UFOs are scouting our nuclear weapons stockpile

[newbrof]

A camera losing tracking and regaining tracking, that’s all there is. edit: removed swaring

really good videos

Omaha Sphere UFO - Initial Analysis - No sudden moves!

[Wallapuctus]

@Juan_Raigada

Of course, if you look at his explanations and the math behind (and run the numbers) you see he’s most probably right, but whatever…

Can you prove that? I certainly can’t. I don’t know enough about the systems involved. On the one hand I have the story of a guy who saw the thing and is an expert on the systems, and the military behind him, saying it’s an unknown. On the other hand I have a YouTube influencer telling me it’s a bird to build his Skeptic brand.

[Juan_Raigada]

It’s math. You can prove it yourself if you do the work. Just run the numbers. You have in the video altitude, range to target, relative angle of target and plane airspeed. It’s not rocket science, it’s high school trigonometry.

If that thing is moving as fast and weird as the pilot says it’s not defying physics, it’s defying math itself.

On one side you have Math, on the other you have a pilot whose mathing skills I know nothing about and it’s an expert on operating the system, but not on interpreting it or on how it works internally.

That’s for the GO Fast and the Gimbal video. We have raw numbers for those two. Whatever they are, their movement is not extraordinary at all. The Gimbal video was even called Gimbal by the Navy, as the gimbal mounted camera is cousing the apparent rotation (food for thought: why would they call it Gimbal otherwise?)

The sphere UFO is equally obvious. Just a hot spot (can be a plane or anything) slwoly moving towards the horizons. No math here since we don’t have ranges, but the stabilized motion is crystal clear. Constant, slow.

The pyramid video is just silly.

[Enidigm]

The funny thing about UFOs sightings today is effectively the phenomenon of “miniaturization”. Original UFO sightings thought of UFOs in terms of, say, ships or very large airplanes. It just also happens to follow more or less exactly the path of miniaturization that technology has on earth!

It’s pretty hard to imagine any advanced physical processes that lead say 20ft “small” tubes or spheres or whatever possessing the capacity and energy for interstellar travel.

[vinraith]

Interesting, wide-ranging read:

Experts Weigh In on Pentagon UFO Report

[Wallapuctus]

That was a good article. Covered all the viewpoints.

[Mr.GRIM]

@Juan_Raigada

@Mr.GRIM

You can’t actually be serious. This entire thread that was started over 10 years ago is full of discussion of various sightings, some of them from the 70’s/80’s. Here’s a good one, the RB-47 case from 1957. 4 aircrew witnesses, picked up on multiple sensors including aircraft and ground station radar.

New Page 1

Apparently this “case” was thoroughly debunked in 1974.

Did you even read what you posted or the case? Nowhere in that article is the RB-47 case debunked.

[MikeJ]

@Enidigm

It’s pretty hard to imagine any advanced physical processes that lead say 20ft “small” tubes or spheres or whatever possessing the capacity and energy for interstellar travel.

Given the probable energy cost of any tech for moving across interstellar distances, it would make sense to me to send as small a package as you could get away with and rely on some kind of self-replication to bootstrap enough of a manufacturing capacity to make whatever you want at the target location (like the outer solar system). At least, it’s easier for me to imagine highly advanced replication tech than some tech that makes it easy to send large quantities of matter across interstellar distances.

[Juan_Raigada]

@Mr.GRIM

Did you even read what you posted or the case? Nowhere in that article is the RB-47 case debunked.

I did read it, did you. They point to 2 whole chapters in this book that apparently thoroughly debunk it.

Sadly the book is not easily available in digital form, while narratives of the incident that ignore the book’s existence are plenty.

[Enidigm]

I mean it implies a mothership or something - else, we’re looking at probes operating at, you know, 100k year timelines. But probes that have the capacity both for interstellar travel and fast, avoidant maneuvering imply an advanced self sustaining energy source and the smaller these objects get, the more implausible their mission + capabilities seem to be. Like they have something a like a singularity reactor or near matter to energy conversion process.

