Pentagon confirms 'pyramid-shaped' UFO video footage is authentic

[the13bats]

10 minutes ago, moonman said:

That's your misunderstanding - I never said it wasn't authentic. I said they didn't bother to try and understand what they were seeing before releasing it as "crazy UFO" footage. I never doubted the source.

Had they bothered to even put a small amount of effort into it like chrlzs did, they probably wouldn't have released it at all. Which goes back to my original question -  did they release it out of ineptitude on their part or for some other reason?

To me its side splittingly hilarious that this forums photo expert debunked this tripe and rather quickly where The gov photo experts gave up, too darn funny if it wasnt so darn incompetent.

[ChrLzs]

Want further coffin nails?

Here's Mick West, as usual going over the top with evidence & examples and coming to the same conclusion.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pyramid-ufos-in-night-vision-footage-maybe-bokeh.11695/

Note that although he sounds like me, the Charleslamour guy over there is not me.   

 

Added - and here's an EXCELLENT video...

 

 

Edited April 16, 2021 by ChrLzs

[M 7]

1 hour ago, moonman said:

That's your misunderstanding - I never said it wasn't authentic. My point was they didn't bother to try and understand what they were seeing before releasing it as "crazy UFO" footage. I never doubted the source.

Had they bothered to even put a small amount of effort into it like chrlzs did, they probably wouldn't have released it at all after realizing it was nothing but a camera artifact. Which goes back to my original question -  did they release it out of ineptitude on their part or for some other reason?

As far as DOD ufo videos go, I have yet to see one that hasn't been explained in some way. Why aren't they admitting there could be normal explanations?

I'm still not fully understanding what you’re saying because it was 'leaked' not released. So just to clarify is it the DOD, the media or the 'leaker's' judgement that you’re questioning?

Regarding the DOD, reading between the lines on the official statement their policy is basically one of 'no comment' . Not so much 'no comment' on whether or not they’re extraterrestrial vehicles but 'no comment' as to whether they’re top secret domestic technology or a foreign nations craft. The footage in this video could be either or it could be something more mundane. If it was the latter and they say as much then people would deduce there’s more to a story when they don’t comment so they adopt a blanket policy even if said footage is just a weather ballon or something equally mundane.

Of course I’m sure they’re well aware that by not commenting that it will generate a lot more hype in the media and a lot more confusion on the subject. Given that one way or the other were dealing with an area of investigation that definitely overlaps with classified technology/intelligence , terrestrial or extraterrestrial depending on what people choose to believe, is it really that surprising that they’d be happy for the subject to be muddied and tarnished by various conspiracy theories.

[pallidin]

Well here's the bottom-line we all know so well...

It really doesn't matter if the DoD, the President, or the United Nations for that matter, claim that certain UFO footage is "authentic" in the sense of being taken by responsible military/civilian people.

Doesn't matter AT ALL.

There will always be 2 camps on this subject, each opposing the other.

Just the way it is, we all know that.

[Hazzard]

13 hours ago, moonman said:

I think you nailed it, the other random crap floating in the background is "pyramid" shaped as well.

All they really captured was a distant flashing light. It makes me wonder why they would call this "authentic" while doing absolutely no analysis. Ineptitude or something else?

I think that by "authentic" they mean a photo that hasnt been tampered with... and not an authentic alien spacecraft.

[M 7]

2 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Well here's the bottom-line we all know so well...

It really doesn't matter if the DoD, the President, or the United Nations for that matter, claim that certain UFO footage is "authentic" in the sense of being taken by responsible military/civilian people.

Doesn't matter AT ALL.

There will always be 2 camps on this subject, each opposing the other.

Just the way it is, we all know that.

I’d say 3 camps personally but as I said in another thread I don’t believe that in this day and age photographic evidence is going to change many opinions on the subject, so yeah, I pretty much agree with your bottom line.

[Timothy]

24 minutes ago, M 7 said:

I’d say 3 camps personally but as I said in another thread I don’t believe that in this day and age photographic evidence is going to change many opinions on the subject, so yeah, I pretty much agree with your bottom line.

I’d be pretty happy with: 

• Multiple clear photos and videos
• From different people
• From different angles and distances
• Of a single event or the same phenomena
• Clearly showing an unconventional craft or something actually exhibiting something unknown to human capabilities
• All of the footage uploaded raw to be able to verify likelihood of being unedited
• Near impossible to be able to fake

That would be something worth talking about!

