Navy pilots describe encounters with UFOs - 60 minutes

TheValeyard

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You made me physically yawn, thank you.

You betray your username.

PokeHerKing

PokeHerKing wrote: »

You're claiming these are easily explained phenomenon.

You now appear to be claiming the US government know this but because they're phenomenon and still "technically " unexplainable? That they'll class them as UAP/UFO anyway.

Yes, this is what I am saying.

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Im saying if that is the case it would not make sense to be relaying that info to the president or releasing footage or even discussing it really.

Where is the evidence that Obama was relayed this information? If you are referring to his James Corden interview, he just said that "there's footage and records of objects in the skies that we don't know exactly what they are". He's not directly referring to any of the videos being discussed, nor has he indicated that he was relayed that information.

And the footage was released because conspiracy theorists kept asking for it to be released.

PokeHerKing

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, this is what I am saying.



Where is the evidence that Obama was relayed this information? If you are referring to his James Corden interview, he just said that "there's footage and records of objects in the skies that we don't know exactly what they are". He's not directly referring to any of the videos being discussed, nor has he indicated that he was relayed that information.

And the footage was released because conspiracy theorists kept asking for it to be released.

So basically what you're saying is this is a massive storm in a teacup. None of the footage released by the US government is unexplainable and the US government know this.

Obama was just talking in hypothetics and the reason any footage was released at all was to satisfy some UFO cranks on the internet.

Is this common sense you've been alluding too? Because to me it reads like twisted logic to confirm your bias.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Not quite. If you simply showed aeronautical engineers of the time a picture of the F117, they could explain how it could achieve what it can achieve in a month's work of research without no other information.

If you showed the same engineers a picture of a tic tac and suggested it could do what is being claimed, they could do not do similar. Because it cannot be achieved.

Strong words and not dissimilar to quite the number of experts regarding the F117 before it was unveiled. The faceted surfaces really got a few wondering as outside the project the expert opinion on radar reflectivity held the best surface was a smooth flowing one with as few angles as possible.

But back to tic tacs The pilot's description was vague and observed at a distance so tic tac was the best fit they came up with. Up close the tic tac might be quite different with features that aren't observable at any distance. If the object actually existed let's look at how it could achieve flight and flight control. A short range drone using thrust vectoring, with ducted fans or similar. The tic tac shape itself isn't a bad one for such an airframe. As a shape it would be hard for a human observer to gauge size and distance because it would look so "alien"(not in the little green men way) and the jerky movements described could be down to that too. The speed the main pilot described it travelling at could easily be down to his observer bias. He's in a circular descent towards the object, doing probably 200 plus knots, it could be climbing at not much more than 100 knots and with his subjective relative focus it's coming up at him at 300 plus.

If there was an physical object the notion that a Russian submarine released an advanced thrust vectoring drone using perfectly understood physics and tech to spy on an American carrier fleet strikes me as by far the more plausible notion than martians.

Discodog

I was at the Fairford Airshow the year that the B2 made it's first appearance. They said it would just be a fly over but then, at the last minute, said it would land. As it approached the runway the head on view was a perfect flying saucer shape. Everyone was joking that it must be the cause of a few UFO theories.
The US government & especially the Skunk Works love UFO theories as "explanations" for test projects.

When we are visited it will be more like Independence Day than a few strange lights or shapes.

PokeHerKing

PokeHerKing wrote: »

So basically what you're saying is this is a massive storm in a teacup. None of the footage released by the US government is unexplainable and the US government know this.

No, the footage is unexplainable. If some government experts believe something is a bird, and other thinks it's a camera artefact, it is still unexplained. It does not mean we need to add any additional fantasy theories.

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Obama was just talking in hypothetics and the reason any footage was released at all was to satisfy some UFO cranks on the internet.

No, he was not talking hypothetical, as I just explained. There were things in the sky and we don't know exactly what they were. That does not mean that such things need fantasy theories to be explained.

They released the footage after a “thorough review” determined the videos do not reveal any sensitive information and to “clear up any misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage that has been circulating was real".

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pentagon-videos-unidentied-aerial-phenomena-ufo/

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Is this common sense you've been alluding too? Because to me it reads like twisted logic to confirm your bias.

Yes, it is common sense. If the non-military scientific community agree as a whole that this was evidence of either aliens or new technology, it would be breaking news. Rather, if I sent the details of this conversation to my physics department, we would all agree (minus statistical outliers) that the common sense analysis was correct and would likely have a good chuckle about this conversation on Monday.

