[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/sci/ - Science & Math


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



Studying the nature of UAP's is a valid scientific pursuit.
Why do you deny this fact?
>>
>>10964172
OP pic are noted scientists J. Allen Hynek and Jacques Vallee. Vallee is mostly a venture capitalist in sillicon valley now, but he is currently collecting meta-materials from around the world which are supposedly from UAPs. He is using his Sillicon Valley connections to collect this stuff and run tests with mass spectrometers. He is willing to give out samples to any lab in the world that is interested.
>>
Before the faggy janny deletes the thread, if you're a curious mind with some free time, read one of Vallee's books.
>>
>>10964172
No one denied it. Cherrypicking, presenting speculation as facts, making unfalsifiable hypotheses, ignoring alternative explanations, etc. to reach a preconceived conclusion about muh aliens is what's invalid.
>>
>>10964310
The UAP phenomenon is a lot more complicated than "muh aliens"
Paper written by Vallee, Five specific arguments articulated here contradict the ETH
https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/4/jse_04_1_vallee_2.pdf
Brief summary.
>(1) unexplained close encounters are far more numerous than required for any physical survey of the earth;
>(2) the humanoid body structure of the alleged “aliens” is not likely to have originated on another planet and is not biologically adapted to space travel;
>(3) the reported behavior in thousands of abduction reports contradicts the hypothesis of genetic or scientific experimentation on humans by an advanced race;
>(4) the extension of the phenomenon throughout recorded human history demonstrates that UFOs are not a contemporary phenomenon; and
>(5) the apparent ability of UFOs to manipulate space and time suggests radically different and richer alternatives, three of which are proposed in outline form as a conclusion to this paper.
>>
bump for the best thread on /sci/, if I do say so myself.
>>
>>10964392
See "Cherrypicking, presenting speculation as facts, making unfalsifiable hypotheses, ignoring alternative explanations, etc."
>>
>>10964888
>I haven't seen the evidence or the arguments, but here is why you are wrong
>>
>>10964932
>trust me the evidence exists even though I haven't shown it and I'm just parroting a guy who takes all UFO reports seriously and concocts magic interdimensional gibberish to explain away the fact that the reports don't make sense and are obviously fake/misinterpretations, plus a government conspiracy of conspiracies that says (((they))) are encouraging these reports in order to hide DA TROOOF.
You really need to go back >>>/x/
>>
>>10965142
Why don't you read a few books instead of being a massive ass that thinks he knows everything?
>>
>>10965156
>dude UFOs are proof of interdimensional beings and a government conspiracy to cover it up
>you just have to read my books
Sure, *I'm* the one who thinks he knows everything.
>>
>>10965330
>>dude UFOs are proof of interdimensional beings and a government conspiracy to cover it up
Never said that. Go read the books, it's not like you're doing anything else worthwhile when pulling bullshit out of your ass, you lazy shit.
>>
>>10964392
I've just read it. It's interesting but it does not put forward any convincing argument in favor of any hypothesis, it's almost entirely focused on explaining why current evidence make it unlikely for UFO to b produced by visiting ET. He says other hypothesis should be explored, which is fair, but this particular study doesn't argue for any of them.

He seems also the say he aso argued against the "natural phenomenon hypothesis" (an inappropriate name, but it means here that UFO are explainable by the physics and psychology of usual earth phenomena). The only argument however is that the CNES could only explain 62% of recorded UFO sightings with natural phenomenon. What is the state of the explanation in 2019? What is the quality of the data, which is essential to be able to build an explanation? The argument doesn't seem that persuasive, though it i fair.
>>
>>10965396
*could only explain 62% of recorded UFO sightings in 1989
>>
>>10965396
>>10965399
Exactly. I think his point is that the whole UAP phenomnon is so abusrd, contradictory, and complex that there is no cut/paste explanartion. BUT, it is real.
>>
>>10965379
That is what your "noted scientist" aka a minor computer scientist says. And no I'm not reading his books. Go read Deepak Chopra.
>>
>>10965396
>What is the state of the explanation in 2019? What is the quality of the data, which is essential to be able to build an explanation? The argument doesn't seem that persuasive, though it i fair.
The U.S. government has recently confirmed that the UAP phenomena is real, but we are no closer to understanding it. Vallee is currently a venture capitalist in Sillicon Valley and is funding mass spec research into material supposedly retrieved from UAPs and is working on relasing a paper with some other scientists. He is also open to giving out that supposed UAP material to other labs.
>>
>>10965441
>I know everything about the universe and I'm not willing to read anything that I don't like the sound of
You do you.
>>
>>10965437
>>10965444
>UAP phenomnon
This implies that UFOs are the same phenomenon when they aren't. They have many different explanations. Also lack of a "natural" explanation does not imply that the explanation is "unnatural" since lack of information of a natural event can lead to failure to explain it naturally.
>>
>>10965446
>You need to know everything about the universe to reject ridiculous and evidence-less speculation
You're really not helping yourself.
>>
>>10965444
>The U.S. government has recently confirmed that the UAP phenomena is real
What does this even mean?
>>
>>10965461
>>10965444
Not really into that stuff, I understand what UFO means but what is UAP?

>>10965461
The urge to find unique explanation for diverses observations on the simple ground that they have the shard trait of being unexplained is indeed an easy and dangerous slope in science.
>>
>>10965481
UAP is just a euphemism UFO quacks use to attempt to confuse people into thinking they are not talking about UFOs, which would immediately alert people to the fact that they are quacks.
>>
>>10965475
It means that the government has admitted that there is arial phenomana which it can't explain. E.G. the 3 videos released by the NYT about Navy pilots and UAP's.
>>10965481
UAP means "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena", basically it's the new terminlogy employed by the U.S. government, to dissaciate from the stigma that comes with the term "UFOs".
>>
>>10965485
UAP is the prefered term by the British and American government. Ironically, it's hardocre UFOfags that are butthurt over the term UAP.
>>
>>10965481
Yes and that fallacy is exactly what OP and his favorite quack fall into when they assume all UFOs are the same phenomenon antherefore require a single, complex explanation (inter-dimensional beings+government conspiracy)
>>
>>10965490
Wrong.

>In popular usage, the term UFO came to be used to refer to claims of alien spacecraft,[3] and because of the public and media ridicule associated with the topic, some ufologists and investigators prefer to use terms such as "unidentified aerial phenomenon" (UAP) or "anomalous phenomena", as in the title of the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP).[11] "Anomalous aerial vehicle" (AAV) or "unidentified aerial system" (UAS) are also sometimes used in a military aviation context to describe unidentified targets.[12]
>>
>>10965493
>EVERYONE, APART FROM ME, IS A QUACK, BUT I HAVE NO EVIDENCE AND HAVE NEVER READ THE LITERATURE.
Imagine being this scared of things you can't understand with your undergrad level science, LMAO.
>>
>>10965498
>In order to call me a quack he must call everyone a quack
Again, you're really not helping yourself.
>>
>>10965497
You're wrong, incel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBEJjy_s_ZM
>>
>>10965503
You are a quack, for many reasons, but the primary reason is that you haven't examined what you are criticizing. You are just spouting your emotional reaction and pretending it's scientific. Shut the fuck up, stop being obese, and actually spend some time reading the data.
>>
>>10965503
Also have sex, you disgusting incel.
>>
>>10965487
>It means that the government has admitted that there is arial phenomana which it can't explain. E.G. the 3 videos released by the NYT about Navy pilots and UAP's.
Where did the government say it can't explain them? I find that hard to believe since it only took a few days for people to figure out from the camera angles and flight speeds that the "Gimbal" video was an IR flare from a faraway plane and the "Go fast" video was just a bird flying high above the sea at a normal speed, but due to the movement of the camera it looked like an object close to the water going fast. I doubt the government is as dumb as you are.
>>
>>10965506
>Hillary Clinton said UAP therefore UFO quacks cannot be using the term
Try again, retard.
>>
>>10965516
>You are a quack, for many reasons, but the primary reason is that you haven't examined what you are criticizing.
But I have. And that wouldn't make me a quack anyway.

