Support NeoGAF

[lukilladog]

I'd say "drone" but would love to know the dimensions on this...

Maybe, non conventional or non commercial drone... and they are probably relatively big, it´s pretty windy here, small ones would not fly so steadily.

 

[EddieVanHelgen]

The original Calvine UFO picture has recently been found or leaked. Not sure of the full story but I remember reading about this one and seeing artist's interpretations throughout the years. It was taken by a couple hiking i think and then allegedly shot off at high speed after. The photo was classified by the MOD for years and was recently reclassified but seems to have made its way out.

 

[Crayon]

So what do you guys think this is?. Same city where I have seen a dozen since the 90´s, they are sometimes really low height, clearly not conventional planes nor birds, and can stand perfectly still for a couple of minutes:

afaik, sightings have always been common in mexico. I know that's why my grandpa was always interested in ufos but in a low key way where he just considered it a fact that they exist and it was like any other mysterious curiosity. It's more accepted as a thing there. There was (is?) a weekly show about catching up on the week's sightings that was quite popular hosted by Jaime Maussan who still pops up on uf shows here and there.

 

[jufonuk]

The Calvine UFO photograph – revealed

Read the full story of how I found the most famous UFO photo in the world in my exclusive story published by The Daily Mail here. And follow the breaking story over on UAPMedia UK. After thirty yea…

drdavidclarke.co.uk

BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | MoD took UFO sighting seriously

news.bbc.co.uk

 

[nikolino840]

 

[synchronicity]

...and I came out the other side having first hand experience of how flawed human reasoning is. Since then I got really interested in the topic of epistemology, the study of knowledge and how it's acquired and justified...

This is a bit of a tangent, but I wanted to touch on it, as I've been down that road myself. When you really examine what *can* be known, when you tear things apart as much as possible, you come to realize how frail our grasp of any potential "reality" truly is, how fragile our hold on things may be.

As a hypothetical thought experiment to reveal the limitations and unreliability of perception, we could ask ourselves, "What if the universe was birthed into existence 1 hour ago with all facets fully expressed in all their variety and subtlety at that point, including your "memories" of the life that you'd lived with all the people, memorabilia and trinkets pointing to those events along with all other aspects of all things - like a needle on a record being dropped in the middle of a song? Would you be able to distinguish that nothing had existed prior to an hour ago?"

Of course, we would have no way of knowing. In fact, the same pattern could repeat where the universe with all its fine detail is "switched on" and then turned off again for endless ages, trillions of years and then turned back on again eons later, and you'd be none the wiser for the intervening gap, thinking that there was a continuity because in your experience all the memories seem to indicate an uninterrupted procession of events.

And while one might say that's unrealistic, that's only due to an idea of what reality ought to be as it exists within the mind. Some substances humans consume can alter perception to the point that the idea of the self they always knew themselves to be vanishes altogether, transporting awareness to another reality as another being, utterly removed from the life and circumstances which birthed this alternate "reality" - a total sea change that obliterates identity, if only for a time.

When you look at what can be truly known without any dispute, when you search for truth that is utterly inarguable, the only reality that can be known is what *IS* in this singular moment, unattached from any language or interpretation, the truth of unlabeled observation without any inferences, memories, symbols or attached "meaning". What is, IS, and that is all that can be realized without assumptions born of thought, without layers of abstraction assigned by the mind.

Sorry for the tangent, but your post prompted this out of me, as epistemology has been the focal point of much of my own life.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

This is a bit of a tangent, but I wanted to touch on it, as I've been down that road myself. When you really examine what *can* be known, when you tear things apart as much as possible, you come to realize how frail our grasp of any potential "reality" truly is, how fragile our hold on things may be.

As a hypothetical thought experiment to reveal the limitations and unreliability of perception, we could ask ourselves, "What if the universe was birthed into existence 1 hour ago with all facets fully expressed in all their variety and subtlety at that point, including your "memories" of the life that you'd lived with all the people, memorabilia and trinkets pointing to those events along with all other aspects of all things - like a needle on a record being dropped in the middle of a song? Would you be able to distinguish that nothing had existed prior to an hour ago?"