Cheerful S

Wibbs wrote: »

Nah. If you have four people in a room that contains a secret, you can be 100% sure at least one will talk about it outside that room. Secrets don't remain secret for long. This is the major problem with conspiracies. Now have conspiracies happened, have secrets been kept? Sure, but the shock of the reveal comes after the fact. Before the reveal you can see such things are often discussed pretty openly, just that public or political interest isn't enough to get it on the front pages, or there isn't enough to join the dots to form a fully accurate picture. The stealth tech was a good example. Your average bod or bodess on the street was blissfully content with not knowing about it. Aviation periodicals mused about it at length, often with some degree of accuracy, US politicians were publicly complaining about the rising costs of black projects including stealth. It wasn't very secret at all.

Take the hypothetical hypersonic "Aurora" project. That's been a firm fave of legit advanced aircraft theorists and UFO cranks for decades. Now let's imagine tomorrow the US military said, Yep, it exists and here it is. OHMIGOOOOD! It's real. Now climbing down from that shock of admission; hypersonic tech has been on the go since the 1950's when x-15's and the like were going to the edge of space. The Russians, British, French, Chinese and Americans have leaked/demonstrated hypersonic tests of engines, even a few well funded commercial businesses have given it a go and there's lots of research literature on the matter out there. The biggest issue seems to be sustaining such flight speeds beyond a minute or even 30 seconds. Now if you threw a trillion quid at that as a black project back in the 80's because you were looking to replace the SR71 as an example, I have little enough doubt a hypersonic tech demonstrator, or even a working prototype could have been made. A couple of years ago one of the heads of Lockheed Martin's Skunkworks publicly described hypersonic technology as "mature" and they were working on it. I'd bet the farm it is and they did and quite a while ago. Yet all through that time hypersonic flight has been in plain sight for many decades.

My view, only a handful of humans beings with military service are cognizant of all tactical details, before US military, carries out an covert operation. The world does not get to know every last detail of the operation. When outside this circle of power are unware, end of story.

Dark/black funded agencies use personel for big jobs when its shown during their career do keep their mouth shout. Leaks occur, i do concede, but with no physical evidence to back a claim its a wild comedy to many hearing it for the first time. This is a dilemma , example the Bob Lazar story. Lacking physical- actual evidence to hand prove he was inside a craft, and touched and worked on a anti-gravity engine not going to convince many he's telling the truth. You have many stories that could be true, but they will convince very few when there no physical evidence on hand to prove it.

I think its highly possible to keep a secret by limiting the size of people in the know. JFK for instance.

All it takes here is two to three dominant, influential, powerful figures, inside the Washington power structure placing a number of men to shoot at Kennedy in Dallas that day and then escape successfully. If one of those figures in the cover up power structure is Edgar Hoover ( just for argument) he can smother FBI investigations that found evidence for a second shooter and impede the capture of other suspects.

While its possible the Aurora project exists and some of the events are new US craft secretly operating, the issue, the DOD/ Pentagon risk new/ secret craft crashing in a location where Navy personal would find it and talk about it later?.It’s very unlikely a dark agency would run an operation against the US Navy and not tell them beforehand. Plus the craft are of the same shape, seen by hundreds of witnesses for decades and that in my opinion would rule out a secret plane/drone here.

. Jet engine was the 50s and the circular/oval Tic Tac a craft are observed in the 1946, time. The flight signatures seem to not change even with time gaps,

That is an impressive number of conspiracy theories you have managed to mention in just one post. I applaud you.

BorneTobyWilde

There was a guy on Chris Cuomo last night debunking all the released US videos one by one,

Calling them balloons, and tricks of the camera.


Only audio here, but I'm sure it will be online later

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVBE1L5oxCg

PokeHerKing

Deleted User wrote: »

No, the footage is unexplainable. If some government experts believe something is a bird, and other thinks it's a camera artefact, it is still unexplained. It does not mean we need to add any additional fantasy theories.



No, he was not talking hypothetical, as I just explained. There were things in the sky and we don't know exactly what they were. That does not mean that such things need fantasy theories to be explained.

They released the footage after a “thorough review” determined the videos do not reveal any sensitive information and to “clear up any misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage that has been circulating was real".