>You are just spouting your emotional reaction and pretending it's scientific.
Nice try at projection.
>>
>>10965648
>I find that hard to believe since it only took a few days for people to figure out from the camera angles and flight speeds that the "Gimbal" video was an IR flare from a faraway plane and the "Go fast" video was just a bird flying high above the sea at a normal speed
>people figured out
You mean some youtube "skeptics" made some out of context videos pulling shit out of their ass?
Here. Not only did the Navy spokesperson admit that the 3 videos are real and unidentified, they also provided the dates, and stated that the videos should NOT have been released in the first place.
https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/u-s-navy-confirms-videos-depict-unidentified-aerial-phenomena-not-cleared-for-public-release/
>>
>>10965648
>I find that hard to believe since it only took a few days for people to figure out from the camera angles and flight speeds that the "Gimbal" video was an IR flare from a faraway plane and the "Go fast" video was just a bird flying high above the sea at a normal speed, but due to the movement of the camera it looked like an object close to the water going fast.
I know which videos you're referring to, they're full of shit and based on out of context, straw grasping, cherry picked information, and I'll show you with basic logical anaylsis (though I don't need to as the Navy already confirmed they are legtimate UAPs).
Preliminary statement, the Navy also confirmed that the "Gimbal" and "Go fast" videos were both filmed on the same day, during the 2014 - 15 USS Roosevelt incident of the east coast.
Source: https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/u-s-navy-releases-dates-of-three-officially-acknowledged-encounters-with-phenomena/

>"Gimbal" video was an IR flare from a faraway plane
1) The jets are operating in restricted airspace, nothing can fly there without the pilots and ships being aware of it
2) During training operations, which planes can or can't take off is planned and scheduled long before it actually happens.
3) If there was another jet, it would have been another U.S. navy jet, which means that i) it would have been identified on radar ii) The pilots would have been able to contact each other and clear up confusion
4) The "gimbal" UFO isn't the only UFO that the pilots witnessed, they are seeing several of them, from different jets.
5) Radar on the ships did NOT identify the "Gimbal" UFO as a fighter jet and it should have IF it was a U.S. plane
6) The "Gimbal" UFO is just one instance of a 9 month long string of encounters of UFO's by the USS Roosevelt
7) People who actually understand aeronautics (i.e. not youtube skeptics) confirmed it's not another jet
tldr: there is absolutely no way another jet was confused for several UFO's
>>
>>10966647
OHNONONO, SKEPTICS BTFO!
>>
>>10966624
>You mean some youtube "skeptics" made some out of context videos pulling shit out of their ass?
No, I mean people actually did the work and analyzed the videos instead of just looking at them and shouting "aliens!"

>Not only did the Navy spokesperson admit that the 3 videos are real and unidentified, they also provided the dates, and stated that the videos should NOT have been released in the first place.
The Navy saying they are UAP's is not the same as the government saying they can't explain them. Nice try at moving the goalposts.
>>
>>10966885
And ALL of those people who "did the work" (i.e. made shit up and grasped for straws) just got proven to be full of shit.
The Navy has quite literally, in no uncertain terms, stated that 1) The videos are of real UAPs 2) That these videos were not supposed to be released to the public.
You're grasping at straws and playing semantics because you're a religious fundementalist.
>>
>>10966647
>1) The jets are operating in restricted airspace, nothing can fly there without the pilots and ships being aware of it
There is no way to tell that the object is in restricted air space. The proposed location of the JAX OPAREA is adjacent to the Florida coast. Also, this does not imply that pilots and ships would know of any craft in the area, even if it was military.

>2) During training operations, which planes can or can't take off is planned and scheduled long before it actually happens.
Where? By whom?

>3) If there was another jet, it would have been another U.S. navy jet
Wrong.

>4) The "gimbal" UFO isn't the only UFO that the pilots witnessed, they are seeing several of them, from different jets.
And?

>5) Radar on the ships did NOT identify the "Gimbal" UFO as a fighter jet and it should have IF it was a U.S. plane
Oh so you have the radar data? Please share it.

>6) The "Gimbal" UFO is just one instance of a 9 month long string of encounters of UFO's by the USS Roosevelt
Says who?

>7) People who actually understand aeronautics (i.e. not youtube skeptics) confirmed it's not another jet
Name one.

The only one pulling shit out of their ass and misrepresenting the evidence is you.
>>
>>10966897
>And ALL of those people who "did the work" (i.e. made shit up and grasped for straws) just got proven to be full of shit.
Where?

>The Navy has quite literally, in no uncertain terms, stated that 1) The videos are of real UAPs
Again this is meaningless. What is a "real UAP?" Can't be explained? The Navy simply called it a unidentified, it did not share with us what explanations it had or didn't have.

>That these videos were not supposed to be released to the public.
When did anyone argue against this? The only thing said abou the videos' release is that Luis Elizondo lied about how they were released.
>>
>>10966917
>There is no way to tell that the object is in restricted air space. The proposed location of the JAX OPAREA is adjacent to the Florida coast. Also, this does not imply that pilots and ships would know of any craft in the area, even if it was military.
You simply don't understand how training operations work. When an entire Navy fleet is out on a training mission, their area of operation is either declared 1) Entirely prohibited 2) Planes coming within the airspace need to declare this ahead of time.
Generally, the military uses the same locations, so there are designated areas for this. The GIMBAL/Go Fast footage is occruing during routine training in one of these desginated spaces.
>Where? By whom?
By fairies and leprechauns. Obviously by the chain of command add the officers who design and plan training exercises. Who do you think plans training exerices, the janitor?
>Wrong.
This is not an argument. Radar can easily identify craft. You are simply ignorant. There is absolutely no way that several radars simultnously misidentified another U.S. fighter pilot as a UAP at the exact same time. That's statisically as likely as the earth falling out of orbit.
>>
>>10966917
>And
The "arguments" raised my Mick West, the skeptic I'm most likely sure you're referring to, omit the fact that the pilots are witnessing several UAP's, both visually and on radar. This is the definition of fitting your ideology to the data.
>Oh so you have the radar data? Please share it.
I don't need to personally see the radar data, and neither do you. Over a dozen people have confirmed this to the New York times journalists, such as Leslie Keane. Expecting the Navy to release classified data is you grasping at straws. Even if the data was released, you'd just grasp at further straws to deny it. For you are not interested in the facts, you just want to deny.
>Says who?
Says the Navy itself.
Says the dozens of people that were involved. Unless you want to argue that hundreds of people were under mass delusion or all in on a giant lie, or that the navy is lying.
>Name one.
I'll name 3
1) Steve Justice (the second highest ranked engineer from Skunkworks before he retired).
2) Cmdr. David Fravor, who was the wing commander at the 2004 Nimitz incident, he is also an Aeronautical engineer.
3) Lt. Danny Accoin, who was part of the Gimbal encounter, he is also an Aeronautical engineer.
>The only one pulling shit out of their ass and misrepresenting the evidence is you.
You being puporsully obtuse as possible and arguing in bad faith.
You're position is almost equivalent to solipsism at this point. This is why happens when you turn skepticism into a religion.
>>
>>10966927
>Again this is meaningless. What is a "real UAP?" Can't be explained? The Navy simply called it a unidentified, it did not share with us what explanations it had or didn't have.
The Navy hasn't given an explanation because it's a UAP, an unidenfitifed ariel phenomana. They don't fucking know what they were. All we can do is listen to the testimony of the people who were involved.
>>
>>10966927
>When did anyone argue against this? The only thing said abou the videos' release is that Luis Elizondo lied about how they were released.
Possibly, or the navy spokesperson doesn't have all the data, or someone is lying to him. There are a lot of people in the pentagon that are very upset with Elizondo.
>>
>>10966964
>You simply don't understand how training operations work. When an entire Navy fleet is out on a training mission, their area of operation is either declared 1) Entirely prohibited 2) Planes coming within the airspace need to declare this ahead of time.
Since you refuse to look at the flight data that allows the determination of how far away the object is, you have no idea whether the object is in a restricted area in the first place.

