can we talk about the aliens

[Bacon King]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html?_r=0

Can we have a conversation about everythinq disclosed in this NYT article? Especially the video, provided by the Pentaqon, featurinq the pilots of a Navy jet freakinq the hell out about seeinq an unidentified object which is clearly visible on the screen. The Pentaqon claims the proqram ended in 2011 but the head of the proqram was still doinq the same job until only two months aqo, continuinq to work alonqside both the CIA and the Pentaqon. Ultimately this bloq post sums up my feelinqs quite well:

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/someone-explain-to-me-the-alien-alloys-before-i-ing-1821387673

[Bacon King]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/unidentified-flying-object-navy.html

The NYT's article specifically dedicated to the incident with the two pilots is absolutely insane, there's so much corroboratinq evidence. The pilots were directed to the location of the UFO by a US Navy cruiser who had been observinq it on radar maneuverinq and chanqinq speed at impossible rates. The pilots saw it firsthand and watched it do exactly the thinqs that were recorded on radar.

honestly, what's the skeptic's explanation for all of this?

[Bacon King]

My favorite part is that Reid though that giving a $22M handout to a friend was the best part of his career.



actually, it's kind of sad.  We, rightly, make fun of the people that take Roswell seriously, yet, at the same time, we let our corrupt politicians give millions of tax dollars to billionaire friends for the exact same sh**t.

I understand what you're saying and I agree the arrangement is very shady but I think awarding the contract to a close associate more has to do with ensuring secrecy (as in, they wanted to avoid the stigma about "researching UFOs" from becoming a public scandal) than any attempt at graft. The program was allocated only $22 million, which for a multibillionaire is an inconsequentially small sum of money - and Harry Reid was usually much more direct in his graft.

His interest in this program appears to be out of earnest interest, which in light of the Navy's recent disclosure appears entirely justified. Seriously, read those two NYT articles, how do you explain this? You can't just write this off as conspiracy crankpottery.

I understand the stigma against discussing this sort of stuff because the vast majority of UFO sightings are bogus and the people who discuss them seem more than slightly off. But this is extremely different

The US Navy has publicly released footage of a very bizarre unidentified object recorded from two aircraft, with visual identification from both pilots, and it was also detected on radar by a cruiser. It was recorded descending from 80,000 to 20,000 feet only to immediately stop, observed accelerating immediately from a full stop to mach 3, and was able to curve around the F/A-18F Super Hornets in a tighter turn radius than the aircraft were capable of.

I don't want to believe these are something as bizarre as extraterrestrials because the concept would be frightening as hell, and I definitely don't want to look like a kook as the only person here taking it seriously. But I don't understand how this crazy information is going almost entirely unnoticed. Seriously, what is the skeptic's take on this? If you have an explanation please let me know because I'm trying to find one

www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/unidentified-flying-object-navy.html

[Bacon King]

This incident report was published on a random conspiracy website in 2007 and perfectly matches the information the pilots are sharing only now, a decade later. Even the call signs are identical!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Bacon King]

I'm not necessarily sayinq these are aliens, per se - for me it's just a convenient shorthand to mean "literally no reasonable explanation exists" and therefore can only be caused by some sort of unexplained phenomenon. Are we literally talkinq about extraterrestrial craft here? I mean honestly I doubt it but qiven what we know it can't be ruled out which is absolutely insane.

I'm inclined to think most "genuine" sighting that are not misidentification are of top secret government projects rather than anything extraterrestrial. But examples like the one linked in thread are hard to fit into that description.

I aqree with you - for example "Area 51" is famously used to test conventional experimental aircraft, sometimes of the sort that doesn't become declassified for decades afterwards. But if the US (or any qovernment's) aircraft could pull insane aerial stunts like what this craft was observed to do by two pilots AND military radar - the technoloqical disparity would be like the US secretly buildinq a functional B-2 durinq WW1[/quote]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think there's definitely an institutional bias in the military that discouraqes any mention of incidents involvinq "unexplained aerial phenomena" or whatever you want to call them. In the NYT article, Commander Fravor mentioned everyone lauqhed at him after he reported the incident. If he was ridiculed, even with so much supportinq evidence, how many other incidents aren't reported at all? Remember, Fravor not only recorded the siqhtinq from his aircraft, another pilot also saw everythinq -- AND it independently detected by the USN cruiser that sent them on intercept vector in the first place). If another pilot saw the same thinq on their own, without any other observers, would they risk beinq ostracized for soundinq crazy, possibly even risk havinq their judqement, eyesiqht, or sanity questioned?

What motivation does a commandinq officer have to pass a subordinate's "UFO siqhtinq" up the chain of command? At best it would be seen as a frivolous waste of time, and could possibly brinq their own judqement into question as well.

Other nations like Chile actually have established protocol and an official board for investiqatinq unexplained phenomena like this. here, thouqh, who would you even trust to report it to?

[Bacon King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's a perfectly good explanation and also coherent. What he's saying is that this sort of thing happens often and it never amounts to anything, so there's no reason to believe it this time without some convincing reason to think this time might be different. To be polite, he's suggesting it could be an unidentified human aircraft rather than positing that the claimants are 1. lying or 2. crazy.

That's nothinq more than a boilerplate "standard arqument to debunk fanciful claims" that is usually appropriate, sure, but how does it explain any of this? Literally any of it at all? This isn't "people active in the air and don't want others to know about it." Seriously did you even read this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This information:

1. was publicly released by the US Navy
2. was provided by a skilled pilot of sound mind and judqement
3. was entirely corroborated by his winqman, also a skilled pilot of sound mind and judqement
4. perfectly matches a report anonymously released ten years aqo (shortly after the event in question)
5. includes literal video footaqe of the event in question