Merged: US Navy Acknowledges Unidentified Aerial Phenomena/DoD confirms leaked video is real

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

"deigning to include"???? It's 75 ******* percent. Hard science has 75% of the seats. That is not "deigning to include". That is total control. It's 9 percentage points more than what is usually considered overwhelming control.

No it isn't, because unlike the UFO clubbers, the other agencies don't represent a some combined bloc or coalition that "doesn't believe in UFOs", they are separate groups of one or two consultants representing a narrow field of scientific expertise, like aeronautics or medicine. If a UFO sighting for instance doesn't involve a witness allegedly getting injured or sick, the rep from the National Academy of Medicine isn't going to have anything to offer when it comes to that particular case. If there's no lens-artifact issues in play for a given sighting, the two reps from the Optical Technology Center don't need to be consulted.

The UFO club "investigators", on the other hand, by definition, can assert "relevant expertise" in every case simply because it's a UFO and they are, after all, the UFO investigators.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Just for the record here, I just looked this guy up and he seems to be a ******* rock star of science. I don't care if some person on the internet thinks he might be wrong about a couple things or even if he is actually wrong about them. This guy is perfect for studying this kind of thing. He appears to be a freaking genius at this in fact.

This kind of uncritical hagiography inspired by a Wikipedia entry would seem to be the same reason Gillibrand gave his UFO club an appointing interest in the advisory board, despite only having existed for four months.

Perhaps you might consider that Avi Loeb, who is a theoretical physicist, has never offered anything suggestive or explanatory regarding UFOs that has anything to do with theoretical physics, his area of expertise. He has not, for instance, proposed how some kind of alien UFO propulsion system might work. He is just magically considered an expert with pertinent opinions purely by dint of being a scientist who also believes that aliens are sending spaceships to Earth.

[RecoveringYuppy]

You're just convincing me your opinion is not grounded in facts. Sorry. I still appreciate you citing the actual proposal despite not agreeing on what it means. That was useful and informative.

And I read beyond his Wikipedia entry.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

I have the same problem with this. Instead of sending neutral experts to work on the issue, they handed money to a billionaire, who was already investigating this stuff anyway, and hired is team of believers to run the show.

And that was mostly the point: the grift.

I have no reason to doubt that Robert Bigelow has (and had then) a genuine interest in the paranormal, including UFOs. But it is not a coincidence that Reid, a senator for whom Bigelow was a major campaign contributor, was the sole individual who pushed the military to create AAWSAP, and Bigelow's "research" company was the sole contractor. It was a corrupt program.

[Puppycow]

I'm sure that some will argue that the amount of money spent on AAWSAP is peanuts to the federal government, but it was a boondoggle, and a seemingly corrupt boondoggle at that.

The most damning part to me was that Reid tried to essentially make this program a "need-to-know" sort of Top Secret thing. What logic is there in that anyway? This would mean, if I understand correctly, that even people with top secret security clearances wouldn't be able to know anything about this program unless they had a specific need to know to perform their job. So it lacks any oversight, transparency or accountability. As far as anyone not involved is concerned, it would be a black box, had Reid's request been approved. And I'm having trouble believing that there is a legitimate reason for such a request.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

And that was mostly the point: the grift.

I have no reason to doubt that Robert Bigelow has (and had then) a genuine interest in the paranormal, including UFOs. But it is not a coincidence that Reid, a senator for whom Bigelow was a major campaign contributor, was the sole individual who pushed the military to create AAWSAP, and Bigelow's "research" company was the sole contractor. It was a corrupt program.

Yes, and the fact he didn't want to spend his own money on the research raises many questions about how much he believes in this stuff.

I'm all for research of any kind, at any time. And yes, $22 million is chump-change to the Pentagon, but they didn't get their investment back. When they give money to Los Alamos, or DARPA, they come away with definitive data that can be applied somewhere, even if the research topic was a bust. And Los Alamos has some talented people who could have been assigned to work Skinwalker Ranch, or just the UAP issue to get better answers. If for no other reason than they might recognize some of their own technology in those videos, and quietly tell Congress "our bad, that was us. Never mind."

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Yes, and the fact he didn't want to spend his own money on the research raises many questions about how much he believes in this stuff.

