Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 199

Thread: Pentagon UFO Report

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    I also suspect another reason they've been reluctant to disclose information is that such disclosure may reveal information about operations and capabilities (or lack of capabilities) that they do not wish adversaries to know about.
    Since we're now in the Conspiracy Theory thread, I'll remark that I find some of the Mirage Men scenarios reasonably convincing--that one way to manage sightings and leaks relating to actual secret projects is to create a fog of disinformation around the sporadic occasions on which someone sees something that they shouldn't have seen. In that sort of scenario the UFOlogy community is manipulated as a group of useful idiots, being briefed and counterbriefed with increasingly elaborate and conflicting scenarios so that: a) Any valid information is lost in the fog and, b) The more ludicrous narratives serve to discredit the less ludicrous narratives on which they elaborate. At another level, putting multiple narratives into the public domain allows intelligence services to hint to other intelligence services that they're concealing something much more dramatic than they're actually concealing.

    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    2,328
    The full report isn't out just yet but from the recent "hints" the Pentagon is at least confirming that they do not know what these UAPs/UFOs are or where they originate. They seem to be ruling out top secret projects by US, and hope it's not other nation's secret projects. They also say that they do not believe these objects represent an ET presence but they do not rule it out either. It sounds like the final unclassified report may just be a Shrug. If nothing else then just the government acknowledging that these objects do exist may give thousands of eye witnesses over the past 60+ years some sense of vindication that they had witnessed similar objects flying around in our skies.
    Just a couple of more weeks to go but it's highly doubtful much more light will be shed by the full report other than something like Yes these objects are real, but we don't know what they represent..

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,184
    I don't know why anyone would need "official" vindication for the experience of having seen something they can't identify. There's a lot of it about.
    But it's a big leap to go from the very complicated mass of physical/cognitive/social/psychological phenomena that quite evidently underpins such sightings to saying "these objects are real". I very much doubt if all UFO sightings are caused by objects, and very much doubt if all the causative agents that actually are objects fall into some well-defined category that could be described as "these objects" (as opposed to some other category of objects).

    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    2,328
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    I don't know why anyone would need "official" vindication for the experience of having seen something they can't identify. There's a lot of it about.
    But it's a big leap to go from the very complicated mass of physical/cognitive/social/psychological phenomena that quite evidently underpins such sightings to saying "these objects are real". I very much doubt if all UFO sightings are caused by objects, and very much doubt if all the causative agents that actually are objects fall into some well-defined category that could be described as "these objects" (as opposed to some other category of objects).

    Grant Hutchison
    Naturally most reports can be explained, I'm referring to the numeral past close-up eye witness reports of similar objects of which AATIP has released. These past witness reports have been down played over the years and the witnesses have been told not to believe their own eyes, that they are victims of such things as conformational bias by arm chair debunkers. The info released by the Pentagon so far probably has given these past witnesses some type of vindication that they have more reason to believe their own eyes.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    ... I'm referring to the numeral past close-up eye witness reports of similar objects of which AATIP has released. These past witness reports have been down played over the years and the witnesses have been told not to believe their own eyes, that they are victims of such things as conformational bias by arm chair debunkers. The info released by the Pentagon so far probably has given these past witnesses some type of vindication that they have more reason to believe their own eyes.
    Yes, that's what I was referring to, too. But the fact that other people report similar UFO experiences to mine doesn't "vindicate" any perception that I might have that I saw some sort of physical vehicle defying the laws of physics. It merely confirms that other people have had experiences similar to mine.
    ETA: And of course we've known for decades that military pilots and other personnel regularly report Unidentified Aerial Phenomena similar to those seen by civilians, so it's difficult to see what new "vindication" this latest release of information might bring.

    Grant Hutchison
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2021-Jun-05 at 04:05 PM.
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,184
    I do like Time's summary:
    The U.S. Government's Long-Awaited UFO Report Is Here. Its Findings? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,113
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Since we're now in the Conspiracy Theory thread, I'll remark that I find some of the Mirage Men scenarios reasonably convincing--that one way to manage sightings and leaks relating to actual secret projects is to create a fog of disinformation around the sporadic occasions on which someone sees something that they shouldn't have seen. In that sort of scenario the UFOlogy community is manipulated as a group of useful idiots, being briefed and counterbriefed with increasingly elaborate and conflicting scenarios so that: a) Any valid information is lost in the fog and, b) The more ludicrous narratives serve to discredit the less ludicrous narratives on which they elaborate. At another level, putting multiple narratives into the public domain allows intelligence services to hint to other intelligence services that they're concealing something much more dramatic than they're actually concealing.

