The Futility of the Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence

I watched the entire video, there is nothing about it being debunked, In fact, the overriding impression the video leaves is that the question is open, by all parties concerned, the pilots, scientists, and the Navy/Pentagon. One of them thought they were probably foreign adversaries, but numerous others have discounted that notion. .

That leaves the question still open, and I'm wondering if you really know what 'debunk' actually means, because it seems to me that you think 'debunk' is the first explanation, despite the fact there are many, that discounts the open question, equals 'debunk', but that is not what debunk means. Debunk means they, meaning most of the key players, know what it is, that is when it is no longer a UFO or UAP.

They haven't been reclassified away from UAP/UFO so the question of their origin is still an open question.

IN fact, I don't think you have actually watched the entire video.

You keep making the mistake that I am presenting 'evidence'. That is not what I'm doing, I'm presenting that which keeps the question of their origin an open question. The mistake you make is that, despite numerous testimonies who assert that the origins of these UAPs are unknown, one guy thinks it's 'foreign adversary' and you assert that equals 'debunk'. No, it doesn't.

When, in the history of 60 minutes, have they failed to debunk anything? They exist for that very reason.

You dodge the fact that only ONE did (in the above video), and the opinion of one does not close the question, because, for many, the question is still open.

You honestly believe, that in my years of research, I am unaware that the US Military is not telling us everything?
Just about everyone in UFOlogy is aware of it, and it is the problem. Moreover, it gives more credence to the issue.
If you are implying all UFO sightings are 'ours' some of them might be, but the evidence doesn't point to all of them being ours.
For example, why would they send these things to interfere with Naval war games.
Also, one of the pilots testified that he has been seeing these things every day for several years.
If they were 'ours', what would be the point of that?

My god, if you were curious, there is no way in hell you be asserting the case is closed. What other possible conclusion can I draw, from your comments?

"Multiple anomalous vehicles detected descending 80,000 feet in less than a second"

"We were circling and the 'tic tac' and then it was mimicking our moves, it was aware we were there".

"[The tic tacs had ] no wings, no markings, no exhaust plumes, "

"I go up, it gets right in front of me, and just disappears".

"Seconds later, The Princeton reacquired the target, 60 miles away".

The Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), once abandoned, this past August the Pentagon has resurrected AATIP, it now called the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force ( UAP Task Force)

If they were bunk, then why has the program been resurrected?

Listen to this 737 pilot analyze the gimbal video. where the tic tac flies in the air, and UNDERWATER

In case it crashed, they searched for it and did not find anything. We have nothing in our inventory that is transmedium like the object in the navy video, this is according to several pilots.

"It seems to defy every law of physics and aerodynamics that we know" "without visible air foil or propulsion" Colonel Themely

"reached a maximum speed of 46,000 miles per hour during decent"



Alternative explanations do not equal debunk. Debunk is that the prevailing opinion is that they are not UFOs/UAPs, and that is just not true.

 

Well the evidence of Jesus analogy fails because historical evidence of characters and events are not judged the same way that you would as a scientific hypothesis. You should be comparing scientific phenomena to scientific phenomena. That's totally different from making a historical judgement on whether Jesus, Moses, Gilgamesh, or King Arthur existed.

No you didn't start this thread but you are the one keeping it going, and if your self image doesn't allow you to view your beliefs about UFO's as more religious in nature, that's fine. That would be a gulping hard swig of self awareness that most people who have non traditional religious beliefs can't do, but that's how it looks to me: like a religious belief. Maybe I'm the only one in this thread who has drawn that conclusion but it seems you've been given ample opportunity to stick to real evidence and have declined every time.

 

Well there seems to be a god sized hole in humans, and if they seem to fill it with other things besides traditional religion if they find something that attracts them.

 

I wasn't using the Jesus analogy for a 'scientific hypothesis'.

I stated why. Did you read what I wrote? Did you not understand it?

I'm not keeping it going any more than you are.

I'm not giving my beliefs on alien visitation as 'more religious'. Religion has nothing to do with it.

I just explained all this to you.

Did you not read my post? Did you not understand it?

This is why I ended it with this, and you just confirmed it, once again, that:

In fact, numerous times you have demonstrated your inability for discernment makes you very difficult and frustrating to debate with.

 

It may be nothing more than how organic life progresses in stages, and the stage where humans believe in 'God', is such a stage, only to be discarded as humans advance in aggregate consciousness, over time. Some humans have already advanced ahead of the pack.

 

Well why did you use the Jesus analogy then? Otherwise it's totally invalid for this situation. I'm sorry if you think I'm not reading your posts correctly. I do agree I'm not getting the meaning that you are trying to impart, because I'm not buying your premises. I perfectly understand that you are just not going to accept that your UFO-ness seems to me, at it's root, religious in nature. That was an observation meant for others and really, it's totally wasted on you.

 

Sounds like you are one of the Elect.

 

How can you assert you are not buying my premises when you unable to correctly process an analogy?

What that means is that you are in no position to judge them whatsoever, as you keep making mistakes of discernment.

The substance of the Jesus analogy I used wasn't about the ideology of religion, it was a comparison of how someone can presume the reality of the existence of something based on a preponderance of evidence. I just used the Jesus example because it's a prominent example. The religion of Christianity is NOT part of the substance of the comparison. I could have just as easily found another example.


You obviously do not understand how analogies work.

For example, if I said how Hitler rose to power, there are similarities in his propaganda methods and that of Trumps,

The message is not 'Trump equals Hitler' or that Trump had anything to do with Hitler's ideology, the message is about the similarity of the propaganda techniques of how they rose to power.

Again, your inability to discern makes for a frustrating debate experience with you.

I, therefore, cannot even consider your criticism, until you are able to process properly, an analogy. What that means is the ability to discern what is being compared, and what is not.

If you can't do that, then you are wasting your time and everyone else's, at least regarding this particular conversation.





.

 

OK, let's go over this 60 Minutes vid.

Do you dispute that the "go fast" video they showed actually shows a SLOW moving object, in fact of a weather balloon - NOT of a fast moving object as originally thought?

Do you agree that the 60 Minutes segment totally omitted any actual analysis of the footage they showed?

Do you agree that a military person interviewed in the program stated that he believed that the video he has seen most likely came from Earthly events? (I don't see that as "debunking" - it's an interview of someone presented as seeing the full range of evidence and having an expert opinion. To me, debunking is analyzing a specific event and showing why it doesn't involve aliens.)

Let's ignore all the rest and just try to reach agreement on this video.

 

You have made two claims:
1. It is ALL 'schlock'.
2. the videos have been debunked.

Both are false.

As I stated, there is the ONE Lieutenant who believed the tic tac was probably a foreign adversary. Other personnel have not come to that conclusion. Other personal and stated there are three possibilities: 1. Foreign adversarial technology. 2. American Military Technology. 3. Other worldly technology. All but one Lt in the video, All including the policy of the Navy, itself, have not come to any conclusion, but leave the question open.

So, that leaves it an open question, which is a far cry from 'debunked' and 'all are schlock'.

You really think all of this reportage on the videos have been about a weather balloon, if that were the consensus?

that's crazy.

Forget the go fast video.

Listen to the pilots. No way a 'weather balloon' could do as they described.
Starting at 6:30 into the video ( video below )

"Multiple anomalous vehicles detected descending 80,000 feet in less than a second"

"We were circling and the 'tic tac' and then it was mimicking our moves, it was aware we were there".

"[The tic tacs had ] no wings, no markings, no exhaust plumes, "

"I go up, it gets right in front of me, and just disappears".

"Seconds later, The Princeton reacquired the target, 60 miles away".

Does that sound like a weather balloon?

Listen to the former Director of AATIP (Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program), Louis Elizondo:
at 2;12 in the video

Imagine a technology that can do 600 to 700 G forces, that can fly at 13,000 miles per hour, that can evade radar, that can fly through air, and water, and possibly space, and, oh, by the way, has no obvious signs of propulsion, no wings, no control surfaces, and yet can still defy the natural effects of earth's gravity. That is precisely what we are seeing:

That isn't a weather balloon, sorry.




Listen to this 737 pilot (former Navy Pilot Colonel Themely ) analyze the gimbal video. where the tic tac flies in the air, and UNDERWATER

"It seems to defy every law of physics and aerodynamics that we know" "without visible air foil or propulsion" Colonel Themely

"reached a maximum speed of 46,000 miles per hour during decent"




Weather balloon? I don't think so.

The consensus, from several sources is that the tic tacs are one of the following:

1. Foreign tech
2. American tech.
3. Other wordly tech.

No one knows. A number of persons and asserted their doubts about #1 and #2, though #2 is more likely than #1, but not necessarily more likely than #3.

That is the point. And the fact that the Navy's official position leaves the question open, and now requires pilots to report all UFO/UAPs tells us they are taking the question of UAPs very seriously.

That hardly equals 'debunked' and 'schlock'.

 

You have to be honest with me or this discussion will go nowhere, obviously.

Please do not spray me with all the videos at once as a tactic for making it very difficult to discuss why each one is not alien.

So, no. I'm not going to to "forget" the "go fast" video. It is one of the arguments made by the 60 Minutes tv show. It demonstrates a problem with that TV show.

It also shows a problem with your other video, as that video also presents "go fast" as if it is alien!


Are you ready to concede that the "go fast" video has been debunked?

Yes or no?

If no, we can go through that.

 

I heard no conservation about 'go fast'. If you have that link, please provide it, as it must be another video.

IN the meantime,

No, I cannot concede to that point, because of the testimonies of the pilots, who had DIRECT confrontation with them.

Go back and listen to the link if the first video 60 minutes, the pilots at 6:30
and that of AATIP director at 2:12

My objective is NOT to prove they are alien, but that the consensus is that they are one of the following:

1. Foreign
2. American
3. Extraterrestrial

and that no one knows, and the consensus is that it is an open question.

They do not present it as alien, they leave the question open.

 

The "go fast" video clip from the USNavy is in both clips you posted.

Here is a link, and I'm sure you will recognize it as being in your two videos:
https://www.military.com/video/navy-ufo-encounter-video-gofast

"Leave the question open" is legitimate ONLY when the question is open.

The question concerning the "go fast" video clip is NOT OPEN.

The 12 minute mark of this video is one example of the object in "go fast" being shown to NOT be a fast moving object, but instead being a low object moving slowly (the vid also includes explanations of the other Navy videos, but let's just take this one at a time):



The math using the numbers from the aircraft shows the object is actually low and slow, but because of parallax it appears to be moving rapidly.

Do you have comments about this specific Navy clip?

 

Exactly.

You posted this vid, because you thought Col. Themely was a knowledgeable source to be trusted.

But, she claimed that the tic-tac video showed the craft as having no heat signature in the infrared recording shown. But, the camera equipment was set to record heat as BLACK not WHITE! So, the entire object was one big heat signature!

Plus, much of the movement she commented on was created by the automatic tracking system that changed the camera in ways that simply made it appear there was movement.

Plus, let's remember that "go fast" WAS unpowered - it just was drifting in the wind! So, again her comment on heat signature was off the mark.

Plus, she didn't question "go fast" claims even though that vid was debunked almost immediately upon it becoming public.

I don't know what the deal with Col. Themely was. Maybe she recorded this pretty much immediately upon release and didn't have any time to do real analysis.

Seriously, I'm claiming she was wrong on a number of issues, but I am NOT suggesting she wasn't telling the truth as she knew it at the time. Maybe as a fighter pilot she was predisposed to back the fighter pilots in what they thought they saw.

 

Please post the link to this debunking, because I have not seen it. You seem to be hanging your entire argument on it, while ignoring my points and data which clearly refute your claim.

You're mistaken, the camera is not configured to record hot in black and white as black, that's nonsense, the camera is set to either black and white, where cold is black, or infrared, where cold is white.

The pilot can switch the camera back and forth between black and white and infrared, and the pilot did this, back and forth between modes, in the video, which is to say the video does not remain in one mode. So, whether or not it is black and white or infrared is of no consequence. Surely, as a current 737 pilot and a former Naval Pilot who flew the F-15-C Eagle, the T-38 Talon, and the T-6 Texan II, who also was an instructor of these airframes, if you are telling me she is unaware of which mode the camera is in, specifically when she explained at 2;00 in the video for us non-pilots how to determine which mode the camera is in, you are insulting her intelligence.

the 'heat signature' refers to the flame and exhaust plumes and the surface areas near the exhaust, typical in aircraft, and the tic tac is not showing such a heat signature which is common to all Jet Aircraft.

In the black and white mode, the tic tac is black, in the infrared mode, the tic tac is white, this tells us the thing is COLD, there is no heat signature. Therefore, she is correct.

What other points do you believe she was incorrect about?

How about my other post?

 

I get your point about consensus and possibility.

And, I get that you are relying on these pilots who made these recordings.

But, those recordings have clear Earthly explanations. Thus you can not include aliens on your 3 point list above based on what these pilots reported.

So, you need to find OTHER evidence.

And you also need to be skeptical of ANYONE who presents those Navy tapes as evidence, by the way. They fooled you once.

 

They are not 'clear' on any possibility. You are the only one saying that.

The consensus is that no one knows.

No one has fooled anyone. How many times do I have to repeat myself, that in this exchange I'm not offering 'proof' of aliens, but what I am offering is proof that the Navy has progressed from denial to the leaving the question open. That is a sea change, for the navy, pun intended.

Quit telling me otherwise, I've repeated this several times.

Moreover, you are ignoring key points I raised.

 

In the 60 minutes video, what part of :

"Multiple anomalous vehicles detected descending 80,000 feet in less than a second" ---60 minutes

Equals 'earthly explanation'. ?

In the Colonel Themely video, what part of:

"It seems to defy every law of physics and aerodynamics that we know" "without visible air foil or propulsion"

And

"reached a maximum speed of 46,000 miles per hour during decent" --Colonel Themely, air force pilot/ 737 pilot

Equals 'earthly explanation'. ?

 

Will do. I posted it to you in #538 above, too.

I pointed out that the debunking of the "go fast" video starts at the 12:00 point. But, the others are there, too. Also, there are others who have produced identical analysis.

Well, not exactly. These cameras are ALWAYS black and white, regardless of what information is being displayed. Do you remember black and white TVs? That's what black and white means.

Seeing heat plumes depends on showing infrared information. So, we are only talking about infrared when it comes to heat plumes.

Next, the infrared camera display can show heat either as blazing white OR the pilot can switch the image to the negative, with heat shown as deep deep black. As a pilot, I can tell you that it is sometimes easier to read a screen when presented in the negative than it is to read the positive. So on the fighter planes in the vids, the pilots get their choice.

The camera in the one video is set to show heat as deep deep black. And, THAT is the color of the object being tracked. So, the whole object is seen as pretty much one big heat source.

So, one can not claim that there is no evidence of powered flight. The heat plume is clear evidence of power.


I pointed out the problem with Col. Themely missing this AND missing the explanation of "go fast"! Really unfortunate. But, she sure isn't the only one. 60 Minutes got just as fooled, and we KNOW they had plenty of time, but did nothing.

Anyway, the facts are the facts. Everything I've said about these vids can be checked out. AND, it can all be checked out by looking at the vids! (No back room crap.)

 

Like with the "go fast" video and the mistaken ideas concerning heat plumes, other mistakes have been made by various individuals.

Some of the speed/direction issues have to do with how cameras work. They are automated to do certain kinds of tracking and magnification. These are tied to targeting systems for weapons, too. Changes can happen automatically or under pilot control in tracking and magnification and can make it look like an object flew out of the field of view at frightening speed with zero time for acceleration.

