So, what about those “unidentified alloys” from UFO’s that The New York Times reported about ?
One might think that they should have at least mentioned it in this followup article ?
Or have they reached the point that they do clickbait now ?
Fake news. Everybody knows Warehouse 13 is located in South Dakota.
6 Likes
Artifact would be the right term, and some times “anomalous signal” cause we get these sort of things on microphones, and sensors of all sorts. And its lead to some pretty neat stuff, like finding out ball lightning is real.
People need to realize this are the exact same tools we use to track and predict the weather and study how our atmosphere works, among other things. And as much expertise as military staff might have on what sorts of flying vehicles, weapons and obstacles might be flying around up there. That doesn’t equate to expertise in how radio signals bounce off ice crystals in the ionosphere, radiation bursts from outer space, or rare cloud formations. The astrophysicist is neccisarily gonna recognize a drone, and the pilot isn’t neccisarily gonna recognize a meteor.
If its an artifact all they’re detecting is a problem with their equipment. If they’re detecting something atmospheric they have seen something “real”, but its not “flying” around up there or not supposed to be there. It could be something interesting, it could be something routine. We don’t know, they don’t know. We can’t really speculate too accurately as to what without more information. And its entirely possible for credible people to simply be mistaken.
3 Likes
He has two choices-- develop a more exciting lecture style-- or learn to throw erasers.
OTOH, some thigs can’t be helped. My organic chemistry class was scheduled for 8:30 AM-- because Prof was a morning person… Labs were three hours long.
1 Like
I don’t know how things can get more exciting than a guy in a canoe. Seriously this guy has a picture of a man in a canoe. Take that skeptics!
More seriously that particular lecture was one of his better ones. Well conducted, if routine, run down on psychological suggestion. Hypnosis, “recovered” memories and parasomnia. Except this one was intended to “prove” hypnosis and recovered memory were real and totally nothing to do with suggestion. And that sleep paralysis had nothing to do with abduction since it could be deliberately induced.
And given that Dr. Jacobs is a practicing hypnotherapist he had no qualms about, and was pretty good at, inducing it. So he did. I had a psych teacher in highschool who made the attempt, but i don’t think he had as much experience putting ideas in people’s heads.
3 Likes
Except by some accounts, the actual problem isn’t that aliens would never get here, but that they should be everywhere and obvious at this point of the universe’s evolution.
I find it hilarious that it confounds many scientists that “aliens” aren’t all over the place and easily detectable based on the likely propagation rates of probes across interstellar space, and yet the UFO phenomenon is never taken seriously as possible evidence of…
It is just as likely that the system upgrade (which was almost certainly an improvement in the system’s capabilities) has now allowed them to image an underlying phenomenon that wasn’t detectable previously.
And none of the characteristics of the UFO phenomenon, which has been going on unabated in its contemporary form for 75+ years, in any way imply secret human technology of a sort there is absolutely zero evidence for the existence of, based on a bevy of observed characteristics.
Based on the Fermi Paradox, it strikes me as way more likely it’s “aliens” than a secret human project.
Do you have any evidence this kind of testing tends to occur with highly secret military platforms? I’ve done quite a bit of research on the subject over the past several decades, and surprisingly, they actually try to keep the secret stuff secret, by essentially any means necessary.
That would certainly be novel. Care to hazard any guesses as to how these craft function, based on observed characteristics? Mach-speed capabilities, but can turn on a dime, doing things like making right-angle turns at exceptionally high velocities, while showing no obvious signs of propulsion or features that would generate lift?
I’d suggest looking at some of the more in-depth reports by some of the Navy pilots involved in these more recent video releases and declassifications. A lot of these details have been documented, by very experienced Navy fighter pilots, with confirmations from shipboard radar operators.
This grossly oversimplifies many decades of UFO sightings, which certainly do not all fit this “pattern” you describe. In fact, you are simply describing one small chain of events in a particular string of increased sightings in recent years. There are many well-documented sightings of unexplainable aircraft that have been going on for a very long time, all over the world. Many began with direct visual contact by a pilot or multiple pilots.
Actually, this is multiple F-18 Super Hornet fighter pilots and shipboard crews describing a series of events that involved both visual, sensor, and radar-based observations. It includes several pieces of declassified Navy fighter jet videos, and former people of the Pentagon unit that investigated these phenomena saying they believe them to be intelligent, technological, and non-human.