I think this is more an artifact of how we define a person's "net worth". We always include things the person has interest in that aren't really "assets", practically speaking, let alone liquid. Bigelow at one point was considered to have a net worth of $700 million, but almost all of that money was actually the worth of his hotel chain and his aerospace contracting company, it's not actually money that he has personal access to and can spend on whatever he wanted. Despite his estimated "net worth", Bigelow didn't actually have $22 million of his own money to spend on ghost-hunting, for the same reason that "richest man in the world" Elon Musk with his estimated $230+ billion net worth has to raise or borrow literally all of the $43 billion he has offered to buy Twitter with.

[MBDK]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

And I read beyond his Wikipedia entry.

Unless you provide a pertinent reference or two that indicates some insight(s) gained from that extra reading, your sentence is irrelevant.

[MBDK]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

This would mean, if I understand correctly, that even people with top secret security clearances wouldn't be able to know anything about this program unless they had a specific need to know to perform their job.

Just as a FYI, all security clearances have the "need to know" caveat. It's just that availability and enforcement become stricter, as the security level rises.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by MBDK

Unless you provide a pertinent reference or two that indicates some insight(s) gained from that extra reading, your sentence is irrelevant.

The Wikipedia article cites sources. Have at it.

[MBDK]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

The Wikipedia article cites sources. Have at it.

Not my burden. YOU make a claim, YOU provide the reference(s). What are you, 12?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by MBDK

Not my burden. YOU make a claim, YOU provide the reference(s). What are you, 12?

You're getting pretty stupid. My claim was that I read beyond the Wikipedia article. And I provided the link and it does have citations like I claimed. That supports my rather mundane claim.

[Puppycow]

I'm not sure what to make of Avi Loeb. He seems to be a brilliant scientist I guess, but his ideas about the object dubbed 'Oumuamua' strike me as wildly speculative and based on very scant evidence. Sort of like seeing a blurry blob in a poorly focused image and jumping to the conclusion that it's a bigfoot or a UFO.

https://www.space.com/oumuamua-first...nature-mystery

Quote:

So what is 'Oumuamua? The debate continues; speculation is ripe in such a data-poor environment. Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb has used the lack of data to propose that 'Oumuamua is an alien spaceship. But considering intelligent aliens may be capable of doing whatever they want, this could be an explanation for pretty much any observation.

Astronomers have also offered a range of non-alien explanations. One idea is that perhaps 'Oumuamua is a nitrogen iceberg that chipped off of a Pluto-like object long ago. However, Loeb and his colleague Amir Siraj, a Harvard undergraduate, said that's impossible because pure nitrogen is very rare on Pluto and in the universe at large. They calculated that the mass of exo-Plutos required to generate a pure nitrogen 'Oumuamua to be mind-bogglingly high.

To me, a "lack of data" doesn't sound like a very compelling basis to speculate that it is a spaceship. We never even got a very close look at the object. Other more plausible theories have been offered.

I remember listening to an interview with Loeb not too long ago. I'll see if I can find it again.

Oh, there's more than one actually:

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...+event+horizon

If you want to know this man's views on UFOs in his own words, these interviews would be a good place to start.

Here is one of them:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Puppycow]

This is a critical review of Loeb's book:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[MBDK]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

You're getting pretty stupid. My claim was that I read beyond the Wikipedia article. And I provided the link and it does have citations like I claimed. That supports my rather mundane claim.

Nope. Stupid is making an irrelevant comment, getting called on it, and still not recognizing that fact. You read beyond the Wikipedia article...so WHAT? I read beyond Wikipedia, too. My citations are within the Library of Congress. Like your claim, mine is mundane. Also like yours, mine is irrelevant to anything (beyond being an example of irrelevancy).

The real point here is your scrutinized sentence confers nothing of substance without further qualifiers. And without those qualifiers, your expectation for others to guess which references on the wikipedia page support what part(s) of your claim(s) is illogical.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Back to our scheduled program.

I did watch The Hearing today (at least the open one). Not too bad given the amount of time available. The Green Triangle UAP was finally debunked . . . after a time . . . with a bit of waffling . . . sort of. Scott Bray, the deputy director of naval intelligence, sounded quite sane and sensible. (And he's an admitted science fiction fan. I'm not sure whether that was brought up in his favour or to discredit him.)

