The UFO report is expected to be submitted next month

[alan123hk]

I heard that U.S. intelligence agencies are expected to deliver a report on Unidentified aerial phenomena (UFO) next month.

Will this report have shocking content, such as confirming that UFO’s flying technology far exceeds the aircraft that humans can make so far, and even aliens are involved, etc. ?

 

[russ_watters]

IWill this report have shocking content, such as confirming that UFO’s flying technology far exceeds the aircraft that humans can make so far, and even aliens are involved, etc. ?

I doubt it. The eyewitness accounts of the Navy pilots are interesting, but there were some inconsistencies in the story that were telling; performance was described that they couldn't possibly have seen with their eyes, which means at least they are likely making the common mistake of cobbling together separate sources as if they were one sighting. There is also some describing of what people think they are seeing instead of what they are actually seeing (triangular objects -> triangular lights on a screen, for example). And assumption that what a sensor shows is a real object, as opposed to an artifact or computer generated ghost. If nothing else, I would hope a detailed analysis would sort that out.

I think that some will turn out to be radar ghosts. And the flir videos look to me like chasing literal dirt on the sensor.

Oh, and the totally bland/benign yet provocative sounding "The US government says UFOs are real!" is as annoying as ever.

 

[Jarvis323]

I doubt it. The eyewitness accounts of the Navy pilots are interesting, but there were some inconsistencies in the story that were telling; performance was described that they couldn't possibly have seen with their eyes, which means at least they are likely making the common mistake of cobbling together separate sources as if they were one sighting. There is also some describing of what people think they are seeing instead of what they are actually seeing (triangular objects -> triangular lights on a screen, for example). And assumption that what a sensor shows is a real object, as opposed to an artifact or computer generated ghost. If nothing else, I would hope a detailed analysis would sort that out.

I think that some will turn out to be radar ghosts. And the flir videos look to me like chasing literal dirt on the sensor.

Oh, and the totally bland/benign yet provocative sounding "The US government says UFOs are real!" is as annoying as ever.

I would tend to agree.

But in the 60 minutes video in the OP, it is claimed they captured it on radar, with infrared, and the naked eye, and they also show supposed images from normal cameras through cockpit windows. He also claims he saw these things "every day for 2
years" in that area.

It seems like there must be more to it, though I wouldn't jump to conclusions.

 

[russ_watters]

But in the 60 minutes video in the OP, it is claimed they captured it on radar, with infrared, and the naked eye...

But not necessarily simultaneously. Some certainly not simultaneously. That means not necessarily even the same phenomena. That's what needs to be sorted out.

The vibe from the 60 Minutes piece is mostly the usual UFO puff, that left me wondering who is messing with me; 60 Minutes or the guy they are interviewing? None of the footage was new and much of it already debunked, yet it was presented as if new and mysterious - or worse proven to be unexplained high performance aircraft.

I don't want to get bogged down in the details because we don't really do debunking anymore, but here's a pretty harsh criticism of it, with several explanations of what's going on in several of the videos:
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_roo...real-an-analysis-of-60-minutes-investigation/

I will say, the one bit "the pentagon admits it doesn't know what in the world this is", over top of a video of an obviously out of focus airplane made my eyes roll. Really guys? What are we doing here?

 

[Jarvis323]

But with everything taken together, even after filtering out the obvious human error and sensationalism, it's still a lot to piece together.

 

[alan123hk]

I admit that I am really interested in UFO and have read some books about UFO.

This universe is so big that our solar system and even the Milky Way are only as small as a grain of sand in the sea, so I believe it is not surprising that there are highly intelligent creatures in other distant galaxies.

UFO is just a very general and neutral name. It only represents a flying object that has not been determined what it is. I believe that most of them are weather or man-made phenomena, but I don’t think it can be ruled out that some cases may involve situations that cannot be explained by human scientific knowledge, although this does not mean that aliens from other planets are involved.

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Re...nse-on-the-release-of-historical-navy-videos/

 

[Rive]

confirming that UFO’s flying technology far exceeds the aircraft that humans can make so far

For me, exactly that kind of thing what makes it suspicious. Moving through air has consequences and requirements. Just like a supersonic jet plane would be far above the technology of the WW1, yet all the pilots from that time would recognize the basics since it's still movement through air, and not jumping around like light of a flaslight on a wall far away.

UFO ... only represents a flying object that has not been determined what it is.

