Jump to content

The Pentagon says UFOs are real


Recommended Posts

Quote

One of the other pilots who saw the UFO, Commander David Fravor, then head of the US Navy’s Black Aces combat squadron, said the 40-foot object ran rings around his jet, reacting to its manoeuvres and jamming its radar, before disappearing in a heartbeat. “After 18 years of flying, I’ve seen pretty much about everything that I can see in that realm, and this was nothing close,” he told ABC News. “I can tell you, I think it was not from this world.” It wasn’t a one-off. The New York Times reports that between 2014 and 2015, Navy pilots observed UFOs almost daily. There was even a near midair collision.

So l guess my information in the past wasn't swamp gas, or anything else, but of course the Pentagon is wrong, lol.

Only a matter of time before l am proven right about many claims l have made in the past and currently.

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/pentagon-ufos-uaps

:P

Link to post
Share on other sites



15 hours ago, Tagiscom said:

So l guess my information in the past wasn't swamp gas, or anything else, but of course the Pentagon is wrong, lol.

Only a matter of time before l am proven right about many claims l have made in the past and currently.

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/pentagon-ufos-uaps

:P

 

45 minutes ago, Claude Whitacre said:

Of course.  Of course.

 

If you constantly spew out enough crazy shit, eventually a small percentage of it is likely to bear out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mike Friedman said:

 

 

If you constantly spew out enough crazy shit, eventually a small percentage of it is likely to bear out.

The thing that stood out for me was the logic chain.

This isn't a real quote, it's more of an analogy.

"I recently read something that slightly overlaps something I've said in the past, so that means that everything I've ever said is right, and this is evidence of that"

It would like saying "I heard a joke that is slightly like a joke I told years ago, and people laughed when they heard the joke (told by someone else). So that means that every joke I've ever told is now going to be found funny."

Honestly, I think Shane's reaction startled me is because I haven't read his posts for awhile. I was taken by surprise.

 

About the UFOs.

Fighter pilots are just people. They see things the way others do. So this piece Shane quotes doesn't cause me to consider it much. 

 

Now if there were several reports like this...."There was a large object that flew several times the speed of sound and almost hit us...and the air pressure it caused made our plane go off course, and made nearby clouds deform..... and the sound it made was deafening....and our instruments went haywire for ten seconds".....that would be something to consider.

But if it's silent, doesn't cause a change in air pressure (from the great speed), or cause a loud noise (sonic booms still exist), that means it's strictly an optical event....which means it's likely a trick of light.

 

And "Jamming our radar"? You mean it's invisible to radar? That could mean it's an alien ship what makes no sound, displaces no air as it travels, makes no noise, doesn't deform clouds as it passed through ) or around) them,  

 

The only other possibility is that it's an optical effect that is misinterpreted by the pilots. So...well....it must be aliens.

 

And if it's aliens, that means that there are dogs on Mars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Tagiscom said:

So l guess my information in the past wasn't swamp gas, or anything else, but of course the Pentagon is wrong, lol.

Only a matter of time before l am proven right about many claims l have made in the past and currently.

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/pentagon-ufos-uaps

:P

I agree to a large extent, more likely that UFO's exist more than anything else. They have been seen dating back centuries where there was no man made Ariel craft to confuse them with, even depicted in a 15th century painting. The question is about acceptance of this phenomenon.  It actually makes no difference other than human's accepting that we are not alone in the universe and God being in charge of more than one people etc, In itself, those are huge ethical dilemmas for our human minds to digest but we will need to get over them.

Aside from that, it's business as usual, UFO's have repeatedly demonstrated that they have no desire to land on the Whitehouse lawn or "really" interact with us. They just seem to make appearances and observe us and occasionally toy with us. We have no real way of catching up with them, shooting them down, stealing their technology. Some would disagree on that last point but do you really think we would hold back on anti-gravity devices or cheap clean power sources if we had them? We really need  them "now" So, universal belief in there presence will probably not change a dam thing for us. 

I would hesitantly say that their may have well have been some crashes of them in the past and their technology is not infallible, and neither are they.

This is heartening and we might just have a chance of smuggling that virus onto their mothership when the invasion comes. 😉

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Claude Whitacre said:

And if it's aliens, that means that there are dogs on Mars.

You know perfectly well that other than Earth, their are only Dogs on planets that revolve around the "Dog" star. Surely you can't be Sirius!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The truly bizarre thing about this claim that "I was right all along" is that I don't recall anyone ever claiming that UFOs weren't a real thing. I've seen many objects flying through the air that I couldn't identify, but never have I thought well that's proof we're being observed by alien life forms.

