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 -

US Government has no explanation for UFO's.


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That makes it best candidate does it not?

No, it makes it a candidate.

 

Quote

I said it's the best explanation. Do you disagree with that? 

Yes, for reasons already stated.

 

Quote

Try putting it into a realistic perspective.

Well, gee...I hadn't thought to do that! Thanks! :rolleyes:

Quote

Why did RADAR operators conclude that without the all important track connecting the two locations? 

 

That's kinda what I asked you. Are you answering my question by asking me the same question?

Quote

That it was seen in both places would indicate the possibility that done transmission from the defence forces is triggering the phenomena.

Yes, that is a possibility. But are we to disregard the pilots' reports in order to esteem said possibility as the most likely explanation?

Quote

It was described this way. You are overreaching again.

You're not making sense. How was I over-reaching by quoting the description of the tic-tac as reported by Fravor and company and asking how the description is consistent with a description of plasma? It certainly appears that you are utterly disregarding the description. Why is that?


 

Quote

 

The “Tic Tac.”
The term “Tic Tac,” I actually coined that. So, any time you heard the term, “It looked like a ‘Tic Tac’ out there in the sky,” I was the one that kind of coined that.

Was that named based on what you saw with your own eyes, or from looking at the screen on the camera?
No. I was more concentrated on looking at the FLIR. It was inside of 20 miles. You’re not going to see it with your own eyes until probably 10 miles, and then you’re not going to be able to visually track it until you’re probably inside of five miles, which is where Dave Fravor said that he saw it. So, at that point I didn’t see anything with my eyeballs. I was more concerned with tracking it, making sure that the videotape was on so that I could bring something back to the ship, so that the intel folks could dissect whatever it is that I captured.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2019/12/tic-tac-ufo-video-q-and-a-with-navy-pilot-chad-underwood.html

 

Your point?

 

Quote

You almost seen offended at the suggestion of natural phenomena. Why is that? 

 

I would love to know how you got that idea. In this very thread I said, "I think plasma is a fascinating avenue to pursue." Not to mention the fact that in our past discussions I've repeatedly noted that I think plasma may very well explain a range of sightings. 

Edited by SeekTruth
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Why are they likely?

@bison just today posted his thoughts on the matter. I agree with his reasoning. 

 

 

Edited by SeekTruth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

No, it makes it a candidate.

 

Yes, for reasons already stated.

What other candidates are better and manage to be able to fulfill all criteria regarding the descriptions?

Quote

Well, gee...I hadn't thought to do that! Thanks! :rolleyes:

I seriously hope you take the advice. 

Quote

That's kinda what I asked you. Are you answering my question by asking me the same question?

Yes. Why would they conclude that was the case? What reasoning is there to determine the objects as the sane one? 

Sounds like biased opinion. 

Quote

Yes, that is a possibility. But are we to disregard the pilots' reports in order to esteem said possibility as the most likely explanation?

What reports offer a distinct track between the two locations? 

Without that nothing has been disregarded. The opinions have been shown to be full of holes and therefore wrong. 

Quote

You're not making sense. How was I over-reaching by quoting the description of the tic-tac as reported by Fravor and company and asking how the description is consistent with a description of plasma? It certainly appears that you are utterly disregarding the description. Why is that?


 

Your point?

That for one of wasn't fravors description and two the visuals are captures. 

Quote

 

I would love to know how you got that idea. In this very thread I said, "I think plasma is a fascinating avenue to pursue." Not to mention the fact that in our past discussions I've repeatedly noted that I think plasma may very well explain a range of sightings. 

Because you have also said you suspect these claims amount to tech and rather than further investigate the possibility of natural phenomena, your comments indicate you would rather entertain the idea of otherworldly visitors. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

Bison's just today posted his thoughts on the matter. I agree with his reasoning. 

 

 

Because that poster thinks holograms can't explain old sightings?

I've never been impressed with bisons posting. That's hasn't changed with this post. Bisons a closet UFOlogist. A Stan Friedman type wannabe. Please reference better posters for credibility 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Because that poster thinks holograms can't explain old sightings?