    Grant Hutchison
    Well, exactly, if I were advising the secret projects office, that’s what I would advise, especially now. This is the age of miracles and wonders…
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    2,328
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    ETA: And of course we've known for decades that military pilots and other personnel regularly report Unidentified Aerial Phenomena similar to those seen by civilians, so it's difficult to see what new "vindication" this latest release of information might bring.

    Grant Hutchison
    It's not that difficult to see, the new vindication is that the government is now looking at these reports seriously and are officially confirming for the first time that they do exist (what they are is another matter). Yes military and private pilots have reported these objects over the past several decades but have they ever really been taken seriously or just explained away by the other side of the bias coin?
    I've never seen one of these objects myself, but if I had in the past I would surely feel vindicated now thanks to the recent AATIP revelations.
    Probably best to keep my opinion to myself until the report actually comes out, hopefully it won't be too redacted.
    Love the Shrug! Sadly that may be all they have to offer?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    The full report isn't out just yet but from the recent "hints" the Pentagon is at least confirming that they do not know what these UAPs/UFOs are or where they originate.
    I read it as: they can identify causes for most claims, but not some. If they can’t identify something, that’s as far as it goes. Unless they really do have at least some idea of what they are looking at, it doesn’t even make sense to discuss origin.

    They also say that they do not believe these objects represent an ET presence but they do not rule it out either.
    It made me laugh when I read that. How could they prove a negative? If I see a disturbance in my backyard, but it doesn’t point to a particular cause, I could imagine it might be due to an animal, a person, a machine, an unknown natural cause, or an invisible elf. An invisible elf might be considered a controversial explanation to some, but how could I rule it out? And in Iceland, invisible elf claims are much like alien visitation claims here - some people believe in them, some claim to have seen them, and some propose them as explanations for seemingly odd events.

    It sounds like the final unclassified report may just be a Shrug.
    That’s what I have expected as the most likely result.

    If nothing else then just the government acknowledging that these objects do exist may give thousands of eye witnesses over the past 60+ years some sense of vindication that they had witnessed similar objects flying around in our skies.
    Like Grant, that doesn’t make sense to me, unless they can in fact make a good argument for identification.

    Just a couple of more weeks to go but it's highly doubtful much more light will be shed by the full report other than something like Yes these objects are real, but we don't know what they represent..
    A “real” UAP or UFO to me just means something that couldn’t be identified, and that’s it. End of story. Speculation on identity is pointless unless you actually have enough information for at least partial identification.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    It's not that difficult to see, the new vindication is that the government is now looking at these reports seriously and are officially confirming for the first time that they do exist (what they are is another matter).
    Huh? You seem to be reading more into this than I see being claimed. We’ve even discussed this earlier in this thread and in other threads. Of course there are objects that couldn’t be identified. Of course there are aerial phenomena (which may be reflections of light, infrared blooms seen in IR cameras, and so on) that can’t be identified. How could it be otherwise? What surprising new thing do you think is being acknowledged here?

    Yes military and private pilots have reported these objects over the past several decades but have they ever really been taken seriously or just explained away by the other side of the bias coin?
    What objects are you referring to? What exactly do you think was “explained away”? Either you have solid evidence pointing to a particular cause or you don’t.

    I've never seen one of these objects myself, but if I had in the past I would surely feel vindicated now thanks to the recent AATIP revelations.
    Really? I’ve seen a number of things I couldn’t identify in the sky. It doesn’t mean I assumed they were extraordinary.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,184
    My feeling would be that if you haven't yet seen something in the sky that you can't identify, you just haven't been looking at the sky often enough.

    But the fact that I sometimes see stuff I can't identify or explain isn't something that requires "vindication" from a government source, any more than I would feel vindicated if the government were to officially acknowledge that sometimes people make spelling mistakes or forget where they've put their car keys.

