Beyond Bigelow & BAASS, After AATIP and on To the Stars...

originally posted by: Sublant

originally posted by: pigsy2400
a reply to: Sublant

The airforce has flown previously classified Drones "Beast of Kandahar" on the same flight path of U2s without the knowledge being given to those U2 pilots.

Beast of Kandahar - RQ-170 - is a subsonic urgent operational requirement frontline UAV.
It is something the Iranian military was able to detect, track and bring down.

Whatever it is on those three videos that the navy cannot identify, is something entirely different.
This is not apples to oranges, this is a fireplace to cold fusion reactor comparison.

Exactly!!

a reply to: celltypespecific

1. Why would the Navy go public and announce that UAPs/UFOs are "real"?

You are being rather dense again. Why did your President say it in 1952?



Because they are real perhaps?

a reply to: mirageman


MirageMan thinks UFOs were discussed before October 2017.

Obviously must have missed some of his sessions.

a reply to: mirageman

Perhaps the acronym "UAP" needs two separate meanings: "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena" for ongoing investigators; and "Unidentified Alien Phenomena" for satisfied believers.

Folks such as Delonge & Co can wiggle their fingers when pronouncing the "A" to indicate the ET version.

Doesn't really work on a forum, though.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: celltypespecific

1. Why would the Navy go public and announce that UAPs/UFOs are "real"?

You are being rather dense again. Why did your President say it in 1952?

Because they are real perhaps?

Ok excellent we are making progress...

Now that we all agree that they are real...why after 67 years.... have the Gov. in a public official statement once again declare that UFOs are real...?

And MM if you agree that they are real...is it E.T. or property of the United States Gov.

originally posted by: celltypespecific

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: celltypespecific

1. Why would the Navy go public and announce that UAPs/UFOs are "real"?

You are being rather dense again. Why did your President say it in 1952?

Because they are real perhaps?

Ok excellent we are making progress...

Now that we all agree that they are real...why after 67 years.... have the Gov. in a public official statement once again declare that UFOs are real...?

And MM if you agree that they are real...is it E.T. or property of the United States Gov.

We don't know. That's where the Unidentified part comes in.

a reply to: celltypespecific

I guess you forgot the threads about TTSA.

a reply to: mirageman

There was no UFOlogy before their lord and savior Tom donchaknow?

B.T. and A.T.
Dominus noster atque Salvator Thoma

Unidentified aerial phenomena
Unidentified Flying Object
Same thing


Navy saying the Gimbal videos are unidentified
Is not a unique statement.
TTSA=0

a reply to: Willtell

I think UAP covers a wider range. A light in the sky is not necessarily flying or an object. Nor are auroral or meteorological phenomena.

originally posted by: coursecatalog

originally posted by: celltypespecific

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: celltypespecific

1. Why would the Navy go public and announce that UAPs/UFOs are "real"?

You are being rather dense again. Why did your President say it in 1952?

Because they are real perhaps?

Ok excellent we are making progress...

Now that we all agree that they are real...why after 67 years.... have the Gov. in a public official statement once again declare that UFOs are real...?

And MM if you agree that they are real...is it E.T. or property of the United States Gov.

We don't know. That's where the Unidentified part comes in.

Dear Coursecatolog,
Please utilize your logical deduction skills to determine the most likely answer to "thats where the Unidentifed part comes in".
We can't wait for the GOV. to provide us with all the answers. You seem like a critical thinker please apply your critical thinking skills to "We don't know. That's where the Unidentified part comes in"

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: celltypespecific

I guess you forgot the threads about TTSA.

They were simply touching the surface....
I want you to go deeper Will.

a reply to: celltypespecific

Is there something wrong with saying "We don't know?"

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Willtell

I think UAP covers a wider range. A light in the sky is not necessarily flying or an object. Nor are auroral or meteorological phenomena.

UFO is precisely relating to UNIDENTIFIED potential alien vehicles NOT AEREAL PHENOMENA which POINTS TO A PROSAIC happening, nothing unusual.

In fact, there is no interest in a run of the mill aerial phenomenon outside of a potential alien UFO vehicle, within UFOlogy.

Aerial phenomena are NOT relative to alien vehicles or Ufology

Therefore, as regards UFOlogy,

UAP is a misnomer and SHOULD NOT be employed in anything relative to UFOlogy.

a reply to: Willtell

Lots of caps there. Doesn't really make your intent any more clear though.

Are you saying that UFO are aliens and UAP are not?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Willtell

Lots of caps there. Doesn't really make your intent any more clear though.

Are you saying that UFO are aliens and UAP are not?

Blame my typing...

Now, my point is that UFOlogy has no interest in unidentified aerial phenomena UNLESS it’s related to alien ET, IDH, and phenomenon...etc.

Now that may be a wrong outlook, but it’s the reality.

And the fact is the term UAP may be, conspiratorially, a way to debunk standard UFO memes within UFOlogy since it refers to "Aerial phenomena" which can literally refer to anything in the air from strange red rain to solar events outside of the possibility of alien intelligent objects rather than a mere atmospheric phenomenon. It can, of course, refer to disks or flying objects, as well.

In other words, no one gives a hoot about the standard, maybe exotic, atmospheric aerial phenomena which are unidentified but isn't an alien disk or object.
That’s another science. Maybe phenomenology, Meteorology?

They’re looking for UFO/aliens not strange events in the sky unrelated to unidentified flying disks under intelligent control.

in the final analysis, the term UFO is an acceptable colloquialism that describes peoples understanding of what it is.

UAP seems to be a diversionary word.

a reply to: Willtell

Ah. I see.
"UFOlogists" only want to know about aliens.

UAP seems to be a diversionary word.

As I said, I think it's meant to be a more accurate description of what is of interest. An odd radar return from the sky is not necessarily a flying object but it is an aerial phenomenon.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Willtell

Lots of caps there. Doesn't really make your intent any more clear though.

Are you saying that UFO are aliens and UAP are not?

I think Will was just "speaking slowly" for you, Phage, so you could "grok" it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: celltypespecific

Is there something wrong with saying "We don't know?"

Ok.....but I think we have enough data points to get slightly beyond "We don't know".
We should have a best case hypothesis based on "what we do know"

a reply to: celltypespecific

We should have a best case hypothesis based on "what we do know"

Why?