Call me cynical if you like, but maybe, just maybe, this is an exercise in getting the Biden administration to increase the military budget. Now there's a Black Hole right here on Earth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, whateverpedia said:

The truly bizarre thing about this claim that "I was right all along" is that I don't recall anyone ever claiming that UFOs weren't a real thing. I've seen many objects flying through the air that I couldn't identify, but never have I thought well that's proof we're being observed by alien life forms.

Call me cynical if you like, but maybe, just maybe, this is an exercise in getting the Biden administration to increase the military budget. Now there's a Black Hole right here on Earth.

I would refer the right honorable gentleman to the earlier post made by the user named "Claude Whitacre"  about UFO's not existing. This ahem: "Gentlemen" although, rightly saying, all Pilots are just human's and prone to mistakes may well be true, but when said phenomenon displays itself on their radar (and filmed), depicting objects changing shape, and traversing the skies at incredible speeds  is provided, I would say that is worthy of investigation and not just a human error in observation or an optical effect, especially when verified by others. Pilots are also trained and have experience in recognizing and cataloging Ariel phenomenon.

    This gentleman suffers from Cognitive Dissonance and does not appear to be able to entertain or accept that when a phenomenon is recorded by scientific instruments that our technology is incapable of demonstrating or emulating, he is still completely against even entertaining any possibility of an external presence or cause, simply because his mind is just about completely made up about such a thing not being possible to exist. This is not scientific impartiality that is being demonstrated. It is a a predetermined conclusion based on a mind already made up. He would, by default argue against anything but, rather than having his mind opened a little to a possibility. I will have to re-direct a craft to his back yard using my telepathic communication with these beings and even then, he would spend the next several hours looking for the props and wires, even then, he would say, ok, I give up, how did you do it?

I'm sure that Biden increasing the military budget would not make any difference to these aliens in our ability to deal with them, they would be so far advanced. 

 

 

 

   

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Claude Whitacre said:

The thing that stood out for me was the logic chain.

"I recently read something that slightly overlaps something I've said in the past, so that means that everything I've ever said is right, and this is evidence of that"

It would like saying "I heard a joke that is slightly like a joke I told years ago, and people laughed when they heard the joke (told by someone else). So that means that every joke I've ever told is now going to be found funny."

Honestly, I think Shane's reaction startled me is because I haven't read his posts for awhile. I was taken by surprise.

True, l have been good for too long.

And l was disappointed in you Claude, l was expecting you to say, "The Pentagon is Wrong".

 

5 hours ago, Claude Whitacre said:

About the UFOs.

Fighter pilots are just people. They see things the way others do. So this piece Shane quotes doesn't cause me to consider it much. 

Now if there were several reports like this...."There was a large object that flew several times the speed of sound and almost hit us...and the air pressure it caused made our plane go off course, and made nearby clouds deform..... and the sound it made was deafening....and our instruments went haywire for ten seconds".....that would be something to consider.

But if it's silent, doesn't cause a change in air pressure (from the great speed), or cause a loud noise (sonic booms still exist), that means it's strictly an optical event....which means it's likely a trick of light.

And "Jamming our radar"? You mean it's invisible to radar? That could mean it's an alien ship what makes no sound, displaces no air as it travels, makes no noise, doesn't deform clouds as it passed through ) or around) them, 

The only other possibility is that it's an optical effect that is misinterpreted by the pilots. So...well....it must be aliens.

And if it's aliens, that means that there are dogs on Mars.

Groan.

So a pilot sees a large, Tick Tack, looping around his jet, making no loud noises, or showing any details, and disappearing in a blink of his eye, is just imaging it all?

So what would it take?

Full disclosure? An alien family at the shopping centre?

A gray walks into your shop and buys a vacuum cleaner, what?

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Tagiscom said:

 

So a pilot sees a large, Tick Tack, looping around his jet, making no loud noises, or showing any details, and disappearing in a blink of his eye, is just imaging it all?

So what would it take?

 

That's a fair question.

 

What would it take for me to believe that these are anything other than misinterpreting reflections or lights, or other earthly phenomenon?

Any physical effect. I actually laid that out pretty well in my first post.

A sonic boom (anything physical breaking the sound barrier would make a sonic boom), a deforming of a cloud by the passing craft. Sound being recorded. A photo with any detail at all. A sudden jump in air pressure from the passing craft. A jump in temperature caused by the craft.