A bit less than that. It's just an observed phenomena: the first step is to prove it's really something flying there...

 

[alan123hk]

A bit less than that. It's just an observed phenomena: the first step is to prove it's really something flying there...

Yes, it may be better to use the term "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)" instead of "Unidentified flying object (UFO)" because it may not be a flying object at all.

But I myself have always liked the name UFO.

 

[vela]

The NY Times published an essay on this subject by Dr. Adam Frank, a physicist at the University of Rochester.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/30/opinion/ufo-sightings-report.html

There are also common-sense objections. If we are being frequently visited by aliens, why don’t they just land on the White House lawn and announce themselves? There is a recurring narrative, perhaps best exemplified by the TV show “The X-Files,” that these creatures have some mysterious reason to remain hidden from us. But if the mission of these aliens calls for stealth, they seem surprisingly incompetent. You would think that creatures technologically capable of traversing the mind-boggling distances between the stars would also know how to turn off their high beams at night and to elude our primitive infrared cameras.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The NY Times published an essay on this subject by Dr. Adam Frank, a physicist at the University of Rochester.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/30/opinion/ufo-sightings-report.html

While I have no opinion on the current reporting as yet, whether or not there is an ET presence is not dependent on it making sense to the good Dr. ;)

None of this is new. For example, "Tic Tac" is just another description of the classic cigar-shaped UFOs or UAPs reported for many decades. And pilots have been chasing UAPs for about as long as there have been pilots.

Here is one to remember for Memorial Day.

 

[alan123hk]

In fact, the quality of UFO video captured by the U.S. Navy recently is not bad, and fighter jets have been tracking the UFO in video for some time. With current technology, even very blurry and chaotic images or videos can be recovered. Coupled with the use of supercomputers for analysis, it is hard to believe that it is still uncertain. But the authorities still characterize it as "unidentified", so in my opinion, this situation is indeed unavoidable to be a little confused and uneasy.

In addition, UFOs do not necessarily come from distant galaxies, they may come from other planets in our solar system, or even from the depths of the Earth's core.

As for why don’t they just land on the White House lawn and announce themselves?
I really don't know this. I guess this may be related to some ulterior plans, political reasons or values.

 

[russ_watters]

The NY Times published an essay on this subject by Dr. Adam Frank, a physicist at the University of Rochester.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/30/opinion/ufo-sightings-report.html

You would think that creatures technologically capable of traversing the mind-boggling distances between the stars would also know how to turn off their high beams at night and to elude our primitive infrared cameras.

Well that's just ridiculous; UFOs don't have high beams, they just have landing lights.

Er, at least the ones made by Boeing do.

 

[russ_watters]

In fact, the quality of UFO video captured by the U.S. Navy recently is not bad

"Not bad" is UFO perfection, and is usually awful. It's a video(/photo) that isn't bad enough to be discarded as showing nothing interesting/easily identifiable and isn't good enough to actually identify (yet/without serious effort). Those are the ones that pretty much must be alien spaceships until they are positively identified months or years later as something mundane. Then they are just really embarrassing.

and fighter jets have been tracking the UFO in video for some time.

Which doesn't really mean anything. Every new contact is a UFO until it becomes identified. Some never are. That doesn't necessarily make them interesting.

With current technology, even very blurry and chaotic images or videos can be recovered.

That's not true. Despite what you see in the movies, there isn't much you can do to "enhance" a blurry photo/video.

Coupled with the use of supercomputers for analysis, it is hard to believe that it is still uncertain. But the authorities still characterize it as "unidentified", so in my opinion, this situation is indeed unavoidable to be a little confused and uneasy.

Mostly "the authorities" have been uninterested because what they have seen hasn't been very compelling.

In addition, UFOs do not necessarily come from distant galaxies, they may come from other planets in our solar system, or even from the depths of the Earth's core.

Or much more likely, Venus or Everett.

As for why don’t they just land on the White House lawn and announce themselves?
I really don't know this. I guess this may be related to some ulterior plans, political reasons or values.

That doesn't really address the prior point: if they are trying not to be seen they are doing a terrible job of it. If they want to make contact they can easily announce it. More likely, "they" don't exist.

 

[alan123hk]

That doesn't really address the prior point: if they are trying not to be seen they are doing a terrible job of it. If they want to make contact they can easily announce it. More likely, "they" don't exist.

If they really exist, they may not try to avoid being seen, just as the spacecraft sent to outer space by humans seem to have never tried to hide, maybe this is really not easy.

