Jump to content

Congressional UFO Hearing


Moontanman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Evidently a new hearing about UAP's is happening, this is a short synopsis of the hearing by CNET. I thought some of us might be interested in discussing this latest chapter in the on going investigation. 

Congressional UFO Hearing

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/17/1099410910/ufo-hearing-congress-military-intelligence

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pentagon-reports-400-ufo-encounters-tells-congress-theyre-investigating-video/story?

Complete hearing. 

 

 

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi Moontanman. 

I have only watched the first video thus far, and what I do and always have supported is the further investigations into the small percentage of those UFO's/UAP's that have no known explanation at that time. 

I also have certainly not gone into this subject with as much vigour as you have and am really only aware of a few of the more prominent ones. Certainly the couple highlighted in the first video, and the much discussed Nimitz sightings, do not really raise my interest too much, or change my feelings that at this time, we have no "extraordinary evidence" of Alien visitations or contact. To my mind, so far the most unexplainable incident remains that of  the Story of Children in Zimbabwe Encountering a UFO and Alien beings. I would certainly like to see more official investigations into that incident.

My general feelings though have not changed, in that as a great man once said, "ëxtraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence", and the fact that the two prohibitive aspects preventing Alien/interstellar/galactic content, are time and distance.

https://phys.org/news/2022-05-congress-ufos-extraterrestrials.html

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, beecee said:

Hi Moontanman. 

I have only watched the first video thus far, and what I do and always have supported is the further investigations into the small percentage of those UFO's/UAP's that have no known explanation at that time. 

I also have certainly not gone into this subject with as much vigour as you have and am really only aware of a few of the more prominent ones. Certainly the couple highlighted in the first video, and the much discussed Nimitz sightings, do not really raise my interest too much, or change my feelings that at this time, we have no "extraordinary evidence" of Alien visitations or contact. To my mind, so far the most unexplainable incident remains that of  the Story of Children in Zimbabwe Encountering a UFO and Alien beings. I would certainly like to see more official investigations into that incident.

My general feelings though have not changed, in that as a great man once said, "ëxtraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence", and the fact that the two prohibitive aspects preventing Alien/interstellar/galactic content, are time and distance.

https://phys.org/news/2022-05-congress-ufos-extraterrestrials.html

You are of course correct, no extraordinary evidence is forth coming. There are some that were so sloppily explained by the air force it reeked of incompetence at least. I often wonder just what would extraordinary evidence look like? Is it reasonable to think we could acquire such evidence on this subject with out intent from the source? I honestly wonder if this subject is going to be limited to circumstantial evidence unless the source, what ever that may be, decides we get such evidence.  

The comparison to meteorites comes to mind. In the beginning of "science" the experts were quite sure that rocks did not fall from the sky. Even rock falls witnessed by people were dismissed as rocks blown by winds or thrown out of volcanoes. Even a collection of meteorites that was on display at a famous museum were taken off display because the prevailing wisdom decried they could not be extraterrestrial. Of course today we know better, but did the evidence suddenly become extraordinary? No the same evidence was all we had at the time but it became apparent that the debunkers were just that, debunkers, and that rocks falling from the sky could only be explained by rocks falling from the sky. All the other arguments of mistaken eye witnesses, wind blown rocks, and volcanoes simply served to muddy the water for the real explanation.   

When we see something that, while unknown, is inexplicable by by all other evidence do we really require that the object land on the Whitehouse lawn? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 When we see something that, while unknown, is inexplicable by by all other evidence do we really require that the object land on the Whitehouse lawn? 

Considering that we have been noting these UFO's/UAP's for quite a while now, I would think (if they were aliens) that it would be time to stop and introduce themselves. An advanced civilisation doing research and observing us is an interesting possiblity, but by the same token, I'm sure they would have noted some intelliegnce with us humans, and like the Vulcans in Star Trek, stop and introduce themselves. The analogy of us to ants on an ant hill isn't really valid in my opnion.