I've never been impressed with bisons posting. That's hasn't changed with this post. Bisons a closet UFOlogist. A Stan Friedman type wannabe. Please reference better posters for credibility 

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy.

Bison's reasoning on this particular idea is in line with mine, which is why I referred to it. It frankly matters not one iota whether or not you think bison is credible. You asked a question and I gave you an answer. So, if you wish to move forward, tell me what you find to be lacking in the argument.

 

Also, I'll note that I've seldom been impressed with your posting. That doesn't stop be from attempting to engage you here and there.

Edited by SeekTruth
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy.

You're just a sook that can't take what you give. It's an accurate description. Bison has no real credibility at all. Very fanciful posting from that one. 

4 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

Bison's reasoning on this particular idea is in line with mine, which is why I referred to it.

Well I'm sorry to hear that. You have my condolences. 

4 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

ItIt frankly matters not one iota whether or not you think bison is credible.

Seems to matter to you. A lot.

4 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

You asked a question and I gave you an answer. So, if you wish to move forward, tell me what you find to be lacking in the argument.

There is no argument. Is there anybody who reads this section of the board that isn't aware of the timeline and impossible manoeuvres? How does that change anything? What is severely lacking is logic. Nothing indicates these sightings and claims represent solid craft. How about determining that fir a start, then see if you can correlate them to space or even the morey unlikely idea of the EDI..

The reasoning as you call it presented so far amount to about the same as campfire stories.

And I don't care if you want to move forward. If you want to believe in fairy tales, you go for it. Don't let me stop you.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

What other candidates are better and manage to be able to fulfill all criteria regarding the descriptions?

Craft.

Quote

I seriously hope you take the advice. 

I seriously hope you can cease the condescending attitude.

Quote

Yes. Why would they conclude that was the case? What reasoning is there to determine the objects as the sane one? Sounds like biased opinion.

Have you not looked into that very question before reaching the conclusion that the radar techs were biased?  You evidently can't accept that it is one object, so you resort to questioning the judgments of the technicians. Sounds like biased opinion. 

Quote

What reports offer a distinct track between the two locations? 

The radar tech, Kevin Day, goes into detail  here:

Quote

That for one of wasn't fravors description and two the visuals are captures. 

What? Fravor indeed described the tic-tac in the way. But I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.

Quote

Because you have also said you suspect these claims amount to tech and rather than further investigate the possibility of natural phenomena, your comments indicate you would rather entertain the idea of otherworldly visitors. 

No, my comments indicate that my present position ascribes more likelihood to the ETH and IDH than other alternatives with regards to certain UFO sightings. As I've said over and over, I am very much open to explanations evoking plasma. which is why I'm asking you to explain how the pilots' accounts are consistent with a sighting of plasma. You still haven't come through on that. I'm all ears. Please stop making false suggestions about me and just have a discussion.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy.

Bison's reasoning on this particular idea is in line with mine, which is why I referred to it. It frankly matters not one iota whether or not you think bison is credible. You asked a question and I gave you an answer. So, if you wish to move forward, tell me what you find to be lacking in the argument.

 

Also, I'll note that I've seldom been impressed with your posting. That doesn't stop be from attempting to engage you here and there.

I admit that I agree with Psyche’s assessment.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

You're just a sook that can't take what you give.

This might just be my last post to you on these forums, depending on the manner of your response, as a consistent pattern has emerged with your posts.

A sook that can't take what I give? Pray tell, where have I been guilty of the ad hominem fallacy on these boards? I'll wait.

Quote

It's an accurate description. Bison has no real credibility at all. Very fanciful posting from that one. 

You still don't get it. Bison's credibility or lack thereof has no bearing whatsoever on the argument he made and has no bearing on the reasoning by which I have reached the conclusion I've come to. Since you clearly do not understand what the ad hominem fallacy is, I submit this for your benefit. https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Ad-Hominem.html

Quote

Well I'm sorry to hear that. You have my condolences. 

Well, I see my attempt at dialogue is no match for your wit!

Quote

Seems to matter to you. A lot.

