Topic: UAPs over America: real or balloons??

[Jiminy Cricket]

Top post, that, Riquende.

[Riquende]

Top post, that, Riquende.

You forget in this thread I'm in disguise, as Riquendo.

[thejbs]

Give me a list of humdrum explanations for every incident known to the US government?

The current model we have of physics does not explain the performance of some UAP; sudden acceleration, no contact surfaces, no sonic booms, trans-medium, up to six observables.

We've had swamp gas, balloons, drones, freak weather and other explanations.


They don't cut it in all the cases. 

This is the biggest fallacy. Until we can move this on, I can't be arsed litigating the same points over again, on here.

I believe Alan X has posted extensively on this, going back a few pages. Plenty of humdrum explanations that fit well within the bounds of reality. Did you miss that or are you dismissing it?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Not being funny but fuck me

[Riquende]

Did you miss that or are you dismissing it?

Alan's posts are usually just dismissed. There was one last year where Alan picked everything apart on a long post and lionel couldn't even do the courtesy of addressing any of it and instead just posted "Nice try Alan" before moving on with the same absolute blather.

It's sad to see, despite obsvious enthusiasm I think that lionel genuinely just doesn't really know how to discuss any of this, so whenever the conversation gets a bit active they make a few attempts to keep it in the realm of conspiracy theories, a few attempts to recruit into their cult ("you need to read their books") and then make some half-hearted retraction along the lines of "of course the science is important and we need evidence" (despite revealing previously that they don't really understand either) before disappearing again for a bit.

And the absolute saddest thing is that if a UFO was suddenly seen in our skies (and accepted as such) then lionel would be the least excited person in here, because we'd all be in amazement whilst they'd be "But did the US Navy know about it guys? Guys? This is important!"

[Bobber.]

I'm extremely secure in my conviction that only one of us, myself, has ever contributed anything worthwhile in this thread, whilst you just flail around with the same base, dishonest nonsense every few months before eventually spitting out your dummy and flouncing out frustrated again ("I'm not going to post about this again until there's some hard evidence"). I think I first posted in here nearly 18 months ago and in all that time you've yet to move past "I can't see why these people would lie".

Let's try to take some of what you post at face value, and see if you can actually engage with it or just run off and hide behind your favourite grifters' coattails again, shall we?

Perfect, lovely claim here. Any scientific model could be undermined and overthrown by evidence that disproves the underlying hypotheses. It doesn't matter how entrenched that model is, literally any of it is up for questioning at any time. This is great stuff, it's the basis for how we interrogate the universe around us to find out what makes it tick. So, with that in mind, you're saying, (near) verbatim, "The current model we have of physics does not explain this".

Let's disregard the obvious and important retort that the "this" we're talking about is unsubstantiated anyway - claims people have made about what they've seen, pictoral or video evidence that isn't clear what exactly is being depicted, so on. You have to initially believe that there's a "this" in the first place. This is a hurdle that you haven't yet begun to cross, but I'm going to do you a solid, because deep down I do always feel a bit bad for you after you take another silly trouncing in here.

Anyway, so we move on to a scientific view of what you're saying. That our understanding of physics may be incorrect based on some observed phenomena.

What happens next?

Well, we need to be able to turn our observations into hypotheses. And then we need to develop a method to test those hypotheses in a controlled, repeatable state. The hypotheses themselves must be falsifiable, and the methods we develop must allow for falsification. When those methods fail to falsify our hypotheses, then it gets exciting! We can publish our findings & methodology and invite other scientists to carry out their own tests to attempt to falsify our hypotheses. As more and more of them fail to do so then our ideas will start to be accepted, and any established scientific consensus may be overturned by our discoveries. Neat, huh?

So aperson that I find irritatingst all these esteemed writers you so often cite, how many of them have advanced their claims significantly through the scientific method? I know it's a bit tedious, long winded and requiring effort compared to just knocking out and charging for exciting books about cover-ups, but it's the accepted method of determining the truth of the universe, and any of them that could actually do it, and shift the paradigm of our very understanding of physics, would become a household name (scientifically speaking). Maybe they're not secure enough in their convictions that there's anything to actually research.