[M 7]

42 minutes ago, Timothy said:

I’d be pretty happy with: 

• Multiple clear photos and videos
• From different people
• From different angles and distances
• Of a single event or the same phenomena
• Clearly showing an unconventional craft or something actually exhibiting something unknown to human capabilities
• All of the footage uploaded raw to be able to verify likelihood of being unedited
• Near impossible to be able to fake

That would be something worth talking about!

There’s no terms of reference for what a real aliens craft should look like, when taking photos of something in the sky it’s hard to judge things like distance and size when taking pictures against a backdrop of sky, it’s also difficult to take clear pictures of fast moving objects at distance without the right settings and equipment, the majority of cameras default to JPEG, many smartphones don’t actually have an official way of shooting in RAW and I think it’s fair to say that the majority of the general public don’t use that format.

Therefore I have to question the likelihood of satisfying all of those conditions on a sighting viewed by different people from multiple locations and if all of those conditions were ‘satisfied' I'd probably think it was to good to be true because in this day and age, what isn't impossible to fake? Now you could probably come back and list a lot of things but I think there’s a general perception amongst a large portion of the general public that you can pretty much fake anything. That’s why I think photographic evidence is unlikely to change anybody’s mind at this point in time.

Edited April 16, 2021 by M 7

[M 7]

On 4/14/2021 at 10:35 PM, ChrLzs said:

I'm struggling to find the statement or the alleged email, or who the heck Susan Gough is.  Many claims here, but they all seem to lead back to a very vague reference at "The Black Vault", despite the suggestions that this was a major media release to many outlets..

 

According to her LinkedIn profile she's worked as a Senior Strategic Planner and Spokesperson for the U.S Department of Defence since 2009 and has a career in the military spanning back to 1981.

Edited April 16, 2021 by M 7

[ChrLzs]

1 hour ago, M 7 said:

There’s no terms of reference for what a real aliens craft should look like

True, but we do know what aircraft of earthly origin look like and maneuver like - there's really only a few basic designs, and we keep hearing FALSE claims from UFOnatics that there is radar or video evidence of those impossible maneuvers... but there aren't.

Quote

when taking photos of something in the sky it’s hard to judge things like distance and size when taking pictures against a backdrop of sky

True, but I'm not sure I'm seeing a point there..

Quote

it’s also difficult to take clear pictures of fast moving objects at distance without the right settings and equipment

True, but as compared to the 40's, 50's, etc right through to about 2000, digital cameras were either non-existent or nowhere near as cheap and as good as they are now.  Not only is my relatively cheap smartphone equipped with a pretty capable lens/sensor, as a photography enthusiast, I have a DSLR and big telephoto lens in my car with me most of the time.  That camera runs rings around what I could afford in the film era, plus it never runs out of film and can shoot remarkably good video, even in very low light..

Things is, there is absolutely no excuse for the fact that nowadays we hardly get any decent images worthy of in depth analysis - far less than in the 50's and 60's, say...  Oh wait, yes there is an explanation - now we identify the stuff, or someone closer to it does that for us, what with social media...

Quote

the majority of cameras default to JPEG, many smartphones don’t actually have an official way of shooting in RAW and I think it’s fair to say that the majority of the general public don’t use that format.

True, but I think he was alluding to having a decent forensic analysis done on the original files on the original media.  There are ways (no, I'm not telling!) that you can verify if the original file - as stored on say an SD card - was altered or re-saved.  Sure, RAW footage would be even better, but simple access to the original media would be a HUGE start to detecting tomfoolery.

Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge your points, but you've got to consider a little more widely....

 

As for Susan Gough, I'm still not seeing a proper media release from the DoD, just claims on email..  but never mind, let's accept that she's the real deal, and her comments are a true representation of the DoD's experts.  First up, I very strongly suggest you look at the video from Mick West above, towards the end.  And let's REquote her full statement (with a little emphasis from yours truly...).  First up, here's how she is normally quoted:

Quote

“I can confirm that the referenced photos and videos were taken by Navy personnel. The UAPTF has included these incidents in their ongoing examinations,”

But is that all she said?  No, most of these UFO=alienz pushers leave the next bit out.  She goes on...

