UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Do I have to repeat every post for the slow of comprehending?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There were no dummies at Roswell. A possible reason for reports of "bodies" is that witnesses mistook their memories of dummies - at a different time and place - for memories of bodies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There was one test pilot who suffered a badly swollen face during one test, some idiots have no doubt caused him to have a birth certificate NOT OF THIS EARTH! (The redhead, forget his name.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here's the full text of the report, which was reportedly leaked. (Read it James. I think that you will find it fascinating.)

https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document_dev/2018/05/18/TIC TAC UFO EXECUTIVE REPORT_1526682843046_42960218_ver1.0.pdf

(Las Vegas Now is a website belonging to TV station KLAS, the Las Vegas CBS affiliate.)

The New York Times ran a story back in December 2017, apparently based on the same document. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/unidentified-flying-object-navy.html

Interestingly, a very similar white 'tic-tac' shaped UFO was reportedly sighted (and filmed) by the US Navy off the east coast of the United States in 2015.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f1fe5130fdb2

Highlights of the 2004 events:

1. Anomalous contacts observed on multiple occasions over at least a week by the very capable AN/SPY-1 radars on the USS Princeton (an AEGIS missile cruiser, part of the Nimitz carrier battle group which was conducting pre-deployment exercises southwest of San Diego.

2. The anomalous contacts would enter the search volume of the SPY radar from above (something like 80,000 feet) and descend to 50 feet over the ocean in a matter of seconds.

3. It appeared again and a E2C Hawkeye AWACS plane aloft directing air exercises was directed by the Princeton to look for the contact. At first it didn't detect anything, then it noted a very weak return at low wave-top altitude at the point Princeton specified.

4. Two Navy jets were tasked with visually reconnoitering the object and were asked whether they were carrying live ordinance. (They said no.) They were vectored in by a data link to the Princeton's SPY radar. They sighted a disturbance in the water that may or may not have been some large object submerging. Hovering above that spot they visually observed a white object about 40 feet long, shaped like a 'tic-tac', without visible wings, control surfaces or exhaust plumes. The radars their jets were carrying could detect it but couldn't get a lock on it. They would scan, pick it up but keep scanning.

5. A third Marine jet arrived overhead but was told to maintain 10,000 foot altitude due to other aircraft being in the vicinity. This pilot saw the water disturbance dissipating, but didn't see the flying object. The pilot said that he too had been asked if he was carrying ordinance (no) and remarked that it was an exceedingly unusual request.

6. Two more jets launched from the Nimitz in response to this were carrying targeting pods capable of capturing visual and infrared imagery, but no live ordinance. They too made visual contact with the 'tic-tac' and recorded it on multiple wavelengths.

7. It's not recorded in this report, but there apparently was a very similar 'tic-tac' contact over the Atlantic in 2015. Imagery was recorded in that one too.

Things that struck me:

1. Observed by multiple radars (some of which did produce weak returns or had trouble getting a lock), observed visually by multiple pilots from multiple angles, and recorded both visually and on infrared. That suggests to me that there was really something physically there.

2. The object reacted to a jet approaching it, rising to meet it and orienting itself so that its long axis pointed at the approaching jet.

3. The day was clear, sea states were calm, none of the pilots or radar operators seem to have been experiencing any psychological difficulties.

4. It's conceivable that this might have been a secret stealthy "black-project" UAV (unmanned air vehicle). Maybe the Navy wanted to test it against the detection abilities of a carrier battle group.

5. But the thing's observed performance argues against that. No wings or control surfaces visible. Descends and ascends like a rocket. Able to hover, accelerate almost instantaneously and seemingly able to move at hypersonic velocity.

6. It's conceivable that the leaked report is bogus. But one of the pilots has been identified and interviewed and he confirms it. Video and FLIR recordings of the incident have been declassified and released.

7. Apparently very similar observations have been made in separate incidents, by different people, thousands of miles and years apart.

Tentative conclusion:

I'm maintaining my agnostic position. I don't have a clue what this was. But I am inclined to think that it was something. Perhaps something very interesting.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

These aliens, they can come light years across the void and can't stay hidden from our radar?

 

Outstanding analysis Yazata. I had posted this news article as well as the previous infrared camera footage of the ufo reported in this report and wondered why nobody reacted to it. Just the usual trolling oneliners. To me it is more compelling evidence of the reality of ufos, particularly as verified by expert military personel equipped with state of the art equipment and cameras. The standard gripe of the armchair skeptic is that all these reports of ufo encounters are just made up or are misperceptions of other mundane phenomena. This report has neither of these problems. It is a backed up military document and one with compelling video of 2 ufo encounters with Navy pilots. The pilot said it looked like a giant tic tac. You can't get any better evidence than this. I'm still waiting for more releases of ufo encounters from that secret govt agency. They said there'd be more.

