Jump to content

Moontanman

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    11356
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by Moontanman


  1. 53 minutes ago, koti said:

    Thats the second time today something isn’t funny to me at all.

    J. Allen Hynek was the US Air Force's chief debunker he was semi famous for saying a particular UFO sighting was swamp gas back in the 60's  Hynek eventually became one of the chief supporters of the ET theory of at least some UFOs after he realised how the Air Force was using him and his credentials to debunk instead of investigate UFOs.  

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_Hynek


  2. 12 hours ago, koti said:

    Please don't hate me for this Moon but this seems to me like a complete waste of time.

    I'm thinking like this...why haven't we seen high resolution photos and videos of UFO's lately? (last 10 or 15 years or so)

    There are millions uppon millions of people walking around literally everywhere 24/7 on the planet everyday with powerful telephoto lenses with 20 mpixel+ sensors attached to them.

    We have satellites which can pinpoint meter large objects from orbit, we have GPS to track everything, drones with 4K cameras flying everywhere and thats the tech which you can buy at Aliexpress and 12 year olds are using it every day, milllions uppon millions of people every day - 24/7.

    We have, in fact the up tick has been extreme but all are dismissed as too good to be true, photoshop makes any modern UFO photos suspect immediately, and i agree with that... 

     

    Quote

    It looks to me like UFO's and aliens are real good at avoiding getting caught for the past 10 or 15 years. Ofcourse when radio and primitive radar were the only "state of the art" technologies available, we had UFO sightings everywhere all the time. It looks to me like the little green men are very afraid of the 130 million canon EF lenses sold between 1987-2017 and hundreds of millions of Nikkor's, Sony's and Sigma's :) 

    Modern Radar picks them up as well and modern pilots still report them... 

    Again, not trying to prove anything, just trying to figure out the accuracy of the handling of this one report. 

    2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

    The bar ufo sightings have to jump is scientific peer review.

    As soon as scientific evidence is available I would love to see that. 

    3 hours ago, Strange said:

    And once again, some low-quality evidence with several plausible natural explanations. Yes, it remains unexplained. So what?

    I would like to hear the plausible natural explanations for the visual aspects of this sighting, including the jet fighter than was surrounded by the glows. 

    Quote

    from the above links:

     

    Quote

    I can't see how you can say the Air Force dropped the ball. They investigated, found there wasn't enough evidence for a definitive explanation and noted the possible causes.

    The air force lumped the entire sighting under atmospheric inversions, multiple independent visual, multiple independent radar, interaction with military and civilian aircraft all under the heading of temperature inversion. I think this was a stretch to say the least. BTW, phone lines were jammed by civilians not aware of the military involvement or the radar operators. In fact that was one reason the air force went bananas on this one thinking this could interfere if a soviet attack occurred...   

    Quote

    I'm not sure what else you wan't. 

    This is a really, really good point.

    There have been some absolutely amazing footage of meteors, rocket launches and other atmospheric events (a lot of them from Russian dash-cams, partly because insurance fraud is so common there). And yet not s single video of an alien spacecraft. 

    This should be the end of UFO theories. 

    Strange, I have seen videos from dash board cams and hi resolution drone cams and personal cams, in this age of photo shop these become suspect immediately and rightly so.

    This one comment by Klass pretty much says it all:

    Quote

    The reporter added that "UFO proponents argue that even then seasoned controllers could differentiate between spurious targets and solid, metallic objects. Klass disagrees. It may be that 'we had two dumb controllers at National Airport on those nights'...[Klass] added that the introduction of digital filters in the 1970s led to a steep decline in UFO sightings on radar."eld 

     A personal attack by on of the famous debunkers and a statement that while accurate is highly misleading since a decline doesn't mean they vanished and in fact if true, means that modern radar sightings of which there are many, should hold more weight yet they evidently do not. Possibly those dumb radar operators are still with us...

    What I am trying to show here is the idea that the air force never really did anything but push pelacanism as hard as they could to explain away any sighting they could not easily show a reason for... BTW I've seen Venus dance around the sky during an inversion, which happen quite regularly where I live and to mistake it for a UFO is ludicris... 


