/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12082046
>>>/x/
>>>/pol/

>>12082046
Misdirection intended to troll other countries into wasting resources on investigating bullshit

>>12082046
I think it's very interesting and compelling but I'm sure some smarmy reddit cunts will be in shortly to explain how the Pentagon stuff is all debunked and how they're so much smarter than you are because they have the most boring opinions.
This will generally take up the whole thread with more and more heated arguments with nobody's mind being changed in any way, and we'll be back here, same time next week.

>>12082046
this is convincing enough for me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus&list=PL-4ZqTjKmhn5Qr0tCHkCVnqTx_c0P3O2t

>>12082046
you've probably recently watched lemmino's recent documentary "extra-ordinary until proven otherwise"

>>12082046
I think it's a result of our species' understandable narcissism. We feel quite important so we assume that the processes which lead to our existence must be reproducible, that the improbable situation must be replicated elsewhere in space, etc etc etc.
The thing I think nobody wants to admit and which is always shouted down by people is that there is a very real possibility, regardless of any speculation, that there is no other intelligent life, or life capable of becoming intelligent, anywhere but here- never has been or will be. This whole earth situation is a temporary one-off fluke.
That's a hard thing to think about because it makes the universe seem impersonal and uncaring and makes our existence seem meaningless and I think that's why it is so hard to propose this to people. Also we have quite a bit of emotional investment and escapism fantasy tied up in our fictions of someday exploring beyond the planet, while I think the reality probably is that beyond some asteroid mining, which itself might not make much sense economically speaking, there's really nowhere worth going out there.

>>12082115
It is convincing if you ignore all the witness accounts from the pilots, and only look at the videos in a vacuum.

>>12082169
Please explain how the witness accounts invalidate his analysis. Either the witness accounts are related to the videos, in which case the videos' mundanity and the pilots' incorrect reactions shed doubt on the eyewitness accounts, or the they are not related and you have no point.

>>12082046
I've seen them. They're real.

>>12082113
>MOOOOOM SOMEBODY'S REFUTING MY SCI-FI FANTASIES
>MAKE THEM STOP
"Boring" is not an argument, gullible faggot.

>>12082046
The Pentagon probably has an idea of what they're seeing, but they don't want to make their pilots look like idiots and scare off others from reporting weird shit. So they say it's unidentified. That's what they actually said.

>>12082187
>UFOs are real
This is one of the most meaningless statements that UFOtards think means something.

>>12082201
They're not unidendifed. That's just what they're called.

>>12082201
>if it think its so then its fact
/x/ and /pol/ logic.

>>12082188
that post didn't even argue for anything except saying it's interesting and you're already trying to get one up lmao

>>12082113
This
These threads attract people who desperately want to be know it alls on a topic nobody knows anything about.
>>12082185
Absolutely shitty argument btw
>>12082196
Yeah I think they commented that most of the evidence is classified, like the radar data and so on, which makes any discussion from anyone who wasnt directly involved nothing more than speculation.

>>12082185
Absolute dipshit logic

>>12082218
His analysis is automatically invalidated when he's deliberately ignoring evidence that doesn't fit into his explanations. The non-mundane part of the encounters are told in the witness accounts, and none of the explanations Mick gave for the videos can also explain those. If you want to say that the pilots are just making it all up, then I guess that's a route you can take, but I think it's a desperate one.

This video goes over the relevant witness accounts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpeSpA3e56A

For the distant object he thinks is a commercial airliner: This would have easily been tracked and identified by the accompanying aircraft carrier.

>>12082046
I've known about the UFO for a long time, the question is whether or not they're gonna start tellin us what the UFO has been doing this whole time

>>12082315
Earth Safari.

>>12082213
>They're not unidendifed
UFOtards have reached a new level of stupidity.

>>12082251
>that post didn't even argue for anything
Exactly.

>>12082263
>Absolutely shitty argument btw
This is what the UFOtard says when he gets BTFO

>>12082272
You're absolutely assblasted.

>>12082296
>The non-mundane part of the encounters are told in the witness accounts, and none of the explanations Mick gave for the videos can also explain those.
So the videos are part of the same encounters? Then why don't they show anything interesting? And why do the pilots overreact to nothing? You haven't actually looked for what Mick has said about the eyewitness accounts, you're just pointing to what he said about the videos as if they should explain what's not in the videos, without showing they are the same thing.

>If you want to say that the pilots are just making it all up
No one said that, try again.

>For the distant object he thinks is a commercial airliner: This would have easily been tracked and identified by the accompanying aircraft carrier.
Where did he say it's a commercial airliner? And how do you know the object wasn't tracked or identified? Maybe it was but this information is classified. Or maybe their new radar system wasn't working properly. Maybe you should stop making strawmen and dumb assumptions.

>>12083238
>So the videos are part of the same encounters? Then why don't they show anything interesting?
Multiple pilots went up at multiple times, not all of them were equipped with cameras. We also don't see the full footage of the videos.

>You haven't actually looked for what Mick has said about the eyewitness accounts
From what I remember he says he's only focusing on the videos. Feel free to link a video of him talking about the eyewitness accounts if I'm wrong.

>No one said that, try again.
But that is the only option you have left. If you look at all the witness accounts and the details behind each encounter, it's an insane reach to suggest that the so many pilots who made so many out of the ordinary observations, were simply confused by some mundane source like balloons or distant planes. Baloons or distant planes don't show up on radar like a fleet of objects behaving erratically (this was the reason fighter jets were sent to investigate in at least 1 of the encounters).

>Where did he say it's a commercial airliner?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7jcBGLIpus
30 seconds he he says "it's most likely a distant plane" while showing a blurred image of a passenger airliner on screen.

>And how do you know the object wasn't tracked or identified? Maybe it was but this information is classified.
I meant sure, but that would be extremely odd.

>Or maybe their new radar system wasn't working properly.
You'd think one of the most sophisticated navel warships in the world would have some sort of backup radar system making sure the primary is not missing targets. The planes themselves were also equipped with radar.

>>12083200
>If I saw a flying saucer I wouldn't be able to identify what I'm looking at
Skeptics have reached a new level of stupidity

>>12082115
So they are lying then? I mean they would know a plane when they see it... They are pilots.

>>12082115
How about the thousands of other UFO sightings that happened?
Roswell?
Videos of UFOs taken by civilians?
All faked?

>>12083338
Military bases and experimental testing ranges. It's not an accident that there were a bunch of batwing shaped UFOs and then we learn about the B-2 stealth bomber.

>>12083355
A stealth bomber is not a ufo

>>12083357
Not now but it was in the 70s.

>>12083362
To suggest ufos are just military tech is pretty foolish. Ufos typically make no sound, can hover around, and shoot off at thousands of miles an hour instantly. They also tend not to have an aerodynamic shape.

>>12083338
Yes, all fake. In case you were born yesterday, people have a nasty habit of making shit up. They also tend to copy what other people do. The fact that there remains to this day no evidence for UFOs tells you all you need to know about those claims. Having said that, life on other planets is an absolute certainty, with space-travelling life no doubt much less common.