The most important thing with UFO's and UAP's is that they (a small percentage) remain unidentified. That of course includes Alien controlled craft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

Considering that we have been noting these UFO's/UAP's for quite a while now, I would think (if they were aliens) that it would be time to stop and introduce themselves. An advanced civilisation doing research and observing us is an interesting possiblity, but by the same token, I'm sure they would have noted some intelliegnce with us humans, and like the Vulcans in Star Trek, stop and introduce themselves. The analogy of us to ants on an ant hill isn't really valid in my opnion.

The most important thing with UFO's and UAP's is that they (a small percentage) remain unidentified. That of course includes Alien controlled craft. 

How small are we talking about? Only one has to be real for it to be a civilization changing event. I understand what you are saying but i question the idea they would want to contact us directly, observing from afar or at least maintaining distance seems reasonable for many reasons. Of course I have my own dog and pony show on that aspect.  

It would seem that as high as 10% are unexplained and not because of a lack of data. I keep coming back to the stupid explanations like slow meteors and comets, or glowing orbs caused by inversion layers in the air.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

How small are we talking about? Only one has to be real for it to be a civilization changing event.  

100% correct!!! I just want that revealed and validated before I kick the bucket. 😉

 

21 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

It would seem that as high as 10% are unexplained and not because of a lack of data. 

I'm not really sure of the actual figures and certainly do not dispute yours. I will say though that the other 90% mostly rather mundane glitches weather phenomena and light trickery, mistaken for alien controlled aircraft, is why so many are more cynical of the 10% you talk about. 

Not sure if you have expressed your feelings on the school children in the Zimbabwe incident yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

100% correct!!! I just want that revealed and validated before I kick the bucket. 😉

 

I'm not really sure of the actual figures and certainly do not dispute yours. I will say though that the other 90% mostly rather mundane glitches weather phenomena and light trickery, mistaken for alien controlled aircraft, is why so many are more cynical of the 10% you talk about. 

Not sure if you have expressed your feelings on the school children in the Zimbabwe incident yet?

I thought I did, I did see the video you recommended and I was impressed. Did you know there is two other school kids sightings that were very similar? One of them at least was in Australia, I'm not sure where the other one was. 

Being cynical because most are explainable, while a very human response, it much like the idea that if a million fly's eat excrement how can they be wrong? The numbers do not suggest resolution. In the recent congressional hearing they show a quick video that can only be a hoax or something extraordinary. There are lots of those and to assume they are all hoaxes due to then being a small percentage is, in my mind, not an honest path to knowledge.

I know people are tired of my fav go to but the 1952 Washington dc merry go round is IMHO very important. The Air Force at the very least intentionally mislead people as to what happened and gave an explanation that is silly at best and a intentional deception at worst. . 

https://nypost.com/2018/08/07/hundreds-of-school-kids-who-saw-a-ufo-and-their-story-was-ignored-for-50-years/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Ockham's razor is useful when evaluating cases like children claiming to have encountered aliens.  Given what we know about the psychology of children, there seem to be compelling reasons to consider the ET explanation less likely.  

A similar response to the notion "they can't all be hoaxes" -- given what we know of the human propensity for trickery, mischief, and a vast array of schemes for self-promotion and/or boosting tourism in places with sagging economies.  (And never underestimate the power of boredom, especially in a small town)

Our beliefs should never be guided by something being unidentified, except in forming the belief that we may not always get sufficient data about the myriad of small anomalies that occur.  I heard an odd sound last night at three a.m.  The cat was out, so it wasn't the cat.  Nothing in the local news next day.  Spouse asleep.  Probably will never know what it was.  Maybe just some ordinary event, but heard half-asleep.   Many things like that in everyone's life.  Now multiply by 7.4 billion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, TheVat said:

I think Ockham's razor is useful when evaluating cases like children claiming to have encountered aliens.  Given what we know about the psychology of children, there seem to be compelling reasons to consider the ET explanation less likely.  