  3. Ok guys here it is, I know this is probably the wrong forum, I am so bad at choosing that, be that as it may, What I want to discuss here is not if the following sighting was real or not. This happened in 1952 and the subsequent years have resulted in at least some disagreement on the details. However, was the eyewitness and other evidence correctly handled or was it as i assert mishandled for whatever reason. If you comment one way or another please let us know why you think so. 

    The Air force simply not knowing what the hell was happening is probably enough for them to have dropped the ball on this but here we go. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington,_D.C._UFO_incident

    Quote

    Events of July 19–20[edit]

    At 11:40 p.m. on Saturday, July 19, 1952, Edward Nugent, an air traffic controller at Washington National Airport (today Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport), spotted seven objects on his radar.[3] The objects were located 15 miles (24 km) south-southwest of the city; no known aircraft were in the area and the objects were not following any established flight paths. Nugent's superior, Harry Barnes, a senior air-traffic controller at the airport, watched the objects on Nugent's radarscope. He later wrote:

    We knew immediately that a very strange situation existed . . . their movements were completely radical compared to those of ordinary aircraft.[4]

    Barnes had two controllers check Nugent's radar; they found that it was working normally. Barnes then called National Airport's radar-equipped control tower; the controllers there, Howard Cocklin and Joe Zacko, said that they also had unidentified blips on their radar screen, and that they had seen "a bright light hovering in the sky...[it] took off, zooming away at incredible speed."[3] Cocklin told Zacko "Did you see that? What the hell was that?"[3]

    At this point, other objects appeared in all sectors of the radarscope; when they moved over the White House and the United States Capitol, Barnes called Andrews Air Force Base, located 10 miles from National Airport. Although Andrews reported that they had no unusual objects on their radar, an airman soon called the base's control tower to report the sighting of a strange object. Airman William Brady, who was in the tower, then saw an "object which appeared to be like an orange ball of fire, trailing a tail . . . [it was] unlike anything I had ever seen before."[3] As Brady tried to alert the other personnel in the tower, the strange object "took off at an unbelievable speed."[3] On one of National Airport's runways, S.C. Pierman, a Capital Airlines pilot, was waiting in the cockpit of his DC-4 for permission to take off. After spotting what he believed to be a meteor, he was told that the control tower's radar had detected unknown objects closing in on his position. Pierman observed six objects — "white, tailless, fast-moving lights" — over a 14-minute period.[3] Pierman was in radio contact with Barnes during his sighting, and Barnes later related that "each sighting coincided with a pip we could see near his plane. When he reported that the light streaked off at a high speed, it disappeared on our scope."[5]

    At Andrews Air Force Base, meanwhile, the control tower personnel were tracking on radar what some thought to be unknown objects, but others suspected, and in one instance were able to prove, were simply stars and meteors.[6] However, Staff Sgt. Charles Davenport observed an orange-red light to the south; the light "would appear to stand still, then make an abrupt change in direction and altitude . . . this happened several times."[5] At one point both radar centers at National Airport and the radar at Andrews Air Force Base were tracking an object hovering over a radio beacon. The object vanished in all three radar centers at the same time.[7] At 3 a.m., shortly before two United States Air Force F-94 Starfire jet fighters from New Castle Air Force Base in Delaware arrived over Washington, all of the objects vanished from the radar at National Airport. However, when the jets ran low on fuel and left, the objects returned, which convinced Barnes that "the UFOs were monitoring radio traffic and behaving accordingly." [5] The objects were last detected by radar at 5:30 a.m.

    Quote

    Publicity and Air Force reaction[edit]

    The sightings of July 19–20, 1952, made front-page headlines in newspapers around the nation. A typical example was the headline from the Cedar Rapids Gazette in Iowa. It read "SAUCERS SWARM OVER CAPITAL" in large black type.[8] By coincidence, USAF Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, the supervisor of the Air Force's Project Blue Book investigation into UFO sightings, was in Washington at the time. However, he did not learn about the sightings until Monday, July 21, when he read the headlines in a Washington-area newspaper.[9] After talking with intelligence officers at the Pentagon about the sightings, Ruppelt spent several hours trying to obtain a staff car so he could travel around Washington to investigate the sightings, but was refused as only generals and senior colonels could use staff cars. He was told that he could rent a taxicab with his own money; by this point Ruppelt was so frustrated that he left Washington and flew back to Blue Book's headquarters at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio.[10] Upon returning to Dayton, Ruppelt spoke with an Air Force radar specialist, Captain Roy James, who felt that unusual weather conditions could have caused the unknown radar targets.[11]