>>12083378
>everyone is a liar expect for me
kek

>>12083386
Your comprehension and spelling explains your belief in UFOs

>>12083410
that's what I would except you to say

>>12083338
>Roswell?
If that was an UFO where's all the alien technology? Shouldn't the US have reverse engineered some of it by now?
>How about the thousands of other UFO sightings that happened?
Schizos are everywhere, the world would be better if we laced the water supply with antipsychotics
>Videos of UFOs taken by civilians?
I've never seen a video that wasn't obviously faked or of such poor quality that it could be anything

>>12083338
Yes
Maybe not these ones though

>>12083205
You think this is a win but it really just proves the exact point you quoted

I just want ET to teleport me into ship and put things in my bottom, is that too much to ask? :(

>>12083518
Would you settle for this guy instead?

>>12083288
It doesn't matter how many times people post this stuff. There's this one anon who seems to absolutely suck Mick West's dick. The last time one of these threads came up half the thread at least was anons explaining to him why deliberately ignoring evidence won't make for an actual debunking but he just makes excuse after excuse as to why it's fine to ignore all context, even though Mick West still can't give an explanation which matches something colder than the water, something that would show up on radar in a way that would justify jets being scrambled to investigate, and something that could match the pilot's accounts.
All of this gets ignored so that people can pretend to play scientist.

>>12083526
they're both cute

>>12083288
>Multiple pilots went up at multiple times, not all of them were equipped with cameras.
This doesn't answer my question.

>We also don't see the full footage of the videos.
The guy who supposedly lead the team investigating the videos leaked them. Why would he only leak the boring parts of the video and then join TTSA?

>From what I remember he says he's only focusing on the videos.
Yes, when he's taking about the videos.

>Feel free to link a video of him talking about the eyewitness accounts if I'm wrong.
Why video? Clearly you haven't done any research.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/fravors-hypersonic-ufo-observation-parallax-illusion-comparing-accounts.10941/

>But that is the only option you have left.
No it isn't. Most UFOs are just people failing to recognize something.

>If you look at all the witness accounts and the details behind each encounter, it's an insane reach to suggest that the so many pilots who made so many out of the ordinary observations, were simply confused by some mundane source like balloons or distant planes.
LOL, it's only a few observations out of many that you are selecting. If you collect a bunch of anomalous events and put them together, it's no surprise that they will all be anomalous. It's like saying accountants rarely make mistakes, so all the accounting mistakes that occurred over several years by different accountants could not occur. You need to be more specific and show what is actually correlated.

>Baloons or distant planes don't show up on radar like a fleet of objects behaving erratically (this was the reason fighter jets were sent to investigate in at least 1 of the encounters).
You're assuming radar and the videos show the same thing. Either show eviscerated of this or show where Mick said they are the same thing.

>>12083288
>30 seconds he he says "it's most likely a distant plane" while showing a blurred image of a passenger airliner on screen.
So he didn't say it's a passenger airliner, he just used one as an example? Just say that next time instead of grasping at straws.

>You'd think one of the most sophisticated navel warships in the world would have some sort of backup radar system making sure the primary is not missing targets.
No, you would assume. Not me.

>The planes themselves were also equipped with radar.
So what did the pilot say about radar?

>>12083331
What is a "flying saucer" exactly? Something that looks like a flying disc? Describing what something looks like is not an identification. Moron.

>>12083336
>Pilots can't make mistakes, if they're wrong it means they're lying
UFOtards in a nutshell.

>>12084177
Thank you for reinforcing my point.

>>12083368
>To suggest ufos are just military tech is pretty foolish.
They are lots of different things

>Ufos typically make no sound, can hover around, and shoot off at thousands of miles an hour instantly.
Source?

>They also tend not to have an aerodynamic shape.
Source?

>>12083515
Not really. UFOtards are mad their fantasies get so easily debunked so they whine about the debunkers instead of actually providing anything substantive, because they have none.

>>12084306
>source?
Any ufo story. Just google any of them.

>>12082046
If they don't know what they were seeing then it was per definition either an Unidentified Flying Object or some kind of system malfunction, neither of which in any way implies aliens.

>>12084321
I did, I got the Navy UFO videos, and none of them show anything you claimed.

>>12084941
it's not my fault you're not genuinely interested in the topic

>>12082046
/x/ just called they want their thread back

>>12085049
I'm interested in why UFOtatds think this is /x/.

>>12082046
95% of UFO sightings are airplanes, satellites, over the horizon lights and other everyday things.
4% of UFO sightings are classified airframes that the government uses the whole UFO conspiracy as cover to protect.
1% of UFO sightings are truly weird and unexplainable. We now have several of these on video from the government.
As someone who has studied this for a long time, I think there is something or multiple somethings studying us. World War 2 seems to have scared them but I think that Tesla lighting the whole planet up at Wardencliffe might have actually been what got them to notice. This is discounting all ancient talk of celestial beings, they might have been here forever or off and on. But, something in the 20th Century made them really pay attention.
>tl;dr it's cover ups covering cover ups covering mass biological sampling by actual aliens
Pic is from the famous Nellis AFB encounter where a UFO was tracked for a while using a radar-slaved camera. Looks just like the Aguadilla UFO.

>>12084182
How come they could not lock on to it with auto-lock-on? Did not show up on radar?

>UFO disbeliever sees UFO
>Must be swamp gas

>>12085307

>>12085448
>How come they could not lock on to it with auto-lock-on?
Which one could they not lock on to?

>>UFO disbeliever
Meaningless description.

>>12085307
OK schizo.

>>12084309
Still proving the exact point you quoted lol, it wasnt even naming you and you immediately get all defensive

>>12085646
Still whining.

>>12085653
You certainly are. Can't even go a minute without replying. But you just have to look like you're winning, don't you?

>>12085662
You're bullshit is still debunked, keep whining about it.

>>12085680
There he goes again, getting in the last word. Just can't help himself.

>>12085680
you can't debunk what is real

>>12085307
What books/authors do you recommend reading to get a good overview of the UFO phenomena? I skimmed a few pages of one of Stanton's books, but my impression was that he was too focused on "owning the debunkers", which made him come off kind of childish.

>>12085710
Correct. Hypersonic rotating tic tacs with auras are not real.

Fuck me, skeptics are such brainlet retards. Defaulting to Occam's Razor does not mean you've converged on truth. Why this idiot Mick West things he's smarter than the pilots and operators with decades of experience is beyond me. Just because you've come up with an explanation that satisfies what you think is within the realm of expectation doesn't mean it's the correct one. Scepticism is crucial for critical thinking but in the hands of these dimwits it's just pathological. We should be pushing for as much information to be made public on UFOs as possible because the cost-benefit of doing so is asymmetric. If we get the info and this turns out to be some explainable trivial phenomena than whatever. But if these UFOs are real and utilising advanced technology beyond our capabilities than the benefits of figuring out how they work would lead to a legit technological and scientific singularity. I'd take the bet anons

>>12085813
>Why this idiot Mick West things he's smarter than the pilots and operators with decades of experience is beyond me.
All Mick West did was point out things like the HUD in the "go fast" video giving all the information needed to calculate the object's speed. The amount of cope he has generated in response is absolutely hilarious with people rejecting irrefutable mathematical facts in favour of "b..but pilots wouldn't make mistakes!"

