US Navy drafts new UFO reporting guidelines

[stereologist]

9 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

as usual you're late to the discussion and more often than not ill prepared. 

 

"Since 2014, these intrusions have been happening on a regular basis," Mr Joseph Gradisher, spokesman for the deputy chief of naval operations for information warfare, told The Washington Post on Wednesday (April 24).

Recently, unidentified aircraft entered military-designated airspace as often as multiple times per month.

"We want to get to the bottom of this. We need to determine who's doing it, where it's coming from and what their intent is. We need to try to find ways to prevent it from happening again."

Citing safety and security concerns, Mr Gradisher vowed to "investigate each and every report".

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/frustrated-pilots-got-us-navy-to-stop-dismissing-ufo-sightings

 

Looking through the article you listed we see these other comments

Quote

the new Navy guidelines formalised the reporting process, facilitating data-driven analysis while removing the stigma from talking about UFOs

The comment comes from Elizondo who is now pointed out as being someone that only generated a lot of paperwork in the work he did from 2014 till his contract with the military ended.

The upshot of this article to now is ... piles of paper.

There is also "Mr Mellon, who now works with UFODATA, a private organisation." in the article. He claims

Quote

"Pilots are upset, and they're trying to help wake up a slumbering system," he told The Post.

But is that true? I don't see any evidence but I do see someone trying to paint the situation in that manner.

[stereologist]

9 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

...and again from the same source.

In some cases, pilots - many of whom are engineers and academy graduates - say they observed small spherical objects flying in formation. Others say they have seen white, Tic-Tac-shaped vehicles. Aside from drones, all engines rely on burning fuel to generate power, but these vehicles all had no air intake, no wind and no exhaust.

There is no evidence that this is correct. The source of this is unnamed in the article but is likely from Elizondo who has produced nothing of value but created piles of paper.

[stereologist]

9 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

...again...

"It's very mysterious, and they still seem to exceed our aircraft in speed," he said, calling it a "truly radical technology".

According to Mr Mellon, awestruck and baffled pilots, concerned that reporting unidentified flying aircraft would adversely affect their careers, tended not to speak up. And when they did, he said there was little interest in investigating their reports.

You seem quite fond of spamming the thread with quotes from Mellon.

Let's find out who is this person since the article imply names his "former" position.

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2016/06/christopher-mellon-ufodata-and-the-release-of-ufo-documents/

Quote

Despite that pledged aversion to conspiracies, it recently added Chris Mellon to its board. According to his bio on the website, Mellon was “… a Legislative Assistant for Senator William S. Cohen he drafted the legislation establishing the US Special Operations Command … Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Security and Information Operations during the Clinton Administration … Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in the Clinton and Bush Administrations.” He also professes a lifelong interest in UFOs.

https://ufoscoop.com/chris-mellon/

Quote

Here is an interview with Chris about why he joined the TTSA and something about his ideas on whether or not there is a super-secret agency in the government which is managing such a thing. Super interesting. This guy could be lying through his teeth, but you’d never know because he’s so damn convincing – about knowing nothing of underground UFO programs.

 

[stereologist]

6 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

You mean they have not produced anything they can or will identify.  Diff.,

If capturing an image of *anything* flying intelligently does not raise their alarms just because they cannot identify it, then something  is seriously wrong with our military. Example: It could be Russian or Chinese air ships illegally  in our airspace, so it is paramount that the military find out what these objects are and  take appropriate action. But sitting there saying "we don't know what it is so screw it"  - is just  not professional and is wrongful. It is their job to protect our skies.

No. You are wrong. Please read the article to avoid continued errors.

[stereologist]

4 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

You have mentioned this numerous times so at this point I am compelled to come in and correct you.  you do NOT know that it did little but "produce a pile of paper".  You only know that that is what is being reported. BIG diff.
 

Any information that the US military has on these unknown crafts is classified. They will tell us nothing

Another failure. Please read the article which explicitly states what I posted.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

18 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Another failure. Please read the article which explicitly states what I posted.

