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
7 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

How does it seem to be that? According to the testimony if your theory is correct  several pilots must have misidentified it. NTM the fact that they were sent there by the Navy cause of things the Navy it’s self couldn’t identify, for weeks. 

Im pretty sure the Navy would be able to figure out if there had been submarines in the area. Especially over weeks of radar sightings. 

The fact that planes were sent out is SOP, standard operating procedure. Pilots were able to follow the target. Remember that one person with an idea can seed it into other minds. I see that when people claim to be viewing UFOs (satellites) in the night sky. Plotting the plane and target and making use of the direction the camera pointed makes it appear that a plane followed a plane.

Submarines are located by sonobuoys. Back then it would likely have been deployed by P-3. You don't send a fighter to find a sub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
1 hour ago, stereologist said:

The fact that planes were sent out is SOP, standard operating procedure. Pilots were able to follow the target. Remember that one person with an idea can seed it into other minds. I see that when people claim to be viewing UFOs (satellites) in the night sky. Plotting the plane and target and making use of the direction the camera pointed makes it appear that a plane followed a plane.

Submarines are located by sonobuoys. Back then it would likely have been deployed by P-3. You don't send a fighter to find a sub.

People not knowing that they are seeing a satellite is hardly the same thing as a group of experienced pilots unable to identify an object, that hovered then flew off “like a bullet”. 

I agree you don’t send a fighter to find a submarine. Which of course can only lead to the conclusion that what they were being sent investigate wasn’t a submarine. 

I’m not sure exactly where this happened, but if it was in American waters, whatever was there wasn’t military. Otherwise the military wouldn’t have sent anyone out to investigate. 

There is only two conclusions that someone can rationally come to. Either this guy and the people who collaborated are lying. Or they saw something that can’t be explained by any known technology.  

Edited by preacherman76
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

People not knowing that they are seeing a satellite is hardly the same thing as a group of experienced pilots unable to identify an object, that hovered then flew off “like a bullet”. 

I agree you don’t send a fighter to find a submarine. Which of course can only lead to the conclusion that what they were being sent investigate wasn’t a submarine. 

I’m not sure exactly where this happened, but if it was in American waters, whatever was there wasn’t military. Otherwise the military wouldn’t have sent anyone out to investigate. 

There is only two conclusions that someone can rationally come to. Either this guy and the people who collaborated are lying. Or they saw something that can’t be explained by any known technology.  

This is known as a false dilemma and is a logical fallacy. There are other possible explanations, weather phenomena would be just one.

I'm not saying it couldn't be but to use the evidence provided to draw an either/or conclusion in the way you did is incorrect.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
10 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

This is known as a false dilemma and is a logical fallacy. There are other possible explanations, weather phenomena would be just one.

I'm not saying it couldn't be but to use the evidence provided to draw an either/or conclusion in the way you did is incorrect.

I beg to differ SirB)

Merry Christmas IC

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Either this guy and the people who collaborated are lying. Or they saw something that can’t be explained by any known technology.

Two good logical choices there.

They either see something out of this world or they just made it up to gain a bit of fame etc....

It makes attempting a decent discussion kinda pointless because it's possible (or more than likely IMO) the data we're all working with is BS!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 12/24/2017 at 3:40 PM, preacherman76 said:

People not knowing that they are seeing a satellite is hardly the same thing as a group of experienced pilots unable to identify an object, that hovered then flew off “like a bullet”. 

I agree you don’t send a fighter to find a submarine. Which of course can only lead to the conclusion that what they were being sent investigate wasn’t a submarine. 

I’m not sure exactly where this happened, but if it was in American waters, whatever was there wasn’t military. Otherwise the military wouldn’t have sent anyone out to investigate. 

There is only two conclusions that someone can rationally come to. Either this guy and the people who collaborated are lying. Or they saw something that can’t be explained by any known technology.  

Just because a pilot is experienced does not mean that they would be able to identify everything they encountered. Are you assuming that their entire observation was without error? Are you assuming that electronic warfare was not involved?

You are employing a false dichotomy which has two conclusions neither of which I suggested. I never suggested anyone was lying. I think your first option is nonsense. I suggested that when plotted the events be come understandable. You did not use that option in your false dichotomy.

This is supposed to have happened close to international waters, about 200 miles off the US coast in the Pacific. If you are unsure of that issue why are you so sure on your two options for the false dichotomy?

BTW, my suggestion about satellites was that one person saying it is a UFO piloted by aliens can plant a seed in other people's minds. A pilot misinterpreting an event as beyond our technology can plant that seed in other minds. If people begin to look for events beyond our technology they might label events that way even if that is not the case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
On 12/23/2017 at 4:45 AM, bee said:

it doesn't seem like he is lying to me

Well, end of thread then.