Just accept you've already decided aliens are real and take these threads to /x/, it's fine.

Time travel is one million billion trillion times more feasible as a feat of engineering than interstellar travel.

>>12085834
I personally think his parallax argument is valid given the information provided. So no retard. Unlike you, I don't just converge on a position with respect to this thing. It's called nuance. I want more information because if this technology exists it would dramatically change life on Earth and make us far more capable. And that's not even factoring in the unknowable innovations and positive externalities that would come from this.

What's with this one guy in every one of these threads?

>>12085894
>I personally think his parallax argument is valid given the information provided.
Ok...
>I want more information.
So you want more information on a theoretical "impossible vehicle" that has already been, you admit, validly argued to be explainable by parallax? What information could you need?

>>12086044
Come on anon, don't be a dimwit. The parallax argument pertains to only one of the videos which, admittedly, is the weakest link for the existence of some advanced technology and probably is a balloon. When I say I want information I'm talking about all information in the hands of the US government with respect to these crafts and not about more information in regards to the videos already released. For sure the videos that have been declassified are only the tip of the iceberg. Honestly, I don't give a fuck if it's aliens or military, I just want that tech democratised.

>>12086149
I'm just gonna let you down bud, these "crafts" are regular jets. There's no evidence in any of the other videos of non-jet activity. Everything that says they are special is hearsay and not present anywhere in the videos.

>>12086044
I know you think you're sounding clever by ignoring his obvious suggestion but you're just coming across as being deliberately stupid.
It's absolute fact that the Pentagon has more data on these encounters. Jets aren't just scrambled to investigate any old thing that passes by. Radar detects certain kinds of objects and if they meet sufficient criteria, then jets are scrambled, for one.
The very obvious statement here is that since we have only partial information, and if this really is some strange craft which does behave the way the pilots claim, then we stand to gain an enormous amount from being able to analyse the full data set rather than just conjecture about incomplete video evidence so we can pretend we're smart online.
There may be national security issues involved but that's the very very obvious point.

>>12086158
>Jets aren't just scrambled to investigate any old thing that passes by.
Why not? They were doing training or whatever anyways just get the dumb flyboys exited and then send them to "investigate" mysterious signals. Fully 50% of what the US military does is roleplay.

Also why should they tell you anything they don't even tell you when they kill a dozen friendlies with a fucking warthog.

>>12086169
Because of the very obvious reason that if we scrambled jets every time a bird or a balloon went by they'd never be on the fucking ground.

>>12086178
Now who's being obtuse? The generals don't need to scramble for every bird or balloon because they know it's bullshit.

>>12086206
It's because they show up quite differently on radar to a probable threat.

>>12086206
Imagine pretending to be a supreme gentleman logician and then you come out with this stinker

>>12086218
Imagine believing training exercises are actually real battles with real enemies.

>>12086221
You asked why jets wouldn't be scrambled for every bird or balloon. You got told why. It's very obvious. Radar even has filtering to remove these low altitude slow moving objects anyway, and most radar isn't going to be that sensitive that it will pick up a single bird since there's just not much benefit.
Now you're just blathering on about a completely unrelated tangent that has nothing to do with anything because you just don't like not looking smart.

bump

>>12083355
This guy gets it. What's more likely:
>Super advanced alien craft travels across the galaxy and randomly crashes when it gets to Earth
or
>Government is testing highly experimental drive system with a rotating superfluid/superconductive He4 medium developed at nearby Los Alamos
>Experimental craft housing the drive system was being flight tested out of Kirtland AFB
>Drive system malfunctions over Roswell during flight test and crashes
>Government actively cultivated "muh aliens" to obfuscate what it really was because Russian spies had already verifiably infiltrated the American nuclear program at LANL

>>12087063
bump

>"It's a weather balloon"
>Team getting ready to fly a weather balloon, "That's not a weather balloon."

>>12085453
>>12085606
Aguadilla, 2013, US DHS helicopter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJpyJ_G9WVA&feature=youtu.be
Nellis AFB, 1995 including analysis of motion track in 2nd video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GTGSMnWH-8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhWoN6a-A-8
I know you guys just want to be skeptics because it's something on the edge of our understanding, but there's something out there. This could be an extremely exotic US airframe, plasma technology or something else, or it could be an advanced species or breakaway civilization. What it's not is a nothingburger. If it's not American tech, it's a clear threat to national security.
>>12085757
I personally think they're all mostly full of shit. Some of these people are scam artists like Greer, others are propaganda targets like Lazar and yet others might have a hint of truth but be wildly off the mark like Strieber. Remember that a significant effort has been put into making all unknown aerial phenomena into a schizoid psyop to discredit observers of classified aircraft and possibly as cover for those in the know about the 1% phenomena.
From a rationalist standpoint, the best thing to do is seek out first sources as text or video for analysis. The Villas Boas or Zamora encounters, for instance. Or the various government videos of UFO encounters. One surprisingly good source is the CIA Vault considering it has things like Soviet diplomatic cables about squads of soldiers being turned to limestone by crashed flying discs and a memo thanking the US for destroying their joint Moon base.
Another good source is raw Mars rover pics from NASA.

>>12088803
>Another good source is raw Mars rover pics from NASA.

Those have UFO sightings?

I've seen a massive black triangle decloak about two hundred feet away. They are real and they are here.

Not larping, not alone in seeing it and we were sober.

>>12086206
During the USS Nimitz and USS Franklin encounters, the contacts went on for weeks or months across a range of sensors from Mk. 1 eyeballs to AESA radar. In the case of the Franklin CBG, the contacts also happened all around the western Atlantic as it seemed to follow the battle group.
>>12086154
>these "crafts" are regular jets.
There seems to be a range of vehicles/phenomena. Some slow and low, some travel in groups, some very fast. These may be very different and separate technologies or entities.
>>12087063
Read the epilogue in Annie Jacobsen's book on Area 51. Roswell was, according to either Edward Teller or one of his assistants, a Soviet psyop using surgically modified children in a remote controlled Horten flying wing.
>>12088823
A few in recent Curiosity images, including a sequence of something flying across Gale Crater. Here's another one.

>>12085603
They couldn't lock on to either with the auto lock-on system onboard of the jets, they had to manually lock on by following the object with the camera.

>>12088840

Got a link to the NASA officially hosted images?

This is basically the smoking gun of this topic.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qofu0x1BqUI

>>12088848
It's in the file name, you mong.

>>12088824
Same, I saw one of those myself too, also completely sober at the time. It's so widely reported as well, I'm convinced this one is a next gen stealth aircraft though.

>>12088840
>>12088803
Camera or development artefacts.
There is zero scientific evidence for UFOs as alien space craft. There are only people making claims. Conveniently claims we can never test or substantiate.
t. Ex-UFO fag who saw the UFO industry for the religion and scam that it is.

>>12088870

I've heard a lot of reports of similar objects, some people say these are the human built reverse engineered craft.

>>12088870

Did you see yours decloak/recloak? If so could you describe the visual effect you?

