The Futility of the Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence

YOu keep saying West's math contradicts the pilots.

But the pilots might be describing something not in the video.

YOu need to prove that fact, first, before you make that claim.

 

It doesn't matter. All that matters is whether or not they are objects penetrating military airspace and posing a threat
to US national security. The military's position is that it is an open question, which is why they continue to study it.

IF the objects were merely ordinary things, $200,000,000 would have have been appropriated for AATIP, which is now continued as UAPTF ( UAP Task Force ) to study the issue.


Because we have considerable testimony from pilots being very excited, and unsettled about what they saw.

That tells me it wasn't an ordinary object, it was an extraordinary object.

The field is vastly wider than the three videos. Why aren't you curious beyond go fast'? I find it rather odd you are stuck on it.

We have testimony from many pilots that the objects were (cumulatively) observed with the following characteristics



1) Anti-gravity lift
Unlike any known aircraft, these objects have been sighted overcoming the earth’s gravity with no visible means of propulsion. They also lack any flight surfaces, such as wings. In the Nimitz incident, witnesses describe the crafts as tubular, shaped like a Tic Tac candy.

2) Sudden and instantaneous acceleration
The objects may accelerate or change direction so quickly that no human pilot could survive the g-forces—they would be crushed. In the Nimitz incident, radar operators say they tracked one of the UFOs as it dropped from the sky at more than 30 times the speed of sound. Black Aces squadron commander David Fravor, the Nimitz-based fighter pilot who was sent to intercept one of the objects, likened its rapid side-to-side movements, later captured on infrared video, to that of a ping-pong ball. Radar operators on the USS Princeton, part of the Nimitz carrier group, tracked the object accelerating from a standing position to traveling 60 miles in a minute—an astounding 3,600 miles an hour. According to manufacturer Boeing, the F/A 18 Super Hornet fighter jet typically currently reaches a maximum speed of Mach 1.6, or about 1,200 miles an hour.

3) Hypersonic velocities without signatures
If an aircraft travels faster than the speed of sound, it typically leaves "signatures," like vapor trails and sonic booms. Many UFO accounts note the lack of such evidence.

4) Low observability, or cloaking
Even when objects are observed, getting a clear and detailed view of them—either through pilot sightings, radar or other means—remains difficult. Witnesses generally only see the glow or haze around them.

5) Trans-medium travel
Some UAP have been seen moving easily in and between different environments, such as space, the earth’s atmosphere and even water. In the Nimitz incident, witnesses described a UFO hovering over a churning "disturbance" just under the ocean's otherwise calm surface, leading to speculation that another craft had entered the water. USS Princeton radar operator Gary Vorhees later confirmed from a Navy sonar operator in the area that day that a craft was moving faster than 70 knots, roughly two times the speed of nuclear subs.

 

RE: The Futility of the Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence
SUBTOPIC: Undefined Events/Occurrences, Unknown Anomalous Phenomena or Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)
⁜→ et al,

This is one of those topics in which you can have a lot of fun.

Generally speaking, these types of anomalies, events, occurrences, and phenomena do not have a standard investigation/inquiry scoping guide. While there may be similarities and overlaps on these types of investigations, there is no central investigative framework or organization in which the involved agencies may introduce their findings or reports of investigations. There is no central coordination or leadership and no evidence collection procedures or archive for such reports. Much of these holes in network reporting and the knowledge/analysis base are a result of funding issues.

As outside observers, the product of any one single event, or series of related events, may vastly differ from one investigation or another. As will turf wars pertaining to the involvement of government agencies and non-government agencies (example: Harvard University's Galileo Project, or the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies).

The fun really starts when an investigation or inquiry strays to include metaphysics or fringe science beyond the standard model of physics. Scientists feel much better when they are inside the scientific methodology.

Some new scientific knowledge can be discovered every day. But I don't expect firm evidence of intelligent life from outside the solar system in my lifetime.
______________________________________
Supplemental Reference: ODNI Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, 25 June 2021


Most Respectfully,
R

 

It's really specious to confine observations/data based on one video and one individual's math, as the field is much wider, even if we confine it to the narrow range of the reports upon which the Prelim Assessment is derived, it is still much wider than three vides. To wit:

Although the Prelim Assessment ( DNI ) asserts the data is, overall, inconclusive, they do state this:

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf

...a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology

In 18 incidents, described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or
flight characteristics.

Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver
abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion.

