
Wingspan: 43 ft 7 in (13.30 m)
Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.30 m)
Wing area: 900 ft² (88 m²)
Empty weight: 29,000 lb (14,970 kg)
Loaded weight: 51,320 lb (23,327 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 62,000 lb (29,000 kg)
Powerplant: 2× General Electric YF120 or Pratt & Whitney YF119 , 35,000 lbf (156 kN) each
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.2+ (1,650+ mph, 2,655+ km/h) at altitude
Cruise speed: Mach 1.6 (1,060 mph, 1,706 km/h) supercruise at altitude
Range: over 2,790 mi (over 4,500 km)
Combat radius: 865–920 mi[23] (750–800 nmi, 1,380–1480 km)
Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (19,800 m)
Wing loading: 54 lb/ft² (265 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.36
Armament
None as tested but provisions made for[1]
1 × 20 mm (.79 in) M61 Vulcan cannon
4–6 × AIM-120 AMRAAM or AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missiles
4 × AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles

reference link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YF-23


MX-47

The Northrop Grumman X-47 is a demonstration Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle. The X-47 began as part of DARPA's J-UCAS program, and is now part of the United States Navy's UCAS-D program to create a carrier-based unmanned aircraft. Unlike the Boeing X-45, initial Pegasus development was company-funded. The original vehicle carries the designation X-47A Pegasus, while the follow-on naval version is designated X-47B.

General characteristics
Crew: 0
Length: 19 ft 7 in (5.95 m)
Wingspan: 19 ft 6 in (5.94 m)
Height: 6 ft 1 in (1.86 m)
Empty weight: 3,836 lb (1,740 kg)
Loaded weight: 4,877 lb (2,212 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 5,903 lb (2,678 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney Canada JT15D-5C turbofan, 3,190 lbf (14.2 kN)
Performance
Maximum speed: "high subsonic"
Cruise speed: "high subsonic"
Range: 1,500+ NM (2,778+ km)
Service ceiling: 40,000+ ft (12,192+ m)
Thrust/weight: 0.65

reference link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47A_Pegasus

 

[christopherV]

but wait..theres more. check out the bold letters

The DARPA Falcon Project (Force Application and Launch from Continental United States) is a two-part joint project between the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the United States Air Force (USAF). One part of the program aims to develop a reusable, rapid-strike Hypersonic Weapon System (HWS), now retitled the Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV), and the other is for the development of a launch system capable of accelerating a HCV to cruise speeds, as well as launching small satellites into Earth orbit. This two-part program was announced in 2003 and continued into 2006.[1]

The latest project to be announced under the Falcon banner was a fighter-sized unmanned aircraft called "Blackswift" which would take off from a runway and accelerate to Mach 6 before completing its mission and landing again. The memo of understanding between DARPA and the USAF on Blackswift — also known as the HTV-3X — was signed in September 2007. The Blackswift HTV-3X did not receive needed funding and was canceled in October 2008.[2]

Current research under FALCON program is centered around X-41 Common Aero Vehicle (CAV), a common aerial platform for hypersonic ICBMs and cruise missiles, as well as civilian RLVs and ELVs. The prototype Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2 (HTV-2) first flew on 22 April 2010; further tests are scheduled for 2011.

reference links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Falcon_Project
http://www.darpa.mil/news/2010/HTV-2ERBReviewRelease.pdf

X-41
X-41 is the designation for a still-classified U.S. military spaceplane. Specifications or photos of the program have not been released to the public yet; as a result not much is known about its goals. It has been described as an experimental maneuvering re-entry vehicle capable of transporting a 1,000 lb payload on a sub-orbital trajectory at hypersonic speeds and releasing that payload into the atmosphere.
This vehicle is now a part of FALCON (Force Application and Launch from Continental United States) program sponsored by DARPA and NASA.Arizona April, 3rd 2010 a UFO sighting. Right place right time..right supposed shape...probably just a coincidence.
sorry for posting a UFO website link I think that it is topical and relevant to the current post. I will remove it if you would like.
http://www.latest-ufo-sightings.net/2010/04/triangle-ufo-spotted-in-tucson-arizona.html

And so I ask once again nismaratwork and FlexGunship:

what part of my statement was extraordinary again?

 

[nismaratwork]

Ok... so you have one doctored photo, and an artists rendering of a test vehicle that PUBLICLY returned from LEO after a 6 month sojourn (I think, or just some generalized hypersonic vehicle). The YF-23 is exactly what Flex said it was, except for your videogame reference which you've chosen to ignore.

Those projects you talk about that are REAL, are far from some kind of denied weapons system, or even craft (like the B-2 Spirit was, or the F-117)... which is why you can do things like cite WIKIPEDIA. I suppose you move from ordinary to extraordinary when you start talking about 1/4 mile floating triangles.