>>12088896
No, that part I didn't see in my encounter, sorry.
I just looked up in the early evening one night about 4 years ago now, and noticed this big black triangle, rounded at the corners, in the sky not too far from me. I noticed that the motion of it was unlike any aircraft I'd seen before. It moved much more fluidly through the air, seemed to kind of slowly hover around, turned at will, and then it was suddenly off out of sight.

>>12088973

The one I saw had rounded edges too. Mine didn't move much. It started as a small white glowing ball, expanded and then the light unfolded revealing the triangle. It hovered for about 15 seconds silently before the light returned and enveloped it before shrinking to nothing.

Not sure if it was cloaking or teleporting or who fucking knows. I'd very much like answers as to why this thing was hovering over a field in the south of England.

>>12088973
>>12088994
Nearest military base?

>>12088999

A good 60-70 miles I think. I'm on the Isle of Wight. There's a Naval dock near by but nothing substantial.

>>12088994
That's interesting. The one I saw had no lights on it.
>>12088999
I don't know, I saw this in New Zealand of all places. We barely even have a military, which is part of what made it so strange to me.

>>12089013
>>12089013

After the light receded it had no lights. It's as if the light was an effect generated by it cloaking or whatever.

>>12088876
>Camera or development artefacts.
Radiation overloading CCDs always produces white bursts. Dust on the lens makes a blur. "development" as if this is film, these are raw images on NASA's public server.
I'm not saying these are necessarily aliums, but they aren't always simple to explain. The most likely explanation is that there are humans flying around Mars and Earth with advanced aerospace vehicles.
Cedarville, CA, 1992

>>12088803
Aguadilla is wedding lanterns, this has been known for a while. Nellis shows nothing interesting, the weird movements are due to the camera moving. Both are nothingburgers.

>>12089076
>The most likely explanation is that there are humans flying around Mars and Earth with advanced aerospace vehicles.
You have absolutely no evidence that makes that the most likely explanation.
Also, why is it that all images of UFOs are blurry as fuck. The answer is that if the images weren't blurry they would be images of jets and helicopters.

>>12089076
>The most likely explanation is that there are humans flying around Mars and Earth with advanced aerospace vehicles.
Lmfao

>>12088840
>Roswell was, according to either Edward Teller or one of his assistants, a Soviet psyop using surgically modified children in a remote controlled Horten flying wing.
You are mentally ill.

>>12088847
>They couldn't lock on to either with the auto lock-on system onboard of the jets, they had to manually lock on by following the object with the camera.
Which video?

>>12088824
>>12088870
why didn't you fags take any photos?

>>12089261

Because it was 15 years ago and I had the shittiest budget flip-phone that could barely take a pic of someones face in front of me. I considered taking it out, putting in password, launching the camera, waiting for it to load, trying to focus and taking a blurry pic that would prove nothing. But I figured it would be gone in no time and I didn't want to risk missing anything.

>>12089294
Oh, alright.
By the way, did it look like this?

>>12089136
>images of jets and helicopters.
On Mars?
>>12089105
Unlikely considering the object(s) maneuver in and out of the water.
>>12089196
Pages 375-377 in Jacobsen's Area 51, An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base.
>it follows that Stalin's black propaganda hoax — the flying disc peopled with alien look-alides that wound up crashing near Roswell, NM — could have been the Soviet dictator's revenge for Truman's betrayal at Crossroads. His double cross had to have been in the planning stages during the handshaking at Potsdam...
>the flying disc at Roswell, says the EG&G engineer, was "a warning shot across Truman's bow."
>Stalin may not have had the atomic bomb just yet, but he had seminal hover and fly technology, pilfered from the Germans, and he had stealth.
I didn't write it, I'm just reporting it, but kill the messenger, you drones.

>>12089314
That image is CGI
There is no legit picture of a triangle alien spacecraft. Fakes and hoaxes.

>>12089314

Pretty much exactly like the top left pic, minus the lights. Though I wasn't directly under it so I suppose I could have missed some.

>>12089315
>>it follows that Stalin's black propaganda hoax — the flying disc peopled with alien look-alides that wound up crashing near Roswell, NM — could have been the Soviet dictator's revenge for Truman's betrayal at Crossroads. His double cross had to have been in the planning stages during the handshaking at Potsdam...
>>the flying disc at Roswell, says the EG&G engineer, was "a warning shot across Truman's bow."
>>Stalin may not have had the atomic bomb just yet, but he had seminal hover and fly technology, pilfered from the Germans, and he had stealth.
Dumbest shit ever. How exactly could the Russians launch an experimental german aircraft all the way to roswell?

>>12089332
in 1947****

>>12089315
>Unlikely considering the object(s) maneuver in and out of the water.
It didn't, the IR signal momentarily dims in several places. But you can still see traces of it even when it "dives into the water."

>>12089315
>I didn't write it, I'm just reporting it
Yes I know, and you're mentally ill if you take such nonsense seriously.

>>12089332
>How exactly could the Russians launch an experimental german aircraft all the way to roswell?
According to the engineer in that book, they set up in northern Mexico and flew it by remote over the border. One of the US radar systems interfered with the controls and it crashed. There was at least one more attempt, the so-called Aztec crash. Radio-controlled aircraft were being used even before World War 2.
How is this hard to believe? We know the Soviets had Horten airframes. They were masters of subterfuge and were panicking over not having The Bomb in '47. Stalin felt personally betrayed. They'd seen the panic over the War of the Worlds broadcasts and thought they could replicate it.
Great book, recommend to anyone that is interested in classified projects. Jacobsen's other books are supposed to be great, as well.

>>12089357
>Yes I know, and you're mentally ill if you take such nonsense seriously.
So what, in your inestimable opinion, crashed in New Mexico in 1947? And what evidence do you have for it? I'm at least providing a source.

>>12089389
>So what, in your inestimable opinion, crashed in New Mexico in 1947?
It's not an opinion, multiple sources have confirmed that it was a balloon from Project Mogul. If you know anything about UFOs you already know this but choose to ignore it.

>I'm at least providing a source.
Your source is obvious bullshit.

>>12089403
>Project Mogul
That's been in dispute since the event.
>>12089403
>Your source is obvious bullshit.
One of the great cataloguers of contemporary American military history is bullshit? Sure thing, newfren.

>>12089412
>That's been in dispute since the event.
Anyone can dispute anything, no one cares.

>One of the great cataloguers of contemporary American military history is bullshit?
No, Annie Jacobsen is bullshit.

>>12088840
I have personally viewed many thousands of the Curiosity Rover images.

That is a permanent glitch on one of the cams.

It is not a UFO.

However, there ARE UFO's in some image sequences.
^

The example you just used, however, I can assure you, is a permanent glitch on that specific cam, I can give you hundreds of rover images with that same exact glitch, with like 10 minutes of effort, if you really care.

However, I think I'd rather just give you an image sequence that does genuinely show something unidentified that moves through the Martian atmosphere over 3 images.

Everyone I confronted about this image, involved with MSL/JPL/Nasa declared it a glitch, but the object moves, and has a flight path over 3 separate images, so I have a hard time believing it is just a "glitch".

They on the other hand, cast my observation aside.