I mean it's not like delonge is paying him...  (oh oops, did I say that out loud?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
On 12/24/2017 at 8:40 PM, preacherman76 said:

People not knowing that they are seeing a satellite is hardly the same thing as a group of experienced pilots unable to identify an object,

Actually, er...well , ...

An experience pilot is trained to fly a plane...safely and to follow proper procedure. That is what they have been trained to do...David Fravor was a us navy pilot,  not an astronaut or astronomer working for NASA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
On 25/12/2017 at 5:56 AM, stereologist said:

The fact that planes were sent out is SOP, standard operating procedure. You don't send a fighter to find a sub.

They did not know what it was (UFO) so they sent people to check. They could not determine what the object was.

On 25/12/2017 at 9:51 AM, I'mConvinced said:

This is known as a false dilemma and is a logical fallacy. There are other possible explanations, weather phenomena would be just one.

I'm not saying it couldn't be but to use the evidence provided to draw an either/or conclusion in the way you did is incorrect.

No it isn't illogical to assume that the event really happened.., or it was a lie.

It would be illogical to say its definitely something.., based on video footage alone. Very unscientific and biased. 

On 25/12/2017 at 10:16 AM, Dejarma said:

Two good logical choices there.

They either see something out of this world or they just made it up to gain a bit of fame etc....

It makes attempting a decent discussion kinda pointless because it's possible (or more than likely IMO) the data we're all working with is BS!!

It could be Russian, Chinese, Korean technology. Could be environmental... all good reasons to look into it further.

On 27/12/2017 at 3:08 AM, stereologist said:

Just because a pilot is experienced does not mean that they would be able to identify everything they encountered. Are you assuming that their entire observation was without error? Are you assuming that electronic warfare was not involved?

They would have to be trained in identifying all known aircraft, potential threats, and known weaknesses including illusions and weather phenomena. They would be able to identify all these objects much better than most people here. Otherwise we would have fighter pilots constantly chasing meteors, and shooting at stars. They are well trained observers.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
On 27/12/2017 at 9:51 AM, freetoroam said:

Actually, er...well , ...

An experience pilot is trained to fly a plane...safely and to follow proper procedure. That is what they have been trained to do...David Fravor was a us navy pilot,  not an astronaut or astronomer working for NASA.

Let us apply this same logic to astronomers. They are not experts in aircraft variants, or even environmental effects. They can tell us if it was a star, or a meteor.., but that's about it hey. If an ET craft ever did visit Earth.., they would be useless (unless it was a star).

We can only use NASA to say a UFO is not a star, or meteor, or the moon etc. They cannot confirm or deny anything else (swamp gas, drone, aircraft).

I like these rules being set, they make UFOlogy much simpler.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
10 minutes ago, Fila said:

Let us apply this same logic to astronomers. They are not experts in aircraft variants, or even environmental effects. They can tell us if it was a star, or a meteor.., but that's about it hey. If an ET craft ever did visit Earth.., they would be useless (unless it was a star).

We can only use NASA to say a UFO is not a star, or meteor, or the moon etc. They cannot confirm or deny anything else (swamp gas, drone, aircraft).

I like these rules being set, they make UFOlogy much simpler.

The difference is - astronomers have a MUCH higher chance of recording it (and properly, from the provenance p-o-v).  Even on an accidental basis.  And UNTIL *anyone* records something (eg a scene showing background information so we can make determinations about allegedly 'impossible' maneuvers) or finds actual physical evidence, then it's a waste of typed characters.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
On 12/25/2017 at 6:40 AM, preacherman76 said:

People not knowing that they are seeing a satellite is hardly the same thing as a group of experienced pilots unable to identify an object, that hovered then flew off “like a bullet”.

You mean like the numerous other times when air force pilots have misidentified aircraft, ground based lights or even Venus?  Do you want some examples (Cantarell Oilfields U'F'O anyone? - cough)  Or radar operators have misinterpreted radar returns?

Quote

I agree you don’t send a fighter to find a submarine. Which of course can only lead to the conclusion that what they were being sent investigate wasn’t a submarine.

But some of the related obs could indeed be explained by a sub.  Don't diss stuff because it suits your case..

Quote

I’m not sure exactly where this happened, but if it was in American waters, whatever was there wasn’t military. Otherwise the military wouldn’t have sent anyone out to investigate.

That's not entirely true.  Tests of top secret stuff are not always announced far and wide, and certainly not to foreign powers - why are you assuming it could only be from the USA?

Quote

There is only two conclusions that someone can rationally come to. Either this guy and the people who collaborated are lying. Or they saw something that can’t be explained by any known technology.  

Wow.  Way to simplify.  Yep, we are either with you or your mortal enemy.  {False Dichotomy, much?}

And also, back we go to the accusations of lying.  Weren't most of the corroborations simply vaguely matching data, and personal judgements of credibility?  How much corroboration of actual visual sightings or evidence took place again?  Maybe I'm reading another case...