Of course, we would have no way of knowing. In fact, the same pattern could repeat where the universe with all its fine detail is "switched on" and then turned off again for endless ages, trillions of years and then turned back on again eons later, and you'd be none the wiser for the intervening gap, thinking that there was a continuity because in your experience all the memories seem to indicate an uninterrupted procession of events.

And while one might say that's unrealistic, that's only due to an idea of what reality ought to be as it exists within the mind. Some substances humans consume can alter perception to the point that the idea of the self they always knew themselves to be vanishes altogether, transporting awareness to another reality as another being, utterly removed from the life and circumstances which birthed this alternate "reality" - a total sea change that obliterates identity, if only for a time.

When you look at what can be truly known without any dispute, when you search for truth that is utterly inarguable, the only reality that can be known is what *IS* in this singular moment, unattached from any language or interpretation, the truth of unlabeled observation without any inferences, memories, symbols or attached "meaning". What is, IS, and that is all that can be realized without assumptions born of thought, without layers of abstraction assigned by the mind.

Sorry for the tangent, but your post prompted this out of me, as epistemology has been the focal point of much of my own life.

I especially struggle with the idea of "what do we KNOW and how can we be sure we know it?" when considering nearly everything I know about the world outside of my immediate experience is a narrative relayed to me by first-, second-, third-, fourth-, etc -hand accounts. And there are sure to be malicious, naive, knowledgeable, idiotic actors relaying those accounts. Not a new idea, but one that frustrates me. Part of the appeal of the idea of the Christian God "revealing all" in Heaven, I guess

 

[Razorback]

This is a bit of a tangent, but I wanted to touch on it, as I've been down that road myself. When you really examine what *can* be known, when you tear things apart as much as possible, you come to realize how frail our grasp of any potential "reality" truly is, how fragile our hold on things may be.

As a hypothetical thought experiment to reveal the limitations and unreliability of perception, we could ask ourselves, "What if the universe was birthed into existence 1 hour ago with all facets fully expressed in all their variety and subtlety at that point, including your "memories" of the life that you'd lived with all the people, memorabilia and trinkets pointing to those events along with all other aspects of all things - like a needle on a record being dropped in the middle of a song? Would you be able to distinguish that nothing had existed prior to an hour ago?"

Of course, we would have no way of knowing. In fact, the same pattern could repeat where the universe with all its fine detail is "switched on" and then turned off again for endless ages, trillions of years and then turned back on again eons later, and you'd be none the wiser for the intervening gap, thinking that there was a continuity because in your experience all the memories seem to indicate an uninterrupted procession of events.

And while one might say that's unrealistic, that's only due to an idea of what reality ought to be as it exists within the mind. Some substances humans consume can alter perception to the point that the idea of the self they always knew themselves to be vanishes altogether, transporting awareness to another reality as another being, utterly removed from the life and circumstances which birthed this alternate "reality" - a total sea change that obliterates identity, if only for a time.

When you look at what can be truly known without any dispute, when you search for truth that is utterly inarguable, the only reality that can be known is what *IS* in this singular moment, unattached from any language or interpretation, the truth of unlabeled observation without any inferences, memories, symbols or attached "meaning". What is, IS, and that is all that can be realized without assumptions born of thought, without layers of abstraction assigned by the mind.

Sorry for the tangent, but your post prompted this out of me, as epistemology has been the focal point of much of my own life.

That's all fine. I agree that nothing can be known with absolute certainty. Gödel's incompleteness theorem and all that.

But that doesn't mean one can't find methods that are better than others for arriving at more accurate beliefs. There's that famous quote "All models are wrong, but some are useful". That applies to beliefs as well, they are models we create about what we think reality is like. It's a map we continually draw and redraw. It never actually is identical to the territory, but there are known better ways to draw these maps, and very obvious wrong ways that most people systematically fall into without vigilance.

Given your interest in epistemology I was wondering if you've ever stumbled upon the LessWrong sequences?

 

[nikolino840]

 

[Crayon]

Happy Birthday Wow Signal!