If they come from a very close planet, such as Mars, Venus or Everett, perhaps their technology has not yet been able to hide in the visible light range. Although they know that we can see them, maybe they don't want to make an official public appearance. The reason may be that they do not want to interfere with the existing ecological order of mankind, just as humans deal with ecological protection forests in Africa.

There are also some conspiracy theories that aliens have secretly contacted the highest levels of some countries, but I also think the possibility of this is very low.

The above ideas are based on a UFO enthusiast, or it is based on not excluding any possibility.

However, I think many of your views are reasonable and scientific. In fact, from a rational point of view, I also think that there is a 99.999..% possibility that those things of UFOs and aliens on Earth really do not exist.

 

[nsaspook]

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/15/...erial-phenomena-defense-department/index.html

Defense Department confirms leaked video of unidentified aerial phenomena is real

"Triangle" looking shapes of blurred objects in the video?
https://digital-photography-school.com/make-custom-bokeh-shapes/

Industrial devices like night vision equipment often use three bladed apertures so I would expect to see that form on unfocused images.

It's also nice that UFOs are using standard Earth aircraft anti-collision lights on their hyper-dimensional warp spaceships. ;)

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's also nice that UFOs are using standard Earth aircraft anti-collision lights on their hyper-dimensional warp spaceships.

Red is port and green is starboard?

 

[PeroK]

If they come from a very close planet, such as Mars ...

... then they really do know how to keep a low profile. We'll be their UFO's with all the Mars missions going on. Perhaps it's we who are the aliens who have secretly made contact with the Martian government?

 

[berkeman]

Red is port and green is starboard?

Doq! SuD! Earthling.

 

[russ_watters]

Defense Department confirms leaked video of unidentified aerial phenomena is real...

Industrial devices like night vision equipment often use three bladed apertures so I would expect to see that form on unfocused images.

It's also nice that UFOs are using standard Earth aircraft anti-collision lights on their hyper-dimensional warp spaceships. ;)

Ok, I need to rant about this some more. I'm confused/annoyed as to what's going on with this video. And I don't mean the video itself, I mean its provenance. This video isn't "not bad", it's terrible. Absolutely terrible. It's obviously an out-of-focus airplane. So why are we discussing it? Why do we even know this video exists? Why does it even exist? Why didn't the person who captured it not immediately recognize it was out of focus and delete it (as we all surely do when we shoot an out of focus video)? Why is a supposedly world renowned investigative reporter on a supposedly reputable news magazine show reporting on it with absolutely zero thought/analysis and a no-doubt made-up claim that "the Pentagon" doesn't know what it is? Why are news outlets all over the US making the same breathless/thoughtless reports? Seriously, what is going on here?

While the media malpractice here is inexcusable it is nonetheless predictable. There's no value for the media in aiming a critical eye at these videos; Debunking them is pointless/undesirable because it results in nothing to report. Nobody clicks on a headline that says "Navy Observes Out of Focus 737". But that doesn't answer the question of where these things come from.

I won't throw clicks toward the website that originated the "triangle ufos" video, but it is easy enough to google. The publisher's wiki page describes him as an artist and documentary filmmaker. On his website he uses the word "journalist". But again, if he wants to eat, he needs clicks - he needs to report something interesting. On his "investigative film series".

The report on his website says that video was provided to him as an anonymous drop of content from an intelligence briefing on UFOs (he's soliciting them and gets 900 a month). It provides some context as to the scene, but notably it says nothing at all about the thesis of the presentation or analysis of the videos. For all we know, the title of the title of the presentation could be "UFOs: Some of our Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen are Idiots". But he suspects they are "Advanced Transmedium Vehicles". Googling that term yields in the first 20 hits a small number of papers on air/water vehicles (not exact matches) and the rest are references to the filmmaker. Did he make that term up? Did he make all of this up? Does Bill Whitaker/60 Minutes even care?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Navy pilots

Aviators. The Air Force has pilots; the Navy has aviators.

What's the difference between a Navy aviator and an Air Force pilot? The aviator breaks ground and flies into the wind...

 

[Vanadium 50]

Did he make that term up? Did he make all of this up? Does Bill Whitaker/60 Minutes even care?

Why should they?

The job of the media is to sell soap. Accuracy is useful only insofar as it let's them sell more soap.

