The now debunked sensor recordings were also reported by seasoned military pilots. You can even hear them discussing their observations on some of the recordings. In one of them they are patently misreading the sensor data displayed in the video.
I’m sorry, but if that doesn’t thoroughly and permanently discredit this line of reasoning, I don’t know what will.
As long as there are mysterious 1990s era X-Files/Control like stories to be generated for clicks and attention, nothing will. Why are these stories being released primarily on clickbaity media like The Hill, CNN or Fox News? The "whistleblowers" could just open up to related non-profits, respected security blogs or other outlets which aren't driven to squeeze out every possible ad and sponsorship dollar.
In the end, there is zero accountability or consequences for these kinds of articles and the sparse "unclassified" information is fuzzy enough to inject all kinds of speculation. This is not to dismiss the topic as a whole, it's the framing that I find weird.
I am not leaning in either direction at all. Optical phenomena, sensor artifacts, weather, foreign or compartmentalized tech, or aliens... The point is not to be contrarian - it's important to keep an open mind until proven otherwise. However, this heavy X-Files like framing of mysterious otherworldy tech roaming around military facilities is somewhat over-the-top and doesn't really seem to (!) serve the case.
Also, there are probably also projects that are compartmentalized to a degree where part of the military does not know about other parts of the military doing/building/researching specific stuff. What better way to test your capabilities than exposing them to real world scenarios against the arguably most advanced defense systems on the planet?
The information is just too sparse to reach any meaningful conclusion so it's ideal clickbait media material, even if the topic itself is serious and important.
All of this just sounds like miscalibrated radar/ghost images etc. You've got extremely sensitive instruments for tracking stealthy vehicles, operating on somewhat noisy frequencies, no wonder you might sometimes see things that actually aren't there.
See for yourself. This is the most clear case of misidentification. All the data you need is shown in the instrument recording and he takes us through how to interpret it step by step. Of course Mick has the advantage of having plenty of time to work through exactly what all the instrument readings are telling us and perform all the trigonometry to interpret it accurately, and explain it to us step by step, while the pilots just eyeballed it and got their estimates wrong.
On the other hand the Pentagon analysts had all the time they could want to do the same analysis and still got it wrong. But you don't need to take anyone's word for it, look at the footage yourself and you can do all the calculations independently with middle school geometry.
Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. I've heard good things and not good about this dude, but I'll go see for myself.
My priors are (but not limited to): 1)"These 10n Navy folk, who do this all day, and seen this stuff over months, across FLIR, radar, visual, from multiple planes and ships, cannot be wrong, and their sensors cannot be wrong in such a consistent way as to create such an artefact, it just seems extremely low probability."; also, 2)"Reports of UAP/UFO going back 100s of years (or 1000s if you want to include the Bible), but at least far enough back that it's not anomalies in sensor data."; also, 3)"Millions of MUFON reports and abduction reports around the world. All these people can't be lying/insane." etc...
That was a good video! It sounds reasonable, haha :) The other videos...other reports...have not been analysed to insignificance, however. At the same time, it raises the question: why would the DoD permit people to get all in a huff in confusion about this, when it was just (possibly) BS? That sounds really deceptive of them. Shame! To preserve their credibility on this topic and not come across as willingly encouraging public deception (which completely belies the public statements and sentiments of various offices about this about "getting to the bottom of it" and "public transparency"), they should have been unequivocal that this was nothing. Sad that they haven't (that I've seen).
Thank you for informing me of this valuable analysis. I think any serious Navy aviator / navigator who looked at this could easily perform the same simple math. If these folk are not denouncing clearly some of these videos, or at least publicising alternate theories for those where alternate theories reasonably exist...it smells bad for the credibility of the enterprise.
Unless the analyst from that video is completely self-servingly misrepresenting what the radar metrics mean...How to corroborate their interpretation of those numbers? Important question.
>why would the DoD permit people to get all in a huff in confusion about this
I think sometimes we underestimate the power of social media in today's outrage and conspiracy driven culture, which is all but impossible to contain. I've said it what seems like a thousand times now - I believe there would be much more positive than negative as a result of shutting the internet off indefinitely.
>why would the DoD permit people to get all in a huff in confusion about this
"I think sometimes we underestimate the power of social media in today's outrage and conspiracy driven culture, which is all but impossible to contain. I've said it what seems like a thousand times now - I believe there would be much more positive than negative as a result of shutting the internet off indefinitely."
I'm not sure if there is much more I can say explicitly. By people I'm assuming you mean the average person with social media access, which is the prime medium for people to get in a huff on. It doesn't matter what objective facts are presented by the DoD. Social media will run with it to the extremes, just like kids would playing the "Chinese whispers" game.
That being said, I'm making a joke about shutting the internet off, but there is some truth to it.
Ah, I get it now! Thanks. Internet is like a comm medium that contains too much "error rate". So the transmission is imperfect. Plus coupled with that, it's looped back on itself. So you get feedback loops. Couple high errors with feedback and you have a system designed to create chaos. Fuck yeah! What an awesome theory. I never saw such a concise "information theoretic" approach to why the internet is so fucked up and society because of it. Now I get it. Thank you! :) ;P xx ;p. I'm not joking it is a good theory.
This is such a strange response as I was in no way debating or countering your original comment. Quite the opposite really as I agree with most of what you said. If I encounter you again I'll make it known next time.
I’m sorry, but if that doesn’t thoroughly and permanently discredit this line of reasoning, I don’t know what will.