Frankly, other than quoting some websites and wikipedia about projects utterly unrelated to this discussion... what's your point? No one has said that it's absurd that some UFO sightings could be civilian or military aviation, and it's confirmed that the B-2 Spirit was reported as a UFO more than once during its development. The result was something quite singular, but using a lot of old tech and ideas implemented in a new and successful manner with modern fly-by-wire tech. There was no jump from air-breathing jets to magic floating football fields with vector thrust, and really, what's the point of a huge and highly visible target?

You use "weapons project" the way that other people use aliens, or extra-dimension reptile conspiracies... it's just a placeholder for: magical thinking.

 

[christopherV]

Ok... so you have one doctored photo, and an artists rendering of a test vehicle that PUBLICLY returned from LEO after a 6 month sojourn (I think, or just some generalized hypersonic vehicle). The YF-23 is exactly what Flex said it was, except for your videogame reference which you've chosen to ignore.

Those projects you talk about that are REAL, are far from some kind of denied weapons system, or even craft (like the B-2 Spirit was, or the F-117)... which is why you can do things like cite WIKIPEDIA. I suppose you move from ordinary to extraordinary when you start talking about 1/4 mile floating triangles.

Frankly, other than quoting some websites and wikipedia about projects utterly unrelated to this discussion... what's your point? No one has said that it's absurd that some UFO sightings could be civilian or military aviation, and it's confirmed that the B-2 Spirit was reported as a UFO more than once during its development. The result was something quite singular, but using a lot of old tech and ideas implemented in a new and successful manner with modern fly-by-wire tech. There was no jump from air-breathing jets to magic floating football fields with vector thrust, and really, what's the point of a huge and highly visible target?

You use "weapons project" the way that other people use aliens, or extra-dimension reptile conspiracies... it's just a placeholder for: magical thinking.

If you wil notice the designation of the YF-23A PAV-1
I'm afraid that it is you who did not do your research this time...tisk tisk.

As for the UFO I saw i have provided an (possible)explanation in the X-41
once again..you failed to read the material placed in front of you...I am begin to to question whether this is just biased retroduction.

Please re read the material...slowly.

 

[FlexGunship]

Christopher,

I can't tell if you actually don't see what's wrong here, or if you're just messing with us. For the sake of the thread, I plan to characterize your mistake as a global problem facing the UFO phenomenon in general.

The X-41 is NOT a candidate for what you claim you saw. No literature describes it has hovering or having a total length in excess of 100 yards. In fact, the one thing the X-41 seems to be known for is NOT hovering, but going balls-to-the-wall fast!

What has happened here is "fact-fitting." And it is a plague on UFO reporting and a reason why it is so easy to distrust so many reports (thank you for demonstrating it to clearly). You want there to be a amazing explanation for what you think you saw so badly, that you will overlook such glaring differences between your report and reality just to make the story fit.

In future revisions of your story, you are likely to change the size and flight characteristics of the object to more closely match your mental image of an X-41. Finally, when you are done, you have invented a story about seeing an X-41 which may or may not withstand a cursory review by other "believers."

And someone will say: "but surely you can't discount how well the details line up! Why would he make that up?"

And I will respond: "I don't know why he would make that up, but sometimes people do it without meaning to. And don't call me Shirley."

 

[christopherV]

BTW it was a football field wide not a 1/4 mile...lets continue to be accurate.

 

[christopherV]

Christopher,

I can't tell if you actually don't see what's wrong here, or if you're just messing with us. For the sake of the thread, I plan to characterize your mistake as a global problem facing the UFO phenomenon in general.

The X-41 is NOT a candidate for what you claim you saw. No literature describes it has hovering or having a total length in excess of 100 yards. In fact, the one thing the X-41 seems to be known for is NOT hovering, but going balls-to-the-wall fast!

What has happened here is "fact-fitting." And it is a plague on UFO reporting and a reason why it is so easy to distrust so many reports (thank you for demonstrating it to clearly). You want there to be a amazing explanation for what you think you saw so badly, that you will overlook such glaring differences between your report and reality just to make the story fit.

In future revisions of your story, you are likely to change the size and flight characteristics of the object to more closely match your mental image of an X-41. Finally, when you are done, you have invented a story about seeing an X-41 which may or may not withstand a cursory review by other "believers."

And someone will say: "but surely you can't discount how well the details line up! Why would he make that up?"

And I will respond: "I don't know why he would make that up, but sometimes people do it without meaning to. And don't call me Shirley."

LOL nice movie quote. Actually there is no leaked information on the X-41 other than on kook job web sites...

Are you leaking classified information?

Or more likely just speculating?

Sorry not buying it...also funny how you and nismaratwork seem to answer each others posts and be on at the same time...are we being our own wing man?