>Obviously by the chain of command add the officers who design and plan training exercises.
OK so you don't know where planes are restricted, where they are scheduled, or who has purview over what. Got it.

>This is not an argument.
Then neither is the bald claim that any jet must be a Navy jet.

>Radar can easily identify craft.
Then please share the radar data that failed to identify it. This is the second time I've asked.
>>
>>10966968
>The "arguments" raised my Mick West, the skeptic I'm most likely sure you're referring to, omit the fact that the pilots are witnessing several UAP's, both visually and on radar. This is the definition of fitting your ideology to the data.
How does this refute that the video shows an IR flare? How is this an omission? If you want to argue that the pilots saw multiple similar objects then this would indicate that they saw multiple IR flares. So I don't see what your point is. We can only make conclusions about what we have hard data on. No one has made any conclusions about multiple objects.

>I don't need to personally see the radar data, and neither do you. Over a dozen people have confirmed this to the New York times journalists, such as Leslie Keane.
Confirmed what exactly? Quote them.

>Expecting the Navy to release classified data is you grasping at straws.
What I expect is for you to make claims that you can support instead of making shit up about information you don't have.

>Says the dozens of people that were involved. Unless you want to argue that hundreds of people were under mass delusion or all in on a giant lie, or that the navy is lying.
Which is funny because the same people said they're classified drones. Why did you omit that?