 

[22:22:22]

Lots of UFO in the mainstream..Grooming?
False flag to facilitate transhumanism?

 

[Crayon]

Lots of UFO in the mainstream..Grooming?
False flag to facilitate transhumanism?

I'm ready for the fake invasion.

Not ready to survive it... just ready to say told ya so.

 

[Romulus]

Lots of UFO in the mainstream..Grooming?
False flag to facilitate transhumanism?

I find it interesting how it's shifting. There are compilations of people being ridiculed and called wackos for even entertaining the possibility of life beyond earth, which is fascinating from a psychological standpoint. Now, the idea of the media embracing the possibility and it's met with constant conspiracy and grooming theories.

Is it possible we as humans and planetary apex predators will pivot to any angle to subconsciously defeat the idea that we're inferior to something else? There are debunking forums full of people that literally lash out if anyone entertains the possibility of something being an anomaly that humans don't understand. It literally insults them to hear it. Masters of the universe humans that can't even go to their own moon without planning for 10 years, just like the 1960s.

 

[22:22:22]

.

 

[22:22:22]

I find it interesting how it's shifting. There are compilations of people being ridiculed and called wackos for even entertaining the possibility of life beyond earth, which is fascinating from a psychological standpoint. Now, the idea of the media embracing the possibility and it's met with constant conspiracy and grooming theories.

Is it possible we as humans and planetary apex predators will pivot to any angle to subconsciously defeat the idea that we're inferior to something else? There are debunking forums full of people that literally lash out if anyone entertains the possibility of something being an anomaly that humans don't understand. It literally insults them to hear it. Masters of the universe humans that can't even go to their own moon without planning for 10 years, just like the 1960s.

Dont get me started on the moon.

 

[jufonuk]

Dont get me started on the moon.

 

[22:22:22]

Looks a bit like Nic Cage doesn't he?

Also there is a theory that's highly plausible imo that involved the moon landing, what they found there, got instructed to STFU and NASA giving Stanley Kubrick a blank check to reshoot the landing for TV and all his films till his untimely death ofcourse.

Barry Lyndon was filmed with a NASA camera that could shoot the movie entirely in natural light.

NASA around the time of WW2 brought multiple SS scientist to the States. The SS had strong Occult believes that fell under de Illuminated ones: Cult of Saturn: The Illuminati. And that goes back around to Kubrick's death after shooting (no pun intended) Eyes wide Shut which showed in it's unreleased original material to much of the occult practices.

Kubrick left many a clue in many forms in many movies about what's going on behind ths veil

You just need to be able to see the symbolism.

Could've gotten shit wrong but that's the gist of it





I've always found that black and white Moonman in that one Smashing Punpkins music video scary.

 

[22:22:22]

I find it interesting how it's shifting. There are compilations of people being ridiculed and called wackos for even entertaining the possibility of life beyond earth, which is fascinating from a psychological standpoint. Now, the idea of the media embracing the possibility and it's met with constant conspiracy and grooming theories.

Is it possible we as humans and planetary apex predators will pivot to any angle to subconsciously defeat the idea that we're inferior to something else? There are debunking forums full of people that literally lash out if anyone entertains the possibility of something being an anomaly that humans don't understand. It literally insults them to hear it. Masters of the universe humans that can't even go to their own moon without planning for 10 years, just like the 1960s.

We're not allowed to go back. It's simple.

 

[jufonuk]

Myth busters tackled the moon landing myth.

 

[synchronicity]

I especially struggle with the idea of "what do we KNOW and how can we be sure we know it?" when considering nearly everything I know about the world outside of my immediate experience is a narrative relayed to me by first-, second-, third-, fourth-, etc -hand accounts. And there are sure to be malicious, naive, knowledgeable, idiotic actors relaying those accounts. Not a new idea, but one that frustrates me. Part of the appeal of the idea of the Christian God "revealing all" in Heaven, I guess

Yes, most knowledge that people claim is hearsay, and yet so many are oblivious to that. If we are to rely upon what we truly "know", the sphere that holds that knowledge is incredibly, almost infinitesimally small. But only genuine truth seekers could see this, so I imagine you must be one yourself.