Why cant you push back against the UAP topic without constantly belittling Lionel?

You make some valid points that i can see someone skeptical of the current goings on would think and ask. There are of course equally valid repostes to some of your points, I would care to argue them, if your whole tone throughout your 18 months in this thread wasnt that of a total wanker. The only reason i am replying to this thread is that i can't stand bullying of any kind, and you, in your own little snidey smart arse way, are a bully.

[Son of Spion]

Why cant you push back against the UAP topic without constantly belittling Lionel?

You make some valid points that i can see someone skeptical of the current goings on would think and ask. There are of course equally valid repostes to some of your points, I would care to argue them, if your whole tone throughout your 18 months in this thread wasnt that of a total wanker. The only reason i am replying to this thread is that i can't stand bullying of any kind, and you, in your own little snidey smart arse way, are a bully.

Good post. I'm interested in this topic and would have liked to have contributed but the thread is a shit show of arrogance and belittling which I find distasteful. I expected so much better from some posters in this thread because otherwise they are good contributors.

The fact is, no one knows the absolute truth on this. We're specks of dust who probably know 0.01% of the reality of the universe. In the grand scheme of things we know the square root of fuck all. As a species we are so very young, yet too many of us think we know it all. Well we don't. We only know what we've discovered so far, and I'm sure we have a hell of a lot more to learn too.

I'm glad it's not just me that sees the treatment Lionel gets in this thread as often rather distasteful.

[John C]

Just to respond to the bullying allegation, as someone trained in dealing with bullying matters. You might find someone's post impolite, snarky, even rude. But it doesn't constitute bullying.
Bullying is when the engagement is one sided and the victim cannot remove themselves from the situation or avoid the harmful actions of another person.
Other people will define it differently and interpret it their own way.
But on RAWK you can log off or not post in a place that might attract attention.
I'm not dismissing your good intentioned concerns Bob, but having supported people who have been bullied I take exception to people calling people a bully in some instances.

As always though folks, play nice, play the ball not the poster.

[Bobber.]

Thanks Son and John. I’m sure Lionel can speak for himself as well, I don’t really want to speak on behalf of another poster.

It speaks to the attitudes in this thread by some, that a poster I respect above any other, Sons, feels like he hasn’t wanted to contribute. I would have enjoyed discussing the topic with Sons.

Perhaps we can draw a line under the last 18 months and start afresh.

[thejbs]

Good post. I'm interested in this topic and would have liked to have contributed but the thread is a shit show of arrogance and belittling which I find distasteful. I expected so much better from some posters in this thread because otherwise they are good contributors.

The fact is, no one knows the absolute truth on this. We're specks of dust who probably know 0.01% of the reality of the universe. In the grand scheme of things we know the square root of fuck all. As a species we are so very young, yet too many of us think we know it all. Well we don't. We only know what we've discovered so far, and I'm sure we have a hell of a lot more to learn too.

I'm glad it's not just me that sees the treatment Lionel gets in this thread as often rather distasteful.

You’re absolutely right that no one knows the absolute truth, but in most cases there’s a humdrum explanation and a supernatural one. Most UAP followers go straight to the supernatural without entertaining the humdrum. No skeptic on here has been arrogant, if anything we’re as much followers as Lionel is. With the difference being, we’re following the science. That’s not arrogance, but rather the admission that better minds than ours are more likely correct.

I’d love us to be in contact with alien life. I’d love an Arrival scenario. But reality wins. In 75 odd years of ufology, not one shred of measurable evidence, physical or otherwise, has emerged. Not one clear photo or video of UAP in a time of cameras everywhere. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[John C]

Thanks Son and John. I’m sure Lionel can speak for himself as well, I don’t really want to speak on behalf of another poster.

We've exchanged pm's, lionel is fine mate.

[Bobber.]

There's lots of aspects to this and different lenses to look at it through and each one can be a valid and honest conversation. You can look at it through the strict lense of the science that we know today, but with that, i see some holes with only looking and talking about it through this lense. Science depends on having the right tools to be able to take measurements and collect data. Unfortunately, some of the best tools we have such as in the military or NASA are classified and thus so is the data they collect. There might also be tools that we just do not possess yet in order to better detect UAPs. There was of course a time, before the invention of microscopes, there were invisible things all around us, that we were completely unaware of. Yet microorganisms make up the majority of biomass on the planet. So science is only as good as the tools we have.