     

    Quote

    Events of July 26–27[edit]

    At 8:15 p.m. on Saturday, July 26, 1952, a pilot and stewardess on a National Airlines flight into Washington observed some strange lights above their plane. Within minutes, both radar centers at National Airport, and the radar at Andrews AFB, were tracking more unknown objects.[12] USAF master sergeant Charles E. Cummings visually observed the objects at Andrews, he later said that "these lights did not have the characteristics of shooting stars. There was [sic] no trails . . . they traveled faster than any shooting star I have ever seen." [5]

    Meanwhile, Albert M. Chop, the press spokesman for Project Blue Book, arrived at National Airport and, due to security concerns, denied several reporters' requests to photograph the radar screens. He then joined the radar center personnel.[13] By this time (9:30 p.m.) the radar center was picking up unknown objects in every sector. At times the objects traveled slowly; at other times they reversed direction and moved across the radarscope at speeds calculated at up to 7,000 mph (11,250 km/h).[14] At 11:30 p.m., two U.S. Air Force F-94 Starfire jet fighters from New Castle Air Force Base in Delaware arrived over Washington. Captain John McHugo, the flight leader, was vectored towards the radar blips but saw nothing, despite repeated attempts.[15] However, his wingman, Lieutenant William Patterson, did see four white "glows" and chased them.[3] He later said that "I tried to make contact with the bogies below 1,000 feet. I was at my maximum speed...I ceased chasing them because I saw no chance of overtaking them."[3] According to Albert Chop, when ground control asked Patterson "if he saw anything", Patterson replied "'I see them now and they're all around me. What should I do?'...And nobody answered, because we didn't know what to tell him."[5]

    After midnight on July 27, USAF Major Dewey Fournet, Project Blue Book's liaison at the Pentagon, and Lt. John Holcomb, a United States Navy radar specialist, arrived at the radar center at National Airport.[3] During the night, Lieutenant Holcomb received a call from the Washington National Weather Station. They told him that a slight temperature inversion was present over the city, but Holcomb felt that the inversion was not "nearly strong enough to explain the 'good and solid' returns" on the radarscopes.[15] Fournet relayed that all those present in the radar room were convinced that the targets were most likely caused by solid metallic objects. There had been weather targets on the scope too, he said, but this was a common occurrence and the controllers "were paying no attention to them."[16] Two more F-94s from New Castle Air Force Base were scrambled during the night. One pilot saw nothing unusual; the other pilot saw a white light which "vanished" when he moved towards it.[11] Additionally, "civilian planes flying into Washington reported seeing strange glowing objects in places where the radar was getting blips."[3] As on July 20, the sightings and unknown radar returns ended at sunrise.[17]

    Quote

    Air Force explanation[edit]

    To calm public anxiety over the wave of UFO reports,[20] answer the news media's questions about the sightings — and, hopefully, to slow down the numbers of UFO reports being sent to Blue Book, which were clogging normal intelligence channels — Air Force Major Generals John Samford, USAF Director of Intelligence, and Roger Ramey, USAF Director of Operations, held a well-attended press conference at the Pentagon on July 29, 1952.[21] It was the largest Pentagon press conference since World War II.[22] Press stories called Samford and Ramey the Air Force's two top UFO experts.[23]

    Samford was heavily influenced by Captain Roy James, who had discussed the sightings with him earlier in the day and who also spoke at the conference. Samford declared that the visual sightings over Washington could be explained as misidentified aerial phenomena (such as stars or meteors). Samford also stated that the unknown radar targets could be explained by temperature inversion, which was present in the air over Washington on both nights the radar returns were reported.