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pentagon-videos-unidentied-aerial-phenomena-ufo/



Yes, it is common sense. If the non-military scientific community agree as a whole that this was evidence of either aliens or new technology, it would be breaking news. Rather, if I sent the details of this conversation to my physics department, we would all agree (minus statistical outliers) that the common sense analysis was correct and would likely have a good chuckle about this conversation on Monday.

Wait a minute you've said its absolutely explainable with physics and common sense? Remember you can debunk any video, even ones you've never seen or heard of before.

But you're now saying if two physicists/experts disagree then it is unexplainable but we can't throw alien in as another theory because that's fantasy?

As I said your god complex is as strong as your bias.

Wibbs

Cheerful S wrote: »

I think its highly possible to keep a secret by limiting the size of people in the know. JFK for instance.

All it takes here is two to three dominant, influential, powerful figures, inside the Washington power structure placing a number of men to shoot at Kennedy in Dallas that day and then escape successfully. If one of those figures in the cover up power structure is Edgar Hoover ( just for argument) he can smother FBI investigations that found evidence for a second shooter and impede the capture of other suspects.

Again that secret wouldn't be long in coming out and it would require more than a handful of people to run such an operation.

Jet engine was the 50s

The pretty much fully worked out theory of the jet engine was in the 1920's and flying prototypes were operating by the late 1930's.

As an aside a pilot relative of mine mused that the famous "foo fighters" that were observed by bomber pilots over Germany in WW2 might be explained by ball lightning, but of a particular kind formed because of a very particular circumstance. His hypothesis was that many hundreds of piston engined bombers flying in close formation at the same flight level through the atmosphere whipped up a lot of static charge in said atmosphere and caused more ball lightning type events than would normally be expected. These foo fighters were not seen in the early part of the war or by fighters on their own or in small groups, only large bomber groups. He reckoned that's why the phenomenon came and went when the large bomber group flights came and went.

PokeHerKing

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Wait a minute you've said its absolutely explainable with physics and common sense? Remember you can debunk any video, even ones you've never seen or heard of before.

But you're now saying if two physicists/experts disagree then it is unexplainable but we can't throw alien in as another theory because that's fantasy?

Yes, that is what I am saying.

Case in point: the green triangle video. I have provided a link that can easily explain the UFOs seen, and such a video can even be easily reproduced.

• Did the Pentagon deny the existence of the video? No.
• Even though this has a trivial explanation, has the government said that it is explainable? No. Not only that, but the video is still being analysed by the government.
• Do we need a far fetched theory to explain the UFOs? No. See the video linked above.
• Can an amateur photographer recreate the unexplained video and the included UFOs tonight if they wanted to? Yes, quite easily too.

Therefore, does the fact that the government has not stated that a video can easily be explained or that a video is still being studied by said government signify that there is anything of significance in the video? Absolutely not.

PokeHerKing

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, that is what I am saying.

Case in point: the green triangle video. I have provided a link that can easily explain the UFOs seen, and such a video can even be easily reproduced.

• Did the Pentagon deny the existence of the video? No.
• Even though this has a trivial explanation, has the government said that it is explainable? No. Not only that, but the video is still being analysed by the government.
• Do we need a far fetched theory to explain the UFOs? No. See the video linked above.
• Can an amateur photographer recreate the unexplained video and the included UFOs tonight if they wanted to? Yes, quite easily too.

Therefore, does the fact that the government has not stated that a video can easily be explained or that a video is still being studied by said government signify that there is anything of significance in the video? Absolutely not.

Surely the common sense view would be if two experts have different theories one or both are wrong. Therefore there's as much room for a third or fourth as there was for the first two?

You seem to be of the opinion that its explainable up to the point of extraterrestrial. Which is very much the confirmed bias that you are so vehemently denying. If you could just admit that part this circular argument could at least end amicably.

Cheerful S

Wibbs wrote: »

Again that secret wouldn't be long in coming out and it would require more than a handful of people to run such an operation.


The pretty much fully worked out theory of the jet engine was in the 1920's and flying prototypes were operating by the late 1930's.

As an aside a pilot relative of mine mused that the famous "foo fighters" that were observed by bomber pilots over Germany in WW2 might be explained by ball lightning, but of a particular kind formed because of a very particular circumstance. His hypothesis was that many hundreds of piston engined bombers flying in close formation at the same flight level through the atmosphere whipped up a lot of static charge in said atmosphere and caused more ball lightning type events than would normally be expected. These foo fighters were not seen in the early part of the war or by fighters on their own or in small groups, only large bomber groups. He reckoned that's why the phenomenon came and went when the large bomber group flights came and went.