 

[FlexGunship]

BTW it was a football field wide not a 1/4 mile...lets continue to be accurate.

My post clearly says 100 yards which is the in-play length of an American football field. Are you implying that 100 yards is a quarter mile? I'm lost.

 

[christopherV]

My post clearly says 100 yards which is the in-play length of an American football field. Are you implying that 100 yards is a quarter mile? I'm lost.

no no the one before you.

. I suppose you move from ordinary to extraordinary when you start talking about 1/4 mile floating triangles.

 

[FlexGunship]

Are you leaking classified information?

Or more likely just speculating?

This has to be a joke. I'm not crazy right? You JUST posted information on the X-41 which described it as a "hypersonic spaceplane." There no need for me to look anything up, or speculate, or leak information; your own hand-picked information has "impeached" you.

A hypersonic spaceplane with 1000lb payload (as per your own description) does not match the vector-thrusting hovering football field (as per your own description).

 

[christopherV]

This has to be a joke. I'm not crazy right? You JUST posted information on the X-41 which described it as a "hypersonic spaceplane." There no need for me to look anything up, or speculate, or leak information; your own hand-picked information has "impeached" you.

A hypersonic spaceplane with 1000lb payload (as per your own description) does not match the vector-thrusting hovering football field (as per your own description).

"It has been described as an experimental maneuvering re-entry vehicle capable of transporting a 1,000 lb payload on a sub-orbital trajectory at hypersonic speeds and releasing that payload into the atmosphere." is precisely what i said

or maybe

"Current research under FALCON program is centered around X-41 Common Aero Vehicle (CAV), a common aerial platform for hypersonic ICBMs and cruise missiles, as well as civilian RLVs and ELVs."

To launch civilian ELVs you would need a large stable platform. <--speculation on the ground i don't know an computer system capable of hanlding the launch.

seriously.

 

[FlexGunship]

This is your description of the craft you saw:

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.

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...

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.

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.

And this is your description of the X-41:

One part of the program aims to develop a reusable, rapid-strike Hypersonic Weapon System (HWS), now retitled the Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV), and the other is for the development of a launch system capable of accelerating a HCV to cruise speeds, as well as launching small satellites into Earth orbit.

The latest project to be announced under the Falcon banner was a fighter-sized unmanned aircraft called "Blackswift" which would take off from a runway and accelerate to Mach 6 before completing its mission and landing again.

X-41 is the designation for a still-classified U.S. military spaceplane.

It has been described as an experimental maneuvering re-entry vehicle capable of transporting a 1,000 lb payload on a sub-orbital trajectory at hypersonic speeds and releasing that payload into the atmosphere.

I added some emphasis to call attention to, what I consider to be, significant differences. I'm not saying that a single craft can't do all of the things we see above, I'm just saying you have no reason whatsoever to believe what you saw was an X-41.

This would be like me saying: "I saw a giant blue bird flying in the woods, wingspan about 6 feet, and it had no discernible beak." Then, I show you this: "A pelican [...] is a large water bird with a large throat pouch, belonging to the bird family Pelecanidae."

They aren't mutually exclusive, but I have no reason to believe the bird i saw was a pelican (and upon closer investigation, it seems that it probably isn't). Your report and the speculative description of the X-41 aren't mutually exclusive, but you have no reason to believe that what you saw was an X-41 (and upon closer investigation, it seems that it probably isn't).

Now, for some good advice!

Please re read the material...slowly.

 

[christopherV]

hey take the advice you saw read it again... you are describing the HWS, HCV, the blackswift and the X-41 all in the same quotes...the fact that you have to confuse the subject with 4 aircraft when you say you're talking about one...just to make a point..sad.

However then you make the point that they aren't mutually exclusive. That i agree 100%. Truth is I have no idea what i saw but I hope to heck it was ours. As for being a balloon... poppy cock that's like confusing a football field (close approximation to what I saw) to a fighter jet. from a quarter mile away...it's absolutely ridiculous to assume that straight off the bat.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm going to wait a bit in the hope that a mentor cleans this thread and deals with ChristopherV. The last three pages make it clear that this is about one crackpot taking this thread for a diversion.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'm going to wait a bit in the hope that a mentor cleans this thread and deals with ChristopherV. The last three pages make it clear that this is about one crackpot taking this thread for a diversion.

Yeah, I stopped posting for the same reason. Don't want to get caught in the crossfire.

EDIT: Woah, this post is very Hofstadter.

 

[nismaratwork]

If you wil notice the designation of the YF-23A PAV-1
I'm afraid that it is you who did not do your research this time...tisk tisk.

As for the UFO I saw i have provided an (possible)explanation in the X-41
once again..you failed to read the material placed in front of you...I am begin to to question whether this is just biased retroduction.