Thus back to UAPS, we are left to make our our conclusions and at the moment, most of that comes from the testimony of witnesses, of which there are a growing number. Only today, retired United States Army lieutenant general H.R McMasters said on a talk show "There are things that cannot be explained" "There are phenomena that have been witnessed by multiple people that are just inexplicable by the science available to us"

There are so many high ranking individuals saying similar things and that's why the conversation is being taken seriously. But the individuals coming forward are only one small part of the broader topic.

I think all aspects of the topic should be open to an honest conversation and free from ridicule and stigma that makes people afraid to talk about it. Why cant we discuss it from the view point of current known science, or from a philosophical standpoint, what it may mean for the human race, or theoretical, or the current push for Disclosure going through congress with the reintroduction of the UAPDA bill. Why cant we even go into the realms of fun speculation?

[Ziltoid]

Not being funny but fuck me

You praying for another alien abduction with the probes Andy?

[thejbs]

 "There are phenomena that have been witnessed by multiple people that are just inexplicable by the science available to us"


I take issue with this. In most cases explanations are given but rejected. Especially those related to psychology and human error.

[Bobber.]

"There are phenomena that have been witnessed by multiple people that are just inexplicable by the science available to us"


I take issue with this. In most cases explanations are given but rejected. Especially those related to psychology and human error.

You’re correct in that most cases have mundane explanations, I don’t think most objective people would argue with that. My presumption with McMasters comment (and similar observations by other people) is that he is talking about the stuff that doesn’t fall into this category.

The whole issue needs getting to the bottom of. That’s why I support efforts to find out the facts and truth behind all the whistleblower and witness claims and allegations.

[Jiminy Cricket]

You’re correct in that most cases have mundane explanations, I don’t think most objective people would argue with that. My presumption with McMasters comment (and similar observations by other people) is that he is talking about the stuff that doesn’t fall into this category.

The whole issue needs getting to the bottom of. That’s why I support efforts to find out the facts and truth behind all the whistleblower and witness claims and allegations.

But why assume the explanation to be supernatural? Just because the explanation is unknown, it does not mean that it is not mundane. Why must it be 'governmental coverups' or fantastical explanations for some?

[[new username under construction]]

I see Lue Elizondo is now doing a tour (honest not grifting) What's he gonna say if he has an NDA?

[Bobber.]

But why assume the explanation to be supernatural? Just because the explanation is unknown, it does not mean that it is not mundane. Why must it be 'governmental coverups' or fantastical explanations for some?

I did not say the explanations to be supernatural, a government cover up or fantastical. But I think the cases these types of people are referring to are not the ordinary “most” cases types that jbs mentions. The explanations are literally unknown in these instances.

It’s true that one of the central claims of the whistleblowers and witnesses are making is that of a government cover up of a secret “Legacy Program” of crash retrievals and biologics and that "some in government" has known about it since at least the 50s.

I don’t know if there is any truth to this or not. None of us do (yet) but it seems to me that one has to accept a conspiracy explanation to talk for or talk against these allegations.

[Bobber.]

I see Lue Elizondo is now doing a tour (honest not grifting) What's he gonna say if he has an NDA?

I think grifting gets chucked around far too much nowadays and is rather a lazy accusation in a lot of cases. I think a serious claim of grifting would be better made backed up with a breakdown of how much a person, in this instance, Lue has financially lost vs gained over the last 8 years. It may surprise either way.

Now Lue may be one of many things people have accused him off over the years, such as a disinfo agent, liar, grifter. I don't know. I have always leaned towards he is genuine and nothing has changed at this point, but it's unfortunate that he is unable to prove his claims because A) he would go to prison and B) he is not willing to break his security oath.

Perhaps if the UAPDA act gets passed in a couple of months, we may start to learn more if it forces the transparency it promises.

I don't think the topic has moved forward that much over the last 9 months, but some things have been rumoured and mooted to be coming down the pipeline between now and next couple of months.