[vinraith]

William Hartmann, from that same article:

Reflecting on his work for the project, also called the Condon committee, Hartmann says that none of the photographic evidence he examined could establish anything extraordinary about the observed phenomena. “We proved that some of [the cases], including classic photos still being trotted out, were fake,” he says. “That fact alone makes it extremely difficult to apply straight scientific techniques because we know some, not necessarily all, of the data we were given were carefully prepared to delude us. [That is] not quite like astronomy, where we can assume that the photons coming through our telescope atop Mauna Kea in Hawaii are not put in there by a hoaxer.”

Still, he adds that ever since his experience working on the Condon committee, he cannot escape “the feeling that there may be electromagnetic phenomena in the atmosphere that we still don’t understand.”

Emphasis mine. I suspect he’s right on that latter point. Some of the stuff we do know about is just deeply weird, like red sprites and other upper atmosphere phenomena.

[MikeJ]

M

@Enidigm

But probes that have the capacity both for interstellar travel and fast, avoidant maneuvering imply an advanced self sustaining energy source and the smaller these objects get, the more implausible their mission + capabilities seem to be.

I am saying it would make more sense to decouple the different parts of the “mission”. So you have some large component in the source system that provides energy or boosts the “interstellar” part(s) to an acceptable speed. The job of the interstellar part is mostly to be able to decelerate at the target system. The “cargo” of the interstellar part would be as small a component as possible that can still bootstrap a manufacturing infrastructure with materials and energy in the target system. Then whatever other stuff required is made at the target system.

That would require some really amazing tech for the “bootstrapping” part above, but IMO that would be less surprising than some kind of tech that makes moving large quantities of matter to other stars not a problem.

[Mr.GRIM]

@vinraith

Still, he adds that ever since his experience working on the Condon committee, he cannot escape “the feeling that there may be electromagnetic phenomena in the atmosphere that we still don’t understand.”

Emphasis mine. I suspect he’s right on that latter point.

It’s strange, that with everyone having HD Cameras and all the telescopes pointed at the sky, we have never actually manage to see these “electromagnetic phenomena in the atmosphere” or are able to study them.

@Juan_Raigada

narratives of the incident that ignore the book’s existence

who cares about the books existence? What matters is if the author (a career debunker) explained the case in an ireffutable manner. Your just pointing to a debunkers attempt and saying it’s existence means the case is debunked, without knowledge of the debunking or the details of the case.

[vinraith]

@Mr.GRIM

It’s strange, that with everyone having HD Cameras and all the telescopes pointed at the sky, we have never actually manage to see these “electromagnetic phenomena in the atmosphere” or are able to study them.

We do and we do. Lots of fascinating upper atmosphere E&M and cosmic ray effects - that Wikipedia article I linked is a nice starting point.

[Juan_Raigada]

@Mr.GRIM

who cares about the books existence? What matters is if the author (a career debunker) explained the case in an ireffutable manner. Your just pointing to a debunkers attempt and saying it’s existence means the case is debunked, without knowledge of the debunking or the details of the case.

You said an old incident was still holding up. I saw that it was debunked 50 years ago, and that others have read the debunking and consider it solid (sadly said debunking isn’t readily available in electronic form) while narratives that say the incident is still valid do not acknowledge the debunking nor find faults with it, but directly ignore it.

It’s, you know, like dissmising Mick West’s videos without really looking at what he’s saying.

Edit: Oh look, Italian wikipedia has the gist of it:

Explanations of the skeptics [ edit | edit wikitext ]

Skeptical journalist and ufologist Philip J. Klass re-examined the case in the 1970s , coming to the conclusion that the detection of signals can be explained by a malfunction of the equipment and the reception of ground radar signals, while the first visual sighting would be explained by a meteor and subsequent sightings with the stars Vega and Rigel and with the airliner mentioned in the final report of the Blue Book [5] .

