Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Navy pilot saw object 'not of this world'

473 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

stereologist
23 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

That is correct actually. That is why we must also judge the quality and competency of the experiencers before forming our position.

Assigning credible to the person avoids the analysis of the evidence. Then again you assign credible to anything you like.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UFOwatcher

I expect a more mundane answer such as we are test flying brand new advanced super duper stealth aircraft that you might see. However I have a box of Tic-Tacs That i've been watching none have moved more than a few inches and none have levitated... Remain calm, this too will pass...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
21 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I only hear that from those that believe in pretty much nothing. I provide quality reasoning for each position I take.

And do you have an argument against what I said (or just me personally to deflect every subject we discuss).

You mean those that don't believe in nonsense. You mean those that don't believe in stupidity. You mean those that decide to make a decision based on evidence rather than being foolish. You mean those that choose to use reason instead of whimsy.

You provide no reasoning whatsoever for the positions you take. You take a position and base it on some vague glittering generality. Please start posting evidence to support your positions.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

An object that hits mach 10 has to produce a sonic boom. Is there mention of that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom

Quote

Ground width of the boom exposure area is approximately 1 statute mile (1.6 km) for each 1,000 feet (300 m) of altitude (the width is about five times the altitude); that is, an aircraft flying supersonic at 30,000 feet (9,100 m) will create a lateral boom spread of about 30 miles (48 km). For steady supersonic flight, the boom is described as a carpet boom since it moves with the aircraft as it maintains supersonic speed and altitude. Some manoeuvers, diving, acceleration or turning, can cause focusing of the boom.

The site was 60 miles away from the fleet, possibly in range to detect the sonic booms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bison
1 hour ago, simplybill said:

It's the coincidence of the timing that has my curiosity working overtime. The X43a is touted as being able to achieve 7200 mph speeds, and then an object is sighted that allegedly attains speeds of 7200 mph and performs impressive stunts. It sounds suspiciously like military 'one-up-manship'.  But like you say, we should've seen more evidence of that technology by now.

The 7,200 mile per hour figure was merely a 'guesstimate' based on the distance that appeared to be covered, 16 miles, and the time of travel, which was said to be 'within seconds'. I interpreted 'within seconds' as 8 seconds, which seemed a a reasonable, conservative figure. If it was, instead, 6 seconds, the apparent speed would rise to 10,800 miles per hour. If the time of transit was 12  seconds, then 5,900 miles per hour.

Besides all that, as PersonFromPorlock pointed out, we aren't certain that it was only one object that was tracked through the entire 16 miles.   There seems to have been a strong impression in those concerned, that only one object was involved. It's conceivable, though, that each sweep of the radar, which occurred at 5 second intervals, detected a different object, each at a lower altitude than the one before it.  

Many such seeming descents of objects from above 80,00 feet to near sea level were observed in the days before. The behavior of multiple objects that stationed themselves sequentially over a few seconds of time, through a declining range of altitudes seems at least as remarkable, and as unnatural appearing, in its own way, as a single object descending at very high speed. 

Edited by bison
improved word choice
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bison
1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Are you suggesting that the aviator is right about their identifications every time?

No, I am not. Several pilots who saw the object, besides the one mentioned by name, all observed but were unable to identify the object. Their collective impressions make a stronger case that the object was not a conventional one that was misperceived. The 'impossible' speeds of turns, and departure of the object take this beyond the issue of observing and characterizing the object itself. Such movements do not lend themselves to conventional explanations, either.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, stereologist said:

You mean those that don't believe in nonsense. You mean those that don't believe in stupidity. You mean those that decide to make a decision based on evidence rather than being foolish. You mean those that choose to use reason instead of whimsy.

You provide no reasoning whatsoever for the positions you take. You take a position and base it on some vague glittering generality. Please start posting evidence to support your positions.

Like the poster I sent that to, you are more interested in attacking me personally than actually discussing the subject of the thread with me.

The mods and I are getting sick of this.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
35 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Like the poster I sent that to, you are more interested in attacking me personally than actually discussing the subject of the thread with me.

The mods and I are getting sick of this.

you call it attacking-- i call it challenging 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
5 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

you call it attacking-- i call it challenging 

Re-read his post and tell me what issue he was challenging. It’s all vague meaningless attack.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Re-read his post and tell me what issue he was challenging. It’s all vague meaningless attack.

no it's not, i feel no need to re-read anything- you sound like an old woman

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 hour ago, bison said:

No, I am not. Several pilots who saw the object, besides the one mentioned by name, all observed but were unable to identify the object. Their collective impressions make a stronger case that the object was not a conventional one that was misperceived. The 'impossible' speeds of turns, and departure of the object take this beyond the issue of observing and characterizing the object itself. Such movements do not lend themselves to conventional explanations, either.      

