No evidence that UFOs are aliens — NASA attempts to make conversations about aerial phenomena more scientific
No evidence that UFOs are aliens — NASA attempts to make conversations about aerial phenomena more scientific
NASA attempts to make conversations about aerial phenomena more scientific.
No evidence that UFOs are aliens — NASA attempts to make conversations about aerial phenomena more scientific::NASA attempts to make conversations about aerial phenomena more scientific.
You're viewing a single thread.
If anyone is interested, I have posted a very detailed account of evidence supporting the existence of UAP (not aliens).
It contains admissions of their existence by the US government on multiple occasions and throughout multiple decades. I have included footage of UAP confirmed to be valid by our government, and a bunch of declassified government documents on the subject.
I don't rule out the possibility of alien existence in the universe, and I don't rule out that such entities could be responsible for the disruptive/breakthrough technology represented in UAP, but aliens and even the origin of UAP are irrelevant to whether or not the UAP themselves exist.
They do, and I have provided a tremendous amount of evidence supporting this from a rational and skeptical perspective.
And since the topic is being mislabeled as crazy Republicans, I'd like to point out I'm left-leaning and I've also included quotes and documentation of Democrats' support of the topic, including Chuck Schumer and AOC. The truth is there is essentially unanimous support from the right and left in drafting UAP-related legislation. This is not a crazy conspiracy theory. It's not like the anti-vaxxer lunacy. It is reality.
UAPs exist obviously. Anything in the air that isn't identified, be it a cloud, a trash bag, a balloon, an enemy aircraft, or aliens. Implying the existence of UAP means anything special though is where things get stupid. We need to get better protocols for calling out there's something unknown just for the safety of pilots, but it doesn't mean anything else.
What we are referring to isn't just any unidentified phenomenon, but rather the percentile that is not explainable and represent physical crafts that are recorded on military equipment, radar readings (military, air traffic control, and weather radar), and temperature readings that put these objects well below zero.
What most people are referring to when discussing UAP are that small percentile that are truly anomalous, categorized as Category D UAP by France.
7.5.3 "Radar/Visual" Cases Worldwide "Radar/visual" cases are those in which a visual sighting is associated with an onboard radar and/or ground radar detection.
It is noted that: the first sightings in Japan and the USSR date back to 1948, 30 of the 68 countries cited in the list reported "radar/visual" cases, of the 489 cases in the report, 101 were "radar/visual" cases (21%), of the 363 cases in the Blue Book report, 76 were "radar/visual" cases (21%). in 1952, 16 out of 68 cases were "radar/visual" cases (23.52%).
In conclusion, we can clearly establish that from 1942 to 1995, at least 500 well-documented and recognized aeronautical UAP D sightings were identified throughout the world, nearly 20% of which were "radar/visual" cases.
They furnish proof of a physical reality of phenomena that exhibited paradoxical maneuvers. [39]
This was from a report published in the 90s by France's government body that has been studying UAP for decades. There's a great detailed account of the Nimitz Event in my post, where I have included direct quotes of 2 top gun pilots, a weapons system specialist, and the radar operator. It is a highly witnessed account with radar data that confirmed the physical object's existence, it's recorded on the weapons systems, and there were multiple expert eyewitnesses whose visual accounts were corroborated by recordings and radar data.
Read the Nimitz section from my post. If you can read that and simply dismiss it as not being strong evidence supporting the existence of anomalous crafts with breakthrough/disruptive technology, then I don't think you understand what the word evidence means. We're not talking about "proof." We don't have "proof" of gravity; we have evidence which supports the theory.
There is valid and compelling evidence supporting the existence of UAP D. The general public hasn't given the subject fair consideration because of the stigma attached, and the deeply internalized beliefs they don't want to challenge.
No, we're talking about unidentified thing. Some of which have accounts that seem extraordinary, but may not be. I don't know about the French one, but the Nimitz one the accounts don't really make sense. Also, the radar detected something but it doesn't provide any evidence for something extraordinary. The video does not. It shows something explainable by mundane possibilities. The only thing that does really is the first hand account.
Now, you may say Fravor is an expert so he can't be mistaken. I'll agree he's an expert, but so are doctors. Have you ever heard of a doctor misidentifying a desease or anything? They're just dealing with mostly static things in the decently well understood and observed human body. They aren't flying at high speed circling around an object while descending towards it while keeping track of everything else around and also dealing with everything in the environment with basically no depth perception because it's too far away and has no object of known size nearby to use as reference. Its easily possible he could be mistaken with what he saw that day, and especially considering he only recounted it, what was it, 20 years later.
No one can prove it is mundane, but equally there's really no proof it's extraordinary. There's some evidence that's mostly based on recall from an old event which seems to have some issue with what other people recall happening.
Regardless, it's a potential hazard to pilots that needs to be reported and taken seriously to ensure pilot safety. It's almost certainly not something directly dangerous though, or anything particularly special, but we'll never know.