I don't even need any real evidence. Just one or two effects that any craft would make if it were real.

 

Is the pilot imagining it all? Probably not. But seeing a purely optical effect, that causes no after effects that are evidence of anything real.......is actually indicating that it's a light. 

And "Changing shape" and "Not showing any details" isn't evidence of a real craft. It's actually evidence of a reflection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Lanfear63 said:

This gentleman suffers from Cognitive Dissonance and does not appear to be able to entertain or accept that when a phenomenon is recorded by scientific instruments that our technology is incapable of demonstrating or emulating, he is still completely against even entertaining any possibility of an external presence or cause, simply because his mind is just about completely made up about such a thing not being possible to exist.

 

 

 

   

Mark; I like you, but please stop trying to explain how I think. Every time you do that, you are completely mistaken. 

I have no argument that we may have been visited by aliens in the past, or that there are currently space ships swirling about in our atmosphere. I have rational reasons for thinking this is highly improbable, but not impossible.

But there are two kinds of evidence. Evidence that something is real, and evidence that something is not real.  The article Shane quoted contains plenty of evidence that these accounts aren't about real physical crafts. It's cognitive bias to insist that they are alien crafts, when there is evidence that they are not physical.

And again...every single time, on this forum, that someone doesn't instantly accept a claim as absolutely real, it's said that they have cognitive bias, or are not open minded. Those statements about other people are the very definition of cognitive bias.

 

The only positive thing coming out of this exchange so far is that Shane didn't use the words "Quantum Mechanics" in a sentence. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Claude Whitacre said:

Mark; I like you, but please stop trying to explain how I think. Every time you do that, you are completely mistaken. 

I have no argument that we may have been visited by aliens in the past, or that there are currently space ships swirling about in our atmosphere. I have rational reasons for thinking this is highly improbable, but not impossible.

But there are two kinds of evidence. Evidence that something is real, and evidence that something is not real.  The article Shane quoted contains plenty of evidence that these accounts aren't about real physical crafts. It's cognitive bias to insist that they are alien crafts, when there is evidence that they are not physical.

And again...every single time, on this forum, that someone doesn't instantly accept a claim as absolutely real, it's said that they have cognitive bias, or are not open minded. Those statements about other people are the very definition of cognitive bias.

 

The only positive thing coming out of this exchange so far is that Shane didn't use the words "Quantum Mechanics" in a sentence. 

 

 

I'm sorry, but on a small range of subjects, the ones we often discuss and are sticking points, I do know how you think on certain things. It does not mean I do not like you, your a swell guy, (swelling outwards) but, I will have to go after you on certain things because they show an immovable rigidness of thinking, not shown on other topics. It's the law, and I don't make the rules.

You have repeatedly demonstrated this in your responses. They are always consistent, and always pretty much the same response dressed up with slight variations. This to me shows a mind made up on certain subjects and "pretty much" immovable though probably not impossibly so. I'm not saying for a second that I'm not prone to being like that myself

You don't spend years online interacting with someone on an almost daily basis without gleaning a little of how they think, why they think it and what their thought processes are. 

For example: You put no Creedence in subjective experience. While it is not on the face of it anything scientific, your default view is to 100 percent  disregard it as evidence. I have argued a lot with you about this. To "assume" that people are 100 percent wrong in what they see and experience 100 percent of the time is wrong. And, as I have said before, repeated subjective experiences numbering in many millions, possibly billions since recorded history began is in evidence and it is relatively consistent. In modern times, this can sometimes be backed up by high quality photographs and video footage, all of which can be scrutinized for fakery, which even with the sophistication of Photoshop, video manipulation software can still fairly easily be spotted.

Also, in your earlier post you jumped on the optical illusion thing without paying any lip service to the other evidence. I hate to say this, but that shows bias to make a case for what you believe. And yes, I have been guilty of that as well.

Added: In fairness. some topics that have been posted here and the other place, I think wrongly that my reply is the definitive answer and covers all bases. But, then you come along and point out some things that I did not think of. So, much of the time, your trains of thought are good and appreciated. It's just on a few topics that I see bias and failings to be impartial. 

As for UFO'S. the subjective experience on viewing them over time is that they make little or no sound, are incredibly fast and able to do maneuvers that for a state of the art jet, would smash the pilots brains against the cockpit. They also are seen to disappear in the wink of an eye. Now, putting aside "optical effects and misinterpretation for a second, it also may make one think, well, if they are real, how do they stay up in the air  without any visible means of propulsion? And going on from that, one may well conclude that they have some sort of super advanced configuration of particles around them that Isolate them from the effects of gravity. Something we may one day achieve. To our eyes then. this would appear to make them look a little etherical in appearance. 

