More proof of aliens

[esmozz]

Internet cookie for you sir! Yes, the Typhoon was slowly travelling above me across my field of vision from left to right nose pointing upwards, but also beginning to level out, move away from me and manoeuvre back to the left. It did appear to stop in mid-air from my perspective, but isn't that the whole point of eyewitness testimonies in situations like this? A lack of context, incorrect terminology, failure to disclose relevant details, etc, all make a mundane event much more mysterious. It stopped in mid-air for me (and only for a fraction of a second), but as you've shown there is a perfectly rational explanation that doesn't involve alien technology....snip

A good rebuttal.

I'll post a link to the Popular Mechanics article here.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a29091438/ufo-video-facts/

And just add a few points.

- The pilot in the NYT article had a wingman who corroborated everything he saw.
- It was in fact picked up by the infrared targetting pod of the dummy weapons he was carrying.
- You are of course correct about aircraft like the SR71 and X-15. However I believe the SR71 for example would take approximately 1000 miles to slow down. In this case it is the acceleration and deceleration of the object that seems to be interesting.
- And finally this was not one but many credible witnesses backed up by radar data etc from multiple sources.

However, your assertion that it could be advanced but otherwise completely unknown human technology could be true, it's just it seems to me that the leap from what we know about and what seems to be on display here is rather large.

 

[Suicidal Ferret]

Any massive technological leap would appear to be beyond our capabilities.

Just because it hasn't been seen before does not make it alien.

What do you think the first person to see a stealth fighter thought or as you say the SR-71??

These were 30/40/50 years ago. If the military had come up with a new technology it would appear to be unlike anything seen, because it hasn't.

 

[PC777]

Alien conspiracies offer governments a highly convenient smokescreen for any kind of experimental military technology that could have been noticed by members of the public during supposedly secret testing.

It's quite likely the USA has a lot of highly classified military hardware that could explain "genuine" sightings of UFOs. After the end game of WW2 and the mutually assured destruction nuclear arms race who knows what kind of weaponry technology could be out there, though it's likely to be relatively small scale and highly covert rather than simply trying to make more powerful nuclear weapons as they've already pretty much done that to a point of massive overkill.

Keeping it secret would make perfect sense as quite apart from not wanting enemies to know about it, there's the interest of keeping the industry of traditional warfare going, selling planes tanks and guns fuelled by oil. All the while knowing that if the **** really hit the fan that what they really have access to would make all that look like little toys.

It might seem like sci-fi fantasy, but with nuclear warfare and space exploration being undisputed facts, we're already there and have been for decades. At one point radar could have seemed like alien technology, just as well we were lucky enough to have it first.

Truth is the US government likely absolutely loves all the crackpot alien conspiracies, especially Area 51 being well known as their 'most secret' base.

I suspect they have some kind of extremely advanced drone and nuclear missile intercepting technology that truly has been kept secret that may well have been sighted by people during testing claiming them to be UFOs and aliens.

Pure speculation on my part, but it's certainly a lot more plausible theory than aliens.

 

[esmozz]

Again this approach is the one taken by dumb religious people see: "god of the gaps"

Not religious myself but know a few who are. Would'nt call them dumb though. Classy.

You haven't eliminated the impossible or narrowed anything down to a single explanation though.

.

I have offered an explanation which could but may not fit the facts. Which is more than you.

You said above: "But if it makes you happy I'll use the word hypothesis instead." I think "fantasy" is the more appropriate word to use here.

No, I think hypothesis is the correct term. But please please tell me if you think I wrong, I'd love to go down that particularly tedious rabbit hole.

You haven't though, you've not explained anything, you've just used "aliens" as a handwaving argument in the absence of an explanation, it is something you've literally made up, the insertion of some ambiguous, seemingly advanced/magical beings with no explanation.

Presumably if we were to ask where they came from or how they got here undetected there will be another handwaving argument along the lines of "magic"/advanced alien technology we can't detect etc..?

Again another reading comprehension fail. I have offered an explanation, you obviously don't like it. It is still an explanation.

 

[Suicidal Ferret]

It's a theory plucked from thin air. It's not an explanation.

