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

[FlexGunship]

Even if all your guesses come together to accurately portray what happened, it's still interesting (at least to me) that everyone converged on a belief as they did. You have to consider that my field of interest is neuroscience.

Well understood as "confirmation bias." Watch an episode of Ghost Hunters for examples.

• Person A: "Did you just see that woman?"
• Person B: "What? Oh! Yeah! Woah!"
• Person A (later): "Remember when we both saw that woman?"
• Person B: "Yeah, that was crazy."

Ironically, Jupiter was just out recently (as it was on the night of the Tehran incident) and I went to the local mountain top with some friends and viewed it with a telescope (we could see it's rings and moon! Very exciting!). Even without the telescope you could see it because it has a kind of orange hue to it, as if it were reflecting city light from the Earth. It does look unnaturally close because of the light reflections!

That's not "ironic" it's just "coincidental." Furthermore, you didn't see the rings of Jupiter. Sorry, not trying to be rude. But you didn't. This is an awesome case of misidentification. The best part, is I'm sure all of your friends would back you up. You would all swear to what you saw, and if someone interviewed you, it would be reported as a group case. And if someone accused you of "illusion, confusion, or hallucination" you would surely tell them how wrong they are.

You've proved exactly how UFO myths get started with a single post.

 

[FlexGunship]

Reuters: "http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS166901+15-Sep-2010+PRN20100915 "

The worst thing you can do to get a clear picture of what happened is bring witnesses together! This is just begging to be rendered useless. There could be a real event that happened here, and a real story... but because of the way its being handled, we'll never know.

 

[Pythagorean]

Furthermore, you didn't see the rings of Jupiter. Sorry, not trying to be rude. But you didn't. This is an awesome case of misidentification. The best part, is I'm sure all of your friends would back you up. You would all swear to what you saw, and if someone interviewed you, it would be reported as a group case. And if someone accused you of "illusion, confusion, or hallucination" you would surely tell them how wrong they are.

You've proved exactly how UFO myths get started with a single post.

I really don't know. I'm not an astronomer, but it was a pretty good telescope (it wouldn't fit in a smart car, for instance) that came from the university astronomy department.

How can you even guess what telescope I was using and whether it would see the rings or not? I'm truly interested in your thought process here. Can no mobile telescope's see the rings? I only saw one grey stripe, personally, but it was definitely there, ring or not.

 

[FlexGunship]

I really don't know. I'm not an astronomer, but it was a pretty good telescope (it wouldn't fit in a smart car, for instance) that came from the university astronomy department.

How can you even guess what telescope I was using and whether it would see the rings or not? I'm truly interested in your thought process here. Can no mobile telescope's see the rings? I only saw one grey stripe, personally, but it was definitely there, ring or not.

Stripes, I can believe. My point is that you had misclassified what you saw, like so many thousands of other people. It's not a crime, and you shouldn't be embarrassed... but we should all recognize it's common. Many people look into the sky and misidentify things they see, or even simply call them by the wrong name.

The rings off Jupiter weren't discovered until 1979 by the Voyager 1 probe. They are not even visible from Earth through observatory-sized optical telescopes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Jupiter) So, unless you're rockin' the Hubble in your backyard, I have a strong feeling you didn't see Jupiter's rings.

 

[Pythagorean]

Stripes, I can believe. My point is that you had misclassified what you saw, like so many thousands of other people. It's not a crime, and you shouldn't be embarrassed... but we should all recognize it's common.

The rings off Jupiter weren't discovered until 1979 by the Voyager 1 probe. They are not even visible from Earth through observatory-sized optical telescopes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Jupiter) So, unless you're rockin' the Hubble in your backyard, I have a strong feeling you didn't see Jupiter's rings.

I'm not really that embarrassed, the astronomy lab assistant is the one who said it was probably a ring and I'm not like, trying to make a point of it, i mentioned it casually. I wouldn't, for instance, file a report with the US military asserting that I had seen the rings of Jupiter. I don't think the lab assistant would be very offended either, honestly.

This is the large difference between our incident and the incident in Tehran, so I don't think it's really comparable. Even "Ghost Hunters" is completely based on ratings and entertainment. The Iranian military is not in either of those positions, they have a lot more to be accountable for than girls giggling about ghosts and how many people are watching during the commercial break.

 

[jreelawg]

...
Do you agree that there exists a community on Earth that looks up more often than the general public? You would expect a disproportionately large number of UFO reports from that community. But instead you see fewer than the normal ratio. I'll agree that this isn't "evidence" on it's own, but can't we agree that this points to a significant trend, and that this trend might have explanatory power?
...

