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

[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.