This is a great reminder that I need to bookmark metabunk.org, where Mick West and others go into enormous detail about the UAP evidence, including simulations and reconstructions.
For example, with the GIMBAL video, the pilots are on record saying the object is 6-8 nautical miles (NM) away as they saw on their Situation Awareness (SA) Screen. Mick’s attempt to debunk the GIMBAL rotation asserts that the object was 30 NM away, and he refuses to look at other evidence that contradicts the statement.
Other scientists have done extensive efforts to show that the rotation of the gimbal object directly correlates with the flight path, which shows to be a vertical u-turn exactly as described by the pilots who had access to the SA https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1504855791060148224?s=...
Metabunk have debunked a lot of things very well. But they have not debunked the 3 navy videos. I can provide more evidence to the analysis on the other two videos to show that these objects are exhibiting foight characteristics that are unique and defy the laws of physics.
People make mistakes, but data doesn’t. And according to these pilots and the former head of the DoD UAP program, the data shows that there are craft moving in our airspace with impunity.
But data collection, storage, retrieval and/or interpretation may contain errors.
The Navy incident got the traction it did because the original footage leaked years ago and only now acknowledged.
If you're interested, see here for a documentary on the Colares, Brazil UFO incident that occurred in 1977 https://youtu.be/Mr1NrnsdY5I
Hmm I'm doubtful about this. It would be very unlike him. I found his explanation quite illuminating, and the pilot he had a back and forth with was interesting.
It's been a few months since I checked but last I did, I was satisfied that Mick made a good case for why the others are wrong about the distance.
Mick refuses to accept the fact the distance is 6-8nm as the pilots stated it was shown on their SAs. Ryan Graves asked Mick to present his analysis at a coalition of former military pilots for them to debate him, but he said he was “too busy”.
Again, mick does a great job debunking things that should be debunked. But you can’t debunk something by claiming the distance of the object was farther than it actually was
... farther than instruments indicated ... Which still beats "it's aliens" by a long shot.
This woderful US military tech tracked a guy in Afghanistan for a day and bombed him thinking that water he was carrying home to his children is explosive and he's a terrorist.
It's not aliens.
Human intelligence and military intelligence. Because there's no alien intelligence here.
We have been to space. We have theories that FTL travel may be possible (Alcubierre drives, wormholes). The JWST just showed us that galaxies formed as early as 300 million years after the Big Bang. Hell, we didn't know there were planets outside of our solar system until the 1990s. We still don't know what Dark Matter or Dark Energy are. We have far more left to explore and understand.
I despise people like you who try to diminish every important scientific venture because you think you know better.
And some things just remain impossible. They laughed at Galileo but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
I think there's huge probabiliy that aliens really do exist. But they are nowhere close. And we don't have any resonable theories about FTL. They sound reasonable up to a point of "yeah, but you need negative mass to do that". So basically it's an artefact that equations produce when they are pushed to the domain they are no longer valid in.
Best scientific venture about alien life is SETI and JWST. Not some nonsense of pilots seeing things they believe to be violating the laws of physics. And some recordings of instruments that just show wrong data.
People like you mix science with science-fiction and that really does no good for either.
Pilots are not the only ones seeing this. Ukrainian astronomers have data from their telescopes in two different cities referencing the same objects traveling at Mach 15, stopping on a dime, then turning around immediately https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.17085
As for the negative mass comment, here's a patent by the navy for an inertial mass reduction device https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en
we have theories that is grounded in our current understanding of physics for superluminal travel. it's not insane to think a species 1 million years ahead of us have engineered it
This is just appeal to authority. And wrong authority at that.
When you are debunking a supernatural claim you don't ask a scientist to do it (let alone a general). Because scientists are honest thus easily mislead because they assume honesty. You should ask a magician because they know myriad of ways how it could be done to fool you.
As for the patent ... Do you know how many versions of perpetum mobile are patented? Do you know how many do work? The thing doesn't have to work to be patented.
There's a history of scientists being fooled by supernatural claims.
There are even some Nobel laureates that after success in science as they get older they go straight to cookooland. Heck, even Newton who achieved much in his youth when he got older he went completely bananas.
Being a scientist doesn't guard you against getting fooled and fooling yourself.
This is not a serious subject. It's a form of modern religion and local one at that. Most prominent in USA. Believing that in our lifetime we discovered signs of advanced alien tech on Earth is not very different than believing that in your lifetime you'll experience second coming of Christ. A belief that was shared by a lot of people for last 2 millenia.
Don't get me wrong. I love science fiction. I just don't need to pretend it might be real to enjoy it.
Please, just stay out of this conversation. Let the real scientists like Gary Nolan and Avi Loeb continue to investigate this subject as they please. Whatever this phenomenon ends up being, your opinions are not going to help us find that out.
Gary Nolan and Avi Loeb will die of old age before they can deliver actual proof of alien technology exactly as every scientist and layman did so far. If they explain those artifacts it won't be aliens. That's just my opinion. Please keep it at the back of your mind for the rest of your life.
