401–410 of 978 posts
If a military aviator claims he saw UFOs, I assume they're helping cover TS stuff
If I witness a UFO myself among countless others with no doubt about our sanity, I will more readily believe that C.S Lewis' "space trilogy" daemons have been sent by Lucifer himself than I'll believe in super-luminous travel.
Interestingly, just this week we saw a perfect example of how an actual UFO sighting would play out, namely the Chinese spy balloon. We saw real, actual photos of it in the sky, instead of grainy radar images and verbal testimony. We had a real acknowledgement of it from our government, and a real response to it, i.e. shoot it down. This is all very rational and satisfactory, and is exactly what would happen if there…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many were ridiculed for telling about their sights of giant squid until the day the first one was caught?
giant squid have a biological premise; they're just bigger squid. Their origin can be strongly guessed. You would be smart to guess that there are bigger copies of nearly any remote species in the ocean. we have yet to find a plethora of ocean-dwelling smaller mermaids and 'tic-tacs'. In fact, we've yet to discover solid evidence of the existence of either phenomena, regardless of size. Chances start to diminish in t…
And there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way. Is it so unreasonable to guess that intelligent life arose more than once?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many were ridiculed for telling about their sights of giant squid until the day the first one was caught?
giant squid have a biological premise; they're just bigger squid. Their origin can be strongly guessed. You would be smart to guess that there are bigger copies of nearly any remote species in the ocean. we have yet to find a plethora of ocean-dwelling smaller mermaids and 'tic-tacs'. In fact, we've yet to discover solid evidence of the existence of either phenomena, regardless of size. Chances start to diminish in t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's amazing. So ATC didn't have the capability to measure the altitude of any plane themselves?
They can via primary radar, but the default displays secondary radar information (the transponder interrogation) as it tends to be significantly more precise. Surveillance radar has very coarse altitude resolution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was seen - by multiple fighter jet pilots (in different planes) - picked up by the fighter jet's radar - picked up by the USS Nimitz's radar. So yeah...
Fighter jet pilot is a self-avowed prankster and “class clown” (his words). One of the people who wrote the software for that radar system is his good buddy, best man at his wedding, and was on duty nearby on that day. It could all be a big prank. Some of the eyewitnesses saw what they saw on, wait for it, a radar screen. Well technically it was another technology not exactly radar but I forget the name. [edit: FLIR,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This speaks to both sides of the problem in getting to the truth. On the one hand, we sensationalize events farther than the data supports ("My radar showed extremely high velocity, so there must have been a craft moving at those speeds"). On the other hand, we use sensationalism to dismiss accurate reports ("You said your radar showed extremely high velocity, therefore what are you reporting, a UFO?"). The new appro…
You have to admit, given that resources are finite, the dismissive attitude is warranted. Why is it that alien spaceships (let's call them what people actually think is being discussed, and not just any random flying thing that we don't know what it is) only show up on equipment when you can barely tell what you're looking at, and never clearly and unambiguously from multiple places?
If you were a foreign power running things in military ranges that gave odd sensor readings (say, balloons with radar characterization gear), wouldn't it be convenient if your adversary dismissed reports as fanciful?
The fact is that any contact in a military range, where militarily valuable radar and signal emissions abound, is a threat to national security.
Gear is going to malfunction and throw off a non-zero number of false positives. But any contact is important enough that it at least deserves to have a report taken and logged on it.
ITT: Multiple fighter pilots (whose sole job is to understand aerial objects by eye and sensors), radar, camera and infrared have seen these. “It’s a glitch, lens flare and/or the pilots are stupid, but me a programmer is an expert in this.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This speaks to both sides of the problem in getting to the truth. On the one hand, we sensationalize events farther than the data supports ("My radar showed extremely high velocity, so there must have been a craft moving at those speeds"). On the other hand, we use sensationalism to dismiss accurate reports ("You said your radar showed extremely high velocity, therefore what are you reporting, a UFO?"). The new appro…
You have to admit, given that resources are finite, the dismissive attitude is warranted. Why is it that alien spaceships (let's call them what people actually think is being discussed, and not just any random flying thing that we don't know what it is) only show up on equipment when you can barely tell what you're looking at, and never clearly and unambiguously from multiple places?
There's a real problem with people being close-minded towards anything that seems fantastical. This includes scientists and other professionals who ought to know better. Obviously it's unscientific to jump to conclusions and assume that anything that doesn't make sense must be aliens or magic or whatever but at the same time, it's also unscientific to ignore physical observations just because they seem like something…
The close-minded approach is to accept someone’s fantastical claim because you want to, or just because the claim is being made, when the claim is contrary to mountains and centuries of evidence. The open-minded take incorporates all the possible evidence to reach the most likely conclusion. And the conclusion is never, so far, either aliens or magic. It’s just silly to conclude that an observation that has no immedi…
The open-minded approach is to say: maybe we don't know everything, we shouldn't jump to conclusions, rather we should wait for more evidence so that we understand the situation better.
It doesn't matter whether it's aliens, magic, or new scientific discoveries.