    In addition, Samford stated that the unknown radar contacts were not caused by solid material objects, and therefore posed no threat to national security. In response to a question as to whether the Air Force had recorded similar UFO radar contacts prior to the Washington incident, Samford said that there had been "hundreds" of such contacts where Air Force fighter interceptions had taken place, but stated they were all "fruitless." The conference proved to be successful "in getting the press off our backs", Ruppelt later wrote.[24]

    Among the witnesses who supported Samford's explanation was the crew of a B-25 bomber, which had been flying over Washington during the sightings of July 26–27. The bomber was vectored several times by National Airport over unknown targets on the airport's radarscopes, yet the crew could see nothing unusual. Finally, as a crew member related, "the radar had a target which turned out to be the Wilson Lines steamboat trip to Mount Vernon... the radar was sure as hell picking up the steamboat."[25] Air Force Captain Harold May was in the radar center at Andrews AFB during the sightings of July 19–20. Upon hearing that National Airport's radar had picked up an unknown object heading in his direction, May stepped outside and saw "a light that was changing from red to orange to green to red again...at times it dipped suddenly and appeared to lose altitude." However, May eventually concluded that he was simply seeing a star that was distorted by the atmosphere, and that its "movement" was an illusion.[26] At 3 a.m. on July 27, an Eastern Airlines flight over Washington was told that an unknown object was in its vicinity; the crew could see nothing unusual. When they were told that the object had moved directly behind their plane, they began a sharp turn to try to see the object, but were told by National Airport's radar center that the object had "disappeared" when they began their turn.

    At the request of the Air Force, the CAA's Technical Development and Evaluation Center did an analysis of the radar sightings. Their conclusion was that "a temperature inversion had been indicated in almost every instance when the unidentified radar targets or visual objects had been reported."[27] Project Blue Book would eventually label the unknown Washington radar blips as false images caused by temperature inversion, and the visual sightings as misidentified meteors, stars, and city lights.[3][28] In later years two prominent UFO skeptics, Dr. Donald Menzel, an astronomer at Harvard University, and Philip Klass, a senior editor for Aviation Week magazine, would also argue in favor of the temperature inversion/mirage hypothesis.[29] In 2002 Klass told a reporter that "radar technology in 1952 wasn't sophisticated enough to filter out many ordinary objects, such as flocks of birds, weather balloons, or temperature inversions."[5] The reporter added that "UFO proponents argue that even then seasoned controllers could differentiate between spurious targets and solid, metallic objects. Klass disagrees. It may be that 'we had two dumb controllers at National Airport on those nights'...[Klass] added that the introduction of digital filters in the 1970s led to a steep decline in UFO sightings on radar."[5]

    Were the Airforce explanations reasonable when compared to the sightings? There is quite at the link! 


  4. 1 hour ago, koti said:

    @Moontanman, I’m not sure if I’m shooting accurately here as I only browsed through the thread but you have to realise that you do not go to jail for claiming you saw a UFO. You do however go to jail for a long time for lying under oath in court. 
    People tell all kinds of stories when there are little or none consequences.

    Yes, this is true, but you would be amazed at the number of people who confess falsely to crimes as well. Let's stick to how much weight eyewitness testimony should have. I'm still not sure I want to start another thread about a particular event yet. So far this one is interesting by itself... 

     

    I am thinking i should have included some question about how we judge different testimony that while eyewitness, is still quite different in form. maybe I do need to start the new thread, lets see if this one generates any more ideas. So far it doesn't seem to be going my way at all... 


  5. 27 minutes ago, iNow said:

    I may be splitting semantic hairs here, but I tend to see eye witness testimony as more of a data point then as a valid piece of evidence.

    I suppose it's better than nothing, but given how flawed human memories are even in the BEST of circumstances, and how biased our recollections tend to be / how malleable they are and how much they get edited every time we access a memory, I'm comfortable sticking with my previous excrement comparison (acknowledging that opinions here may differ and that's okay, too).

     

    That is the direction, data point, I am trying to figure out how many data points, if any, constitutes a higher level of evidence than just one. Do you give more credence to the victim than someone who simply saw the crime?  


  6. 17 minutes ago, Strange said:

    The quality of the sightings is almost defined by the fact we are talking about "unidentified objects". If the witnesses all agreed they saw a 747, there would be far less reason to doubt the sightings (we know such things exist). 

    You have to eliminate all the well known, common causes before you can even start suggesting it might be something extraordinary. 

    To leap straight from "unidentified" to "Aliens!!!1!" is deeply irrational. I am not suggesting that is what you are doing, but if there is no way of ruling out mundane, well established causes, then there is absolutely no reason at all to consider anything unusual.