They tried saliently to show "the object whizzing by the cockpit window" but the technology mostly failed them. "Look there's a blob".

The have no alien material. Some cannot be explained because they have INSUFFICIENT DATA.

I guess a transcript is already available and I'll take a look.

Promises of greater explanatory depth were made for the follow on secret hearing. Whether Nimitz, Gimbal, et al were therein explained (away) we'll have to wait for a leak.

[Solitaire]

Looks like Havana syndrome and UAPs have something in common.

[arthwollipot]

Well, this article goes out of its way to reiterate that unidentified objects are unidentified, but it doesn't mention any of the plausible explanations that have been provided by Mick West or anyone else.

US Congress holds first hearing on UFOs in decades, Pentagon official shows video from F-18 'UAP' encounter

Quote:

The US Congress has held its first hearing in half a century on unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and no, there is still no government confirmation of extraterrestrial life.

Testifying before a House Intelligence subcommittee on Tuesday, Pentagon officials did not disclose additional information from their ongoing investigation of hundreds of unexplained sightings in the sky.

But they said they had picked a director for a new task force to coordinate data collection efforts on UFOs, or as the government prefers to label them, "unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs)".

Ronald Moultrie, the undersecretary of defence for intelligence, said the Pentagon was also trying to destigmatise the issue and encourage pilots and other military personnel to report anything unusual they see.

"We want to know what's out there as much as you want to know what's out there," Mr Moultrie told politicians, adding that he was a fan of science fiction himself.

"We get the questions not just from you. We get it from family and we get them night and day."

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

I did watch The Hearing today (at least the open one). Not too bad given the amount of time available.

I'm not seeing anything on my Google News feed, which suggests that there were no bombshells.

What a surprise! Nothing to see here.


Because, hang on to your seats, there's no underlying interesting phenomenon that actually exists. It's all based on misunderstandings of how infrared cameras work. And geometry and zoom lenses, and so on.

The objects are things like other aircraft that are too far away to see clearly, but the waste heat from their engines shows up on infrared images and makes a funny shape that doesn't look like an airplane.

Either that or things like migratory birds or wayward party balloons.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I'm not seeing anything on my Google News feed, which suggests that there were no bombshells.

What a surprise! Nothing to see here.

There is plenty to see of the stuff they seem to be actually looking for.

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Because, hang on to your seats, there's no underlying interesting phenomenon that actually exists.

Uh, yeah, there is (are actually). You go on to list them.

Originally Posted by Puppycow

It's all based on misunderstandings of how infrared cameras work. And geometry and zoom lenses, and so on.

The objects are things like other aircraft that are too far away to see clearly, but the waste heat from their engines shows up on infrared images and makes a funny shape that doesn't look like an airplane.

Either that or things like migratory birds or wayward party balloons.

In the real world these are very important things. I don't care that they may seem mundane compared to aliens. But we've had military pilots mistake unknown things for potential targets and passenger jets driven in to the Hudson by these kind of issues.

NASA and the FAA do need to look at these things and I don't see any reason why people should be resisting that idea. Several people seem to be irrationally triggered over a small minority of kooks.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

In the real world these are very important things. I don't care that they may seem mundane compared to aliens. But we've had military pilots mistake unknown things for potential targets and passenger jets driven in to the Hudson by these kind of issues.

Okay, but....why does intense and expensive military research have to be done? We know that planes sometimes run into birds or balloons during flight. We know that this can result in damage, and we have a comprehensive understanding of why that happens. Pilots are, at this point, already taught that they can show up unpredictably, thus they need to look out for airborne things and avoid colliding with them as much as possible. What mystery to you feel remains to be revealed about such things that warrants Congressional programs of study?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Okay, but....why does intense and expensive military research have to be done?

I don't know, why? Where in the world do you see that in my post?

Originally Posted by Checkmite

What mystery to you feel remains to be revealed about such things that warrants Congressional programs of study?

Everything the DOD does should be under civilian scrutiny. You don't need a fantastic reason for that.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

I don't know, why? Where in the world do you see that in my post?