I read the article, I carefully saw how you worded it, you are wrong. You have no idea if all they ever gathered was a "pile of paper". If the military said that I would not believe them.

end of story.

[Merc14]

11 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

as usual you're late to the discussion and more often than not ill prepared. 

 

"Since 2014, these intrusions have been happening on a regular basis," Mr Joseph Gradisher, spokesman for the deputy chief of naval operations for information warfare, told The Washington Post on Wednesday (April 24).

Recently, unidentified aircraft entered military-designated airspace as often as multiple times per month.

"We want to get to the bottom of this. We need to determine who's doing it, where it's coming from and what their intent is. We need to try to find ways to prevent it from happening again."

Citing safety and security concerns, Mr Gradisher vowed to "investigate each and every report".

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/frustrated-pilots-got-us-navy-to-stop-dismissing-ufo-sightings

 

 Since 2014 the number of drones flying around controlled airspace (airports, military airfields restricted air space etc.) has proliferated massively and  become a serious danger to flight.  These incursions need to be reported and investigated.  What seems more reasonable, that the Navy is reacting to these increasing number of drones flying around their bases or an increasing number os space ships flying around their bases? 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Merc14

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I read the article, I carefully saw how you worded it, you are wrong. You have no idea if all they ever gathered was a "pile of paper". If the military said that I would not believe them.

end of story.

Thanks for being wrong as usual.

Fallacy: "you worded it"

I did not word it I quoted it.

Quote

Reid apparently believed the program had made significant discoveries, though a former congressional staffer told Politico that AATIP produced nothing but “reams of paperwork,” and the senator eventually agreed it was no longer worth continuing.

There it is produced nothing but piles of paper.

[the13bats]

7 hours ago, stereologist said:

Thanks for being wrong as usual.

Fallacy: "you worded it"

I did not word it I quoted it.

There it is produced nothing but piles of paper.

can someone pass earl a towel to wipe the egg off his face with.

[ChrLzs]

On 25/04/2019 at 6:16 AM, Captain Risky said:

well that's debatable.

So .. why haven't you debated it successfully (at all?) on any of the Elizondo/ToTheStars/DeLonge threads?

That stuff is just ignorantly presented, often the videos don't even match the incident - it's garbage for the gullible.

Quote

still if the U.S. government thought that UFO's were not real or posed a threat then they wouldn't have made reporting them easier. 

First up, of course UFO's exist, ie things in the sky that are not identified.

ANYTHING in the sky can be a hazard to an aircraft.

So it is just simplistic (daft?) to imply there is a suspicious reason to make a process easier.

 

This does not somehow endorse idiocy like ufos = alienz, which is what you seem to be saying - do correct me though...

[Unusual Tournament]

14 hours ago, stereologist said:

There is no evidence that this is correct. The source of this is unnamed in the article but is likely from Elizondo who has produced nothing of value but created piles of paper.

why is the quote incorrect? because you said so... the article clearly states so. if you don't wanna believe what the article says then no amount of convincing on my behalf is gonna help you. 

[Unusual Tournament]

14 hours ago, stereologist said:

You seem quite fond of spamming the thread with quotes from Mellon.

Let's find out who is this person since the article imply names his "former" position.

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2016/06/christopher-mellon-ufodata-and-the-release-of-ufo-documents/

https://ufoscoop.com/chris-mellon/

 

Mr Chris Mellon, a former deputy assistant secretary of defence for intelligence and a staffer on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was less laudatory.

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/frustrated-pilots-got-us-navy-to-stop-dismissing-ufo-sightings

 

 

[Unusual Tournament]

12 hours ago, Merc14 said:

 Since 2014 the number of drones flying around controlled airspace (airports, military airfields restricted air space etc.) has proliferated massively and  become a serious danger to flight.  These incursions need to be reported and investigated.  What seems more reasonable, that the Navy is reacting to these increasing number of drones flying around their bases or an increasing number os space ships flying around their bases? 