From now on I'm staying out of this particular conversation.
Immunologist that thinks he saw UFO:
https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/garry-nolan
Guy who thought Oumuamua is alien spaceship (gathered evidence gives exactly zero reasons to think that):
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Avi-Lo...
Theoretical physicist with his head deep in things like Alcubierre drive that appears from Einstein's equations when applied to such things as negative mass (which doesn't exist) without acknowledging that quantum mechanics exists. He was also hired by Pentagon to investigate UFOs. Nothing came of it, but he had every incentive to make stuff up to keep his job. Which he was eventually fired from when it closed, but he claims it wasn't closed and he still works there. He also claimed they got some materials of alien origin they couldn't identify. Claim that has zero backing. And he can't even come clean that he lied because that would mean government could sue him for fraud.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric-Davis-16
I see how those three are superbly equipped to validate or falsify claims of some Airforce pilots. /s
Basically 3 believers with some accidental degrees including some with vested interest in continuation of UFO research.
Why am I against it? I just hate bs that poisons minds of so many people giving them some false sense of superiority for "having open minds" and forefront knowledge.
I know it's hard to be confronted with information that undermines your belief. It can be painful. But it's worth it. Freedom from bs waits on the other side of this path. And having accurate model of reality and yourself matters.
Gary Nolan is the one of the premiere immunologists and pathologists in the world. He has created multiple multi-million dollar companies. He was asked by the CIA to perform scans on people who had been encountered UAP and had health effects or death.
Avi Loeb is a renowned Harvard astrophysicist. Yes, he is studying Oumuamua because it was the first object outside our solar system to come by Earth. It also had an extremely odd shape and a trajectory that does not seem natural. He's simply hypothesized that it could be some kind of ET probing device passing Earth, but he's not definitively said so. All he's saying is no other physicist has come up with a proper explanation for what Oumuamua was, and so he wants to study other interstellar objects that come near by.
Eric Davis has been working for DoD for almost 3 decades. He's well known within the defense space to being an incredibly intelligent human being.
You can't just take one piece of their history and dismiss their entire credibility. What are your credentials that make you so important to dismiss these people as insane for just studying this phenomenon?
I know that those 3 scientists are accomplished people in their respective, unassociated fields. For various definitions of the word "accomplished".
But I'd much rather see a psychiatrist and plane surveillance device constructor/tester and possibly a magician or a con artist investigating those documents coming out of DoD first than three avid ufologists. In my opinion it might be way more productive and brilliant immunologist could stick to doing good work in immunology, astrophysicist could research new insights in astrophysics that is actually very promising field, and ex DoD employee very theoretical physicist might continue his mid life crisis or whatever he's doing.
But rest assured, the research is going on. Good news for you:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-try-to...
I'll just be bitter for the waste of research power for the next few years before it goes away. As it always did.
Maybe they'll even get the funding becuse eyes up the sky might be useful:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40054/adversary-drones...
> And if it's UFO which has exactly the same amount of confirmed evidence as leprechauns
That is absolutely false. The 3 navy videos have enough evidence behind them to show UAP are real and exhibiting interesting flight characteristics. You are denying hard evidence - for what reason I don't know.
https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/weird-news/2020/04/28/pe...
Third one is a goose:
Super solid evidence, no doubt.
Yeah, let's investigate. Tens of millions of dollars won't spend themselves. And we certainly wouldn't want to spend it on boring actual astronomy and astrophysics.
Btw the other video is just of loosing tracking of a plane:
GOFAST: The "goose" would need to be flying 100 knots to account for the wind speed https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1603518927891357696
GIMBAL: If the DoD would confirm the range of the object was 6-8 nautical miles (which has been confirmed by the pilots on the mission) than this object performed a "vertical u-turn" where the rotation directly correlates with the change in direction https://twitter.com/the_cholla/status/1620220980839993345?s=...
FLIR1: Hasn't been debunked has a plane. https://twitter.com/MvonRen/status/1599796010506924033
All of the attempts to debunk the videos require very specific assumptions that are not proven. The GIMBAL object was not 30 nautical miles away as Mick west says. The GOFAST object is going against 120 knots of wind, West is assuming there is no wind at all. The Tic-Tac is exhibiting instantaneous acceleration and no plane today can do this.
Nothing about these videos has been debunked. The DoD could put this to rest by releasing the additional sensor data, but they won't because the sensors are highly classified.
So he really has no idea how fast goose traveled.
His second objection is that the object was cold in IR (compared to water in the background) which is perfecly consistent with a bird travelling at 2.5 km which is well insulated to be able to fly so high because it's obviously colder up there than at sea level.
FLIR: I see no specific objection and no explanation for why this object looks exactly like other IR recordings of planes from behind where hot exahaust washes out the image and why would speeding off at the end should be rather explained by object violating laws of physics than camera loosing tracking.