And why would you say that? Your comment tells me more about you than it does me.

Quote

There is no argument.

There is. You may not find it a strong argument, but it is an argument, and it is one that you haven't begun to engage. All I'm getting from you is flippant dismissal.

Quote

Is there anybody who reads this section of the board that isn't aware of the timeline and impossible manoeuvres? How does that change anything?

Not sure what you're asking, but it would seem that you aren't wrapping your head around the argument.

Quote

What is severely lacking is logic.

Go on, we're listening.

Quote

Nothing indicates these sightings and claims represent solid craft.

I disagree. Do you really think Fravor was looking at a plasma for those several minutes? Tell us how that makes sense.

Quote

The reasoning as you call it presented so far amount to about the same as campfire stories.

Don't know what you are trying to say here. It would be odd were you to here and now dismiss the Nimitz incident as a campfire story, seeing that you appeared to have taken Fravor's report seriously.

 

Quote

And I don't care if you want to move forward.

Um, ok. I'll take that to mean that you have no interest in advancing the discussion. So be it. I'm afraid I wasted my time. Perhaps, though, some reading this will find the exchange useful.

Quote

 If you want to believe in fairy tales, you go for it. Don't let me stop you.

Thanks for giving me permission. I'd prefer to keep seeking Truth, however. Cheers!

Edited by SeekTruth
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, badeskov said:

I admit that I agree with Psyche’s assessment.  

Assessment of what? He didn't assess the argument in the least. All he had to offer was an ad hominem and a red herring.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

Craft.

How so. 

That seems a highly unlikely possibility. 

Quote

I seriously hope you can cease the condescending attitude.

Leys see how your response pan out. 

Quote

Have you not looked into that very question before reaching the conclusion that the radar techs were biased?  You evidently can't accept that it is one object, so you resort to questioning the judgments of the technicians. Sounds like biased opinion. 

You're telling the story. 

There's just no good reason to consider it the same thing. You seem to want to think that, but I can't see anything but bias promoting that opinion.

Quote

The radar tech, Kevin Day, goes into detail  here:

 

An hour and eighteen minutes?

Surely you can find a more consise source that doesn't force your views upon others. 

Quote

What? Fravor indeed described the tic-tac in the way. But I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.

That it wasn't his description, he borrowed it and the views were captured and don't support the solid casing description. 

Quote

No, my comments indicate that my present position ascribes more likelihood to the ETH and IDH than other alternatives with regards to certain UFO sightings.

That's the bias which makes discussion difficult. 

What is the connection between UFOs and space?

What UFO had ever been tracked leaving or entering the atmosphere?

What UFO had ever been shown to be a physical craft? 

Quote

As I've said over and over, I am very much open to explanations evoking plasma. which is why I'm asking you to explain how the pilots' accounts are consistent with a sighting of plasma. You still haven't come through on that. I'm all ears. Please stop making false suggestions about me and just have a discussion.

Ive already told you. It has magnetic properties that offer the illusion of intelligent control, it can do manoeuvres that would restrict physical craft and the fact that we record them with radar at Hessdalen and incidents like the Belgian wave, it can instantly form, and doesn't make sonic booms. 

What specs do you have on ET craft for comparison? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2021 at 12:01 PM, SeekTruth said:

I lean towards them being technology. That said, I think plasma is a fascinating avenue to pursue.

That's a bit of strange response " I lean toward then being Technology " what does that means, what kind of technology??

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, badeskov said:

I admit that I agree with Psyche’s assessment.  

Hey, how's it going hope all is well. You know what I can't stop thinking about with the Navy ships and the objects that have been swarming some of their vessels. To date, I have not read a single report where the ships or their Interceptor Aircraft have opened fire on the UAPs. The reason I bring this up is because we both know that the Navy has standard Rules of Engagement ( ROW) for any un-identified aircraft or flying object that are on a course that will take them directly over a US Navy Ship. Now these objects are being tracked on radar, so they are aware of the distance between the object and the ship. 

After thinking about this, I reread the reported incidents and there is no report that they made their weapons hot and fired either from the ship or from the interception Aircraft, doesn't that seen really strange??