Please re read the material...slowly.

The "A" designation is only for the museum model, not a specific line of YF-23. This is why it helps to use more than one source... tisk... oh I can't even in jest, who the hell tisks?

You say you provide a possible explanation for a football field sized triange with ANY of the aircraft you describe (I mean, one is a 19'x19' drone you couldn't see with the naked eye on a sunny day) with the X-41... how so? What explanation have you give for a thrust vectoring football-field-triangle in the sky that doesn't involve magic, banned topics (magic)...

...Hell, why even MAKE something that large that flies? When you think about it, that's a target that would be hard to miss, right? Really, nothing about your posts, motives, or explanations for your experience make sense.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yeah, I stopped posting for the same reason. Don't want to get caught in the crossfire.

EDIT: Woah, that post was very Hofstadter.

Heh, I fell off the wagon for one last post... some of this stuff is just mind bogglingly silly.

 

[christopherV]

I'm going to wait a bit in the hope that a mentor cleans this thread and deals with ChristopherV. The last three pages make it clear that this is about one crackpot taking this thread for a diversion.

it's cool I'm so over it.

 

[nismaratwork]

it's cool I'm so over it.

...Are you from southern california?

 

[christopherV]

lol. Nope, but i get the point.

 

[FlexGunship]

it's cool I'm so over it.

I'm going to be careful about how I word this, but do you think it's good that you're over it? Aren't you a little alarmed by have casually you dismiss our arguments?

I can't tell if you're actually feeling your statements being torn to shreds, or if you simply think "being right" is one of the many implied benefits of being ChristopherV.

 

[christopherV]

nope just tired of arguing..

 

[nismaratwork]

lol. Nope, but i get the point.

Well there's one theory debunked at least. Too bad it had to be mine...

 

[christopherV]

Well there's one theory debunked at least. Too bad it had to be mine...

You both argued admirably and no hard feeling on my part. I think that you both have made some valid points and I was forced to strongly defend my beliefs to my self.

 

[jreelawg]

I don't know why a few clear points have to be dragged out into pages of misunderstandings, misrepresentations, or exaggerations.

I think what separates peoples opinions on the matters, essentially boil down in most part to the difference between being prone to believing your own self vs believing a complete stranger, who is not even available for facial observation while making the claim. You can understand why it will be hard for a third party to convince someone, that they didn't see what they think they did, and it is also hard for a person to convince a third party you did see what they think they did. It's not personal, and it makes logical sense.

I agree that this particular sighting is not unbelievable. This type of sighting is actually very common, many people have describe seeing the same type of thing, for example the case in Arizona. Having, already, a body of observers with faces in many walks of life, documented claiming to see the same thing, one more faceless observer won't effect the scales.

To me, it doesn't seem like a stretch at all to assume such a craft is makable.

The unique contribution Chris has would only be his take on the discussion of what kind of technology might be able to reproduce the details of these observations, and PF doesn't allow this kind of speculation.

If it does exist, I would guess the size is due to either an engineering necessity, or that it is designed to transport things in and out of the battlefield.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The unique contribution Chris has would only be his take on the discussion of what kind of technology might be able to reproduce the details of these observations, and PF doesn't allow this kind of speculation.

The problem is that we have no credible evidence - published physics or engineering papers - suggesting such a technology is practical. So even if it is possible, the discussion would be purely speculative on two levels - that it could exist AND that it does. That is just bar talk.

 

[projektMayhem]

The thread seems to have been derailed... so I'll toss in my $0.02 :)

If we accept the reports in the book at face value, then it appears we have a conundrum.

Observations:

a) These craft exhibit maneuverability and general flight characteristics thought to be beyond our current capability
b) Many of these sightings take place over populated areas
c) Sightings have been going on for decades, with considerable consistency with respect to the flight characteristics (AFAIK)
d) Fighter jets have been scrambled to investigate on numerous occasions

If these things are true, what other rational explanation could there be, other than the extra-terrestrial hypothesis?

How likely is it that the government would
1) have craft in development for decades - starting from a time before modern computers (if you accept reports from post ww2 - even if you don't, computers in the 80's weren't exactly advanced)
2) be careless enough to test them over highly populated areas all over the world
3) be able to keep a lid on these programs for the length of their development
4) scramble jets to investigate their own black projects
5) find a way to keep pilots alive executing maneuvers that, by all accounts, should kill them?

It's a matter of deductive reasoning. And as S. Holmes would say...

Genuinely curious what others think of this.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If we accept the reports in the book at face value,

This is what peaked my interest years ago. While we can't take any of this as scientific evidence, there are enough well-documented cases and compelling anecdotal reports to strongly suggest to me that we have genuine mystery, and probably several of them.