That's all fine. I agree that nothing can be known with absolute certainty. Gödel's incompleteness theorem and all that.

But that doesn't mean one can't find methods that are better than others for arriving at more accurate beliefs. There's that famous quote "All models are wrong, but some are useful". That applies to beliefs as well, they are models we create about what we think reality is like. It's a map we continually draw and redraw. It never actually is identical to the territory, but there are known better ways to draw these maps, and very obvious wrong ways that most people systematically fall into without vigilance.

Given your interest in epistemology I was wondering if you've ever stumbled upon the LessWrong sequences?

Well, humans will "human". We seem to possess such an unquenchable curiosity and thirst to "know", and when that urge is coupled with the fathomless mystery and unanswerable questions inherent in existence, it's quite the bittersweet marriage.

I have not discovered the LessWrong sequences. Thank you for sharing. It looks like an interesting dig.

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

I find it interesting how it's shifting. There are compilations of people being ridiculed and called wackos for even entertaining the possibility of life beyond earth, which is fascinating from a psychological standpoint. Now, the idea of the media embracing the possibility and it's met with constant conspiracy and grooming theories.

Is it possible we as humans and planetary apex predators will pivot to any angle to subconsciously defeat the idea that we're inferior to something else? There are debunking forums full of people that literally lash out if anyone entertains the possibility of something being an anomaly that humans don't understand. It literally insults them to hear it. Masters of the universe humans that can't even go to their own moon without planning for 10 years, just like the 1960s.

Grooming is just another arm of the Satanic Panic syndrome. From looking at past occurances where these accusations were involved it can be seen that in certain social conditions speculative accusations like that can be thrown around without any evidence since it attacks something that would cause people to move outside their accepted comfort zone. It only works for little while since it's so stupid and baseless that it undermines the attackers.

There's many zealots whose faiths would be completely broken under the circumstances of advanced alien life.

Aliens that could visit Earth don't need to hear how they live their life is woke according to some Earth savage fiction and need proselytisation.

There are humans without these constraints that have no problem with the existence of advanced life who would have a better understanding of universe. Figuring out what makes those humans more grounded and able to accept a possible reality without resorting to defense mechanisms is something maybe worth understanding and encouraging in others.

 

[22:22:22]

Myth busters tackled the moon landing myth.

Lol myth busters my go to experts.

Which myth are you referring to exactly?

 

[jufonuk]

Lol myth busters my go to experts.

Which myth are you referring to exactly?

That the moon landing was faked in a studio, we never went to the moon etc

But we did.

 

[22:22:22]

We did both a little bird told me. As per my posts of mine above explain

 

[VN1X]

Dont get me started on the moon.

 

[sono]

"fire" is not possible in space?

The fire is allegedly from something crashing into the moon if it had tanks which include oxygen it's possible

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

Have aliens come visit us yet?

 

[IDKFA]

Anybody listen to the recent Joe Rogan podcast with Jeremy Cornell?

Lots of good stuff in that one of you're interested in UFOs. Definitely a recommended listen.

One of the most interesting points in the podcast was when they talked about the cube inside a sphere UFO that a lot of military pilots have encountered recently (this UFO was also discussed on a recent Lex Fridman podcast with Ryan Graves). Somebody Jeremy knows uncovered a news article from the 1960s of a UFO encounter which was described as a cube inside a sphere, which means these things have been here for decades at the very least.



I really want to know what these things are.

 

[Razorback]

Anybody listen to the recent Joe Rogan podcast with Jeremy Cornell?

Lots of good stuff in that one of you're interested in UFOs. Definitely a recommended listen.

One of the most interesting points in the podcast was when they talked about the cube inside a sphere UFO that a lot of military pilots have encountered recently (this UFO was also discussed on a recent Lex Fridman podcast with Ryan Graves). Somebody Jeremy knows uncovered a news article from the 1960s of a UFO encounter which was described as a cube inside a sphere, which means these things have been here for decades at the very least.



I really want to know what these things are.