>>12089261
Gone in seconds, just totally not caught ready to take a picture. The total time I saw it for was maybe 10 seconds total before it was out of sight, maybe not even that.
>>12089314
Similar shape, yes, didn't see lights. Maybe a bit more curved in my memory.

>>12089622
Aaaaand, I can no longer find the images.

Fantastic.

>>12089622
>>12088840

here we go
https://mars.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/proj/msl/redops/ods/surface/sol/02461/opgs/edr/ncam/NRB_615967027EDR_S0761714NCAM00594M_.JPG

https://mars.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/proj/msl/redops/ods/surface/sol/02461/opgs/edr/ncam/NRB_615967014EDR_S0761714NCAM00594M_.JPG

https://mars.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/proj/msl/redops/ods/surface/sol/02461/opgs/edr/ncam/NRB_615967002EDR_S0761714NCAM00594M_.JPG

This sequence of 3 images shows an object that is definitely in the Martian sky, and moving.

SOL 2461 - Right Nav Cam

NASA/MSL/JPL/Curiosity

These are the direct links, to the Curiosity images, as provided by NASA/MSL/JPL

There you go, genuine images of a UFO on Mars.

>>12089654
>There you go, genuine images of a UFO on Mars.
Genuine images of a camera artefact, production artefact, or debris being blown by the wind

>>12089754
>Camera artefact

Across 3 images, in 3 different points on the images?

Ok.

>Production artefact

Sure are a lot of these, 500,000+ images from Curiosity, and an object that changes in relative size and moves across in sequence images from production artefacts are all over the place. You'd think with a 2 billion dollar budget, they'd be able to avoid all these pesky production artefacts, but you're right, totally all over the place.

>debris being blown by the wind

>Wind on Mars
>Wind on Mars blowing visible debris

Ok, I'll bite

>Checks all images taken near same time period.

>Sure is not a lot of debris or wind evidence around here.

I saw something twice. Not gonna say that it aliums. But shit was weird as hell to me.

>>12089799
>it can't because [cope] so it must be aliens!

Here's an interesting question: Assuming these objects are actually doing the seemingly physics-defying maneuvers: what is more likely:

>One country has through black budget science advanced far beyond the rest of science and made these experimental aircraft

>It's aliens.

>>12089951
What about China

>>12089958
They're a likely candidate. Their stable leadership gives them great advantage in both forming and maintaining long term research projects that can remain operational without getting caught up in political red tape.

>>12089800

Elaborate.

anyone take a look at the Martian UFO images yet?

SOL 2461?

>>12089622
>The example you just used, however, I can assure you, is a permanent glitch on that specific cam, I can give you hundreds of rover images with that same exact glitch, with like 10 minutes of effort, if you really care.
Sure, post 'em.

>>12089654
Thanks, Anon, those are the images I've been looking for. Clear flight path, scaling and appropriate movement that is not an object like Phobos on an orbital path.

>>12082046
/x/

>>12092741
>/x/
You'd have said the same thing about gorillas 200 years ago.

>>12092777
Wut

>>12092377
I may be incorrect on that specific glitch, it looked similar to a navcam glitch I'm aware of, at first glance.

Looking back through, I'm not 100% sure.

It is probably the same glitch though, the navcam has had a little black dot that floats in the sky on the lens, for years now.

>>12082046
>>12082046
>What is /sci/'s take on the UFO phenomena and the recent witness accounts and videos from the navy pilots,

Nowadays? Its just to push a posadism

>>12087063
Except there were two crash sites

>>12087063
Except there were two crash sites

>>12094180
Source?

Ayy thread? Better than IQ threads. I happen to believe 1% of UFO sightings are worthy of legitimate investigation. I believe all sightings should be reported for national security reasons so we don't get blindsided by our enemies, or even ayys why not. You don't have believe something entirely to take it seriously. After years of watching ayy shows about UFOs mostly to laugh at them, some sightings and cover ups have gave me pause. Thus, I believe there is a 10% chance of extraterrestrial spacecraft visitation. I believe there is a less than 1% chance of actual biological (or cybernetic) organisms on these crafts. I like 10% because it pisses off both sides of the debate. The reason I believe this is I think it is possible an advanced civilization could release a swarm of satellites to do recon other worlds. I think it'll be possible to advanced navigation and computing to find likely worlds with life on them. I suggest it there is a remote possibility that they have pinpointed us and are watching us not for what we are but our potential in a million years or something like that. Still a low chance though, but higher than most debunkers in my opinion. Sorry for format, phone posting

>>12094682
He's probably referring to the Aztec Crash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec,_New_Mexico,_UFO_incident

>>12092779
>Wut
Gorillas were a cryptid that couldn't possibly exist, despite Hanno's 2500 year old description, until the mid-1800s. All level headed Natural Scientists agreed that such a creature couldn't possibly be real. Sort of like heavier than air flight, traveling faster than 25 mph and other impossible things.
>>12093510
So, no, then.
I'm not saying ITS TEH AYYYS, not necessarily. I'm saying something is watching us and maybe experimenting on us, on Earth and Mars. I lean toward at a minimum a human breakaway civilization if it's not just advanced military craft and a smokescreen.
Anyone who wants to jump down the rabbit hole should look up Project NYMZA.

>>12082113
>posts pic of 14 year old
opinion discarded

>>12082169
Yes,
physics defying UFO's or stupid pilots. a 50/50 really, could be either.

>>12089654
Mars has an atmosphere and about 1/3rd the gravity of earth. So if i were to guess id put my money on something blowing in the wind than aliens. But cant be that, because its always aliens. Always.

>>12095651
Something following a perfect arc?

>>12095439
>In the mid-1950s, the story was exposed as a hoax fabricated by two confidence men, Silas M. Newton and Leo A. Gebauer as part of a fraudulent scheme to sell supposed alien technology.
Uhuh...

>>12096752
Lots of these things were real then walked back, same happened with the Roswell crash. There's also the claims that the Zamora incident was a hoax except that it so closely matches the Tic Tacs.
Just remember that most of this is psyops inside psyops but something is up that isn't a psyop.

>>12096453
Most things in orbit, or a crash trajectory do...
Sometimes debris does.

>>12095651
>Mars has an atmosphere
Sure, if you call that an atmosphere...

>>12097028
The apparent path in that sequence is parallel or slightly climbing away from the surface, it's not something in orbit.

>>12097033
So you checked out the images from SOL 2461?

The MSL team called it a glitch and went about their day.

I'm wondering if it was a meteor and possible impacted.

I'd love to go through the seismo data from Mars during that time period and see if any blips popped up.

>>12097129
It could be a meteor but the chances of that are almost as low as an unknown aerospace vehicle doing an overflight of Gale Crater.

>>12098180
And what are the chances of it being a camera glitch that kinda looks like an object?

>>12082187
What did you see anon?

>>12088840
Link to the raw image on the NASA website please

>>12098261
I'm not him, but I've seen one of the triangles.

>>12089654
holy fucking shit
I thought there was a coverup, nasa doesn't seem to give a shit
>>12089754
you are gassed m8, that is a clear as day flying saucer over mars

>>12098272
>that is a clear as day flying saucer over mars
Prove it.

