UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"In order to relive operator interaction, Sea Giraffe AMB provides fully automatic operation for both air and surface targets, supported by a variety of different clutter maps and Doppler processing capabilities to eliminate both land and weather-driven clutter. Sea Giraffe AMB classifies and tracks fixed wing, helicopter (both moving and hovering), small UAVs, jammer and ballistic targets."---- https://www.saab.com/products/sea-giraffe-amb

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The San Clemente Island (SCI).
My bold
Navy site

Research? Wouldn't that require all manner of 'odd targets' in the air and under sea?
By target I mean something to 'see' not shoot down.
If you can't detect them, you then use them yourself ??

 

MR says ''And no..it looks nothing like a jet flying away. You'd see a bright blob of jet exhaust''
It's 11 at night and so black for hot.

MR says ''The image on the FLIR clearly shows motion and then hovering and then plunging.''
Here's Uncle Mick talking about the motion of the object and the 'plunging'.
I think Mick has a little joke near the end.
Also Mick notes there's six minutes missing from middle of 'clip' Why?( Two clips joined?)
4 minutes 40 seconds long. Mick is straight to the point from the start.

 

I think ole Mick is getting paranoid what with all these Navy tracked UAPs. Maybe he's due a visit from the Men in Black..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

American Midwest desert?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Like Iowa?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, it doesn't. Once you correct for parallax it seems to be something slowly descending. Whether it descends into the water or beyond the horizon is unclear, although given lack of evidence of anything in the water when they went to search one might be tempted toward the "over the horizon" conclusion. But the FLIR footage doesn't "clearly show" such actual motion of the object, only apparent motion, which can be explained by parallax while observing a stationary object.

No one is laughing.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Do you have examples of what that would look like on FLIR? I mean, of just that phenomena: an aircraft moving away from the radar and over the horizon?

Is it, though? You would know this... how?
Asking for a friend.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It maybe be a simple formula to find distance to horizon knowing height of camera above sea level but, not knowing the uap's altitude, if beyond the horizon, puts a damper on things.
Over at Mick's, it's another story of course.
If anyone is interested in that thread over at Mick's: Metabunk

 

I appreciate you stating this, James. For the record, I'm not offended by your position or your debate ''style.'' It stands to reason that this form of communication (on forums) allows for things to get lost in translation, like tone, sarcasm, humor, etc. Same with texting. So having said that, you've given me some food for thought regarding Mick West, and I'll share my thoughts on what my ''issues'' are with him. I've been somewhat vague as to my opinions on him thus far, so stay tuned...

 

Navy pilot Ryan Graves discusses government progress in destigmatizing UAPS:

https://thehill.com/opinion/nationa...must-reveal-the-truth-to-the-american-people/

"As a former U.S. Navy F/A-18 fighter pilot who witnessed unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) on a regular basis, let me be clear. The U.S. government, former presidents, members of Congress of both political parties and directors of national intelligence are trying to tell the American public the same uncomfortable truth I shared: Objects demonstrating extreme capabilities routinely fly over our military facilities and training ranges. We don’t know what they are, and we are unable to mitigate their presence...."

"....Why don’t we have more data? Stigma. I know the fear of stigma is a major problem because I was the first active-duty fighter pilot to come forward publicly about regular sightings of UAP, and it was not easy. There has been little support or incentive for aircrew to speak publicly on this topic. There was no upside to reporting hard-to-explain sightings within the chain of command, let alone doing so publicly. For pilots to feel comfortable, it will require a culture shift inside organizations and in society at large.

I have seen for myself on radar and talked with the pilots who have experienced near misses with mysterious objects off the Eastern Seaboard that have triggered unsafe evasive actions and mandatory safety reports. There were 50 or 60 people who flew with me in 2014-2015 and could tell you they saw UAP every day. Yet only one other pilot has confirmed this publicly. I spoke out publicly in 2019, at great risk personally and professionally, because nothing was being done.

The ODNI report itself notes that concentrated efforts to reduce stigma have been a major reason for the increase in reports this year. To get the data and analyze it scientifically, we must uproot the lingering cultural stigma of tin foil hats and “UFOs” from the 1950s that stops pilots from reporting the phenomena and scientists from studying it....."

 

Every day??
Interesting. So, by his own account (and we trust hm, right?) it is quite routine - daily, in fact - for many pilots to experience unusual circumstances that they are unable to resolve in situ.

That bolsters the view that pilots - despite being highly trained - are still quite wanting in their observation and analysis abilities while busy flying.

 

I believe that he meant every day for a period of time. And perhaps these multi-day periods when they were present recurred, I'm not sure about that. The point is that it's a repeated thing, not a one-off.

It isn't just pilots. I think radar saw them too. But not routine, it was something outside their normal experience as pilots and radar operators.

That's why (real) skepticism means that the possibility of falsehood has to be considered in all human propositions and assertions. 100% reliability and credence are epistemological ideals, not something that we actually attain with flesh-and-blood human beings.

But that being said, the pilots are the best that we have. They are certainly more credible (to me anyway) than the dismissive speculations of layman debunkers who approach these cases with their conclusions already set in stone. (It's all bullshit.)

 

They should use that flashy-thing on him.

 

I've never encountered any of those; I'll have to take your word for it.

Although, as MR points out, if I know someone is biased, I shouldn't take you at your word.

 

That doesn't really follow logically does it? I may know that you are biased in your tastes toward enjoying pizza more than hamburger but if you tell me that you had a hamburger for dinner (unless I know that you are dishonest) that is no reason for me to not take you at your word that you had hamburger for dinner.