Quote

"As we have said before, to maintain operations security and to avoid disclosing information that may be useful to potential adversaries, DOD does not discuss publicly the details of either the observations or the examinations of reported incursions into our training ranges or designated airspace, including those incursions initially designated as UAP"

Think that through.  In other words, they accept any initially unidentifiable sightings, but after that we will NOT hear about the analysis.

In this case, they will, unless completely incompetent, have identified the bokeh and other issues, and then checked the overflights that were taking place above that ship at that time.  It was almost certainly a 737 or similar flying into Los Angeles from Hawaii or Asia, because the ship was almost directly under the flight path.

Edited April 16, 2021 by ChrLzs

[Vaz]

On 4/14/2021 at 11:39 PM, ChrLzs said:

When I have time, I may come back and take a look at the footage, but I gotta say the screenshots look like they are godawful quality and low-res.

So at least they are consistent..

It won't make any difference.  You must surely know what these things really are.  There have been enough videos and accounts around now surely?

Edited April 16, 2021 by Vaz

[Timothy]

1 hour ago, M 7 said:

There’s no terms of reference for what a real aliens craft should look like, when taking photos of something in the sky it’s hard to judge things like distance and size when taking pictures against a backdrop of sky, it’s also difficult to take clear pictures of fast moving objects at distance without the right settings and equipment, the majority of cameras default to JPEG, many smartphones don’t actually have an official way of shooting in RAW and I think it’s fair to say that the majority of the general public don’t use that format.

Therefore I have to question the likelihood of satisfying all of those conditions on a sighting viewed by different people from multiple locations and if all of those conditions were ‘satisfied' I'd probably think it was to good to be true because in this day and age, what isn't impossible to fake? Now you could probably come back and list a lot of things but I think there’s a general perception amongst a large portion of the general public that you can pretty much fake anything. That’s why I think photographic evidence is unlikely to change anybody’s mind at this point in time.

Sorry, to clarify, when I said ‘uploaded raw’, I meant as in the raw photo from that device, not actually in a raw file format. 
Just as in the most uncompressed version that the photo/video is taken for any given device, not cropped/compressed further/altered in any way.

‘No terms of reference of a real alien craft’ is irrelevant to my post; I was just stating what would need to occur for photo/video evidence to possibly satisfy me. Plus plenty of people have claimed to see real physical craft, so if that were really happening, then the possibility of a wide-scale siting should be possible, right?

Yes CGI is getting pretty amazing, that’s why the footage would need to satisfy the conditions. It would be near impossible to do that with CGI while trying to pass off the images/video as raw and unedited and taken by multiple different devices. 

Also it’s not hard to whip out your phone to take picture/video of commercial aircraft at lower altitudes eg. Up to 10,000FT, and be able to easily distinguish that it is in fact an aircraft, and probably be able to reasonably determine which model it is.

If you told people to take a photo/video of the next aircraft they see flying overhead, it would basically satisfy my conditions. And yes we would be able to determine from multiple sources that it is indeed an aircraft and not fake footage.

The main reason I think that photographic evidence won’t happen is because I don’t believe there are ET craft visiting Earth, or that we have secret technology advanced enough to support the claims people make. 

[M 7]

8 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

True, but we do know what aircraft of earthly origin look like and maneuver like - there's really only a few basic designs, and we keep hearing FALSE claims from UFOnatics that there is radar or video evidence of those impossible maneuvers... but there aren't.

True, but I'm not sure I'm seeing a point there..

True, but as compared to the 40's, 50's, etc right through to about 2000, digital cameras were nowhere near as cheap and as good as they are now.  Not only is my relatively cheap smartphone equipped with a pretty capable lens/sensor, as a photography enthusiast, I have a DSLR and big telephoto lens in my car with me most of the time.  That camera runs rings around what I could afford in the film era, plus it never runs out of film and can shoot remarkably good video, even in very low light..

Things is, there is absolutely no excuse for the fact that nowadays we hardly get any decent images worthy of in depth analysis - far less than in the 50's and 60's, say...  Oh wait, yes there is an explanation - now we identify the stuff, or someone closer to it does that for us, what with social media...