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
19 minutes ago, Fila said:

 

33 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

Actually, er...well , ...

An experience pilot is trained to fly a plane...safely and to follow proper procedure. That is what they have been trained to do...David Fravor was a us navy pilot,  not an astronaut or astronomer working for NASA.

Let us apply this same logic to astronomers. They are not experts in aircraft variants, or even environmental effects.

 

For your "logic" :

Quote

 

26 minutes ago, Fila said:

We can only use NASA to say a UFO is not a star, or meteor, or the moon etc

Jeeze.....i did not realize you knew so little  pleaae have a look at this list....

Quote

You were given a list of the number of astronomers and satelites....we do not need to rely on NASA alone if an alien craft came near Earth, let alone entered our atmospher.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
44 minutes ago, Fila said:

No it isn't illogical to assume that the event really happened.., or it was a lie.

It would be illogical to say its definitely something.., based on video footage alone. Very unscientific and biased. 

"It was a lie or they saw something" would be ok logically speaking. The false dilemma was adding the "can’t be explained by any known technology". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
On 27/12/2017 at 10:21 AM, ChrLzs said:

The difference is - astronomers have a MUCH higher chance of recording it (and properly, from the provenance p-o-v).  Even on an accidental basis.  And UNTIL *anyone* records something (eg a scene showing background information so we can make determinations about allegedly 'impossible' maneuvers) or finds actual physical evidence, then it's a waste of typed characters.

I am not dodging anything. I am just not getting sucked into an off-topic discussion.

We are gonna have to start a new thread about this. Its a complex discussion.., not one that can be solved in a few posts while others are also trying to post about other topics.

Can you please make a new thread to discuss this?

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
On 27/12/2017 at 10:44 AM, freetoroam said:

For your "logic" :

Jeeze.....i did not realize you knew so little  pleaae have a look at this list....

You were given a list of the number of astronomers and satelites....we do not need to rely on NASA alone if an alien craft came near Earth, let alone entered our atmospher.

I am not dodging anything. I am just not getting sucked into an off-topic discussion.

We are gonna have to start a new thread about this. Its a complex discussion.., not one that can be solved in a few posts while others are also trying to post about other topics.

Can you please make a new thread to discuss this?

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
9 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Well, end of thread then.

I mean it's not like delonge is paying him...  (oh oops, did I say that out loud?)

Ahhh but who is 'paying' and co~opting DeLonge.......?

I don't think the Navy Pilot guy is out and out lying but I suspect that he has been wheeled out to relate what
he saw (what-ever that may actually be) --- as part of '''''something''''' 

part of a '''disclosure''' operation ---that's  possibly part of a wider political operation - :blink:

dunno

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
6 minutes ago, bee said:

Ahhh but who is 'paying' and co~opting DeLonge.......?

I don't think the Navy Pilot guy is out and out lying but I suspect that he has been wheeled out to relate what
he saw (what-ever that may actually be) --- as part of '''''something''''' 

part of a '''disclosure''' operation ---that's  possibly part of a wider political operation - :blink:

dunno

 

I read an article a while back that talked about "little d disclosure". Basically the author's hypothesis was that the gov. is slowly disclosing that aliens exist vs holding a press conference and saying "theyre here" . 

I think you're right and that's what we see happening now. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
On 24/12/2017 at 2:52 AM, KibyNykraft4 said:

The same goes for technology history. Especially the one the most interesting for military. And the one that ended with being made the most money on became other concepts such as the fuel engine and the jet engine. In war nukes. The reason : many, but mostly that the saucer-magnetism based tech was seen as so supreme in its POTENTIAL that USA wanted to shield it from everything else than the inner circles of military intelligence. 

So these planes are human made. And they are there.  The superficial quarrel between the skeptics and the "believers" in ETs etc, is a very neat and handy story for those who wants it to continue to be a cloaked story. 

But the motives might change. We now have a globalist ideology and group who wants to create a fake ET attack on the planet, in order to create panic as a tool to scare people into accepting world centralized militant governments.    Now to the average Joe and the average scholar this may seem strange and unlikely, but this is because the average Joe does not know how extreme the ideology is among certain powerful elements of society.

 

(I just did an edit because the quotes got in a muddle--)

@Farmer77

it could be a bit of Regular Disclosure -- but there MIGHT be more to it (see quote from a longer post above)....

As I'm sure you've noticed ^_^ the Globalist's are feeling the pressure of Brexit and the Trump Presidency but they will
still be making plans and looking to further their agenda and may see the '''ET threat''' as a useful avenue to develop and
go down at this point in history - (as speculated by KibyNykraft4)

perhaps Trump will out manoeuvre them somehow and blow the lid off Roswell --- that would be good - :D

 

 

 
Edited by bee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
16 hours ago, Fila said:

They did not know what it was (UFO) so they sent people to check. They could not determine what the object was.

No it isn't illogical to assume that the event really happened.., or it was a lie.

It would be illogical to say its definitely something.., based on video footage alone. Very unscientific and biased. 

It could be Russian, Chinese, Korean technology. Could be environmental... all good reasons to look into it further.

They would have to be trained in identifying all known aircraft, potential threats, and known weaknesses including illusions and weather phenomena. They would be able to identify all these objects much better than most people here. Otherwise we would have fighter pilots constantly chasing meteors, and shooting at stars. They are well trained observers.

You posted a false dichotomy. That is an illogical construct. There are multiple choices and you chose to limit it to two. That is a fallacy as explained by two different posters.

Nothing you posted in your guess about pilot training deals with issues I brought up so I will repeat myself.

Quote

Just because a pilot is experienced does not mean that they would be able to identify everything they encountered. Are you assuming that their entire observation was without error? Are you assuming that electronic warfare was not involved?

Experience and training does not guarantee that a pilot is able to identify everything they encounter. So you suggest they might be better at identifying. Yes, but that does not mean they can identify everything. The video shows clouds. The record tells us that clouds were a factor in viewing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
16 hours ago, Fila said:

Let us apply this same logic to astronomers. They are not experts in aircraft variants, or even environmental effects. They can tell us if it was a star, or a meteor.., but that's about it hey. If an ET craft ever did visit Earth.., they would be useless (unless it was a star).

We can only use NASA to say a UFO is not a star, or meteor, or the moon etc. They cannot confirm or deny anything else (swamp gas, drone, aircraft).

I like these rules being set, they make UFOlogy much simpler.

False. Astronomers need to understand environmental effects. Light can be refracted in the atmosphere. It makes stars appear to move in the  image.

An astronomer can tell us much more than it is a star or meteor. They can tell us the composition of the object, it's trajectory, it's speed. Your conclusion that an astronomer would be useless is a non sequitur and a horrible one at that. NASA puts up rockets. They send probes to other planets. They recover objects sent into space. They can certainly track objects going into and returning from space. So please fix your gaffe.

BTW, your swamp gas comment shows how little you know about UFOs. It was a suggestion used once by a UFO believer. When people comment about swamp gas they are in fact making fun of UFO believers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Area201
2 hours ago, stereologist said:

BTW, your swamp gas comment shows how little you know about UFOs. It was a suggestion used once by a UFO believer. When people comment about swamp gas they are in fact making fun of UFO believers.

You mean professional UFO skeptic and debunker turned believer later in career J. Allen Hynek who's report was taken out of context when he gave one possible explanation for a small sample of cases? that "believer"? 

"In late March 1966 in Michigan, two days of mass UFO sightings were reported, and received significant publicity. After studying the reports, Hynek offered a provisional hypothesis for some of the sightings: a few of about 100 witnesses had mistaken swamp gas for something more spectacular. At the press conference where he made his announcement, Hynek repeatedly and strenuously stated that swamp gas was a plausible explanation for only a portion of the Michigan UFO reports, and certainly not for UFO reports in general. But much to his chagrin, Hynek's qualifications of his hypothesis were largely overlooked, and the term swamp gas was repeated ad infinitum in relation to UFO reports. The explanation was subject to national derision.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fila
On 28/12/2017 at 2:29 AM, stereologist said:

Experience and training does not guarantee that a pilot is able to identify everything they encounter. So you suggest they might be better at identifying. Yes, but that does not mean they can identify everything. The video shows clouds. The record tells us that clouds were a factor in viewing.

Let us remember this logic when claiming astronomers would see everything and know everything

Experience and training does not guarantee that an astronomer s able to identify everything they encounter. So you suggest they might be better at identifying. Yes, but that does not mean they can identify everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
3 hours ago, Area201 said:

You mean professional UFO skeptic and debunker turned believer later in career J. Allen Hynek

Yes, that's what he said - a UFO believer. Professional just means you do stuff for money - it doesn't mean you do it well.  Hynek is no expert - if he was, why would he change his mind?  Are you (or he) sure he wasn't right earlier.. or later?  He just followed the money trail and did what he knew best (and that's not science..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
Just now, Fila said:

Let us remember this logic when claiming astronomers would see everything and know everything

Experience and training does not guarantee that an astronomer s able to identify everything they encounter. So you suggest they might be better at identifying. Yes, but that does not mean they can identify everything.

I never claimed that astronomers would see everything and know everything.  You are talking to the wrong person on that issue. In fact, I have the odd feeling you are the source for that idea in one of your straw man arguments.

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.