Disputes [ edit | edit wikitext ]

In the 1990s, the case was reviewed by ufologist Brad Sparks, who was able to access previously classified documents, including Captain Piwetz’s report. Sparks was able to clarify some details, including the times of the events and the overall duration of the sighting. The ufologist agreed with Klass about the meteor as the cause of the pilot’s first visual sighting, but disputed the explanation of the subsequent sighting based on line flight 655, because it was ascertained that at the time of the sighting the American Airlines plane was not in the area, but it was located near Dallas. Sparks also stated that he believed Klass’s explanation of the capture of ground radar signals to be incorrect because Biloxi’s radar, which covered the area, was used for personnel training and was out of service at the time of the incident. For the ufologist, the case of the RB-47 is one of the best documented sightings and unequivocally demonstrates the existence of UFOs [1] .

Subsequently, the skeptic Tim Printy also re-examined the case, discovering that the Biloxi ground radar, contrary to what Sparks claimed, was functional for control and maintenance activities on the night of the accident. Printy said that capturing the ground radar signal is the most logical explanation, because it would be strange for an object of unknown origin to use radar signals of the same type as those used by the US military. In support of this thesis there is also the fact that the navigator of the plane did not detect any signal with the onboard radar, as confirmed in the interview with Professor McDonald. On the question of the radar signal received by the Duncanville station, first admitted and then denied, Printy speculated that probably the employees did not feel like confirming this to the managers of the Blue Book Project because the signal received had not been loud and clear; on the other hand, the radars ofTexarkana and Ellington Airport (located in Harris County ) did not detect any UFOs when the RB-47 entered their range. As for the visual sightings, Printy believes that in addition to the meteor, on which Sparks also agrees, there was a sighting of an aircraft, but instead of a scheduled flight it could have been a military aircraft, such as an RB-69A , version of the P2V Neptune used by the CIA and stationed at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida , or of a US Navy aircraft stationed at Dallas Naval Air Station, such as a P2V Neptune or an F-8 Crusader; the CIA aircraft may have remained unknown in subsequent inquiries for the secrecy of operations, while the Navy’s F-8s were new types of aircraft, with which many military pilots were unfamiliar. According to Printy, the case cannot be said to be fully explained and prudentially it is better to continue to consider it as “unexplained”, however one cannot be sure, as Sparks believes, that this unequivocally demonstrates the existence of UFOs [6] [7 ] .

So not a very ironclad sighting at all, with all it’s elements being feasibly explained by simpler stuff than aliens. You have radar and 4 sightings. Radar and 1st sighting are off the table and fully explained, so we are left with two unclear sightings (which could be planes, or not, but they could be) and no hard data.

Now, why did you consider this a “good” sighting? I posit it’s because debunking information is less sexy than theorizing while ignoring it, and thus crucial info about the fleebeness of “classical” cases (like the wholly explained Roswell incident, for example, which coincidentally started the madness) remains harder to find.

Thankfully people like Mick West are bringing the same “entertainment” approach to debunking than the ufologist have traditionally brought to their explanations, so the “information” overload shouldn’t be that one sided anymore.

[Wallapuctus]

@Mr.GRIM

It’s strange, that with everyone having HD Cameras and all the telescopes pointed at the sky, we have never actually manage to see these “electromagnetic phenomena in the atmosphere” or are able to study them.

I see what you’re doing here, but this is a poor argument.

People have HD cameras in their pockets yes, and the internet is full of pictures of weird shit. UFOs, time travelers, atmospheric anomalies, you name it. The problem is even worse than it was on the Condon report back in the day. It’s so easy to fake shit now you cannot trust anything.

Also, some of you are taking this way too personally. It’s fucking UFOs. It’s an inherently silly subject. Lighten up. (aliens are real)

[KevinC]

Look, those aliens made it personal when they started probing our butts.

[Wallapuctus]

Always relevant

Kids in the hall - Aliens probing

[tomchick]

@Wallapuctus

It’s fucking UFOs. It’s an inherently silly subject.

If only. It’s a lack of scientific literacy and an inability to engage in critical thinking. Which is pretty much the opposite of silly these days.

-Tom

[newbrof]

regarding Mick West. He doesn’t need to be 100% right or accurate, but he gives a possible explanation that is way more plausible than anything I read by UFO “experts”. Instead of calling out Mick West for being (possibly) inaccurate, try to find other solutions not including aliens.

What’s scary is that the hi-tech military can’t identify objects in their backyard. Maybe pilots and personnel need more training. Or maybe they try to distract from their failing.