>1) Steve Justice (the second highest ranked engineer from Skunkworks before he retired).
>2) Cmdr. David Fravor, who was the wing commander at the 2004 Nimitz incident, he is also an Aeronautical engineer.
>3) Lt. Danny Accoin, who was part of the Gimbal encounter, he is also an Aeronautical engineer.
Where is there analysis disproving it's a jet?
>>
>>10966976
>The Navy hasn't given an explanation because it's a UAP, an unidenfitifed ariel phenomana.
Doesn't follow. The pilots who reported it explained them as classified drones even though they don't know what it is. The Navy not presenting an explanation does not mean they don't have one. So you just proved you are talking out of your ass.
>>
>>10966978
Ah OK, so when the Navy says it's a UAP they are not only telling the truth but this tells us that they have no explanation. But when the Navy contradicts one of your quacks they are lying. LOL.
>>
>>10967025
>Since you refuse to look at the flight data that allows the determination of how far away the object is, you have no idea whether the object is in a restricted area in the first place.
The pilots from the encounter confirmed all of this occured in their training space.
>OK so you don't know where planes are restricted, where they are scheduled, or who has purview over what. Got it.
You are being unreasonable for the sake of it, because you want to deny what I said and feel like you've "won". I don't need to specifically name who designed the training procedure or how it was run. I explained how the military generally works when it comes to training expeditions, this is all basic information you can learn from wikipedia or any military forum. The burden of proof for arguing that this wasn't the case is on you, not me. Provide your evidence.
>Then neither is the bald claim that any jet must be a Navy jet.
That's true, it could be another jet, but there are good reasons why that is not likely.
1) The navy already confirmed it's a UAP
2) The pilots were in restricted and monitored airspace, anything that comes into that airspace is monitored and identified
3) The pilots have undergone millions of dollars worth of training to visually and technically identify aircraft
4) The likelyhood of it being a foreign advesory, like Russia or China is not likely as that would have been confirmed.
>>Radar can easily identify craft.
>Then please share the radar data that failed to identify it. This is the second time I've asked.
You are once again being autistic and asking me to prove water is wet. I don't need to provide you with radar data, and nor could I because it is classified. We have people who were involved that have confirmed it. They have confirmed it publicly and privately to the New York Times and Politco, two newspapers that take the credibility of their stories very seriously. The burden of proof now falls on you to prove that they are lying.
>>
>>10967095
>Doesn't follow. The pilots who reported it explained them as classified drones even though they don't know what it is. The Navy not presenting an explanation does not mean they don't have one. So you just proved you are talking out of your ass.
No they didn't. Some of the pilots are interviewed here and not one of them states they know what it was.
https://vimeo.com/343840798
Leslie Keane has also interviewed more of the pilots involved, the ones that are not willing to go public as they don't want to tarnish their careers or reputation.
Stop lying.
>>
>How does this refute that the video shows an IR flare?
You’re omitting the most important fact to maintain your ideological scepticism. The pilots saw these things visually. There is correspondonce between the radar, visual, and camera evidence. This allows us to conclude that it is not IR flare. The burdern of proof falls to you to prove otherwise.
>Confirmed what exactly? Quote them.
Confirmed that UAPs were on multiple radars simultaneously, and that they were not false readings or attributable to known aircraft, foreign or domestic.
Leslie Keane interview, 2 minutes onward
https://www.wnpr.org/post/are-we-ready-accept-ufos-are-real
>instead of making shit up about information you don't have.
Not a single piece of information I have stated is made up, you are making baseless accusations because you have no argument. Everything I’ve said has been verified by the New York Times, Politico, the pilots involved, other personnel involved, and by the Navy itself. The burden of proof is on you to prove that they are lying.
>Which is funny because the same people said they're classified drones. Why did you omit that?
Provide evidence that it’s classified drones. Burden of proof is on you.
>Where is there analysis disproving it's a jet?
Two aeronautics experts examining the footage (@ 17: 26 onward)
https://vimeo.com/343840798
Cmdr David Fravor (@ 48: 40 onwards)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViCTMn-6muE&
Lt. Accoin and Graves (full video)
https://vimeo.com/343840798
>>
>>10967188
is meant for
>>10967089
>>
>>10967109
I didn't make an affirmitive statement either way. It doesn't matter, we have the videos and we know they are UAP's. We also know that they were not for public consumption. So a thank you to the New York Times and Elizondo is in order for getting them out, irrespective of whether they did it with permission.
>>
>>10965490
The look/sound of it reminds me of UFO "flaps"--episodes of multiple sightings triggered by media coverage of one. Martin Gardner took particular savor in the term in his Cold War era debunkings,
>>
>>10967209
>Cold War era debunkings
The scientist who led the biggest cold war era "debunking" was the guy on the left in the OP, J. Allen Hynek. He later admitted that project bluebook was a farce and they made shit up half the time to "debunk" events. Some officials got spooked after scientists in the first major government UFO study, Project Sign, concluced that UFO's are a real phenomenon (with some evidence to suggest intelligent control), they started Bluebook with the premise to debunk and kill public interest. He started out as a skeptic, to the point he wanted to disprove the whole thing, but the further he stayed in Bluebook, the more he accepted the evidence that some UFO's represent a real, unknown, complex phenomena.
>>
File: EERzdaVU8AEHf-q.jpg (136 KB, 1280x720)
136 KB
136 KB JPG
>>
>>10966647
Some pre-confirmation in 2010 of the 2004 Nimitz incident. It was much more widespread than a single sighting by a single flight.
>>
>>10967833
Where's that from?
BTW, the Nimitz video FLIR1 was actually released on some German website back in 2007, it's the exact same video the Navy just confirmed is legitimate. Someone from the U.S. government leaked it back in 2007.
>>
>>10967833
The post you responded to is not about the Nimitz incident, it's about the USS Roosvelt incidents.
>>
>>10967833
In the third paragraph from the bottom, he is literally describing the FLIR1 footage.
>>
File: UFO_AAV_Nimitz.jpg (94 KB, 602x336)
94 KB
94 KB JPG
>>10967837
>Where's that from?
A minecraft server, IIRC. Everyone thought it was Anon fanfic until 2017.
>>10967855
Yes, but the Nimitz and Roosevelt encounters had similarities.
>>10967861
This.
If UAP/AAV are under intelligent control, this is both the single greatest national security threat we face and the most interesting scientific discovery to currently pursue. Something is in our airspace, oceans and Mars, and it doesn't want to be caught.
>>
>>10967889
>Mars
?
>>
>>10967897
>>Mars
>?
Straight out of Curiosity's database at JPL. Not a cosmic ray strike or dead pixel, those are almost always white. We have to get a handle on this phenomena.
Note the similarities in shape to the recent reports of Tic Tacs.
https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/proj/msl/redops/ods/surface/sol/00688/opgs/edr/ncam/NRB_458574869EDR_F0390444NCAM00295M_.JPG
>>
>>10967935
Hmmm. I would need more information.
>>
>>10967941
>Hmmm. I would need more information.
We all do. This appears to be a multiplanet phenomena with identifiable characteristics. It appears around our technical artifacts and displays sets of consistent data.
>I'm not saying it's aliens
>I'm saying we need to hunt them down, catch one and take a look inside
>the hard way if necessary
https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=NRB_614635188EDR_S0760988NCAM00595M_&s=2446
>>
>>10967961
Delonge announced today that TTSA will be releasing something "interesting" within a week or two, and it involves Steve Justice and Hal Puthoff.
>>
File: ufo.jpg (54 KB, 736x414)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>>10968010
Cool. I don't believe any of them in particular about anything but hope to be pleasantly surprised.
>>
>>10964172
More UFO threads and less iq threads
>>
>>10968389
This is the single most pressing issue facing us mostly because of the unknowns involved.
>>
>>10968490
We need more evidence released, the top secret shit. More videos. But with better quality. Something that no skeptic will be able to dispute without looking retarded.
>>
File: UFO1550383896128.jpg (127 KB, 1024x690)
127 KB
127 KB JPG
>>10968495
>More videos. But with better quality.
Yeah, I'd like to do some image processing on those.
>Something that no skeptic will be able to dispute without looking retarded.
We need skeptics to dispute all of this. We should all be skeptical. However, that doesn't mean debunking because it doesn't fit the dominant paradigm.
>ask questions
>frame research problems
>conduct experiments
>analyze results
>repeat
>>
>>10968010
>within a week or two
And after two weeks pass it will still be a week or two more ad infinitum.
You are starting to sound like those retarded Q posters.
>>
>>10968615
Yeah I'm sure there's top Lockheed engineers just there, for no reason, just doing nothing.
>>
>>10968720
>It's different this time I promise.
Ok, retard.
>>
>>10968734
>they've just been doing nothing all this time
>>
>>10968756
>they can only be doing one thing all this time.
>>
>>10964172
bump negros
>>
File: UFO_spheres_GoFast.webm (2.41 MB, 640x360)
2.41 MB
2.41 MB WEBM
Suggestions on detection methods?
We know that FLIR, certain radar frequencies and visible light all sometimes work. How to put the right tools in lots of people's hands?
>>
>>10969871
>"skeptics" are arguing that this is a bird
LOL
>>
>>10969980
Skeptics misunderstand how FLIR targeting pods work.
>>
>>10969871
>>10970142
The nice thing is that we now know the date for the "go fast" footage. It took place on the same day as the "gimbal" footage.
>>
>>10970292
Now we just need an Anon with the cash to FOIA that date.
>>
>>10970336
We have it
https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/u-s-navy-releases-dates-of-three-officially-acknowledged-encounters-with-phenomena/
>>
>>10970336
>>10970355
tldr: gimbal and go fast were both taken on jan 21st 2015. The pilots saw an entire fleet of UFO's on that day.
>>
David Fravor will on the Joe Rogan podcast soon.
>>
>>10965396
>I've just read it. It's interesting but it does not put forward any convincing argument in favor of any hypothesis, it's almost entirely focused on explaining why current evidence make it unlikely for UFO to b produced by visiting ET. He says other hypothesis should be explored, which is fair, but this particular study doesn't argue for any of them.
Because there isn't enough evidence to conclude exactly what the UFO phenomenon is, but there is enough evidence to heavily contradict the idea that it is extra-terrestrials from another planet.
>>
>>10970443
>Because there isn't enough evidence to conclude exactly what the UFO phenomenon is, but there is enough evidence to heavily contradict the idea that it is extra-terrestrials from another planet.
This is something(s) that are generally actively avoiding detection. We don't know enough to say much of anything since we are still characterizing these phenomenon.
>>10970355
>>10970374
Juicy and actually advancing the knowledge.
>>
>>10970681
>This is something(s) that are generally actively avoiding detection.
What evidence do you have for that statement? Or what argument makes you take it seriously?
Genuinely interested.
>>
>>10970698
Centuries of occasional sightings, usually around military installations or battles indicates a curiosity about our warfighting systems. Reports of activity and shutdowns of nuclear weapons systems. Tic-Tacs and Foo Fighters playing cat and mouse games with combat aircraft. Abductions and mutilations in rural locations, especially South America. Hints at transportation systems we can barely understand, again, throughout history like Roman records of flying amphorae.
Some instances of show-of-force or taunting, as with the reported fly over seen by hundreds to thousands in Washington, DC in the '50s, the multiple Phoenix Lights and these naval exercises.
Something(s) seem to be mostly watching us and occasionally taking samples. Very rarely straight up murder. Sometimes conducting mass fly overs.
99% of UFOs are swamp gas, Venus and normal aircraft. Discounting military airframes and military on military psychological operations like Roswell, we are left with truly bizarre, clandestine activities.
Out of this, we can surmise that there may be multiple entities conducting various operations on and around Earth. They aren't overly hostile but don't want to be detected or communicated with.
This is the single biggest threat we face simply because of the unknowns.
>>
>>10970779
Why won't /sci/ accept this?
p.s. what is your scientific education?
>>
>>10970795
There should always be questioning. What we really need is peer-review on some of the material appearing in mass media, followed by a development spiral that goes from sensing to interdiction to forcing the hand of whoever is behind this, with scientists and policy makers in step with a new, open interdiction team.
I'm working on an engineering PhD.
>>
>>10970814
Tom Delonge and his company are currently working on a app for reporting and documenting the UFO phenomena. This will build a world wide database for scientists and researcher to acess. It's a good step forward.
>>
>>10970828
Sounds cool. How is it different from the MUFON maps?
>>
>>10970837
It's a lot more sophisticated, significantly more money will be invested into it.
https://dpo.tothestarsacademy.com/blog/tts-academy-releases-details-for-the-vault-the-worlds-most-comprehensive-uap-intelligence-tool
>>
>>10970814
>What we really need is peer-review on some of the material appearing in mass media
The issue is that a lot of the data, the most convincing data, is held by the military and they keep it classified. Imagine if we had access to the radar data of the Nimitz or Roosevelt, we would clear up so much.
>>
>>10970848
Would love some of that classified cheese but very much understand Navy's reluctance to release. In light of that, the best answer seems to be to replicate some of that data with what is publicly available and build new sensor stacks using available gear.
>>
>>10970869
What do you think of the Belgian black triangle UFO wave?
>>
File: ufo1561449413392.png (82 KB, 250x308)
82 KB
82 KB PNG
>>10970969
They're the real deal but almost guaranteed to be US airframes. No one has ever said they weren't real vehicles including the Feds, hundreds of people saw them and we have convincing photographic evidence. Wouldn't want to be underneath one without a lead suit.
>>
>>10971028
>but almost guaranteed to be US airframes
What is the assumption for this? Because they are similar to some other U.S. craft like the nighthawk and blackbird?
>>
>>10971039
That combined with how and where this happened. Terminal fever phase of the Cold War, we were still actively preparing for the Soviets to rush the Fulda Gap. Belgium was just enough behind the lines and it's right between Rendelsham on Airstrip One and Landstuhl. It's just where you'd expect us to deploy a semi-operational piece of very high tech in a way that provides some deniability.
Also, no reports of abductions, lost time or other weirdness from those sightings, IIRC.
>>
>>10964932
You're missing the point. His conclusions are not the only explanations. In fact they're not even the most likely explanations. I understand the desire to believe there's some mystery out there, but you are putting too much stock in this UFO business.
>>
>>10965506
Why are I want to believe types so fucking schizo
>>
File: 71jQdNURU5L.jpg (253 KB, 1548x2395)
253 KB
253 KB JPG
>>10971062
There is plenty of evidence and data ITT that makes the idea of intelligently controlled craft plausible. Whether they are secret human tect, ayylmaos, or something else is beyond the point.
We know, as a complete fact, that UAPs exist, as the Navy has admitted.
Additionally, read this book. It's by a NYT journalist and features interviews only with credible people: generals, pilots, engineers, etc. Always with corroborated evidence from others.
>>
>>10967163
>The pilots from the encounter confirmed all of this occured in their training space.
How did they know?