I don't jump to the ET hypothesis - I don't think that is justified - but I competely understand why many people do. Imo, one cannot in good faith, or as a matter of intellectual honesty, dismiss this all as hokum.

As for your question, the short answer is that, based on the information we have and the physics we know, it is far more likely that the government is behind this than it is that ET is visiting. However, that explanation is difficult to apply to all cases, and we can't set absolute limits on the possibility of visiting ETs. While it would seem to be highly unlikely that ET could have been here, it could also be a near certainty that we will be visited from time to time depending on, the absolute limits of physics and technology, which we may or may not recognize, the distribution of life in the galaxy, and the terms of the Drake equation.

 

[nismaratwork]

I would note that "b", "Many of these sightings take place over populated areas," is self-fulfilling. After all, if a UFO flies over some tuna in the middle of an oceanic region, they're going to fail to report their sighting.

"A" is based on an assumption about the observational powers of... observers (not my best work). "C" is not quite true... in fact, the nature of sightings has changed in many ways to keep pace with our current view of technology. Once we saw cigar-shaped objects far more often... is this because we expected to see airships (literally or figuratively) before the concept of a disk being aerodynamic came to the fore?

"D"... is true. "D", and other reasons that Ivan mentioned are good reasons to keep this an open question, but this isn't something to be cracked by anything less than serious evidence.

Your analysis of a manmade craft seems spot on, and highlights reasons why Ivan is probably right that whatever people see is not ONE thing, whether that's a vehicle of terrestrial or ET origin, an optical illusion, weather, and all of the rest we've discussed previously.

Now the trick is to accept all of your observations and more, and NOT draw a conclusion. It hurts after a while, but keep at it and you'll be far more open to all sides of the debate.

 

[FlexGunship]

Now the trick is to accept all of your observations and more, and NOT draw a conclusion. It hurts after a while, but keep at it and you'll be far more open to all sides of the debate.

While it is true that you need to accept observational reports, more of less, at face value; it's not true that you can never establish a theme.

If you have 100 reports of flashing lights in the sky, and 98 of them turn out to be a helicopter. Wouldn't the most reasonable assumption be that the remaining 2 are also a helicopter? Oh, sure, they described the lights a little differently, and the witness said "I've seen helicopters, and that wasn't one!" But didn't the other 98 do the same?

I know that we really have a disagreement on this point. And I've argued (sometimes poorly) ad nauseum about it. It's a recurring theme that shows up over and over and over. Surely, every once in a while, something tremendous happens that really seems inexplicable. But why give it special credence? Isn't it more likely that someone just didn't make proper observations?

 

[projektMayhem]

Isn't it more likely that someone just didn't make proper observations?

Yes, however when you have observations by multiple people, from multiple locations, corroborated with radar measurements... then it is irrational to say that it is simply a helicopter, or anything else that doesn't actually match the description.

I am not convinced that any of the reports are of un-earthly origin. I simply believe it to be a rational explanation, given the evidence. Reports from the 80's (corroborated by radar measurements) indicate the craft could achieve velocities and accelerations that we today are incapable of (as far as we know). The fact that this trend continues today leads me to believe the ETH is reasonable - although far from a certain conclusion.

 

[FlexGunship]

Yes, however when you have observations by multiple people, from multiple locations, corroborated with radar measurements... then it is irrational to say that it is simply a helicopter, or anything else that doesn't actually match the description.

I am not convinced that any of the reports are of un-earthly origin. I simply believe it to be a rational explanation, given the evidence. Reports from the 80's (corroborated by radar measurements) indicate the craft could achieve velocities and accelerations that we today are incapable of (as far as we know). The fact that this trend continues today leads me to believe the ETH is reasonable - although far from a certain conclusion.

Meh... it's hard to argue that. Your position is reasonable and easily defensible. I do, however, take issue with your use of the radar example. It has been shown repeatedly that radar reflections often behave unpredictably.

Example: Get a mirror, angle it so the sun hits it, and wiggle it back and fort. The light that shines off the mirror will easily attain velocities and accelerations that are impossible for any mirror! Good radar operators dismiss all of these things; others only dismiss most. And that's where the false sense of credibility comes from with radar reports.

 

[nismaratwork]

While it is true that you need to accept observational reports, more of less, at face value; it's not true that you can never establish a theme.

If you have 100 reports of flashing lights in the sky, and 98 of them turn out to be a helicopter. Wouldn't the most reasonable assumption be that the remaining 2 are also a helicopter? Oh, sure, they described the lights a little differently, and the witness said "I've seen helicopters, and that wasn't one!" But didn't the other 98 do the same?

I know that we really have a disagreement on this point. And I've argued (sometimes poorly) ad nauseum about it. It's a recurring theme that shows up over and over and over. Surely, every once in a while, something tremendous happens that really seems inexplicable. But why give it special credence? Isn't it more likely that someone just didn't make proper observations?