Do you have a camera that has a hand operated zoom lense? If you twist the lense rapidly, objects appear to leave the field of view rapidly. If you couple magnification with switching between tracking modes, and allowing automatic camera movement on the gimble, stuff can happen!

Feel free to look through the video I posted, as it debunks claims made about the tic tack and gimble Navy vides.

One of them is pretty clearly a infrared view of a departing aircraft. Most of these are about objects that are not at the distance that they were thought to be.


As for the Navy, do you REALLY think they are going to give the entire world their "good stuff"???

Our military is NOT going to drop their pants and wave at China and Russia. It should be NO surprise that these vids are easily debunked.

So, maybe there ARE aliens flying around.

But, the Navy tapes don't show that, and should NEVER have been expected to show that.

If the Navy is going to tell us there are aliens flying around, that is NOT how they are going to do that.

 

Fine, we have a guy telling us what he thinks. Others didn't come to that conclusion, but be that as it may.

You honestly think experienced naval pilots do not know the difference between a balloon and a bird and something that is not a balloon and a bird?


And you think that is the be all end all to the videos?

However, in the 60 minutes interview, we have the testimony of four pilots, who MADE VISUAL CONTACT,
here are some quote

"Multiple anomalous vehicles detected descending 80,000 feet in less than a second"

"We were circling and the 'tic tac' and then it was mimicking our moves, it was aware we were there".

"[The tic tacs had ] no wings, no markings, no exhaust plumes, "

"I go up, it gets right in front of me, and just disappears".

"Seconds later, The Princeton reacquired the target, 60 miles away"

Not a bird, not a balloon, sorry. You honestly think experienced naval pilots do not know the difference between a balloon and a bird and something that is not a balloon and a bird?

Give me a break. Your guy is crap,

 

?? I gave you proof!

And, it is not "my guy". The go fast vid requires no more than high school math. LOTS of people have walked through that.

Let's remember that these pilots aren't trained in identifying birds and balloons.

We already know that stuff seen by pilots, including Buzz Aldrin, CAN be misidentified.

 

I have a Canon 7D with a 28-200 F4 Telephoto, which I used for years to shoot weddings. I stopped using hand zooms a long time ago.

I'm not satisfied with your video. we have naval pilots giving testimony based on close visual contact that defies the conclusion of your so-called debunk.

I dont think it does. It's an explanation, but, from what I've read, it's an open question from the standpoint of the navy.

You forgot one thing,

The pilot in one of the videos, declares "dude, there's a whole fleet of them, look on the ASA".

Fleets of birds are obvious and that were true then this video would not be a thing.

But, balloons in a fleet? I don't think so.

 

I have a Canon 7D with a 28-200 F4 Telephoto, which I used for years to shoot weddings. I stopped using hand zooms a long time ago.

I'm not satisfied with your video. we have naval pilots giving testimony based on close visual contact that defies the conclusion of your so-called debunk.

I dont think it does. It's an explanation, but, from what I've read, it's an open question from the standpoint of the navy.

Listen to the pilots who had d

Not by two pilots, up close.

Listen carefully to the videos of Lt Commander Frazier.

You think he'd be saying what he is saying if they were balloons, birds?

Are you kidding me?

All you have are some nerds far removed from the thing.

Louis Elizondo, the former director of AATIP said they did all the due diligence, and stated:

at 2;12 in the video

Imagine a technology that can do 600 to 700 G forces, that can fly at 13,000 miles per hour, that can evade radar, that can fly through air, and water, and possibly space, and, oh, by the way, has no obvious signs of propulsion, no wings, no control surfaces, and yet can still defy the natural effects of earth's gravity. That is precisely what we are seeing:

Balloons, Birds? You've got to be kidding.

 

I don't believe you, when their lives depend on not hitting them, I should think they are trained to seem them

When current 737 pilot, who was a former Naval Pilot who flew the F-15-C Eagle, the T-38 Talon, and the T-6 Texan II, who also was an instructor of these airframes, if you are telling me she is is inaccurate and you got some nerd guy thinks he's got it right?

I'm going with the pilot, sorry.