[thejbs]

You’re correct in that most cases have mundane explanations, I don’t think most objective people would argue with that. My presumption with McMasters comment (and similar observations by other people) is that he is talking about the stuff that doesn’t fall into this category.

The whole issue needs getting to the bottom of. That’s why I support efforts to find out the facts and truth behind all the whistleblower and witness claims and allegations.

Still not having that. One of the things McMasters repeatedly does is push the fact the ‘witnesses’ are navy personnel and pilots as opposed to farmers. He then dismisses that things such as parallax effect are the cause of sightings because these humans are too special to fall for things that normal humans can.

Can science explain how an object can manoeuvre in the ways that the witnesses believe? Probably not. But can science explain how the pilots mistakenly believed what the saw? Yes.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I did not say the explanations to be supernatural, a government cover up or fantastical. But I think the cases these types of people are referring to are not the ordinary “most” cases types that jbs mentions. The explanations are literally unknown in these instances.

It’s true that one of the central claims of the whistleblowers and witnesses are making is that of a government cover up of a secret “Legacy Program” of crash retrievals and biologics and that "some in government" has known about it since at least the 50s.

I don’t know if there is any truth to this or not. None of us do (yet) but it seems to me that one has to accept a conspiracy explanation to talk for or talk against these allegations.

I did not say that you did. But why are there demands for investigations? Why are their no demands for investigations for answers to why there is apparent matter-antimatter asymmetry? I'd like to know the answers to this and many other questions, but I am hardly going to demand an investigation by the Government and/or accuse them of cover-ups simply because there are unexplained phenomena. It's weird.

[Bobber.]

I did not say that you did. But why are there demands for investigations? Why are their no demands for investigations for answers to why there is apparent matter-antimatter asymmetry? I'd like to know the answers to this and many other questions, but I am hardly going to demand an investigation by the Government and/or accuse them of cover-ups simply because there are unexplained phenomena. It's weird.

I would argue there's at least two major angles as to why investigations are being demanded. One would be from a national security perspective. Just this year, Langley AFB was subjected to "waves of unidentified drone incursions" over weeks. This seems to be a regular occurance going back decades, where the military doesn't seem to have control over its own sensitive airspace. Prime examples being Nimitz 2004 and Roosevelt 2014.

Secondly, these accusations of cover ups, go back decades. It's not like governments don't have a huge history of covering up criminal activity of their own organisations. To be honest, the claim of this "Legacy Program" of secret UFO crash retrievals, back engineering and exploitation of technology of unknown origin and recovering biologics is fecking wild, no denying it, but Congress and The Senate are making laws designed to get to the bottom of it.

There's a segment from 1:40:00 in this podcast that explains and summarizes well, the ins and outs of what's currently going on with the proposed investigation and legislation behind it and the objectives for the rest of the year. The "coup de grace" comments are very interesting. Make of it, what you will, but yes it's all weird.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdvupw79Q2U

[Bobber.]

Pines expands on his “coup de grace” comments on a later podcast where he says, he can’t say who it is, as the persons name coming out now may change the persons decision to come forwards “but it’s someone way above Grusch and Nell in seniority” and he said it’s “someone of national renown and people would know if they watch the news. He said the level of person and sort of career they have had, if they come out and say the sort of thing they say (ie backing up Grusch/Nell claims) “that next morning talk shows would be like what, what that person just say”

[Jiminy Cricket]

Still not having that. One of the things McMasters repeatedly does is push the fact the ‘witnesses’ are navy personnel and pilots as opposed to farmers. He then dismisses that things such as parallax effect are the cause of sightings because these humans are too special to fall for things that normal humans can.

Can science explain how an object can manoeuvre in the ways that the witnesses believe? Probably not. But can science explain how the pilots mistakenly believed what the saw? Yes.

Precisely. Why the need (by some) to automatically reach for the least probable explanation?

[[new username under construction]]

I'm not exactly sure science can explain what Fravor saw though can it? I mean literally a tik tak shaped object hovering over water then moving off around him

[Jiminy Cricket]

I'm not exactly sure science can explain what Fravor saw though can it? I mean literally a tik tak shaped object hovering over water then moving off around him

You mean, this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus

[Bobber.]