A similar response to the notion "they can't all be hoaxes" -- given what we know of the human propensity for trickery, mischief, and a vast array of schemes for self-promotion and/or boosting tourism in places with sagging economies.  (And never underestimate the power of boredom, especially in a small town)

Our beliefs should never be guided by something being unidentified, except in forming the belief that we may not always get sufficient data about the myriad of small anomalies that occur.  I heard an odd sound last night at three a.m.  The cat was out, so it wasn't the cat.  Nothing in the local news next day.  Spouse asleep.  Probably will never know what it was.  Maybe just some ordinary event, but heard half-asleep.   Many things like that in everyone's life.  Now multiply by 7.4 billion...

I agree with you in spirit but in the reality it is far more complex than kids making something up. Adults were involved and witnessed the same events the children saw. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're speaking of the Ruwa, Zimbabwe case, with which I'm familiar, then I don't know what you mean about adult witnesses.  Pupils age 6-12 at a private school were the only witnesses, and crude interviewing techniques allowed cross-contamination of their stories.  The "environmental message" the students heard was reported only by the psychiatrist who happened to be an ardent environmentalist as well as a believer in alien abductions.  And some pupils reported seeing nothing.  The event also followed, by only two days, the re-entry of the Zenit-2 rocket from the Cosmos 2290 satellite launch. The booster broke up into burning streaks as it moved silently across the sky, giving an impressive light show across southern Africa.  The case is permeated with problems that just don't pass the sniff test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2022 at 4:22 PM, Moontanman said:

The comparison to meteorites comes to mind. In the beginning of "science" the experts were quite sure that rocks did not fall from the sky. Even rock falls witnessed by people were dismissed as rocks blown by winds or thrown out of volcanoes. Even a collection of meteorites that was on display at a famous museum were taken off display because the prevailing wisdom decried they could not be extraterrestrial. Of course today we know better, but did the evidence suddenly become extraordinary? No the same evidence was all we had at the time but it became apparent that the debunkers were just that, debunkers, and that rocks falling from the sky could only be explained by rocks falling from the sky. All the other arguments of mistaken eye witnesses, wind blown rocks, and volcanoes simply served to muddy the water for the real explanation.   

It was actual analysis and the weight of observational evidence. You actually had meteorites in hand, and could compare them to stones from the area. And a large number of eyewitnesses of the same unambiguous event, rather than isolated events.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/1803-rain-rocks-helped-establish-existence-meteorites-180963017/

Biot distinguished two kinds of evidence of an extraterrestrial origin of the stones,” Gounelle writes. First, the kind of stone that had fallen was totally different than anything else available locally—but it was similar to the stone from the Barbotan meteor fall in 1790. “The foundries, the factories, the mines of the surroundings I have visited, have nothing in their products, nor in their slag that have with these substances any relation,” Biot wrote.

Second, unlike earlier falls, there were a number of witnesses “who saw ‘a rain of stones thrown by the meteor,’” Gounelle writes. They were from different walks of life, and, Biot wrote, it would be ridiculous to think they had all colluded to describe something that hadn’t happened. “One can follow Biot’s enquiry, village by village, step by step,” writes Gounelle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, swansont said:

It was actual analysis and the weight of observational evidence. You actually had meteorites in hand, and could compare them to stones from the area. And a large number of eyewitnesses of the same unambiguous event, rather than isolated events.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/1803-rain-rocks-helped-establish-existence-meteorites-180963017/

Biot distinguished two kinds of evidence of an extraterrestrial origin of the stones,” Gounelle writes. First, the kind of stone that had fallen was totally different than anything else available locally—but it was similar to the stone from the Barbotan meteor fall in 1790. “The foundries, the factories, the mines of the surroundings I have visited, have nothing in their products, nor in their slag that have with these substances any relation,” Biot wrote.