Use the correct words and people won't misunderstand you.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I guess the baffling thing is that of all things, people go straight to “it’s aliens”, even when they openly admit it’s only a possibility. If it’s only a possibility then why state “it’s aliens!”.

surely it should be “it’s could a bird, a balloon, a paper aeroplane, a fart, Donald trump’s wig, a ghost, glare from the moonlight, camera malfunction or aliens”

they all are equally as plausible, but oh no, it’s straight to aliens from outer space.

 

[esmozz]

I suspect they have some kind of extremely advanced drone and nuclear missile intercepting technology that truly has been kept secret that may well have been sighted by people during testing claiming them to be UFOs and aliens.

Pure speculation on my part, but it's certainly a lot more plausible theory than aliens.

All entirely plausible. However I would say that using current technology as a base and imagining a more advanced form only gets you so far. For an entirely new paradigm in, say, propulsion technology I'm not sure this works.

 

[Raymond Lin]

All entirely plausible. However I would say that using current technology as a base and imagining a more advanced form only gets you so far. For an entirely new paradigm in, say, propulsion technology I'm not sure this works.

you can only assume, unless you know of any classified projects.

 

[esmozz]

It's a theory plucked from thin air. It's not an explanation.

Use the correct words and people won't misunderstand you.

Good grief!

Yes it is. Definition: 'a reason or justification given for an action or belief'

You just don't happen to agree.

Definitely not a theory though

I'm done debating the meaning of words.

 

[dowie]

Again another reading comprehension fail. I have offered an explanation, you obviously don't like it. It is still an explanation.

See this post:

You haven't though, you've not explained anything, you've just used "aliens" as a handwaving argument in the absence of an explanation, it is something you've literally made up, the insertion of some ambiguous, seemingly advanced/magical beings with no explanation.

Presumably if we were to ask where they came from or how they got here undetected there will be another handwaving argument along the lines of "magic"/advanced alien technology we can't detect etc..?

You mention reading comprehension fail but, rather ironically, you seem to have ignored the content of the above post and just repeated the same assertion it was made in reply to in the first place!

 

[esmozz]

you can only assume, unless you know of any classified projects.

No sadly I don't know of any classified projects, but of course I would say that . And you're right, it as an assumation. But is it a reasonable one? For what you quoted, yes, I think it is.

For the subject of this thread, less so. Nonetheless, I maintain that one possible 'hypothesis' is the existance of a technology far in advance of what I, certainly, know of.

One way to cast doubt on this would be a provide another more mundane explanation - such as has been done by suggesting classified military technology. This could equally be true. In the absence of facts we will never know which.

Its all just interesting speculation.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

And a technology far in advance of ours leads where?

It leads to other departments who are experimenting.

 

[esmozz]

See this post:

You mention reading comprehension fail but, rather ironically, you seem to have ignored the content of the above post and just repeated the same assertion it was made in reply to in the first place!

See the definition of the word explanation above.

 

[Raymond Lin]

No sadly I don't know of any classified projects, but of course I would say that . And you're right, it as an assumation. But is it a reasonable one? For what you quoted, yes, I think it is.

For the subject of this thread, less so. Nonetheless, I maintain that one possible 'hypothesis' is the existance of a technology far in advance of what I, certainly, know of.

One way to cast doubt on this would be a provide another more mundane explanation - such as has been done by suggesting classified military technology. This could equally be true. In the absence of facts we will never know which.

Its all just interesting speculation.

but it is fascinating you put your weight towards aliens, otherwise the first assumption would be “secret military project”, not aliens.

 

[dowie]

See the definition of the word explanation above.

It’s rather incomplete - your explanation is to not explain anything because these “aliens” are apparently using “advanced technology” we don’t understand.

This again is still the dumb religious argument whereby god is offered as the reason for something we don’t understand.

 

[esmozz]

but it is fascinating you put your weight towards aliens, otherwise the first assumption would be “secret military project”, not aliens.

If from the maneovres of the craft described in the press reports you were to infer somekind of anti-inertia or anti-gravity technology then you might well assume alien technology. If you were able to explain the manoevres of said craft using advanced human technology it would be safe to assume top secret military project. The question depend on which of those two you believe.