True, but I think he was alluding to having a decent forensic analysis done on the original files on the original media.  There are ways (no, I'm not telling!) that you can verify if the original file - as stored on say an SD card - was altered or re-saved.  Sure, RAW footage would be even better, but simple access to the original media would be a HUGE start to detecting tomfoolery.

Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge your points, but you've got to consider a little more widely....

 

As for Susan Gough, I'm still not seeing a proper medial release from the DoD, just claims on email..  but never mind, let's accept that she's the real deal, and her comments are a true representation of the DoD's experts.  First up, I very strongly suggest you look at the video from Mick West above, towards the end.  And let's REquote her full statement (with a little emphasis from yours truly...).  First up, here's how she is normally quoted:

But is that all she said?  No, most of these UFO=alienz pushers leave the next bit out.  She goes on...

Think that through.  In other words, they accept any initially unidentifiable sightings, but after that we will NOT hear about the analysis.

In this case, they will, unless completely incompetent, have identified the bokeh and other issues, and then checked the overflights that were taking place above that ship at that time.  It was almost certainly a 737 or similar flying into Los Angeles from Hawaii or Asia, because the ship was almost directly under the flight path.

Well to be fair ChrLZS I didn’t leave out the last bit, I actually explained that it’s clearly a blanket policy to not discuss details even when there’s nothing to see because if you dismiss all the ones with a mundane explanation then it makes it perfectly obvious that there’s a story for the ones you don’t comment on. Keep in mind that even if none of these are extraterrestrial craft some of them are almost certainly classified technology or involve covert actions from other nation states both of which are stories the DOD clearly would not want to see in the media. To clarify I raised this point not as proof that the government are definitely withholding information on alien life but to challenge a claim made by several posters that the DOD have done a poor job of investigating this sighting. Clearly they have investigated and that’s all they’re prepared to say.

Regarding the other points you’ve quoted from me, they were part of a multiple point critique of the criteria set out by Timothy about what he would consider provable evidence of extraterrestrial visitations to Earth and I don’t think it’s realistic that you will get the following all from one siting.

• Multiple clear photos and videos
• From different people
• From different angles and distances
• Of a single event or the same phenomena
• Clearly showing an unconventional craft or something actually exhibiting something unknown to human capabilities
• All of the footage uploaded raw to be able to verify likelihood of being unedited
• Near impossible to be able to fake

Whilst you’re no doubt a more experienced photographer than myself I also have much of the equipment you mention but if I go out somewhere hoping to get a great shot of let’s say some fairly common but perhaps reclusive animal I'm far from guaranteed to get the shot. I've waited all day for dolphins and bears only to have one show up just after I’ve changed my lens to capture something else and then I end up with a poor quality shot from distance or it’s disappeared in the short time it takes me to grab my telephoto lens from my bag and change it.

On another day I’ll drop in lucky and get loads of great shots but at the end of the day I’m still shooting a relatively common animal and I'm proactively going out to do just that. There is wildlife on our planet that even the best wildlife photographers on the planet struggle to capture because they’re so rare and reclusive but those animals do still exist and again the person filming or taking pictures knows exactly where to look.

We can’t really say the same with UFO's, we obviously don’t even know if there’s other life outside of Earth let alone visiting our world but if they are then it’s impossible for any of us to say how frequent or rare these events are. Now given that the predominant cameras in use on the planet are smartphones, that they’re not ideal for long distance photography of moving objects and that there are obviously no statistics available on alien incursions on our planet I believe a probability based argument that somebody with the know how, the right equipment all set up and suitable conditions would have got that killer shot by now to be flawed.

That’s my opinion of course, I’m not going to change your mind today and vice versa but whilst I disagree with your conclusion I like how you formulate your argument and recognise that it is underpinned with a sound understanding of the subject matter. For the record whilst I want to believe it probably would take the mothership parking itself above the Whitehouse to truly convince me. 

[M 7]

13 minutes ago, Timothy said:

 

The main reason I think that photographic evidence won’t happen is because I don’t believe there are ET craft visiting Earth, or that we have secret technology advanced enough to support the claims people make. 

And that’s the bottom line Timothy you don’t believe and I want to believe so in a field in which the evidence is far less than concrete it’s possible to have a wide variety of opinions.