Second, unlike earlier falls, there were a number of witnesses “who saw ‘a rain of stones thrown by the meteor,’” Gounelle writes. They were from different walks of life, and, Biot wrote, it would be ridiculous to think they had all colluded to describe something that hadn’t happened. “One can follow Biot’s enquiry, village by village, step by step,” writes Gounelle.

Good link, it should however be said that meteorites were poopooed for a long time and although it was eventually solved it wasn't solved by people who refused to even look at the evidence and tried to ridicule anyone who did try to investigate the phenomena.  I doubt it's reasonable to require possession of an actual alien space craft for analysis before realizing we might have something extraordinary going on. 

Right now we have recent photos of objects that simply cannot be explained by conventional means. Sightings by qualified observers, radar contacts, interactions with military jets, and professionals who are saying these objects actually pose a danger to military aircraft. 

I have to admit that the idea of some type of military hardware that most people are unaware of should still be the main go to but this cannot be said to be true of all present or past sightings. At what point to the contradictions between what is possible for us and what is not begin to point to something extraordinary? 

Luckily it would appear that a real investigation is going on and results could be forthcoming soon, let us hope it's not adversary technology and turns out to be ours. One thing is, IMHO, misidentification of conventional aircraft is getting less and less likely as the evidence mounts.  

On 5/18/2022 at 7:22 PM, TheVat said:

I think Ockham's razor is useful when evaluating cases like children claiming to have encountered aliens.  Given what we know about the psychology of children, there seem to be compelling reasons to consider the ET explanation less likely.  

A similar response to the notion "they can't all be hoaxes" -- given what we know of the human propensity for trickery, mischief, and a vast array of schemes for self-promotion and/or boosting tourism in places with sagging economies.  (And never underestimate the power of boredom, especially in a small town)

Our beliefs should never be guided by something being unidentified, except in forming the belief that we may not always get sufficient data about the myriad of small anomalies that occur.  I heard an odd sound last night at three a.m.  The cat was out, so it wasn't the cat.  Nothing in the local news next day.  Spouse asleep.  Probably will never know what it was.  Maybe just some ordinary event, but heard half-asleep.   Many things like that in everyone's life.  Now multiply by 7.4 billion...

https://nypost.com/2018/08/07/hundreds-of-school-kids-who-saw-a-ufo-and-their-story-was-ignored-for-50-years/

On 5/18/2022 at 7:22 PM, TheVat said:

I think Ockham's razor is useful when evaluating cases like children claiming to have encountered aliens.  Given what we know about the psychology of children, there seem to be compelling reasons to consider the ET explanation less likely.  

A similar response to the notion "they can't all be hoaxes" -- given what we know of the human propensity for trickery, mischief, and a vast array of schemes for self-promotion and/or boosting tourism in places with sagging economies.  (And never underestimate the power of boredom, especially in a small town)

Our beliefs should never be guided by something being unidentified, except in forming the belief that we may not always get sufficient data about the myriad of small anomalies that occur.  I heard an odd sound last night at three a.m.  The cat was out, so it wasn't the cat.  Nothing in the local news next day.  Spouse asleep.  Probably will never know what it was.  Maybe just some ordinary event, but heard half-asleep.   Many things like that in everyone's life.  Now multiply by 7.4 billion...

https://nypost.com/2018/08/07/hundreds-of-school-kids-who-saw-a-ufo-and-their-story-was-ignored-for-50-years/

There is another sighting that is new and little info is available that I know about as of yet but a triangular craft was seen and photographed leaving the ocean, soaring into the air and up and out of range of the super hornet that was witness to the craft, it was recorded on radar as well. I am investigating this and as soon as I get a link to the info other than a you tube video I will share it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Good link, it should however be said that meteorites were poopooed for a long time

But not so much by people with a physics background, since the physics didn’t even start to exist until Newton.

12 hours ago, Moontanman said:

and although it was eventually solved it wasn't solved by people who refused to even look at the evidence and tried to ridicule anyone who did try to investigate the phenomena.  I doubt it's reasonable to require possession of an actual alien space craft for analysis before realizing we might have something extraordinary going on. 