>>12098269
the one with the three lights? Was it hovering low or flying fast?

>>12082169
>witness accounts from the pilots,
They were looking at the same images. And gave their on the spot comments.

>>12098327
They witnessed much more than was seen on the videos.

>>12098282
What the fuck else could it be?

UFO autists, Lex Fridman just did an interview with Fravor.
>>12098258

>>12082115
His "explanation" is bullshit. for FLIR1 to be out of range of the radar it had to be moving faster than a commercial jet or jamming it. The analysis of the GO FAST video I agree with though, it is something moving slow at 13k feet

>>12098346
This is the 3 frames animated.

Looks like a weather balloon to me, maybe some Venus swamp gas... NASA/MSL/JPL thinks it's a glitch though, so probably just a glitch, right.

>>12098371
Interesting in the first two frames it appears to maintain the same altitude over the mountains. Like it's flying level then zooms upwards.

Good find anon, Anything else?

>>12098371
>Looks like a weather balloon to me, maybe some Venus swamp gas...
Two pictures with dark spots is all it takes for you guys?

>>12098265
Read the thread. Another Anon posted the sequence here >>12089654
>>12098192
In the case of that sequence, very slim. Glitches almost always appear as white. They don't get dimmer and appear to move in arcs. See sequence above.
When I get Fireworks up and running I'll make a gif to examine.

>>12098371
Nice but it's backwards. According to NASA's data this occurs over a 25 second sequence and starts with the apparent object in the distance, approaching to the left then arcing rightward in front of Curiosity's navcam view.

>>12098475
So I guess its an unlikely glitch or aliens then? Which would you put your money on? Or you got another explanation? We are going with your own reasoning here.

>>12098468
closed minded sheep

>>12098515
Come on, just say it: "Two dark spots is all it takes"
No need to dance around it if you're so proud of your open mindedness. You should check out homeopathy while you're at it.

>>12098544
You are just as bad. you decide a dark spot is explainable without giving any proof. Have you analysed the photos to prove it's an artefact? No you're just making judgements based on belief just like the tinfoils. Open mind means you think these things should be looked into and not just blanket dismissed just because it doesn't fit your world-view

>>12098491
The arc indicates controlled flight. The shape indicates something technical, not a bolide. Dust on the lens or blowing by wouldn't look at all like that.
Personally, I'd say Navy, USAF or a human breakaway civilization are more likely than aliens. I lean toward Navy operating a Solar Warden program or at least hope that's the answer.
Something flying has repeatedly buzzed Curiosity, we have three separate incidents linked in this thread alone.
>>12098544
It's three dark spots moving in a flightpath-like sequence.

>>12098575
Not them but why would the military fly their secret craft past the one rover on the entire planet?

Your theory is pretty wild but I suppose it is feasible that the US military is operating secret craft on Mars. The outer space treaty is a reason to not talk about it. However there is 100% no human base on mars that would be way too hard to hide.

>>12098515
I'm all for UFO being Ayyylmaos, but where is the evidence?

>>12098564
>Have you analysed the photos to prove it's an artefact?
I don't need to, its called Bayesian analysis.
Even if its the most perfect small dark spot in the world, its still wouldn't convince me its fucking aliens. There are a million more likely explanations, and unlike you, I dont think every scientist on the planet is conspiring to cover up aliens. It takes more than three?(I can only find two) dark spots to convince me. Luckily though, we got people like you guys on 4chan doing their best research into finding reasons for believing it is aliens

>>12098575
>The shape indicates something technical
The shape is literally a perfectly black rectangle with JPG artifacts at its edges. Its a fucking packet of missing data. Something technical alright. Funny stuff.

>>12098622
I never said it was aliens dick head im saying that the camera artefact claim is baseless.
Who said they're covering it up? it's right there on the NASA website.

>>12098629
>the camera artefact claim is baseless.
Why?

>>12098622
>The shape is literally a perfectly black rectangle with JPG artifacts at its edges
Here, no wonder no one wanted to post zoomed in pictures of it.

>>12098575
>The shape indicates something technical
Perfect rectangles aligned with scan lines of the image is evidence of alien civilizations. All true too true.

>>12098564
>Have you analysed the photos
Have you?

>>12098629
>I never said it was aliens
Oh yea, you're just doing your honest-to-god research into NASA cover ups? Cool, I got you.

>>12098636
where is the evidence that it is a camera artefact?

>>12098662
The fact that cameras do it, it's a reproductible phenomena.

So you can create your own camera artifacts and ride the ufo craze, forever, rent free

>>12098670
that does not prove that this particular picture is a camera artefact.

>>12098662
Because cameras malfunction and a camera malfunction is a more probable explanation than Ayyylmaos.

>>12098662
The image it self, and common sense. Here:
>>12098638

It looks a missing packet from the transfer(from mars btw), with artifacts from compressing it to JPG.

But hay, amiliens and coverups are way cooler.

>>12098673
>>12098674
ironically this is bad science, making assumptions instead of actually investigating.

>>12098684
Science is all about assumptions.

>>12098622
Maybe. There's three spots in sequence, though, which is incredibly odd.
>>12098605
>why would the military fly their secret craft past the one rover on the entire planet?
Same reason the DoD confirmed the UFO videos? Slow disclosure of advanced flight technology.
>mars base
The base would be on Phobos or Deimos.

>>12098672
No it doesn't I give you that.

>>12098699
>Maybe. There's three spots in sequence, though, which is incredibly odd.
Is it though? And honestly I have only been able to find the missing data packet and one slightly dark spot(in the noisy jpg image(by the way)), I'm not sure what 3rd spot you guys are talking about.

>>12098371
What is the shutter speed of the rover camera? For the object to have that high clarity, the shutter speed would need to be really high if it was something blowing in the wind.

>>12098638
>aligned with scan lines

Dude, the scan lines are pixel by pixel. Any straight line will be aligned with them. Putting this under "super zoom CSI enhance" scrutiny, it's not a perfect rectangle. The corners are soft, and the shading differentiation isn't symmetrical actually.
Do a zoom in of the dark spots in the other two frames. (They're in the top left)

>>12098734
>>12098822
see
>>12098371

this gif, look in the top left, you can see each frame, there is a dark spot in all 3 frames

>>12098822
aliened with scan lines, not actual scan lines, read what I say. There is a chunk of data missing, probably in the transfer.
>The corners are soft, and the shading differentiation isn't symmetrical actually
As I said, jpg artifacts. If you haven't noticed, these images are already noisy, and on top of that jpeg's aren't well known for being able to keep sharp edges in images. sharp edges create all kinds of artifacts like the ones around the rectangle.
I don't know if the other two dots are the same, but they are way too small in these noisy images to tell anything from them. Could be missing pixels, i dont know. Probably not aliens though, pretty sure about that.

>>12096917
>Lots of these things were real then walked back
Uhuh... So the two conmen selling fake UFO metal, were they real or part of the cover up?

>There's also the claims that the Zamora incident was a hoax except that it so closely matches the Tic Tacs.
How so?

>Just remember that most of this is psyops inside psyops but something is up that isn't a psyop.
But you figured it out, amazing.