    I have seen plenty of cases, where one could invent some mysterious explanation (after all, you can do that for absolutely anything from your Wi-Fi going on the blink to the fact our politicians are idiots). But not one where you have to because all other possibilities have been definitively excluded. 

     

    First of all, my point here is not to jump to anything but to consider the eyewitness accounts and compare them the official dismissals and how the two are so different as to make the dismissals as puzzling as the sightings. To be honest anyone who claims aliens is yanking something out of their rectum until someone defines what kind of evidence would allow that conclusion. How ever some accounts are extremely difficult to explain and the "official" explanation dismisses everyone involved and their testimony. Do I need to start another thread to further this or do we move on to the "there" ?    


  7. 1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

    Is the question related to UFO sightings?

    Yes and no, I honestly wanted to avoid that association in this thread but eventually i plan to open another thread that is more specific. 

     

    2 hours ago, Strange said:

    1. Because the situations are completely different.

    2. Because you are inventing a straw man argument. Uncorroborated eye-witness accounts should not be taken seriously by a court. 

    And this sort of thing does not reinforce your claim; it undermines your basic argument. The introduction of more objective evidence (cameras) changed the "reality" of what was seen. 

    It is obviously also wrong to dismiss eyewitness testimony out of hand. For example, in the case of a crime that would mean that a large number of crimes were never eve considered:

    Caller: "Hello, police. I just saw a man being murdered!"

    Police: "Nah."

    Or in the case of unidentified objects in the air, I would not deny that people have seen something (which there is insufficient objective evidence to identify). There are then a huge number of questions to ask about that sighting: was it something with objective reality (rather than, say an optical illusion or a hallucination), was it a mundane object (bird, airplane, insect, meteor), etc. etc. 

    Or some combination of the above. For example, a common illusion is to stare at a bright star or planet and see it making rapid movements across the sky. (This is where expertise might come in; I have heard astronomers report this and saying that they could absolutely see the object moving even though they knew it wasn't and therefore knew it was an example of the illusion.)

    This why i wanted to avoid discussing this problem in the context of UFOs. You have already decided the quality of the sighting by suggesting they are all "Insufficient Evidence", "Lights in the Sky", "Optical Illusion", not to mention suggested that no matter how "professional" the witnesses are being mistaken is most likely. 


  8. 10 minutes ago, Strange said:

    I think I know where you want to go with this argument, but the example you give above is of people identifying a specific person that they have seen before, one or more times, from a line up with good lighting, and where they have as much time as they need to consider their decision. (I have also been picked up off the street to take part in a line up - the witness picked me! The police officer sighed and said, "this happens fairly regularly, we just need to ask you a few routine questions before you go.")

    This is completely different from people seeing something unexpected and unrecognised in conditions of poor lighting or a rapidly changing environment or for a very brief time. People often say it was a certain size and moving at a certain speed. But they can't know that without knowing the distance. And they can't know the distance without knowing the size. And all of those are things that people are really bad at estimating. (And before you say, "but some of these people are experts" (pilots or whatever) evidence shows that such people are no better than anyone else at observational tests.)

    If you have two (or more) completely independent witnesses who have similar descriptions, then that may increase the credibility of the description. (But they might both be misled by what they saw in similar ways.) If they have had a chance to to talk about whet they saw, then that weakens the usefulness of their testimony (because memory is so plastic and easily changed by talking about an event).

    Well I honestly didn't want to go there specifically, but I was trying to understand why extensive eyewitness testimony is counted so strongly when our lives might depend on it and why it's discounted to easily when the subject is something people want to discount. This happens even in the court system as well. In the USA taking a walk while black seems to be enough to get you shot quite easily and until body cams started showing what was going on the testimony of the police officer was practically law. I've heard this kind of thing has been going on all my life but because I am white I seldom if ever see it. But some of friends of color would tell me these things and I would wonder if we lived in different realities but that is off topic. 

    If you want to get into the "there" of this we would have to discuss a particular "crime" in detail and while I am up for that I would like to get this idea of eyewitnesses down before I post about that yet again. The idea of eyewitnesses being discounted out of hand by people who weren't there and have no expertise on the subject always bothers me...   


  9. 26 minutes ago, Strange said:

    I would hope that is not true in any democratic country.

    Have you been to Texas? 