 

The Secret Department of Forestry reports? Those?

 

Bear in mind the pilot's comment in one of the infrared videos of there being "a whole fleet of them." This lessens the probability of it being some top secret military craft.

 

Yeah, it's just a whole fleet of aliens with defective stealth technology. Aliens have a shitty safety record, ships always crashing, and their technology is positively shabby.

Or there are no aliens involved here, just something we haven't figured out yet.

 

I don't see how any intelligent person can deny the existence of unidentified flying objects. Not every flying object, not everything that people see in the sky, is identified. UFOs have been reported since ancient times.

The more difficult (and important) question is what are they?

I'm inclined to think that unknown things seen in the sky are a whole variety of things. These range from lies, fables and myth, through misidentified mundane phenomena, to... what?

This report certainly suggests to me that at least in a small handful of instances, the 'what' might include physical objects that behave in very interesting ways.

I'm not sure what kind of mundane phenomenon this could be. It might, just conceivably, be a perception (not a misperception) of some kind of secret aircraft of an unknown type. But that would suggest that aircraft technology has progressed far beyond what most people believe is the current state of the art. Certainly some new kind of propulsion is suggested.

I'd like to see what they have too. There have apparently been at least two 'tic-tac' incidents. Are there more?

 

I'm not really intelligent, but I know that. Did you think you were the only one to know that?
See the Air Force report on Roswell post #1388. No saucers and no bodies.
Air Force report
Link

 

Typically a skeptic will say that yes they believe there are unidentified flying objects meaning they are really identified flying objects like meteors, swamp gas, the planet Venus, or conventional aircraft. But then it's not a ufo anymore. When I say ufo I mean a truly unidentified phenomenon that defies scientific explanation. I don't assume they are extraterrestrials either. The more I have studied these things over the years the more mysterious they have become. From rockets over Sweden and crude metallic spheres and discs to plasma-like glowing balls and ovoids and gigantic black triangles it's hard to generalize about such a diverse phenomenon. I just know they are real. Are they all the same thing? Perhaps not. But the one thing they do all have in common---they are not of this world.

 

Anything that can't be explained scientifically would be magic.

 

And - don't forget - NOT OF THIS WORLD

MR has spoken

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well it's bloody obvious that if certain people can't explain something then it's NOT OF THIS WORLD.

 

Now all we need to do is
Drum roll

NAME THAT WORLD

Is it
Hallucination?
Fantasy?
Drunken prank?
Or my favourite
Made up shit?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I agree that if a sighting in the sky is unidentified, then we can't say for sure what it is without thereby identifying it. But I don't have much problem with speculating about what it might be. Nor do I have a problem with arguing that some sorts of speculations are (as far as we can tell) more likely to be true than others.

There's a big difference between 1. 'defies all the scientific examination that we can apply to it' and 2. 'the person who makes the observation is unable to explain it'. A huge number of UFO sightings will easily clear the second hurdle but not the first. And it's typically the weaker #2 that gets something labeled a UFO in the first place.

Even if a UFO was indeed an alien space craft, I expect that some sort of scientific examination could determine that fact, assuming the scientists had access to the UFO. So I think that your definition is too strong, making UFO into something inexplicable by its nature. That's too close to religious miracle for my comfort.

'Real' what?

They are all real in terms of being real UFO sighting reports. (That's why its foolish to insist that there's no evidence. There's stacks of evidence.) But I'd say that the vast majority of them are indeed attributable to imagination, mis-perception or mundane things like that. (I'd agree with JamesR on that.)

But as the 2004 'tic-tac' sighting suggests, not all of them can be so easily dismissed.

So I'm inclined to think (I'm not 100% certain) that some small subset of UFO reports might indeed be reports of objective physical phenomena whose cause might be quite amazing to and unsuspected by us. (Though probably not inexplicable in principle.)

I don't know that and I don't want to go that far.

As you know, I think that this world of our everyday experience is very poorly understood, profoundly mysterious and might include lots that's not even currently suspected by us.

 

Looks like a ufo report was posted that finally left James R speechless. lol!

 

The site has proven itself not the place to ''discuss'' interesting reports. The nutjobs jump on the ''interesting'' reports to say, look ''I'' was right with all the past crap I posted.
Something like a primitive cock-a-doodle-doo I've been proven right mentality. (In their eyes).
I for one would like to talk about some of the latest reports, but it wouldn't be here.

 

Good. Then get lost. You never discuss anything seriously here anyway what with your trolling pics and snide comments about other forums I visit.