US Navy 'will not release UFO information'

[Unusual Tournament]

2 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

Yep.. They rely heavily on the argument from ignorance...."I don't know what it is so it must be aliens from another planet!" I don't know if this stems from not really knowing or if they actually believe it's an alien craft. I don't know, so much of this relies on eyewitness testimony that can be confusing and at times unbelievable...How much of actual eyewitness testimony do we believe? 

okay... so something that moves at speeds many times greater than the fastest craft that the U.S. has and stops on a dime. something that intercepting  pilots claim has intelligence and method is to be explained away as some drone or other ignorant excuse? i read alot about this BUT very little in the way of credible conclusion to account for the UFO's that are being described and investigated by the U.S. Navy. 

Why don't you list the possible reasons that that would explain these navy pilots seeing and reporting these phenomena?  

[Minimalists]

43 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

okay... so something that moves at speeds many times greater than the fastest craft that the U.S. has and stops on a dime. something that intercepting  pilots claim has intelligence and method is to be explained away as some drone or other ignorant excuse? i read alot about this BUT very little in the way of credible conclusion to account for the UFO's that are being described and investigated by the U.S. Navy. 

Why don't you list the possible reasons that that would explain these navy pilots seeing and reporting these phenomena?  

Quote

Why don't you list the possible reasons that that would explain these navy pilots seeing and reporting these phenomena?  

Because they are pilots that suppose to make their claims more credible? Not the way I see it. I am sure they saw something....But can you prove they were alien crafts from another planet? That was my meaning behind argument from ignorance, people see these things, don't know what they are and automatically assume aliens from another planet.

Edited May 3, 2019 by Alien Origins

[bison]

3 hours ago, the13bats said:

like you said it was called "probability" their opinions and a huge issue i have is many if not all the cases they said this about had poor weak evidence and they did the "we dont know...so it must be ET " two step so very popular with TBs.

Probability in not a  dirty word in science. Everything in science, other than mathematics, is a matter of probabilities, not 'proofs'.  It's simply about our best knowledge at the time, and the most likely and reasonable interpretation of what is observed.  The repeated conclusions of a number of studies, over the decades, is that extraterrestrial intelligence is the most reasonable explanation for certain UFO reports.

The people doing these studies were scientific and military professionals, not flying saucer fans. There appear to be no real grounds for suggesting that they jumped to their conclusion that extraterrestrial intelligence explained some UFO reports. I accept their conclusions, as given, based on the summary of evidence encountered.

Someone else may honestly differ in the conclusions they draw from the same evidence. Well and fine. Differences in interpretation are a commonplace in science.  But if anyone wishes to charge these investigators with incompetence, such as wishful thinking, or carelessness about having sufficient evidence to reach their conclusions, let's see some specific facts tending to support these charges.      

[Minimalists]

Quote

Now however, Joe Gradisher - a spokesman for the office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare - has made a statement that has cast serious doubt on this possibility.

"Military aviation safety organizations always retain reporting of hazards to aviation as privileged information in order to preserve the free and honest prioritization and discussion of safety among aircrew," he said.

"Furthermore, any report generated as a result of these investigations will, by necessity, include classified information on military operations."

"Therefore, no release of information to the general public is expected."

The above from the article..So why even worry about it?

[the13bats]

7 hours ago, bison said:

Probability in not a  dirty word in science. Everything in science, other than mathematics, is a matter of probabilities, not 'proofs'.  It's simply about our best knowledge at the time, and the most likely and reasonable interpretation of what is observed.  The repeated conclusions of a number of studies, over the decades, is that extraterrestrial intelligence is the most reasonable explanation for certain UFO reports.

The people doing these studies were scientific and military professionals, not flying saucer fans. There appear to be no real grounds for suggesting that they jumped to their conclusion that extraterrestrial intelligence explained some UFO reports. I accept their conclusions, as given, based on the summary of evidence encountered.