You also have to take into account the date and ability to investigate, including the speed and depth of communication. Vague reports of a rock falling from the sky from a place a hundred miles away isn’t likely to be investigated when there’s no science to be used and that’s a multi-day trip. That’s assuming the news traveled that far.

These reasons why people didn’t investigate is a separate issue from the question I was answering. The issue was investigated after it became clear that there was evidence rather than anecdotes, and actual analysis could be done.

 

12 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Right now we have recent photos of objects that simply cannot be explained by conventional means. Sightings by qualified observers, radar contacts, interactions with military jets, and professionals who are saying these objects actually pose a danger to military aircraft. 

Do these experts say they do, or do they qualify this by saying “could” i.e. if the objects are real, and other assumptions are valid.

(Linking to your sources would be helpful when you paraphrase what others say)

 

12 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I have to admit that the idea of some type of military hardware that most people are unaware of should still be the main go to but this cannot be said to be true of all present or past sightings. At what point to the contradictions between what is possible for us and what is not begin to point to something extraordinary? 

Luckily it would appear that a real investigation is going on and results could be forthcoming soon, let us hope it's not adversary technology and turns out to be ours. One thing is, IMHO, misidentification of conventional aircraft is getting less and less likely as the evidence mounts.  

I’m sorry, I thought this was about a congressional hearing. What is this “real investigation”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, swansont said:

But not so much by people with a physics background, since the physics didn’t even start to exist until Newton.

Point taken. 

9 hours ago, swansont said:

You also have to take into account the date and ability to investigate, including the speed and depth of communication. Vague reports of a rock falling from the sky from a place a hundred miles away isn’t likely to be investigated when there’s no science to be used and that’s a multi-day trip. That’s assuming the news traveled that far.

UFOs/UAP's were in a similar category of vague and hard to study, now they are being studied from more than just vague reports. 

9 hours ago, swansont said:

These reasons why people didn’t investigate is a separate issue from the question I was answering. The issue was investigated after it became clear that there was evidence rather than anecdotes, and actual analysis could be done.

I think there is a comparison to be made, it was often said UFO's consisted of nothing but anecdotes but now there is evidence in the form of radar and other sensors as well as human eyes and videos made by the military, not just civilians with polaroids.   

9 hours ago, swansont said:

 

Do these experts say they do, or do they qualify this by saying “could” i.e. if the objects are real, and other assumptions are valid.

(Linking to your sources would be helpful when you paraphrase what others say)

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/report-no-explanations-for-uap-but-they-threaten-flight-safety/

Quote

Ominously, the task force found national security implications. “UAP pose a hazard to safety of flight and could pose a broader danger if some instances
represent sophisticated collection against U.S. military activities by a foreign government or demonstrate a breakthrough aerospace technology by a potential adversary,” the report concluded. But in the next sentence, the report says, “We currently lack data to indicate any UAP are part of a foreign collection program or indicative of a major technological advancement by a potential adversary.” The documentation showed that there were 11 instances of near misses with UAP.

9 hours ago, swansont said:

 

I’m sorry, I thought this was about a congressional hearing. What is this “real investigation”?

The congressional hearing describes the investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Point taken. 

UFOs/UAP's were in a similar category of vague and hard to study, now they are being studied from more than just vague reports. 

I think there is a comparison to be made, it was often said UFO's consisted of nothing but anecdotes but now there is evidence in the form of radar and other sensors as well as human eyes and videos made by the military, not just civilians with polaroids.   

Which are still anecdotal. Observations being made by military personnel doesn’t change that. Plus, they admit  “The sensors mounted on U.S. military platforms are typically designed to fulfill specific missions. As a result, those sensors are not generally suited for identifying UAP.”