Which report claims impossible speeds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Like the poster I sent that to, you are more interested in attacking me personally than actually discussing the subject of the thread with me.

The mods and I are getting sick of this.

 

Your post discussed you and I responded to that post. The only other thing in your post was a personal attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
23 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Re-read his post and tell me what issue he was challenging. It’s all vague meaningless attack.

Re-read your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bison
55 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Which report claims impossible speeds?

An article referring to the 'impossibly fast' movement of the objects was linked to in post #33 on page 2 of this thread. That remark is in paragraph seven of the article.  I give the link again, below:

http://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-edition/

 

Edited by bison
removed non-working link address, adjusted text, added working link address

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

bison, he asked which *report*.. that generally means a verified navy/air/force/etc document.  That site is NOT an official site and the content is clearly anecdotal and uncited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bison

I consider a responsible journalistic account, by a person who was in a position to have heard the account of the incident from the witness, to be a report. I watched Commander Fravor interviewed on CNN yesterday, during which he confirmed the details of the account, including the fact that the object moved, at times, with extremely high speed. 

Edited by bison
added information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
18 minutes ago, bison said:

I consider a responsible journalistic account, by a person who was in a position to have heard the account of the incident from the witness, to be a report. 

I would have to say that the "impossible fast" comment is hyperbole. Having reread it I recall thinking that a far fetched comment at the time.

An old joke back in my climbing days was the definition for an interesting climb. An interesting climb is something impossible you are watching someone do. In this case the interesting maneuver is something impossible you are watching happening.

Apparently, it is not  impossible since it was done. That assumes of course that the radar was recording an actual physical object.

If we go just below the impossible comment we see a photo of a plane. Below that the next photo is an IR image. That is from the Mexican air force UFO fiasco which is showing oil well burn offs in the Gulf of Mexico. Checks the latitude and Longitude given on the image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bison

There are three stock photos of aircraft in the article, with no obvious direct connection to the 2004 incident. They appear to be included to illustrate the type of aircraft involved. There is also a photo of a 2012 UFO sighting. The fact that a infrared image of alleged, and later refuted UFOs in Campeche, Mexico is also included is of no greater relevance to the case under discussion, than the other images. It appears merely to give a general sense of what military infrared image of heat-emitting objects look like. There is no claim or caption indicating that this image was connected with the incident in which Commander Fravor participated.    

Edited by bison
stylistic improvement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.
4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

 I provide quality reasoning for each position I take.

Well, not in this case. All you said in response to another poster was quote; "My point exactly,....after hundreds I am a believer."

So to be fair, that seems to be more of a statement, than any 'quality reasoning' as you put it.

4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

And do you have an argument against what I said (or just me personally to deflect every subject we discuss).

But where are you actually discussing anything?...all I'm seeing from you is defensiveness.

Besides, I think @stereologist pretty much covered things very well (read below again)..

You mean those that don't believe in nonsense. You mean those that don't believe in stupidity. You mean those that decide to make a decision based on evidence rather than being foolish. You mean those that choose to use reason instead of whimsy.You provide no reasoning whatsoever for the positions you take. You take a position and base it on some vague glittering generality. Please start posting evidence to support your positions

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NightScreams

I don't get the debate here? It's a 490 page, official report and 3 officially released, declassified, raw footage from the Pentagon for the purpose of public viewing for the education of pilots aviation safety. It doesn't get any more official than that in regards to the military. Otherwise we should cal into question our entire nation's military history.

Facts:

  • a Pentagon 5 yr program that investigates “anomalous aerospace threats”. What does that mean? It means anomalous aerospace threats are investigated.
  • Intelligence officer Luis Elizondo recently resigned, now works for Tom Delonge's (lead singer of Blink 182) company. Allegedly one of several high ranking officials working for him.
  • The UAP used GIMBAL, with the worlds most advanced sensors. (Photo below) and is in "White hot mode". GIMBAL's chain of custody documentation means that it is officially designated as credible, authentic evidence. (in this case evidence that it's tracking something unidentifiable defying known flight characteristics).
  • The pilots aboard the SH are not only highly capable either pilots, but are trained observers skilled at scrutinizing their observations and targets in oder to ascertain friend or foe. They are specifically trained to look for discreet changes in shape, size position, flight attitude, and speed in order to ermine the nature of a threat. Also are trained to discern nuanced details that fe people would normally recognize along with the ability to handle stress and maintain radio discipline....so these aren't just some drug runners from Jamaica making their testimony more valid over any other observer of this footage.
  • At .27, it's noted the object makes a series of distinct orientations and changes orientation by almost 100 degrees despite the head winds. That means that it's inconsistent with the principles of aerodynaics and indicative of a vacuum environment.