I think Fravor and the Nimitz case can be argued back and forth forever if people want, especially in lieu of all the facts that seemingly haven’t been released from it. Some people say they have seen the classified unreleased extra 4 minutes (does this show the “whole fleet of them” from the ASA that the pilot can be heard claiming?) others point to the missing radar and other sensor data that was allegedly taken from the ship and has since gone missing from wherever it was stored (just the tic tac time frame is supposedly missing)

Mick West has been arguing back and forth with Marik Von Rennenkampff and “The Cholla”, a scientist buddy of Marik on UFO Twitter almost daily for a year. I’m fecked if I can make head or tails of where it’s at now. But it looks like Marik and Cholla debunked all of Wests arguments from what I can see looking in from the periphery. Marik and MW also did a podcast together where they argued it out.

[[new username under construction]]

You mean, this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus

No there was no video of the bit he's talking about, I think when he (they) first encountered it hovering stationary near the coast, as far as I know no one has debunked that. I could have missed it of course

[Jiminy Cricket]

No there was no video of the bit he's talking about, I think when he (they) first encountered it hovering stationary near the coast, as far as I know no one has debunked that. I could have missed it of course

Ah. So no physical evidence, just someone claiming fantastical stuff.

[BER]

Ah. So no physical evidence, just someone claiming fantastical stuff.

[[new username under construction]]

Ah. So no physical evidence, just someone claiming fantastical stuff.

Yeah pretty much but again we're back to reliability of the witness, so for me he (and his copilot) are pretty credible and wasn't mistaking a plane

[Jiminy Cricket]

Yeah pretty much but again we're back to reliability of the witness, so for me he (and his copilot) are pretty credible and wasn't mistaking a plane

Still not having that. One of the things McMasters repeatedly does is push the fact the ‘witnesses’ are navy personnel and pilots as opposed to farmers. He then dismisses that things such as parallax effect are the cause of sightings because these humans are too special to fall for things that normal humans can.

Can science explain how an object can manoeuvre in the ways that the witnesses believe? Probably not. But can science explain how the pilots mistakenly believed what the saw? Yes.

[Bobber.]

https://youtu.be/YN2Le9dp_Ww?si=RFgWx62T02SaC5Im

A new podcast with Matthew Pines I’m finding fascinating. It’s only about 20% on the UAP topic, he does talk about it from his area of expertise which is from the perspective of the workings of the political apparatus and the geopolitical and geostrategical reasons potentially behind the Disclosure efforts. But the podcast goes more into other areas such as theories on consciousness and the nature of reality, which he goes into from both a physics and a philosophical perspective

[Jiminy Cricket]

https://youtu.be/YN2Le9dp_Ww?si=RFgWx62T02SaC5Im

A new podcast with Matthew Pines I’m finding fascinating. It’s only about 20% on the UAP topic, he does talk about it from his area of expertise which is from the perspective of the workings of the political apparatus and the geopolitical and geostrategical reasons potentially behind the Disclosure efforts. But the podcast goes more into other areas such as theories on consciousness and the nature of reality, which he goes into from both a physics and a philosophical perspective

It is 3h10m long. There is zero chance of me watching that. If you care to post a timestamp for a particular point, I might then take a look.

[Riquende]

A sitting United States Senator, just recently on the topic of UAPS when told by a journalist there were no credible reports:

"Well first of all officials have not said it's not true, they've said they don't have all the evidence. But we've heard from a number of witnesses on the ground, both first hand and second hand reports saying this stuff is happening, so they very clearly, meaning the people on the ground dealing with this, think that it is happening. And I think that it's important for the media to get on the ground and cover this stuff for themselves when you have a lot of people saying "This is what I saw" or "There's no explanation for this", this is crazy stuff and whether those exact rumours turn out to be mostly true, somewhat true or whatever the case may be, we need a full investigation of what's going on."

If you were nodding along to that thinking yes, this guy is on our side and it's about time more of them were calling for some action then I have to disappoint you. That was indeed a US Senator this week (apart from the very last line which I ad-libbed as went off into electioneering), but it was JD Vance talking about whether Haitians were eating pets, and stealing geese from ponds and slaughtering them in front of locals, claims that he's been ridiculed for.