True skepticism gives all phenomena equal footing in the face of evidence. Now, that cascade of evidence normally occurs rapidly and escalates, but doesn't for most UFO sightings. Example... a helicopter will often, if watched for a long time, NOT act in the stereotypically "flying light" manner. It's human, and absolutely unavoidable to start to note that every time you hear about flying lights, you produce a helo. I'd be like you, and am, and assume that these sightings are largely worth dismissing.

HOWEVER... that's cynicism, not skepticism. It's a small divide, but while I don't have a responsibility to examine every event of a given type, those I do should be given the same treatment as any other. You trust that the methodology used rapidly separates the 98% from the 2%, and looks for commonalities and themes int that 2. If you dismiss that 2%, it's PROBABLY sound, but it isn't skepticism or science.

 

[nismaratwork]

Meh... it's hard to argue that. Your position is reasonable and easily defensible. I do, however, take issue with your use of the radar example. It has been shown repeatedly that radar reflections often behave unpredictably.

Example: Get a mirror, angle it so the sun hits it, and wiggle it back and fort. The light that shines off the mirror will easily attain velocities and accelerations that are impossible for any mirror! Good radar operators dismiss all of these things; others only dismiss most. And that's where the false sense of credibility comes from with radar reports.

Agreed, and even with computer aid and muliple arrays, coordinated on an Aegis cruiser, radar ops is still an art like a sonar operator on a sub.

 

[jreelawg]

The thread seems to have been derailed... so I'll toss in my $0.02 :)

If we accept the reports in the book at face value, then it appears we have a conundrum.

Observations:

a) These craft exhibit maneuverability and general flight characteristics thought to be beyond our current capability
b) Many of these sightings take place over populated areas
c) Sightings have been going on for decades, with considerable consistency with respect to the flight characteristics (AFAIK)
d) Fighter jets have been scrambled to investigate on numerous occasions

If these things are true, what other rational explanation could there be, other than the extra-terrestrial hypothesis?

How likely is it that the government would
1) have craft in development for decades - starting from a time before modern computers (if you accept reports from post ww2 - even if you don't, computers in the 80's weren't exactly advanced)
2) be careless enough to test them over highly populated areas all over the world
3) be able to keep a lid on these programs for the length of their development
4) scramble jets to investigate their own black projects
5) find a way to keep pilots alive executing maneuvers that, by all accounts, should kill them?

It's a matter of deductive reasoning. And as S. Holmes would say...

Genuinely curious what others think of this.

The first reports I consider of value, started during WW2. In this general time period, there were tremendous advances in physics. While hard to believe, I consider it possible, that the hypothetical phenomena which would be exploited to make UFOs capable of moving how they are reported, could, if it exists at all, have been made during this era.

We have seen changes in design, which seams to work with this hypothesis. From bell shaped, to cigar shaped, and saucer shaped to triangle shaped. As impossible as it seams, if the technology is actually capable of reducing gravity, it would also reduce inertia, and would therefore make the exotic flight patterns survivable.

If you accept the flight characteristics of some reports and include them into the brainstorm, you will be forced consider the conclusion that they are either drones, remotely operated, or they are using anti-gravity or something exotic like it.

2) Why not, if they exist, maybe they have a use, and maybe that use sometimes means flying over rural areas. If they fly them, rural area or not, they are likely to be picked up on radar, and they seam to be able to handle the heat pretty well anyways.

3) Also, how would they keep the lid on having Alien visitors maintaining a steady presence? Shoot, we even have a few Astronauts who claim Aliens have a presence on Earth and the government is covering it up. Even that isn't enough to convince people, and rightfully so, because it doesn't matter who you are, if you don't have solid proof, then you haven't proven anything. Something this secret, would required strict monitoring of all people with access, and if something was stolen, it could be retrieved.

If I were to run such a project, that absolutely needed to be kept secret at all costs, I would only let very few people be exposed to the truth, and the people I would choose for this, would have a lot to lose, and they would be informed of what they would lose if they blow the lid. They would be on constant watch, and if they started slipping they would disappear. They would have tracking devices on them, they would have computer chips in their heads monitoring everything they say and hear 24/7, they would have self destruct devices implanted, nothing left to chance. Most engineers and factory workers would be compartmentalized and have no clue what they were involved in. People involved would have no official records of employment. If they tried to go public, they wouldn't appear to have the credentials anyways.

4) How would you know that people who order jets to be scrambled would know the truth?

 

[nismaratwork]

How did we get back to government programs and gravity-defying magic?