They are most likely radar reflectors. Here's an article making the case for it. It explains the multiple contacts moving around they saw on radar, because it's a spoofing system designed to trick radars. But when they made direct visual contact they describe these things as stationary, which is consistent with how these things are supposed to work, they are clear balloons with reflectors inside.

 

[IDKFA]

They are most likely radar reflectors. Here's an article making the case for it. It explains the multiple contacts moving around they saw on radar, because it's a spoofing system designed to trick radars. But when they made direct visual contact they describe these things as stationary, which is consistent with how these things are supposed to work, they are clear balloons with reflectors inside.

I've seen this, but I'm not sure this is the answer. Could be, but that image is from a patent from the 1940s. Would the US government still be using these things? Why would they be using them this long? If this is standard equipment for the US military or other nations, then surly military pilots would know of them as they'd be a flight risk.

Let's say that the US government are using them, but pilots are for some reason not aware of them. The US government have a lot of videos and images of these things, yet at the moment they're still unidentified. If these things were in use or have been in use, then surly somebody in the pentagon would have easily ID the object and closed the case, then of course brief this to pilots to ensure there are no fatal crashes.

 

[Razorback]

I've seen this, but I'm not sure this is the answer. Could be, but that image is from a patent from the 1940s. Would the US government still be using these things? Why would they be using them this long? If this is standard equipment for the US military or other nations, then surly military pilots would know of them as they'd be a flight risk.

Let's say that the US government are using them, but pilots are for some reason not aware of them. The US government have a lot of videos and images of these things, yet at the moment they're still unidentified. If these things were in use or have been in use, then surly somebody in the pentagon would have easily ID the object and closed the case, then of course brief this to pilots to ensure there are no fatal crashes.

Pilots knowing about the existence of these things completely defeats their purpose. This is exactly the sort of tech the military would want to keep classified. If the enemy knows you have radar spoofing tech then the surprise element goes out the window. And I wouldn't expect it's the exact same model from the 40's patent. Surely they've been making improvements and it makes total sense they they would want to test these things on unsuspecting pilots. If they are fooled then they know the tech works. And so it isn't surprising that there are stories from confused pilots.

 

[IDKFA]

Pilots knowing about the existence of these things completely defeats their purpose. This is exactly the sort of tech the military would want to keep classified. If the enemy knows you have radar spoofing tech then the surprise element goes out the window. And I wouldn't expect it's the exact same model from the 40's patent. Surely they've been making improvements and it makes total sense they they would want to test these things on unsuspecting pilots. If they are fooled then they know the tech works. And so it isn't surprising that there are stories from confused pilots.

But it would be a major flight risk. Without telling pilots you run the risk of a plane hitting these things. Would the US government risk the lives of its personal over this tech? Even if they wanted to keep pilots in the dark, surly they would have just explained that this is US tech and not spent millions trying (and still trying) to work out what these things are?

The patent is also out in the open, so it's not really something other nations wouldn't be aware of. It's not really classified if we can view the original patent.

Also, the patent is from the 1940s. Back then the balloon technology would have made sense, but would we still be using balloons for this type of action now? Really?

 

[Razorback]

But it would be a major flight risk. Without telling pilots you run the risk of a plane hitting these things. Would the US government risk the lives of its personal over this tech? Even if they wanted to keep pilots in the dark, surly they would have just explained that this is US tech and not spent millions trying (and still trying) to work out what these things are?

The patent is also out in the open, so it's not really something other nations wouldn't be aware of. It's not really classified if we can view the original patent.

Also, the patent is from the 1940s. Back then the balloon technology would have made sense, but would we still be using balloons for this type of action now? Really?

There's evidence of secret military tech that 100% matches the description from the pilots. It's described function matches their stories. It's radar spoofing tech. A clear sphere with a metallic cube inside that messes with radars. What an astronomical coincidence it would be that this is something else.

And yet you choose to place low credence on this being the most likely explanation. Claiming that the military prioritizes safety to such a degree that it makes the previous hypothesis improbable. Your counterargument is that the mere chance that one of these pilots might run into one of these balloons completely invalidates the possibility that they would run such a risk. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the history of secret experiments done by US government agencies?

I don't understand why we wouldn't use balloons today. We do, they work great.

Notice how you appear to have an invested interest in poking holes in this hypothesis. Having a preferred outcome clouds your judgement. It makes you unreasonably demanding of evidence when it comes to hypothesis you dislike but the same rigor is not applied to all hypothesis equally I'm guessing.

 

[IDKFA]

Notice how you appear to have an invested interest in poking holes in this hypothesis. Having a preferred outcome clouds your judgement. It makes you unreasonably demanding of evidence when it comes to hypothesis you dislike but the same rigor is not applied to all hypothesis equally I'm guessing.

It's a good explanation based on the shape, but the explanation falls down in other areas, which is why I'm not 100% convinced. For example, the US government have said it's not their tech. This may be a lie to keep the tech secret, but as there is a patent for the tech freely available, this tech should already be in the hands of other countries.

I'm familiar with how shady the US government and US departments have been in the past (check out some of the stuff that came out of the 1975 Church Committee)

I have also no preferred outcome. I'm an analyst by trade. It's my job to poke holes. Unfortunately, to the displeasure of my wife, this trait carries over to my personal life as well.

 

[Razorback]

It's a good explanation based on the shape, but the explanation falls down in other areas, which is why I'm not 100% convinced. For example, the US government have said it's not their tech. This may be a lie to keep the tech secret, but as there is a patent for the tech freely available, this tech should already be in the hands of other countries.

Neither am I 100% convinced. I'm not certain of any of my beliefs. I think I'm at a 90% for this radar balloon explanation. What about you? 20%, 50%?
A good exercise to find out what you really believe is to imagine that you had to make a bet. If you were forced to put real money down, an amount that would sting if lost, and then an omniscient being would give you the answer. Where would you place your money as the best explanation for what those pilots really saw? You can't say you don't know, you have one chance not to lose this money, so what's it gonna be?

I have also no preferred outcome.

C'mon, even I admit I would love to find out it was aliens or some incredible advanced technology.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." -Richard Feynman.

Unfortunately, to the displeasure of my wife, this trait carries over to my personal life as well.

Well that makes two of us.

 

[Romulus]

There's evidence of secret military tech that 100% matches the description from the pilots. It's described function matches their stories. It's radar spoofing tech. A clear sphere with a metallic cube inside that messes with radars. What an astronomical coincidence it would be that this is something else.

I've been hearing more about this cube thing. What evidence are we talking about that the military uses a cube with a sphere around it? What's the source for that? And, what's the source that a clear sphere with a cube inside messes with radar?

 

[Catphish]

Yeah, this little post sent me down the fucking rabbit hole last night, and I'm not sure I enjoyed the trip.

I still don't have a handle on this Crrow777 guy, but after listening to about 3 hours of him, I'm inclined to think he's full of shit.

 

[Razorback]

I've been hearing more about this cube thing. What evidence are we talking about that the military uses a cube with a sphere around it? What's the source for that? And, what's the source that a clear sphere with a cube inside messes with radar?

You can do a deep dive by reading this: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...are-encountering-be-airborne-radar-reflectors

Radar reflectors are often used to make you more visible to radar. A quick google search showed a few DIY examples and they are often used on boats to make them more easily findable in case of an emergency.

If I understand correctly the balloons alone don't create the false positive radar signals of objects flying around. The whole system works in conjunction with a submarine equipped with electronic warfare payloads (example). The submarine also launches the balloons.

 

[VN1X]

Yeah, this little post sent me down the fucking rabbit hole last night, and I'm not sure I enjoyed the trip.

I still don't have a handle on this Crrow777 guy, but after listening to about 3 hours of him, I'm inclined to think he's full of shit.

 

[Crayon]

That's a good find on the radar reflecor thing. It doesn't make sense that they would pepper them around a training area if they want to keep it such a secret, though. Maybe there would be some good reason. Maybe to throw off the tic tacs lol.

 

[Catphish]

 

[Romulus]

You can do a deep dive by reading this: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...are-encountering-be-airborne-radar-reflectors

Radar reflectors are often used to make you more visible to radar. A quick google search showed a few DIY examples and they are often used on boats to make them more easily findable in case of an emergency.