It is what you have been cheerleading all this time: Congress forcing the Pentagon to create a program to investigate UFOs. It's what the hearing was about yesterday.

[The Great Zaganza]

Until I get reports of attempts to shoot these things down, and how that played out, I will not really bother with this new panic over UAPs.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

It is what you have been cheerleading all this time: Congress forcing the Pentagon to create a program to investigate UFOs. It's what the hearing was about yesterday.

I have not been cheerleading "intense and expensive military research". That's simply you demonstrating you can't make a case without exaggeration that borders on lying.

And the Pentagon already had a program, just not with civilian oversight. And neither the original program nor the new one are anywhere near "expensive or intense".

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Everything the DOD does should be under civilian scrutiny. You don't need a fantastic reason for that.

Everything the DoD does is ALREADY under civilian scrutiny.

There's a difference between investigating events, and wasting time, money, and man-power on a subject that hasn't proven to be anything more than misidentification, covert aircraft, and obscure natural phenomenon.

Nothing wrong with telling the armed services to not stigmatize reporting of UAPs by pilots. The more reports, the faster we get to the bottom of some of these things.

And there isn't a branch of the service that won't be happy to take extra money to funnel into a project, and make Congress happy.

And finally, let's pretend the US Government has more knowledge of UFOs, like the tinfoil hat crowd claims. Who do you think is in charge of that? Civilians in Congress, and career government employees at a handful of agencies. If UFOs were real, the USAF and NASA would be the big winners in the annual budget. So why keep them secret?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Everything the DoD does is ALREADY under civilian scrutiny.

Are you sure? Because the citations in this thread confirm that this wasn't under civilian oversight. Unless you mean at some high budget level. The Pentagon actually said they though they could handle transparency on their own in their program.

Originally Posted by Axxman300

There's a difference between investigating events, and wasting time, money, and man-power on a subject that hasn't proven to be anything more than misidentification, covert aircraft, and obscure natural phenomenon.

But misidentification, covert aircraft, and obscure natural phenomenon are still causing issues and worth investigating.

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Nothing wrong with telling the armed services to not stigmatize reporting of UAPs by pilots. The more reports, the faster we get to the bottom of some of these things.

Yeah. correct, nothing wrong. And since you want to get to the bottom of these things you must agree we need to investigate right? What's wrong with a public investigation? How do you know the Pentagon was doing it optimally? What's wrong with throwing 15-18 experts from other agencies at the problem for a while?

Originally Posted by Axxman300

And there isn't a branch of the service that won't be happy to take extra money to funnel into a project, and make Congress happy.

Can you even tell if there is extra money for this? As far as I can tell the amount has to be miniscule and there are so many changes in the minor details of the budget from year to year that this is lost in the noise. I think some numbers have been claimed in this thread but it's not clear any of them are accurate but, even so, none are large.

Originally Posted by Axxman300

And finally, let's pretend the US Government has more knowledge of UFOs, like the tinfoil hat crowd claims. Who do you think is in charge of that? Civilians in Congress, and career government employees at a handful of agencies. If UFOs were real, the USAF and NASA would be the big winners in the annual budget. So why keep them secret?

UFOs are real. Do mean real or do you mean aliens? If you think I'm talking about aliens then there is simply no good reason to talk to you.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

And the Pentagon already had a program, just not with civilian oversight.

If you're talking about AAWSAP, the program was literally run by a civilian contractor. Poorly, which is why it got canceled after 5 years.

The current circus is about a few congressmen demanding that the military undertake a "serious" investigation into UFOs. It is clear from their statements of unhappiness about yesterday's hearing that simply gathering and disseminating UFO reports from military personnel isn't "good enough", that they feel the military should be doing more than just this. So yes, they want intensive research.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

But misidentification, covert aircraft, and obscure natural phenomenon are still causing issues and worth investigating.

They're not, though. "Causing issues", I mean. A few military personnel have seen lights or small objects. No military hardware has actually been damaged or even aggressively threatened in these instances; no personnel have been injured or killed. What "issues" are you talking about? Simply seeing them? That's not really an issue.