These movements were not observed in the three videos, so it confirms my assertion that the pilots were discussing objects' movements not represented in the videos, whereby you assumed that they were referring specifically
to the videos which appears to conflict with West's calculations. That, being the case, undermines your claim that West proves the pilots observations were wrong. They weren't wrong, their observations, as confirmed in the PA, (18 incidents exceeds the three videos) weren't represented in the videos, as you have assumed.

Moreover, some of the descriptions are not consistent with ordinary objects, though it's not been established factually what they are.

Also

Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation.


My point is only this: Something or some things are out there, and they are interfering with military maneuvers, and they are not anything ordinary.

It is my suspicion that the military does know what they are, it's just that they are not going to tell us.

The general consensus are four possibilities:

1. Foreign enemy tech.
2. American/allies tech
3. Otherworldly
4. None of the above

Most I've seen interviewed have ruled out 1 & 2, though DNI suggested #1.

 

? I just pointed out that to the best of my knowledge, nobody did.

 

I know what the pilots said.

But, the math of the "go fast" says their perception was off.

And, I do not agree that there is any other testimony that included evidence concerning the "go fast" video. That is, the others you quote (repeatedly) were not there and thus haven't contributed other evidence.

There are three separate videos that involve different events.

In your comments on this thread you have scrambled evidence from these events.

You have to unscramble.

 

Good cite.

I like the point the military makes concerning sensing capabilities - that they are designed for a specific purpose.

Also, I strongly doubt the US military will drop its shorts on US military detection capability. What we can and can't detect, what our military has found, etc., are not going to be published to any real depth, as it is national security information.

My bet is that they released these tapes in the face of general pressure to release something. And, thus they selected these incidents knowing they are innocuous. It might even be possible that some part of the military would prefer more focus on sensing technology.

I agree that we are not going to meet aliens on Earth. While we have stuff to learn, our physics would have to be phenomenally wrong as a first step.

We need to be heavily favoring Earthly explanations.

 

Now I don't know what you mean by "it" when you say:

"it is still much wider than three vides."

What is this "it" that you think is large enough to IGNORE a rational explanation of the event depicted in one of the tapes?

You have been scrambling the evidence and testimony of these events, and that is NOT a legitimate practice in any investigation.

 

The field, which was explained in my comment, which, for your edification, I will repeat, below:
*************************************
It's really specious to confine observations/data based on one video and one individual's math [or three, for that matter], as the field is much wider, even if we confine it to the narrow range of the reports upon which the Prelim Assessment is derived, it [the field] is still much wider than three videos. To wit:

Although the Prelim Assessment ( DNI ) asserts the data is, overall, inconclusive, they do state this:

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf

...a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology

In 18 incidents, [i.e., the "wider field"} described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics.

Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver
abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion.

These movements were not observed in the three videos, so it confirms my assertion that the pilots were discussing objects' movements not represented in the videos, whereby you assumed that they were referring specifically to the videos which appears to conflict with West's calculations. That, being the case, undermines your claim that West proves the pilots observations were wrong. They weren't wrong, their observations, as confirmed in the PA, (18 incidents exceeds the three videos) weren't represented in the videos, as you have assumed.

Moreover, some of the descriptions are not consistent with ordinary objects, though it's not been established factually what they are.

Also

Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation.


My point is only this: Something or some things are out there, and they are interfering with military maneuvers, and they are not anything ordinary.

[...]
**********************************************
My comment is a perfectly logical counter argument to your post, so I ask you to read it in it's entirety before responding. If you need clarification, I'll be glad to oblige.

 

Post #759 addresses this.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...l-intelligence.508305/page-31#post-1073136668

 

You don't know what happened in "go fast".

And, NOW you want to suggest "go fast" is evidence of something ELSE???

This is just plain preposterous.

The FIRST thing is to figure out "go fast". Until then, it is not evidence of ANYTHING.

 

Reread my rebuttal, please.

You are wrong. How you are wrong is explained in my rebuttal.

 

You have made numerous attempts at rebuttal in this thread and others.

More importantly, I have not seen an approach by you that hasn't mixed the facts of the several navy videos in your attempts to address the "go fast" video.

You get the pilots wrong. You get your "witnesses" wrong. You get facts such as whether there is a detectable source of thrust wrong. And, you want to totally ignore what the pilot's instruments are displaying concerning the object being tracked.

You don't have a "rebuttal" if it includes those mistakes.

So, if you are going to address "go fast", please do so with full and exclusive recognition of the specifics of "go fast".

 

West's calculation on Go Fast or the other two, do not consider the wider field, which is necessary to make a more truthful assessment, and thus your logic is fallacious.