And, to be fair, a lack of critical thinking extends far and wide, and farther and wider than one would think. I'm fighting a group of physicists who have identified 3000 hours of work, and think one person can do it in a year. We all agree on the 3000. It's just that if one person can't do it that quickly, it makes a mess of all our plans, so we just assume he will finish in 12 months and not 19.

 

[gmax137]

Does Bill Whitaker/60 Minutes even care?

I stopped regularly watching 60 Minutes a long time ago. Some of their more human interest stories (musical prodigies, for example) are still pretty good, and I might not change channels when those come on. But most of the "investigative" stories are just crap.

 

[nsaspook]

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...e-that-aerial-sightings-were-alien- spacecraft

WASHINGTON — American intelligence officials have found no evidence that aerial phenomena witnessed by Navy pilots in recent years are alien spacecraft , but they still cannot explain the unusual movements that have mystified scientists and the military, according to senior administration officials briefed on the findings of a highly anticipated government report.

The report determines that the vast majority of more than 120 incidents over the past two decades did not originate from any American military or other advanced U.S. government technology, the officials said. That determination would appear to eliminate the possibility that Navy pilots who reported seeing unexplained aircraft might have encountered programs the government meant to keep secret.

 

[alan123hk]

"..intelligence officials have found no evidence that aerial phenomena witnessed by Navy pilots in recent years are alien spacecraft ..."

From the point of view of UFO enthusiasts, they may prefer the following expressions.
"We have not seen any direct evidence that those UFOs are not alien aircraft"
"At this stage, the possibility that those UFOs are alien high-tech aircraft cannot be completely ruled out"

 

[collinsmark]

"..intelligence officials have found no evidence that aerial phenomena witnessed by Navy pilots in recent years are alien spacecraft ..."

From the point of view of UFO enthusiasts, they may prefer the following expressions.
"We have not seen any direct evidence that those UFOs are not alien aircraft"
"At this stage, the possibility that those UFOs are alien high-tech aircraft cannot be completely ruled out"

This where the "Burden of Proof" (sometimes called the onus of proof) comes into play. If you're* the one who makes a claim, you're* the one who's job it is to back it up with evidence. You* don't have the privilege to shift the burden onto others.

*(I'm using "you" in general here. It applies to anybody.)

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

So far, the evidence that the UAPs are extraterrestrial is not only not extraordinary, in my opinion it's not even compelling.

 

[alan123hk]

You* don't have the privilege to shift the burden onto others.

Please don't get me wrong, this is not intended to pass the burden on to anyone, nor does it ask anyone to do anything. It is just a pure way of expressing opinions. It is based on logical thinking and freedom of speech.

Maybe I should say that UFO enthusiasts may express in a way they like, such as..., instead of implying that they may prefer what others say.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"..intelligence officials have found no evidence that aerial phenomena witnessed by Navy pilots in recent years are alien spacecraft ..."

From the point of view of UFO enthusiasts, they may prefer the following expressions.
"We have not seen any direct evidence that those UFOs are not alien aircraft"
"At this stage, the possibility that those UFOs are alien high-tech aircraft cannot be completely ruled out"

I want to know what they would consider evidence of aliens given nothing but aerial contact.

The one male Navy pilot on 60 Minutes said the "tic tac" flew up directly in front of him. disappeared and then suddenly appeared some distance away on RADAR.

The Navy should either deny the story or release the video.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

An interesting read, this paper considers the logic of looking for ET crafts in our solar system
Inflation-Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation
JBIS, Vol. 58, pp. 43-50, 2005

 

[nsaspook]

I want to know what they would consider evidence of aliens given nothing but aerial contact.

The one male Navy pilot on 60 Minutes said the "tic tac" flew up directly in front of him. disappeared and then suddenly appeared some distance away on RADAR.

The Navy should either deny the story or release the video.

The 2004 "tic tac" video has been released.



Nothing to see here, move along.

 

[alan123hk]

I want to know what they would consider evidence of aliens given nothing but aerial contact.

They might think that only by seeing with their own eyes is the actual evidence of existence. Simply put, it means seeing real aliens walking around in front of them and talking with them, plus further medical examinations and so on. Just like bacteria and viruses, humans may have to see it with their own eyes to truly believe in its existence. This is not like the black hole, which can be inferred from theoretical physics, or simply feel its existence, such as air.