>The burden of proof for arguing that this wasn't the case is on you, not me.
You're the one who made the claim. Don't cry just because you got caught making shit up again.

>That's true, it could be another jet, but there are good reasons why that is not likely.
>1) The navy already confirmed it's a UAP
That doesn't follow. The Navy can't identify a jet it doesn't know about.

>2) The pilots were in restricted and monitored airspace, anything that comes into that airspace is monitored and identified
Restricted and monitored by whom? You don't know, so you don't know what jets were in the area and who knew about them.

>3) The pilots have undergone millions of dollars worth of training to visually and technically identify aircraft
So have the pilots that thought a bug was a UFO. Entire militaries have been fooled and will continue to be fooled.

>4) The likelyhood of it being a foreign advesory, like Russia or China is not likely as that would have been confirmed.
This is utter nonsense. Confirmed by what?

>You are once again being autistic and asking me to prove water is wet.
No I am asking you how you know what you claim to know. It's a very simple question that you fail again and again to answer because there is nothing behind your fantasies.

>We have people who were involved that have confirmed it.
Then show me what they said instead of hiding behind vague claims.
>>
>>10967175
>No they didn't. Some of the pilots are interviewed here and not one of them states they know what it was.
I said in the same sentence you're replying to that they don't know what it was. Are you illiterate? Try again.
>>
>>10967188
>The pilots saw these things visually.
Where do they say that?

>There is correspondonce between the radar, visual, and camera evidence.
You don't know what the radar showed, you don't know what was seen visually, so how do you know they correspond to what's on the video? Stop lying, asshole.

>Confirmed that UAPs were on multiple radars simultaneously
How do you know it was during the video?

>Not a single piece of information I have stated is made up
Sure they are, and the correlation you draw between them is also made up.

>Provide evidence that it’s classified drones.
I didn't say they're classified drones. Try again.

>Two aeronautics experts examining the footage (@ 17: 26 onward)
>it's definitely rotating or appears to be
So your alleged experts and million dollar trained pilots can't see the rotation is with the rotation of the camera and not the object. So much for that argument.

The Fravor comment is even dumber because he immediately jumps to the conclusion that the oval represents wings that are rotating in order to disprove that it's a plane, rather than a flare which rotates with the camera. How fucking dumb are you that you chose this as an example of "analysis?"
>>
>>10967201
You made the affirmative statement that it's a "real" UAP, meaning "the government has no explanation." Which you pulled out of your ass.
>>
>>10971111
>Confirmed by what?
>How did they know?
When the Navy does an ADEX, they block off hundreds to thousands of square miles of ocean with NOTAM and maritime warnings. No ships or aircraft are allowed in so the boys can play in relative safety. This has been basic military procedure since forever, across all professional militaries.
>Restricted and monitored by whom? You don't know, so you don't know what jets were in the area and who knew about them.
By the US Navy, fren. They have all the authority and firepower to handle anything in their exclusion zone, hence the rectal pucker of having dozens of unknown craft in their air and seaspace.
>No I am asking you how you know what you claim to know.
I'll answer for him. We know because the Navy said it happened, confirmed by officials, retired pilots, random squids shitposting on 9gag and the released videos the Navy didnt' want anyone to see.
>show me
Watch any of the dozen interviews Fravor has given on major news outlets. The Tucker Carlson interview should still be on Youtube. I'm not going to dig it up for you because you are such a chode.
>>
>>10970142
UFOtards don't realize the camera is moving much faster than the object.
>>
>>10970388
Ah, what a reliable repository of information. Truly UFOs must be taken seriously now that they are on the JRE.
>>
>>10970779
Retarded connect-the-dots logic like this is a sign of mental illness. UFOs are cultural, the only thing connecting them is human fallibility.
>>
>>10971213
That and the emergence of science fiction as a genre.
>>
>>10971196
>the navy are retards
>>
>>10971204
David Fravor, who was a Cmdr as well as an Aeronautical engineer viewed the tic-tac visually and on radar, in addition to his wingman behind him, and the second fighter jet, which also had 2 people inside.
If you want to argue that 4 elite level pilots, 2 figher jet radars, and the radars of the Nimitz and it's destroyers (which had observed these UFO's with the same radar signature for 2 weeks prior to Fravor et al intercepting) malfunctioned simultanously, despite the techicians performing checks, PROVE IT. The burden of proof is on you.
PROVE IT.
>>
>>10971187
>When the Navy does an ADEX, they block off hundreds to thousands of square miles of ocean with NOTAM and maritime warnings.
a) this does not mean that they can't get IR visual of something outside the restricted zone
b) this does not mean all aircraft in the restricted zone will be known to pilots or even the Navy itself
So your argument is useless.

>We know because the Navy said it happened
The Navy did not say that no other aircraft could be in the area. Anon made that conclusion up.