    26 minutes ago, Strange said:

    I have served on a jury and heard the witnesses describe the person they saw at the scene of the (alleged) crime. He was tall/average/short. Had light/dark hair. Was young/old. Was wearing a coat/jacket/t-shirt. Was walking quickly. Was standing still in the park. The car was blue/silver. The car was a Ford or something Japanese. (The young male witnesses were nearly all consistent on the colour and Molde of the car. Nothing else.) And on and on. 

    I wouldn't call that eyewitness, IMHO eyewitness would more akin to picking someone out of a line up, but more importantly is how this is weighted. One person seeing something and two unrelated persons seeing the same thing would from different places, at least to me have more weight.  

    23 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

    Witness accounts that agree very closely can get viewed with suspicion by investigators, without being firm grounds for rejecting them - but it can and should be cause to investigate further... although perhaps not always done if the accounts support police suspicions and a case they are making for prosecution. I'm not sure about courts; a jury might be more inclined to accept close agreement as indicative of being true, whilst a judge/magistrate that makes a judgement without a jury may be more suspicious.

    Eyewitness testimony has always had it's problems but we have no option but to use it and deal with it's limitations. Some of the issues are known - like asking "is this the person?" rather a witness having to pick one out of similar looking people. Or if a witness has seen the suspect previously they may misidentify them simply because of their familiarity; there were cases where police "innocently" walked a suspect past a potential witness who would then be more likely to pick that person out of photos or a line-up.

    Clearly the circumstances around how eyewitness testimony is obtained is crucial to assessing it's credibility; explicitly examining those circumstances has to be part of the process.

     

     

    However, does the number of independent witnesses bear on the strength of the testimony?


  10. We commonly hear that eyewitness testimony is not reliable, in fact it is often portrayed as the worst type of evidence. But you or I can be sent to death by eyewitness testimony. In the courtroom eyewitness testimony is often touted as fundamental in many if not most criminal cases, yet when we judge something outside the courtroom such assertions are poo pooed as not to be believed and cannot be used to judge any aspect of the natural world. 

    Is this bias against eyewitness testimony only applicable if there is only one eyewitness? Does Two make it better? Does multiple independent eyewitnesses lend more credence to the testimony? Should we consider eyewitness testimony? If so, at what point does it become sufficient? Does the person who gives the testimony have any bearing on how important that testimony would be? 


  11. On 10/17/2019 at 12:52 AM, Robert Wilson said:

    1. Many insects can produce body heat:

    https://asknature.org/strategy/muscles-create-heat-to-warm-nest

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_thermoregulation

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28889866

    2. It's logic that an insect inside the pod will be hotter than the cold window that it's attached to which is exposed to the frozen wind outside.

     

     

    No it is not logical that an insect would be uniformly warm, they are regional endotherm and only keep small parts of their bodies above ambient temps. From your own link. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_thermoregulation

    Quote

    These endothermic insects are better described as regional heterotherms because they are not uniformly endothermic. When heat is being produced, different temperatures are maintained in different parts of their bodies, for example, moths generate heat in their thorax prior to flight but the abdomen remains relatively cool.[2]

    Moreover the thing we are talking about is not just uniformly warm the structures you are calling legs are the same temps as the rest which in something as small as an insect would improbable to say the least. Exposed to the cold window the insect would be cold, the cube square law would require a stationary insect exposed to freezing temps to be... wait for it... frozen... 


  12. Like most UFO sightings of the modern era this suffers greatly from eyewitness/photography fatigue. We all know, or so we are told that eyewitnesses are not as reliable as many think. I've even seen J. Allen Hynek being quoted as saying that military observers aren't particularly good observers and yet Hynek changed his mind about UFOs due to Military sighting, at least in part, and went from debunker to believer. Photos always suffer from the too good to be true or not good enough to be considered syndrome, everyone seems to be polarized with no middle ground. 

    There are inexplicable sightings with an embarrassment of information, the air force has been guilty of simply not wanting to admit they might not know something and giving out explanations that fail utterly to explain anything and i mean completely fabricating info to try and explain away incidents. Sadly the believers have done the same things the fog of signal to noise has only gotten worse and our modern technology has rendered photos and videos as meaningless simply due to the old too good to be true or too bad to be considered paradox. 