Just imagine, in this universe, even our Milky Way is just a grain of sand in the sea. If there are only creatures on Earth in this unimaginable huge universe, that is indeed a completely unreasonable state. The question now is whether the UFOs found on Earth are alien aircraft. Although I think this possibility is very small, I still keep an open mind.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/03/13-reasons-to-believe-aliens-are-real.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The 2004 "tic tac" video has been released.



Nothing to see here, move along.

I didn't realize that was the same event. That doesn't show much of what the pilot described. It is only tracking at a distance. It doesn't cover most of the event.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

They might think that only by seeing with their own eyes is the actual evidence of existence. Simply put, it means seeing real aliens walking around in front of them and talking with them, plus further medical examinations and so on. Just like bacteria and viruses, humans may have to see it with their own eyes to truly believe in its existence. This is not like the black hole, which can be inferred from theoretical physics, or simply feel its existence, such as air.

My question was, what would they consider evidence of ETs given that they only have videos of aerial contacts? My point is that I doubt any evidence of that kind would be considered evidence of ET. It is a bit disingenuous to claim they don't have evidence of ETs, when there is no evidence they would accept as evidence of ET. You can always dodge that by claiming it could be technical glitches or advanced human technology we don't know about. Which are the same explanations that have been used for 70 years. In fact these videos are boring compared to other well documented military encounters. For example
https://www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electronic-Reading-Room/FOIA-Reading-Room-Iran/FileId/122011/

 

[nsaspook]

I didn't realize that was the same event. That doesn't show much of what the pilot described. It is only tracking at a distance. It doesn't cover most of the event.

The simple truth is the pilot didn't actually see the things he described. His eye-witness (actually processed sensor data seen by his eyes) account, as is usually the case with most eye-witness accounts, is an unreliable account of what actually happened IMO.

What happens if we believe what the observers say happen instead of what an analysis of the sensor video segments show to have much more likely happened during this event.

"We examined the last 32 frames of the Nimitz video in which the Tic-Tac UAV accelerated to the left and the targeting system lost lock. "
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiQiuO7gYHxAhUUpZ4KHasJApU4ChAWMAJ6BAgFEAM&url=https://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/33/1/26/pdf&usg=AOvVaw2wIzhBMrfBy4dBV1ZHK6Px

Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles in the 2004 Nimitz Encounter

The fact that these UAVs display no flight surfaces or apparent propulsion mechanisms, and do not produce sonic booms or excessive heat that would be released given the hundreds of GigaWatts of power that we expect should be involved, strongly suggests that these anomalous craft are taking advantage of technology, engineering, or physics that we are unfamiliar with. For example, the Tic-Tac UAV dropping from 28,000ft to sea level in 0.78s involved at least 4.3×1011J of energy (assuming a mass of1000kg), which is equivalent to about 100 tons of TNT, or the yield of 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles, released in 3/4 of a second. One would have expected a catastrophic effect on the surrounding environment. This does not rule out the possibility that these UAVs have been developed by governments, organizations, or individuals on Earth, but it suggests that these UAVs and the technologies they employ may be of extraterrestrial origin. That being said,it should be strongly emphasized that proving that something is extraterrestrial would be extremely difficult, even if one had a craft in hand.

If we take that sentence and modify cause and effect to be a sensor artifact as the linked video explains, those 'impossible' flight characteristics no longer exist.

"We examined the last 32 frames of the Nimitz video in which the targeting system lost lock and Tic-Tac UAV accelerated to the left"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The simple truth is the pilot didn't actually see the things he described. His eye-witness (actually processed sensor data seen by his eyes) account, as is usually the case with most eye-witness accounts, is an unreliable account of what actually happened IMO.

What happens if we believe what the observers say happen instead of what an analysis of the sensor video segments show to have much more likely happened during this event.

The reported events clearly occurred before the events in the video released. It was observed down close the water by both pilots. It was creating a disturbance in the water or was above white water. It was close enough for the female pilot to describe the finish as white matte. The manner of motion was described as bouncing around. The male pilot descended to take a closer look. The object then flew up directly in front of him.

If we are going to just ignore everything that both pilots reported and only release a video of a distant object after those events occurred, this entire exercise is just mental masturbation. What about the rest of the videos and data? That is why I didn't even recognize this as the same event.

Oh yes, based on the description, there was no evidence of wings or a propulsion system.

 

[nsaspook]

I respect your point of view but for me it's a simple belief in physics. To take the pilots viewpoint here requires extraordinary classical physics we have no evidence happens in the way they describe anywhere in the universe. I don't ignore it, I just think they are wrong.