Someone else may honestly differ in the conclusions they draw from the same evidence. Well and fine. Differences in interpretation are a commonplace in science.  But if anyone wishes to charge these investigators with incompetence, such as wishful thinking, or carelessness about having sufficient evidence to reach their conclusions, let's see some specific facts tending to support these charges.      

lots of smoke no fire, you seem to be thinking with the close minded biases of a TB thats well and fine, just not realistic.

sign, grudge and bluebook which i was commenting on did have scientific and military professionals involved the projects however were not conducted in a scientific way past a bit of fluff for the public.

relax, im not "charging" anything i am simply stating my opinion, fueled by things like ray fowler pointing out his friend j hynek was fine with compromising his intergriety to say whatever just to keep his job,  so there goes the credibilty of it right there and dont try to argue it with me go tell fowler how you feel.

most any eye witness report is weak at best, for the scientific and military professionals involved to say we dont know what the explanation is so it must be extraterrestrial intelligence, isnt science and doesnt make it fact only their grasping assumption, and thats what happened in most cases with poor evidence, it did thrill true believers.

in the end there are no smoking gun reports from these projects that i have seen if you think i missed them you have the burden to find and post them not my burden because unlike you i am confortable in my opinions i dont need to convince anyone of my way of thinking to be validated.

so when you jump to reply to get you last word keep in mind if you dont also include your proof of extraterrestrial intelligence then you are just hand waving and wasting time.

but its all good.

[bmk1245]

5 hours ago, the13bats said:

lots of smoke no fire, you seem to be thinking with the close minded biases of a TB thats well and fine, just not realistic.

sign, grudge and bluebook which i was commenting on did have scientific and military professionals involved the projects however were not conducted in a scientific way past a bit of fluff for the public.

relax, im not "charging" anything i am simply stating my opinion, fueled by things like ray fowler pointing out his friend j hynek was fine with compromising his intergriety to say whatever just to keep his job,  so there goes the credibilty of it right there and dont try to argue it with me go tell fowler how you feel.

most any eye witness report is weak at best, for the scientific and military professionals involved to say we dont know what the explanation is so it must be extraterrestrial intelligence, isnt science and doesnt make it fact only their grasping assumption, and thats what happened in most cases with poor evidence, it did thrill true believers.

in the end there are no smoking gun reports from these projects that i have seen if you think i missed them you have the burden to find and post them not my burden because unlike you i am confortable in my opinions i dont need to convince anyone of my way of thinking to be validated.

so when you jump to reply to get you last word keep in mind if you dont also include your proof of extraterrestrial intelligence then you are just hand waving and wasting time.

but its all good.

Word sallad, put it in one sentence, please.

[stereologist]

15 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

okay... so something that moves at speeds many times greater than the fastest craft that the U.S. has and stops on a dime. something that intercepting  pilots claim has intelligence and method is to be explained away as some drone or other ignorant excuse? i read alot about this BUT very little in the way of credible conclusion to account for the UFO's that are being described and investigated by the U.S. Navy. 

Why don't you list the possible reasons that that would explain these navy pilots seeing and reporting these phenomena?  

But that isn't what happens. It is simple to claim that there are such events and that is why these events get investigated. Not a single such claim has turned out to be true. If it did there would be a smoking gun - solid evidence.

The great speeds can come from people simple guessing that distant unrelated blips on radar are the same object. That might not be true.

In the case of the FLIR images associated with TTSA the great speed was really due to zoom being used and the loonies at TTSA did not understand that.

In another case the fact that a deice had failed and was reporting t he same locked in distance was assumed to mean that an intelligent craft was moving in a circular path about the base.

If you think there is a real case then list it. I've listed solutions to misunderstandings. Go ahead and post one or more cases you believe are not mistakes made by investigators.

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, bmk1245 said:

Word sallad, put it in one sentence, please.

what a shame you cant follow or grasp past one sentence statements, keep reaching you will get there.