If I understand correctly the balloons alone don't create the false positive radar signals of objects flying around. The whole system works in conjunction with a submarine equipped with electronic warfare payloads (example). The submarine also launches the balloons.

Yeah it doesn't really seem like too much after reading that. If the object was moving fast or something like the tic tac, maybe, but I can't find anyone saying that. It's just sitting there, like a balloon.

 

[Razorback]

Yeah it doesn't really seem like too much after reading that. If the object was moving fast or something like the tic tac, maybe, but I can't find anyone saying that. It's just sitting there, like a balloon.

You didn't have time to read it. The point of the system is to fake objects moving around fast like other jets, but the balloons themselves are balloons, they don't move. The pilots confirm that what they saw with their own eyes was stationary.

 

[IDKFA]

Neither am I 100% convinced. I'm not certain of any of my beliefs. I think I'm at a 90% for this radar balloon explanation. What about you? 20%, 50%?
A good exercise to find out what you really believe is to imagine that you had to make a bet. If you were forced to put real money down, an amount that would sting if lost, and then an omniscient being would give you the answer. Where would you place your money as the best explanation for what those pilots really saw? You can't say you don't know, you have one chance not to lose this money, so what's it gonna be?



C'mon, even I admit I would love to find out it was aliens or some incredible advanced technology.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." -Richard Feynman.



Well that makes two of us.

If I were a betting man then I wouldn't bet on it being military tech. Considering radar reflectors seem to be tech that the public know about (you've posted some DIY ones) I'm sure if a pilot couldn't identify it then somebody at the military or the pentagon would have done. However, as it stands, the US government claim they can't explain it. I'm probably about 10-15% for this radar, and even then I'm being generous.

Honestly, I'd love it if it was aliens, but all other possibilities need to be ruled out first. I just have my RCA hat on, and with it the radar balloon theory has a lot of holes.

 

[Razorback]

That's a good find on the radar reflecor thing. It doesn't make sense that they would pepper them around a training area if they want to keep it such a secret, though. Maybe there would be some good reason. Maybe to throw off the tic tacs lol.

What better way to test the system? And regarding it being a hazard. The objects were found outside the training mission parameters. It was a few pilots that had enough of the mystery and decided to fly out to see what these things were of their own accord, they weren't ordered to do so.

 

[Crayon]

They described something staying stationary in high wind but I can't remember if they were talking about the sphere thing.

 

[Razorback]

If I were a betting man then I wouldn't bet on it being military tech. Considering radar reflectors seem to be tech that the public know about (you've posted some DIY ones) I'm sure if a pilot couldn't identify it then somebody at the military or the pentagon would have done. However, as it stands, the US government claim they can't explain it. I'm probably about 10-15% for this radar, and even then I'm being generous.

Honestly, I'd love it if it was aliens, but all other possibilities need to be ruled out first. I just have my RCA hat on, and with it the radar balloon theory has a lot of holes.

Well the reflectors aren't really the crucial piece of equipment here. It's just a bunch of metal plates inside a plastic balloon after all. The advanced stuff is probably in the submarines. The article I linked speculates how the system might work together. The US government gains nothing from talking about the subject and these agencies are compartmentalized enough that the ones being asked probably don't actually know the answer. The US has like $50 Billion budgeted every year for black projects. One has to expect that occasionally they let some of that stuff leak out, and of course they're not going to talk about it.

They described something staying stationary in high wind but I can't remember if they were talking about the sphere thing.

They were. It's the only thing they saw with their eyes. My source is the Lex Friedman podcast interview with the pilot Ryan Graves.

 

[Romulus]

You didn't have time to read it. The point of the system is to fake objects moving around fast like other jets, but the balloons themselves are balloons, they don't move. The pilots confirm that what they saw with their own eyes was stationary.

I literally just said in my post it was stationary and of no concern to me at least.

 

[Razorback]

I literally just said in my post it was stationary and of no concern to me at least.

 

[Bragr]

The more I learn about aliens, the less I believe in them.