Congressional Oversight Committee on UAP's

[Stu]

Thanks chaps, no religion or politics please 👍👍

[vlaiv]

4 minutes ago, saac said:

Nice philosophical rabbit hole there vlaiv but maybe not. Let's just keep to the spirit of this thread, if people have an appetite to explore something else then they can raise a new thread. 

Jim 

Not sure if it is a rabbit hole.

I do encourage all to side step on any sort of dogma when working with science - either those "well established" ones - but also ones that they might not be aware of.

Maybe best approach is:

- go where the evidence leads you

but also that famous

- "When you have eliminated all which is impossible then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

I do agree with you that we should keep things to the spirit of the thread, so take what I've written above in that context.

[maw lod qan]

So, how about a question on this subject that seems to have been avoided.

Have you personally or have you ever spoken with someone who HAS, seen something you cant explain?

I have to say yes on both accounts. 

I have seen lights in the sky I had no idea what they might be. I've seen rockets up close and across the state. Seen lots of aircraft during the day and night.

I have never seen anything like the lights I saw.

Also spoke with a professional airline pilot who had seen something twice, who would only say, it wasn't us.

All I can admit is, both cases were just UAP.

I'm waiting to finally see Bigfoot. 🤔

[vlaiv]

2 minutes ago, maw lod qan said:

Have you personally or have you ever spoken with someone who HAS, seen something you cant explain?

I had an experience once of seeing extremely bright light in the sky that sort of seemed to "follow" me.

It was not airplane as it had to move directly towards me and this bright light lingered in the sky long enough that normal airplane would simply fly over.

It started as just a tad brighter star out of place - but then I noticed it moved and brightness increased to insane levels (I was out observing with a telescope at my friends house).

At the time - I could not explain it, but later concluded that it must have been Iridium flare (at the time I was not aware of their existence).

[Barry Fitz-Gerald]

On 05/08/2023 at 12:28, maw lod qan said:

Have you personally or have you ever spoken with someone who HAS, seen something you cant explain?

Well, judging from the responses not many, and that might go some way to explaining why the bulk of the posts here are either skeptical or dismissive.

Anyway here is my contribution:

Winter 1968. I was out waiting for the transit of the Echo II balloon satellite, when I noticed a Mag +2.5 star like object ascending towards the zenith from due east. In 10x50 binos it appeared fairly stellar and point like and traveled as I expected a normal satellite to do. When it reached the overhead point however it stopped dead for a few seconds before then describing a complete 360° circle, about 3° in diameter and them a partial second circle before again stopping dead for a few seconds. It then resumed a straight line course, but this time towards the north, and I followed it towards the horizon until it became obscured by buildings. At that tender age, my eyesight and hearing was excellent, the location was on the edge of a National Park and sky conditions were also excellent with no cloud. There was no noise whatsoever, and no alteration in colour/intensity of the point of light and no other lights such as position or strobes. I was at the time a profound plane spotter and was familiar with their appearance and sound both day and night.Some years later I read of a sighting that Arthur C Clarke and Stanley Kubrick had in 1964 from a rooftop in New York when what they thought was Echo I came to an abrupt halt overhead and then went off towards the north. I found that quite spooky.

Summer 1989. One evening whilst I was at work with a colleague at a site in the SW of England, set in a quiet valley, we saw an object moving silently in the sky at a slow speed. It was at an elevation of between 25 and 30° and was a shade under a degree long. It consisted of two banks of four bright white lights, one above the other with two red lights of similar intensity sandwiched in between. The aspect ration was 5:1 length/height. The speed was sufficiently slow that we observed it for a couple of minutes as it transited our field of view, during which time we used a lot of expletives. In a good pair of 7x50 binos which I had, nothing more could be seen detail wise, apart from the lights and the vague hint of a background object to which they may have been attached, as opposed to being individual lights in formation. The lights remained steady in colour and intensity, with no strobing or flashing. There were no sharp edges or protrusions such as you would see with an aircraft such as vertical stabiliser, wings, engines or fuselage, which should have been readily visible at the image scale in the binoculars. The details on airliners transiting the area on the climb out or in-bound from over the Atlantic were clearly visible in binoculars, with the airline colours frequently identifiable on the tail.  The object was completely silent and drifted off westwards behind the hills on the other side of the valley. At the time it was daylight, with scattered cumulus clouds which did not obstruct the view. Being unable to determine its distance it was not possible to estimate size, or speed but at a rough guess I would estimate the distance as below 5 miles – but that is just an estimate.