Again, we're not talking definites, but at a minimum, you can say that such a trip would be so amazingly inconvenient as to be much less likely than a "near certainty."

...
If you apply wishful thinking, you could make that number whatever you like, but applying a scientific eye to it, you must conclude that there is no reason to believe anyone in the universe is moving faster than c.
...

I'm just saying that I have seen no data which suggests astronomers don't report seeing UFO's. All studies I could find suggest they do see UFO's. The proportion is different depending on the few studies you look at, but I can't find any which suggest incredibly low proportions. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, and I see no proof. If we can look at some data, then we can be objective, and there could be a whole thread on this discussion alone.

Likeliness of ET visiting Earth is another issue all together. FTL travel is not a necessity, and worm holes aren't either.

I think what Ivan was getting at with his point about the likeliness, is that we don't know the details. The likeliness can dramatically change depending on circumstances unknown to us. With such uncertainty about circumstantial factors the likeliness becomes a subjective value.

 

[FlexGunship]

I think what Ivan was getting at with his point about the likeliness, is that we don't know the details. The likeliness can dramatically change depending on circumstances unknown to us. With such uncertainty about circumstantial factors the likeliness becomes a subjective value.

Still, there is a default value. You're allowed to say "I don't know." But if you must make a guess, then it should coincide with the best data available. We see nothing moving faster than the speed of light, so, although we can't draw a conclusion for sure, the default position is that ETs would have a very very very hard time getting to us.

Just because we don't know for sure, doesn't mean all options are equally likely.

 

[nismaratwork]

The worst thing you can do to get a clear picture of what happened is bring witnesses together! This is just begging to be rendered useless. There could be a real event that happened here, and a real story... but because of the way its being handled, we'll never know.

...Which, when you think about it, would make the entire story laughable and a great false cover if there was an issue with Nuclear weapons storage (which I doubt). Perhaps we should consider that pilots and generals believe that the persistence of UFO's remaining "U" is a useful card to have in the deck?

 

[jreelawg]

Still, there is a default value. You're allowed to say "I don't know." But if you must make a guess, then it should coincide with the best data available. We see nothing moving faster than the speed of light, so, although we can't draw a conclusion for sure, the default position is that ETs would have a very very very hard time getting to us.

Just because we don't know for sure, doesn't mean all options are equally likely.

Like I already said, FTL travel wouldn't be necessary for interstellar travel. There are a variety of possible circumstances which include ET visitation, without physics being violated.

The argument ends up pivoting on speculated ET motives and behavior.

 

[FlexGunship]

What is an alternative scenario that includes ET visitation but excludes FTL?

 

[FlexGunship]

...Which, when you think about it, would make the entire story laughable and a great false cover if there was an issue with Nuclear weapons storage (which I doubt). Perhaps we should consider that pilots and generals believe that the persistence of UFO's remaining "U" is a useful card to have in the deck?

That's actually an interesting point. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy (I.e. pilots and generals acting in concert with a clear motive). It could simply be that the government in general finds no effort to explain better than advancing any particular theory.

 

[nismaratwork]

That's actually an interesting point. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy (I.e. pilots and generals acting in concert with a clear motive). It could simply be that the government in general finds no effort to explain better than advancing any particular theory.

Yep, and the random sightings of pigeons and other explicable phenomena make it a perfect choice of cover when the need arises. They exert 0 effort, and confusion sets in immediately, even amongst such smarty pants as those present.

 

[FlexGunship]

Yep, and the random sightings of pigeons and other explicable phenomena make it a perfect choice of cover when the need arises. They exert 0 effort, and confusion sets in immediately, even amongst such smarty pants as those present.

Sigh... that's not quite the point I was trying to make. I wasn't introducing a "need" that could "arise."

 

[nismaratwork]

Sigh... that's not quite the point I was trying to make. I wasn't introducing a "need" that could "arise."

Why not? The F-117 was the subject of UFO sightings when it was in development, and simply by keeping quiet there was an introduction of confusion that would not otherwise exist.

 

[FlexGunship]

Why not? The F-117 was the subject of UFO sightings when it was in development, and simply by keeping quiet there was an introduction of confusion that would not otherwise exist.

Still, you're implying collusion. I don't think you need a mechanism like collusion to accomplish this. I'll see if I can draw a parallel"

A store has really crappy shelves and sometimes the food falls off the shelf. Slowly, overtime, customers attribute it to wearing certain kinds of clothing, and speaking too loudly (see Skinner's pigeon superstition). So, without enacting any kind of store policy, or supporting the superstition, people simply start talking quietly and never wearing red at the store.​

No one would argue that the store actually had something to gain here, but taking a stance in either direction is more effort than it's worth. Is there a benefit to a quieter store? It's debatable at best, but probably not. The store doesn't have to have a motive to simply decide not to do anything.