 

[stereologist]

14 hours ago, bison said:

Probability in not a  dirty word in science. Everything in science, other than mathematics, is a matter of probabilities, not 'proofs'.  It's simply about our best knowledge at the time, and the most likely and reasonable interpretation of what is observed.  The repeated conclusions of a number of studies, over the decades, is that extraterrestrial intelligence is the most reasonable explanation for certain UFO reports.

The people doing these studies were scientific and military professionals, not flying saucer fans. There appear to be no real grounds for suggesting that they jumped to their conclusion that extraterrestrial intelligence explained some UFO reports. I accept their conclusions, as given, based on the summary of evidence encountered.

Someone else may honestly differ in the conclusions they draw from the same evidence. Well and fine. Differences in interpretation are a commonplace in science.  But if anyone wishes to charge these investigators with incompetence, such as wishful thinking, or carelessness about having sufficient evidence to reach their conclusions, let's see some specific facts tending to support these charges.         

The problem is that the cases you have mentioned turned out to be conclusions based on belief and not evidence.

The repeated conclusion of a number of studies over the decades has been that the observations are NOT alien in origin. You've chosen to elevate a few reports based solely on belief to a study and even a case in which a person did not do a study, but wrote a light piece or two for newspapers looking for entertainment material.

I disagree with this assessment: " The people doing these studies were scientific and military professionals, not flying saucer fans " In fact the project Sign group were flying saucer fans.

Since these studies did  not have real evidence I have to doubt the quality of the work as being scientific. These groups brought out their biases based on belief because that is the strongest argument they had.

[rashore]

Ok folks, please stop discussing each other and get back to discussing the topic in a civil and courteous manner please.

[bmk1245]

1 minute ago, rashore said:

Ok folks, please stop discussing each other and get back to discussing the topic in a civil and courteous manner please.

Ok.

[highdesert50]

Alas, our perceptions and consequent actions are filtered by our beliefs. And, a belief that provides hope, particularly in times of despair, is unlikely to be extinguished. How we perceive is how we proceed ... the debate continues.

[Unusual Tournament]

7 hours ago, stereologist said:

But that isn't what happens. It is simple to claim that there are such events and that is why these events get investigated. Not a single such claim has turned out to be true. If it did there would be a smoking gun - solid evidence.

The great speeds can come from people simple guessing that distant unrelated blips on radar are the same object. That might not be true.

In the case of the FLIR images associated with TTSA the great speed was really due to zoom being used and the loonies at TTSA did not understand that.

In another case the fact that a deice had failed and was reporting t he same locked in distance was assumed to mean that an intelligent craft was moving in a circular path about the base.

If you think there is a real case then list it. I've listed solutions to misunderstandings. Go ahead and post one or more cases you believe are not mistakes made by investigators.

Sorry, Stereo but we're not talking of JimBo drinking bourbon in his pick up on the side of the road and seeing strange lights... these are intercept and tracking proof. this is fighter pilots watching objects leaving them for dust and then stopping in mid flight waiting for the fighters to catch up. you just don't know better or have more information on the particular UFO sightings that U.S. Navy fighter pilots and radar specialists are concerned about to make any of your points valid. you just don't!

[stereologist]

On 5/4/2019 at 4:53 PM, Captain Risky said:

Sorry, Stereo but we're not talking of JimBo drinking bourbon in his pick up on the side of the road and seeing strange lights... these are intercept and tracking proof. this is fighter pilots watching objects leaving them for dust and then stopping in mid flight waiting for the fighters to catch up. you just don't know better or have more information on the particular UFO sightings that U.S. Navy fighter pilots and radar specialists are concerned about to make any of your points valid. you just don't!

Please provide the incident.  Show that anything you pretend happened actually happened.

Please provide the exact incident or incidents you are referring to.