Later that evening, in deep twilight the same object reappeared on a reciprocal course, which was very thoughtful of it. By this time I had got hold of a what was at the time a high spec image intensifier, but even in this no additional detail was visible just the 2 banks of four white and two red in between. During this apparition the elevation above the horizon and speed were the same or similar to the first sighting and again there was no sound.

The next day I had a long conversation with an RAF Warrant Officer on the UFO Desk (!) at RAF Rudloe Manor. He completed a pro-forma questionnaire, and stated that they took sightings such as this very seriously and spent a considerable amount of money investigating them each year. He advised that someone might come out to the site if more details were required but no one ever did. I have spent years trying to reconcile this sighting with a conventional aircraft of one sort of another but have never been able to do so as it took place in daylight, was unobstructed and with excellent visibility and optical aid was available – and identifying aircraft was a particular interest of mine. It was also witnessed by about 4 individuals.

Over the past 55 years of observing I have seen countless other oddities that I could identify as satellites, balloons, lanterns, aircraft, birds and so on, so I am quite familiar with the prosaic – and these were not. I have also seen other things not so easily explained but those two were the most peculiar.

[vlaiv]

39 minutes ago, Barry Fitz-Gerald said:

and that might go some way to explaining why the bulk of the posts here are either skeptical or dismissive.

Skeptical or dismissive of what exactly?

I don't think that anyone here is either skeptical or dismissive of the fact that people see things that they can't explain at that particular moment (or for that matter things that escape explanation up until present day).

Yes, such things happen - you see something that you can't explain. Some lights, something in the sky.

Who has seen actual alien? I'm yet to hear of credible source that claims to have seen actual alien.

[saac]

On 05/08/2023 at 12:28, maw lod qan said:

So, how about a question on this subject that seems to have been avoided.

Have you personally or have you ever spoken with someone who HAS, seen something you cant explain?

 

Yes and on many occasions - aircraft, projectiles, weather, planets, drones (more recently) and optical illusions.  Personally, I have found that it is simply not always possible to identify what is being looked at, nor is there any easy method of confirmation in real time.  What I don't do however is make the unfounded connection or claim that the cause of my inability to identify something must lead to an extra terrestrial origin. 

Jim

Edited August 6, 2023 by saac

[saac]

12 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Skeptical or dismissive of what exactly?

I don't think that anyone here is either skeptical or dismissive of the fact that people see things that they can't explain at that particular moment (or for that matter things that escape explanation up until present day).

Yes, such things happen - you see something that you can't explain. Some lights, something in the sky.

Who has seen actual alien? I'm yet to hear of credible source that claims to have seen actual alien.

I completely agree with vlaiv on this.  You cannot be skeptical of being unable to identify something you see; you can either see it or you cannot, you can either identify it or you cannot. 

If there is any skepticism/dismissiveness in this discussion it is of those who claim the presence of extra terrestrial life as the origin of such sightings.  It has been asked before, and will be asked again of those who make such claims (as before the congressional committee) -  bring forth the evidence. In all honesty, that is not being dismissive, that is common sense. 

Jim 

Edited August 6, 2023 by saac

[Barry Fitz-Gerald]

Who said anything about aliens?

 

[saac]

2 hours ago, Barry Fitz-Gerald said:

Who said anything about aliens?