So all this means that no known craft can duplicate those flight characteristics and the video evidence doesn't get any more validated than GIMBAL. For all anyone knows, it belongs to the Russians or it's some kind of lightning ball or other natural phenomenon but that's why no one is saying where this object comes from because no one knows. It's all laid out right in front of us in a nice convenient package and anything beyond that is all conjecture. It's said whoever owns the skies wins the war, so if Russia owns this then it puts the rest of us in quite a bad situation.

Gimbal+Picture+1.png?format=1500w

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
35 minutes ago, Astra. said:

Well, not in this case. All you said in response to another poster was quote; "My point exactly,....after hundreds I am a believer."

So to be fair, that seems to be more of a statement, than any 'quality reasoning' as you put it.

But where are you actually discussing anything?...all I'm seeing from you is defensiveness.

Besides, I think @stereologist pretty much covered things very well (read below again)..

 

 

I was commenting on another post. Each post and each thread does not start the discussion of UFOs from scratch.  Discussions can take many angles on the subject. But yes, one reason contributing to my belief in UFO's being from non-human intelligence is the quantity, quality and consistency of the hundreds of reports. 

And the rest of  those personal attacks I needn't respond  to.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane
20 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

About 13 years of replaying it in his head, and the necessary exaggeration to get his 15 minutes of fame, secure in the knowledge that his memories don't have to match any other evidence, nor does he have anything in the way of evidence, not even printed reports of the incident (correct me if I'm wrong) to offer....

Pilots are taught to assume everything is a threat until it can be positively identified.  They are not better observers except for perhaps recognising aircraft silhouettes, nor are they immune from the ravages of old age, celebrity seeking or exaggeration, nor declining memories or any of the other things that make anecdotes/ testimony worth exactly what you just paid for it..

 

There is nothing to rebut, and i would offer my professional opinion as:

He may have seen something interesting.

 

next..

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma

 

28 minutes ago, NightScreams said:

I don't get the debate here? It's a 490 page, official report and 3 officially released, declassified, raw footage from the Pentagon for the purpose of public viewing for the education of pilots aviation safety

How do you know 'for a fact' that what we are seeing is legitimate raw footage from the Pentagon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
4 hours ago, NightScreams said:

I don't get the debate here? It's a 490 page, official report and 3 officially released, declassified, raw footage from the Pentagon for the purpose of public viewing for the education of pilots aviation safety.

 

WOAH there Nelly.  I find it rather astonishing you would make this claim about a 490 page report, and not link to it.  I see nothing in the original article, or in any post since the OP, referring to this document.  And now you're madly quoting from it as if it directly refers to the questions being asked, yet you are NOT answering the questions being asked!!!

This approach seems very familiar, but only from those pushing tinfoilhattery....

 CITE the report - while you're at it, give us the relevant page numbers, and let's have a long hard look at the document's provenance, as well as all the context,to see how accurately it is being represented....

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

For anyone actually serious about investigating this, try here:

https://www.metabunk.org/nyt-video-of-u-s-navy-jet-encounter-with-unknown-object.t9333/

Note that we don't have a date and time, the footage has NOT been officially identified by DoD, and all the silly claims about high speeds are to do with radar blips that might be several objects.  The footage shown is perfectly consistent with a Russian fighter jet that was monitoring military exercises.

 

Tangling up different reports is how these folks work, and guess who is Luis Elzondo's new best friend?  Leslie Kean.  Next we'll see Jaime Maussan, and that will scream credibility...

I'll give delonge one bit of credit, tho - he did manage to fool several large media outlets into running this mangled and ill-researched garbage.

 

And allow me to be specific - we have NOTHING to evidence 'impossible' speeds or direction changes, except lame anecdotes.  If these objects were being tracked, and clearly at least the one shown above was, all you need to show us is the actual recorded tracking info... but if it was doing impossible things, that will contradict what is shown in the FLIR tracking.  Oh dear.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.