Here is what I wrote:

Quote

But that isn't what happens. It is simple to claim that there are such events and that is why these events get investigated. Not a single such claim has turned out to be true. If it did there would be a smoking gun - solid evidence.

The great speeds can come from people simple guessing that distant unrelated blips on radar are the same object. That might not be true.

In the case of the FLIR images associated with TTSA the great speed was really due to zoom being used and the loonies at TTSA did not understand that.

In another case the fact that a deice had failed and was reporting t he same locked in distance was assumed to mean that an intelligent craft was moving in a circular path about the base.

If you think there is a real case then list it. I've listed solutions to misunderstandings. Go ahead and post one or more cases you believe are not mistakes made by investigators.

Straw man argument: "we're not talking of JimBo drinking bourbon in his pick up on the side of the road and seeing strange lights"

I never mentioned any such incident.

Fallacy: "these are intercept and tracking proof."  - That never happened in ANY of the incidents I mentioned.

Fallacy: "leaving them for dust and then stopping in mid flight waiting for the fighters to catch up" - That never happened in ANY of the incidents I mentioned.

 

 

Edited May 6, 2019 by stereologist

[Timothy]

On 5/4/2019 at 3:42 AM, bison said:

*snip*

and of the French GEIPAN study of 2005. All of these concluded that extraterrestrial intelligence was the likeliest explanation for some UFO reports.   

*snip*

@bison: Why keep referencing the GEIPAN 2005 study rather than a much more recent (Feb 2018, see my post #12) release from them?

[bison]

The conclusions of the GEIPAN 2005 study stand. The much later statement to which you refer seems to miss the point.  Proof of the extraterrestrial hypothesis was never claimed. It was merely given as the likeliest explanation for some of the better UFO reports they examined. The references to the emotional reactions of the witnesses  and journalistic approaches to the subject are really beside the point, too.  GEIPAN looked to the evidence, investigated its value, and drew its conclusions.   

[stereologist]

22 hours ago, bison said:

The conclusions of the GEIPAN 2005 study stand. The much later statement to which you refer seems to miss the point.  Proof of the extraterrestrial hypothesis was never claimed. It was merely given as the likeliest explanation for some of the better UFO reports they examined. The references to the emotional reactions of the witnesses  and journalistic approaches to the subject are really beside the point, too.  GEIPAN looked to the evidence, investigated its value, and drew its conclusions.   

When you say "The conclusions of the GEIPAN 2005 study stand." are you simply referring to the fact that around 1/4 of the cases they looked into ended up with the group not assigning a mundane explanation?

I think you would like those conclusions to stand, but it seems they do not even stand within Geipan. Studies are surpassed by better studies and more knowledge. 

Geipan drew conclusions which like all conclusions are not set in concrete. The 2005 study was considered poorly done by French skeptics. 

 

[bison]

I find no assertion or indication in the statement from GEIPAN quoted in post # 12, that further study invalidated their 2005 conclusion, that extraterrestrial intelligence was the likeliest explanation for some UFO reports.  The quoted statement merely emphasizes the lack of absolute proof, and so declines to express a definite 'yes or no' opinion on the extraterrestrial hypothesis for UFOs. This is all quite in accord with the original conclusions. I'm sure that any study on as controversial subject as UFOs will inevitably have its critics.

   

[stereologist]

I would point out that nothing in the Geipan 2005 report validates their conclusion. They simply did not assign a mundane explanation to approximately 1/4 of the issues they examined.

Nothing is there to validate or invalidate their conclusion. They drew a conclusion on what little they had.

[bison]

Did GEIPAN simply have inadequate information in those reports, for which they found the likeliest explanation to be extraterrestrial intelligence? That would make no sense. The only way to establish a likelihood of the extraterrestrial hypothesis in these cases would be to have adequate information to exhaustively rule out all mundane explanations. Reports of apparent flying craft not attributable to our own devices, maneuvering in ways our aircraft can not, formed the basis of GEIPANs conclusions.