All that involved is space and hidden locations to fire the rifles. That involves spotters, the assassins ,and communications center in the Square to track the event. Even with three teams on the ground thats only six men in the know. Communications maybe two to three. Nine to ten men in total involved in the ground operation. Nowhere close to thousands participated. Cover up then rests on the men who send them in to obscure any anomalies found. Kennedy fired, the head of CIA Allen Dulles and he later ended up with a seat on the commission and ruled that one gunman killed Kennedy That's another debate though.

It's very possible i agree its balls of lighting that pilots saw in WW2. When its solid mass craft not so much.

PokeHerKing

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Surely the common sense view would be if two experts have different theories one or both are wrong. Therefore there's as much room for a third or fourth as there was for the first two?

The common sense view is that at least one of the theories presented by the experts in the matter would be correct.

PokeHerKing wrote: »

You seem to be of the opinion that its explainable up to the point of extraterrestrial.

I don't understand your statement. If there is both a logical explanation, or multiple logical explanations, as well as a far fetched explanation, I will always choose a logical explanation, if that's what you mean.

PokeHerKing

Deleted User wrote: »

The common sense view is that at least one of the theories presented by the experts in the matter would be correct.



I don't understand your statement. If there is both a logical explanation, or multiple logical explanations, as well as a far fetched explanation, I will always choose a logical explanation, if that's what you mean.

I disagree, if two experts gave me different diagnosis I would not assume one is correct and blindly choose. I would seek a third or fourth opinion until there was some sort of consensus.

You seem to think you get to decide what's logical and what's not. You don't. You're just biased and have an opinion and we know what they say about opinions.

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

which is why that video is called Gimbal.

Rotation does not lose the track on. Object appears to rotate on its own and there no obvious signs of a flip of the camera. The object is only thing in the background that flips on its side and appears to slow down before the side rotation occurs.

The lock is positioned at same angle when it's flying.


The angle of the lock still the exact same when the rotation occurs.

PokeHerKing

PokeHerKing wrote: »

I disagree, if two experts gave me different diagnosis I would not assume one is correct and blindly choose. I would seek a third or fourth opinion until there was some sort of consensus.

Yes, but you seek that third or fourth opinion from an expert.

No physicist would ever suggest that such phenomenon are caused by aliens/hidden technology when more logical explanations are available. The consensus you would find is a logical one and not the one you were hoping to find.

PokeHerKing wrote: »

You seem to think you get to decide what's logical and what's not. You don't.

Yes, I do. Modesty aside, I can say what is logical and what is illogical within my area of expertise with a large degree of confidence.

PokeHerKing

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, but you seek that third or fourth opinion from an expert.

No physicist would ever suggest that such phenomenon are caused by aliens/hidden technology when more logical explanations are available. The consensus you would find is a logical one and not the one you were hoping to find.



Yes, I do. Modesty aside, I can say what is logical and what is illogical within my area of expertise with a large degree of confidence.

If theres no consensus then there's no consensus. The US government could not find one for these sightings so why would you , a so called "expert" think linking to random blogs was the smoking gun?

Anyway, enjoy your night pal and remember, keep looking up.

PokeHerKing

PokeHerKing wrote: »

If theres no consensus then there's no consensus. The US government could not find one for these sightings so why would you , a so called "expert" think linking to random blogs was the smoking gun?

Because after 114 posts, nobody has given one reason as to why any of the logical explanations I linked to are incorrect.

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

Object appears to rotate on its own and there no obvious signs of a flip of the camera. The object is only thing in the background that flips on its side

There is obvious signs

The rotation of the object happens exactly around the time that the angle passes 0°. Why is this?

Have you ever watched a PTZ security camera rotate up and over the vertical axis and down the other side? It will tilt up until it nears the vertical axis, at which point it will rotate around that axis, and then tilt back down, now facing the other way. It does this to avoid gimbal lock [1], a state in which it would lose a degree of freedom of rotation. (In this case, it's not the vertical axis, but the forward axis.)

and the object is the only thing in the background that flips on its side because the object is not in the background, it's on the camera.

Andrewf20

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Plenty of other military have released similar stuff. French, chillean, Mexican etc.

But you rarely if ever hear of them. Us secret aircraft could be transglobal, the government testing high altitude jets that travel world wide at hypersonic speeds. Its just a hunch I have. Alot of the historical ufo sightings and talk seems to gravitate around the USA more than anywhere else in the world. Alot if it during the cold War era too, exactly when you would expect the USA to be developing frantically, like Russia.