Okay lets see if we can find some common ground... first off they are not drones since they're moving and travelling at speeds faster than jets. they have no aerodynamics designs (i.e. wings) to move faster than fighter jets NOR hover stationary. second... assuming they were drones then who's are they? they're certainly not American otherwise the problem would have just gone away. 

[Unusual Tournament]

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

So .. why haven't you debated it successfully (at all?) on any of the Elizondo/ToTheStars/DeLonge threads?

That stuff is just ignorantly presented, often the videos don't even match the incident - it's garbage for the gullible.

First up, of course UFO's exist, ie things in the sky that are not identified.

ANYTHING in the sky can be a hazard to an aircraft.

So it is just simplistic (daft?) to imply there is a suspicious reason to make a process easier.

 

This does not somehow endorse idiocy like ufos = alienz, which is what you seem to be saying - do correct me though...

i can only debate facts, buddy. if these were drones then its amazing technology that can outfly American fighter jets. if they're drones then it stands to reason they're not American, so which country is flying super fast manoeuvrable jets (ER... drones) over U.S. airspace? and more importantly by your reasoning they should be allowed to continue flying unidentifiable craft or "drones" and the Navy should just forget about them and not bother. 

[ChrLzs]

29 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

i can only debate facts, buddy.

So when will you be starting that?

Like I said (and you IGNORED) why weren't you debating this on the relevant threads that discuss the Elizondo/deLonge/TTS misinformation at great length?

 

May I impolitely guess that you didn't do that as you do not understand high-end camera optics, stabilisation / tracking systems, FLIR, aeronautics?

It certainly would have been embarrassing for you, so .. wise move.

 

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

why is the quote incorrect? because you said so... the article clearly states so. if you don't wanna believe what the article says then no amount of convincing on my behalf is gonna help you. 

It relies on innuendoes from those that have been shown to be wrong.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

Okay lets see if we can find some common ground... first off they are not drones since they're moving and travelling at speeds faster than jets. they have no aerodynamics designs (i.e. wings) to move faster than fighter jets NOR hover stationary. second... assuming they were drones then who's are they? they're certainly not American otherwise the problem would have just gone away. 

Please provide evidence for any of these claims.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

i can only debate facts, buddy. if these were drones then its amazing technology that can outfly American fighter jets. if they're drones then it stands to reason they're not American, so which country is flying super fast manoeuvrable jets (ER... drones) over U.S. airspace? and more importantly by your reasoning they should be allowed to continue flying unidentifiable craft or "drones" and the Navy should just forget about them and not bother. 

Where are the facts. we have you droning on and on about claims that I don't believe you can support.

[stereologist]

I love it when posters think it is odd or funny that I point out there failures yet won't produce any evidence to support their case.

The simple fact is that Elizondo and his group did nothing but produce paperwork. They hinted at special metal stored in warehouse and yet that has never been shown to be anything but a vacuous fairy tale. They stated that there were impossible maneuvers and "defying physics" but that was only due to an inability to understand what was being displayed.

Now that the Navy wants to simplify the process there are suggestions of making it harder or whatever.

They have this story wrong and they had previous stories wrong. Time to read and comprehend and not spout.

If there is anything worth saying how about some evidence to support your case.

[Minimalists]

23 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I read the article, I carefully saw how you worded it, you are wrong. You have no idea if all they ever gathered was a "pile of paper". If the military said that I would not believe them.

end of story.

Quote

If the military said that I would not believe them.

There in lies your problem I would say..Your quick to buy into conspiracy theory...So what reason does the military have to lie? I love how those who have never been in the military are quick to point out how the military lies...Do you have a military background of any kind? There is a thing called "need to know" based on security clearances...There are somethings that John Q Public does not need to know...Quite frankly I say kudos to the US Navy for this at least they are not sitting on their hands and doing nothing...