 

David Grusch  "former US intelligence official" while giving his statement to the recent congressional committee together with the army of adherents and the commercial industry which has blossomed around the belief (claim) that  UFO/UAP are the result of alien visitations. 

Former US Intelligence Official Claims We Have Found Alien Remains At Crash Sites

Jim 

 

Edited August 6, 2023 by saac

[Barry Fitz-Gerald]

Well, as I have said before UFO's are one thing and Aliens are another  - as we do not know what UFO's are in the first place, speculating on who or what is piloting them is a tad premature.

However, I quite liked the remark made by Professor  James E. McDonald of the Institute for Atmospheric Physics at Arizona University who said that the ET Hypothesis was the least unlikely unlikely explanation based on his extensive research of the subject.  He had no evidence for this but considered it one of the many possible options. Of course he was pilloried for his views by most of his peers, which was very uncharitable of them.

 

 

 

[saac]

14 minutes ago, Barry Fitz-Gerald said:

Well, as I have said before UFO's are one thing and Aliens are another  - as we do not know what UFO's are in the first place, speculating on who or what is piloting them is a tad premature.

 

On that we are in violent agreement, although I'd be hesitant on the use of the word "piloting" for that assumes a certain conclusion without supporting evidence.  I like Hitchen's razor which I think is applicable here  "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". 

Jim 

[Barry Fitz-Gerald]

48 minutes ago, saac said:

although I'd be hesitant on the use of the word "piloting" for that assumes a certain conclusion without supporting evidence

Fair point. You could use the term 'intelligent control' as these things appear in many cases to respond to their near environment, but of course that might then imply a control input from some sentient being - which takes you down the Alien route which we are trying hard to avoid.  This would however be indistinguishable from  a fully automated vehicle controlled by advanced AI with no biological involvement at all which would get around the Alien problem - phew!

The inconvenient factor however is that some boffin needs to have created the automated systems, if that is what is operating them,  and as they have been around since at least the early 1940's  - they are not our boffins.

Fun to speculate.

 

 

[vlaiv]

2 minutes ago, Barry Fitz-Gerald said:

Fair point. You could use the term 'intelligent control' as these things appear in many cases to respond to their near environment, but of course that might then imply a control input from some sentient being - which takes you down the Alien route which we are trying hard to avoid.  This would however be indistinguishable from  a fully automated vehicle controlled by advanced AI with no biological involvement at all which would get around the Alien problem - phew!

The inconvenient factor however is that some boffin needs to have created the automated systems, if that is what is operating them,  and as they have been around since at least the early 1940's  - they are not our boffins.

Fun to speculate.

 

 

How do you assert that something is "reacting to its surroundings" as opposed to randomness in phenomena?

[ONIKKINEN]

4 hours ago, Barry Fitz-Gerald said:

Who said anything about aliens?

 

While you did not say this, be honest, the intent was there and easily readable between the lines.

All this talk of "input" and "piloting", "AI controlled vehicle" and so on (in your further comments), but i thought these were supposed to be unidentified aerial phenomena and not identified as an unknown object which is being piloted or identified as an object that is capable of being piloted. Or even identified as an object! The only data point in the whole description was a couple of lights.

There is no reason to assume anything about some strange light if we are to agree that the thing was unidentified. So your intent on assuming this was an alien thing was very clear from the comment.

[900SL]

I think the issue is not so much the hillbilly seeing lights after a few jars of moonshine and swearing he got selected for a good probing, or southern Senators looking to bag the History Channel educated voting public. . 

No no and thrice no, verily I do think the stuff that has got the DoD rattled is the stuff we don't see or hear that much about, namely classified but presumably attested clear and documented evidence of UAP's, that cannot be assigned to known causes. Hence the  recent move to de-stigmatise reporting, the involvement of NASA, the collection of data, and the creation of AARO.

