I find the video a little odd. The pilot is tracking the object in his center of view but is not turning aggressively to intercept it.
The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
151–160 of 287 posts
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Robert Bigelow doesn't believe "something unexplainable" has been happening in our skies - he believes the explanation for those things is alien spacecraft. He isn't interested in seaching for truth, he has an agenda. It's also disingenuous to skip over more plausible explanations, including hoaxes, the memetic effect of UFO culture, classified military aircraft and disinformation campaigns, and misidentification of…
This is not a hoax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O%27Hare_International_Ai... I'm not saying it was an alien craft, but there are a limited number of plausible explanations for an event like this and none of what you listed is a plausible explanation.
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#153My grandmother's sister was married to a man who served as Captain of the 1st rank on a nuclear submarine in the Soviet and maybe even Russian Navy (I don't know exactly when he retired). As I found out later in life, he was also one of the liquidators of Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the effects of which ultimately led to his early death in early 2000s. I know for sure he already retired from military by mid 90s when…
When I was in submarine sonar school, one of my instructors claimed to have heard sounds under the sea that were not of this world. He said that they made him believe in alien visitation. In the many years and countless thousands of miles of voyages that followed, I never heard a goddamned thing. Oh well.
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s pretty clear that people see UFOs all the time. The problem is when they are identified. My daughter sees one nearly every car ride, something in the sky that isn’t shaped like a plane, and certainly doesn’t move like one. Guess what? when we get closer it’s always an airliner, or a helicopter, or a balloon. It’s easy to get mislead by the light, the perspective, the shadows, the distance, etc. The really dumb p…
When we (biologists) study other species, we travel long distances to examine them in their habitat. We try to hide so we can see them in their natural state, without our interference. If one suggested that this were 'dumb' or 'grandiose', then they would be ridiculed, as they would have exposed their own ignorance through that comment. The thought that a species might travel far to investigate another species in sit…
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#155It's been pretty clear for some time now for those who study the facts that there is a very good chance there are real objects in the sky that maneuver in ways that conventional aircraft are unable to and cannot be explained adequately as other observed phenomenon. The taboo around this subject due to the common hypothesis they are due to extraterrestrials is a shame because there's been plenty of documented evidence…
People lack depth perception in the sky which makes it easy to wildly misunderstand things. A great example shown by some UFO show was a side camera from the space shuttle. The footage has a nice curvature of the earth, with lot's of little specks that seem to be orbiting it way out in the distance. You see a maneuvering thruster fire then in slow motion a few heartbeats later these specks shoot off in a new directio…
I too place little stock in random untrained people seeing lights in the sky or lenticular clouds or taking videos of such with cell phone cameras.
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s pretty clear that people see UFOs all the time. The problem is when they are identified. My daughter sees one nearly every car ride, something in the sky that isn’t shaped like a plane, and certainly doesn’t move like one. Guess what? when we get closer it’s always an airliner, or a helicopter, or a balloon. It’s easy to get mislead by the light, the perspective, the shadows, the distance, etc. The really dumb p…
Historically, Europe was decimated by something much smaller than an ant. Additionally, in an unknown strategic situation, it is generally inadvisable to turn your situation with asymmetric information into one which informs the other players of your true state of play. Now you might say, its would be pretty obvious that we're a comparatively primitive society. Maybe, maybe not. That makes a lot of simple assumptions…
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#157IMO, the fishy part of the article is the cronyism involved in this program: "The shadowy program — parts of it remain classified — began in 2007, and initially it was largely funded at the request of Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who was the Senate majority leader at the time and who has long had an interest in space phenomena. Most of the money went to an aerospace research company run by a billionaire entreprene…
It's no surprise that successful business people and politicians know each other. There is no perfect world where every decision to spend government money is a transaction between complete strangers. If this situation constitutes corruption, then almost every venture between government and private business would also need to be considered corrupt.
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
But come on, if US intelligence agencies recovered metallurgy from Russian hypersonic missiles or something like that, why would they use UFO for cover? And why would they store it outside of AFRL? I think it's just a way to funnel taxpayer money, there is nothing real being investigated. Not extraterrestrial tech, not foreign tech, not even domestic tech.
>I think it's just a way to funnel taxpayer money They only spent $22 million on the whole program. Accounting errors in the Pentagon literally amount to trillions of dollars. $22 million is about 20% of the cost of a single F-35. They have much better ways to funnel taxpayer money - $22 million isn't even pocket change for the Pentagon.
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s why the FA-18 footage is so compelling to me. This is not the easily fooled human eye we’re talking about: Radar tracking and thermal vision almost completely eliminates simple optical illusions from the list of natural explanations. Even more bizarre is how the craft appears totally cold, while there is a warm thermal halo of some kind around the craft, with a pattern very reminiscent of high energy fields.
The object in the video is hot. Most military FLIR devices can be toggled between "white hot" and "black hot". If you look in the lower left corner of the video, there's an indicator that says "WHT" and the object appears white. At about 12 seconds into the footage, the coloring is inverted and the indicator changes to "BLK" because the pilot toggled it. The halo is an artifact of the FLIR device. Every FLIR I've eve…
Re: The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program
#160IMO, the fishy part of the article is the cronyism involved in this program: "The shadowy program — parts of it remain classified — began in 2007, and initially it was largely funded at the request of Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who was the Senate majority leader at the time and who has long had an interest in space phenomena. Most of the money went to an aerospace research company run by a billionaire entreprene…
Robert Bigelow has been interested in aliens and UFOs for most of his life and has essentially dedicated his life to amassing the resources to start an aeronautical company. Hiring him to do this is like hiring Robert Ballard to find the Titanic.
There is a lack of transparency and obviously Bigelow has way more connections than a typical person, but it seems plausible to me that they really are sincere.
And 22 million to fund this program does sound somewhat reasonable, although granted we'll probably never see an audit of how the money was spent.