>>12098356
>for FLIR1 to be out of range of the radar it had to be moving faster than a commercial jet or jamming it.
??? or it could just be out of the range of radar.

>>12098515
>closed minded sheep

>>12082083

Yeah, but the problem is you need to prove it is bullshit, but you can't. So, I'm not going to call something "bullshit" just because you say it is. You are what's wrong with the world. You're brainwashed by the "muh professor told me so" mentality. In logic, that does not work. Professors can lie and they can be wrong.

>>12082154
>This whole earth situation is a temporary one-off fluke

Can you prove this? No? Okay, so what are we to believe? You seem illiterate of basic logic and reasoning. Perhaps people like you are so arrogant, you refuse to believe in the possibility anything more intelligent than you exists. Ironically, this is DUMB.

>>12082201

Well, just like dumb atheists believe that destroying the evidence of a higher power will make the higher power not exist, the government does the same thing with shit that they don't want anyone to believe exists. Until you can falsify the possibility, it is possible. Learn logic.

>>12098693
The scientific method fails horribly when applied to itself. For example, if I say "the scientific method is the only way to find truth, that statement is not based on the scientific method.

Science can answer SOME things, but not everything.

>>12082115
>Youtuber who makes a living debunking low res bigfoot videos explains complex unexplained aircraft maneuvers in less than three minutes, a task that took almost 15 years + millions in tax payers money to the US Navy / Pentagon

Mick West is literally a hack trying to pump visits into his dying 90s website lmao

>>12082185
A three minutes youtube video doesn't count as an "analysis".

>>12099144
>Well, just like dumb atheists believe that destroying the evidence of a higher power will make the higher power not exist
Please elaborate, schizo. I need a good laugh.

>>12082046
Interesting, but heavily biased and filled with misinformation, intentionally or not. Older cases have a lot more merit to them than the newer ones imho.

That being said, the more that I learn about UFOs, the more I am convinced they are something out of the ordinary. But the more I learn about the Fermi paradox, the more I am convinced that there aren't any technological civilizations out there right now besides our own.

I am more confident of the latter than the former, which leads me to plant my feet in the "UFOs are curious but likely not aliens" camp, but I don't really know.

But if I may suggest something: it's not worth your time. Like debating about whether or not free will exists, there's not much of a point putting time and effort into an unanswerable question.

>>12099161
>For example, if I say "the scientific method is the only way to find truth, that statement is not based on the scientific method.
Science is not about finding truth, it's about validating/invalidating models. You understand neither science nor philosophy.

>>12099172
>complex unexplained aircraft maneuvers
Like what?

>a task that took almost 15 years + millions in tax payers money to the US Navy / Pentagon
Source?

>Mick West is literally a hack
Then it should be easy for you to show how his analysis is wrong. Good luck.

>>12099176
Yes... it's a summary of his analysis. The in depth analysis is linked in the description. You would know this if you actually watched the video.

>>12099144
>Until you can falsify the possibility, it is possible.
I never said it's impossible. Are you going to respond to what I actually said?

>>12099211
Not gonna waste my time reading some jobless big foot debunker YouTuber ranting about ghosts and fairies to get 10 views a day.

>>12099207
Hey Mick West, try not to be so obvious dude lmao

>>12099172
Anyone who calls themselves a "debunker" or "skeptic" is a conceited retard.

>>12099198

Oh I understand perfectly. You're just uneducated and dumb.

>>12099180

Ad hominem...

>>12099214

That's your insinuation. That is what you want people to believe. You just use semantics to try and escape you responsibility to prove it.

>>12099270
>Not gonna waste my time reading
Yet you seem fine with wasting time posting about what you know nothing about. It seems like the issue is not wasting time, but your inability to refute anything.

>>12099313
>dumb atheists
>Ad hominem
So you can't elaborate. Just as I thought, dumb schizo.

>>12099279
Anyone who gets debunked by a skeptic must be really retarded then.

>>12099309
I'll just take your ad hominem as proof that you don't understand what science is. Thanks.

>>12099317
>That's your insinuation.
No it isn't. Anything is possible.

>You just use semantics to try and escape you responsibility to prove it.
You're projecting. The burden of proof is on you. And saying UFOs are real is meaningless.

>>12099279
I disagree. You are right to point out that many self-proclaimed "skeptics" and "debunkers" have a denialist mentality, whereby they claim they are skeptical, but actually just outright reject any evidence contrary to their own opinions. But you are wrong to claim that anyone who refers to themselves as "skeptics" or "debunkers" are all conceited, closed-minded denialists. I consider myself a skeptic, but I am also of the opinion that UFOs are not prosaic in origin. How do you reconcile those two?

Not all skeptics are denialists. Indeed, if someone is truly a skeptic, it means they heavily scrutinize claims that contradict what is known or likely. This is excellent practice regardless of what you believe. Debunkers are different story. They typically are of the opinion that what they are trying to debunk is, well, false, but that doesn't mean they don't provide anything of value. They do what many believers are unwilling to do - put the claim to the test.

Without skeptics or debunkers, we are all just yelling unsubstantiated opinions at one another and making no progress. Like this thread, for example.

>>12099318
I don't have any respect for someone who debunks ghost houses for a living and at the same time takes himself so seriously. At least James Randi was having fun while doing it, but Mick West is just so incredibly boring it's not worth the time.

>>12085757
The Reference for Outstanding UFO Reports - Olsen, 1966
I like it. Its a straightforward collection of eyewitness accounts from the 40s to the 60s, most of which seem quite good.

>>12099325
To be fair, atheists are dumb.

>>12099279
The skeptic somehow thinks that his/her skepticism makes them right by default. They are too dumb to understand.

>>12099332
"You don't know what science is." So, how does that statement debunk the initial argument? If you know science so well, then surely you can explain. Unless, you're just a lazy retard like 90% of today's wannabe intellectuals.

Is this how you counter everything? Is that the best argument you have?

>>12099335
>You're projecting. The burden of proof is on you. And saying UFOs are real is meaningless.

You seem to not understand what a claim is. To claim that something is "possible" is not the same as claiming that something exists. You should slap your educators in the face. You know nothing.

>>12099325
>So you can't elaborate. Just as I thought, dumb schizo.

ok brainlet

>>12099340
>I don't have any respect for someone who debunks ghost houses for a living and at the same time takes himself so seriously.
Why? It seems like you're desperate to dismiss him while completely avoiding any substantive argument. It's pretty pathetic.

>>12099481
>So, how does that statement debunk the initial argument?
Which initial argument? That science doesn't prove itself? Science doesn't prove anything.

>>12099488
>To claim that something is "possible" is not the same as claiming that something exists.
And who besides you said anything about possibilities?

ITT: Two autists argue about which one of them is less likely to get laid.

Taking all bets, 1 to 20 odds in favor of the first guy to say "ad hominem"

UFO accounts fall into two camps:
• People sighting experimental military hardware, and
• Psycho-social phenomenon on a continuum with demon visitations and the like.

Personally I think the latter are much more interesting, but UFOlogists tend to discredit the many, many accounts that feature ‘paranormal’ claims (poltergeist activity, seeing dead relatives, shit like that) because they want to find evidence of physical visits from extraterrestrial aliens - even though that’s the hypothesis that fits the majority of cases the least.