 

[nismaratwork]

Still, you're implying collusion. I don't think you need a mechanism like collusion to accomplish this. I'll see if I can draw a parallel"

A store has really crappy shelves and sometimes the food falls off the shelf. Slowly, overtime, customers attribute it to wearing certain kinds of clothing, and speaking too loudly (see Skinner's pigeon superstition). So, without enacting any kind of store policy, or supporting the superstition, people simply start talking quietly and never wearing red at the store.​

No one would argue that the store actually had something to gain here, but taking a stance in either direction is more effort than it's worth. Is there a benefit to a quieter store? It's debatable at best, but probably not. The store doesn't have to have a motive to simply decide not to do anything.

I'm really saying the same thing, but pointing out that in the past in THIS case, still without collusion or a conspiracy, it HAS had benefits. To think that experiencing benefits without forming a motive is probably naive. Just think of it, if you have another country which sends a spy-plane over US soil, an event that would normally be quite the bruhaha... you can not comment these days! Before anyone can ask the right questions and be met with "no comment", nuts are already claiming to have had their bungholes probed. In short, the public acts as chaff for any sighting, not an evidence-gathering organism. The few people who CAN accurately assess these matters are generally busy debunking pigeons and lens-flares. When they have something real, like ball lightning or a weather balloon, people are suspicious because it sounds so mundane. If 99% of these events are explicable by mundane means, that other 1% is bound to be obscured, and a small percentage of that 1% will be test-flights, and more.

This is a purely social construct, self-sustaining, which requires no change in behavior from any entity.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'm really saying the same thing, but pointing out that in the past in THIS case, still without collusion or a conspiracy, it HAS had benefits. To think that experiencing benefits without forming a motive is probably naive. Just think of it, if you have another country which sends a spy-plane over US soil, an event that would normally be quite the bruhaha... you can not comment these days! Before anyone can ask the right questions and be met with "no comment", nuts are already claiming to have had their bungholes probed. In short, the public acts as chaff for any sighting, not an evidence-gathering organism. The few people who CAN accurately assess these matters are generally busy debunking pigeons and lens-flares. When they have something real, like ball lightning or a weather balloon, people are suspicious because it sounds so mundane.

Cautiously agree.

If 99% of these events are explicable by mundane means, that other 1% is bound to be obscured, and a small percentage of that 1% will be test-flights, and more.

I think it's more than a small percentage of that 1% is still mundane; probably two mundane things happening at the same time.

This is a purely social construct, self-sustaining, which requires no change in behavior from any entity.

Strongly agree.

 

[nismaratwork]

Cautiously agree.



I think it's more than a small percentage of that 1% is still mundane; probably two mundane things happening at the same time.



Strongly agree.

In theory it could be 99.9% or more mundane... after all there are only a handful of truly unexplained phenomena, such as ball lightning. The number of test flights that would be observed, or anything like that would be a minuscule fraction, but even then it makes no sense as long as there is no panic for the government to waste resources exploring every one of these. Given the propagation of 8+ megapixel cameras in phones, you'd think that the UFOligist would be dissapointed by the lack of a similar increase in recorded "sightings". In fact, most video just supports the premise that these are explicable phenomena which are being misinterpreted.

So yeah, I agree with your premise as well.

 

[jreelawg]

... If 99% of these events are explicable by mundane means, that other 1% is bound to be obscured, and a small percentage of that 1% will be test-flights, and more.

This is a purely social construct, self-sustaining, which requires no change in behavior from any entity.

It is self-sustaining as a purely social construct, but is not necessarily a purely social construct. The level of obscurity could be intentionally altered.

 

[FlexGunship]

It is self-sustaining as a purely social construct, but is not necessarily a purely social construct. The level of obscurity could be intentionally altered.

Jreelawg, Nismar and I were making so much progress. We had gotten rid of all of the conspiratorial thinking, had removed the mystical coverings, and had settled on a thin line where conjecture need not impart undue strain on fact.

...and then you post this...

 

[nismaratwork]

Jreelawg, Nismar and I were making so much progress. We had gotten rid of all of the conspiratorial thinking, had removed the mystical coverings, and had settled on a thin line where conjecture need not impart undue strain on fact.

...and then you post this...