>Watch any of the dozen interviews Fravor has given on major news outlets.
Fravor was a witness to NIMITZ, not GIMBAL. Plus he's an idiot who doesn't understand how IR flares work.
>>
>>10971221
The Navy has not said that the object was moving fast, only idiots on the "History" channel said that. Try again.
>>
>>10971234
PROVE IT.
The Navy and everyone involved has already BTFO'd you. Prove they are lying otherwise you are pulling bullshit out of your ass, incel.
>>
>>10971238
The "idiots" on the history channel were the pilots involved, moron.
>>
>>10971231
>David Fravor, who was a Cmdr as well as an Aeronautical engineer viewed the tic-tac visually and on radar
Please tell me how you know that the visual and the radar are from the same object.
>>
>>10971239
>PROVE IT.
The burden of proof is on you. I am simply pointing out how the argument that no other aircraft could be in the area is fallible. I didn't make the claim that there were aircraft in the area.
>>
>>10971244
Wrong again retard, it's the "experts" in the vimeo video in this post >>10967188. Who are not part of the Navy and who clearly have no expertise in optics.
>>
>>10971249
>>10971247
Nope. The burden of proof is on you.
1) The Navy has confirmed that the Gimbal, Go fast, and Flir1 videos are of real UAPs (meaning the Navy has not identified them, which they would if they were known aircraft).
2) The Navy admitted the the 3 videos were not meant for public release
3) The dozens of pilots and personel have provided their testimony, which was based on visual perception or/and radar reading, which lastest from 2 weeks up to 9 months, depending on which encounter we are talking about

The data is in. If you don't want to accept it, that's your own psychological issue. If you want to dispute it rationally, provide counter evidence. Otherwise admit you're full of shit and don't know anything. Right now you have 1) providing zero evidence 2) grasping at straws
>>
>>10971254
PROVIDE EVIDENCE.
The facts are in. IF YOU WANT TO DISPUTE IT, PROVIDE YOUR EVIDENCE.
>>
>>10971244
And here's the proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M

This is the easiest UFO to debunk of the three yet it still stumped the UFOtard's History channel "experts." How odd.
>>
>>10971258
Here you go, tard: >>10971260
>>
>>10971213
>WWII
Foo Fighters are described as ~6' glowing christmas tree ornaments that fighter planes.
>2000s
Spheres (not the Tic-Tacs) are described as ~6' glowing christmas tree ornaments that punk fighter planes.
The only cultural aspect is referring to them as resembling Christmas ornaments.
>>10971218
People have been experiencing these things since at least Roman times.
>>10971234
>a) this does not mean that they can't get IR visual of something outside the restricted zone
The video of the one object is practically below the aircraft and under/near their waypoint. It's 100% inside the exclusion zone.
>b) this does not mean all aircraft in the restricted zone will be known to pilots or even the Navy itself
Which is why the USS Princeton JTAC vectored them towards the object in the Nimitz encounter. Are you paid to be this dense?
>>10971234
>Fravor was a witness to NIMITZ, not GIMBAL.
So? I'm mostly discussing the Nimitz encounter since there are far more details available.
>Plus he's an idiot who doesn't understand how IR flares work.
You got FLIR certification, bub? Which instruments?
Here's a fun one - Cedarville, CA, 1982 or so. Dozens of witnesses, visible light.
>>10971249
>I am simply pointing out how the argument that no other aircraft could be in the area is fallible.
No, you're dissembling since at least in Nimitz event they vectored fighters because it was an unknown on multiple sensors. The fact is Navy pilots encounter these things often enough to have a nomenclature for them.
>>
>>10971260
I've already destroyed Mick West several times ITT you fucking dumb cunt.
>>
>>10971256
>1) The Navy has confirmed that the Gimbal, Go fast, and Flir1 videos are of real UAPs (meaning the Navy has not identified them, which they would if they were known aircraft).
So now the definition of "real UAP" has gone from "unexplainable" to "unidentified." What exactly is your point now?

>2) The Navy admitted the the 3 videos were not meant for public release
And? Besides Elizondo being a liar of course.

>3) The dozens of pilots and personel have provided their testimony, which was based on visual perception or/and radar reading, which lastest from 2 weeks up to 9 months, depending on which encounter we are talking about
Great, none of these points help your original argument. You just backtracked into vague statements that I never argued against. So I guess you abandoned the bullshit you made up earlier and are now agreeing with me. Thanks.
>>
>>10971278
Where? You didn't address his analysis at all and instead posted videos of laughable "experts" missing the obvious.
>>
>>10971283
Go above to my argument against the gimbal "dubunking". Mick West has not only been shown to be full of shit by me above, but also by the Navy who just confirmed it's not another jet.
>>
>>10971267
>>WWII
>Foo Fighters are described as ~6' glowing christmas tree ornaments that fighter planes.
>>2000s
>Spheres (not the Tic-Tacs) are described as ~6' glowing christmas tree ornaments that punk fighter planes.
Two things that look similar must be the same, got it. There can be no other explanation. Also, since two UFOs are similar all UFOs must be the same thing. Got it.

>The video of the one object is practically below the aircraft and under/near their waypoint. It's 100% inside the exclusion zone.
Which video? The past you responded to is about GIMBAL.

>Which is why the USS Princeton JTAC vectored them towards the object in the Nimitz encounter.
That post is not about Nimitz you retard. I get that UFOtards need everything to be conflated and need information to be exaggerated and confused in order to avoid reality and fuel the fantasy game, but this is the science board, not /x/.

>So? I'm mostly discussing the Nimitz encounter since there are far more details available.
Then don't respond to my post about GIMBAL.

>No, you're dissembling since at least in Nimitz
Fucking retard.
>>
>>10971295
Where? I don't see any such argument. Just a bunch of irrelevancies. Mick West is right and anyone who claims this video shows an object moving fast close to the surface is no expert.
>>
>>10971316
>Two things that look similar must be the same, got it.
Same behavior, flight characteristics and penchant for fighter craft. That's a fairly close connection. Also, we have photo and video evidence of the spheres from both era.
>>10971316
>GIMBAL
Was gimbal an ADEX?
>>10971316
>That post is not about Nimitz you retard.
Thanks, cum guzzling faglord. So the Gimbal exercise is the only one you'll discuss?
>>
>>10971329
>Same behavior, flight characteristics and penchant for fighter craft.
How can you tell they're the same based off of a vague description? Once again the UFOtard pulls shit out of his ass abs exaggerates everything. Also, two UFOs being similar does not allow you to convince all UFOs into one phenomenon. That is schizo logic.

>Was gimbal an ADEX?
It depends, are you going to stop responding to my argument about one video as if I'm talking about another video?

>So the Gimbal exercise is the only one you'll discuss?
No, it's the one I'm discussing in that post which is part of one line of discussion, which you would know if you were literate.
>>
>>10971343
>How can you tell they're the same based off of a vague description?
The descriptions of the 6' spherical objects are remarkably consistent.
>two UFOs being similar does not allow you to convince all UFOs into one phenomenon.
Never said or implied that. There's every chance that these are operated by multiple polities.
>It depends,
Please keep displaying your utter ignorance of naval operations.
>>
>>10971349
>The descriptions of the 6' spherical objects are remarkably consistent.
All were described as 6 feet or one was and you therefore assume all of them are six feet?

>Never said or implied that.
But you did: "Something(s) seem to be mostly watching us and occasionally taking samples."

Thanks for playing. Oh and don't forget to watch Mick West make a fool out of your fake History channel experts >>10971260
>>
>>10971362
>All were described as 6 feet or one was and you therefore assume all of them are six feet?
The spheres encountered by USS Roosevelt pilots and pilots in WWII.
>implying
So you deny that all of this points to someone or multiple someones observing and occasionally sampling us? Have fun while they are sucking your innards out through your navel.
>user will probably be banned for this post
>>
Bump.
Good thread lads.
>>
>>10971391
>The spheres encountered by USS Roosevelt pilots and pilots in WWII.
Source?