(By the way guys, JD Vance is a US Senator and currently running for VP as Trump's pick. As you've claimed complete ignorance of US politics previously I thought I'd help you out, but if you need me to explain Trump to you as well then that's a tall order.)

I was assuming that after the entertaining but off topic diversions earlier in the week we're a bit closer to maybe having an informed discussion about this subject then but wait no, apparently Bobber has just asked  people to watch a 3 hour video by someone called "Mr Obnoxious" with a title graphic "The Aliens are Here" (and apparently an enthusiasm for Bitcoin goes hand in hand in all this somehow? Shocked I tell you).

So which side of the eternal UAP flip-flop are we currently on guys, "Waiting to follow where the evidence leads" or "The Aliens are Here" ?

[thejbs]

On the point of authority, a former president and several high ranking people in the US government have said that Haitians in Ohio are eating people's pets. There's no evidence of it but these people are insisting it's true. In fact, there are claimed witnesses to it in the constituency. Some authorities in Ohio have said it is baseless and without evidence, but of course they would say that to cover it up.

So, it must be true, right?

[Bobber.]

It is 3h10m long. There is zero chance of me watching that. If you care to post a timestamp for a particular point, I might look then.

If you want to cut a chunk out, start from 51:00 but it’s still going to be more than 2 hrs. I could have listened for 10 hours, I found it such an engaging discussion and the time went fast. But depends what you like.

[Jiminy Cricket]

A sitting United States Senator, just recently on the topic of UAPS when told by a journalist there were no credible reports:

"Well first of all officials have not said it's not true, they've said they don't have all the evidence. But we've heard from a number of witnesses on the ground, both first hand and second hand reports saying this stuff is happening, so they very clearly, meaning the people on the ground dealing with this, think that it is happening. And I think that it's important for the media to get on the ground and cover this stuff for themselves when you have a lot of people saying "This is what I saw" or "There's no explanation for this", this is crazy stuff and whether those exact rumours turn out to be mostly true, somewhat true or whatever the case may be, we need a full investigation of what's going on."

If you were nodding along to that thinking yes, this guy is on our side and it's about time more of them were calling for some action then I have to disappoint you. That was indeed a US Senator this week (apart from the very last line which I ad-libbed as went off into electioneering), but it was JD Vance talking about whether Haitians were eating pets, and stealing geese from ponds and slaughtering them in front of locals, claims that he's been ridiculed for.

(By the way guys, JD Vance is a US Senator and currently running for VP as Trump's pick. As you've claimed complete ignorance of US politics previously I thought I'd help you out, but if you need me to explain Trump to you as well then that's a tall order.)

I was assuming that after the entertaining but off topic diversions earlier in the week we're a bit closer to maybe having an informed discussion about this subject then but wait no, apparently Bobber has just asked  people to watch a 3 hour video by someone called "Mr Obnoxious" with a title graphic "The Aliens are Here" (and apparently an enthusiasm for Bitcoin goes hand in hand in all this somehow? Shocked I tell you).

So which side of the eternal UAP flip-flop are we currently on guys, "Waiting to follow where the evidence leads" or "The Aliens are Here" ?

[Jiminy Cricket]

If you want to cut a chunk out, start from 51:00 but it’s still going to be more than 2 hrs. I could have listened for 10 hours, I found it such an engaging discussion and the time went fast. But depends what you like.

Yeah, no. Sorry. As I said, if there is a particular point (with a timestamp), I might take a look then.

[Riquende]

On the point of authority, a former president and several high ranking people in the US government have said that Haitians in Ohio are eating people's pets. There's no evidence of it but these people are insisting it's true. In fact, there are claimed witnesses to it in the constituency. Some authorities in Ohio have said it is baseless and without evidence, but of course they would say that to cover it up.

So, it must be true, right?

Beat you to it dude...

But it won't matter. When I put it to them last year that high ranking politicians & even generals, and highly-accredited lawyers were all taking part in pushing the obvious Qanon falsehoods they just claimed to not know who any of them were. I mean they could have gone and looked for themeselves, but they have such an interesting lack of intellectual curiosity in these matters (which is probably necessary when you're clinging to fringe beliefs).