 

[FlexGunship]

HOWEVER... that's cynicism, not skepticism. It's a small divide, but while I don't have a responsibility to examine every event of a given type, those I do should be given the same treatment as any other. You trust that the methodology used rapidly separates the 98% from the 2%, and looks for commonalities and themes int that 2. If you dismiss that 2%, it's PROBABLY sound, but it isn't skepticism or science.

I can't flagrantly disagree. You're right about your delineation between cynicism and skepticism. HOWEVER... science is not blind to biases; it isn't forced to accept all claims as equally true.

If I claim that I have completely blown the lid off of relativity using nothing but meticulous and careful observation, why would you bother to believe me? You could analyze my claims ad infinitum, and no matter how belligerent I am, you are still likely to disagree, not simply maintain careful skepticism.

Relativity has known problems with it (clashes with quantum mechanics), but we don't throw the theory away simply because someone observes something slightly different! In fact, throwing out relativity because of my observations through a dirty window would be considered profoundly unscientific!

Helicopters, Venus, etc. (et al.) have incredible explanatory power when it comes to the UFO phenomenon. Yes, the "helicopter" explanation can often have problems with it (just like other accepted theories), but we shouldn't throw it away because the light doesn't move "the right way."

NOTE: Yes, I've engaged in hyperbole. You don't need to point it out. I understand that the "helicopter" theory (a stand-in for any rational/worldly UFO explanation) is not a formal theory.

 

[projektMayhem]

I see some smart people behaving in strange ways, here.

The thread is about the book, not necessarily the phenomenon in general. The author took great care to present only those cases that have defied conventional explanation. In particular, I find two cases compelling: The case of the "dogfight over Tehran" (Ch. 9)(1976) and a similar sighting in Peru, in 1980 (ch. 10). In both instances, there was radar evidence (both on the ground AND the on-board systems on the jets), which by itself is not conclusive, coupled with a scrambling of jets which engaged these craft, to varying degrees of success.

To dismiss these sightings out of hand as helicopters, or something else that simply doesn't fit is just as unscientific as outright claiming the only possible explanation are aliens or inter-dimensional beings (whatever the heck that means).

Multiple studies of the subject, conducted at different times and places, have concluded that something is up there, and we don't know what. No rational scholar of the subject takes all reports at face value; 80% or so have conventional explanations (i.e. venus, choppers, etc), 15% or so are inconclusive but there is a 5% margin which cannot be explained.

Again, the lack of explanation does not imply alien tech, but it DOES imply that smart people have looked at the evidence and ruled out any plausible, mundane explanation. This alone merits more (serious) study of the subject.

 

[nismaratwork]

I see some smart people behaving in strange ways, here.

The thread is about the book, not necessarily the phenomenon in general. The author took great care to present only those cases that have defied conventional explanation. In particular, I find two cases compelling: The case of the "dogfight over Tehran" (Ch. 9)(1976) and a similar sighting in Peru, in 1980 (ch. 10). In both instances, there was radar evidence (both on the ground AND the on-board systems on the jets), which by itself is not conclusive, coupled with a scrambling of jets which engaged these craft, to varying degrees of success.

To dismiss these sightings out of hand as helicopters, or something else that simply doesn't fit is just as unscientific as outright claiming the only possible explanation are aliens or inter-dimensional beings (whatever the heck that means).

Multiple studies of the subject, conducted at different times and places, have concluded that something is up there, and we don't know what. No rational scholar of the subject takes all reports at face value; 80% or so have conventional explanations (i.e. venus, choppers, etc), 15% or so are inconclusive but there is a 5% margin which cannot be explained.

Again, the lack of explanation does not imply alien tech, but it DOES imply that smart people have looked at the evidence and ruled out any plausible, mundane explanation. This alone merits more (serious) study of the subject.

You strike me as a smart person who hasn't read much of this thread. Much of what you're raising as new points have been exhaustively discussed already. I don't mean that as an insult, but I'd rather not go in circles.

FlexGunship: Yes, bias exist, but it's poison to science and skepticism. There's nothing that requires a person to apply their thinking to any given issue, but if you choose to engage with it, you should try and be sincere in your approach. If you claim to have "blown the lid off of relativity," I'd be extremely doubtful unless you had proof to trump near a century of Relativity's success.

I don't think you need to listen to every story, just that the ones you do hear are given the proper treatment. I feel pretty confident dismissing jreelawg's belief in gravity-modifying craft circa WWII, but if he brought some evidence to bear I'd hear him out.

I'm sorry Flex... if you want to dismiss that last % out of hand because of the rest, then maybe this isn't the kind of thing you want to discuss? I've seen nothing to support the grandiose claims of massive technological conspiracy, or ET visitation, so I believe that people are seeing something where there's nothing.