The rebuttal to which you have responded, in my view, proves you wrong, so address that rebuttal, specifically, and refer to no other, because to do that is to pettifog my argument, which is thus, and only thus, updating and amending all prior arguments:

For your convenience and edification, here is that rebuttal, please refer and respond to ONLY it.

*******************************************************************

It's really specious to confine observations/data based on one video and one individual's math [or three, for that matter], as the field is much wider, even if we confine it to the narrow range of the reports upon which the Prelim Assessment is derived, it [the field] is still much wider than three videos. To wit:

Although the Prelim Assessment ( DNI ) asserts the data is, overall, inconclusive, they do state this:

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf

...a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology

In 18 incidents, [i.e., the "wider field"} described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics.

Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver
abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion.

These movements were not observed in the three videos, so it confirms my assertion that the pilots were discussing objects' movements not represented in the videos, or, at the minimum, given that the range of the study were 18 incidents, you do not know for a fact that what the pilots were talking about were on the videos, whereby you assumed that they were referring specifically to the videos which appears to conflict with West's calculations. That, being the case, undermines your claim that West proves the pilots observations were wrong. You cannot possibly know that they weren't wrong, their observations, as confirmed in the PA, (18 incidents exceeds the three videos) weren't necessarily represented in the videos, as you have assumed.

Moreover, some of the descriptions are not consistent with ordinary objects, though it's not been established factually what they are.

Also

Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation.

West's calculation do not consider the wider field, which is necessary to make a more truthful assessment, as described above and thus your logic is fallacious.

The entire point is this: These objects have excited and unsettled pilots, and, as such, it is logical that they are not likely to be ordinary. That fact is consistent with the fact that they have appropriated hundreds of millions to study them, and UAPTF continues to this day.

the point is that your obsession with the Go Fast video is barking up the wrong tree. You need to look at the forest, not the tree.

The truth cannot be seen until you look at the forest, and stop focusing on one tree.

What is that truth? The truth is that they are something which compelled competent and credible men, women, machines and millions of dollars to study them.

Balloons and ordinary objects do not do that.

And this the entirety of my point.

Please stop pettifogging the debate. I would appreciate it.

Thank you.

 

Again, you are mixing up the evidence.

You can't contend that "go fast" is special in some way by mixing in issues of "tic tac", for example.

Each of those navy videos is a TOTALLY separate incident.

Thus your argument does not apply to "go fast".

What you are doing is attempting to add the characteristic of each unknown object to form one "super object".

The Navy does not claim that these are of the same object. They only claim that they released 3 videos that show objects they don't recognize.

You can't come along and assume that they are all the same object.

If you want to make a claim about "go fast", you have to use the evidence available for THAT video. Period. No personal assumptions added.

 

You completely ignored my post which demonstrates that 'mixing up videos' is a moot point.

Please read it and address the specific points raised.

Thank you.

 

I did read it. I always read posts I respond to.

The catch is that you ignored the debunking of the "go fast" video based on information that has NOTHING TO DO with the "go fast" event.

You claimed there is a "wider field". There is NO evidence of "go fast" other than that specific video and the pilots.

No legitimate analysis of the "go fast" event can be based on events, opinions, time frames, etc., that have NO demonstrated relationship with "go fast".

 

I explained, and gave evidence as to why your 'Go Fast' premise is a moot point.

Either you missed the point, or you didn't read it.

Try reading my rebuttal, slowly, next time. Carefully read what it says.

 

You are still claiming that statements of witnesses of OTHER EVENTS should counter what is shown on the panel of the jet in the "go fast" video.

I'm sorry, but that is just obviously ridiculous.

 

I like your sig, btw

What is the source of the data? (Just curious)

 

No, that is NOT what I'm claiming.

The three videos could prove banality (it doesn't matter), but, because there are only three short videos, that doesn't provide us with answer the following overriding question:


Are there objects penetrating military airspace or anywhere that defy conventional known physics OR display compelling or otherwise unexplainable characteristics?


To get that answer we must examine the wider field.


https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf

...a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology

In 18 incidents, [i.e., the "wider field"} described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics.

Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver
abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion.


The 18 incidents exceeds what was seen in the three videos, and the DNI report states that UNUSUAL UAP MOVEMENT PATTERNS OR FLIGHT CHARACTERISICS

Since we do not have those videos, but we do have the testimony of pilots Fravor, Detriech, and Chad Underwood, whose testimonies are obviously incidents not represented in the videos.

So, until we get to the bottom of their testimonies, the radar operators on the ships, and, in other words, do a complete forensic analysis, the question remains open. However, based on the wording in the DNI report, the answer suggests a potential yes, although the report winds up with the DoD's position leaving it as an open question.