I certainly don't believe there is an anti-inertia engine or anti-grav engine designed here and sitting in a secret lab somewhere.

Its odd. Credible scientists have suggested a sliver of rock from outside the solar system was in fact a solar sail from an advanced civilisation. I understand the jury is somewhat out on that, but still, it was given serious consideration. I read another article about a scientist from SETI giving a serious argument about searching certain types solar objects for hidden alien probes. I have no idea whether it is a good idea or not, but he certainly thought it was so wrote a paper on it and so did the journals that published it. My musings in this tread are no different from either of those.

 

[Raymond Lin]

If from the maneovres of the craft described in the press reports you were to infer somekind of anti-inertia or anti-gravity technology then you might well assume alien technology. If you were able to explain the manoevres of said craft using advanced human technology it would be safe to assume top secret military project. The question depend on which of those two you believe.

I certainly don't believe there is an anti-inertia engine or anti-grav engine designed here and sitting in a secret lab somewhere.

Its odd. Credible scientists have suggested a sliver of rock from outside the solar system was in fact a solar sail from an advanced civilisation. I understand the jury is somewhat out on that, but still, it was given serious consideration. I read another article about a scientist from SETI giving a serious argument about searching certain types solar objects for hidden alien probes. I have no idea whether it is a good idea or not, but he certainly thought it was so wrote a paper on it and so did the journals that published it. My musings in this tread are no different from either of those.

fascinating that you would believe the more improbable and then settles on it. Whereas I am in the camp of “I don’t have a clue” but don’t form any conclusion.

 

[Suicidal Ferret]

Yes. I don't sit in either camp. I'm open minded about their existence. But to jump to 'its aliens' when there are more plausible reasons that it's not.

Also it could be old tech/ideas that given the leaps we have made are now possible.

 

[enkoda]

A good rebuttal.

I'll post a link to the Popular Mechanics article here.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a29091438/ufo-video-facts/

And just add a few points.

- The pilot in the NYT article had a wingman who corroborated everything he saw.
- It was in fact picked up by the infrared targetting pod of the dummy weapons he was carrying.
- You are of course correct about aircraft like the SR71 and X-15. However I believe the SR71 for example would take approximately 1000 miles to slow down. In this case it is the acceleration and deceleration of the object that seems to be interesting.
- And finally this was not one but many credible witnesses backed up by radar data etc from multiple sources.

However, your assertion that it could be advanced but otherwise completely unknown human technology could be true, it's just it seems to me that the leap from what we know about and what seems to be on display here is rather large.

There isn't really much more to add to this, so I'll just direct you back to the wiki quotes.

If from the maneovres of the craft described in the press reports you were to infer somekind of anti-inertia or anti-gravity technology then you might well assume alien technology. If you were able to explain the manoevres of said craft using advanced human technology it would be safe to assume top secret military project. The question depend on which of those two you believe.

I certainly don't believe there is an anti-inertia engine or anti-grav engine designed here and sitting in a secret lab somewhere.

Its odd. Credible scientists have suggested a sliver of rock from outside the solar system was in fact a solar sail from an advanced civilisation. I understand the jury is somewhat out on that, but still, it was given serious consideration. I read another article about a scientist from SETI giving a serious argument about searching certain types solar objects for hidden alien probes. I have no idea whether it is a good idea or not, but he certainly thought it was so wrote a paper on it and so did the journals that published it. My musings in this tread are no different from either of those.

The glaring problem in your description of this event is the assumption that the object was a craft of some description, then attach the labels "anti-grav" and "anti-inertia" to it. If you manage to prove beyond any doubt that there was no equipment malfunction or human error involved, then we can entertain the possibility of alien tech.

 

[esmozz]

It’s rather incomplete - your explanation is to not explain anything because these “aliens” are apparently using “advanced technology” we don’t understand.

This again is still the dumb religious argument whereby god is offered as the reason for something we don’t understand.

For reasons best known to yourself you've decided to bring religion into this. Twice. It's an utterly pointless argument. It's possible God exists and aliens don't. Its possible the otherway round. Or both. Or neither.