I feel like this issue is sooooo triggering for some people, they must debunk instead of even begin to actually examine the phenomenon. I definitely understand much more-so than I used to how it is that many people used to be very intimidated by the idea that the Earth is round, or it is not the center of the universe…
That defies physics as we understand it. And has been going on for many decades, at least 75 years. That notion fails my own Occam’s Razor test.
This document goes into more detail about the events some of these recently-declassified Navy videos are associated with. If people want to learn more about what occurred, this is the document to read.
https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/nimitz-report
This is a video interview with one of the pilots:
https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/2004-uss-nimitz-pilot-interview
I think To The Stars Academy is approaching this whole thing in an odd way, but it appears that they have succeeded where others haven’t in getting the military to a) acknowledge the phenomenon b) declassify materials related to the phenomenon, and c) destigmatize the Navy’s culture when it comes to reporting these type of phenomena by Navy personnel. It’s not nothing.
3 Likes
1 Like
4 Likes
An interesting article that gets into more details on the upgraded radar packages on the F-18s that seem to be allowing them to “see” these objects that in some cases appear to be using visual cloaking technology:
1 Like
You’ve fallen into a classic logical trap; no, UFO sightings don’t have to share causes/explanations. Once again, “UFO” is merely a blanket term for unidentified flying objects, no matter their origin.
2 Likes
Except if you, say, actually do research on the subject and analyze different sightings, a number of them share a good number of characteristics and can reasonably be thought to perhaps represent the same phenomenon.
And you’re absolutely right, each and every UFO sighting could be something different from all the others. We know, for example, that the vast majority of sightings can indeed be explained by mundane phenomena.
What people who spend time researching the issue also know, is that there is something very, very strange going on, consistently, when it comes to a number of sightings.
We also know that the Navy, officially, is calling these things aircraft, is saying their origins are unknown, and their flight characteristics are unlike anything we can trivially explain away. This is actually a pretty big deal — the US military has not acknowledged this before. You can pooh pooh it all you want — something tells me you have your reasons — but some of us are going to be willing to operate under the presumption that indeed, there is the chance that this phenomenon indeed answers the Fermi Paradox. It’s most certainly not a definite, but it’s absolutely a possibility, and that possibility seems to be increasing in probability the more that hard evidence comes out, and the more the military and government give credence to the notion that this is a real thing going on, these things are actual objects, they absolutely appear to be under intelligent control, and they do things that no human technology we know of is capable of. Nothing you say invalidates that fact.
3 Likes
And? I never said ANYTHING you said wasn’t valid; rather, you were overgeneralizing.
1 Like
Wishing won’t make it so. The best explanation of the “UFO phenomenon” is that we humans, including square-jawed, right-thinking highly trained jet fighter pilots can be tricked into seeing things that aren’t there, and gimbal camera footage can be misinterpreted.
It’s not surprising that the con artists behind Skinwalker Ranch had to look for more publicity after Harry Reid retired. The sad fact is that a few writers at the NYT decided to go the gullible route instead of noticing that decades of UFO investigations have turned up exactly zero unambiguous evidence, and that To The Stars is already somehow inhaling money without producing anything.
2 Likes
And wishing it isn’t so doesn’t make it not so. The fact is, I’m open to multiple interpretations, but I’ve done a lot of research into the subject, and it’s led me to the belief that indeed, some of these events may be of intelligent, non-human origin. “Alien,” in other words. Not definitively, but definitely possibly.
You?
Obligatory:
12 Likes
Were the signals artifacts appearing on multiple sensors in multiple fighters then I would expect them to appear continuously. Instead they appeared on deployment in the waters off the eastern US for days then nothing while the fleet was en route to the Middle East. Then they appeared again.
This doesn’t match for sensor glitches or human error. It does match mystery drones - except for the capabilities.
2 Likes
It would also match missidentifed atmospheric phenomenon or artifacts or erroneous readings caused by localised lighting or weather conditions. That sort of thing often isn’t even persistent in one spot, none the less the sort of thing that happens consistently where ever you happen to be at.
My point is largely that detection or observation of a real event, external to the sensor system, does not automatically equate to observation of a powered object acting with intent. That their interpretation of the data to hand is not automatically correct.
2 Likes
Your points are sound except for this one — they do not exhibit any traditional aircraft qualities in terms of their appearance nor capabilities.