*the sound of hope dying*

 

[alt]

It is self-sustaining as a purely social construct, but is not necessarily a purely social construct. The level of obscurity could be intentionally altered.

And the level of obscurity can be sustained - ramped up if needed, to hide advanced military technology, that's going to be seen inadvertantly, once in a while.

 

[nismaratwork]

And the level of obscurity can be sustained - ramped up if needed, to hide advanced military technology, that's going to be seen inadvertantly, once in a while.

The point however is that there's no NEED. This "chaff' effect is created by, and maintained ENTIRELY as an emergent social construction; there is no man behind the curtain. The situation as it exists is akin to flying above cloud-cover, versus putting a mechanism in place to CREATE and modify that cover.

 

[alt]

The point however is that there's no NEED. This "chaff' effect is created by, and maintained ENTIRELY as an emergent social construction; there is no man behind the curtain. The situation as it exists is akin to flying above cloud-cover, versus putting a mechanism in place to CREATE and modify that cover.

Well, yes, possible - 'enough is as good as a feast', as my old dad used to say !

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, yes, possible - 'enough is as good as a feast', as my old dad used to say !

Exactly! Remember, if there is no interference from authorities, then they have the added benefit of literally having no link to the "conspiracy" theories! Now, one example where you and Jared are clearly RIGHT, is the issue of Area 51; not that it's anything special, but the focus on it. It seems clear that the work done there has been moved to a number of different regions, but as long as public focus remains on this iconic area... so much the better.

There's also the possibility that as much as there is no need for even the smallest amount of conspiracy or organized action, that someone (other than Orson Welles) would still take advantage of this public readiness to perceive a vast conspiracy of alien or terrestrial origin. Who knows... stranger things have happened, but I still tend towards Flex's view of this one.

 

[alt]

Exactly! Remember, if there is no interference from authorities, then they have the added benefit of literally having no link to the "conspiracy" theories! Now, one example where you and Jared are clearly RIGHT, is the issue of Area 51; not that it's anything special, but the focus on it. It seems clear that the work done there has been moved to a number of different regions, but as long as public focus remains on this iconic area... so much the better.

There's also the possibility that as much as there is no need for even the smallest amount of conspiracy or organized action, that someone (other than Orson Welles) would still take advantage of this public readiness to perceive a vast conspiracy of alien or terrestrial origin.

I have heard so much conjecture over 'area 51, seen so many links, so many books, that I don't believe I've ever read one page - opened one link .. upon the presumption that if there was anything to it, particularly of the purported import, we would hear and know ZIP about it.

Who knows... stranger things have happened, but I still tend towards Flex's view of this one.

Yikes ! Mr Gunship will be along any moment now, to lament how we've skuttled his recent 'considerable' progress .. sorry Fkex ..

 

[Andre]

For what's worth I have had numerous talks with a good friend and colleague in the USAF who flew the F-117 in the secret period. From the many anecdotes he told I infer that the secrecy went to great lenghts and I would not be surprized if some officials were very happy with the alien-ufo twist.

 

[jreelawg]

What is an alternative scenario that includes ET visitation but excludes FTL?

PROJECT LONGSHOT

AN UNMANNED PROBE TO ALPHA CENTAURI​

...
"The probe would be assembled at the space station and take approximately 100 years to reach the nearest star"

...
"Our Probe will be a completely autonomous design based upon a combination of current technology and technological advances which can reasonably be expected to be developed over the next 20 to 30 years. The expected launch date is the next century with a transit time of 100 years."

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890007533_1989007533.pdf

 

[Andre]

Isn't that a bit of a longshot?

For that, I think, you'd have to extend the Drake Equation with another factor limiting the range to an infinitesimal small fraction, if it wasn't meaningless in the first place.

Speaking of which, I think that the number of terrestrial planet suitable of bearing life does not deal with going though the "chaotic zone", which is likely to harass any life processes on that planet. So than number may be much smaller still.

 

[FlexGunship]

And the level of obscurity can be sustained - ramped up if needed, to hide advanced military technology, that's going to be seen inadvertantly, once in a while.

No.

The point however is that there's no NEED. This "chaff' effect is created by, and maintained ENTIRELY as an emergent social construction; there is no man behind the curtain. The situation as it exists is akin to flying above cloud-cover, versus putting a mechanism in place to CREATE and modify that cover.

Yes.

Yikes ! Mr Gunship will be along any moment now, to lament how we've skuttled his recent...

To you buddy, that's MR. GUNSH--- oh, er, nevermind...

Isn't that a bit of a longshot?

Wow... I can't believe I laughed at that.