>So you deny that all of this points to someone or multiple someones observing and occasionally sampling us?
The only way they can imply that is by cherrypicking, presenting speculation as facts, making unfalsifiable hypotheses, ignoring alternative explanations, etc.
>>
>>10971391
Also your picture shows typical effects of carrion feeding animals. They go for the softest tissue and entry points. Yet another example of UFOtards missing the obvious.
>>
French government study, the COMETA report basically concludes that UFO's are real and probably not from this world.
https://archive.org/details/TheCometaReport/page/n1
>>
>>10972326
>French government study
Wrong. Why do UFOtards constantly make shit up?
>>
>>10972434
Keep coping.
The people who wrote the report are
>General Bruno Lemoine, Air Force (former auditor of IHEDN)
>Admiral Marc Merlo, (former auditor of IHEDN)
>Michel Algrin, Doctor in Political Sciences, attorney at law (former auditor of IHEDN)
>General Pierre Bescond, engineer for armaments (former auditor of IHEDN)
>Denis Blancher, Chief National Police superintendent at the Ministry of the Interior
>Christian Marchal, chief engineer of the National Corps des Mines and Research Director at the National Office of Aeronautical Research (ONERA)
>General Alain Orszag, Ph.D. in physics, armaments engineer
Basic conclusion is that 95% of UFOs are bullshit. Hoaxes, natural phenomena, mental illness, etc, but that 5% is completely unexplainable and very likely to be Ayyylmaos.
They also concluded that, as an absolute fact, that the u.s. government is waging a massive cover up of the issue.
>>
>>10971079
https://www.debunker.com/texts/kean.htm
>>
>>10972450
>read this online virgin debunker who has most defininetely not done as much research as a new york times journalist
No
>>
>>10972447
>Keep coping.
Keep lying.

>Hoaxes, natural phenomena, mental illness, etc, but that 5% is completely unexplainable and very likely to be Ayyylmaos.
Except that many of their "unexplainable" cases have been explained:

>Among the COMETA cases supposedly having no possible explanation were Lakenheath, UK, 1956 – except that this case is the subject of Chapter 21 of UFOs Explained (Random House) by the famous UFO skeptic and late fellow of CSI-COP, Philip J. Klass.
>Another COMETA “unexplained” is the RB-47 case of 1957. That case fills chapters 19 and 20 of Klass’ 1974 book. (UFO skeptic Tim Printy has recently published a highly-detailed analysis of the RB-47 case, leaving it in tatters.)

To a normal individual this would amount to a falsification of the hypothesis that these cases cannot be explained "naturally" yet the UFOtard will continue his alien-of-the-gaps argument forever.
>>
>>10972458
>I refuse to read the article showing what the New York Times journalist missed in her research because a New York Times journalist must have done more research.
Flawless logic.

I'll just take your refusal to look at the evidence as an admittal that you lost the argument, thanks.
>>
>>10972458
Muh NEW YORK TIMES JOURNALUST can do no wrong!

>Kean tells us that Jimmy Carter “had his own UFO sighting in 1969, before he became governor of Georgia.” What she does not tell her readers is that it has been known for over thirty years that Jimmy Carter’s “UFO” was in the same position as Venus (see my analysis of the Carter sighting . There is more in Chapter 2 of my UFO Sightings: The Evidence (Prometheus Books, 1998)). Kean also likes a list compiled by another French UFOlogist, Dominique Weinstein, consisting of 1,305 “cases for which adequate data is available to categorize the [objects] as unknowns.“ UFO skeptic and CSI fellow James Oberg glanced at that list, and quickly pulled out ten cases that he knew to be caused by Russian space launches (James E. Oberg: “UFO book based on questionable foundation").

>There seems to be a pattern here. It’s easy to tout UFO cases as having no conventional explanation as long as you completely ignore everything that’s been written to the contrary.
Hmmm that sounds really familiar...
>>
>>10972477
>>10972485
I just know what you didn't read her book and google "leslie kean" debunked and then posted that article. So why should I waste my time?
p.s.
Many chapters in the book are written by other people, not Keane. The chapter on the Belgian UFO incident is written by the Air Force general who was in charge at the time.
p.p.s
Kean already refuted cherry picking "debunkers".
p.p.p.s
The French government, and now the U.S. government, admitted that UFO's represent a real phenomenon that we can't understand. UFO's are real craft, stop denying the evidence, and accept it. You are no better than a denier of evolution.
>>
>>10972506
>I just know what you didn't read her book and google "leslie kean" debunked and then posted that article. So why should I waste my time?
a) because you held up this book as evidence and are responsible for defending your claims
b) because the time spent to read an article a few paragraphs long on the internet is not equivalent to the time and money spent buying and reading a book

But this is moot since I know you've at least read the parts I posted, so it's not about you wasting time, it's about you refusing to contend with reality.

>The chapter on the Belgian UFO incident is written by the Air Force general who was in charge at the time.
I know:

>Kean invited several contributors to write chapters describing UFO incidents in which they had personal involvement. She begins with the chapter “Majestic Craft with Powerful Beaming Spotlights,” concerning the famous Belgium UFO wave of 1989, as written by Major General Wilfred de Brower of the Belgian Air Force (Ret.). It started off with two policemen reporting a bright light in the sky, and soon reports of UFOs were coming in from all over the region. Many of the UFOs were reported as triangular, and it was widely assumed that the U.S. was testing some kind of secret aircraft – over Belgium! Jets were sent up in pursuit, but no solid radar or visual contacts were established. In fact, by the time the Belgian UFO craze was over, despite widespread sightings the only provided “evidence” was a single blurred color photo, which unfortunately shows nothing in the background that can be used for analysis. (The man who took this photo, now identified as Patrick Marechal, admitted in July, 2011 that it was a hoax. He said that he has “managed to fool the whole world with a silly model made of styrofoam.")

>Kean already refuted cherry picking "debunkers".
Where? I'll be happy to read it, even though you already admitted you lost the argument.
>>
>>10972506
>The French government
The COMETA study is not from the French government and has already been shown to be incompetent. Why do you keep repeating already debunked lies?

>UFO's represent a real phenomenon that we can't understand
What does that even mean? UFOtards love to repeat this substanceless sentiment because they think it lends them credibility when it just shows how shallow their intellect is.
>>
>>10972217
Yes, human meat processed repeatedly using obviously mechanical means is animals. I wish CattleMutilationAnon would see this thread. He picked through Library of Congress records for the most likely cases.
>>
>>10972506
>Kean is sensitive to the criticism that there ought to have been much more photographic evidence, given so many sightings. She lamely suggests that “twenty years ago, cell phones and relatively inexpensive, consumer-level digital and video cameras were not yet in use” (true, but we had plenty of film cameras), and also that the dearth of photos “was likely due to the effect of infrared light around the UFO, which can cause even such an object to disappear altogether in a photograph,” which if true suggests that burglars can disappear from surveillance cameras by carrying an infrared light. She ignores a skeptical analysis showing that the policemen’s original UFO was reported in the same position as Venus, that some of the early Belgian sightings were from a light show at a disco, and that the sole color photo could easily be duplicated using cards and spotlights, as illustrated in Wim Van Utrecht’s chapter “The Belgian 1989-1990 UFO Wave,” in UFOs 1947-1997 From Arnold to the Abductees, edited by Hilary Evans and Dennis Stacy. (London: John Brown Publishing, 1997). And even if Kean didn’t know of Van Utrecht’s skeptical research, de Brower certainly did, since he was interviewed by Van Utrecht.

But again Kean is from THE NEW YORK TIMES which means she can do no wrong.
>>
>>10972547
>Yes, human meat processed repeatedly using obviously mechanical means is animals.
Where are mechanical means obvious in your picture?
>>
>>10972547
>CattleMutilationAnon
who?
>>
>>10972506
Leslie Kean is such an amazing reporter and does so much research and vetting that she was able to uncover the truth about flies: they are an alien race here to observe us.
>>
>>10972506
I just found another instance of Leslie Kean's heroic journalism:

>In fact, Kean completely ignored the contradictory witness statements that she received first-hand, and instead went on to publish a book in 2010 titled UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record, where she repeated Callahan’s testimony in full on page 222, and even focused on the “this never happened” statement.

