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

[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."

 

[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.