    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,061
    To be honest, though I haven't read the report, and am only going from what others have posted, it seems more than \_(ツ)_/¯ to me (it's funny, I had a hard time seeing that at first because there is a katakana character (tsu) inside it). If in fact there are things that can stay up for 12 hours and still move around like crazy, it seems either that there is something about physics we don't understand (or some phenomenal engine technology that we haven't envisioned) or that there is something else going on. In the same way that animals do things to make themselves seem different than what they really are, it seems possible that the viewers/instruments are somehow being tricked.
    As above, so below

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,091
    It's interesting how the language is changing. Seems the term UFO is slowly being changed to UAP. I suppose it makes someone sound more credible if they say, "I saw a UAP." Instead of UFO.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,061
    I think it’s also a broader term that makes it easier to use, because they are always phenomena but not necessarily objects.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,803
    Many of the 'unexplained things seen in the sky' are phenomena, rather than objects. Sometimes the reports describe parhelia, caused by the reflection, refraction or diffraction of light from another lightsource.

    Also many of the 'unexplained things seen in the sky' are not flying, nor are they aerial; they are quite often misperceptions of celestial objects like the Moon, Venus, Sirius, Mars, Jupiter or the ISS. So 'flying' is clearly wrong, and to be honest, so is 'aerial', since these distant objects are not in our atmosphere. Rather than UFO or UAP, a more accurate term would be Unexplained Things Seen In The Sky, or UTSITS.

    Bit unwieldy, though.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,113
    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45 View Post
    Many of the 'unexplained things seen in the sky' are phenomena, rather than objects. Sometimes the reports describe parhelia, caused by the reflection, refraction or diffraction of light from another lightsource.

    Also many of the 'unexplained things seen in the sky' are not flying, nor are they aerial; they are quite often misperceptions of celestial objects like the Moon, Venus, Sirius, Mars, Jupiter or the ISS. So 'flying' is clearly wrong, and to be honest, so is 'aerial', since these distant objects are not in our atmosphere. Rather than UFO or UAP, a more accurate term would be Unexplained Things Seen In The Sky, or UTSITS.

    Bit unwieldy, though.
    How about Wonder What’s in the Sky? WWITS.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,923
    Unidentified Subjective Optical Experience = USOE
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  18. #48
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    2,328
    Van Rijm, I appreciate your questions but there's no need for me to get repetitive, will wait until the final Pentagon report to congress is released to the public before commenting again. I didn't realize that my comment about past eye witnesses who saw similar objects involved in the AATIP revelations feeling vindicated would be such a contentious topic. For people who have reported similar objects years ago and are later mocked and humiliated by others it should feel like a vindication now that the government is taking it seriously. It's just as simple as that.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Unidentified Subjective Optical Experience = USOE
    “Optical” seems a bit broad because it would also cover things that you see inside a room or on the ground, which isn’t really what’s supposed to be included. And putting “subjective” in just seems needlessly dismissive, like “it’s all in your head.”


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,061
    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45 View Post

    Also many of the 'unexplained things seen in the sky' are not flying, nor are they aerial; they are quite often misperceptions of celestial objects like the Moon, Venus, Sirius, Mars, Jupiter or the ISS. So 'flying' is clearly wrong, and to be honest, so is 'aerial', since these distant objects are not in our atmosphere. Rather than UFO or UAP, a more accurate term would be Unexplained Things Seen In The Sky, or UTSITS.
    I was going to mention the “flying” issue, it’s a good point. About the “aerial”, I agree but it’s hard to find an alternative. I think that “celestial” can be used to describe something in the sky. How about Unexplained Celestial Phenomena?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    15,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    For people who have reported similar objects years ago and are later mocked and humiliated by others it should feel like a vindication now that the government is taking it seriously. It's just as simple as that.
    Actually, even more simply, I would say that if people have been mocked or humiliated for saying that they saw something they couldn’t explain, they shouldn’t require vindication because the people who mocked them should be ashamed of themselves in the first place (even if the government is not taking it seriously, I mean).


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I was going to mention the “flying” issue, it’s a good point. About the “aerial”, I agree but it’s hard to find an alternative. I think that “celestial” can be used to describe something in the sky. How about Unexplained Celestial Phenomena?
    How about UP? That is, Unidentified Phenomena. Gets to the essential point without the extra junk added.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    I didn't realize that my comment about past eye witnesses who saw similar objects involved in the AATIP revelations feeling vindicated would be such a contentious topic.
    (Emphasis added) After recent commentary in this very thread, not to mention earlier threads, you really don’t see how this would be contentious? To even make a claim about prior eye witnesses seeing similar objects you must be able to identify the objects and verify there were prior eye witnesses seeing similar objects. I’ve seen no evidence either of these things has been done in regards to AATIP. Further, I’m not aware that any revelations from AATIP have been presented, so I have to wonder what you are talking about here? The impression you keep giving is that you assume “Unidentified Flying Object” actually means “Identified Flying Object” and that you are reading your own hopes and beliefs into what actually has been presented.