>She completely left out the fact that she had received direct testimony from both a CIA analyst and Bruce Maccabee, stating that they were at such a meeting that matched the meeting John described, and that no one said anything about covering-up.

http://www.realityuncovered.net/blog/2011/04/faa-instructions-on-ufo-sightings/
>>
>>10972877
>>10972917
>Look, I did more out of context google searches
>>
/sci/ btfo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHwmWnY4P1w&t
>>
>>10972986
>Leslie Kean failing to do basic research or outright hiding evidence related to UFOs is out of context even though I shilled her book and used her alleged research skills as an excuse to ignore arguments
LOL you're fucking pathetic. Why even post? You're just embarrassing yourself.
>>
>>10973199
You're a little late to the party, retard: >>10971260
>>
File: 1.jpg (358 KB, 2048x1024)
358 KB
358 KB JPG
>>10973372
>>10973378
>the "debunker" virgin vs the UFO chad.
>>
>>10972554
In the Pleasant Dreams pic, the holes in his arms, legs and the navel excision wound are not torn, they are circular puncture marks.
This is my favorite, from the images from the LoC. The cut is almost certainly done with a pulsed laser cutter, only a few years after the first laser cutters were invented and still required dedicated facilities.
>>10972764
Or LibraryAnon - he posts on /pol/ UFO threads and somehow got a grant or access to study the Library of Congress's files on cattle mutiliation.
Many of you are too young to remember this but cattle and occasional human mutilations caused serious panic in the '70s and '80s. Ranchers in the western US still experience it, and they know the difference between carrion feeders and something that sucks Bessie dry, removes organs and other vitals in the space of a few minutes.
It's strongly correlated to UFO sightings but not all UFO sightings, building a case for the phenomena not being a single polity.
>>10972206
>>The spheres encountered by USS Roosevelt pilots and pilots in WWII.
>Source?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/politics/ufo-sightings-navy-pilots.html
>In late 2014, Lieutenant Graves said he was back at base in Virginia Beach when he encountered a squadron mate just back from a mission “with a look of shock on his face.”
>He said he was stunned to hear the pilot’s words. “I almost hit one of those things,” the pilot told Lieutenant Graves.
>The pilot and his wingman were flying in tandem about 100 feet apart over the Atlantic east of Virginia Beach when something flew between them, right past the cockpit. It looked to the pilot, Lieutenant Graves said, like a sphere encasing a cube.
>The incident so spooked the squadron that an aviation flight safety report was filed, Lieutenant Graves said.
>“It turned from a potentially classified drone program to a safety issue,” Lieutenant Graves said. “It was going to be a matter of time before someone had a midair” collision.
>>
>>10971325

>i-i-its just another weather balloon guys, please believe us! we are rational!!!
>>
>>10971325
>Mick West is right and anyone who claims this video shows an object moving fast close to the surface is no expert.
The U.S. Navy has confirmed it's real footage of a UAP and you've clearly not used your brain, I've debunked Prick West here
>>10966647
>>
>>10973489
>In the Pleasant Dreams pic, the holes in his arms, legs and the navel excision wound are not torn, they are circular puncture marks.
You can see from the picture they aren't circular you fucking moron. They are no different then any other signs of scavenging and scavengers were found on and in the body when it was discovered.

>The cut is almost certainly done with a pulsed laser cutter
Jesus Christ, the stupidity of UFOtards knows no bounds.

>https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/politics/ufo-sightings-navy-pilots.html
No mention of 6 feet or any similarities to foo fighters. Yet another fake fact made up the UFOtards. What a surprise.
>>
>>10973516
>still failing to counter an argument based on basic trig
I accept your admission of defeat.

>The U.S. Navy has confirmed it's real footage of a UAP
Which is meaningless.

>I've debunked Prick West here
None of this responds to the video: >>10971260

It's very simple trigonometry based on only the information in the video which tells us the object is neither moving fast nor close to the water. Why do you keep ignoring this? Is it because you have no response and have to admit your "experts" have no clue what they're talking about?
>>
>>10971260
>>10973626
The U.S. Navy has confirmed that video is of a real UAP. So who's full of shut, you and internet debunkers, or the Navy?
>>
>>10973606
What else cuts and sears like that? You said these were all carrion eaters when it's evidentially not.
Here is another human with the similar marks. Note the marks on the out pectorals as well. Not carrion feeders, possibly cartel violence except the pattern is common at least across the Americas in human abductions.
Try to be a little objective about widely reported if little understood phenomena.
>>
>>10973631
>The U.S. Navy has confirmed that video is of a real UAP.
You repeat this like a mantra yet all it means is that it's unidentified, not that it can't be explained.

>So who's full of shut, you and internet debunkers, or the Navy?
Please show me where the Navy said it's a fast moving object. Only UFOtards and their fake History channel experts said this. Your responses are just getting weaker and more pathetic. You lost, get over it.
>>
>>10973645
>I will continue being obtuse no matter what
>>
>>10973639
>What else cuts and sears like that?
There is no sear, so... everything?

>Not carrion feeders
Wrong. Try again.
>>
File: 001.jpg (51 KB, 600x467)
51 KB
51 KB JPG
>>10973650
>being obtuse
>if I keep repeating the same vague statement over and over again maybe he'll just forget all the claims I've failed to defend.
That's some rich hypocrisy.
>>
>>10973660
>Prove water is wet! I don't believe water feels wet to you!
>>
>>10973676
>Asking you to defend claims that have been disproven by basic math is like asking you to prove water is wet.
Mmmmm every retarded post you make is like a gift.
>>
File: JohnMcLaughlin.jpg (7 KB, 275x183)
7 KB
7 KB JPG
>>10973651
Look closely at the cut in >>10973489
It's burned and serrated in a way very similar to laser cut leather on bad settings, while being unlike almost any other cutting technique. It's not a knife. It's definitely not wildlife. It has provenance of some kind considering the collection it was in.
Again, this is the single largest national security threat and possibly scientific puzzle we currently face.
>WRONG
Pic related
>>
>>10973683
Luck bro, we both know that you will deny all evidence to the contrary of your beliefs. You are religious, you are not an open minded scientist.
>>
>>10973684
>It's burned
How do you know? You just pulled this out of your ass, like every other UFOtard.

>It's not a knife. It's definitely not wildlife.
Skin can tear during the decomposition process due either to bloating or dehydration. You don't know shit and your claims are worthless.
>>
>>10973700
>we both know that you will deny all evidence to the contrary of your beliefs. You are religious, you are not an open minded scientist.
>says the guy who refuses to read an article debunking his source and a video debunking his fake experts
This level of projection indicates a mental illness.
>>
>>10973716
>>It's burned
>How do you know?
Experience. I have enough embodied experience in butchering animals, working leather and using digital tools to know what I'm looking at. That skin was not chewed on by a carrion eater, it was cut and seared at the same time.
>baaawwwwing hard
I love this board because you autistic undergrads are even easier to troll than /k/. Open your eyes. This is denial for denial's sake.
>>
>>10973722
You're an ideological denier. No matter the evidence, no matter the source, no matter what happens you will choose to deny, because of some psychological complex that you have.
>>
Can we identify some frequencies these phenomena have been detected at?
>visible light
Check but it seems unreliable.
>IR on FLIR
3-12 µm deep infrared, more reliable, see Puerto Rico and Chilean FLIR videos
>naval AESA radar
2-4 GHz, can't find much detail due to classification.
Any other frequencies worth examining? X-rays?
>>
>>10973759
The only one running away from the evidence is you. Every post in which you attempt to avoid the argument just further cements your irrelevancy.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.