I have to say Dr Sean Kirpatrick came across as a very good 'ice skater' in the interview I saw. Perfectly qualified for the role and I wouldn't expect to hear anything from him but the party line.

 

 

[Barry Fitz-Gerald]

51 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

How do you assert that something is "reacting to its surroundings" as opposed to randomness in phenomena?

There are very many credible accounts of UFO's approaching and matching the course, altitude and speed of aircraft, maneuvering with them, as well as having an effect on the avionics - you can look for examples at https://www.narcap.org/  or read some of the literature on the Foo Fighter phenomenon where unknown objects interacted with allied aircraft during WWII. None of these appear to be random but guided in some way and responding to their environment. I didn't make it up - it's documented.

 

45 minutes ago, ONIKKINEN said:

So your intent on assuming this was an alien thing was very clear from the comment.

You are incorrect in your assessment of what was between the lines, I draw the clear distinction between the UFO phenomenon, and the hypothesis that they are piloted by ET's of some form. They are unknown but their specific behavior implies some form of control, it is the nature of that control that is the deep question.

The Tic Tac encounter,  demonstrated this piloting, intelligent control, input or whatever you want to call it, they were not flying around randomly bumping in to things - but does that imply I am saying it was aliens?  I think not.

However bearing in mind the outrageous performance of these things I could quite appreciate someones view that they might be.

 

 

[ONIKKINEN]

22 minutes ago, Barry Fitz-Gerald said:

They are unknown but their specific behavior implies some form of control

Well, this is the part that leaves me stumped because in what way is this implied? How is it that a light moving in a way you cannot explain must mean it is being controlled? There is some bias here in that i think you want to believe it is being controlled, when in reality there is not an atom of evidence to support this.

[vlaiv]

41 minutes ago, Barry Fitz-Gerald said:

The Tic Tac encounter,  demonstrated this piloting, intelligent control, input or whatever you want to call it, they were not flying around randomly bumping in to things - but does that imply I am saying it was aliens?  I think not.

I looked up Tic Tac encounter and found this:

https://www.history.com/videos/uss-nimitz-tic-tac-ufo-declassified-video

Honestly, I don't see any sort of piloting, intelligent control or anything similar.

[Peter Drew]

I think most agree that such sightings have been reported since the 1950's and that no verifiable contacts have been made with aliens in the 70 odd years since.  This suggests to me that, if aliens exist, they prefer to remain anonymous and out of touch.  If so, why would they blatantly advertise their presence by displaying easily observable lighting systems?     🤔  

[saac]

7 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

I think most agree that such sightings have been reported since the 1950's and that no verifiable contacts have been made with aliens in the 70 odd years since.  This suggests to me that, if aliens exist, they prefer to remain anonymous and out of touch.  If so, why would they blatantly advertise their presence by displaying easily observable lighting systems?     🤔  

Because they are highly incompetent. While they have developed unimaginable technology to circumvent the laws of physics by traversing unassailable distances and maneuvering in atmosphere at accelerations which would crush a neutron star, they are incapable of evading detection by simple electromagnetic spectrum detectors.  Makes you wonder who authorised their design programme. 

Jim 

[Barry Fitz-Gerald]

14 hours ago, ONIKKINEN said:

Well, this is the part that leaves me stumped because in what way is this implied? How is it that a light moving in a way you cannot explain must mean it is being controlled? There is some bias here in that i think you want to believe it is being controlled, when in reality there is not an atom of evidence to support this.

I recommend  UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record by Leslie Kean, the same journalist responsible for the 2017 NYT story. It is an old book now, but the accounts by extremely credible witnesses of structured craft in close proximity are compelling. Unfortunately it does not include the accounts by the likes of Gordon Cooper, Deke Slayton, Clyde Tombaugh or Kelly Johnson (the chap behind the blackest of black projects at Lockheed and designer of the U2 and SR71) - individuals who reported sightings despite the clear threat to their credibility posed by such revelations. Again, based on credibility, technical knowledge and experience I know who's accounts I would tend towards.