There's no real proof

>>12100105
>demons

>>/x/

For anyone having trouble seeing the object from the Curiosity images.

This is the "Mars UFO"

>>12100792
So floating rocks are UFOs now.

>>12086741
hello

>>12082154
I think you have summed it up pretty well.

>>12100130
Dumbass, you don’t have to think devils and ayleums are real to notice that they do constitute a genuine experiential phenomenon for the people who do believe in them.

Reports of visitations have been shockingly consistent for hundreds of years, people just change what they call them - from spirits, to demons, to fairies and talking animals to today’s aliens and reptilians and sci-fi menageries.
Whatever they call it, the experiences often share a lot of common features that strongly suggest there’s something interesting and widespread going on.

>>12100834
If you know of some rocks that float (in 0.6% atmosphere, hense very low density of air to have buoyancy on) Please let me know.

>>12100834
>cope

>>12085307
Tesla arguably started the scientific search for ET life, so it’d be too cool if he got their attention.

I used to broadcast radio into the sky begging aliens to save our planet, but if they’re up their they must not care what we do to ourselves. Go figure, aliens are probably either dicks or incomprehensible.

>>12099076
He isn't wrong about the psyops within psyops thing. Go watch Mirage Men. It's entirely biographical, the creators never once claim UFO's are real, and primarily build up and focus the narrative on an incredibly infamous ONI spook that drove people insane and poisoned the well of any reasonable attempt at trying to analyze the phenomena.

>>12085757
The general immaturity and overwhelming biases of ufoologists is probably the only reason we don’t know what UFOs are yet, they’ve made it completely disreputable by being fantasy-driven jackasses.

>>12085307
The Nellis AFB and then the Mexico City sightings are probably the most credible that we have. Especially since they match the near miss report from the second aircraft carrier incident.

>>12099137
>Perhaps people like you are so arrogant
Your whole post smells of arrogance.
Where`s your proof of these magical alien sky fairies existence.

>>12100964
It's part this, part government interference. Guys like Richard Doty didn't exist in a vacuum, they weren't outliers. People funded the work of him and his colleagues and they never stopped.

>>12088994
>>12088973
metamaterals with negative refractive index

>>12100939
>(in 0.6% atmosphere, hense very low density of air to have buoyancy on)
So dust storms and tornadoes don`t exist on Mars.

>>12082154
lol what? Your species being the height of intelligence in the universe is the more "narcissistic" belief if anything. That would make us way more special. It's obviously a non-argument either way, it annoys me how Avi Loeb for example over and over again appeals to "humility" in not assuming we are the only intelligent civilization, without spending much time addressing the real arguments against intelligent life being common. Which I think are pretty good, I lean towards thinking that intelligent life must be very rare with a strong possibility that we're alone in the entire observable universe. But I would never accuse of those believing the opposite of "narcissism".

>>12101005
Dust = Rock ?

K

>>12100951
Maybe you get better results if you broadcast telling them, we can save them. ;P

>>12098575
>human breakaway civilization
Who? Atlanteans? Sea people? Babylonians? The Xia dynasty?

>>12099126
literally when did anyone mention anything about professors, faggot

>>12101076
some era between hyperborean pseudo egyptian-atlantean , those 'dark spots' zipping around are craft that are-to-appear and leaving thier signatures when they were recorded, but will make those manouveurs in the future unfortunately, which worries me as i hope it is humans from earth and i hope we co-operate with one another, if its extraterrestrial and peaceful i wonder why they are going to be making drastic maneuvers if they are peaceful.

>>12101151
i do not speak from learning this is all a guessing-larp based on what i am guessing.

>>12101154
not guessing but going on what i assume to be fringe internet side-band info gathering with a pal

when i say 'will make those maneuvers' im not sure, but its from 'something' in the future not that that can can't change, im not provably non-idiot

I think I just spotted a TicTac shaped UFO in satellite data. Watch in the Gif on the left hand side when the light fades you can see it lose reflection last and cast a shadow on the clouds... So i came here and seen this thread.
This is current data so you can see it in IR vis light etc rn
https://weather.cod.edu/satrad/?parms=regional-w_southwest-06-200-1-1000-1&checked=map&colorbar=undefined


Its even near the tactic 2004 nimitz encounter.

>>12100112
yeah i wonder if its instrumentation anomalies

>>12101172
You notice how as time passes it remains exactly in place?! You can see this now on that website. this isn't altered you can go now and see it.... even in different spectrums.... Its clearly very high altitude... the way the shadow is cast and moves that it is indeed cylindrical.

>>12101184
Here it is in visible spectrum, i think this is a big deal

>>12099338
/thread

>>12101172
>>12101184
>>12101225
couldn't it be a shadow of a different satellite?

>>12101284
Do you see the tic tac shape remain reflecting light (due to its altitude) while the rest is dark in that first gif?
you can go to the website now and see it between 2:30- 3:30 its not a satellite its a tic tac

>>12101291
are you saying it's shape is what implies that it's a tic tac as opposed to a satellite?

>>12101296
Yes

>>12101296
https://weather.cod.edu/satrad/?parms=regional-w_southwest-06-200-1-1000-1&checked=map&colorbar=undefined

between 2:30-3:30... you can see using many spectrums

>>12101303
it looks to me that if you move the slider slowly, you can see shapes in addition to the bulk of it, making it look less like a tic tac; even if it was just the bulk shadow, I don't think I can see it clearly enough to definitively say what its actual shape is, if anyone cared enough they could try to calculate the altitude of such an object based on the time of the slider, but I'm not about to do that

>>12101306
Well thanks for looking.
I do think its interesting that:
1. its in the area if the tactic nimitz encounter
2: casts a definite shadow as the sun goes down
3. only appears to move straight up if at all
4. appears solid in IR as a cylinder

>>12101284
No, because that guy is wrong.

That has to be something causing a shadow on the lens very close to the satellite.

No way it's anything else.
(Likely a fin or solar panel from the satellite, not a UFO)

It's way too big, and moving way too fast.
The tictac would have to be the size of Los Angeles for a shadow that large on that cloud to be visible by this satellite.

>>12101306
Do you see the tic-tac object creating that shadow tho? Does anyone? Its very clear in that first gif. as the sun sets its the last thing that reflects light.

It seems like it doesn't move......
I pointed an arrow to it in this post: >>12101303
the shadow is big because it is high altitude

it takes about an hour for the sun to set where you can see its visible but the clouds move and it doesn't

>>12103045
Sideways angle of the ISS?

>>12103874
At this point Im thinking its just cloud that look like a tic tac floating in the air as the lights go out and these clouds have an optical illusion that makes it look perfectly cylindrical (look at the shadow gradient as sunlight leaves object) and that this cloud is unaffected by wind or time.

bump

>Hey guys I've never piloted anything resembling an aircraft yet here I am debunking this highly qualified person in two minutes just for you. Remember to visit my hardcore debunker skeptical website thanks

Mick West is a dumbass and a hack. Literally the Bill Nye of the UFO phenomenon

>>12105610
BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL BILL