 

I'm reposting a more refined reply.

No, that is not what I am claiming.

If the three videos prove banality, fine, I accept West's calculations, but it doesn't matter. Because there are only three short videos, that doesn't provide us with the answer to the following more important and overriding question: Are there objects penetrating military airspace or anywhere that display compelling or otherwise unexplainable characteristics?

To get that answer we must examine the wider field. At the minimum, we have the mentions on the DNI's "Preliminary Assessment" which names 18 incidents of 21 reports, the content of which exceeds the coverage in the three videos.

So, let's take a look at a few interesting quotes: (Source: the DNI Preliminary Assessment)

"...a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology"

"In 18 incidents, [i.e., the "wider field"] described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics."

"Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion."

The 18 incidents exceeds what was seen in the three videos, and the DNI report states that "unusual UAP movement patters or flight characteristics."

In my view, the testimony of pilots Fravor, Dietrich, and Chad Underwood, are probably among the 21 reports of the 18 incidents. Given that the videos do not agree with their testimony, there is a likelihood that the three videos are not the videos of the pilot's descriptions. Remember, there are 18 incidents of 21 reports, not three, and the videos do not agree with the pilots testimony, and given that these are highly trained pilots, one of whom is a TOP GUN pilot, and all have at least 2 enlistments, giving them the benefit of the doubt I therefore feel it is reasonable to presume that their testimonies are not represented in the videos.

I feel it is reasonable to make that presumption precisely because the descriptions in the DNI Preliminary report are more in accord with their descriptions, than that of any of the three videos, which is to say "unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics."

Consider that we have two pilots, Lt. Cmdr Dietrich and Cmdr Fravor giving testimony on 60 minutes. Fravor also told us that there was another Navy fighter jet with two pilots who agreed with their assessment of the flying objects. So that is four pilots agreeing on what they saw. Now, I ask you, why would they go on 60 minutes television show, and describe things which high school math could prove them completely wrong and risk ridicule?

They didn't have anything to gain, and clearly what they observed caused them to be unsettled! It is difficult to imagine that an ordinary object, a bird or a balloon would cause such a reaction that they would be willing to appear on a national television show. It makes no sense. No, the only thing that makes sense is that those videos do not match up with the pilots testimonies because the pilots are describing any of the 15 remaining incidents of the 18 incidents mentioned in the Preliminary Report.

Now then, West's calculations debunk what some in the UFO community are claiming, that they are aliens. I accept that. But, who cares what some UFOlogy types think? Let's stick to the more important and overriding question, noting that the question doesn't mention 'aliens'. Let's just stick with what is known. So, again, the question is:

Are there objects penetrating military airspace or anywhere that display compelling or otherwise unexplainable characteristics?

So why be concerned with the videos? There are only three and those three videos, whatever they prove, do not answer the above question. To get to that answer, many more videos, pilots' testimonies, radar operator testimonies from the ships, etc., need to be examined. So, until we get to the bottom of the broader field, and, in other words, do a complete forensic analysis, the question remains open.

The actual field is much much broader, we have decades of testimonies, thousands of sightings, Project Grudge, Bluebook, to name a few, and in 1952, General Samford, in a press conference stated (paraphrased and truncated) "The Air Force has reports of credible persons describing incredible things", but for the sake of a simpler argument, I'll confine it to the 18 incidents and the descriptions in the report, all of which hint at a potential yes (to the aforementioned overriding question), although the report winds up with the DoD's position leaving it as an open question.

Another thing; it doesn't make sense that the Government would appropriate $200,000,000 for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) which morphed into the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force (UAPTF) and is still going on, if all of it were easily debunked by one guy who is not a scientist using high school math.

I don't think so.

 

You still need to properly identify which video you are referring to.

The THREE videos are each of different incidents.

The issues relating to each one of those are not the same. The are of different objects that are claimed to demonstrate different characteristics.

You can not mix and match.

 

#772 resolves all the issues in previous posts

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...l-intelligence.508305/page-31#post-1073145137

 

My argument is NOT 'aliens, it's 'unexplainable craft'. I do not care what others say, it's pure speculation. I just want to deal with what is known. I do not know what West's calculations refer to, but it's not what these pilots are referring to. and that's all that matters insofar as the overriding question. "are there unexplained aircraft in our airspace?" watch this segmented clip:



Also, there is a forensic analysis done


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uY47ijzGETwYJocR1uhqxP0KTPWChlOG/view