    It's to the point now I'm not sure I would believe a live news broadcast that showed one landing in the middle of the super bowl... 


  13. Guys, I am not arguing this is a alien space craft, but the videos combined with the testimony of the pilots, the CIC operators on the ship, and the videos does lend far more credence the object or objects were external to the aircraft and not something inside or on the lens of the flir... Personally I think this is pretty weak evidence to hang aliens on, Drones of some sort injected into the training scenario makes much more sense..  

     


  14. 5 hours ago, Eise said:

    It definitely looks like a speck of dust (or bug?) in the camera. I've some experience with photography, telescopes, microscopes, and this is very similar. Of course it is not on the objective, but somewhere else in the light path, maybe on the sensor. This depiction of course is not correct:

      Hide contents

     

    image.png.3fc70ef0a79f6b3c119ca0926368b887.png

     

     

     

     

    From the videos I definitely do not get the impression of something flying there. 

    You didn't see where it came into frame from the right at what appeared to be high speed and the excitement in the voices of the pilots as they tried to get a lock on it? 


  15. In this encounter the pilots cleary saw something:

    https://www.livescience.com/61233-navy-pilots-ufo-sightings.html

    Unless your bug is flying into frame...

    https://youtu.be/as73FeKi2ls

    https://youtu.be/0Fd6ssvcBoM

     

    This one is the one I thought switched from ir to normal but I was mistaken but again the object moves out of frame faster than the equipment can keep up, none of this screams aliens space craft but it doesn't exactly scream bug on the windshield either... 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9D8dzl4zGk

     


  16. 2 hours ago, Robert Wilson said:

    I don't know of such video, do you have a link to give?

    Do you have any proof that it's from the same event? Same day and same hour?

    Because I saw an interview with the pilot David Fravor and he said that he did not see the "UFO" from his airplane window, so it will be very strange if a daylight camera did see it.

     

    It did or was seen in normal light, I'll have to watch some more of these videos, to be honest I am tiring of watching the same footage over and over and seeing nothing but a blob... Either we give credence to the eyewitnesses of we don't don't. Pictures and video fall into two categories too good to be real or too bad to be considered... I'll look for it and post it with the time stamps.... 

    In this encounter the pilots cleary saw something:

    https://www.livescience.com/61233-navy-pilots-ufo-sightings.html

    Unless your bug is flying into frame...

    https://youtu.be/as73FeKi2ls

    https://youtu.be/0Fd6ssvcBoM

     

    This one is the one I thought switched from ir to normal but I was mistaken but again the object moves out of frame faster than the equipment can keep up, none of this screams aliens space craft but it doesn't exactly scream bug on the windshield either... 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9D8dzl4zGk


  17. 6 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

    No.

    Even if gold was the same price as copper, it would still make sense to use copper for motor windings- because it is much less dense.

    (Copper is also a slightly better conductor.)

     

    As I said, part of the rarity of the use of the purple gold alloy is the cost.

    That's why I said 

    So, once again, thanks for finding confirmation of my earlier post.

    I see where you are coming from, evidently my ideas about gold were misplaced but the lack of Purple Au/Al seems to be a but odd, we do have rose gold, white gold, red gold, blue gold, green gold, and a few intermediate and none of them including purple gold use any more gold than the others in fact purple gold is 18k... 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored_gold

    Quote

    Purple gold[edit]

    300px-Phasendiagramm_Gold-Aluminium.svg.
     
    Gold–aluminium phase diagram

    Purple gold (also called amethyst gold and violet gold) is an alloy of gold and aluminium rich in gold–aluminium intermetallic (AuAl2). Gold content in AuAl2 is around 79% and can therefore be referred to as 18 karat gold. Purple gold is more brittle than other gold alloys (a serious fault when it forms in electronics[11]), as it is an intermetallic compound instead of a malleable alloy, and a sharp blow may cause it to shatter.[12] It is therefore usually machined and faceted to be used as a "gem" in conventional jewelry rather than by itself. At a lower content of gold, the material is composed of the intermetallic and an aluminium-rich solid solution phase. At a higher content of gold, the gold-richer intermetallic AuAl forms; the purple color is preserved to about 15% of aluminium. At 88% of gold the material is composed of AuAl and changes color. The actual composition of AuAl2 is closer to Al11Au6 as the sublattice is incompletely occupied.[2]

     


  18. 12 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

    Thanks for finding a source which tallies with my view that nobody makes motor windings from gold, and that the current use of the purple Au/ Al alloy is rare.