I understand what you’re saying now about not specifically meaning RAW format. I still think it’s worth pointing out that JPEG does still process and compress a raw image before it saves it. The reason I highlight  that there’s no terms of reference for what a UFO should look like is because the assumption that one is not needed implies that it should look significantly different than objects we expect to see in the air. Also I’m fairly certain that we do have footage of sightings of the same object(s) from multiple people, it’s just that they’re typically recorded on mobile phones with digital zoom set to max and therefore don’t prove anything.

[ChrLzs]

1 hour ago, Vaz said:

It won't make any difference.  You must surely know what these things really are.  There have been enough videos and accounts around now surely?

  Could you please clarify?  Did you actually read the thread?  Follow the links?  It has been THOROUGHLY explained what these images show.

If you are claiming that these are unexplainable or alien visitations, then I'm afraid you have picked the wrong hobby.   Yes there's plenty of videos claiming alienz, but they are, frankly, all utter bull****, to date.  I'm open to something new of interest, but this thread does not contain that.  It merely shows the pretty optical effects you can get from incompetently using equipment you don't understand.

Edited April 16, 2021 by ChrLzs

[Timothy]

8 minutes ago, M 7 said:

And that’s the bottom line Timothy you don’t believe and I want to believe so in a field in which the evidence is far less than concrete it’s possible to have a wide variety of opinions.

I understand what you’re saying now about not specifically meaning RAW format. I still think it’s worth pointing out that JPEG does still process and compress a raw image before it saves it. The reason I highlight  that there’s no terms of reference for what a UFO should look like is because the assumption that one is not needed implies that it should look significantly different than objects we expect to see in the air. Also I’m fairly certain that we do have footage of sightings of the same object(s) from multiple people, it’s just that they’re typically recorded on mobile phones with digital zoom set to max and therefore don’t prove anything.

My bold. This is where you have me wrong friend!

I am pretty confident that there is other life out there in the universe, it would be very sad if we were it. 

One of the main hopes I have before I die is that we discover proof of ET life, and I’d honestly be happy with a single-celled organism on Mars or random rock etc. passing us by. 

And yes I’m aware that some devices do compress/save the image in a non-raw image format, but that doesn’t change anything I have said. 

Would be interested to know which sightings you are talking about?

I’d love to believe, I just need evidence. And the believers lacking arguments have made me the sceptic I am today. I have said that before on multiple occasions, and I’m sure it’s not the last time I’ll say it. 

[Timothy]

1 hour ago, Vaz said:

It won't make any difference.  You must surely know what these things really are.  There have been enough videos and accounts around now surely?

There is not enough data in the images/footage to resolve what exactly is being photographed/filmed, however every piece of footage thus far can be explained by the mundane. 

Conventional aircraft etc. 

Edited April 16, 2021 by Timothy
Added ‘thus far’ for clarity.

[godnodog]

13 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

 

Yup, all interesting cultural things. So...that would make them tourists? I like it. Perhaps if we treat them to a hell of a great B&B they might off load some free energy devices in exchange for some nifty souvenirs.

from biologists, geneticists to anthropologist,  

[Jon the frog]

9 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Want further coffin nails?

Here's Mick West, as usual going over the top with evidence & examples and coming to the same conclusion.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pyramid-ufos-in-night-vision-footage-maybe-bokeh.11695/

Note that although he sounds like me, the Charleslamour guy over there is not me.   

 

Added - and here's an EXCELLENT video...

 

 

lol that kicks some bu** !

[Hankenhunter]

3 hours ago, godnodog said:

from biologists, geneticists to anthropologist,  

Scientist, and tourists are not mutually exclusive. They can be one, and the same.

[M 7]

4 hours ago, Timothy said:

My bold. This is where you have me wrong friend!

I am pretty confident that there is other life out there in the universe, it would be very sad if we were it. 

One of the main hopes I have before I die is that we discover proof of ET life, and I’d honestly be happy with a single-celled organism on Mars or random rock etc. passing us by. 

And yes I’m aware that some devices do compress/save the image in a non-raw image format, but that doesn’t change anything I have said. 

Would be interested to know which sightings you are talking about?

I’d love to believe, I just need evidence. And the believers lacking arguments have made me the sceptic I am today. I have said that before on multiple occasions, and I’m sure it’s not the last time I’ll say it. 