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2021 at 4:21 AM, Vaz said:

Not a questions of convictions.  Honest dedicated hard study, combined with common sense, and an unbiased sense of detections is all that is required.

The straw arguments of the skeptics are gradually blowing away.

And your evidence dare i say proof of your claims? Thats right you have ziltch just veiled ad hominem, pathetic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2021 at 4:29 AM, Vaz said:

No.  The huge delta chaped craft that flew over Arizona in 1997 flew far too slow and silently.  DYOR

Well explained and debunked case.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2021 at 3:21 PM, Rlyeh said:

So something that is entirely alien to you.

You said "alien" to him, fanning his fires...laughing6(2).gif.eef7f535a6a700aecb9701e4c125fefd.gif

Edited by the13bats
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

That's a bit of strange response " I lean toward then being Technology " what does that means, what kind of technology??

 

Not sure what you find strange about it.

What kind of technology? If I knew, then there wouldn't be a mystery. I say I lean towards them being craft, but that is not to say I have an idea who are what engineered them. I just think that certain cases, like the Nimitz case, might better be explained as involving unknown craft as opposed to natural phenomenon or misperception by the pilots. Does that clarify things?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

Not sure what you find strange about it.

What kind of technology? If I knew, then there wouldn't be a mystery. I say I lean towards them being craft, but that is not to say I have an idea who are what engineered them. I just think that certain cases, like the Nimitz case, might better be explained as involving unknown craft as opposed to natural phenomenon or misperception by the pilots. Does that clarify things?

Not a poke rather a very odd observation I just dont get why some closet believers are so darn bashful that they refuse to admit they think its "aliens" even when they make it bloody gin clear obvious that is what they believe.

Perhaps its because the zillion far more likely human based and natural explainations have not even close to have all been ruled out so there is beyond zero reason to jump, reach and assume aliens with no supporting evidence what so ever to back it up.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, the13bats said:

Not a poke rather a very odd observation I just dont get why some closet believers are so darn bashful that they refuse to admit they think its "aliens" even when they make it bloody gin clear obvious that is what they believe.

Perhaps its because the zillion far more likely human based and natural explainations have not even close to have all been ruled out so there is beyond zero reason to jump, reach and assume aliens with no supporting evidence what so ever to back it up.

 

100%

Nothing indicates the sightings are craft. That's a huge leap right there. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

100%

Nothing indicates the sightings are craft. That's a huge leap right there. 

What do you think they are, if not some form of Drone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

What do you think they are, if not some form of Drone?

Plasma. It can do everything described.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Plasma. It can do everything described.

Fair enough. So you agree the 4 hornet pilots during the 5min of visual misidentified the contact? All 4?    And plasma will mirror an approaching aircraft? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Plasma. It can do everything described.

Plasma, is possible that's what they also thought the German Foo Fighter were. With the German Foo Fighters they were not tracked by ground radar, in this case though ship Board radar was able to track the objects. Maybe whatever form of plasma this is it can be tracked on radar.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, khol said:

Fair enough. So you agree the 4 hornet pilots during the 5min of visual misidentified the contact? All 4?    And plasma will mirror an approaching aircraft? 

Every pilot speaking to press is assuming some type of craft. We saw a lot of this in the 60s and 70s too. Pilots don't seem to consider natural phenomena at all. 

I'm going by the majority of corroborated information. White featureless object that can do things physical things cannot. It strikes me that considering something capable of fulfilling the description are more important than interpretations and opinions of things that cannot.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Plasma, is possible that's what they also thought the German Foo Fighter were. With the German Foo Fighters they were not tracked by ground radar, in this case though ship Board radar was able to track the objects. Maybe whatever form of plasma this is it can be tracked on radar.

Plasmas at Hessdalen are recorded on radar regularly. 

Sprites only occur in the upper atmosphere. And often have a saucer like shape. I would say a high atmospheric phenomena is probably the best start to unravel this mystery. 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQSxG_X86D7QGUNiszrfZt

  • Like 7
Link to comment
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.