    For people who have reported similar objects years ago and are later mocked and humiliated by others it should feel like a vindication now that the government is taking it seriously. It's just as simple as that.
    And again, “similar objects.” What similar objects?

    Also, I really don’t understand what you think is new here. There were similar programs to this one going back to the ‘40s, the best known being Project Blue Book. Project Blue Book investigators were able to make identification in a large percentage of cases, but there was a fair percentage where they couldn’t. Wouldn’t people have been similarly vindicated by Project Blue Book? People made reports of things they couldn’t identify. Investigations were done. Some remained unidentified. Vindication by the government!

    I see this as simply the latest iteration of the same kind of investigation, also shut down when they saw little reason to continue it further, and again the reaction is such it is no wonder officials hate to get involved with things like this.

    By the way, on my views on “mocking.” I’ve never approved of mocking a self proclaimed eye witness as long as they appear to be honest. However, I see no reason to be kind when it becomes clear they have been faking a story (like people with pictures of flying saucers on strings).

    Oh, and people that look at a blurry picture and proclaim it is a spacecraft with an inertialless drive? They aren’t an eyewitness, and do deserve mockery for their ridiculous claims. My point is, I would want to be fair and polite with someone making an honest claim, but there is a lot of dishonesty and pseudoscience here too, and I expect much of what you see as mockery of witnesses is actually a natural reaction to the the fakers and people making evidence free pseudoscience claims.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    10,113
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    How about UP? That is, Unidentified Phenomena. Gets to the essential point without the extra junk added.
    I like WATSUP from UP = wondering about things suggesting unidentified phenomena.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,723
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Yes, that's what I was referring to, too. But the fact that other people report similar UFO experiences to mine doesn't "vindicate" any perception that I might have that I saw some sort of physical vehicle defying the laws of physics. It merely confirms that other people have had experiences similar to mine.
    ETA: And of course we've known for decades that military pilots and other personnel regularly report Unidentified Aerial Phenomena similar to those seen by civilians, so it's difficult to see what new "vindication" this latest release of information might bring.

    Grant Hutchison
    Of course I agree with you entirely, but if the siting's are backed up with video and radar then surely this goes someway to confirm the phenomenon as most likely a physical object? I'm not saying the data can identify what the object is or where it came from, short of actually capturing the object this would be almost impossible to confirm. But am I wrong in saying that radar works by "bouncing" signals off a physical object?

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,803
    In the incidents I've read about, most of the time the radar returns did not match with the phenomena seen visually or detected by infra-red. Over and over again, the pilots said that their radar was 'being jammed' or that they could not get a fix; whereas the radar traces displayed behaviour which did not match with the behaviour of the phenomena which were observed by other means. Often the only similarity between the sighting and the radar trace was that they occured in approximately the same area, which could be due to chance, and probably was.

    For instance the first indication of something strange in the Nimitz case was the detection of radar traces descending from 80,000 feet to sea level; when Fravor arrived at the location of one of these events, he saw something completely different. Nobody ever saw, or heard, the phenomenon which caused these traces, and the radar operators initially though they were glitches of some kind. Which they probably were.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,555
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmocrazy View Post
    But am I wrong in saying that radar works by "bouncing" signals off a physical object?
    Depends on the radar and what you consider an "object." That can include meteor trails, various atmospheric effects and weather in general. If you're thinking of solid objects, not necessarily. Incidentally, I think this is an interesting site, the Antarctic meteor radar. As of now, it's detected 4085 (make that 4096 - it changes fast) meteors today:

    https://ccar.colorado.edu/meteors/

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,803
    A meteor is a kind of physical object - but the return you get is from the plasma tail, not the meteor itself, which is about the size of a grain of rice.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,555
    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45 View Post
    A meteor is a kind of physical object - but the return you get is from the plasma tail, not the meteor itself, which is about the size of a grain of rice.
    Sure, but a small meteor vaporizes almost instantly, leaving the meteor trail.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    21,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Depends on the radar and what you consider an "object." That can include meteor trails, various atmospheric effects and weather in general.
    Or groups of objects arranged in a repeating pattern that matches the radar wavelength. Ocean waves, flocks of birds--they can produce radar returns that look like they're coming from a huge object moving in unphysical ways. In the early days, British radar operators called them "angels".

    Grant Hutchison
    Science Denier and Government Sponsored Propagandist. Here to help.
    Blog

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •