In defence of space aliens

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Oct 10, 2017.

  1. foghorn Registered Senior Member

    Stop trying to weasel out of it. You seem to be clutching at straws with your '' Point to where I outright accused''.
    Others can decide for themselves where you were coming from:
    Silly Billy
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    So you're not ruling out that I have super hax0r powers, then?

    You're acting like a petulant child, Q-reeus, or a crazy man. Please try to get a grip.

    Hardly an empty assertion. Your paranoia has long been a feature of your posts.

    Don't be ridiculous. You make these bizarre paranoid claims regularly. So far you've never been able to back up a single one of them. The main reason for that, of course, is that they exist only in your fevered imagination.

    It is you who keeps making these bizarre claims about people hacking your settings on the forum and/or your personal email. Look, there's always the minuscule chance that somebody has actually hacked into your computer and inserted a root kit, a virus, or whatever. Are you running security software? Have you scanned your computer lately?

    These baseless allegations you're making against me, however, are a bit annoying. Since you can't back any of them up, you ought to stop making them. Besides, none of them are true. If you don't like me, fine. Nobody said we have to be buddies. But that doesn't mean you can just make up stuff about me. So, please stop doing that.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    So you as admin, choose to keep up off-topic mud slinging. Sigh. Here again are first-hand accounts re Nimitz group incidents 2004:

    That and similar high-quality testimony you consistently dismiss as 'unreliable anecdotes'. You would never have the guts to say that face to face with Fravor et. al.
    river likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    So it shouldn't be news to anyone that the Navy has released the FLIR, Gimbal and GoFast videos. They have not said much about them, and I'd say that's deliberate.

    There would be little point in having the Navy declaring what they think they are, since analysts will form their own opinions anyway, the Navy might as well not bias it.

    This syfy article points to several videos that explain a few of the basics that come into play when analyzing the videos:

    These video are all short, to-the-point. direct demonstrations - well worth watching, just to get a concept of the principles are must be grappled with in any analysis.

    A demonstration of how gimbal cameras introduce rotation-of-scene as an artifact:

    Note that the camera has a mechanism to account and correct for this rotation in the image - but conversely, that causes any halo (such as overexposure from a bright source) of the object to rotate instead.

    "... the “aura” around the object in some of the footage could simply be the camera overexposing around a bright object; infrared cameras can do that, creating an odd glow..."

    "the rotation of the object in the GIMBAL video is almost certainly due to the motion of the camera itself as it tracks the objects. The fighter jet is turning, and at the same time the camera is mounted on a rotating mechanism that allows it to track. These two motions combine to make a somewhat confusing series of rotations in the image, which is why the object in the video appears to rotate around"

    Note that this gimbal effect is most pronounced at very low angles - nearing zero. The Gimbal video indicates and angle of -2 degrees. If such a video did NOT show this characteristic rotation THAT would be suspicious!

    The Gimbal footage is consistent with known observational effects of gimbals.

    Additionally, there's also a video showing how parallax explains the apparently high velocity in the GoFast video:

    Note two things:
    1. The object is passing over the water toward the camera - exactly what one should see when observing parallax.
    2. The angle of the view on this one is -33 degrees - much higher angle than the other two. If one is pointing down at an object from above, and flying 255 knots, one should expect to see parallax against the background.

    The GoFast video is consistent with known observational effects of parallax.

    Finally, an analysis of the FLIR image:

    The angle of view here is + 5 degrees. In other words, the wings of an airplane will be in line with the fuselage. We seeing the object from the side quarter, not the top or bottom.

    And the video is very grainy. You should not expect to see much in the way of a narrow wing seen edge-on.

    This is a side-by-side of the unidentified object next to a quick demo of a commercial jet, backlit, at a distance, lo-res and grainy:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It's not a dead match, but it's certainly within the realm of plausibility that the unidentified object is a jet.

    The FLIR video is consistent with known observational effects of poor quality images.

    Together, all three analyses indicate that - were these subsequently re-enactsed with regular planes (as opposed to unidentified objects) - they would to display the pretty much exact same characteristics we are seeing in the videos.

    In other words, all three videos are consistent with known, mundane explanations.
    Last edited: May 1, 2020
  8. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    So if all three now officially released vids have been convincingly explained as mundane artifacts as you imply, why not go the extra bit and declare the entire series of 2004 West coast and 2014-2015 East coast episodes to be entirely explained as mundane mistaken identity errors? What's holding you back?
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    I did not say they were "convincingly explained"; I said what was captured is consistent with known observational effects of the equipment and circumstances.

    That's really all the skeptic need do.

    The onus lies on the believer form a question of what, exactly, isn't explainable that still needs to be explained?

    Why would I do that? That's not valid.

    As skeptics have been saying, repeatedly (notably me) - each incident must stand - or fall - on its own merits.

    MR, by contrast, likes to lump a bunch of unrelated accounts into one, and then say 'when you add them all up, it HAS to mean something' - to which the correct skeptical response is: No. This account doesn't lend credence to that other account - unless they're shown to be connected (The Null Hypothesis - It's not a thing until it's a thing.).

    And that door swings both ways: debunking one account doesn't automatically debunk some other account. There's no connection. Debunking the other account you mention would be an entirely separate discussion that has nothing to do with the specific focus on analysis of this account.

    You should know this intuitively. Why try to bait me into an invalidly-drawn connection that you know is false?
    Last edited: May 2, 2020
  10. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    It is you so-called skeptics or rather scoffers, that actually do all the baiting. Leaving righteous indignation stuff aside, part-way down in Comments for this Mick West 'debunking' vid:

    is the following entry that I agree with in the main (ignore leading & trailing Z's):
    Post Disclosure World: 10 months ago
    "I don't ignore it as a possibility (regarding your assessment of the Go Fast video). That said, a few things need be underscored. For one: Graves conveys that the gimbal object shoots off at high speeds and that this is contained within the video, though that portion of the video wasn't released.

    Two: Your argument about the Go Fast video is far more convincing than your speculation that the FLIR1 video depicts a jet off in the distance. It's, arguably, misleading to call it the "Nimitz video." People who actually want to maintain objectivity should realize that the tic-tac was seen by two pilots, and two WSO's. And that David Fravor goes into great detail about his encounter with it which encompasses coming within a half mile of it. The FLIR1 video is a video that was later captured after Fravor and the other plane landed. Nevertheless, there is no reason to assume that the FLIR1 video isn't depicting the same object that Fravor, another pilot, and two WSO's saw for a full 5 minutes: All eye balls on the object. Moreover, there is extensive radar corroboration of these tic-tac objects being detected on multiple radars four days prior to the actual first intercept of the tic-tac.

    These objects were detected on the SPY-1 radar housed on some of the cruisers as well as the E-2 Hawkeye radar picture from on high. What are the odds of separate radars all picking up anomalous returns coupled with an encounter encompassing two pilots and two WSO's seeing something anomalous? Well, anything is possible. But I would not in a million years place my chips there...."

    Immediately below that one should open and read the 'View 9 replies from Mick West and others' link.

    My p209 #4173 has already dealt with the 3 then unofficially released vids, that Mick West nails just one as likely misidentification, or maybe not even then. No indication he has ever attempted to contact the navy personnel involved for their opinion of his hypotheses. Even his go-fast parallax analysis might be shot down if it turns out radar/lidar ranging established the object was indeed near sea-level. Surprising if that determination was not available to and used by the aircrew, given the heavy reliance on multi-spectrum surveillance and targeting in the modern military, especially aviation component.
    Last edited: May 2, 2020
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Some points I have repeatedly mentioned....
    * This incident ranks as simply an addition to the very small number of sightings that have not yet been fully and/or convincingly explained. It is still a UFO...or Unidentified:

    * I ask again, of those that believe this unexplained sighting is of an unworldly Intelligently piloted craft, either from another part of the universe and/or time, to explain why their presence continues over many many decades, with incidents similar to this one. Why don't they ever buzz the White House? Or my backyard? or any other popularly known region on Earth, so that we have either non fuzzy pictures of them, or actual landings of them, with recorded official contacts.

    * If they are/were what some say, that is piloted craft from another planet or time zone, they would not have any need to be afraid of us...Yes, yes I know MR's best answer to that is, that we have no way to know how any ETL would act.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I see that as nonsense. No matter how advanced they are, it would be obvious that we [humans] are not just like ants on an ant hill, and do possess some intelligence, enough to build incredible structures, to be able to fly air machines, to put Satellites into orbit, and to set foot on the Moon.

    * I don't know what the small percentage that remain unexplained are...They might be some sort of trick or may be some form of atmospheric delusion or trick of reflection/refraction of light etc....It maybe faulty equipment...It maybe faulty interpretation by the observer....It also with a stretch of the imagination, might be some interplanetary craft piloted by Aliens.
    But we really don't know. Why cant people just accept that?
  12. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Poor memory? For the umpteenth time just this thread:,_D.C._UFO_incident
    Note the huge contrast between official position/cover-up and eyewitnesses reactions. You may choose to trust everythibg officially pronounced - not me.
    And a few extra for fun - note how your question is exactly reflected in title here:
    etc. etc.
    Of course 'they' are not afraid of us. Neither interested in 'doing the right thing' as you and many others naively expect they should.
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    So you put it down to anyone not accepting the most unlikely situation as being naive?
    I don't. I see them as legitimate questions, and a denial to answer in a frank manner.
    With regards to the Washington incident, as I have mentioned many times, I'm talking about landing on the lawns, popping out, shaking hands with Trump or whoever is in the hot seat.

    Let's finish with a final question....
    You obviously don't accept the Sagan [I think] quote re "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
    I mean you do accept that to claim Alien visitations is extraordinary don't you?
    So again, why not some extraordinary evidence for a change?
    Otherwise my naevetivity still holds....Why the continued flittering in and flittering out, with no real official contact, no physical evidence, no excreta, or test tubes, or any other obvious Alien device.
    And please note carefully my rebuff of these claims, and my cynicism, is from someone who most certainly accepts that we probably are not alone...just a shame that as yet, we have no real extraordinary evidence of any Earthly Alien visitations...Perhaps they have happened in the past, but again no real evidence.
    And of course to support that cynicism are the facts of the incredible distances that would be involved, and as a consequence, the time factor. Those two damn barriers, time and distance!
    Again the official stance of UFO's as unidentified, is in my opinion, the only real logical stance to have, going on the evidence available...or actually lack thereof.
  14. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    One big problem with trying to debate at a sensible level. You and others here keep forgetting or simply ignoring my oft and clearly presented position. One instance:
    Your presumption that 'real' UFO's would merely be advanced tech craft piloted by humanoid flesh-and-blood entities (or AI) from another planet is not one I share.
    Feel free to dismiss this one as mere fantasy:

    To me, it's clear there is a very strong link between so-labelled Poltergeist activity and UFO activity. They are imo different facets of the same underlying phenomena owing to beings (maybe just one!) very much not of this (material) world. Those committed to a narrow materialist pov cannot by definition give that any credence. Minds padlocked.
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Not ignored by me at all, not in so many words, but that is covered with my mention of time travellers.
    I dismiss it along with time travellers, because the required evidence is not there.
  16. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    To each their own. At least your memory has been refreshed re the White House being indeed buzzed by UFO's - back in 52. Or pick the official inversion layer theory/cover-story if that suits.
  17. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Another case of inordinately slow SF response when posting. Double post - edited now.
    Last edited: May 3, 2020
  18. river

    Or swamp gas Q-reeus . If not " inversion layer " . LoL . Anything to deny the truth .

    The 1952 buzz of Washington D.C. was not taken as a " inversion layer " by the White House . If I remember right , the Air Force sent out jets , which caused this " inversion layer " to disappear . When the jets landed the " inversion layer " reappeared . LoL
    Last edited: May 3, 2020
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    To each there own certainly. I'll wait though until we have the extra ordinary evidence that supports any ETL having visited Earth...well actually, if any ETL exists at all!
  20. river

    Evidence exists
  21. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    How dare anyone dispute the official explanation - delivered in all solemnity by an appointed spokesman with an impeccable and distinguished military record!
    But as we all know, 'UFO nuts' have had the unmitigated gall to point out gaping holes in that and many other official explanations before and ever since. Shame on them! Smacks of conspiracy theorizing!
    PS - added extra para above with link:
    (default is French - press on link top right of page to get English version)
    Last edited: May 4, 2020
  22. river

    Well the truth is hard for some to swallow . Oh well .
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    If any skeptic or official had actually said the above, you wouldn't have to put those fictional words in their mouths.

    But no one has said those things. So you made it up.

    By the way, making up plots against oneself and accusing others of oppressing you, in a vacuum of facts is the very definition of conspiracist. So ... well done?

Share This Page