    Any chance nobody makes motor windings from gold has to do with gold being too expensive to use in most such applications including the Au/Al alloy? 


  19. 24 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

    They often use aluminium because, while it isn't as good a conductor as copper or silver, it's a whole lot lighter.

    Gold would be a very poor choice for motors that change speed often.

    If gold suddenly became cheap, metallic purple jewelry would be more common.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored_gold#Purple_gold

    However the energy cost in de-orbiting stuff is generally huge

    https://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml


  20. 15 minutes ago, Robert Wilson said:

    I don't know what conflicts did you find in his statements, but I think that when he says:

    "Things that don't have any obvious flight services, any obvious forms of propulsion, and maneuvering in ways that include extreme maneuverability beyond the healthy G-forces of a human or anything biological... that aircraft are displaying characteristics that are not currently within the US inventory nor in any foreign inventory that we are aware of"

    then any average person with a little common sense understand that he is talking about flying machines which were not built on earth.

    I don't understand how else you can interpret this.
     

    I'm having a very hard time with you.

    Occam's razor says that if you have several explanations for some phenomenon, then the simplest explanation is most likely the right one.

    You can call it evidence, you can call it opinion, you can call it whatever you want. I gave several strong points that are all pointing to a very simple explanation which is much simpler and earthy than a "superior technology that we don't know about".

    1. The object shown in this particular video looks Too Stable to be external to the aircraft, it looks like it's glued/stuck to the lens. I saw many aircraft training videos and when you see other plane in front it's NEVER that stable in relation to the airplane sight.

    2. It looks Too Blurry which suggests that it is Very close to the camera lens, an external objects would look much sharpen.

    3. The pilot said that he didn't see the object from the window, but Only on the camera screen. If it's a real flying object in front of the aircraft then why didn't he see it also from his window?

    4. When you carefully examine the object in the video, you can see something that looks very similar to an insect legs, as I showed here:

    https://i.ibb.co/X4X7spt/Tic-Tac-Bug.png

    And also it's shape reminds very much a shape of an insect:

    https://i.ibb.co/yNsf5Kv/Insect.png

    5. We didn't see any video showing that particular event from the other aircraft, I think that it's very strange. If it really was an external object then I would expect that the two aircraft will see it in their cameras, not just one.

    Again, I think that my explanation is more simple and more logic than the explanation that they implies to.
     

    Your problem with me is irrelevant, your problem is that you keep making assertions you cannot provide evidence for while ignoring things about this that disagree with your conclusion. 

    The idea that biological beings couldn't survive the supposed maneuvers is meaningless, ever hear of drones? 


  21. 12 hours ago, Robert Wilson said:

    I refer only to Evidence that I see, the testimonies about other objects can be a million things, for example the white "Object" that they saw in the water could be a large flock of fish jumping out of the water, I don't know.

    What I'm very confident about is that what we see in that particular video IS a small insect on the camera lens.

    I gave at least 4-5 strong evidence that proof that that's what it is.

    BTW did you see the legs in my linked picture?

    Also, I hope that you saw the video of Neil Tyson, specially minute 3:00 -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BRDCxNEuyg

     

     

    I saw your picture, I also saw the videos, what you portrayed could be anything and there is more than one video. Don't pain me as the bad guy here, everything surrounding this is either stone cold superior technology or complete BS. I tend towards technology and I think it's ours but to push one possible ide as though it has to be true does nothing but make us look like debunkers instead of investigators. Doesn't get caught up in the us and them part of this. It's not either UFO nuts or government shills. There is a phenomena, often inexplicable, it might be totally explainable or it might be totally aliens, I doubt either solution is likely...  BTW, stop saying you have given evidence, all you have given is your opinion, nothing more... 

    35 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

    If you ask why the aliens spend so much energy to come here (trying not to be detected (unsuccessfully)), only to leave without so much as how do you do, or "mind if I take this"; then you might understand why your sentence makes no sense, much less common, without some sort of conspiracy.

    Maybe messing with us is their version of the world series... 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.