[Puppycow]

Here's an interview with a member of Congress (Tim Burchett) on the Event Horizon YouTube channel:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

For those unfamiliar with this channel, the host is a science fiction author and YouTuber named John Michael Godier. I don't think he's kooky. As for the member of congress (Tim Burchett) who he interviews, well, he doesn't mince words about what he believes, which is that there is a cover-up at the Pentagon of extraterrestrial UFOs.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

If you're talking about AAWSAP, the program was literally run by a civilian contractor. Poorly, which is why it got canceled after 5 years.

No, I'm not talking about that. I said that crew has been to the well too many times.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

The current circus is about a few congressmen demanding that the military undertake a "serious" investigation into UFOs. It is clear from their statements of unhappiness about yesterday's hearing that simply gathering and disseminating UFO reports from military personnel isn't "good enough", that they feel the military should be doing more than just this. So yes, they want intensive research.

No, this is not intense. Is everything hyperbole with you?

Originally Posted by Checkmite

They're not, though. "Causing issues", I mean. A few military personnel have seen lights or small objects. No military hardware has actually been damaged or even aggressively threatened in these instances; no personnel have been injured or killed. What "issues" are you talking about? Simply seeing them? That's not really an issue.

You can find the issues cited multiple times in most links posted on this subject in this thread. And yeah, it is "enough". Scrambling jets and diverting passenger planes chasing after chimeras is worth studying. The only question is price and your earlier citation has enough info to know this is a drop in the bucket.

And actually I know of one death although that was ages ago.

[jadebox]

Yes, anything that distracts the military from their mission needs to be investigated. But, the investigation itself should not be a distraction.

[Axxman300]

..And here we go.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the US Navy's submarine-launched UAV, the SUAV :

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...5518-180142857

Same time-frame AND same locations as our Tic-Tacs.

This seems like a case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing.

Plus, if we can do this, other countries can do it too. Now we need to shoot one down, and recover it.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by jadebox

Yes, anything that distracts the military from there mission needs to be investigated. But, the investigation itself should not be a distraction.

Was that meant to address something I said?

OK. Agreed. But it isn't, right? The Pentagon says they'd be doing most of this anyway. And it's a teeny tiny office.

I mean if you rounded off to whole numbers doesn't this impact 0% of the Pentagons employees for example?

[jadebox]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Was that meant to address something I said?

OK. Agreed. But it isn't, right? The Pentagon says they'd be doing most of this anyway. And it's a teeny tiny office.

I mean if you rounded off to whole numbers doesn't this impact 0% of the Pentagons employees for example?

When UFO nuts are pushing the military to do a "serious" investigation, then it is and will be a distraction.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by jadebox

When UFO nuts are pushing the military to do a "serious" investigation, then it is and will be a distraction.

OK. So get back to me when that happens. This doesn't appear to be that. The nuts don't appear to be in control of this and they don't even appear to be getting much time to talk.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

..And here we go.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the US Navy's submarine-launched UAV, the SUAV :

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...5518-180142857

Same time-frame AND same locations as our Tic-Tacs.

This seems like a case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing.

Plus, if we can do this, other countries can do it too. Now we need to shoot one down, and recover it.

That's a long read but I gather that there is a high degree of probability that the tic-tac was "Lockheed Martin's mysterious Cormorant".

If it was a Cormorant test launch, that leaves little left to explain. All along Tic-Tac was a very credible UAP.

I wonder if this was revealed in the Secret Briefing that followed the open session?

[Axxman300]

I find the timing of the release of this SUAV information not surprising at all.

And my guess is we've been using it on Somalia, Iran, and to watch China's island-building in the South Pacific for sixteen years. Certainly explains SEAL operations in some areas where our air surveillance should have been out of range. According to this, everything's in range with a submarine these days.

[jadebox]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

OK. So get back to me when that happens. This doesn't appear to be that. The nuts don't appear to be in control of this and they don't even appear to be getting much time to talk.

I'm back.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

OK. So get back to me when that happens. This doesn't appear to be that. The nuts don't appear to be in control of this and they don't even appear to be getting much time to talk.

The nuts solidly appear to be "in control of this". Generally speaking, the people in Congress who appear to be the most interested, are people who appear to believe that UFOs are alien or paranormal in origin. And they appear to be upset that the military is not entertaining the possibility of aliens etc in its own reporting to the media and to Congress. I've explained all of this already.