GIMBAL: No explanation why the object should show any rotation in sync with camera rotation which proves its shape and angle is optical artifact. Again objections are to details which cannot be accurately established. With complete disregard of the main argument.
What people say that DoD says or doesn't say about it is just heresay. Videos are the data. The only actual data we have.
Goose, plane from behind, and posssibly a debris field of space junk are currently best actually scientific explanations of the data that consists of those 3 videos.
I'm not refusing to address anything, but I'm beginning to think I started a discussion about ufos with avid ufologist. So I don't guarantee I'll still find it worthwhile to respond to your next message if it comes.
Are you insane? going 100 knots against 30-50 knots of wind requires far more force than a fucking Goose can provide with its wings. Not to mention the object is at 13,000 feet above sea level which would be insanely high for a goose to travel.
You're also discounting the pilot testimony about the GOFAST video. GOFAST and GIMBAL were taken on the same day by the same pilots. There's a longer classified video that shows the object in GOFAST increasing its altitude to meet up with 4 other objects that appear to be of the same kind. Then the GIMBAL object comes into the page which is where the targeting pod locks onto. The 5 objects are in front of the gimbal object, they begin to turn around and that's when the GIMBAL object performs a vertical u-turn as shown on the ASA. Now, I don't disregard that the rotation may have been caused by the camera, but the trajectory of the object itself is interesting in that we don't have a plant that can perform the same kind of vertical u-turn at such slow speeds. They're going less than 1 mach, the object slows to a stop and then turns around going vertically. Any mechanical plane would stop and fall to the Earth, but this thing didn't.
> I see no specific objection and no explanation for why this object looks exactly like other IR recordings of planes from behind where hot exahaust washes
I dare you to ask any military pilot their opinion on what the object in the screen is. According to the pilot, Chad Underwood, who took the video, he was closing in 10-15 miles of the object and at that distance should be able to make out the the wings, the exhaust plumes, the type of aircraft even with the glare from the exhaust. Here's the pilot saying this himself https://youtu.be/7O1SE0IR13o?t=1231
Let's not forget, the Tic-Tac was active jamming (which is an act of war) and the object in the video matches the description of Cmdr Dave Fravor's description of what he saw with his own eyes.
Again, the DoD could shut you up by providing the additional classified data from the mission.
For future reference, you should stay completely out of this conversation because you are not a true scientist. You are an avid skeptic who will one day be ashamed of himself.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and "we don't know what's that" is not an extraordinary evidence.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is just a meaningless phrase by the way mostly used in discussions like these to try to signal that the person is somehow more "scientifically minded" than their interlocutor. There's no such thing as "extraordinary evidence", there's just evidence and the explanations which best explain that evidence.
The evidence against aliens here is just the entirety of physics and history. I consider it to be extraordinary.
The 'entirety of history' is meaningless since we don't really know what happened in the past.
It's quite a hubris to say that something is evidence of violation of known laws of physics on the basis of personal direct observation and output of devices that you find trustworthy only because known laws of physics do work as formulated.
As for history we know for sure that aliens didn't made their presence know in any undoubtable manner in at least few thousands of years.
Every observation that we ever managed to explain was explained by something else than magic or aliens.
The word you're clinging to is "known". We've been spectacularly wrong in the past (the sun orbited the earth, which was flat, etc.).
As for history, there's no reason to suspect they would have made their presence known in any undoubtable manner. They may have been here just to observe.
> Every observation that we ever managed to explain was explained by something else than magic or aliens.
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Clarke
Ah, so now we don't just assume alien tech on Earth. Now we need to also assume aliens intent? Are you sure you are not adding epicycles to your model of reality?
> “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Clarke
And yet no technology we ever seen actually IS magic or of alien origin.
I'm not sure what's your point is? That alien tech might look like magic? Sure. But we have never observed any magic either in our world. So they both belong squarely in the world of dreams not reality.
No one has assumed anything. Credible scientists are just putting this out as a possible explanation. The investigation is still underway.
It's hilarious how you assume that the summary of the collective ideas of scientists today know everything that is physically possible when there are many examples throughout history where the collective understanding of physics has been wrong and it takes unique individuals to prove them wrong.
There is data to suggest the objects are moving at speeds that defy our current understanding of physics. There's no reason to not keep following the data.
Yes. And every time the correct solution eventually reached was not 'alien technology at work'.
> There is data to suggest the objects are moving at speeds that defy our current understanding of physics.
That nullifies all the science since Newton, including Newton.
> There's no reason to not keep following the data.
Yes, and in the recent case of registering FTL neutrinos data was followed right up to faulty connection in the measurement device.
Then why not let these scientists reach that conclusion if that ends up being the same.
> That nullifies all the science since Newton, including Newton.
Einstein nullified Newton's science. That's the way science works. We know Newtonian physics and General Relativity are incomplete. There's significant evidence that we are witnessing something that is breaking our current known laws of physics. With more data we can rule out faulty sensors, but we still need to study this.
Why are you so adamant about not studying something interesting? If we were all like you then science would never advance.