The irony of course is that your post is followed by one that makes all kinds of assumptions about "sightings", uses weasel words, (multiple studies... ok, cite them mayhem) and oddly rounded percentages. I read that, and from experience I can say that nothing new is brought to the table, just the usual conspiracy theories and "I want to believe" with a gloss of tech instead of magic or aliens. That still doesn't make me right, it just makes me convinced of a position based on experience. I also shouldn't be so blinded by the onslaught of crap information that I ignore the possibility of a diamond in the rough.

People DID see the F-117, and it WAS a fairly large black project. When someone sees a a satellite, a weather balloon, or helicopter... it's important to give them the chance to move from ingrained assumptions and discover what it was. After all they DID see something that most of us don't... just not aliens or (usually) test-planes. I'm not familiar with "dogfight over Tehran", but let's say there was some event that occurred beyond ambiguous radar and jets being scrambled. Is it better to leave it unexamined because the incredibly likely explanations are mundane, or to give it a go because it could be something interesting? If we assume that every light in the sky is a spaceship, we're getting nowhere, but the same is true if we assume that they're all weather/vehicular/optical-illusions.

I don't know what else to say except the need to strike a balance between recognizing that most phenomena, by definition, are mundane... and the fact that there is some odd stuff that happens. Mostly conspiracies are of a financial nature, or just simple crimes, but Lincoln was assassinated by a member of a conspiracy, as was Caesar for instance. Should we believe in "government death panels" because once in a few hundred years a cabal actually DOES something?... no. Should we be aware that you can be struck by lightning, hit by a meteorite, and attacked by an escaped zoo animal. There is no true justification for dismissal without consideration, unless you simply refuse to consider something at all (like the USSC refusing a case), which is fine, and human.

 

[nismaratwork]

I see some smart people behaving in strange ways, here.

The thread is about the book, not necessarily the phenomenon in general. The author took great care to present only those cases that have defied conventional explanation. In particular, I find two cases compelling: The case of the "dogfight over Tehran" (Ch. 9)(1976) and a similar sighting in Peru, in 1980 (ch. 10). In both instances, there was radar evidence (both on the ground AND the on-board systems on the jets), which by itself is not conclusive, coupled with a scrambling of jets which engaged these craft, to varying degrees of success.

To dismiss these sightings out of hand as helicopters, or something else that simply doesn't fit is just as unscientific as outright claiming the only possible explanation are aliens or inter-dimensional beings (whatever the heck that means).

Multiple studies of the subject, conducted at different times and places, have concluded that something is up there, and we don't know what. No rational scholar of the subject takes all reports at face value; 80% or so have conventional explanations (i.e. venus, choppers, etc), 15% or so are inconclusive but there is a 5% margin which cannot be explained.

Again, the lack of explanation does not imply alien tech, but it DOES imply that smart people have looked at the evidence and ruled out any plausible, mundane explanation. This alone merits more (serious) study of the subject.

I don't suppose that you can cite your statistics, or in any way support the position you've taken? You're expressing an opinion and dressing it as though it were a study you'd done. Come on...

 

[projektMayhem]

I don't suppose that you can cite your statistics, or in any way support the position you've taken? You're expressing an opinion and dressing it as though it were a study you'd done. Come on...

The most pertinent report to this thread is the COMETA report, as it was the catalyst for the author taking up her investigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMETA

 

[jreelawg]

How did we get back to government programs and gravity-defying magic?

Projektmayhem offered the question of what it would mean if we accepted the reports at face value. I'm not saying anyone should accept the reports at face value. I think what P.M. was after, was to pin the ET hypothesis against the man made hypothesis under the hypothetical that we take UFO reports at face value.

P.M., argued that accepting the reports at face value, then the only rational explanation would be E.T. I'm just thinking about what it would mean to explain the reports at face value with an earthly explanation. It seams to me that in order to do this you might need to invoke gravity defying magic (if they were piloted by human beings).

 

[nismaratwork]

Projektmayhem offered the question of what it would mean if we accepted the reports at face value. I'm not saying anyone should accept the reports at face value. I think what P.M. was after, was to pin the ET hypothesis against the man made hypothesis under the hypothetical that we take UFO reports at face value.

P.M., argued that accepting the reports at face value, then the only rational explanation would be E.T. I'm just thinking about what it would mean to explain the reports at face value with an earthly explanation. It seams to me that in order to do this you might need to invoke gravity defying magic (if they were piloted by human beings).

PM can speak for himself, as you can for yourself. Your beliefs are clear, and frankly you seem to believe in what I charitably call magic.

projecktMayhem: That's not a citation or a source, just a vague gesture in the direction of one report. You've stated specific statistics... you can't cite them?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Again, as indicated by nismar, please note that we cannot speculate about the existence of human technology, such as anti-gravity devices, to explain these events. We can only consider technologies known to exist.