To be honest that was more of an assumption than a fact, certainly over the years there’s been multiple mass sightings of things in the sky like the Phoenix lights and I’ve been under the impression that images and footage were from multiple sources. That’s not a hill I’m willing to die on though because I definitely could be misremembering things. To be honest your views seem fairly aligned with mine, I'd be delighted with confirmation of even microbial life in the solar system because the implications would be profound and I dearly hope I’m around to see such a discovery.

Where our views differ is that I clearly don’t place as much importance on the lack of strong photographic evidence. There’s no point me rehashing my views on that because you clearly understand the points I’m making. The problem is that whilst I’ve pointed out that the argument that there should be strong photographic evidence by now is based on unprovable assumptions I can’t deny that the same is also true of my counter view. Like I said I’m not really a believer, just a sceptic that wants to believe. Hence you won’t really see me claiming that aliens have been visiting Earth but you might see me challenging some reasons and methodology used to debunk the possibility.

[the13bats]

6 hours ago, Timothy said:

Sorry, to clarify, when I said ‘uploaded raw’, I meant as in the raw photo from that device, not actually in a raw file format. 
Just as in the most uncompressed version that the photo/video is taken for any given device, not cropped/compressed further/altered in any way.

‘No terms of reference of a real alien craft’ is irrelevant to my post; I was just stating what would need to occur for photo/video evidence to possibly satisfy me. Plus plenty of people have claimed to see real physical craft, so if that were really happening, then the possibility of a wide-scale siting should be possible, right?

Yes CGI is getting pretty amazing, that’s why the footage would need to satisfy the conditions. It would be near impossible to do that with CGI while trying to pass off the images/video as raw and unedited and taken by multiple different devices. 

Also it’s not hard to whip out your phone to take picture/video of commercial aircraft at lower altitudes eg. Up to 10,000FT, and be able to easily distinguish that it is in fact an aircraft, and probably be able to reasonably determine which model it is.

If you told people to take a photo/video of the next aircraft they see flying overhead, it would basically satisfy my conditions. And yes we would be able to determine from multiple sources that it is indeed an aircraft and not fake footage.

The main reason I think that photographic evidence won’t happen is because I don’t believe there are ET craft visiting Earth, or that we have secret technology advanced enough to support the claims people make. 

Very well said.

[Dejarma]

3 hours ago, M 7 said:

Hence you won’t really see me claiming that aliens have been visiting Earth but you might see me challenging some reasons and methodology used to debunk the possibility.

Hiya, M7...

I'd say the vast majority of skeptics are not against the possibility of aliens here in the past or indeed here now.

The vast majority of skepticism will be aimed at a particular claim/ story told/ footage etc- not the possibility in general

[ChrLzs]

14 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

Hiya, M7...

I'd say the vast majority of skeptics are not against the possibility of aliens here in the past or indeed here now.

The vast majority of skepticism will be aimed at a particular claim/ story told/ footage etc- not the possibility in general

Also very well said!  That is why we ask ufo=earth-visiting-alienz promoters to simply post their very best evidence.. and at that point we either get a brief reference to an old long-explained or debunked case (and no fresh information or debate), or they simply vanish and make excuses.

There are a multitude of reasons why we like to generate stories and claims about alien life - it's exciting and fun and nice to think we are not alone in our remote corner of the Cosmos.  It's NOT about the quantity of stories, it's about the quality of any given case.  To date, there is NO smoking gun.  Just a lot of folks trying to light campfires and failing...

Are we alone in the Universe?  I very much doubt it, although clearly the conditions have to be exactly right and the chemicals present must also be exactly right, so it's going to be rare.  Perhaps vanishingly, extraordinarily rare.

Have aliens ever visited us (in other words, become sentient and then technological and then overcome the huge tyranny of distance and also the huge difficulty in simply finding us)?  Almost certainly not, and if they did, they left no trace.  Unless, of course, they 'seeded' us............. cue Twilight Zone theme.

[Dejarma]

9 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Are we alone in the Universe?  I very much doubt it, although clearly the conditions have to be exactly right and the chemicals present must also be exactly right, so it's going to be rare.  Perhaps vanishingly, extraordinarily rare.

it's possible these conditions are not rare at all- we don't know do we