 

14 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Honestly, I don't see any sort of piloting, intelligent control or anything similar.

You may find this a slightly more comprehensive analysis as most of the rubbish you find on the internet is inaccurate: 

https://www.explorescu.org/post/2004-uss-nimitz-strike-navy-group-incident-report

.........this incident is also worth considering as an example of intelligent control:

https://enigmalabs.io/library/10e25512-d52e-4ea2-97dc-7a93eecd4cd9

...........make of them what you will.

 

14 hours ago, saac said:

Because they are highly incompetent. While they have developed unimaginable technology to circumvent the laws of physics by traversing unassailable distances and maneuvering in atmosphere at accelerations which would crush a neutron star, they are incapable of evading detection by simple electromagnetic spectrum detectors.  Makes you wonder who authorised their design programme. 

Yes, it does leave you wondering whether British Leyland had a hand in the fabrication of some of these things, but then again if UFO's don't exist, they cannot crash and the whole problem goes away.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by Barry Fitz-Gerald

[saac]

59 minutes ago, Barry Fitz-Gerald said:

I recommend  UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record by Leslie Kean, the same journalist responsible for the 2017 NYT story. It is an old book now, but the accounts by extremely credible witnesses of structured craft in close proximity are compelling, and show the uninformed opinions of the likes of Dylan O'Donnell to be just that, uninformed.  Unfortunately it does not include the accounts by the likes of Gordon Cooper, Deke Slayton, Clyde Tombaugh or Kelly Johnson (the chap behind the blackest of black projects at Lockheed and designer of the U2 and SR71) - individuals who reported sightings despite the clear threat to their credibility posed by such revelations. Again, based on credibility, technical knowledge and experience I know who's accounts I would tend towards.

 

You may find this a slightly more comprehensive analysis as most of the rubbish you find on the internet is inaccurate: 

https://www.explorescu.org/post/2004-uss-nimitz-strike-navy-group-incident-report

.........this incident is also worth considering as an example of intelligent control:

https://enigmalabs.io/library/10e25512-d52e-4ea2-97dc-7a93eecd4cd9

...........make of them what you will.

 

Yes, it does leave you wondering whether British Leyland had a hand in the fabrication of some of these things, but then again if UFO's don't exist, they cannot crash and the whole problem goes away.

 

 

 

 

Again there is no doubt/debate regarding the inability of an individual to identify an object, that happens all the time and is perfectly normal. What is being dismissed is the claim that these things are piloted or crewed by extraterrestrial beings nor have extraterrestrial origins.  It is a small thing to ask for evidence, only then does the problem go away.

Jim 

Edited August 7, 2023 by saac

[Mark2022]

On 26/07/2023 at 17:37, 900SL said:

Really quite a fascinating watch. The three main witnesses came across as plausible and credible. It will be fascinating seeing how far this goes.

My position was that of sceptic. I'm not so sure now..

Be sure. Maintain that scepticism. 

[Mark2022]

On 28/07/2023 at 08:31, vlaiv said:

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but that is the only logical explanation for following:

1. No solid evidence (or almost any for that matter except "witness" accounts and dodgy aerial footage)

2. All statements are made in such way that they can't be either proved or disproved and can easily be later dismissed as "mistake" or hearsay in case anyone needs to be accountable

3. It is aimed at US crowd, there is oncoming elections in autumn (of next year?) there and perhaps some current administration blunders that are about to be exposed - need to be masked somehow?

(I do admit that point number 3 is a wild guess on my part. I'm really not political analyst and I should probably refrain from any further comment in this direction to avoid breaking SGL rules)

 

I am what most would term a full blown "Conspiracy theorist" and  find this thread fascinating but, unfortunately, due to 'rules' and the wish not to offend anyone,  I must, essentially, shut up.