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

1 hour ago, Alien Origins said:

There in lies your problem I would say..Your quick to buy into conspiracy theory...So what reason does the military have to lie? I love how those who have never been in the military are quick to point out how the military lies...Do you have a military background of any kind? There is a thing called "need to know" based on security clearances...There are somethings that John Q Public does not need to know...Quite frankly I say kudos to the US Navy for this at least they are not sitting on their hands and doing nothing...

I am not saying the military lies per sa, I am saying they are not allowed to disclose classified information. If we cannot agree on that, AO, then we cannot agree on anything.

So, if the military has radar images of unknown crafts making maneuvers that defy physics and they are classified images, you better believe they will tell you all they have is paper reports of nothing of interest. The radar images they have will remain known only to themselves.

For you or any talking head in here is to say that the military has no such evidences of unknown aerial crafts, you'd have to PROVE that. Y'all make I t sound like all they want to do is collect a pile of paper because they have nothing better to do.  What a JOKE 

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I am not saying the military lies per sa, I am saying they are not allowed to disclose classified information. If we cannot agree on that, AO, then we cannot agree on anything.

So, if the military has radar images of unknown crafts making maneuvers that defy physics and they are classified images, you better believe they will tell you all they have is paper reports of nothing of interest. The radar images they have will remain known only to themselves.

For you or any talking head in here is to say that the military has no such evidences of unknown aerial crafts, you'd have to PROVE that. Y'all make I t sound like all they want to do is collect a pile of paper because they have nothing better to do.  What a JOKE 

You have no evidence that any of your fantasizing is real.

To repeat myself yet again, there is only physics. There is no alien physics. There is no defying physics.

It is also important to correct this fallacy: "if the military has .... you better believe they will tell you all they have is paper reports of nothing of interest"

The telling of nothing but paperwork did not come from the military.

Here is a logical fallacy: "For you or any talking head in here is to say that the military has no such evidences of unknown aerial crafts, you'd have to PROVE that."

The burden is not to show something does not exist. The burden is to show something exists. 

Then this mistake is followed by a fallacy: "Y'all make I t sound like all they want to do is collect a pile of paper because they have nothing better to do. "

No one suggests desires only what they did do. All Elizondo and his crew produced was piles of paper.

There is no evidence for anything unusual in any of the reports produced by Elizondo's group.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

LOLOLOL   sure.

I've known you too long. And I know better than to do "go fetch" for a Never-UFOer.  All you will ever say is "the witness lied and the radar was INOP".  Done,.

Been there - done that.  Ain't wasting my time on that bodash. If you ever show that you have the ability to reason in earnest, then perhaps I will recapitulate,  In the meantime, go fish.

Remember what I have told you in the past Stereo,... I prefer eyewitness testimony to that of  lectures by pontificators who were never there.

I ask for evidence and all that is posted is a fallacy: "All you will ever say is "the witness lied and the radar was INOP"."

It's just more hand waving and no evidence. 

What we do know is that eyewitnesses are unreliable and all there are in this are stories of little to no value.

In fact, we know that eyewitnesses to such prosaic event as the Phoenix Lights were amazingly in conflict with each other and amazingly wrong. A good example is Kitei who thought the lights were near her house when in fact they were 70 miles away.

An unwillingness to present evidence is a key property of a close minded scoffer.

[stereologist]

The claim of those with a failed position is that those exposing the truth about an event is that "you were not there."

It is extremely rare for the supporter to have been there. They want to believe even though they were not there.

There are plenty of examples of things that exist and how they operate is known yet "you were not there."

1. tides

2. climbing Everest

3. ancient sites

4. geological formations

5. stock markets

And as the King of Siam said, "Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera".

The "you were not there" argument simply fits in well with a failed position.

[Dejarma]

8 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

So, if the military has radar images of unknown crafts making maneuvers that defy physics and they are classified images, you better believe they will tell you all they have is paper reports of nothing of interest. The radar images they have will remain known only to themselves.

therefore all radar reports that depict unknown crafts making maneuvers that defy physics must be false going by your reasoning

Edited April 26, 2019 by Dejarma