Anyway, I won't go on. we must agree to disagree as we have done countless times before.

Somehow, and completely unrelated, this reminded me of a conversation I overheard between my father and uncle. My father had a very ridged view that all things can be Learned and you could be good at them, While my uncle maintained that you could learn, but some people have a natural ability, interest and aptitude for certain things, so, with a minimal of learning, they could just do it. An example there would be the difference between a trained artist and a great artist who seems to have more inspiration and imagination for their craft. I had to vie on the side of my Uncle.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Lanfear63 said:

You don't spend years online interacting with someone on an almost daily basis without gleaning a little of how they think, why they think it and what their thought processes are. 

For example: You put no Creedence in subjective experience. While it is not on the face of it anything scientific, your default view is to 100 percent  disregard it as evidence. I have argued a lot with you about this. To "assume" that people are 100 percent wrong in what they see and experience 100 percent of the time is wrong.

You are wrong in the first two statements bolded, and the third statement isn't something I think at all.

 

Stop....Telling...Me...What...I...Think.

Every time you do this, you are wrong, and it makes your subsequent argument wrong.

I'm not talking about UFOs here. I'm saying that telling anyone how they think is a terrible way to argue, and is always wrong.  

 

I'm trying to help you here.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Claude Whitacre said:

You are wrong in the first two statements bolded, and the third statement isn't something I think at all.

 

Stop....Telling...Me...What...I...Think.

Every time you do this, you are wrong, and it makes your subsequent argument wrong.

I'm not talking about UFOs here. I'm saying that telling anyone how they think is a terrible way to argue, and is always wrong.  

 

I'm trying to help you here.  

And I'm trying to help you. What you think should be reflected in your posts and that's all I have to go on and the only way you can demonstrate your thoughts and processes. I'm not telling you what or how to think, that's up to you. I'm pointing out that in some cases, your thought processes are blinkered and restricted by your preconceptions and prior conclusions. This is a long term observation I have of how you come over on "some" things. Despite empirical and overwhelming  subjective evidence.  You should always be able to take on new information and adjust deep set conclusions accordingly or at least consider them, As should I.

I hope this will not affect the agreement that you will be carrying my babies by the way. When I look back at some of the posts of mine you have replied to, some of them have been positively scathing about me and my conclusions. But it's water off a ducks back for me. I rarely get upset about anything much. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Claude Whitacre said:
On 5/27/2021 at 1:12 PM, Lanfear63 said:

For example: You put no Creedence in subjective experience. While it is not on the face of it anything scientific, your default view is to 100 percent  disregard it as evidence. I have argued a lot with you about this. To "assume" that people are 100 percent wrong in what they see and experience 100 percent of the time is wrong.

You are wrong in the first two statements bolded, and the third statement isn't something I think at all.

I do not recall you ever agreeing with subjective experience as having any merit when I have brought it up in the past, what am I to think if you don't?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2021 at 5:10 PM, Lanfear63 said:

And I'm trying to help you. What you think should be reflected in your posts and that's all I have to go on and the only way you can demonstrate your thoughts and processes.

Here is the problem.  When anyone posts anything, they can't cover every possible interpretation of what they say. If they did, every post would be hundreds of pages long.

 

Like everyone else on the planet,  You and I see the world through a lens.  And no two lenses are the same.  And because we cannot cover every possible interpretation of what we say, the person reading the post fills in what isn't covered....with their imagination. And that imaginary part is always wrong.

 

So what I say is never really exactly what you think I said, no matter how clear I try to be.  This happens in every single exchange, between any two people on the planet. It's the source of all arguments.  This process is hard wired in our brains.

 

Now that I have explained why it's impossible to know what someone else is thinking,.......

 

Stop telling me what I think, because it will always be wrong...... just like it always will be wrong when anyone tells anyone else what they think.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tagiscom said:

Don't be surprised, that we will hear about these UFO's attacking military installations in the near future, so we can start militarizing space.

:saint:

I don't think that will be the excuse to do that. Any admission that UFO's are real and alien in origin would be a huge step to take and their is also no evidence of any attacks. Interesting in the latest development in this story, they say : We don't know what they are, but they are seen often and definitely not of US origin and can perform maneuvers and speeds far in advance of current technology.  Similarly, China has said pretty much the same thing. That in itself is quite an admission, but not an admission of origin which to be fair, is unknown. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.