One thing missing here is an analysis of known aerial phenomena as a comparison. Surely birds and balloons, etc. have been detected and identified by aircraft before, without being categorized as UAP. What are those signals and how do they differ? There’s also no mention of any sort of systematic test of the sensors to see what kind of signals can be created from any of these mundane phenomena. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, swansont said:

Which are still anecdotal. Observations being made by military personnel doesn’t change that. Plus, they admit  “The sensors mounted on U.S. military platforms are typically designed to fulfill specific missions. As a result, those sensors are not generally suited for identifying UAP.”

This is true, the sensors are not ideally suited for UAP's but they are suited to identify other aircraft and have detected the UAP and have given enough info to warrant more study simply because they cannot identify the UAP. This has resulted in the admission of a need for further study.   

8 hours ago, swansont said:

One thing missing here is an analysis of known aerial phenomena as a comparison. Surely birds and balloons, etc. have been detected and identified by aircraft before, without being categorized as UAP. What are those signals and how do they differ? There’s also no mention of any sort of systematic test of the sensors to see what kind of signals can be created from any of these mundane phenomena. 

I would have to assume these tests/comparisons have been done since most of these UAP's currently under study lack any explanation. Balloons are specifically mentioned as being ruled out and birds seldom appear as hollow clear spheres with opaque cubes inside them that can fly among the jet aircraft and exceed their speeds.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Balloons are specifically mentioned as being ruled out

Where? I see 5 mentions, and a couple of them mentioned where one sighting was confirmed as a deflating balloon, but nothing about them being ruled out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2022 at 4:26 PM, swansont said:

Where? I see 5 mentions, and a couple of them mentioned where one sighting was confirmed as a deflating balloon, but nothing about them being ruled out.

I over stepped, out of 400 current sightings being studied one was ascribed to a partially deflated balloon... many pilot reports contained the info that the objects were traveling against prevailing winds and or were reacting to the jets and maneuvering at high speeds and therefore could not be balloons. this was not part of the hearing. I had seen these from other sources and mixed them up, I apologize. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If the Rare Earth hypothesis is true, that would explain the Fermi Paradox.  Earth would be seen by the few aliens that exist in our local, as a freak of nature, a rare jewel covered with life, an extraordinary planet with strange life for aliens to study.   BUT try to not interfere!  If they have been observing us for a long time, they could know the exact state of our technology.  They could routinely steal cell phones from people, and other technology samples to study and figure out, and always stay one step out of our reach.  They would now be well aware cell phone cameras, satellites watching Earth, and other surveillance cameras, are everywhere.

Why would an advanced ET, with the ability to travel such distances, not be stealthy?  They have lights on the outside of their craft, as if to attract attention.  It only makes sense if the lights in the sky are a diversion while something they want you to NOT notice is happening somewhere else.  Or they are so confident that they will be only recorded as a vague light in the sky, and thereby remain unidentified.

If tic tacs can make dramatic maneuvers that cause thousands of g forces, any biological being would be crushed.  Maybe the craft are piloted by AI, little grey indestructible crash-dummy robots.

Edited by Airbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The military's 2021 report said no evidence of aliens had been found. Scott W. Bray, the deputy director of Naval intelligence, told lawmakers that they still haven't uncovered anything "nonterrestrial in origin," even though there are incidents they can't explain.

Why do people keep mentioning aliens when the reports say that there is no evidence of aliens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, swansont said:

The military's 2021 report said no evidence of aliens had been found. Scott W. Bray, the deputy director of Naval intelligence, told lawmakers that they still haven't uncovered anything "nonterrestrial in origin," even though there are incidents they can't explain.

Why do people keep mentioning aliens when the reports say that there is no evidence of aliens?

That is a very good point, but when asked about this it was said that aliens are not being ruled out. I think it would be a step to far at this point to name aliens as a probability but the ones that are inexplicable, and not from lack of data, are being labeled "unknown" at some point the label "unknown" becomes quite provocative of something extraordinary. I think we may have crossed that line, only a continuing investigation will sort out the wheat from the chaff.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • 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.