I remember living in the US and coming across a number of USA documentaries about UFOs and aliens, abductions etc. I have never seen any in Ireland or on BBC, ch4 or on my travels elsewhere around the world.

WhomadeGod

WhomadeGod wrote: »

Do you ever post in good faith?

Biggest troll on boards.

Did a rereg just refer to me a troll? Comical. :rolleyes:

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

There is obvious signs



and the object is the only thing in the background that flips on its side because the object is not in the background, it's on the camera.

By flipping a frame or image, the entire scene will move. The flir would rotate on its axis very fast, not be slow like it’s seen on video. During a battle you hardly be comfortable knowing the camera taking ages to rotate different axis against an enemy position in the air.

The only thing that changes between frames is the object between the bars. That a targeted/radar pod. The changes in IR mode are because of the banking to left (its L) under the position dips, the plane doing that, the lock already placed. The pilot following the object and there is a slight dip angle bank to the left. The object could be heading north or west it hard to tell exactly from the video itself.

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

By flipping a frame or image, the entire scene will move. The flir would rotate on its axis very fast, not be slow like it’s seen on video. During a battle you hardly be comfortable knowing the camera taking ages to rotate different axis against an enemy position in the air.

The camera would not take long to rotate if it wasn't locked to a target.

You can believe if you wish that it is simply a massive coincidence that the UFO is completely stationary up until it coincidentally starts moving exactly at 0 degrees like the theory I linked to said it should. But that is simply looking for an alternative explanation when it isn't needed.

Cheerful S

Deleted User wrote: »

The camera would not take long to rotate if it wasn't locked to a target.

You can believe if you wish that it is simply a massive coincidence that the UFO is completely stationary up until it coincidentally starts moving exactly at 0 degrees like the theory I linked to said it should. But that is simply looking for an alternative explanation when it isn't needed.

The pilot moves inside the plane cause the IR mode degree changes not the lock on. You don’t seem to get that. Watch the video and watch the top screen. Changes are happening all the time. But the target pod bars are still positioned at the same tilt to the right on video. If the flir flipped to a new scene that would cause a background flip, the system not build in that way to rotate just this object on its own according to experts at the Pentagon. If you have a different opinion source it.

Cheerful S

Cheerful S wrote: »

The pilot moves inside the plane cause the IR mode degree changes not the lock on. You don’t seem to get that. Watch the video and watch the top screen. Changes are happening all the time. But the target pod bars are still positioned at the same tilt to the right on video. If the flir flipped to a new scene that would cause a background flip, the system not build in that way to rotate just this object on its own according to experts at the Pentagon. If you have a different opinion source it.

So why is the camera moving? It's tracking the object. But the object isn't moving! Well, the camera doesn't track movement. It tracks position. The object is slightly offset from the center of the frame, so the tracking software slightly moves the camera to compensate. This of course does not change the situation, so the tracking software repeats its compensation. This constant camera movement in a single direction gives the appearance that the object is moving.

.

Hamsterchops

bewareofthedog wrote: »

Thought this was an excellent segment released last week - no speculation or conspiracies just the facts from high up Government officials and experienced pilots. The man and lady pilot towards the end describe the most bizarre encounter where one of the objects formed a shape in the sea and it was detected 60 miles away seconds later after speeding off.

Assuming these things do exist I'd speculate they're man made, some new technology coming out of China / Russia but who knows? Perhaps the US have developed such technology which is highly classified.

Hey, glad you've opened this in Current Affairs. I tried to start mine exactly one year ago this month and was told to open it in After Hours, which I did, and it's ticking along very well, specially as we approach June!

Just shows that within the space of just one year, how this topic is now mainstream and being taken seriously.

Seven decades of witness testament, pilot verification, video and radar data means there must be something unexplained in our skies.

CNN.

https://youtu.be/taqUPnWeLPI

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The common sense view is that at least one of the theories presented by the experts in the matter would be correct.



I don't understand your statement. If there is both a logical explanation, or multiple logical explanations, as well as a far fetched explanation, I will always choose a logical explanation, if that's what you mean.

That’s a bias. A bad one at that, researchers hypotheses are thwarted all the time.

passatman86

Heard some expert on the radio today explaining the black dots recorded could be something simple as the camera screen been effected from pointing at the sun.